The Great Maliki Gang Bang
Well, we never did find the WMD. But at least we've now discovered the source of all our problems in Iraq: the Prime Minister we helped install, Nuri al-Maliki. Poor guy, now Senator John Warner has joined the anti-Maliki gang-bang, clearing the path for countless others.
Personally, I don't care much either way about the fate of the Iraqi P.M. Â We already know he's irrelevant and impotent. But this seems, nevertheless, an extremely dangerous moment. Dangerous, because heaping all the blame for the Iraqi catastrophe on Maliki is quickly acquiring that most perilous aspect of American political dysfucntion: the highly dreaded disease of Bi-Partisanship.
With a growing number of Democrats and Republicans joining in on the trashing of Maliki, the groundwork for a new phase in continuing this war is being laid. General Petreaus will make his much-awaited "progress" speech on Iraq two weeks from now and we already know what he'll say: we're showing some modest and tangible gains on the military front but none on the political. Then we toss Maliki into the Tigris, install the new guy, and get told we now have to give the new, improved government six or twelve or eighteen months of breathing space before we do anything rash. Democrats now calling for Maliki's resignation will have neatly painted themselves (and the rest of us as all well) into that dank, fetid corner. Thanks a lot.
The real debate we ought to be having now is not what the Iraqi government is gonna do about the war, but rather about what the U.S. government is gonna do. The war in Iraq was created by a failed policy coming out of Washington. Which was, not coincidentally, also bi-partisan. Wouldn't it be something if the architects (the Republicans) and the enablers (the Democrats) of this tragic farce would own up to their own responsibilities rather than stoop to scapegoating?
Meanwhile, Cookie, get a rope.
August 26th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
The argument here is that whatever Iraqis do, Nuri al-Maliki foremost among them, nothing good can come out of this bad situation. Maliki is “impotent and irrelevant” but anyone who takes the position that Maliki is “impotent and irrelevant” without supposing that all Iraqis are impotent and irrelevant, and that no Iraqi can do a better job, is deluded.
In plain English, the argument is that there is nothing America can do to help the Iraqi people, and there is nothing any Iraqi can do, either.
I don’t agree that Maliki is impotent and irrelevant but even if he proves to be both, I don’t agree that all other Iraqis are impotent and irrelevant.
The best construction that can be put on this argument is that Iraqis will do better without America, and there might be an argument there.
If there is an argument there, why not make it?
A cogent explanation of how Iraq would benefit from a US withdrawl would be a powerful argument for a US withdrawl.
August 26th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
@stott:
“the argument is that there is nothing America can do to help the Iraqi people, and there is nothing any Iraqi can do, either”
**
Actually that’s not the argument. The argument is that whatever leader gets set up there by American maneuvering (those “Mayberry Machiavellis” again), a good outcome will not obtain.
They’re not the same thing at all.
August 27th, 2007 at 12:31 am
fair point Michael Turmon. Although it doesn’t follow, either, that America has to be gone for Iraq to have legitimate leadership, although, once again, that argument could be made.
August 27th, 2007 at 5:20 am
The argument that Iraqis would do better without America has now been made in so many articles in so many media outlets, and by Marc himself in so many earlier posts, that Samuel Stott really needs to broaden his reading if he needs to ask what the logic of that position is. He is free to disagree with it, of course, but that is another matter.
August 27th, 2007 at 7:01 am
I think Marc hits the nail on the head here – since even by Petraeus own metrics the surge is an utter failure (althought they’ll argue that the militarily it’s been a limited success, despite the fact that war-related deaths are double what they were last year and the number of internally displaced has more than doubled since January), they’ll have to find some way of creating political smoke to justify staying the course. I hold no brief for Maliki, but it’s apparent he’s a symptom of the sectarian politics, not the architect. A new face won’t change anything if the parties at odds aren’t prepared to alter their agendas dramatically – which seems like a fantasy option. But the “serious” Beltway types will undoubtedly hop onto the “buying time” treadmill. I wouldn’t put a psychological explanation for this disaster at the top of my list, but it is rather stunning to watch folks whose egos and arrogance are at such Beltway levels of bloat that they’re totally unable to acknowledge their utter failure and deal with it like responsible adults.
MB – I’m not at all certain that Iraqis will “do better” without America, anymore than I believe that they’ll “do better” with America. I think there’s an internal dynamic in the country – which we triggered but which is clearly rooted in some combination of sectarian fanaticism and a justifiable hatred by the Shia of the Sunnis who formed the base for Saddam’s tyranny and it’s going to play out. Any chance for reconciliation seems long past. Clearly we opened the gate for this predictable turn of events and if early on there was any possibility we could have helped as some stabilizing force – whichs strikes me as a rather long shot, but certainly what I hoped for in the aftermath of an invasion that was strategically and morally indefensible – we blew it.
(Because I know Samuel Stott is going to unleash some of his “plain English” on us in response to my noting that the invasion was morally indefensible, I’ll add that it would have been morally defensible to assist Shia or Kurds in the overthrow of Saddam if they had initiated it, or to take measures to stop “ethnic cleansing” when it was actually taking place, but the truth is that our stalwart Republican friends decided at those decisive moments to either send Saddam military assistance (!!!!), or to allow Saddam’s forces to run rampant while Bush Sr. kept our planes on the ground just across the border in Kuwait and even ordered “our boys” to turn fleeing Iraqi refugees back into the hands of the Republican Guard, which they admirably refused to do. In plain English, most of the folks at the center of the “pro-war” faction are fully complicit in Saddam’s crimes. When they alleged themselves to have “stood up” to Saddam, the best they could offer the Iraqi people was to destroy what little stability they had, install an American “pro-consul” to remake Iraqi society – one who, even more absurdly, knew absolutley nothing about the country, throw hundreds of thousands of Iraqi soldiers out into the street, let employment and infrastructure go to hell, fail to maintain even minimal security and public order, allow enormous weapons and munitions stockpiles to get in the hands of the worst elements, assume that a band of exiles who’d not been in Iraq in decades could waltz into Baghdad and form a pro-American, pro-Israeli government, allow billions of cash dollars to disappear into the hands of god knows who, and on and on. It’s a goddam shame our country doesn’t have a tradition of hari-kari, because the architects and apologists for this disaster should be headed straight to Hell.)
August 27th, 2007 at 7:06 am
One more reason why the Iraq occupation is one of the dumbest, most dangerous things we’ve ever done:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_08/011948.php
August 27th, 2007 at 9:12 am
The twists and conclusions of the left-wing press do not represent journalism worthy of quoting. I remember how well the U.N. sanctions worked against Hussein for, what, twelve years? I remember the kickbacks and bribes from the food-for-oil program. I remember the attempts at the U.N. to shred boxes of evidence and cover-up the scam. I remember European countries who turned their heads from justice and from their friend the U.S. in favor of left-wing politics.
Where would Iraq be now with their continued foot dragging? Iraq was going to have to face many of these problems sooner-or-later, and I would rather they faced them with the despot removed and us helping them than being left alone to fight the terrorists and murderers by themselves.
It’s great to play Monday morning quarterback but, remember, your play didn’t work so we had to try a new one.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Woody has obviously not heard that one of the big beneficiaries of that “Oil for Food Kickback” was a loyal GOP “Bushie” which is why you don’t hear much about it these days.
As for Maliki – If a guy named “Lucian Conein” shows up in Baghdad I’d get worried. In the meantime isn’t it fun to see what $300,000 in funds for a PR campaign can do. Ask Fred Hiatt or Martha Radditz. Glenn Greenwald is right. The state of our media is so corrupt now that the news from Gallup that a majority of Americans are disinclined to believe anything that this administration has to say shows, once again, that the people may be ignorant of what is going on (as how could they not given their sources of information?) but they are not stupid.
Hillary may have a crackerjack campaign team but sooner or later this nonsense has to bite her in the ass. She’s a big girl and knows that there is no government in the Green Zone. And no “Man on Horseback” ready to make things right. Still its great to pile on since it makes Bush look terrible and makes people forget her complicity in voting for this fiasco.
Iraq, like Vietnam before it, is the graveyard of reputations. Add Hillary and Colin Powell to that sad list that includes McGeorge Bundy, Robert McNamera, and Walt Rostow. (Though the later had a better claim to the title “Best and the Brightest” – this crowd? Well a certain guffaw there, eh?)
August 27th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Woody has obviously not heard that one of the big beneficiaries of that “Oil for Food Kickback†was a loyal GOP “Bushie†which is why you don’t hear much about it these days.
RLC,
Oh I’ve showed him several times. Who knew in addition to th Chattahoochee that the Nile also ran through Atlanta.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:47 am
You can’t even tell the joke correctly.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Here’s one such example: http://tinyurl.com/7v9k5
Here’s another: http://tinyurl.com/3ujpw
And another: http://tinyurl.com/4rlc9
August 27th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Thanks, but I’ll stick with getting the facts straight.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:52 am
I remember Ronald Reagan giving Saddam military assistance when he was committing war crimes. I remember Bush Senior sitting on his hands when the Shiites heeded his call to rise up. I remember Dick Cheney stating that a U.S. occupation would be an untenable risk. I remember the “mushroom cloud” looming from Saddam’s vaunted WMDs. I remember Mission Accomplished. I remember Condi denying that there was a growing insurgency. I remember the Iraqi elections that would usher in a democracy, rather than deepen sectarian division. I remember….oh, the hell with it.
You can call me a “Monday moring quarterback” but I’ll stand on my record in seeing through not just the phony rationales for the war but the way its been waged and most of what’s followed from it. I understood from Day One that this debate started that the “WMD threat” was being hyped for purely political reasons. I knew from Day One that there was no strategic national security reason to invade Iraq and that we were being suckered by the neoCons’ crackpot agenda. I believed from Day One that Rumsfeld was going in with too few troops to successfully secure the country. I knew within weeks of the invasion that security was unraveling disastrously and there appeared to be no coherent plan for stabilizing the country, if that was even possible. I knew when Rice was fiercely denying it that there was an insurgency afoot very much worth worrying about. I knew this episode would be an extraordinary opportunity for al Qaeda recruitment. I knew after the election results that sectarian divisions had been embedded in the political process and wouldn’t go away. I’ve long predicted that Iran was the big winner and were natural allies of the Shia majority. I’ve long predicted that al Qaeda’s worst nightmare would be the Sunni warlords themselves, once we gave them reason to turn their attention away from us (although bribing them with arms is an insane way of achieving this objective.)
Hardly a “Monday morning quarterback” in terms of seeing through the bullshit. The truth is Woody, that simply by reading a broad range of news and analysis including European sources and stuff that didn’t recieve page one treatment, and dismissing crap like FOX News and the Beltway punditry that lives on crumbs dropped deliberately from inside the administration, I’ve had more insight into this mess than those who led us into it. That scares the hell out of me, but it’s turned out to be true. As for parochial, ridiculously partisan crackers that you typefy, you’re petty sychophants for the retread right, trapped in a cynical propaganda loop that keeps you dumb as dirt. I have yet to learn a single thing from your comments here other than just how incredibly ignorant and bigoted you are. If you had even a glimmer of self-awareness, the first thing you’d do is shut the fuck up. But frankly, about the only amusing thing that’s come out of this war is watching you make a complete ass of yourself as you dig yourself ever deeper into your black hole of Stupid.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Still more truth:
Taken from here:
http://tinyurl.com/35byoa
Who should I believe: a reactionary accountant from Atlanta or a Professor of Law and Director of the National Energy-Environment Law and Policy Institute at the University of Tulsa School of Law.
I’ll go with the latter.
August 27th, 2007 at 9:58 am
Frankly Ric, I wish people like you would REMEMBER her complicity and that of “The Democrates” in Bush’s war. There wasn’t much. Are you seriously saying Clinton was in on Bush’s march to war like Powell was, or McNamara or Rolstow were in on Veitnam? I love reading a Pajama’s media leftist (who had no moral problem with the inavsion) berating Ted Kennedy for enabling these reactionaries. He, and a lot of other Dems, resisted massive political pressure to vote against giving Bush the power he so misused.
Cooper’s attempt to excuse Bush here (everybody’s gulity=nobody’s gulity) is really just attempt to excuse himself. Shame on you and Reg for signing the manifesto today.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:09 am
If you had even a glimmer of self-awareness, the first thing you’d do is shut the fuck up.
If Woody had a glimmer of self-awareness he’d commit seppuku.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Randy, your “proof” was claims by the U.N. and by the Democrats–partners in crime. If the Bush administration did that, where are all the investigations and hearings and proof? Talk’s cheap.
reg, I don’t remember that “from Day One that this debate started that the ‘WMD threat’ was being hyped for purely political reasons.” It seems to me that the sixteen words or however many there were, was a throw in and it turned out that the British intelligence had it right whereas Joe Wilson did an intentionally miserable job to confirm that. The political hype was from the Democrats–not Bush. Quit lying.
I don’t know how you could have thought “from Day One that Rumsfeld was going in with too few troops to successfully secure the country.” What a stupid statement to make with the few facts that you had.
I remember that I asked you over and over in these posts what you would do, but you only offered criticisms for months. The truth is, you didn’t know anything except how to complain, because the President beat your guy.
Then, to top if off: “I’ve had more insight into this mess than those who led us into it. That scares the hell out of me, but it’s turned out to be true.” lol Says who? Frankly, you’re so arrogantly wrong, that you think that anyone who disagrees with you must be stupid. How typical of a liberal.
“I have yet to learn a single thing from your comments….” Learn this. There are a lot smarter people than you, people who could finish college, who disagree with you and have more information than you. European sources, indeed. What a joke!
August 27th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Of course Woody, if it wasn’t saaid by Hannity on “Faux News” then it can’t be right. Our friend in Atlanta is like the Red Queen who believes six impossible things before breakfast.
K Nardy if she gets the nomination I’ll vote for her but right now I have to acknowlege her craven “Triangulating” when she voted for the AUF resolution and now claims that she didn’t know it meant war. My Friend’s pet Pekingense KNEW it meant war. Hillary made a bad decision for political reasons. John Edwards admitted the same and has apl;oogized but Clinton sees that as a sign of weakness. Sorry, she gets no pass from me for craveness.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:13 am
“I don’t know how you could have thought “from Day One that Rumsfeld was going in with too few troops to successfully secure the country”
Of course you don’t, because you’re a complete fucking idiot who listens to shit like Neal Boortz for your window on the world. Christ – the issue of troops was such a big deal at the time among military men and related experts that anybody who DIDN’T know it didn’t remotely gie a shit about informing themselves about a war that was in the works and, frankly, they should be ashamed.
Didn’t read past that, because you proved to be beyond the pale of people worth taking seriously with that first attempt at a “dig”.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Someone asks……….
A cogent explanation of how Iraq would benefit from a US withdrawl would be a powerful argument for a US withdrawl.
*******************************
I wonder how many more Iraqis have to die to prove we are helping them?
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-iraq/iraq_deaths_4011.jsp
August 27th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Randy, your “proof†was claims by the U.N. and by the Democrats–partners in crime. If the Bush administration did that, where are all the investigations and hearings and proof? Talk’s cheap.
Utter bullshit as usual.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Day one? You knew. Righhhhhhhhhhhhht.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Reg said ….
I knew from Day One that there was no strategic national security reason to invade Iraq and that we were being suckered by the neoCons’ crackpot agenda.
************************
What you didn’t believe the power point presentation by Colin Powel showing mobile trucks carrying WMD to avoid detection by U.N. inspectors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYBA9JD5oW4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a-sM7plGXA
Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney you decide what they really said.
They do, they don’t, they do, they don’t, they do, they don’t WMD.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o
August 27th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Incidentally, to make my point absolutely clear, this has nothing to do with my being smart or knowledgable about any of the issues at hand and everything to do with paying attention to people who WERE experienced and knowledgable about the issues involved in the Iraq war rationale and the planning of the war itself. There was an enormous amount of information – highly credible information – available that called every aspect of what was being proposed and why into question. Very serious questions. Certainly the mainstream press was irresponsible in giving such great weight to such flimsy argument coming out of this incompetent, incredibly dishonest administration. But anyone who actually gave a shit could get enough information to not be particularly shocked at what’s transpired. The “smart” people in this administration were largely crackpots or careerists. The “Decider” himself has been in over his head so deep on so many issues, and has proven so congenitally unable to deal with complex questions, that I have to say that my distaste for the man dating back to the 2000 election (”Bush Hatred”) was just a scratch on the surface of what a worthless, arrogant, incompetent little shit he turned out to be. If there’s any “Derangement Syndrom” that I’ve been afflicted with, it was being willing to ever give him the benefit of the doubt after 9/11. I was a complete fool in those months – deranged, if you will – to assume he could lead the country in a time of crisis and not actually make things eveb worse.
August 27th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
reg: “this has nothing to do with my being smart or knowledgable about any of the issues at hand”
You can say that again. But, you think that you were smarter than the Democrats, too, who had been talking about WMD’s from back in the Clinton administration. Why, it’s a wonder you haven’t been elected President for life.
If this were “Meet the Press” and we showed your comments from three or four years ago, I think we would see how “smart” you actually were at that time. You were famous for avoiding taking positions–only being critical after the fact on positions that others took. At least we had a “decider” rather than a fence sitter.
August 27th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
reg: “paying attention to people who WERE experienced….” >>>> Reg’s Source of Information
August 27th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Woody you’re such a little boy.
August 27th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
What the bi-partisan lynching of al-Maliki will neither fix, nor address:
Hoisted from The New Yorker http://tinyurl.com/23vxqo
August 27th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
I’ve taken very clear positions over the years, starting with opposing the invasion. If this bluster is the best you’ve got in response to the concrete issues that have been raised about just how fucking wrongheaded and disastrous this war has been, how much information was available that substantiated reason to consider the administration’s strategy a blunder at best, and just how dishonest and irresponsible its architects have been, I’d have to say its “Game, Set, Match”. Woody, you’re an utterly hollow, ridiculous little man. Keep blowing smoke out of your butt. It’s all you’ve got. If we want to make anyone look like an idiot by clipping their comments together from a few years ago, we could start with the stuff you and Roper were telling us about the significance of the Iraqi elections. And when the best you can do to rationalize the WMD hype justifying an invasion is to allude to the Democrats having talked about Saddam’s “WMDs” over the years, you truly are grasping at straws. First of all, “WMDs” is a catchall term that says little or nothing about how much of an imminent threat to the U.S. any particular country might possibly be. This is pretty elementary, but you’ve got ignoramusses in the rightwing propaganda machine who used rusting decades-old chemical shells to prove the “we found the WMD.” You’ve got to be dumber than dirt to take that shit seriously. And I’d be the first to excoriate the cowardice of many Democrats on this issue, but aside from the waffling and bullshit on the part of folks like Hillary, the notion that we had to “pre-emptively” invade Iraq in 2003 in order to halt the looming threat of his “WMDs” came solely from BushCo and a relatively small handful of useful idiot “Democrats” like Lieberman who have zero future in the party if people like me have any say in the matter.
I don’t have time for an “old quotes” contest with you and you’re welcome to engage in some random buffoonery, but I’ll guarantee you that any selection of comments over the years on the state of the war in Iraq that is representative would be devastating to the credibility of you or your reliable “comrades”.
(Sorry for using the word “credibility” in a statement that pertained to Woody!)
August 27th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
That’s a lot of words for nothing except to attempt to cover your early omissions and your false claims of today. It’s amazing how many words are necessary to try to explain what a liberal meant, and they still are never right.
August 27th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Reg, Randy, RLC. Don’t feed the trolls.
Sincerely,
Mike
August 27th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Terrible damned habit…
August 27th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Michael Turmon, I’ve always liked you–a scientist after my own heart and much more schooled in it. I’m crushed. (But, it still kills Randy that I had a science show on the first educational television network.)
Don’t you think that attacks against people with opposing views should be stopped to get all sides? Calling me a doo-doo head, essentially, is about all that I get, and it takes them one-thousand words to say that.
If reg’s position was so right, then why is it still being debated? It would be over. Maybe we need to analyze his “all-knowingness” before we shut people up.
That’s all I’ll say now. I’m afraid of turning Marc’s topic into a boring tit-for-tat by taking up for logic and truth. I’ll let it get boring with the exchanges of the mutual admiration society.
August 27th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Michael Turmon,
You’re right of course. It’s much like picking a scab.
August 27th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
ric, even if I except your premise (leaving behind, at the very least, the political climate of 2003), that hardly puts Her in the room making the calls, ala McNamera and Powell.
We should note that if Bush were lying to the extent you say he was; those lies are being retooled, reshaped, and respit by people today. And they’re not Democrates.
August 27th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Speaking of things that are boring, I’m getting extremely bored by these gay Republicans who are too chickenshit to come out of the closet and end up in bizarre circumstances following their dicks in secret places. Given all of the real problems that exist, do we need headlines about a U.S. Senator caught by vice cops in a public mens room ? I think not.
But given right-wing GOP stalwart Larry Craig’s record he deserves to be humiliated for his hypocrisy and ultimately driven from office –
# Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
# Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
# Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
# Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
rriage. (Sep 1996)
# Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
What a sorry little weasel…
August 27th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
(that wiretapping vote should have been deleted in context, but it also shows what a piece of crap this guy Craig is.)
August 27th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Woody I would like your opinion on this video, which comments should we believe from your idols, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o
August 27th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
By the way Marc I happened to be listening to KPFK this afternoon and heard one of your “friends” Michael Parenti announce that you never met a war you didn’t like, citing the former Yugoslavia, Gulf War one and Iraq as examples.
So all this kvetching is a front, eh?
August 27th, 2007 at 7:25 pm
For “everyone who knows all the facts and solutions from day one,” share your wisdom now on this WMD issue rather than wait to see what didn’t work.
France’s Sarkozy raises prospect of Iran airstrikes
Sarkozy said a nuclear-armed Iran would be unacceptable and that major powers should continue their policy of incrementally increasing sanctions against Tehran while being open to talks if Iran suspended nuclear activities.
“‘This initiative is the only one that can enable us to escape an alternative that I say is catastrophic: the Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran,’ he said, adding that it was the worst crisis currently facing the world.”
August 27th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Sorry about feeding the trolls but I went to the article cited and a few things jumped out at me:
1. who are these people?
2. Sarkosy says he wants diplomatic action to curb Iran’s nuclear program (which Iran denies anyway). He sure as hell doesn’t raise the prospect of an airstrike except to say that such a “Catastrophy” must be avoided.
3. He calls for talks with Syria to resolve the Lebanes crisis. (Recall France’s ties to Syria and Lebanon. Can you say “Sikes-Picot?”)
4. He calls for a timetable to get foreign troops out of Iraq.
Other than that he and Bush are on the same page!
August 28th, 2007 at 2:00 am
It’s not that Marc likes war, but that he hates, hates, hates dictators and, even more important, lives in constant fear that Sean Hannity or facsimile will make him look bad by saying he doesn’t hate, hate, hate dictators…
August 28th, 2007 at 5:54 am
rlc, you can also say that if these things don’t work, then bombing Iran will be the next step. Sound familiar?
Sarkozy listed things that didn’t work with Iraq and have not been working with Iran. So, what’s next, unless you believe in doing what doesn’t work over and over again? Iran can build nuclear weapons faster than resolutions can be passed.
Surely, brilliant minds out there already know all the facts and all the solutions and can save the world a disaster and save the U.N. from debates by sharing this wisdom now–unless they are actually merely Monday-morning quarterbacks as I’ve witnessed and stated before.
August 28th, 2007 at 6:21 am
Whether or not you agree that the Monday-morning quarterback metaphor jumped the shark way back before Monday night football kicked off, you still have to agree that looking at history for clues to the future is a worthwhile exercise.
W hisself–well, his speechwriters, anyway–just reminded us that the diplomatic way out of Vietnam pursued by Nixon was a failure–indeed a catastrophe that brought on a holocaust in Cambodia.
I happen to disagree and would attribute the Khmer Rouge terror to a different set of events, but I’m not going to accuse the President’s PR people of “Monday-morning quarterbacking” Nixon’s policy decisions.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:21 am
bunkerbuster et al, you’re not even talking about the same thing. Bush discussed Viet Nam from a long-term historical standpoint and said that there were lessons to be learned from its aftermath. That’s different than finger-pointing and saying that the coach is doing it all wrong with each step and, in many cases, while the game is still being played and, at the same, time screaming and throwing bottles at the team and demoralizing the players on the field.
You’re already planning on halving the athletic budget when the team needs equipment and you want to yank the players off the field before they achieve victory. You’re the guys who sit by and watch the coach go for it on 4th and 2, and if it didn’t work, you say, “I would have kicked.” If the team “surges” forward and it does work for a first down, then you look the other way or say that it didn’t work despite the obvious down marker and your hope that some idiots will believe you.
Well, if you know everything, why aren’t you coaching and why didn’t you say something before the game was played or the play was run? It’s because you aren’t qualified and know less than you admit.
You guys are the biggest bunch of second-guessing whinners that I’ve ever heard, and you won’t even tell us what plays we should run against next week’s opponent, Iran, before that contest begins. Come on! Show us your coaching skills. At least let us know that you’re pulling for our team rather than the opponent, because it’s sure not clear.
The only people who respect your opinions and think that you’re brilliant are You yourselves.
Marc must sit back and laugh at the stuff that you write. I sure do.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:32 am
The lesson of Vietnam is simple. “Don’t get involved in a land war in asia” and “Don’t involve yourself in a struggle against an indigenous nationalist movement.”
There another simple answer to a simple question . . .
August 28th, 2007 at 9:47 am
The lesson of your lesson is that there is a price too high to pay for freedom, and your threshold is very low.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:20 am
I find it ironic that the Woodster would tell a Vietnam vet who suggests that it’s crazy to insert ourselves overseas against an indigenous nationalist movement that his “threshold is very low”.
What fucking price is Woody paying for “freedom” ? Hell, his guys won’t even raise their goddam taxes to pay for their insane war. And what insane voices do these people listen to in their heads that tell them its the job of kids from Kansas to impose “freedom” or “democracy” in the Middle East ? That worked out really well with those Palestinian elections.
If Woody wants to send kids from Kansas to untangle decades – centuries even – of religion, culture, tribalism, imperialism and petty politics in the Middle East, he should definitely present us with some serious argument and evidence as to exactly how and why this could or should be done. Soundbites from the Boortz Brigade won’t do. This is pure armchair fantasy, run wildly amok. To have a chip on one’s shoulder when you’re that crackpot makes the whole concept even more putrid and obviously divorced from any semblance of reality. Talk about a pile of steaming crap from a blathering Keyboard Kommando.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:23 am
“you won’t even tell us what plays we should run against next week’s opponent, Iran, before that contest begins. Come on! Show us your coaching skills. At least let us know that you’re pulling for our team rather than the opponent, because it’s sure not clear.”
It’s The Big Game !!!! And Woody’s all excited and ready to go- he’s got his six-pack and he’s tuned into FOX !
August 28th, 2007 at 10:29 am
And the lesson of Iraq should be… Don’t let the reactionary right (Woody and his President) off the hook for his hapless, hopeless nation building and wallet filling; though the triangulation of Marc Cooper or anything else. Ric, Reg, this is no time to go wobbly.
August 28th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Somehow the analogy of a football team to the the responsibilities of a citizen in a democracy strikes me as at the core of what’s so fucking juvenile and wrongheaded among so many of these guys who hang on the words of the Right-Wing Noise Machine. If, as it appears, the only thing Woody can understand is the dreaded sports analogy, he’s a Detroit Lions fan in 2001 telling his demoralized pals in a bar, “Trust Marty Mornhinweg! He knows what he’s doing. Quit your Monday morning quarterbacking. He’ll pull this thing out. And if you’re so smart why didn’t they hire you?” Yeah, that’s the way serious, self-respecting, knowledgable football lovers deal with abject failure in their managerial and coaching “leadership”. Isn’t it ? Or does everyone in the bar look at Woody like he’s the dumbest guy in the room ?
August 28th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Well, I can’t resist linking to another one of these, because the Woody parallels are just too uncanny. In this case, his hilariously cliche use of sports metaphors. Go team go!
August 28th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Sarcastic Saib,
Nice video.
Now, take a look at this video. Be sure to listen to the whole thing, then come back report what you heard.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
LASunsett Says:
Now, take a look at this video. Be sure to listen to the whole thing, then come back report what you heard.
******************************
Also a nice video,
What I heard is more evidence that our politicians are a bunch of idiots
Here is a video of Cheney telling us the problems with invading Iraq back in 94. And what would happen with the removal of Saddam. I guess Cheney forgot his own words when they “planned†or should I say failed to plan the second war with Iraq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
I can only laugh at all the debate here about how the U.S. should help “fix†Iraq.
1) I am sure you don’t blow up the infrastructure then spend billions trying to rebuild it.
2) Dismantle the Iraqi army and then try and rebuild it.
3) Kill thousands of Iraqis then try and win their trust.
I wonder how many of Bush cabinet members have to resign before some people realize there was a reason this.
August 28th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
To support my contention about you second-guessing whinners, this was the original question:
Here have been your intelligent reponses:
Help us all if your side become the coach in 2008. The Democrats had no plan during the 2006 election, have no plan now, and will have no plan in 2008. You guys don’t have a plan either and don’t have our interests in mind.
We need people who are on our side and will help America rather than repeat your Viet Nam success in destroying America’s reputation and leaving innocent people at the will of tyrants and terrorists just for your political points.
Now, about that question, again…..
August 28th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Re: Senator Larry Craig, R-ID. I just don’t get it. With all of the heat the Republican party manages to take for its same-sex peccadilloes, why doesn’t the party drop that plank? The whole homophobia-thing is just killing them. I’ve read the discussions of the Right Wing Authoritarian psych profile, I’ve followed the manly-man arguments of Teh Base, I get that the dead-enders are squeamish beyond words. But, this issue turns out to be a continual embarrassment for them. You’d think they’d decide to give over on gay sex. No way does any affluent, or moderately affluent suburb/exurb soccer mom care about this issue. Hell, there’s an excellent chance her hair dresser, personal shopper, most trustworthy child minder/babysitter/house sitter is gay, and she knows it. Our military is staggering under the weight of extended tours, repeated tours, and stop-loss maneuvers, and the military enforces don’t ask-don’t tell? Good grief; I’m even getting Army recruiting literature. The Republicans have so much to gain, and so little to lose for softening their stance on gay marriage and other civil rights, it seems self-defeating for them to dig their heels in on this issue. If 85% of 2001 high school seniors say that gay men should be “accepted by society” ( http://tinyurl.com/2ff3du ) the logic of the Republican party on the issue of gay citizens simply escapes me.
August 28th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Woody,
I am curious do you feel Bush and his administration made any mistakes in planning the war in Iraq?
If you think Bush and his administration made any mistakes planning the war could you please list them for me.
Or just say Bush and his administration were perfect if that is your opinion.
I would really like to read your answer.
Thanks,
Saib
August 28th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Dear SS, ask me again when the game is over. However, it’s absolutely stupid to think that mistakes don’t occur, even for situations well planned. I will list one mistake. Bush’s communication skills are absolutely terrible, and that has not helped public support.
War and the ensuing peace is an ebb and flow situation, but the final outcome will determine if the win is big enough to justify the costs.
I’m still waiting on the brilliant people who know everything from day one to say how we should address Iran’s nuclear program now. I’ll mark this place for two years from today for when these same scholars start talking about what they all knew from day one and what they would have done. Apparently nothing.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
As Sarkazy said, keep pressing diplomachy and do everything possible to find a negotiated settlement. The problem with your question is that after the Iraq invasion, Iran has every reason to pursue nuclear weapons. And if we bomb Iran it strenghthens the Crackpots in Tehran. This is pretty much the “conventional wisdom” among Iranians and folks who have seriously studied the issue (NOT Dick Cheney.) Also, we’ve got fucktards running the show, so in two years who the hell knows what kind of crap has gone down. Bush is obviously ginning up an attack with this arrest.
If you want a fucking war, say so. And if you do, too bad you won’t be the first to die…
August 28th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
That sounds just like what the U.N. said with Hussein. Press for diplomacy, which he ignored for twelve years. I’ll write this down so that we can remember this great wisdom that you passed on to us “from day one.” It sure is a lot harder to make decisions than to criticize, isn’t it? I expected something meaningful with all the bragging that you’ve done.
BTW, Iran has pursued nuclear weapons without having to consider Iraq. Oh, for the good ol’ days of Jimmy Carter diplomacy.
August 28th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Also, it’s total crap to cry for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons when we ignore the fact that Israel is nuclear-armed to the teeth.
What’s your plan Woody. Standing next to Bush and yammering, “What he said!”
Also your notion that the biggest problem Bush has is communicating is the biggest pile of horseshit I’ve ever heard. His biggest problem is utter incompetence and arrogance when it come to defining policy and, of course, letting Cheney – a total crackpot – run rampant.
I’m so sick of recycled idiots like you…
You’re dishonest, you’re ignorant and in your particular case, you use a tack of changing the subject rather than addressing criticism. It’s cowardly and frankly an insult to the intelligence of everyone who reads this blog – with the possible exception of Samuel Stott!
August 28th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
Tell me your big fucking idea to resolve this or go watch some TV …
If it’s “Bomb Iran” it’s proof you’re a psycho. Afghanistan is running away from us because of the shift of all resources to Iraq, Iraq is in total chaos, the military is near the breaking point – and you want to start another war !
I’ll tell you one damned thing – if we bomb Iran you can bet your sick ass that they’ll “follow us home” and there’ll be hell to pay down the line.
So I’ve told you that it’s got to be diplomacy – an attempt to draw down nuclear weapons rather than attempting to impose our will by strongarming – strongarming that we’re not capable of even doing effectively over the long run. I’ll fucking stand by that – 2 years! 5 years!
What the fuck is YOUR plan ? Other than “anything Bush and Cheney say !”
Christ, you’re a cretin !
August 28th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Incidentally, Iran is in many ways a dysfunctional democracy and a repressive country, but it’s the closest thing to a representative democracy with a balance of governing institutions of all Muslim states in the Middle East. It’s not even close to being a dictatorship like Iraq was under Saddam, and there’s at least as much political ferment and “civil society” in Iran as there is in a country like Egypt. Ahmadinejad is much more beholden to an electorate than Mubarak is. For us to simply decide that we’ll take them out would be as disastrous, counterproductive and indefensible as the invasion of Iraq and would yield equally negative “unintended consequences”. It would unite the Iranian people against the U.S. – absolutely and unequivocally. Anyone who equates an attack on Iran with promoting “freedom and democracy” belongs in an Orwell novel.
August 28th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Copy this shit down Woody….
August 28th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
RLC: Michael Parenti is one of the Great Frauds of our time. Back in the 80’s I was teaching at CSUN and he somehow had been named a visiting professor. So I invited him in to give a talk to me class. It was an idiotic rant that accused Hollywood of purprosefully using red-white-and-blue color schemes to brainwash Americans. My students had him for lunch.
And as you know, I adamantly opposed the war in Kosovo; probably mistakenly as it turned out.
August 29th, 2007 at 5:52 am
reg, I’m not the one who said that he knew “everything from day one.” I long ago admitted that I didn’t have classified information “from day one” and that I would rely on our representative form of government, which includes people with more information and brain power than I’ve read here.
If you’re going to criticize and boast, be able to back it up. You couldn’t.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:06 am
reg, I’m not the one who said that he knew “everything from day one.â€
Neither is he. here’s what he wrote:
For someone who claims to be “taking up for logic and truth,” you’re very good at fabricating and misrepresenting the opinions of others.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:32 am
I’m sorry, Randy. The buzzer had already gone off and the game is over. Take it up with the commissioner.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:38 am
You’re a liar, Woody a serial liar. The above is more proof of the same.
August 29th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Projecting?
August 29th, 2007 at 11:15 am
You’re a little boy, Woody. A lying little boy.
August 29th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
My use of “Day One” was hyperbolic, but so hyperbolic in terms of “Day One” of the war itself. I’ll stand by what Randy quoted as stuff I knew early on in these debates, and certainly in terms of the hyped rationales for the war. I’ve put fairly precise chronological correlations on much of it, like “when Rice was denying an insurgency”, “after the elections”, etc. And I’ll stand by all of it. Woody doesn’t want to discuss the ridiculous TOTALLY ILL-INFORMED AND BRAINWASHED SHIT that he was spewing at those points in the war. And of course, that’s still his mode.
Pathetic….
August 29th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
That should have read “but not so hyperbolic in terms of ‘Day One’ of the war itself.” It was certainly apparent with in the first weeks that Baghdad fell Rumsfeld had screwed up royally in terms of ignoring those who had counseled providing forces that could secure the country. Maybe that was a fool’s errand, but they didn’t even try…
August 29th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Also Woody, don’t quote me on your website if I can’t respond. And don’t say “the response has been quiet” to your question. I’m not “quiet”. Your “rant” on this is just more drivel… Zero substance on the issues raise. What a sorry little man !
August 30th, 2007 at 7:55 am
After reading this blog, I was wondering whose opinions should I believe about the war in Iraq armchair bloggers (Woody) or retired generals?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMPIi03wSfY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPxZLLLb3RY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwA-46bnenY
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Tips On Buying Used Treadmills…
The best treadmills cost thousands of dollars. Buying a used treadmill can save you hundreds of dollars and there’s quite a large market in buying used treadmills and you can find really good deals. However, there are many pitfalls in buying used home…