Had Enough?
I have. I’m pretty much taking today off. So I will be very brief:
Sometime Friday the House, after three days of verbal flatulence, will pass the non-binding anti-surge resolution.
Now it looks like the Senate might follow suit on Saturday.
Monday is a holiday.
Tuesday the war will continue unabated.
What will Democrats do on Wednesday?
( Wednesday I will be in Carson City, Nevada to witness the first big Democratic presidential candidates forum).
P.S. George Lakoff has written one more (unwitting) self-parody. Want to know everything that’s wrong with a certain strain of Democrats. Just read his piece. And when you’re done with it, please explain it to me. Or at least try. Detached from the nitty gritty, dirty work of actually organizing and mobilizing human beings to actively engage in politics, Lakoff seems content to shadow box inside the cerebral confines of media discourse. Man, does this get boring.
Or maybe I’m just not the sharpest knife in the drawer even if I’m at least in the 50th percentile of the population. Sorry, but Lakoff’s stuff reads as just so much self-referential gibberish. In this latest outburst, he seems to be arguing how fortunate we all are that Democrats — presumably enlightened by his own teachings on ‘framing’– have prevailed in labelling Bush’s latest troop increase as an “escalation” rather than just a plain old “surge.”
What a victory! Praise all that is good! Frame it and print it!
I believe, however, that the more fundamental problem here is not what the Democrats or anyone else calls the surge escalation, but what they DO about it. Call it what you will, the deaths, the casualties, the departures from earthly existence continue to mount.
February 16th, 2007 at 1:29 am
Marc, I am not quite as negative as you about this. If the House really does pass the resolution, that is a start at least, and may embolden at least some Democrats (including in the Senate tomorrow) to begin threatening further action. It might also help to get the antiwar movement off its ass. There is a tendency after a big march like that in Washington late January to sit on one’s duff and engage in deconstruction and self-congratulations rather than realize that if you want to stop a war you really have to fight hard to do it. With all due respect to rlo, the Vietnam era proved that persistent marching and organizing does pay off.
February 16th, 2007 at 1:30 am
What will Democracts do on Wednesday?
i suppose I will get out of bed, take a shower, get dressed, go to work, do work, have lunch, do some more work, go home, have dinner, watch tv or look at something on the computer, then go to bed.
I bet a lot of other Democrats will do the same thing.
February 16th, 2007 at 1:41 am
Um, Kevin, I meant the Congressional Democrats. Meanwhile, you have my permission to go to work on Wednesday,
Michael: I dont think Im negative. Call me, instead, unimpressed and deeply skeptical. I have the creeping notion, as I have said before, that in historical terms we are closer to the beginning rather than to the end of this conflict.
I really want to be wrong, by the way.
February 16th, 2007 at 2:45 am
Lakoff gets a couple things wrong. First, he assumes that “surge” automatically connotes “short-term/temporary”. It doesn’t — it’s virtually a synonym for “rapid increase”.
Second, he doesn’t seem to notice that “escalation” (originally a euphemism itself, ironically enough) probably doesn’t have much Vietnam-era resonance with most Americans these days. Most Americans were either cluelessly young or not even born yet, back when “escalation” in Vietnam was this evil thing to protest against. George? Hello? Weren’t the Sixties a while ago? You haven’t lost the frame, have you?
We’re not playing word games here, Lakoff says, we’re fighting for ideas. Oh how far he has fallen as a linguist (unless, of course, he’s just playing “word games” himself): if you want to fight for ideas, you *have* to play word games, in some sense. That’s what rhetoric (in its technical sense) is all about. It’s just that the GOP is generally much better at that. Why? Maybe because they aren’t as popular and they know it. “When you’re #2, you try harder.” (And more important, you spend more on focus group studies, especially since you have more money anyway.)
Balter, engaging in his own self-parody, writes: “… if you want to stop a war you really have to fight hard to do it.”
I can imagine John McCain, pushing for a troop increase to quell sectarian violence in Iraq, saying the same. Ah, word games indeed. McCain would at least be technically correct: fighting harder to win is one way to end that war. There is no guarantee that this war would end if we were to pull out, and a good case to be made that it would truly “escalate” the conflict. So how does calling for a pull-out make someone “anti-war”, per se?
Oh. Sorry. I’m playing “word games” again, aren’t I?
February 16th, 2007 at 3:52 am
“Oh. Sorry. I’m playing “word games†again, aren’t I?”
Yes.
February 16th, 2007 at 5:09 am
Back during Gulf War I, I was a college student. I remember being at a campus anti-war meeting when lo and behold who shows up, the nutty professor George Lakoff. I remember him giving his little spiel about “framing”, which as far as I remember no one in the room could understand what his psychobabble was getting at.
The thing was I think we could have used some elder advice, in that the things we organized weren’t particularly effective. Reading Lakeoff fifeteen years later, I pretty much agree with Cooper assessment– what the fuck is this guy getting at and why do some liberals treat this guy like some type of guru.
February 16th, 2007 at 5:56 am
The funny thing is, the momentous transformation of the debate from one about a surge to one about an escalation took place without anyone having already read this insightful analysis of the importance of words and their meanings from Lakoff.
February 16th, 2007 at 6:07 am
“It’s just that the GOP is generally much better at (word games).”
Ahem. We seem to be forgetting that the Republican Maximo can’t form full sentences. He would not know a clever phrasing or framing if it jumped up and bit him on the nose.
The lexicon the RNC uses in its talking points is hardly clever or even effective. The key is, their audience doesn’t need to be convinced, they need to be edified. The rhetorical environment is completely different than that facing Democrats.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:22 am
in nyc as of 2002 thru feb 11, 2007 there were 3,180 homicides.
February 16th, 2007 at 10:26 am
And your point Grouch is?
February 16th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Marc has this thing about George Lakoff. I don’t know where it comes from – maybe he took a linguistics class at CSUN where Lakoff was part of the required reading and he had trouble understanding it (I know I sure did when I took courses in Generative Grammar and Semantics and had to read Lakoff’s papers refuting Chomsy’s construction of the meaning-conserving nature of transformational rules in deep structure). But I found nothing in the article to be anyway self-parody.
All he says, after all, is that the administration choice of the term “Surge” was challenged in print by the term “Escalation” which, with its echoes of Vietnam, does not help the case for more troops. He says that words have meaning and that is something that you learn in any beginning class in Rhetoric. And the Repubs sure know this as they get their advice from gurus like Frank Luntz who knows, as any good adman does, that what you call something goes a long way in selling it. So nice little “Surge” (hey we’re surging for a bit, don’t worry) is a lot less threatening than “Increase” or “Escalation”. And where in the article does he claim credit for the alternate word usage?
There now, that wasn’t so hard now, was it?
February 16th, 2007 at 11:03 am
If there’s a problem with Lakoff it’s that his point about “framing” is important but fairly simple – despite the fact that Democrats in particular seem to have lagged on “getting it”. Lakoff, true to his standing in academia, is not particularly good at communicating a simple, essential point succinctly. Even this short, relatively focused article reeks of social science.
Newt Gingrich pretty much said it all years ago in his GOPAC memo, “Language: A Mechanism for Control”, which boiled the notion down with such directness, simplicity and explicit example that any GOP congressman could easily understand and digest the message on a lunch break.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:31 am
I also think that it’s somewhat bizarre if Marc, as a journalist and a teacher of journalists, simply lampoons the notion that the relative success of a political faction in controlling the explicit terms of media discourse is immaterial to the practice of politics or has no relevance to prospects for being effective in pushing one’s position. Presumably, despite his digs at Lakoff, his ire is based on the fact that a “non-binding” resolution is being debated, rather than something tougher and more confrontational.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Well, if surge can be reframed as an escalation, maybe we should be trying to reframe non-binding as binding. Or would that take some real world politics rather than semantic games?
February 16th, 2007 at 11:59 am
No that would make the resolution something else.
Tell you what. Are you Pro Choice or Pro-Life? And if you are pro-choice does that mean you are anti-life?
What if the terms were pro or anti-choice or pro or anti-abortion?
Think that might change the terms of the debate?
And MB I read on AMERICABLOG from their Paris correspondent, Chris, that Sarkozy, the Right’s man for the French Presidency says he is not into wine. Which got him trouble with a French Wine lovers mag? Can it be true? A non-wine drinking Frenchman? I’ve got to know!
February 16th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Yes, rlo, hard to believe but there are French people who don’t drink wine. I know a few and I call tell you that they are normal in almost every other way. Some of them drink beer as a substitute.
I also have an Italian friend who doesn’t eat garlic. Go figure.
February 16th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
I’m a Jew who can’t stand gefilte fish.
On Lakoff – its not “Framing” per se that is a dumb idea…its his step-right-up hucksterism.
February 16th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Maybe you haven’t seen this story that was buried in the news, but Anna Nicole Smith died. Why talk about Iraq when this is what the American people really want to know more about.
February 16th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I’m sure there are plenty of Scots who don’t like haggis, either.
February 16th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Anna Nicole Smith did not just “die”, Woody. She was murdered because she knew too much.
February 16th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Lakoff “discovers” something as old as human politics, then makes it way too complicated. Well, he gets to give seminars to Democratic pols and interest groups, ch-ching.
February 16th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Anna Nicole Smith ?
My position has always been that going in was clearly a mistake and the only solution is immediate withdrawal…
Wasted lives !
February 16th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
She left a will that’s a real textbook case of Huh? too. It’s lawyer’s delight. Framing arguments is important. Looks like it finally worked. Now it’s on to troop withdrawal, a much tougher sale.
February 16th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Yeah Reg but she gives a whole new meaning to “Who’s your daddy?”
February 16th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
MB I might buy your French guy not liking wine but, come on now! An Italian that doesn’t eat garlic? You’re making that up!
February 16th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
RLC,
Maybe his name was Vlad . . .
February 16th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
The “Non-Binding Resolution” passed the House by a vote of 247 – 183. Only 17 Republicans voted for it.
You know I really admire the disclipline of the GOP Hacks in marching in lockstep over the cliff for their President. It is even more remarkable when you realize a new poll out today shows that 54% of the American People want the troops home now and funds cut off if necessary. And that poll is from FOX!
Meanwhile old “Huckleberry” Graham from South Carolina has announced that it will be his pleasure to see that the resolution will die “an ignoble death” in the Senate tomorrow. Keep up the good work Lindsay my boy!
Oh and Holy Joe says we’re getting a Constitutional Crisis. Yeah when Congress uses its war-making powers what else could it be?
February 16th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
I can’t help myself…
Academic Weirdo Camille Paglia on the death of Anna Nicole Smith :
“I heard the first bulletins about her death on the car radio as I was driving home from campus last week. At the Popeye’s drive-through (where I was ordering Cajun wings), I blurted in agitation to the window lady, “Anna Nicole Smith just dropped dead — tell everyone!” — which she promptly did. The staff inside (all African-American) were startled and incredulous.
Smith’s sudden death in a Florida hotel, only five months after her son’s death three days after she had given birth to a daughter in the Bahamas, struck me as terribly sad. ABC’s ‘Nightline’ called via my publisher for comment, but I felt far too upset to go on TV. Nevertheless, I was riveted to the tube all night and didn’t mind in the least that this tabloid drama, with its mythic themes of ambiguous paternity and contested wealth, had pushed Iraq to the back burner.”
I guess I have to give her some props for empathy, but this just strikes me as evidence that the woman is completely nuts. (Paglia, that is.) I’m left wondering if the Popeyes’ staff was incredulous that Smith died or incredulous that some crazy customer was sending them a red alert on the news.
February 16th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Reg Paglia claims she never got tenue at a good university, despite her Yale Ph.D. because of discrimination against her “iconoclastic” ideas. I think its simpler than that. The idea of spending the rest of their careers having to listen to her at Department meetings filled the other profs with dread, fear, and loathing!
February 16th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
No laughter ?
February 16th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Hey, Marc, I’m living in Carson City…give me a call, and will go hit the tables at the Nugget!
February 16th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
…we’ll go…
February 17th, 2007 at 7:51 am
Brenner’s execellent summation in the recent issue of NLR of the American political economy over the past 75 years is certainly worth reading. It is hard to disagree with Marc’s distrust and anger for the Democratic party after reading this article.
http://newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2652
February 17th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Ye Olde Buster of Bunkers writes: “We seem to be forgetting that the Republican Maximo can’t form full sentences. He would not know a clever phrasing or framing if it jumped up and bit him on the nose.”
Yeah, maybe, but what *you* don’t get: lots of people like that about him. He talks like them. They don’t feel talked down to. Cf. Kerry. Not to speak of Gore — a documentary/op-ed title like “An Inconvenient Truth” makes for great preaching to a certain choir, but comes off as sneering to most conservatives.
The Dem base is liberals, who are only the largest group within the party, not the majority. Liberals tend to be more educated, and to set more store by an academic approach to the presentation of political ideas. Bill Clinton was a phenomenol exception: an ardent policy wonk who could still get down with the folks. “There’s a little bit of Bubba in both of us,” he said once during his first presidential campaign, gesturing at Gore, “and that’s not all bad.” That was a half-truth at best — there isn’t one iota of Bubba in Gore, and Clinton had more than a dollop. There is also a seriously artery-hardening dollop of Bubba in Dubya. He knows it. He uses it. It helped win him two presidential terms.
reg writes: “Lakoff, true to his standing in academia, is not particularly good at communicating a simple, essential point succinctly.”
Too bad Erving Goffman, the original Mr. Framing, isn’t around anymore. Wouldn’t you rather be hearing from a guy who could say “”Man is not like other animals in the ways that are really significant: Animals have instincts, we have taxes.” He made his mark in sociology by studying mental institutions — a very good starting point for analyzing partisan politics, don’t you think? Much better than studying syntax and semantics, anyway.
For that matter, given how significant gender will probably be in the upcoming elections, it’s too bad that Robin Lakoff (a very sharp sociolinguist who can still make the basic ideas accessible) hasn’t become the go-to “framing” resource for the Dems, rather than George. For all we know, she might think framing is mostly hooey, and would rather talk about how people feel about words and images. Which is really more what it’s all about anyway.
February 17th, 2007 at 8:50 am
This just in: the 9th Infantry Division is claiming to be the father of Anna Nicole’s child. She died after hearing that 20,000 more troops might be inserted.
February 17th, 2007 at 9:17 am
“Anna Nicole Smith did not just “dieâ€, Woody. She was murdered because she knew too much.”
Damn MB, there is closet humor and satire underneath that so serious world-on-my-sholders-alone venier. Maybe you’re not so bad afterall.
I will have a reasoned response to all you good, but logically challenged, responders to my comments in the previous thread. Today is another work day for me.
Thank you Marc for an excellent blog.
February 17th, 2007 at 9:45 am
When my buddy got the word on Anna Nicole’s death he thought, “huh. shocker.” just like the rest of you cynical bastards. Then he remembered we works for the tv guide channel (yup, they need real people to oil those old robots the Rivers sisters, or mother and daughter, or mothra and gadzuki, or whatever) and got to spend the next four days working overtime to create the pap we’ve been avoiding. As far as I can tell, everybody hates this stuff. Certianly the employees, even the higher ups, making it really hate it. I guess we can all thank that mysterious and influention Neilson demographic: people that I hate.
Lakoff. Iraq War. Peanuts.
February 17th, 2007 at 9:47 am
that should read “he works for the tv guide channel.”
February 17th, 2007 at 10:43 am
One thing on Anna Nicole Smith.
Give it ten years….a HELL of a film noir/whodunit.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Turner’s last piece reminded me of Goffman’s eccentricities. He never had picutres taken of himself and he proded himself on being as unnoticiable as possible. He also like to create situations where people would have to react. Like getting into an elevator and faced the back of the car. But, yes, the “father” of frame theory. Taught at UCLA too so I had a chance to see him after one of my linguistics profs at USC cited him extensively in her course on sociolinguistics.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:24 am
rlc: You know I really admire the disclipline of the GOP Hacks…
Yeppers, it almost, not quite but ALMOST equals the disclipine of the Democrat Hacks who voted even more in lockstep with their glorious leaders.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Except GM THEY were voting what their constiuents wanted. Do you really think those GOP hacks did? Wait till 2008 and see that vote hung around their necks as the Republicans, blindly following a failed leader, become the minority party for a generation as they retreat into their southern retreat.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
A few days ago Marc wrote about the three year old in Hutto Texas. Well there is a nine year old there today and his story is, if anything, even worse. You can get the details over at DAILY KOS but here is the summary. A plane flying from Toronto to Guyana was diverted to Puerto Rico when one of the passengers showed symptoms of a heart attack. While in PR three passengers were detained by the Dept of Homeland Security. The parents were Iranian and now living in Canada. Their son – born in Toronto – was detained with them and is now at the detention center. I gather that all are Canadian Citizens.
So I’ll tell you what jcummings. Here’s an assignment for you. Get your friends up to tell PM Harper to show a little backbone and stand up for the rights of Canadians on international flights. The KOS diarist has included the address of the Candian Embassy in Washington and the Consel in Dallas for anyone who would like to write to support this family. Of course one could call the people at DHS but they’d probably lose the message since they do a “heckova” job there.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
You know I am really getting tired of this administration doing its best to make us the world’s pariah. Maybe Mike Balter has the right idea in living in France.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
I agree with you, rlc. My problem is, everyone who said that they were leaving our country if Bush was elected/re-elected didn’t leave.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I actually was at a meeting involving the issue RLC mentioned. Harper needs to get his act together on that issue. He’s not the neocon that we all feared, but a lot of Islamophobes have his ear.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
My sister left.
I’m staying, but heading for the hills when the real shit hits the fan.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
rlc:
Richard, you might be right, but it is much more likely that as the Democrats persue this (non-binding resolution and perhaps Murtha’s plan for defunding), a blood-bath will ensue in Iraq, the islamo-fascists will be emboldened (human nature being what it is they will perceive Democrat actions as a reward) and we may, may have another attack on the U.S. If this happens, the Democrats will be seen as a party with no backbone when it comes to national security and be voted out for decades to come. I do not think that good for America.
Too, I suspect, though I cannot know, that much of the antagonism in this (the democrats behavior) has less to do with what is really going on in Iraq vs. their absolute hatred of anything Bush. If they truly had the courage of their convictions, let them vote to defund the war. Since they only went for a “non-binding resolution” I suspect they know what would be in store if they defunded the war.
What are your thoughts?
February 17th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
“much of the antagonism in this (the democrats behavior) has less to do with what is really going on in Iraq vs. their absolute hatred of anything Bush”
You are truly delusional….Bush’s Iraq policy has been a disaster in about ten different ways – it was a war of choice that’s been planned and managed with an extraordinary degree of incompetence and dishonesty – and you are so clueless you claim that Democrats oppose this policy because of “absolute hatred of anything Bush” ?
I’m amazed that you guys who supported this war don’t hold Bush in even more contempt than folks like I do. Presumably it’s because you’re slavish partisan hacks rather than seriously concerned with American national security, the lives of our troops or anything that’s ever been articulated as a “rationale” for this utterly failed policy. The blood is on your hands, as is the mark of sycophants for a miserable failure.
I’ve asked Jim R. this in another thread, but please tell me ONE thing that was put forward as a rationale or benefit from this war that has, in reality, turned out to be worth the life of ONE of our young soldiers.
I think people who rattle off crap like your comments above are in need of help. Really. There IS a “Bush Derangement Syndrome” and you’re a victim of it.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
“The Islamofascists will be emboldened…”
That’s pretty much the bottom line on George W. Bush’s adventures in the Middle East.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Again…name the successes Bush has had post-911 in dealing with al Qaeda or any of the other myriad problems in the Muslim world. Then think about those areas in which things have actually gotten worse.
Ah, the days of Purple Finger triumphalism…when any questions raised about what direction the emerging political forces in Iraq were going to take, how much stability had been achieved and whether Iran had been empowered were greeted with derision in certain “corners”.
(On Bushco successes, Khadaffi had been moving toward detente with us for years and the effort in Afghanistan has been seriously compromised – and might ultimately fail – because of diversion of resources to Iraq. Those are the only two even tentative responses on the plus side I can think of. Pretty much everything else is worse. In the case of the balance of forces and stability in the Persian Gulf and Bush’s incredibly costly and humiliating demonstration of American impotence to control events there, things are obviously far worse.)
February 17th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Reg, it’s called projection. The Republicans have taken personal, garbage politics to new depths in recent years, we can only wait and see if ever really catches up with them. Bush, really, is such a bland, insubstantal figure, he’s actually been tough to work up any real (if deserved) contempt for.
And consider where the bulldog, Whitewater press has been for stuff like this: http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/02/16/perry_security/
February 17th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
If I had spent the last six years praising the Bush administration as a respite from the horrors of the Clinton years, the last five claiming that Bush&Co were the guys who would prove to be seasoned, smart and tough in dealing with national security post-911 and the last four touting war in Iraq as a bold, decisive strategy that would help create a safer, more stable and democratic Middle East, I think I’d seriously consider leaving the country just to avoid further pain, embarrassment and derision.
February 17th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Molly Ivins has left us, so we’re all gonna have to take up the considerable slack in her absence – on both the political and humor fronts…
Here’s some fodder for an Imagine-A-Molly-Ivins-Column moment of silence…followed by guffaws.
February 14, 2007
by ROBERT T. GARRETT / The Dallas Morning News
AUSTIN – The second most powerful member of the Texas House has circulated a Georgia lawmaker’s call for a broad assault on teaching of evolution.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, used House operations Tuesday to deliver a memo from Georgia state Rep. Ben Bridges.
The memo assails what it calls “the evolution monopoly in the schools.”
Mr. Bridges’ memo claims that teaching evolution amounts to indoctrinating students in an ancient Jewish sect’s beliefs.
“Indisputable evidence – long hidden but now available to everyone – demonstrates conclusively that so-called ‘secular evolution science’ is the Big Bang, 15-billion-year, alternate ‘creation scenario’ of the Pharisee Religion,” writes Mr. Bridges, a Republican from Cleveland, Ga. He has argued against teaching of evolution in Georgia schools for several years.
He then refers to a Web site, http://www.fixedearth.com, that contains a model bill for state Legislatures to pass to attack instruction on evolution as an unconstitutional establishment of religion.
Mr. Bridges also supplies a link to a document that describes scientists Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein as “Kabbalists” and laments “Hollywood’s unrelenting role in flooding the movie theaters with explicit or implicit endorsement of evolutionism.”
February 17th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Michael Turner -
Good points about bubbahood; it’s why I’m skeptical of the new ‘loose and comfortable’ Gore’s chances if he decides to run. Unless of course, the Bush debacle has made geekiness fashionable.
The interesting thing is that Bush’s grit and bubbahood weren’t exactly signs of authenticity, they were half-conscious, obvious affectations — and it still didn’t matter. I wonder if someone with FDR’s or JFK’s patrician charisma could hack it politically at this point. And they functioned in a society with a much larger blue collar population, which according to today’s rules should have sneered at them and rejected them outright for not acting like they just walked out of the Elks Club. Even Reagan might seem too diffident by today’s standards; Bush and Clinton have set a high bar. I sometimes wonder if voters have begun to insist on this beer-buddy quality because they feel that’s their job — all the pundits keep telling them so and scoff at the candidates who aren’t skilled enough at faking a love for Nascar.
February 17th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
wow. i see where queen pelosi has nominated w. jefferson to be on a high level position…..
wonder how much jefferson gave her out of his bribery funds ?
already democrats in office trying to beat the republicans for honesty in congress !
February 17th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
wow.
already in office a couple months and pelosi has appointed jefferson to a high level office. sure is acting like a republican; wonder how much money he paid her out of his bribes?
February 17th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
reg: “You are truly delusional”
And you reg, are full of crap!
February 17th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Read the shit you wrote again and read mine. Oh, nevermind…why would I care ?
“Crap” doesn’t even begin to convey what you’ve tried to pass off as rational commentary on Iraq over these years…
Get help !
February 17th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Incidentally, I asked you a simple question which you’ve failed to answer. Because, of course, you can’t.
February 18th, 2007 at 1:17 am
Michael Turner writes: “Yeah, maybe, but what *you* don’t get: lots of people like that about him. He talks like them. They don’t feel talked down to. Cf. Kerry.”
That’s exactly my point. The GOP has a very different rhetorical environment. The can get away with sounding dumb and irrational, as long as they do it with the right twang.
A Democrat has to sound intelligent enough to win the base voters, then try to wear earth tones or eat McDonald’s or whatever to avoid the media chorus’s condemnation that they’re too patrician or too wonky or plainly, too smart.
It’s a tightrope the GOP never has to walk.
I see how anyone can think Lakoff’s suggesting that better “framing” is all that needs to be done. I think he’s made some valid points and does dwell on them, but, again, why not, they are valid. He never suggests his assertions are any kind of panacea.
What the Democrats do need to do is stop worrying about “bubba” and Pajama Party morons who look to politics as an identity crutch to soothe their class/education/religious resentments. Sure, the right mix of rhetorical signals and southern accent might win them a few votes, but the target is way too narrow.
Abandon those voters looking more for a beer buddy/kindly grandfather than a responsible, intelligent leader.
If the remainder aren’t a majority, get to work building one instead of pandering to the emotional needs fickle, undereducated, loudmouthed bubbas.
February 18th, 2007 at 11:32 am
I’d like to briefly emerge from the Lurking Class to ask if Richard Locicero or someone else might please provide precise information on how to find a detailed account of the ill-fated Toronto/Guyana flight. I looked through Wednesday through Saturday of DAILY KOS, then tried Google searches like “Toronto Guyana Puerto Rico airplane Homeland Security”. Thanks.
February 18th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
I’d like to ask Vangie and Grouch what “High Post” Pelosi appointed Jefferson to? And I’d like the source and it better not be the “Moonie Times”! Oh and she would have to appoint Jefferson to a ton of positions to get close to the record of Dennis Hastart and his pal Tom DeLay!
February 18th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/182470
February 18th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
“Full of crap” wrote: Incidentally, I asked you a simple question which you’ve failed to answer. Because, of course, you can’t. >>Again…name the successes Bush has had post-911 in dealing with al Qaeda or any of the other myriad problems in the Muslim world. Then think about those areas in which things have actually gotten worse.
Answer: As starters, no al Qaeda attacks on U.S. soil since 9-11, and multiple al Qaeda leaders have been killed. How strange that you couldn’t find one success yourself.
Now, tell us how a pompt and complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq will help more than hurt that region. Then, explain why liberals are so stupid.
February 18th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Thanks jcummings. I forgot to answer mr Baraban’s question.
February 18th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
To all those who are still arguing that this war has a justification please turn to Glen Greenwald’s column in todays Salon.com where he has excerpts of Gen William Odom’s appearance on Hugh Hewitt’s radio program Hewitt is a member of something called “The Victory Committee” and is a staunch backer of this war. Please read and see how Odom demolishs all the arguments. Enough said.
On a related amtter I hope everyone will see the article in today’s Washington POST about conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and remember that this is the Army’s Premier Medical Facility. The tell me again about supporting the troops!
In the new Budget, Bush actually cuts veterans funding. Now I know that Congress will probably restore those cuts and bush knows it – hence an empty gesture towards cutting the deficit. But they probably won’t increase it either and their is a huge need.
Like I said, support the troops. Bring them home and take care of their medical needs. Like maybe taking some of the profits back from Haliburton?
February 18th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
“W” – I have no idea whether the U.S. redeploying and withdrawing troops from the center of the civil war that Bush’s policies triggered in Iraq will make things better or worse and neither do you.
As for the al Qaeda leaders killed, that notion as a “big deal” would be nice if the Big Fish, bin Laden, hadn’t been allowed to escape from Tora Bora and take his core strategists with him.
And the notion that Bush has done a great job of protecting us from another 9/11-type attack is crazy. The vulnerabilities that still exist are frightening and, sooner or later, they will be exploited. I don’t consider the tracking of al Qaeda suspects as central to Bush’s unique strategy. He’s lampooned the notion that this is an intelligence and law enforcement issue in favor of the Big Ideas like…invading Iraq.
What has actually happened in the context of 9/11 – and probably the main reason that al Qaeda hasn’t mounted a second attack inside the U.S. – is that Bush did precisely what bin Laden wanted to achieve with 9/11. That is, to draw him into a major land war in the Middle East that couldn’t be won and would create even greater enmity. Maybe he had originally hoped that would be Afghanistan – where it now looks like the balance is tipping against us because of resources diverted to Iraq – but I’m sure he’s plenty happy with the opportunities Iraq has presented.
Congrats to you and your heroes, Woody. You couldn’t have fucked us more if you were on the other side.
Any defense of the war in Iraq that goes beyond “We’ve screwed up so badly that we need to stick around longer and pray we don’t screw up even more” would be interesting. What you’ve offered is pathetic…
February 18th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
reg: “you are truly delusional” and your problem reg is that you haven’t got the foggiest idea about what human behavior is all about. You are so wrapped up in your bds that you can’t see the forrest for the trees.
February 18th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Incidentally, none of the Democratic plans are for “complete withdrawal”, so I’d appreciate any further questions to mesh with reality.
February 18th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
GMR – You assholes set this stage. Your side has proven it’s incompetence many times over in the rationale, planning and conduct of this war. We’re four years in and we get a “20,000 more troops surge” that even it’s proponents have little faith in to turn things around decisively.
If losing the war in Iraq means disaster, it’ll be the fault of you and your heroes. If the stakes are that, in fact, Iraq is the center of a world historical struggle that we absolutely can’t afford to lose, you assholes and blowhards should have been pushing for a draft and maximum mobilization years ago. You didn’t and you still won’t. Which means you are simply partisan fools and moral cowards spouting bullshit. You should be ashamed…
February 18th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
reg is truely distempered.
its assholes and blowhards like reg and richard that screams anytime our troops are supported; and at the same time refuse to give support to our troops.
and now reg is complaining because there is no draft? wow.
now that the house of congress has given its “non-binding” resouloution; does that mean any of our troops now dying are “non-binding”? the democrats were not brave enough to stand up and offer a “binding” resoulution. easiest to stand back and moan and complain and sic reg and richard onto those who disagree with them.
reg/richard….how much is william jefferson paying you to spout their dogma ??
February 18th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Incidentally, GMR, the “forest” is Shia dominance of the Persian Gulf. Iran and the allies they’ve forged in the Iraqi Shia opposition over several decades…and there’s nothing we can do to control that. Frankly, I doubt al Qaeda could survive long in Iraq once the civil war and internal sectarian violence has run its course and Americans aren’t in the center of a four-way shooting match. Not having U.S. troops to rally against in Iraq would be the foreign fighters worst nightmare. They’d declare a propaganda victory in the wake of the U.S. initially pulling back, but they couldn’t do much more. They’d also be extemely vulnerable to the U.S. if they set up a base of operations and weren’t able to hide in the murk and fog of the current mess. I’m confident the Kurds would be more than happy to provide a secure haven for U.S. forces remaining to deal with any fallout from the Iraq mess that acutally presents itself as a threat to our tangible national security – outside of certain negative inevitabilities Bushco has created by virtue of their own perfidy, stupidity and incompetence.
February 18th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Редж, чтобы повторить вашу ÑобÑтвенную фразу к Вам, Ñ ÑпроÑил Ð’Ð°Ñ Ð¿Ñ€Ð¾Ñтой вопроÑ, на который Ð’Ñ‹ были не в ÑоÑтоÑнии ответить. ПоÑкольку, конечно, Ð’Ñ‹ не можете.
For everyone else:
reg, to repeat your own phrase to you, I asked you a simple question which you’ve failed to answer. Because, of course, you can’t.
February 18th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Grouch – you simpleton. I’m saying that if you believed your own bullshit YOU would have long been complaining that there wasn’t a full-tilt mobilization to control the post-invasion landscape in Iraq. I’m not hearing much coming from the Keyboard Kommandos other promoting a “surge” four years in, without much sense of optimism that it can turn the mess around. Everything else until recently was denial that we were in deep shit…”Stay the course.” If you’d had any sense, any balls AND you believed that this was the “cause” of our generation, you’d have been screaming from the rooftops denouncing BushCo’s lack of political and military will for at least 3 1/2 years. I was FOR more troops in mid-2003, when there still seemed to be a chance it could make a difference – a period when punks like you were creaming over “Mission Accomplished.”
You guys are very, very silly and serially delusional, despite the reams of rhetoric.
February 18th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
I answered it. Of course, not one of you has answered my question that’s run through two threads, which was to confirm one single rationale that Bush put forward for initiating this war that, in reality, has turned out to be worth one young soldier’s life. All I’m getting is that Bush has screwed Iraq up so badly and turned it into such a dangerous and destabilized zone that we can’t afford not to disengage from the center of a four-way civil war. That strikes me as a continuation of the kind of genius analysis I’ve come to expect from you clowns.
February 18th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
scratch “not” from the second to last sentence
February 18th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
For some reason I can’t get links through, but for a “Misson Accomplished” moment, go to the online NYTimes and check out the frontpage story “Al Qaeda Chiefs Are Seen To Regain Power” (in Pakistan).
February 18th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Answer: As starters, no al Qaeda attacks on U.S. soil since 9-11, and multiple al Qaeda leaders have been killed.
Yeah that has been a big success:
You know, I believe if I gave myself a lobotomy, I would still have a better grasp on things than Woody.
February 18th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
reg,
Great minds think alike.
February 18th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
J. Cummings, thanks for the Toronto Star news item.
Hmmm…so, putting aside that these people weren’t trying to come to the US…it seems that the current US process is for refuge seekers to go to prison while waiting dispositionof their case even if they have credible documentation of persecution, as this Iranian couple does seem to have concerning what happened during their recent return to Iran.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:35 am
Woody, it’s pretty damn weak, for starters, and weaker still for finishers. Bush failure to kill Bin Laden is a humiliating falure for this country, most of all for bed wetting flag wavers like yourself, even if the corperate press is too scared of you not buying the products it’s selling (as a republozombie, your only function) to say so very often out loud.
History will not be so kind, people such as yourself were too conserned with providing cover for your terrible President, and the man behind 9-11 (“I don’t think about him that much”) waltzed away. You hapless, hopeless fool.
Korea, dubious as it is, is clearly Bush trying to save his “legacy” from being regarded as the major disaster of our lifetime. You armchair tough guys will have to stomach a lot more in the next two years, get used to it.
February 19th, 2007 at 5:19 am
reg: “We’re four years in and we get a “20,000 more troops surge†that even it’s proponents have little faith in to turn things around decisively.”
reg, if you had one tenth the brains and intellect that you think you have you would gasp at the above statement. Remember “Kerry?” Remember your abject support of him and all things democratic party? Remember Kerry “demanding” more troops? that was two years ago. Now, Lt Gen David Petraeus comes up with the idea under Bush and you think it’s a bad idea… Putz!
Let’s go one step further Putz, you guys have said time and time again that a few soldiers who argue against the war indicate that the military is coming around to your point of view. By the same token, two democrats voted against the anti-surge resolution, so does that mean that you democrats are coming around to the surge point of view?
By the way putz, you don’t get to choose what constitutes an answer to your assinine questions.
February 19th, 2007 at 5:38 am
Answer: As starters, no al Qaeda attacks on U.S. soil since 9-11, and multiple al Qaeda leaders have been killed. How strange that you couldn’t find one success yourself.
Now, tell us how a pompt and complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq will help more than hurt that region. Then, explain why liberals are so stupid.
Woody, the conservative parrot, forgets what happened to London, Madrid, Bali and Jordan as direct consequences for their involvements in Iraq. In a cynically biased way he focuses on “successes” in the light of 10s of thousands of civilian deaths since the invasion.
I believe you’re the one that has some answering to do. It’s obvious to any thinking individual that the problems far outweigh the gains. What sane individual is against “success”? It doesn’t happen. You are the failure.
These psychos’ only bright moments are apparently when somebody gets killed. Not only are the deaths of innocents not an issue to them, but they cheer when a single terrorists here and there gets killed amidst the dozens of car bombing a week that kills hundreds, and which are somehow trivial in comparison.
And as if the looting, the property destruction and destruction of ancient historical artifacts all over Iraq, and which are irrevocable, were of no value. You shouldn’t let neanderthals speak on important matters.
The deaths of a handful of terrorists obviously don’t outweigh the great loss. If you have one dead terrorist per X hundred dead civilians, it’s obviously a bad moment to declare a ‘success’.
It’s like saying the 9/11 was a “success” because it didn’t ruin all of New York City. It’s moronic.
“No attack on US soil since 9/11″ doesn’t translate into absolute success, and actually doesn’t prove a squat. There have been attacks on US allies, as well as on US personnel in Iraq. Is this all about soil? People’s lives don’t matter?
So if England got all blown up it’d still be deemed a success because nothing happened on US soil? Wonder what Blair would have to say about that. Wonder what the people of Madrid would have to say about it.
Stupid? YOU are the stupid. Like it was the Liberals that got us into the mess in the first place. What a serious retard. Another one trying to shift the blame in a truly impossible way.
February 19th, 2007 at 6:06 am
“Remember Kerry “demanding†more troops? that was two years ago.”
Yes, two years ago…what exactly is your point, GM? That from now on, we implement proposals two years after the fact? Too little, too late.
February 19th, 2007 at 6:53 am
his point is that just like kerry; he was for increasing troop strengths before he was against it.
and why won’t reg get kerry to release his (john kerry) military record? if kerry was proud of it, he would release it for the world to see and shout it from teddys shoulders.
February 19th, 2007 at 6:59 am
k nardy seems upset that bush has not suceeded in killing osama bin laden (altho he may still have suceeded and the democrats are moving hell and heaven to keep that a secret)
what about clinton passing up the opportunity to have osama delivered up by saudi arabia; he refused; and later on the “twin towers” stand no more.
i challenge anyone to check out this website:
http://www.middle-east-info.org/gateway/islamvsinfidels/index.htm
February 19th, 2007 at 6:59 am
David, good question, and the answer is that what was conventional wisdom then is now not, and what is not now conventional widsom, will become conventional wisdom in the future. I agreed with Kerry then, and now… (though I would never vote for Lurch) because strangling the islamofascist ideology is the right thing to do, and sure, it costs lives. But changing your mind based on BDS is plain ole stupid and that is the POV espoused by reg and his hyperpartisanship.
February 19th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Well, “putz”, I can certainly tell when a question has been answered forthrightly and when it has been blatantly evaded…
You’re pathetic. Your thinking on this is brain dead. Really. “Too little, too late” doesn’t even begin to describe Bush’s failure…and yours. To argue now, nearly four years after the fact – in the middle of what amounts to a civil war that has spun far beyond any U.S. ability to control events – that we should throw more of our young soldiers in the middle of this mess, is pathological. Even supporters like McCain don’t seem to believe that this has much of a chance. But they’ll now, years after warnings from scores of military men have been ignored and there’s a full-blown crisis of immense complexity that doesn’t conform to any standard narrative of “insurgency”, we’re told that some guy who has written a new counter-insurgency manual and we’re gonna give him 20,000 additional troops to bring the country under control. Stunning! As General Patraeus himself repeatedly asked journalists following his troops in Iraq early on, “Tell me where this ends.”
Why weren’t you guys for a full mobilization of the United States to secure Iraq with no “ifs” or “buts” from the beginning ? Despite the political fallout and the fact that it would have reflected badly on your “Mission Accomplished” Heroes.
Although I’d believed since before the war that the WMDs issue was being hyped absurdly and that the al Qaeda “operational support” claimed by BushCo was a fabricatioin, and thought that such a war was fraught with unforeseen dangers for any foreign invasion force, I’ve believed absolutely since at least April of 2003 that the administration hadn’t considered seriously the implications of occupying Iraq and was playing with fire. All I’ve ever heard from the likes of you was phony triumphalism…and how criticism of Bush was a signal of “hatred”. Frankly, yes, having seen and heard all of the shit from your side and understanding where it’s led us and at what cost, I hold you in contempt. Rational contempt for people with either no conscience or no common sense. I’m about as far from an expert on any of the issues involved in Iraq as one could find, yet my instincts and my bullshit detector have been far more accurate than I would ever have wished. From guys like you, nothing but the Halleluliah chorus for your Heroes.
You’ve had your head up Buish’s ass since Day One of this. And, frankly, if you thought that Kerry’s proposal for puttiing in more troops several years ago was the better strategy but you voted for “stay the course” Bush, who’s team clearly had not a clue and had obviously made every wrong decision possible, you’re a very sick partisan hack to whom lives mean less than your smarmy party politics.
(And if the “strangling of Islamofascist ideology is the right thing to do” – your brilliant rationale for starting a war in Iraq, of all places – does that include the mullahs from SCIRI who Bush fetes in the White House as honorable representative of the “new Iraq”, but who are receiving weaponry and advisors from Iran. You really don’t have a clue what the hell you’re talking about. It’s all bluster, sloganeering and scrambling to catch up with a reality that’s beyond your grasp.
Get help !
February 19th, 2007 at 8:56 am
That line should read “hadn’t considered seriously the implications of occupying Iraq and was playing with fire by relying on a small force.”
February 19th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Incidentally, officials in Iran appear to be closer to SCIRI and Dawa Party than to Sadr. The leaders of SCIRI and Dawa spent years exiled in Iran, while Sadr – and his father, who was killed by Saddam – remained in opposition in Iraq. Of course this doesn’t account for factionalism within Iran, but it’s worth noting given the new hype about material aid from Iran because the locals in Iraq we’re training and arming are inevitably as much SCIRI and Dawa as they are anything.
“Tell me where this ends.”
February 19th, 2007 at 9:42 am
reg: how much is william jefferson paying you for spouting their dogma?
democrats are now trying urgently to do what they did in ‘nam. our military did not lose the ‘nam conflict; it was given away by the democrats.
and now the democrats want to give away iraq.
support our troops but cut their funding !
wow. such progress.
February 19th, 2007 at 9:55 am
You’re one of the stupidest people to ever show up here. Really.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:58 am
And sorry for that wildly ungrammatical screed…it’s what happens when I start editing long clauses in a box.
February 19th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
It’s an insult to be called a “bed wetting flag waver” by a “nose-picking, booger eating liberal.”
Hey, it’s pretty pathetic when you guys don’t give ANY credit to Bush for protecting America soil against terrorist attacks. Take off your blinders.
Terrorism is a problem going a lot further back than Bush and Clinton. It doesn’t go away by trying to play nice with people who will blow up innocent civilians. Don’t be so hasty to believe that liberals have a grasp on things.
February 19th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
“trying to play nice with people who will blow up innocent civilians”
What the hell are you talking about in your addled state ? I, incidentally, don’t think we “should play nice with people who take out hits on journalists”, but just because I don’t see something sweet in Putin’s soul doen’t mean I think we should nuke Russia. Nor do I think we should “play nice with tyrants who starve their own people”, but that doesn’t mean I think Condi is selling out the crackpot cause among Beltway bozos of the Right when she reverts to Clintonesque diplomacy with North Korea.
You’re so reductionist, childish and blinded by “Lib-Hate” in your “analysis”, it’s truly grotesque.
When Bush quits appointing cronies like Cheney’s son-in-law – who puts right-wing ideology over national security at potential domestic targets of terrorists – I’ll take him seriously, Until then, I feel he’s perpetuating the danger to my family.
February 19th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Incidentally, still waiting for an answer to the question, what single thing that BushCo ever put forward as a rationale for invading Iraq has turned out, in reality, to be worth the life of even ONE of our young soldiers.
(I have a feeling the denizens of Hell are going to be dining on Popsicles and Eskimo Pies before, etc. etc.)
February 19th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Liberty
February 19th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
The “liberty” in Iraq, where nearly 10% of the population has fled a civil war, the country is wracked by terrorism and an Iranian-allied Shiite faction is ensconced in power ?
You’re out of your fucking mind.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Of course, I’m suspicious of any of your statistics and sources, but I suppose that you believe that life was acceptable and even preferable long-term under Saddam Hussein as a tyrannical dictator of Iraq.
How different things could be in the mideast if only Jimmy Carter had backed our supporters in that region and Iran in particular. If only Clinton had taken Osama bin Laden when he could.
Meanwhile, say what you will, but I’ll still support freedom over your treason.
February 19th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
You’re a fucking idiot.
The either/or that you conjure is the hallmark of someone who couldn’t pass Logic 101. As far as your pathetic accusations of treason against me, it proves what most people who read you suspect – that you’re a creepy little fascist.
The Iraqis had every right to rebel against Saddam. When they were encouraged to by a member of the Bush family – and had their best chance – the simple and relatively cost-free decision to use U.S. air support to keep Saddam’s helicopters on the ground wasn’t made. When another member of the Bush family made the unilateral decision to fuck with millions of lives on a hunch, he proved himself to be an even more incompetent, immoral bastard than his father.
Invoke Carter and Clinton all you want, but your party and ideological bedfellows have hurt my country immeasurably while creating a living hell for the people of Iraq that, in some ways, is worse for the average person than life under Saddam. You still stand like a blithering idiot defending this misadventure of “Fighting them over there” no matter what the cost or how incompetent and counterproductive the strategy.
May God have mercy on your souls.
February 19th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
“BDS” and “POV”…can someone enlighten me?
February 19th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Phony figures on Iraqi refugees from the communist Financial Times, 2/8/07 – conjured out of pathological Bush-Hatred:
“According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, about 2m Iraqis have fled the country and 1.8m have been displaced within Iraq since the invasion of March 2003.
The descent into anarchy, with militias, insurgents and bandits in control of roads, borders and swaths of territory, followed by sectarian warfare that now claims about 1,000 lives a week, has led to a desperate mass migration – principally to neighbouring Jordan and Syria – and the even more desperate internal dislocations caused by ethnosectarian slaughter. One out of every seven Iraqis has been uprooted. By the end of this year, on current trends, that figure will be one in five.”
If you want the real figures – Good News From Iraq that Jimmy Carter and the rest of the treasonous Bolshevik Bush Haters don’t want you to ever see – you’ll have to consult with an extraordinarily well-informed bean-counter in Atlanta who gets the inside scoop on such matters from NewsMax, WorldNetDaily and Neil Boortz. He can be reached at “GM’s Corner-dot-con”.
February 19th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Liberal emotion vs. Conservative logic
“Just to name one example of many (failed liberal policies), look at Vietnam. …liberals in Congress cut off the aid and air support we promised the South Vietnamese. The result?
“The conquest of South Vietnam, a holocaust in Cambodia, millions dead and in prison camps, another million boat people, a crisis of confidence in America, and our country’s reputation around the world was left in tatters, which led to a revolution in Nicaragua, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and a lack of faith in the U.S. military which wasn’t truly restored until Operation Desert Storm.
“So, we’re talking about one of the most shameful and damaging mistakes in American history. Yet, the left is pushing to do the same thing in Iraq, despite the fact that catastrophic consequences would surely also follow a U.S. retreat in that country.”
Jimmy Carter’s Legacy of Failure
“Carter’s abandonment of the shah in 1977-78 helped lead to the Islamic revolution (and the murder or imprisonment of many of the Iranian leftists who had supported overthrowing the shah), the emboldening of the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan and the rise of radical Islam worldwide. His botched approach to the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979 inspired Islamic terrorists all over the world, culminating in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”
I fear turning our fates over to the “reg’s” of the world. Freedom has a price, but you never think that any price is worth it.
February 19th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Many Democratic politicos also stand indicted by this war, by the way, but with the exception of Holy Joe and perhaps a couple of others, however complicit and compromised, they were not the initiators of such a crackpot strategy. In fairness, many Democrats voted against the war from the very beginning. Virtually none of Bush’s political clones did. There’s plenty of blame to go around, but at this point anyone who’s still defending Bush’s war in Iraq as a heroic mission isn’t merely mistaken or misguided. They are pathological and perverse.
February 19th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
I’ve got a kid currently serving in the Navy who’s precious to me so you can take the crap about not knowing that freedom has a price…in fact, take the entirety of your dissembling, denial and avoidance – the tired, stupid links – the Jimmy Carter obsession – the whole goddam bit… and shove it all the way up your sorry ass.
February 19th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Fucking John Hawkins who wrote that oughta get off his “professional blogger” ass and join the military if he’s not just a sorry little bullshit artist feeding garbage to morons such as yourself.
February 19th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Don’t trust the “wisdom” of anyone who is as irrational and emotional as reg.
February 19th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Is that all you’ve got ?
February 19th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Oh, and take your meds.
February 19th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
John McCain, today: “I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history,” (he) said to applause.
And what does that make the President who appointed Rumsfeld praised his wisdom, stood behind him against critics, aggressively defended his strategic decisions and apparently either directed him or deferred to him as he blundered through his duties as SecDef ?
(Reality check on McCain’s “differences” with the BushCo strategy for invading Iraq: In October 2002, McCain was asked by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews about troop levels. McCain said at the time, “I believe that the kind of technology and the kind of military that we have today doesn’t require massive numbers of troops. You might have noticed the conflict in Afghanistan, we had a few soldiers on the ground and used very incredibly accurate air power.” Further: “I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women.†[CNN, 9/24/02] “We’re not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we’re not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies.†[CNN, 9/29/02] “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.†[MSNBC, 1/22/03] In late 2003, McCain began to call for more troops, but he appears not to have had any issues until the “plan” started to fall apart. To his credit, he was honest about the cracks in the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld strategy once they became obvious.)
February 19th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Worst Secretary of Defense?
President John F. Kennedy called Robert McNamara “the smartest man” he had ever met. Robert McNamara was the principal architect of the Vietnam War, arguably the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history.
McNamara reported that there was definite proof of a second un-provoked attack (against the U.S.S. Maddox). This led Congress to pass the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which was the closest thing to a Declaration of War that would happen during the entire Vietnam War. McNamara also claimed that the ships standing by were not supporting the raids, and the crew had no knowledge of military actions in North Vietnam. He later admitted this was not true.
Later on at a conference in Washington DC, Daniel Ellsberg (former advisor to during the war) said:
“Did McNamara lie to Congress in 1964? I can answer that question. Yes, he did lie, and I knew it at the time. I was working for John McNaughton… I was his special assistant. He was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. He knew McNamara had lied. McNamara knew he had lied. He is still lying. (Former Secretary of State Dean) Rusk and McNamara testified to Congress… prior to their vote… Congress was being lied into.. what was to be used as a formal declaration of war. I knew that…. I don’t look back on that situation with pride.”
Ellsberg also revealed:
“What I did not reveal in the summer of ’64… was a conspiracy to manipulate the public into a war and to win an election through fraud… which had the exact horrible consequences the founders of this country envisioned when they ruled out, they thought as best they could, that an Executive Branch could secretly decide the decisions of war and peace, without public debate or vote of Congress… Senator Morse, one of the two people who voted against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution told me in 1971, ‘…had you given us all that information… seven years earlier, in 1964, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution would never have gotten out of Committee. And, if it had, it would never have passed…’
After the traumatic assassination of President Kennedy, McNamara stayed on with the Johnson administration. McNamara first committed American troops to Vietnam in 1965, later admitting that even at the time, he knew the war could not be won.
McNamara has said that the Domino Theory was the main reason for entering Vietnam.
McNamara’s recommendations (to Pres. Johnson) amounted to him saying that all the policies he had been promoting for years were wrong, and that his strategy for winning the war was a failure. Given that he had been forcing decisions with regard to the war on the JCS, he was left discredited and without any remaining support. Lyndon Johnson was dismayed that the man who had created the strategy for the war and supported it at every step had almost overnight changed his mind.
When McNamara left office in 1968, he told reporters that his principal regret was his recommendation to Kennedy to proceed with the Bay of Pigs operation, something that “could have been recognized as an error at the time.”
February 19th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Ah, the irony. Woody quoting Daniel Ellsberg.
Incidentally, McCain said “one of the worst”. There’s certainly room there for McNamara, who definitely deserves to be in that hallowed club.
I’m trying to figure out what your point is that supports the RightWing line. Sounds like you’re just repeating stuff guys like me have been saying for…uh…more than forty years – ever since I.F. Stone exposed the hype behind the Tonkin incident in late August, 1964.
February 19th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
There should be an award named after Woody, a typing, griping conservative strawman whose cartoonish talking points collapse into heaps of rubbish at merest breeze of a passing fact.
Thanks Woody, although we know there are smart conservatives out there, you give us daily reminders of how rigidly irrational, simplistic and uninformed many of the right’s most loud-mouthed supporters are.
Your public service in this regard has been ongoing and consitent and worthy of an award in your name: The Woody. It shall be awarded to the poster who’s arguments most oversimplify RNC talking points. In the almost certain case of ties, the winner will be selected on the basis of quantity and quality of errors of fact or logic.
February 19th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
If Woody ever knew what he was talking about it with regard to anything outside Dixie, it would be astonishing.
If one knew anything about the Shah’s rule, it would be apparent why the Islamist’s rose to power and the blame for that does not lie solely on Jimmy Carter’s shoulders, no matter how aroused Woody may get when he gets a chance to trash Carter.
The reason why opposition to the Shah centered in the mosques, is because the Shah brutally suppresed all secular peaceful opposition to his rule. He could not do the same in the mosques. Accordingly, if one chose to oppose the Shah outside of a religious setting, one would face arrest and torture by Savak, the Shah’s secret police.
The better response would have been years ago to have not meddled in Iran’s affairs and told the British to take a hike when they wanted to oust the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh when he wanted to nationalize the oil industry.
Every president since Eisenhower shares in the blame for the Shah’s continued brutality. Carter hardly abandoned the Shah. He was wrong to support his brutal rule at all – and he did. Those who spout such poppycock about supporting the Shah show an utter ignorance of history. If the US had vigorously supported the Shah in his last days, it would have merely hardened the opposition against the Shah even more. The overthrow of the Shah rule was not a matter of if, but when.
The mistake lay not in “abandoning the Shah”, but in not pressuring the Shah to reform. Anyone with a grasp of the facts would know that.
February 20th, 2007 at 6:22 am
reg, you guys don’t like “my” sources, so I used “your” source…and you still run from the conclusions. You quote something “for…uh…more than forty years,” so I took that with the expectation that your comparison of a stupid President in Bush and a bad Sec. of Defense might be viewed in light of Kennedy saying that McNamara was the “smartest man” that he ever met in the context of what McNamara did.
Bunkerbuster, if someone were to make an award with my name on it, he definitely would have to be more worthy than you or the other regular commenters here.
Randy, analysts a lot smarter than you, which means anyone, accept that Carter opened the door for Islam’s terrorist reign. Here was the quote that I supplied:
“Carter’s abandonment of the shah in 1977-78 helped lead to the Islamic revolution (and the murder or imprisonment of many of the Iranian leftists who had supported overthrowing the shah), the emboldening of the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan and the rise of radical Islam worldwide. His botched approach to the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979 inspired Islamic terrorists all over the world, culminating in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.â€
Here’s how you tried and failed to reform the discussion:
If Woody ever knew what he was talking about it with regard to anything outside Dixie, it would be astonishing.
If one knew anything about the Shah’s rule, it would be apparent why the Islamist’s rose to power and the blame for that does not lie solely on Jimmy Carter’s shoulders, no matter how aroused Woody may get when he gets a chance to trash Carter.
Did I say “solely?” No, so, as usual, your reframed arguments go off course. That’s as bad as Balter in that ever important carbon dating disucssion.
Oh, and your reference to the South just shows your own bias and prejudice. We actually have universities down here, now. Maybe you’re judging us by your own poor ability to learn here as a child. But, it doesn’t appear as if those Yankee schools have done you any better.
February 20th, 2007 at 7:26 am
don’t forget the fact that mcnamara would not let the barrels of the first m-16′s to be “chrome plated” because of the additional cost it would incur. he was instructed what would happen if not done.
that cost a lot of our troops lives when the non-chromed barrels deteriorated and continually jammed during action.
chrome plating of the barrel came about a year later, after numerous troops had lost their lives; just to save some money
February 20th, 2007 at 7:28 am
reg, incidentally you still have not answered my repeated question: how much money is william jefferson of louisannia paying you for spouting their dogma ?
February 20th, 2007 at 7:34 am
this is our “real enemy”, check it out if you dare:
http://www.middle-east-info.org/gateway/islamvsinfidels/index.htm
February 20th, 2007 at 7:44 am
It would make a hell of a lot more sense to compare Johnson’s reliance on McNamara in Vietnam and Bush’s reliance on Rumsfeld in Iraq, as regards their relationship and support of their respective Secretaries of Defense in war than Kennedy, who was dead when Vietnam was escalated and McNamara made most of his worst decisions.
You are now welcome to continue your long-distance run from my conclusions…
February 20th, 2007 at 8:09 am
Woody,
All you have shown is your own cognition problems. I wrote “If Woody ever knew what he was talking about it with regard to anything outside Dixie, it would be astonishing.”
There are plenty of good schools in the South, including Duke, Emory, Tulane and Vanderbilt. I wasn’t dissing the South, I was commenting on your lack of knowledge about the world outside Dixie. The fact that you couldn’t wrap your head around that obvious fact merely underscores your inability to understand basic discourse.
As for your expert, she’s closely tied to Frontpage magazine, which is to the right of Franco. The fact is that the opposition and anger at the Shah had been brewing for decades. The fact that it erupted under Carter was a matter of bad timing. Had Carter been able to suppress it, it probably would have erupted later. Carter shares part of the blame for not pressing the Shah to reform, but the revolution was inevitable. The mistake the secularists in Iran made was in believing that things would be bettern under the Islamists, when in fact they were worse.
The mistake those on the right who get all tumescent when criticizing Carter make is that they lack the creativity to find a middle ground between the Shah and the Islamists.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Grouch has asked who pays me. I wonder who pays him.
Listen Sir I have seen you spout your ignorance for all to see and it is truly breathtaking. So you want to see Kerry’s records? Which ones? You don’t believe the medals? Think the people at BuPers are a bunch of lying sacks of shit?
So you know all about Vietnam. From what? Watching the History Channel? A lot of people who are regulars here know this but I’ll let you in on something. I spent a year there (1969-70) as an Intelligence Analyst where I got a front row seat to something I thought was a screwed up as things could be. Then came Iraq. Don’t tell me about supporting the troops. I was one. What about you?
And since you’re so concerned about the troops I’m sure you”ll be writing the same kind of vituperative letters to the WH asking why the new budget calls for CUTS in Veterans spending. And I’m sure you’ll want to know why conditions at Walter Reed, documented over the weekend in the Washington POST, are so appalling.
Yeah, I’m sure you will!
February 20th, 2007 at 10:46 am
And Woody, Re Randy Paul’s comments it sure is terrible that Iran doesn’t have a secular, democratic government. Oh wait, they did. But the premier – Mossadegh – made the mistake of trying to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and we couldn’t allow that so send in Kermit Roosevelt, and the CIA, and no more problems.
That worked out real well, didn’t it?
February 20th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Enough with the Treason…
February 20th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
rlc, whether or not you or anyone else served in the military or has kids in the military has absolutely nothing to do with a person’s right to express his views on it or with the credibility of that person. Just because you may have served and reg has a son in the service doesn’t give you or him any moral superiority or a free pass from disagreement by others, and it doesn’t prove that you know more than another. Any time someone raises the point that a commenter has to state his military experience to comment is nothing more than throwing up a barrier to discussion because of fear of having to defend one’s views.
Regarding Iran, how far back to you want to take it? Hey, let’s go back to the Median Empire. But to address your point about Mossadegh, he was a socialist and anti-West. He gained power after PM General Razmara, who opposed nationalizing the oil companies, was assassinated by the militant fundamentalist group Fadayan-e Islam. Wow, so much has changed.
Once in power, Mossadegh seized the oil assets of G.B. without just compensation and cut diplomatic relations with them. He moved closer to the communist sphere of influence. He rigged an election to dissolve parliament for a 99.9% victory.
He was the darling of the left (as defined at that time) because of his defiance to the British and was not “our” guy. Being Time’s Man of the Year would be a tip off to that. To leave him in power would not have benefited our national interests. It appears that his “secular, democratic government” was not exactly secular or democratic and it would have been a mistake for the West to let him continue in the direction he was taking that country.
Carter let our enemies take over because he didn’t like our friends like the Shah. How dumb can you get.
While you’re moralizing about the CIA, don’t overlook things that the KGB did, too.
You guys have a reflex action to approve of anything that goes against our country. I bet it’s hard to stand for the national anthem for you.
February 20th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
richard you are definitely FUBAR !
i served offshore on a bird-farm 69-70 and again 72.
like i sed (FUBAR) if kerry is so proud of his military record, let him release it and stand by his ownself without being supported by the likes of you. he is scared of releasing it.
seems like the democrats are trying to do what they successfully accomplished in ‘nam….the defeat of american forces. demos then cut all funding, resupply, etc., that they possibly could; and are now trying the same action towards iraq. and iffen you were in fact an “intelligence analyst”, then you do know for a fact that there were indeed literally millions killed/executed after american forces left ‘nam.
upon reflection upon my entries here, i have to admit that you (richard) must have been an intelligence anylyst; because nowhere have i inquired where you were being paid……i only asked reg….not you.
yep. you wuz a entellligency alfa-hotel !!
February 20th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
as of 18 Feb 2007 there have been 3,183 homicides in nyc
February 20th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
You guys have a reflex action to approve of anything that goes against our country. I bet it’s hard to stand for the national anthem for you.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
February 20th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
What is so thoroughly asinine about your defense of the Shah, Woody, is that you are unable to find any middle ground.
Torture and summary executions were widespread under the Shah. This is the handiwork of the secret police known as Savak that the man you consider “our friend” practiced:
No reasonable person would consider the Islamists an improvement and are no doubt worse, but it takes either someone willfully blind or perverted to defend the Shah.
February 21st, 2007 at 1:38 am
“Just because you may have served and reg has a son in the service doesn’t give you or him any moral superiority or a free pass from disagreement by others, and it doesn’t prove that you know more than another.”
Of course not, but it does make assholes out of those who toss crap like “treason” or “you don’t know the price of freedom” at people who have served or who have immediate family serving. And, since my son’s in the Navy, I wouldn’t even pretend to know what it’s like to have a kid on the ground in Iraq. As an “extreme” example of this, you don’t have to agree with Cindy Sheehan about whether or how to end the war to recognize that she sure as hell knows what the cost of the war actually is.
February 21st, 2007 at 7:42 am
I disagree, reg. Your direct or indirect connection with the military doesn’t change the significance of what anyone else has to say. If anything, people with more at risk personally may be too concerned about themselves. Your view may be appreciated, but also discounted because of your personal emotions overriding the needs of a nation.
It’s an extended version of what makes the difference between a coward and a hero. A hero will do the job that he accepted and will charge forward to risk his life for his nation’s cause. A coward hides, cries to go back home when the reality of war hits him, and puts other lives at risk.
Randy, I didn’t defend the Shah except to say that he supported the West and was preferable to what Carter allowed to take over. Our bad guy is better than their bad guy. If Carter was concerned about human rights, then he should have looked further down the road before he let the Islamic radicals take over.
I don’t pay attention to Amnesty International, which is clearly a left-wing organization with a political agenda.
Regarding the National Anthem and Pledge, there is someone who comments here who has admitted to refusing to honor America by honoring our flag. I bet there is more than one.
February 21st, 2007 at 8:25 am
reg writes: “To argue now, nearly four years after the fact – in the middle of what amounts to a civil war that has spun far beyond any U.S. ability to control events – that we should throw more of our young soldiers in the middle of this mess, is pathological. Even supporters like McCain don’t seem to believe that this has much of a chance. But they’ll now, years after warnings from scores of military men have been ignored and there’s a full-blown crisis of immense complexity that doesn’t conform to any standard narrative of “insurgencyâ€, we’re told that some guy who has written a new counter-insurgency manual and we’re gonna give him 20,000 additional troops to bring the country under control. Stunning!”
That “some guy” isn’t just some guy, he’s “some guy who got Mosul under control”.
He isn’t getting 20,000 troops, but — as we’ve learned — more like 50,000 if you include operational support.
And that’s not to get the country under control, it’s to get Baghdad under control.
As for the counterinsurgency manual he wrote, you can read it yourself if you like, to see how it’s informed by events from long ago up to the present time, including events that Petraeus himself participated in.
http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/Repository/Materials/COIN-FM3-24.pdf
It appears that the standard narrative of counterinsurgency has just been rewritten. It’s interesting the degree to which the manual prescribes not just counterinsurgency doctrine, but military occupation government doctrine. The answer to Petraeus frustrated “Tell me how this ends” may be from Petraeus himself: it doesn’t end, for the foreseeable future. Here’s how to cope in the meantime.
As for why it’s happening now, I think it’s simple: from what I can tell from poll readings, the number of Americans who believe that we should increase troops (which has been growing for at least a year now, and more rapidly than those who say “get out soon/now”) approached a number that would be a majority of Republican voters, if they were all Republicans. It’s probably almost all Republicans, or Independents inclined to vote Republican. Actually *doing* a troop increase seems to have given this number a boost — the AP/Ipsos poll had it at 35% about a week ago, up almost ten points since early January, and by far the fastest growth I’ve seen in this number. Madness it may be, but watch McCain, and not a few other GOP pols, make the most of it — especially if the surge can be portrayed as even moderately successful.
February 21st, 2007 at 8:43 am
Woody,
I will type this slowly so you understand. Where you truly miss the boat is in not seeing the need to find a middle ground between the Shah and the Islamists. Carter didn’t abandon the Shah; his overthrow was inevitable as a result of his brutal rule. There was very little Carter could have done, however, Carter and his predecessors could have pressured the Shah to reform and where I will blame Carter is in his stating in 1978 that the Shah’s regime was “progressive and stable” when it was anything bu that.
Carter deserves some blame, but so do Kennedy, Johnson, Eisenhower, Ford and Nixon especially for looking the other way as long as the oil flowed.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:10 am
Randy, this may come as a surprise, but the speed at which you type has nothing to do with my comprehension. What did they teach you in those northern schools?
I’m not saying there isn’t a middle ground, but it wasn’t offered and it wasn’t found. We went from our extreme to their extreme. If Carter couldn’t have stopped the pendulum at mid-point, then he should have tried to hold it on our side. It’s nice to say what could have been, but that’s speculation rather than reality. Because of Carter, our national interests and influence in the mideast were compromised.
Maybe we should have taken the “middle ground” and elected Pat Paulsen rather than Carter.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:24 am
Michael,
What happened to Mosul when Patreaus’ troops drew down ? I believe it’s been mostly held by Kurdish forces who are at odds with the locals. And, to add to the “Mess” in Mesopotamia, there was a firefight between U.S. troops and Kurds in that last couple of weeks, with the Kurds killed. Sunni insurgents are still operating there.
That’s the piece of this puzzle that matters. Sustainability. I don’t believe it’s possible given that things in Iraq have unraveled so badly. I have no confidence that Patraeus, skilled as he undoubedly is, can re-seal Pandora’s Box. (As I’ve often said, if I had been a war supporter I’d be so pissed I’d want to hang the entire Beltway BushCo crew from lamposts on Pennsylvania Avenue. They’ve been even worse in planning and execution than they were in conjuring reasons to justify their crazy Iraq “strategy”.)
Read Joshua Partlow’s piece in today’s Washington Post if you want to balance your enthusiasm for The Surge with a bit of real news (IMHO).
And from earlier reports (WaPo 1/7/07): “Petraeus is being given a losing hand. I say that reluctantly. The war is unmistakably going in the wrong direction,” retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey said in an interview…
After spending 2 1/2 of the past four years in Iraq, as a division commander and then as the officer overseeing the initial reconstruction of Iraqi security forces, Petraeus is known to believe that a stable, pacified Iraq is still possible — if not probable… Two months ago, he said, “I actually stay awake occasionally at night trying to figure out the path ahead.”
Patraeus “success” so far has been building the Iraqi “security forces”. Apparently those would be the no-shows mentioned in that Partlow piece about an operation outside of Baghdad yesterday:
“Although the security plan has been cast as an Iraqi-led mission, no Iraqi police operate around Ibrahim bin Ali. And Lt. Col. Kurt Pinkerton, the battalion commander, said he could not persuade Iraqi army commandos to assist.
‘They didn’t return my calls,’ he said.”
I would like to believe that Patreaus and his new manual can turn things around. But it’s too damned late to take shit like this seriously.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:37 am
I’d like to correct two things – the U.S. soldiers in Mosul didn’t have a “firefight” with Kurdish troops recently. Americans apparently opened fire on Kurdish troops who were said to have exhibited “bad intentions” and refused to drop their weapons when challenged (presumably because they thought they were on “the same side” in patrolling Mosul and routinely passed through the security checkpoint where the killing happened). Also, it’s unfair to call your comments on The Surge “enthusiasm”. More like “hope against hope”.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:42 am
Woody,
The middle ground wasn’t even looked for.
In your zeal to trash Carter, you constantly blame him for “abandoning the Shah” without indicating what he should have done (a charge I note that you level consistently against the Democrats re: Iraq). So what should Carter have done to prop up the Shah? Sent in the military?
Before you say yes, wrap your brain around this: we have sent troops to remove a dictator who was largely reviled by his citizens and it has become an unmitigated disaster. Imagine what would have happened if we had done this to prop up a dictator largely reviled by his citizens. The Shah was hated by all but the elite.
Another point you consistently make re: Carter is that he never met a dictator he didn’t like. Square that with your condemnation of his behavior towards the Shah.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:56 am
Woody, I don’t have time to deconstruct your stupidity, but on the question of who “knows the price of freedom”, you’ve now managed to contradict your own “logic”, shifting from double talk into gibberish. Maybe it’s because your only concern is a running defense of whatever the hell pops into your head.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:02 am
Randy, Carter hugs anti-west dictrators, not any who would support us. Of all options in Iran, Carter chose the worst. Oh, and that was a great job he did with our embassy hostages.
And, what of your “zeal” to trash Bush and Republicans? It does work both ways, you know.
reg, if I want to listen to a rational discussion on Iraq, I wouldn’t get it from Cindy Sheehan or you. If you don’t get it, those with a personal/political interest that they put above our national interests are not the people who should be in charge of telling us what should be our military decisions.
You’re ability to express yourself is only excelled by your inability to determine the right things to express.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:03 am
Correction: “Your”
February 21st, 2007 at 11:33 am
And, what of your “zeal†to trash Bush and Republicans? It does work both ways, you know.
The fundamental difference here, of course is that I deal in facts and you deal in poppycock.
BTW, I note that you were unable to answer my question regarding what Carter should have done. How typical.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:41 am
Woody – you are absolutely brilliant at missing the point of a comment, including most of your own when they are challenged and you proceed to divert the argument from having an coherent point back to whatever the hell it is that pops into your head in your compulsively lame defense.
For the recored, I never claimed that personal experiences gave one’s discussion points special privilige as you falsely assert. Only that certain personal circumstances might make certain kinds of ad hominem attacks appear to be incredibly clueless. I was reacting to specific comments you made. Aside from the fact that your sources of information are generally laughable, your Right-Wing ADD makes discussing anything with you complete a waste of time. Frankly, it’s all about you and your prejudices. Nothing else. No depth or dimension other than Woody’s World. You’re one of the most ill-informed, shallow, predictable assholes I’ve ever come across.
February 21st, 2007 at 11:52 am
Shorter Woody: Brutal dictators are fine as long as they support the US.
February 21st, 2007 at 12:58 pm
Randy, I’m working and didn’t have time to take an hour or so to go into research about exactly what Carter should have done in Iran. It really doesn’t matter at this point, does it? We know that what he did had terrible consequences for the U.S. in that region.
Also, I didn’t say that brutal dictators that support the U.S. are fine. I said that they are preferable to brutal dictators who oppose us. You keep changing the wording of the premise to suit your conclusions.
reg, given the sum of your comments, I’ve got you pegged. You are so eaten up with your left-wing dogma and wear such narrow blinders that it would be totally pure chance if you analyzed something correctly. For you to criticize my views is affirmation that I must be right. Left-wing arrogance is a joke in light of what it offers.
February 21st, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Poppycock again, Woody. You have no idea as to how to respond because you have no clue as to the subject about which you are writing.
Brutal dictators have proven to be a bane regardless of whether they support the US or not. Our support of them has ruined our reputation Latin America, Asia, the Middle East and Europe, making it difficult for us to accomplish many of our goals. If you were capable of thoughtful analysis, you could see that.
Saddam Hussein was supportive of the US. The Shah of Iran was supportive of the US. Fulgencio Batista was supportive of the US. Castillo Armas was supportive of the US. Suharto was supportive of the US. Marcos was supportive of the US. The Greek Colonels were supportive of the US. Videla was supportive of the US. Franco was supportive of the US. Castelo Brancowas supportive of the US. Stroessner was supportive of the US. Pinochet was supportive of the US.
Our support of the above dictators has damaged our reputation throughout the world. If you knew anything about history, you would know that.
I find it very revealing that you accuse those who disagree with you of wearing blinders. And to think you wonder why when I accuse you of projection.
For you to criticize my views is affirmation that I must be right.
Reg,
Let me suggest that you start agreeing with his views. Then he’ll know he’s wrong
February 21st, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Don’t you have a boat to catch, Randy?
You just don’t get it. Should we support dictators who hate us because dictators who like us have problems? Who’s worse? Why, with your logic, we should be thrilled with Kim Jong-il as president of North Korea instead of someone friendly to us. Try not to shed a tear when Castro finally kicks the bucket. And, I know enough about history to see that the left hates freedom and is ruining this world.
February 21st, 2007 at 2:09 pm
We shouldn’t support any dictators is the point I’m making. Aren’t you supposed to be playing anjo on a bridge somewhere or making Ned Beatty squeal like a pig?
Your Castro comment is just stupid. I defy you to show me where I have praised Castro.
Good luck finding your ass with both hands.
February 21st, 2007 at 2:35 pm
Woody, you create more strawmen than a roadshow company of the Wizard of Oz. I never expressed anything but horror and rejection of dictators. You have no basis on which to make the Kim Jong-Il other than your own dementia.
February 21st, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Randy, at least you didn’t say that I was projecting this time, which puzzles me as to whether you have any consistent standard to make that claim. On another remark, I’m not comfortable with your preoccupation with my ass and your fantasy of Ned Beatty. Does this being the year of the pig have something to do with that, or do you see Deliverance as a travel promotion?
On Castro, it could be said that you back him through extension with your support for Jimmy Carter, who does.
On a more serious note, I don’t like dictators either–period. However, if my choice is between two dictators rather than a third option, I’ll choose the one who likes us, which is more realistic than what you envision. Sometimes there isn’t a third option.
I hope you like Italy–maybe enough to stay there.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:00 pm
On another remark, I’m not comfortable with your preoccupation with my ass and your fantasy of Ned Beatty. Does this being the year of the pig have something to do with that, or do you see Deliverance as a travel promotion?
You’re the Georgian, not me. I have no fantasies of Ned Beatty, but you still can’t read very well.
On Castro, it could be said that you back him through extension with your support for Jimmy Carter, who does.
You are such a little boy, Woody. You admire Reagan who coddled Saddam. For anyone as thoroughly a disingenous dipshit as you, that would make you a Saddam backer. I’m not a simpleton Woody, so again, show me where I supported Castro. Put up or shut up, jackass.
Don’t worry, I’ll enjoy Italy. I may even visit this site if I get a chance just to put a cork in the bullshit you spew out regularly. Of course, for me to get a large enough cork, I’d have to deforest Portugal to tamp down the volume of bullshit you spew.
February 22nd, 2007 at 12:11 am
reg writes: “What happened to Mosul when Patreaus’ troops drew down ? I believe it’s been mostly held by Kurdish forces who are at odds with the locals.”
Reports vary, from “instant takeover by less-than-friendly forces” to “reasonable stability until the governor of the area was assassinated.” And what’s going on there now might be a case of “us vs. us”. From the Wikipedia page on Mosul:
“During the occupation by the US 101st Airborne Division, a 21,000 strong force under Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. forces made a civil peace with the local Sunni tribes. However, after its pullout, the CIA has allied itself almost exclusively with the Kurds, and the US has been seen as essentially another tribal ally of the Kurds.”
Civil authority, such as it is, remains with Sunni Arab officials.
As for “hoping against hope”, I half-believe that, with enough troops, we could settle things down a lot in Iraq. But we wouldn’t be able to leave for a generation without great risk of things boiling over again — nobody else is likely to babysit this situation. The prospect of a very long-term presence, with a low but steady stream of casualties, might be a political non-starter in America.
While the Surge is militarily strategic — to see if something like Petraeus’ military/political strategy can work in a much larger city with a different composition, it’s also politically strategic domestically for BushCo. If it works, it opens the way toward public acceptance of further troop increases and a long term presence in all of Iraq (and provides ammunition for cries of “Defeatocrat” in 2008, making Bush a campaign asset for GOP reps in unsafe seats.). If it doesn’t, well … say hello to Kurdistan Petro-State Quasi-Exit Strategy — which appears to be the CIA’s bet.
The Kurds *will* want control of Mosul, and IF we pull back (presumably to Kurdistan as well as other areas outside Iraq), and IF there’s a major civil war brewing in the resulting power vacuum, the Kurds may meet resistance in Mosul with overwhelming force. Since we can’t be seen associating with ethnic cleansing, especially on such a scale (Mosul must have well over 700,000 Sunni Arabs), the US would either have to adopt a position on the sidelines of hand-wringing and moralistic denunciation while still working hand-in-glove with the Kurds on other fronts, or it will have to settle into Mosul for the long haul. Well, it looks like we put something in the Bank of Hearts and Minds there, courtesy of Petraeus. What Sunni Arabs accepted from US occupiers before, they will probably more easily accept again, especially in the face of worsening alternatives.
Anyway, Mosul is small potatoes in this mess, compared to Kirkuk, where the fuse is burning down pretty fast now.
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:21 am
former president carter.
don’t forget that carter us 21% Prime Rate; double digit inflation; double digit jobless rates.
and….because carter lobbied for and suceeded in having passed a change in fed laws concerning possession of mary-jane….all because chip carter was caught possessing mary-jane and was thus not eligible for fed programs…..carter thus stepped in and had the law changed solely because of his son’s usage of mary-jane and to change the federal laws to benefit his son.
prime rate: 21%
double digit inflation
double digit unemployment
the american iranian embassy sacked and taken over by muslims; which by the way of the uninformed (take richard; entellligest anal-leest) is considered an “act of war”; but carter was so inept and chicken he did nothing, but did allow our troops to attempt a unprepared rescue; then withdraw his support.
not to mention that there is not one dictator in the world that carter has not hugged or commented that their (the dictator’s country he was in at that time) was greater than the u.s.a.?
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:13 am
Pardoned draft dodgers
Gave away Panama Canal
February 22nd, 2007 at 2:20 pm
YIKES !! HAD A CLINTON “MOMENT” AND FORGOT ABOUT THAT !
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:21 pm
for woody: reg and richard are one and the same. makes sense. “two” of them are more than “one” and can double insults, psuedo-intelligenticalartical arguments.
June 29th, 2007 at 11:01 am
frontpage training…
Hi. Thanks for the good read….
May 8th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
387a3351f1ca…
387a3351f1ca42db2f60…
January 21st, 2011 at 9:19 am
Either way, it sounds better than surfing the web and tweeting, right?
April 15th, 2011 at 5:00 am
I’m curious to find out what blog platform you’re utilizing? I’m experiencing some small security issues with my latest site and I would like to find something more safeguarded. Do you have any solutions?