White House in "Panic Mode" Over GOP Iraq War Defections; Seeks "Consensus" To Appease Wobbly RepublicansMaybe it's time to start lighting up the switchboards again. As Elliot Ness said in the Untouchables, after the DA tells him he won't risk embarrassment by bringing a weak case against Capone: "I've got men out there risking more than their reputations."
1 I've been thinking about using what we did on amnesty myself, the problem is, unlike amnesty where we were the overwhelming majority position, the country is fairly set against the war in Iraq.
I'm not sure what the effect would be, if the squishy moderates would bail on us or not come '08.
Posted by: Sinistar at July 09, 2007 06:10 PM (Gq/6P)
2 Of course, the opinion on the war is more nuanced. People want to win, but they don't want to go through the effort and cost of winning. Its a really tough call.
Posted by: Sinistar at July 09, 2007 06:12 PM (Gq/6P)
3 Bush stayed with amnesty until well past the bitter end. I don't see him caving on this no matter who defects.
This time, I'm glad he's a stubborn bastard.
Posted by: JackStraw at July 09, 2007 06:15 PM (t+mja)
4 I say we surge against the Democrats. Drive them right into their cloakrooms and antechambers, and then cane them within an inch or their lives or until they start acting like Americans again.
BTW, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, does it not seemlike every single negative story I've read about Iraq over the past few days (and there've been several) have all originated from the NYT? Hmm ... I mean, maybe turncoat GOPers have all decided the Timesmen are good people and that's how they want to get their story out, but damn ... again, hmm ...
Posted by: Call me crazy at July 09, 2007 06:22 PM (kVUW4)
5 I still think we should ID the wobblers and punish them like we're gonna nail the shamnesty shites.
Posted by: Iblis at July 09, 2007 06:32 PM (9221z)
6 I'm certainly not voting for Lugar ever again. His idiocy with the immmigration bill was bad enough.
Posted by: Mark at July 09, 2007 07:01 PM (9P0+E)
7 This is a manufactured rebellion, manufactured by the NYT. All you have to is arrange an interview with a Senator, grill him a while, and he'll say something you can make into defection if you squint your eyes real hard.
Here's the contact list if you want to do a little home industry of your own. You know who to start with: RINOs and short-timers.
By the way,I suggestthanking those who voted against shamnesty. For the ones that didn't... well, maybeask them to pretendyou're not a citizen and feelyour pain. That should do it.
Posted by: sherlock at July 09, 2007 07:04 PM (jdXw+)
8 We don't have any leadership in this country any more. What is going to happen to us?
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 09, 2007 07:10 PM (wmgz8)
9 You really shouldn't besurprised by Republician wobbles. It is the very nature of timid, contemptible, hollow men whose only goal in life aresecuringcushy jobs at taxpayers expense.They have noguidingprinciplesother than self-interest and job preservation.
It's really sad to seesuch cowardsin charge duringthis time when the nation is facing itsgreatest threat.
Posted by: canuk at July 09, 2007 07:20 PM (vPj5M)
10 My RINO, Gordon Smith, has already folded. He damn near folded on Shamnesty too, but did turn it around once he looked at the polls. I'll never vote for the bastard again, but I did thank him for coming around on the amnesty bill.
Posted by: Mark at July 09, 2007 07:29 PM (+45yf)
11 Man, Bush just picked the perfect time to insult and alienate his base a few weeks ago, didn't he? Now he's got no political capital to spend on actual important issues.
Posted by: Slublog at July 09, 2007 08:18 PM (wQlRJ)
12 Slublog -- right. Because we can only stand up for the effort in Iraq if Bush tells us to.
Posted by: richard mcenroe at July 09, 2007 08:25 PM (clI2H)
Slublog -- right. Because we can only stand up for the effort in Iraq if Bush tells us to.
That's certainly a creative way to misconstrue my comment. What I mean is that Bush could be in a much stronger position to defend this war, politically, if he knew the base was still supportive of his presidency. His ridiculous cheerleading of the immigration bill was infuriating and created a schism between him and those who support him.
I still support what we've tried to do in Iraq, and I have contacted my senators to express that support. I only wish the president were as engaged in defending this war as he was in his attempts to ram the immigration bill down our throats.
Posted by: Slublog at July 09, 2007 08:44 PM (wQlRJ)
14 Is there really a part of the base that would support pulling out of Iraq because of the immigration farce. I'm in favor of pulling Lott and McCain out of the Senate, but that's not the same thing.
Posted by: richard mcenroe at July 09, 2007 10:32 PM (clI2H)
15 The thing is, it doesn't really matter what congress thinks about whether we should withdraw from Iraq or not. They can make whatever statements they want, but they aren't in charge of the military. Sure, it looks bad and its troublesome for President Bush if the morons in congress make some (fairly) united stand, but who cares? All they can do is cut all the funding for the military, not just for Iraq. They don't get to choose where the money goes, they can't decide to defund the Iraq military. Even the Democrats admitted that.
Somehow I don't think that they can muster much support for a bill to cut military funding. They particularly cannot get the votes to override a presidential veto on this.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 09, 2007 10:35 PM (wmgz8)
Posted by: richard mcenroe at July 09, 2007 10:32 PM (clI2H)
I would hope not, but I think a lot of senators are jumping ship in part because they see a politically weak president. They are putting their political futures ahead of what's best for Iraq.
If Bush had been smarter, politically, he would have seen that it is the support of his base that gives him some of his authority. Craven senators would be less likely to oppose the president on this if he had that support, and Bush squandered it when he pushed so hard for a terrible piece of legislation.
So it's not that the base is against the war in Iraq, or wants to lose the war because of the immigration fiasco, but the political damage the president took as a result has hurt his overall authority with those who see political survival as the only instinct worth fighting for.
Posted by: Slublog at July 09, 2007 10:54 PM (wQlRJ)
17 With respect, Ace, I think you are misreading public opinion. I live in a conservative part of the country, and most of the people I know who are dead set against the amnesty are also dead-set against us remaining in Iraq - as am I.
I thought it seemed like a good idea at the time - smiting that swine, Hussein. But we can't make Iraqis Americans. We couldn't even make them Jordanians. There will be a blood-bath in Iraq whether we leave next month or in twenty years. I vote for next month. Our service men there do not make our nation stronger by getting killed and maimed for the benefit of a people who roundly hate us. They will make this country stronger by being here and alive, working to build this nation, and raising families.
It was, in hind-sight, a fools errand to begin with. We were supposed to be fighting them there, so we wouldn't have to fight them here? One of the suicide-bomber docs arrested in Britain last week was an Iraqi. So we're fighting them there and here. I don't want us there (muslim lands), and I don't want them (muslims) here. I should have known better - a wise conservative mind would know that nations and peoples aren't malleable tools of ones will, and that other peoples do not necessarily share our motivations. They want to live in the middle ages? They can knock themselves out. I hope they have fun with that.
Posted by: Martin at July 09, 2007 11:30 PM (b+sVA)
18 Having family over there (4th BCT, 1st Cav), I disagree Martin with your assessment. And because I want the U.S. to succeed, I will describe how the "surge" is designed to achieve that success:
In South Park's The Death Camp of Tolerance, Mr. Garrison took a glass pipe and shoved it up the rectum of Mr. Slave. He then proceeded to introduced Limmiwinks, the class gerbil, into the ass of Mr. Slave. When the glass pipe was pulled out, Limmiwinks made his way up the digestive system of the Man So Gay, along the way meeting the Frog King, Sparrow Prince, and the Katata Fish. There were trials, hardships, and dangers to overcome, but Lemmiwinks did it, not only setting the animal spirits free but becoming the Gerbil King!
All we're doing is introduced the IA into the rectum and they'll have to figure it out by advice along the way. Perfect? No, but it's better than sitting back here watching the country descend into Iranian and terrorist puppetry. Need I remind you we lost 3,000 citizens on one day due to men of the same fabric we are fighting in Iraq. Sure the Iraqi Government is incompetent and impotent, not "achieving" one benchmark we set for them, but did OUR Congress achieve on benchmark they set for themselves?
Oh and the enemy has started to turn on each other. Could take couple months to a couple years, but the "insurgency" (you know- terrorism, ba'athism, toilet-robbers all bundled into one word the media can use) can no longer effectively, or for that matter desire, to talk to each other.
Posted by: TheEJS at July 09, 2007 11:50 PM (JM2sk)
19 Here's the trial of Lemmiwinks btw: http://youtube.com/watch?v=6AcJZnzF9To
Posted by: TheEJS at July 09, 2007 11:53 PM (JM2sk)
20 Sent below to all Class II Repub Senators, the ones up for election next, tonight. All Class II D's will get similar tomorrow morning. And Martin, it doesn't matter what we do, they will come for us sooner or later, and it isn't because we came for them - they have been attacking us for years but we wanted to ignore it. I would rather now when they are weak than later when they have nukes. Think about it.
Senator, I hope you will refuse to support any resolution that purports to guide the President in the conduct of the war. Even the most even-handed wording in a resolution will be twisted by the news media into a repudiation of the President and the current strategy of our armed forces, which is showing success.
You have the duty to stand firm behind the President and the troops, both of whom believe in what they are doing, as do I. The majority of the American people also support continued striving for victory, although this fact is hard to see given the mantra constantly repeated in the media that our support has vanished.
It is easy to see how contrived polling questions are used to convert “concern” to “opposition”, and “wanting the troops home” to “wanting to surrender”. Don’t let that happen to you Senator! Speak out clearly on this issue, which is of existential importance to our country.
Those who advocate surrender are in effect advocating a humanitarian disaster of horrific proportions. Do not allow yourself to become part of what would become the most shameful episode in American history. Conservatives like me will be watching, Senator.
Posted by: sherlock at July 09, 2007 11:58 PM (ojW85)
21 Nothing cuter than appeals to personal experience. "Everyone I know..." means nothing in an argument except about people you know. Assuming you're telling the truth.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 10, 2007 12:13 AM (wmgz8)
22 Christopher Taylor, you arecorrect that the congress cannot actually force thePresident to pull our troops out of Iraq. But unfortunately, they can do a very effective job of providing moral support for the enemy, encouraging them to keep fighting when we are winning, and basically working to counter the effect of the alliances we are building. And in doing so, they will materially increase the mental and physical suffering of our troops and their families, and the number who are killed, not to mention the number of Iraqis that will be plunged back into the dark ages.
That is why I am going to keep a list of any Senator who tries to cut us off at the knees, whether they succeed or not, and why I think all of us should. I am developing an very nasty appetite for a bloodbath of my own - a November 2008 bloodbath of Senatorial incumbents who sell us and our allies out, of both parties.
Posted by: sherlock at July 10, 2007 12:16 AM (ojW85)
23 EJS summed it up nicely.
Appealing to the President is obviously of no consequence--he obviously is not privy to, or is kept from learning about, the will of his own people. The whole strategy is "maniacally dumb" as Newt said. He bought another term but killed his party in the process. I cannot believe that when he needed to be strong the most, at the end of his term, to give a losing war one final chance, he dives off the high board with a cockamamie Democratic proposal that alienated the last few stragglers who were willing to support him on anything. He has ended his presidency--that's why the senators are wobbly now. This is the leader of their party, laughing it up with Teddy when a surge is about to begin? Why isn't he on the radio and TV asking for our prayers for victory?
But that's no reason to give up on Iraq. I think Petraeus needs his chance. Whoever organized the anti-immigration movement should organize us now. Make it look like it's anti-Bush. The slogan: "Support the military, let them win. Bush never did."
At this point I would even fly to DC and march, if someone organized it.
Posted by: PJ at July 10, 2007 12:27 AM (lsMtB)
Your sentiment is not lost on me, or probably anyone else here. The problem with that line of thinkin is that, rest assured, when/if we pull out, we'll be right back. Probably in less than five years. If we lose, who wins? I'm not attempting to be simplistic or reductionist with that question. But if you don't think it's a gift-wrapped victory for AQ I think you're mistaken.
They'll become (more) emboldened to say the least. If you want to turn over the world's second largest proven oil reserves to the fanatics, all I can say is get out your prayer rug. What? Don't have one? You probably will. Or at least your kids and theirs.
What is Iraq pumping? 4, 5 million barrels a day? X $70 currently. Might as well multiply times $100, because that's where it will go. $400/$500 million/day turned over to AQ. Think they'll be able to afford nukes and various other assorted WMD then? It's a rhetorical question, of course. I suppose we could wipe out the oil infrastructure on the way out. That would play well. Actually, we can probably just make the checks payable to Ahmadinejad. What could he accomplish with another$200 billion/year? That would probably be a best-case scenario, btw. Meaning Ahmadinejad getting control and not AQ. Fortunately they'll never cooperate--at least the libs say so.
Just my two cents.
Posted by: Chris at July 10, 2007 12:27 AM (Jyeuw)
25 thinking? duh.
Posted by: Chris at July 10, 2007 12:29 AM (Jyeuw)
26 Small correction to previous post: "Need I remind you we lost 3,000 citizens on one day due to men of the same fabric we are fighting in Iraq"
What I meant to say is a bloodthirsty,barbaric, psychotic,goat-fucking, homicidal, child-killing, pedophilling, torture pr0n-taping, sadistic animals who hide behind children to set off SVBIEDs.
Posted by: TheEJS at July 10, 2007 01:01 AM (JM2sk)
27 "Nothing cuter than appeals to personal experience.
"Everyone I know..." means nothing in an argument except about people
you know. Assuming you're telling the truth.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 10, 2007 12:13 AM (wmgz"
How about public opinion polls? A recent Rasmussen poll indicated that 53% of the American public believes that the Iraq venture will be seen as a failure in the long run:
Of course a poll is just a poll. But this is no NYT poll. Rasmussen also found that only 22% of the American public supported the recent immigration bill - a result most everyone here would tend to agree with. Oh, and by the way, I am telling the truth about what people I personally know have personally told me. But thanks for checking.
"And Martin, it doesn't matter what we do, they will come for us sooner
or later, and it isn't because we came for them - they have been
attacking us for years but we wanted to ignore it.
Posted by: sherlock at July 09, 2007 11:58 PM (ojW85)"
The people who attacked us on 911, and brutally slaughtered 3,000 of our countrymen (and hoped to kill many more) gained entry to this country by legal means - on tourist or student visas, I believe. Some of them overstayed their visas, but some were completely "legit", as far as the INS was concerned, right up to the moment they cuisinarted themselves for Allah. They did not reach our shores as enemies, but as guests. And the President, and his State Department, still don't think we have enough Arab students - just last year they reached an agreement with Saudi Arabia to admit 15,000 more.
Al Quaida has no air-force. They don't have aircraft carriers or troop transports. They can't sail to our shores and conquer us. They (or their unafilliated fan-boys) can only terrorize us because we let them reside among us.
I'm opposed to our continued presence in Iraq because for a variety of reasons 1.) I know people - GI's - who over there and the fight isn't worth those young men's lives. They joined to defend America, not fight an endless, ill-defined war that the administration no longer even sees fit to call a war. 2.) Extended military occupation is deeply corrupting to the occupier. 3.) Our military venture there is serving as a big "Show and Tell" to all the world of how we fight and what we can do. I'm sure the Chinese are paying attention (the Russians too).
And someone mentioned that we'd have to go back in five years. So? It'd be cheaper to bust up the place every five years or so, then to stay there perpetually as an occupying force.
And Iran? Well, they may well have free run of the place. The Iraqi Shiites and the Iranians may be buddies now - one happy Shiite family. But it will eventually dawn on them that they're Arabs and Persians, and they'll end up hating each other over that.
And Iran may well get a nuclear weapon. That cat's probably out of the bag. Big deal. We have thousands. And planes and missles to deliver them. Admenijahd may be nuts. But the mullahs aren't, and they all want to die peacefully of old age. Deterrence works. As long as you have the deterrent to back it up.
And we probably will have to pay more for oil. The oil's running out anyway, so we'll pay more for it one way or another. And do you mean to say that we're not paying an exorbitant price for it now? $12 billion per month for the war, not to mention the American lives lost and ruined?
Dream on about the big surge all you want. But the war in Iraq is already lost. I want out, and I don't care what price the Iraqis pay. They've brought it on themselves too. They didn't have to respond to our presence by blowing up women and children at random. To hell with them. Let's get out, and at least learn a lesson from it - to avoid foreign adventures, as Washington admonished us to.
Posted by: Martin at July 10, 2007 02:53 AM (b+sVA)
You're off base on this. Nobody wants to be there, I'm quite sure. That doesn't make it any less necessary. Who wins when we leave? You didn't respond to that. I'll answer for you. AQ and Ahmadenijad. Pretty simple math. Not even calculus. Have you ever sailed through the Straits of Hormuz? If you haven't, I'll be happy to explain the logistics for you.
You write the following, as if it's a rational option:
And someone mentioned that we'd have to go back in five years. So? It'd be cheaper to bust up the place every five years or so, then to stay there perpetually as an occupying force.
In case you didn'tnotice, we haven't left for 17 years already. If you think we'll be able to just pick up and leave then I've got a bridge to sell you. It isn't going to happen, regardless of the platitudes espoused from day to day.
Your frustration isn't lost on anyone here. But we can't just pick up our ball and go home. We can, and may,attempt to quit the war but it will not quit us.
Posted by: Chris at July 10, 2007 04:30 AM (Jyeuw)
29 Dream on about the big surge all you want. But the war in Iraq is already lost.
Well, excuse me if I dismiss that deep analysis of the military and political situation as less than meaningless.
Deterrence works. As long as you have the deterrent to back it up.
Can you remember what you yourself have written or asserted for more than three freakin' sentences? Because what you've just said right there makes no sense.If we leave now, what ability will America have todeter anyone, anywhere, for any reason? All pretence of thatwill have evaporated...for good fuckin' reason. We will have proved to all and sundry, by following what I'll call "Martin's Doctrine," that we won't follow through on any threat. Mogadishu and Beirut on steroids.
You know what pisses me off about such sloppy reasoning on this issue?Three things, really: 1)It usually comes from Buchananite isolationist fucks (be they Republican or Democrat) who don't know history, diplomacy, the way of the world, or otherwise what the hell they're talking about; 2) It's wrong; 3) The lack of willingness to stick it out and get the job done now means that my now 21 month old son will be fighting this same war in twenty years.
It'sevidence of a selfish, effete, short-thinking-if-thinking-at-all,indolent mindset.
Posted by: Rocketeer at July 10, 2007 08:54 AM (GFaLW)
30 Now excuse me while I go talk to a recruiter.
Posted by: Rocketeer at July 10, 2007 08:56 AM (GFaLW)
31 Americans don't have the stomach for long fights anymore. Bin Laden was right. And this isn't even much of a "fight" by historic standards in terms of KIA or injury. Our short attention span culture, coupled with Bush's abject and near total failure to lead this country in terms of influencing the debate have conspired to allow the left to reprise theirVietnam political performance art of the early 70's.
The only difference is that the Vietcong didn't follow us home when we shamelessly abandoned the field to those totalitarian killers. The current version will.
We will rue the day we leave Iraq unfinished.
Posted by: Fred at July 10, 2007 10:21 AM (ivbbD)
32 Sorry, Mr. President!
You stabbed me in the back in order to assist millions of criminals get a path to citizenship prize after mocking American laws andinvading this country. Then your proxies and mouthpieces implied that it was we, the people that have stood by you through many tough times and defended you from criticism again and again, were the problem. As if standing by our principles and wanting you to enforce existing law was somehow unreasonable!
You'll get no help from me on anything ever again. You are dead to me. I am sure that I am not alone in my opinion.
Do you hear that, John McCain? You'd better quit the presidential race now.
Posted by: Log Cabin at July 10, 2007 11:48 AM (U+rNI)
33 "Who wins when we leave? You didn't respond to
In case you didn'tnotice, we haven't left for 17 years already. If
you think we'll be able to just pick up and leave then I've got a
bridge to sell you. It isn't going to happen, regardless of the
platitudes espoused from day to day.
Posted by: Chris at July 10, 2007 04:30 AM (Jyeuw)"Who wins when we leave? We do. By not throwing away the valuable lives of our men.
And we've been there longer than 17 years. We started building permanent bases in Saudi Arabia in the mid 80's. Which was one of the things that set Osama bin Laden off on his crazy Jihad against us in the first place. Our alliance with the Saudis just isn't paying off. We could probably extract oil out of tar-sands more cheaply than what is required to take oil out of the mid-east.
And Rocketeer: deterence works when your opponent believes that you are willing to fight. People are willing to fight for what's truly important to them. This isn't. And are you really going to join up? Really fancy a tour in Iraq for the duration? Exept unlike in WWII, we don't even know what "The duration" means. We've already toppled Saddam Hussein and conquered the place. "The duration" is now defined by whatever some state-department wallah thinks is necessary to stabilize the place.
A lot of you guys seem rather juvenile. You regard this war as if it were a video-game - a vicarious adventure, but certainly not one that YOU are willing to die for. I hope you grow up. And for gods sake, don't join up. Join up - to do what? Fight for this government? The government that wants to replace you with Mexicans and H1-B's from India and the middle-east?
Posted by: CSinAL at July 10, 2007 12:31 PM (b+sVA)
34 I've been hearing "the surge is working" for about 6 months now, but the death toll keeps rising and the political situation keeps deteriorating. At this point, I'm beginning to think that the best option may be to pull out and let Iran and Saudi Arabia fight a Sunni-Shiia proxy war that lasts 20 years and costs millions of lives.
Sorry, but I have lost total faith in Bush and this administration to do anything right. I was faithful and trusting for years and all I got the Shamnesty bill rammed down my throat with cries of "racist."
Posted by: Kasper Hauser at July 10, 2007 12:58 PM (KeOQp)
35 Rocketeer: deterence works when your opponent believes that you are willing to fight.
And we will have proven that we aren't. Ever. For anything. Because of shitty, indolent, selfish, short-attention-span retards like you.
And are you really going to join up?
Yes. Yes I am, fuckface. Been talking to the recruiter for awhile now.
See. I don't relish war. No sane person does. But neither am I willing to put this one off to fester until my child has to fight an even more horrific one on worse terms.
Exept [sic]unlike in WWII, we don't even know what "The duration" means.
Oh, I get it. We knew the date certain that WWII would end? Let me know when we'reout ofJapan and Germany. Moron.
Or are you suggesting we firebomb Tehran, and nuke Damascus, Mecca, and Medina? Proposing that we bomb the Muslim world into an unconditional surrender? I'm betting not.
You regard this war as if it were a video-game - a vicarious adventure, but certainly not one that YOU are willing to die for.
Let me reiterate: fuck you. Seriously. I get it. We'll just slip the nice warm duvet over our heads and pretend it's not storming outside.
Posted by: Rocketeer at July 10, 2007 01:26 PM (GFaLW)
Posted by: FDE at July 10, 2007 01:41 PM (LdD6+)
37 In war,allow our military to decide what to do and keep out of their way. Those brave men and women in our military need our total support. Even if we do not "understand", give the military the benefit of the doubt and distrust the gainsaying yellow "journalist"and politician who fabricate our downfall for a buck.
ONLY our military, given our support, can and will defend us against the Russians, the Chinese, the (N)Koreans, etc., Cubans and more Latin American countries than we want to admit, and the Fascist Muslim populations from African throughout the Eastern Hemisphere. Diplomats and politicians will only sell you off to the highest bidder.
When our presidentsare engrossed withimage vs. reality they sell us out for squat, forcing citizens to look long and hard at our politicians.
I am distraught at our President's treatment of our military men and women who fight the battles bravely. Generalized lip service cuts deeply when what a soldier needs is fairness and protection against yellow journalists andcocky prosecutors. Forcing oursoldiers toBE MORE than military while in battle,to be perfectdiplomats, is wrong since our soldiers do not enjoy diplomatic immunity from the enemy.
Last week someone wrote/said that America needs to fightour currentwarfare with the same effective and aggressive tactics used to win WWII--bomb citiesthough inhabited by civilians for military success. War is ugly, so let the military get it over with according to THEIR own wisdom.
Without military success, there is no "peace". I do not fear the military as I do politicians. Politicians like Wilson, Eisenhower and Truman prevented our generals from effectively finishing world wars so as to pre-empt recurrence. With ire, Iwatched Pres. Eisenhower railing against the Communists in Korea, not admitting that Communists had always been a threat to us.
There is no crime that is not a "hate" crime, so inacting such legislation and prosecuting such furthers injustice under the law. Political correctnessis insincere, false, suicidal; and as such, PC presses beyond "wrong" intothe illegal realm as it is the demise of our Constitutional society that our government and our officials are sworn to protect.
Posted by: maverick muse at July 10, 2007 01:50 PM (moa9O)
38 How about public opinion polls?
Also crap for a host of reasons (hint: asking hundreds of people leading questions in a nation of 300,000,000 is not going to tell you a damn thing). And, in any case, fallacious, because what one ought to do has little to do with how people generally feel about it.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 10, 2007 02:38 PM (wmgz8)
39 I'm with Martin, I want us out now.
And the following link makes what should be a fairly clear problem with Bush's foreign policy:
Posted by: Roy 2 at July 10, 2007 02:54 PM (xxqLI)
40 But unfortunately, they can do a very effective job of providing moral support for the enemy, encouraging them to keep fighting when we are winning, and basically working to counter the effect of the alliances we are building.
That's the problem, their effect on morale can be disastrous, which makes the entire effort seem... treasonous, even. I mean, if they have no power to actually do anything about it, then making public, loud statements doesn't make anything happen but aid and comfort to our enemies. Seems like that's morally wrong if not legally so.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 10, 2007 04:33 PM (wmgz8)
41 "And we will have proven that we aren't. Ever. For anything.
Because of shitty, indolent, selfish, short-attention-span retards like
Let me reiterate: fuck you. Seriously. Moron."
You forgot to call me a dooty-head too. Name calling isn't an argument, nor is it even a good mask for an argument.
Exept [sic]unlike in WWII, we don't even know what "The duration" means. "Oh, I get it. We knew the date certain that WWII would end? Let me know when we'reout ofJapan and Germany."No, but we knew what would constitute victory: the military defeat of our enemies, thier unconditional surrender, and the occupation of their countries, all of which was completed in 1945. Our continued presence there is not to occupy them, but as part of a common collective security arrangement. That was all possible because Germany and Japan behave the way nation states do. They'll fight you like hell when they're at war. They stop fighting after they surrender. Iraq is not a nation state. It's an amalgamation of two different peoples, two distinct Islamic sects, and numerous clans. Did you know that something like 30-40% of married Iraqis are married to their first cousins? Family ties are paramount, and loyalty is primarily to the clan. Iraq is more like Mafia-dominated Sicily, or the Kentucky hills in the days of the Hatfields and McCoys than it is like Germany or Japan (in that one respect - obviously not in most). For reference, Steve Sailer (of isteve.com) has written a great deal about this.
"Or are you suggesting we firebomb Tehran, and nuke Damascus, Mecca,
and Medina? Proposing that we bomb the Muslim world into an
unconditional surrender? I'm betting not."
No I'm not. I'm suggesting we buy what oil we need from whatever tin-pot despot is running the place that day, deport the alien muslim fifth-column that we've admitted into our country (and that means encouraging, or forcing most muslims in this country to leave), and rain down old-testament like vengence on anyone who fucks with us. And I don't mean an endless occupation, like we also have in Afganistan. Go in, kill whoever needs killing, bust up the joint good, and then leave - with the reminder that we can be back in thirty minutes with a lot worse. Otherwise, we stay the hell out of their affairs, and we demand that they stay the hell out of ours - which again would be possible, if we simply did not let them in to our country in the first place. But you're not going to turn muslims in general, and arabs in particular, into good little small-r republicans.
"You regard this war as if it were a video-game - a vicarious adventure, but certainly not one that YOU are willing to die for.
And are you really going to join up?
Yes. Yes I am, fuckface. Been talking to the recruiter for awhile now."There's the name-calling again. First, let me just mention that if you're joining the naval reserves or somesuch than I'm not that impressed. You probably won't see action. But if you're actually joining some arm of the service which could get you sent to a dangerous place (and these days, that's more and more of the service), then you have my thanks for your service to our country, and best of luck to you. Stay healthy, and come back alive.
Well, then best of luck to you
Posted by: Martin at July 11, 2007 12:39 AM (b+sVA)
42 Oh, yeah Martin. Totally agree. Those Naval Reservists are total pussies. Course, I wouldn't say that to a room full of reserve gobs if I were you. Those pussies would beat you to a pulp - with my toasts.
By the way, just so we're clear? I'm not trying to argue with you by calling you names. Just noting what astupidasshole you are is just more of an...observation.
Posted by: Rocketeer at July 11, 2007 06:10 PM (GFaLW)
43 kobe bryant shoes 2011
Posted by: Nike Air Max 24-7 at July 13, 2011 03:11 AM (f181r)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0151 seconds.
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Real Clear Politics
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Primary Document: The Audio
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Top Top Tens
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)