McCain, Graham Need to End the Super-Hawk Crap If They Want Any Kind of Hawkishness In American Foreign Policy At All

I still consider myself a hawk.

But I don't consider myself a super-hawk. Post-9/11, I became a super-hawk. I'm not one any longer.

John McCain and Lindsey Graham are still pushing a super-hawk line that the public widely rejects.

They need to stop. If the only choice is between appeasement and super-hawk full-commitment total war, the public will choose appeasement. It's choosing appeasement right now in the case of Iran, which by now -- thanks to appeasement and stalling -- likely already has an (undeclared) nuke. (And don't ask me to speculate about what crooked deal Obama may have forged with them, to keep that nuke existing (helps Iran) but undeclared (helps Obama, but not the US).)

McCain wanted total commitment to Iraq-- whatever it took. Literally, whatever it took. If it took 100 years, well than that's what it would take.

Fine. But then he also demanded that the US intervene in Libya and now calls for the US to intervene in Syria.

Perhaps it would be shorter to compose a list of places John McCain does not want the US military involved.

I remember the Kosovo air war. I was plenty against the Kosovo air war, because I strongly suspected we were only in it because of Monica Lewinsky.

But I remember John McCain's response: McCain argued that Clinton must get "boots on the ground" -- US army soldiers and Marines -- in Kosovo. Or at least be "prepared" to put boots on the ground.

Wait, what? Why?

Remember Clinton's claim that it might spark a World War if we didn't intervene, as conflagrations in the Balkans had sparked WWI and (not sure how he figures this) WWII? Yeah, the press doesn't remember that either, and never brought that up when attacking George W. Bush for saying that it was important to world peace to pacify Iraq. They just completely forgot Clinton's much more alarmist claim that we must intervene in Kosovo, of all places, or face a Third World War.

But my actual point is that the Kosovo intervention, to the extent it could be challenged, could be challenged on the grounds that it wasn't our concern and wasn't our fight.

But McCain, oddly enough, decided the opposite -- not only was it critical, but it was so critical we had to interject US ground forces or else we'd suffer some kind of a "loss of honor."

His idea seems to be that if we're fighting a war on the cheap -- stealth jets, cruise missiles, drones -- we're not really fighting it because we have no skin in the game or something. Like it's only our readiness to put US forces at risk of capture or killing that proves our "honor."

I gotta tell ya, I don't mind fighting wars in which almost all the risks fall upon the enemy's soldiers. But McCain has this medieval concept that only face-to-face battles are sufficient to safeguard our national "honor." (Rather like how the crossbow was reviled as a coward's weapon because it killed knights so easily and didn't put the archer himself at great risk.)

I am certain that the way forward is not continuing to talk the way McCain talks, in that Kennedyesque "We will bear any burden" way. When Kennedy said that, it was a lie. It was just a bit of noble-sounding rhetoric. He didn't really intend to "bear any burden." It was a quote for the press.

But McCain actually seems to believe it -- which is why the public will praise Kennedy's grandiose lie (it makes us feel good about ourselves without actually committing ourselves to anything) while being a bit alarmed by a similar-sounding McCain pronouncement.

I think it's time to stop talking about having "no limits" as to what we may do with our military and start talking about the limits which certainly exist. These are real, living, flesh-and-blood men and women. They're not lead figures in a war game. When we talk about "bearing any burden," we are not "bearing any burden." They are.

As Governor Perry remarked, relating, I think, the feelings of a Marine: "They say America's at war, but America's not at war. America's military is at war. America's at a shopping mall."

Now that's the job they signed up for, of course, but let's not just send them everywhere to die over this medieval notion that "honor" is only satisfied when there's a cost in blood. If we can accomplish objectives more cheaply, and lose less American blood, certainly, let's do that, and the hell with McCain's sense of "honor."

I mention this because of McCain's freak-out over Rand Paul.

“Senator McCain is obviously well aware of the politics of this – he just doesn’t care,” said one McCain aide. “He’s doing what he thinks is right. Unlike many of these guys, he’s actually been involved in a few national security debates over the years. He knows that jumping on the Rand Paul black helicopters crazytrain isn’t good for our Party or our country, no matter what Twitter says.”

I think McCain is blowing his stack for two reasons:

1, Because his mind simply rejects any possible limit to military action reflexively. So when Rand Paul suggests that the President can't just kill a non-combatant American citizen on American soil, McCain revolts against it without even thinking. Because this is war, and in war there must not be any limits. Limits are for cowards and for losers.

Actually, limits are for anyone in the real world. "No limits" is a slogan fit for a steroid case's workout sweatshirt, but not for American military policy. Adults have to recognize that we do in fact have limits, and that there are some burdens that we're not willing to bear, so there's no point in constantly lying to ourselves about this.

2, Because he thinks Rand Paul is actually shifting the Republican position to Ron Paul's empty-headed hippie baby-talk "Love" bullshit, whereby, as a matter of doctrine, we must never engage anywhere because only consensual agreements are permitted in foreign policy.

I will discuss how that's idiotic another time.

I think McCain is right on this point, and yet wrong. Rand Paul is not moving public opinion on this point or even Republican opinion on this point. Rather, public and Republican opinion on this point has already moved, but is currently being falsified because no one ever wants to admit they're wrong, and Rand Paul is offering people an opportunity to express their real opinion.

And that could wind up working out badly for the hawks, as McCain expects, because people might just be seduced into just doing a 180 on their Idealism -- moving from "we will make any sacrifice to make the world safe for democracy" (a sentiment as noble as it is false) to a new completely-opposite Idealism of pacifism. But in both cases they're as Idealistic and Noble as they can possibly be. So it's an attractive thing.

I actually don't believe in Paulian pacifism and do believe in the need and justification for American intervention on a limited basis and in pursuit of a limited number of objectives.

If McCain also believes that -- and of course he does -- he would be wise to stop making the choice between the Ron Paul doctrinal peacenikism and the McCain Interventions Incorporated model.

Because McCain will lose, and so will the concept of interventionism itself.

Gingrich had it right on this-- he said "I'm a hawk, but I'm a cheap hawk." McCain is an extravagant hawk, and he's the worst spokesman for hawkishness there is. And if he keeps pushing his No Limits doctrine, he's going to find the country is now embracing All Limits.

Let's be smart about this, let's remember that the United States is made up of actual human beings who do in fact have limits, and start thinking about Some Limits. Smart Limits. Realistic Limits. Workable Limits.

The country doesn't exist to exemplify McCain's dubious conceptions of honor. Other things enter into the equation, like the human cost to our boys and civil liberties and even, yes, the filthy considerations of dirty money.

McCain is vaingloriously defending a hill that was lost in 2008, if not 2006. It's time to pick a more defensible hill.


Posted by: Ace at 01:04 PM



Comments

1 It sure sounded like Mcain was pushing the War is Peace thing yesterday. Kind of chilling.

Posted by: Ook? at March 08, 2013 01:06 PM (OQpzc)

2 McCain is an idiot.

Posted by: Ronster at March 08, 2013 01:06 PM (pDjY6)

3 He's cranky too.

Posted by: Ronster at March 08, 2013 01:07 PM (pDjY6)

4

McCain, Graham, and Bill Kristol.

These three stooges never met a war they didn't love.

Posted by: soothsayer at March 08, 2013 01:07 PM (oxIUw)

5
If McCain and Graham want a war with the party members, it may be time to start thinking about life after politics.

They seem to firmly believe everything wrong with this country is
attributed to a particular faction of our party. They’ve demurred,
defended and supported some of the worst acts of this administration and
liberals over the years. They have also been behind some of the worst
erosion of our liberties including the First Amendment, immigration and
the fiscal irresponsibility which has devastated our countrymen. They
run around like the dynamic duo, trying to use their superpower of
despotism to cure what they see as the ills of our republic.

I would caution McCain and Graham to remember this is a republican
democracy and their role is to serve the people. They are not kings or
oligarchs and have no place attacking the principally based actions of
others.

As long-time denizens of Washington they have lost touch and seek
only selfish goals reasoned by their own beliefs to be important. In
that regard, they are no different than Mr. Obama or the others who want
to steal our freedom in the name of some fallacious common good. It’s
about time we rid our Congress of such despots, irrespective of party.

Posted by: Marcus at March 08, 2013 01:07 PM (GGCsk)

6 There is a problem though.

Here is the newest comment at Volokh.com on the latest post on this subject--


Neil • 4 hours ago
Will Grigg nails it here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo...
'Combat' can consist of expressing support for Muslims mounting armed resistance against U.S. military aggression, which was the supposed crime committed by Anwar al-Awlaki, or sharing the surname and DNA of a known enemy of the state, which was the offense committed by Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdel. Under the rules of engagement used by the Obama Regime in Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan, any “military-age” male found within a targeted “kill zone” is likewise designated a “combatant,” albeit usually after the fact."
0 •Reply•

Posted by: tasker at March 08, 2013 01:07 PM (r2PLg)

7 I'll be happy to chip in five dollars to bribe McCain to retire. Unfortunately, McCain is probably certain that he must continue to serve no matter what because his opinions are to valuable too not force on everyone else. Oh death, where is thy happy sting..?

Posted by: mallfly at March 08, 2013 01:09 PM (bJm7W)

8

What's this about, anyway?

Are McCain and Graham beating the war drums for Syria, as I predicted?

Posted by: soothsayer at March 08, 2013 01:09 PM (uff2W)

9 McCain needs to go back to Sedona, permanently, and grill to his heart's content.

Bonus: Meggie Mac will spend more time there stuffing herself with Daddy's burgers.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 08, 2013 01:10 PM (UOM48)

10 However it is more than simply that--which earned al -Aulaqi a place on the target list-

On August 31, 2006, al-Aulaqi was arrested with four others on charges of kidnapping a Shiite teenager for ransom, and participating in an al-Qaeda plot to kidnap a U.S. military attaché.[14][77] He was imprisoned in 2006 and 2007

Posted by: tasker at March 08, 2013 01:10 PM (r2PLg)

11 More or less echos my own sentiments.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 08, 2013 01:11 PM (bb5+k)

12 I'm for military intervention when it serves American interests. Bombing the shit out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Awesome. Do it.

Nation building? No. Forget that. Bomb them, leave the rubble and let them rebuild themselves. If they start acting stroppy and threatening us again, bomb them again, leave the rubble and let them rebuild themselves. Keep doing this until they STOP THREATENING US.

Simplistic perhaps, but that's my personal take on it.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at March 08, 2013 01:11 PM (4df7R)

13 Perhaps Juan should urge Meggie to join up. I can just see her going through boot camp at Parris Island.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 08, 2013 01:11 PM (UOM48)

14 I think I just shit myself.

Posted by: John McCain at March 08, 2013 01:11 PM (4cRnj)

15 Yes and it has zero to do with being a "hawk". Which is why they didn't even understand the principle argument Paul was trying to make.

I also personally believe their protestations are more ass covering for their vichy dinner with Mr. Obama. Has anyone asked what they discussed? I would at least like to know the terms of surrender they so foolishly negotiated on our behalf.

Seriously, McCain and Graham look like idiots contrasted against Paul and this issue. One man is in the Senate doing the job he swore to do. The other dynamic duo is using their superpower of stupidity to negotiate with an emperor bent on total war while eating Foie gras and sipping Merlot.

Posted by: Marcus at March 08, 2013 01:12 PM (GGCsk)

16 McCain is a citizen of the world, and as such, he believes the world is his lawn and the military is there to get those damn kids off his lawn.

Posted by: Ashley Judd's Puffy Scamper, formerly MrCaniac at March 08, 2013 01:12 PM (Zd/NW)

17 My friendths, you have nothing to fear from an Obama presidency.

Posted by: Juan McCain at March 08, 2013 01:12 PM (UOM48)

18 I'm all for the exercise of military power to protect Americans and American interests. I am no longer interested in spending blood and treasure to further the interests of people who wouldn't piss on me if I was on fire.

I don't think that makes me a pacifist an isolationist.

Posted by: mongo78 at March 08, 2013 01:13 PM (2b46R)

19 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a malignant traitor.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at March 08, 2013 01:13 PM (xN73L)

20 Wouldn't a super-hawk want to close the fucking border? McCain and Graham are just renewing their commitment to being Obama's favorite assclowns.


Posted by: Fritz at March 08, 2013 01:13 PM (UzPAd)

21 Yesterday he sounded like a cranky old man yelling at his neighbor kids to turn down that blasted rock and roll music.

The fact that the "leadership" supported Rand is hopefully signaling a sea change.

Posted by: BSR at March 08, 2013 01:13 PM (CBCxo)

22 Odds that meggie Mac decides to run for Congress some day?

Odds that she'd win?

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at March 08, 2013 01:13 PM (4df7R)

23
The other day for the first time since last October we had a little spark, a little momentum, dare I say a little hope.

And who comes in to take a swim in the punchbowl? McCain and Graham.

They accomplished absolutely nothing yesterday by rebuking Sen Paul aside from tamping down our spirits and embarrassing themselves.

Posted by: soothsayer at March 08, 2013 01:13 PM (CXoSL)

24 Posted by: Marcus at March 08, 2013 01:07 PM (GGCsk)

I am ready to see the end of both of them. All I can do is send money to their primary opposition. If that fails, then I will have to seriously consider sending money to a Democrat opponent.


I have long felt that we are better off with Liberal Democrats than untrustworthy allies. At least we can then draw a distinction between the parties.






Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 08, 2013 01:13 PM (bb5+k)

25 Lord, when will you relieve us from this overblown pustule?

Posted by: maddogg at March 08, 2013 01:13 PM (OlN4e)

26 When he was having his town halls before the election, I knew it was all bullshit for the votes.

Posted by: madamex at March 08, 2013 01:13 PM (iqWMW)

27 I think for the most part if it's muzzie on muzzie killing. We sit back and watch. They've been doing it for a thousand years and they'll do it for another thousand until they wise up.

Posted by: Bosk at March 08, 2013 01:14 PM (n2K+4)

28 Yeah, JD would have been sooooo much worse./ Thanksfor nothingmy fellow Arizonans.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 08, 2013 01:14 PM (uhftQ)

29 I think they never should have stopped calling it the "War Department."

By calling it the "Department of Defense," it implies that everything they do is defensive. But it's not. It should be -- that's the main "limit" on governmental power. It's supposed to be defensive only.

Of course, you can legitimately pre-empt an attack. Military attacks take time to set up, and a hostile military build-up is a genuine threat, just like a guy sitting in the corner of the room sharpening a machete and mumbling about how good you're going to taste. That's a threat, and you don't have to wait until the knife is upraised, as they say.

But the principle that there are limits on the use of force still applies, to everyone, all the time, even His Eminence the King. The only legitimate force is defensive in nature.

By calling it the War Department, it reminds people what they are there to do -- to fight real wars, in times of extremis, not to rain down drone strikes predicated on motivations like: "I'd really like for a certain political gadfly to happen to end up dead by the end of next Tuesday, and wouldn't a remote-control bomb appearing out of nowhere do just the trick?"

Posted by: Phinn at March 08, 2013 01:14 PM (oFH2D)

30 What's saddest is that McQueeg and Grahamnesty aren't even talking about what Rand Paul is talking about.

Rand Paul is decrying the potential use of drones to assassinate American citizens on American soil, even if not posing an "immediate threat" (which I think is still not a justification), all on the President's own say so.

Rand Paul is not calling for a blanket end to the use of drones overseas against foreign enemies.

Yet, McQueeg and Grahamnesty are jibbering-jabbering like this is what Paul is calling for. Purposefully, to try to confuse the issue in the minds of low-information voters out there. It's stupid, and it's dishonest.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at March 08, 2013 01:14 PM (YYJjz)

31 The question to me is always Are we facing an existential threat? If we are, then efforts should be unhindered by expense or nation-state legality. If they are not, then things must be done on a cost-benefit basis.

Posted by: toby928© presents at March 08, 2013 01:14 PM (QupBk)

32 I think Americans are tired of being at war all the time. And the little wars we seem to get into are hard to justify on the basis of national security. We are truly losing the people that we need the most, motivated and courageous young men and women. I can't see any groundswell of support for supporting either side in Libya or Syria. Most
Americans would like to develop the hell out of our own gas and oil resources and leave the Middle East to fight it out among themselves.

It would be a good start for the Republican party to stop being the party of constant war.

Posted by: notsothoreau at March 08, 2013 01:15 PM (5HBd1)

33

Why couldn't McCain and Graham keep their stupid mouths shut?

Why did they feel this idiotic duty to admonish Rand Paul? What did it prove?

Posted by: soothsayer at March 08, 2013 01:15 PM (wAng0)

34 The West has been in an existential war with islam for 1400-odd years, mohammed started it, and islam perpetuates it. And they will continue to perpetuate it as long as it is an article of faith, explicitly spelled out in the koran, that converting the infidels at the point of a sword is the thing to do. This war waxes and wanes, and not all muslims enthusiastically support it, but the militants are on the ascendant for now.


But I don't think that McCain and Graham grok that.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at March 08, 2013 01:15 PM (673KB)

35 Senility. I'm serious.

Posted by: dogfish at March 08, 2013 01:15 PM (N2yhW)

36 I'd like to pass a law that says if you run for president and lose you have to just shut the hell up for like 10 years.

Posted by: BSR at March 08, 2013 01:15 PM (CBCxo)

37


McCain and his ilk simply won't admit of the potential for an abuse of military power by the rulers (and I use that word deliberately) in this nation. Bush we went along with because we were attacked, and he was only proposing at the time to nail 2 countries.

We saw how those went (and are still going in the case of A-stan)

It is a dire mistake to suggest that a gung-ho attitude toward military force against American citizens is simply a logical and appropriate progression of reasonable means of protecting Americans. I have heard Republicans say "it's OK to kill Americans with drones" because it's cheaper, and we would do it anyway in the case of another 9/11. Ignoring the uniqueness of knowledge in place after the second plane hit the tower that day.

We have no way of knowing how or when someone is going to act out militarily against the US on home soil, and such judgment calls will eventually be made by either jumpy military men or minimally competent political hacks. That cannot happen without devolving into a true tyranny, and the omnipresence and omnipotence of the US military over the civilian population in our own nation would be a frightening tyranny indeed.

A stand has to be made, and now. McCain is at best a willing fool for opposing such a stand.

Posted by: imp at March 08, 2013 01:15 PM (UaxA0)

38 I've never prayed for anyone to get dick cancer til now.

Posted by: Dr Spank at March 08, 2013 01:15 PM (4cRnj)

39 How about the Department of Making Bad Motherfuckers Into Good Motherfuckers? Kinda snappy, doncha think?

Posted by: maddogg at March 08, 2013 01:15 PM (OlN4e)

40 "I think McCain is blowing his stack for two reasons:"

One reason, and one reason only.
Rand Paul and the young guns threatens McCain's accommodation with Obama and the democrats.

McCain has been in Washington, D.C. too long and has gotten too comfortable in his seat. It's time for him to be retired. The world has changed, the United States has been transformed into some new thing, and the electorate has changed.


Posted by: Skandia Recluse at March 08, 2013 01:16 PM (Def8E)

41 Why did they feel this idiotic duty to admonish Rand Paul? What did it prove?
Posted by: soothsayer at March 08, 2013 01:15 PM (wAng0)


To them, it proves their bona fides as political craftsmen. They are completely out of touch with reality.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at March 08, 2013 01:16 PM (4df7R)

42 There is also this:

One FBI investigative report known as a 302 summarizes the bureau’s investigation of Al-Awlaki’s Visa transactions. While heavily redacted, the document indicates a credit transaction for “Atta, Mohammed -- American West Airlines, 08/13/2001, Washington, DC to Las Vegas to Miami," the document says.
The mid-August flight, according to the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, which first investigated the attacks, was one of Atta’s numerous and crucial surveillance flights.
"On August 13, Atta flew a second time across country from Washington to Las Vegas on a Boeing 757 (seated in first class) returning on August 14 to Fort Lauderdale," the 9/11 report reads.
The FBI documents also show a credit card record for a “Suqami, S. ----Southwest Airlines, 07/10/2001, Ft. Lauderdale to Orlando.” Satam al-Suqami was one of the muscle hijackers on American Airlines Flight 11, which slammed into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11.
The third individual, identified in the records is a “W. al-Sheri -- National Airlines, 08/01/2001, San Francisco to Las Vegas to Miami.” This appears to be either Waleed al-Shehri or Wail al-Shehri. The two brothers were also muscle hijackers, according to the 9/11 Commission report.




http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/03/exclu

sive-al-awlaki-booked-pre-11-air-travel-for-

hijackers-fbi-documents-show/#ixzz2MyPpw2yn

Posted by: tasker at March 08, 2013 01:16 PM (r2PLg)

43 36
I'd like to pass a law that says if you run for president and lose you have to just shut the hell up for like 10 years.




Yep. And STFU permanently once you're out of office, Jimmy Carter and Billy Jeff.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 08, 2013 01:17 PM (UOM48)

44 >>>Nation building? No. Forget that. Bomb them, leave the rubble and let them rebuild themselves.

honestly, this is where I think Bush was wrong (and me, and so many others, in following him).

The truth of the matter is that yes, we did a noble thing, but that noble thing came at too high a cost, and NO, if you asked me if pacifying Iraq and sparing iraqis the horrors of civil war was worth 4500 US lives I would have said "No fucking way."

But we got into a deal where it was just 10 this week, 12 the next.... and pretty soon we're way beyond the number any of us would have agreed was an acceptable cost beforehand.

Posted by: ace at March 08, 2013 01:17 PM (LCRYB)

45 Yeah, JD would have been sooooo much worse./ Thanksfor nothingmy fellow Arizonans.

I'm with ya, my fine finned fellow. It disgusts me more with each passing stupid remark out of the guy's piehole.

Posted by: jakeman at March 08, 2013 01:17 PM (96M6e)

46
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." ~ George Patton

McCain might do well to remember that. Let the other guy have skin in the game.

Posted by: Rob B. at March 08, 2013 01:17 PM (q32Ly)

47 McCain sounds like another country club Republican complaining about some caddy audibly passing gass in the lounge.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 08, 2013 01:17 PM (uhftQ)

48

/pic of a giant punchbowl with McCain and Graham taking a swim

TURDS!

Posted by: soothsayer at March 08, 2013 01:17 PM (oxIUw)

49
Dept. of Killing and Mayhem?

Posted by: maddogg at March 08, 2013 01:17 PM (OlN4e)

50 The only hill McCain is defending is Capitol Hill.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 08, 2013 01:17 PM (XkWWK)

51 So, there is a Judd bitch slapp going on??

Posted by: Bubba from County at March 08, 2013 01:17 PM (3VhRQ)

52 Rubble don't make trouble.

Posted by: toby928© presents at March 08, 2013 01:18 PM (QupBk)

53 bomb them, take their sit (nuclear materials) and get out.

In the case of Iraq, I think this was probably the goal, mostly, but it wind up being rubbished when *we couldn't find any nuclear or biological materials.* So we had to keep on looking, and then the major goal of the operation shifted to democracy-building.

Posted by: ace at March 08, 2013 01:18 PM (LCRYB)

54 Remember Clinton's claim that it might spark a World War if we didn't
intervene, as conflagrations in the Balkans had sparked WWI and (not
sure how he figures this) WWII?




That was one of Slick's biggest piles of shit which is really saying something for that white trash liar. Bosnia and Kosovo were the only wars the MFM was shilling for, which automatically makes them non-starters. Add in siding with the moooooslims against Christians and you have an instant clusterfuck which the cocksuckers loved because it was directly contrary to our interests.

Posted by: Captain Hate at March 08, 2013 01:18 PM (uxP0x)

55
I'm for military intervention when it serves American interests. Bombing the shit out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Awesome. Do it.



Nation building? No. Forget that. Bomb them, leave the rubble and
let them rebuild themselves. If they start acting stroppy and
threatening us again, bomb them again, leave the rubble and let them
rebuild themselves. Keep doing this until they STOP THREATENING US.



Simplistic perhaps, but that's my personal take on it.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at March 08, 2013 01:11 PM (4df7R)

I am in general agreement with this methodology, but in the case of Iraq I thought we had an opportunity to flip the entire middle east into something approaching sanity. Paul Bremer badly bungled it, and it appears that it was unrecoverable.

Now I think we are better off starving the middle east for money by developing our own energy resources. Iran we should have nuked. (Thank you Jimmy Carter.)



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 08, 2013 01:18 PM (bb5+k)

56 I think this may have been Miss Lindsey's last stand. Someone will step up to challenge him this time.

Please?

Posted by: BSR at March 08, 2013 01:18 PM (CBCxo)

57

What does Ogre from Revenge of the Nerds say when he sees McCain and Graham?

Posted by: soothsayer at March 08, 2013 01:18 PM (eHNxr)

58 I remember reading a post by Rusty Shackleford over at the jawa report. I am so in that camp...basically "I'm done with the middle east..." I have it bookmarked so I can go back to it.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/213628.php

Posted by: aikido2kyu at March 08, 2013 01:18 PM (64Buy)

59 @ 28 "Yeah, JD would have been sooooo much worse./ Thanksfor nothingmy fellow Arizonans."

Yeah, remember - JD Hayworth is simply unelectable, for some obscure reason that most low-information voters don't even know about, much less care about, so we have to rally behind Juan McQueeg.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at March 08, 2013 01:18 PM (YYJjz)

60 Department of Unrealized Dictator Dreams?

Posted by: maddogg at March 08, 2013 01:18 PM (OlN4e)

61 "But I don't consider myself a super-hawk. Post-9/11, I became a super-hawk. I'm not one any longer."

If we have any actual historians left fifty years from now, they will conclude that the post-9/11 "national security" hysteria essentially just wasted a couple of trillion dollars while accomplishing nothing to augment actual substantive national security.

Iraq and Afghanistan will still be dangerous shitmires fifty years out, because Islam makes countries into shitmires, and the huge US efforts there specifically precluded any attempt to extirpate Islam. Ergo, nothing will change.

Reflect that the 9/11 attacks themselves could have been entirely deterred by the simple and cheap mechanism of tough, tight border controls.

I said on the afternoon of the attacks that they had almost certainly been the work of plainly obvious bad actors, who any competently run country would never have let in to wander around unsupervised for months at a time. I was absolutely one hundred percent correct, as it turned out.

Posted by: torquewrench at March 08, 2013 01:19 PM (gqT4g)

62 People are just doing a 180 on their Idealism -- moving from "we will make any sacrifice to make the world safe for democracy" (a sentiment as noble as it is false) to a new completely-opposite Idealism of pacifism.

I don't see that movement at all. Or, perhaps, a better way to say it would be to say I don't see movement that far except in a few cases.

I don't think anyone on the right-ish side of the aisle says "Complete Non-Intervention!" I do think they're saying, "We can't keep doing this."

Mark Davis talked about it this morning (he believes in very vague limits, at most, on drone strikes vs US Citizens). I offer up some objections to his specific arguments on that blog I don't have, but I think yours is more general, and so needs a more general response.

In General: I think we need a robust military and I don't think we need to shy from protecting our interests. However, I think we need to be much smarter (& yes, cheaper) about how we do it.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at March 08, 2013 01:19 PM (xN73L)

63 I'm a fan of more bombing and more drone strikes with less "boots on the ground."

Posted by: Closing time at March 08, 2013 01:19 PM (/0DF2)

64 One man is in the Senate doing the job he swore to
do. The other dynamic duo is using their superpower of stupidity to
negotiate with an emperor bent on total war while eating Foie gras and
sipping Merlot.


Posted by: Marcus at March 08, 2013 01:12 PM (GGCsk)

"Superpower of stupidity." Yup.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 08, 2013 01:19 PM (bb5+k)

65 To me it was always about not nation building. GWB was right when he said not to, and wrong when he did.

On the other subject, I would be happy to have an army of those robot guys from Iron Man 2 which basically are drones rather than put humans where they aren't needed. I'm sure leftists think thats cheating or something.

Finally, I don't understand getting involved in civil wars of other countries.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 08, 2013 01:19 PM (p/cQy)

66 On a cost benefit basis, we should have taken out Iran rather than Iraq.

Posted by: toby928© presents at March 08, 2013 01:20 PM (QupBk)

67 It is the delusional nation-building and suicidal rules of engagement in Afghanistan which make me a recent pacifist. I would still favor killing jihadis in droves wherever we find them. Not requiring our troops to have tea and try to hug it out with them until they start shooting. If that is the plan, bring them all home.

Posted by: Beagle at March 08, 2013 01:20 PM (oCdqI)

68 My friends,

Posted by: Jones in CO at March 08, 2013 01:20 PM (8sCoq)

69 I'm not really even sure that McCain believes in what he is saying - I think he is just saying it to "reach across the aisle" and suck up to Obama/Democrats like he always has done.

Same with Lindsey Graham. For the life of me I can't figure out why we can't get someone else in his seat here in SC. I can understand having a "moderate" Republican somewhere up North, but not down here.

Posted by: Scott at March 08, 2013 01:20 PM (oMAbH)

70 Next up on McCain's docket: Proposing a Senate resolution in favor of creating a new executive agency known as the Department of Love. It will be a place where erstwhile Republicans Americans can go to be reacquainted with this country's founding principles, as articulated by John McCain.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at March 08, 2013 01:20 PM (4df7R)

71 >>>I don't see that movement at all. Or, perhaps, a better way to say it would be to say I don't see movement that far except in a few cases.

you're right, I conflated two different things.

Posted by: ace at March 08, 2013 01:21 PM (LCRYB)

72 I see the sequester hasn't affected the length of Ace's posts.

Seriously, though, Ace, nice work. The longer I live, the more I'm getting to the "bring the troops home and letthe worlddefend its own damn self" mindset.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at March 08, 2013 01:21 PM (zF6Iw)

73
McCain just tweeted this.




Sad to hear my dear friend
distinguished colleague Sen. Carl Levin will retire - Michigan
America owe him a deep debt of gratitude

Posted by: Time Traveling Black Comedian From 1987 at March 08, 2013 01:21 PM (0DlnM)

74 If Obama would drone strike McCain, I'd be good with it.

Posted by: Dr Spank at March 08, 2013 01:22 PM (4cRnj)

75 We were hawks too. But not nation builders.

Posted by: poljunkie at March 08, 2013 01:22 PM (XuiJf)

76 Honor? Turn away and survive to kill another day.

Posted by: fb at March 08, 2013 01:22 PM (JVEmw)

77 *we couldn't find any nuclear or biological materials.*

Except that's not true. Well, maybe "nuclear or biological" specifically, but we found plenty of chemicals and lots of places still set up to manufacture chemical and biological weapons.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at March 08, 2013 01:22 PM (xN73L)

78
Prediction: If Graham wins reelection, he will switch parties within 2 years.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 08, 2013 01:22 PM (p/cQy)

79 >shifting the Republican position to Ron Paul's empty-headed hippie baby-talk "Love" bullshit, whereby, as a matter of doctrine, we must never engage anywhere because only consensual agreements are permitted in foreign policy. <

Total bullshit and a faulty analysis Ace.

I'm no Paultard and frankly don't agree with his tactics. But he very clearly articulated his position.

Pay attention. There are two parts; global and within the United States.

Paul made this distinction as well. Nobody doubts the Presidents ability to take out a combatant (American citizen) on the battlefield outside the US. Remembering that by definition, AQ is not per se a traditional army, but that's been challenged by liberals representing GITMO defendants and they lost. Also see USC with respect to this issue in which a person engaging in war/joining a foreign army (paraphrasing) is fair game, so to speak.

The separate and distinct issue is about an American citizen inside the US borders. On this matter not only is the Constitution an issue, but its also covering is the USC. The President or the CIA have no authority to execute an American citizen on US soil.

Posted by: Marcus at March 08, 2013 01:22 PM (GGCsk)

80 Syria is a sectarian quagmire and the super hawks seem to want to get on the same side as al Qaeda. Speaking of the Balkans...

Posted by: Beagle at March 08, 2013 01:22 PM (oCdqI)

81 I don't understand how McCain, who has seen the horror of war close up and personal, is so willing to sacrifice our men and women for countries that just don't give a shit. Unless senilety is a factor it makes no sense.

Posted by: Bosk at March 08, 2013 01:22 PM (n2K+4)

82 66:

I think one of the strategies involved was surrounding Iran via Iraq and Afghanistan rather than invading them directly.

Not sure what they hoped to accomplish with that but whatever it was it didnt work

Posted by: BSR at March 08, 2013 01:22 PM (CBCxo)

83 Department of Unrealized Dictator Dreams?

The Department of Killing People and Busting Shit Up.

Posted by: Phinn at March 08, 2013 01:23 PM (oFH2D)

84
Remember when we smart-bombed the shit out of the Chineseembassy in Belgrade? And how the media scurried to report it as an error in targeting?

Why do people argue we can just impeach a President who kills Americans with drones? Why do they think we'd ever get the straight story?

Posted by: spongeworthy at March 08, 2013 01:23 PM (r5w1L)

85 It was McCain that called the rebels in Libya "heroes" and those heroes are responsible for the death of four innocent American Citizens!

McCain is jealous that Rand Paul has revived the conservative movement. He and Graham have to go off to the sunset as BFF.

Posted by: CarolT at March 08, 2013 01:23 PM (z4WKX)

86

They didn't just express their disapproval of Rand Paul.

Those two turds went out of their way to publicly embarrass their colleague.

Posted by: soothsayer at March 08, 2013 01:23 PM (wAng0)

87 Okay, I'm done being time traveling black comedian.

Posted by: Warden at March 08, 2013 01:23 PM (0DlnM)

88 I just got a straight up, "yeah, you're right" from Ace?

Who are you, and what have you done with the head ewok? o_O

(yes, I'm kidding).

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at March 08, 2013 01:23 PM (xN73L)

89 "Actually, limits are for anyone in the real world. "No limits" is a
slogan
fit for a steroid case's workout sweatshirt, but not for American
military policy"



"No limits" is also, apparently, the character count for new blog-posts that Ace uses.

j/k :p

Posted by: Serious Cat at March 08, 2013 01:23 PM (UypUQ)

90 Yeah, remember - JD Hayworth is simply unelectable, for some obscure reason that most low-information voters don't even know about, much less care about, so we have to rally behind Juan McQueeg.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
***

What I heard was that they fearedJD would be around for years and years if he won, while McLame would only be around for one more term and couldn't possibly do that much damage in that time. Then they could replace him with someone better.
Freakin' idiots!!!!

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 08, 2013 01:23 PM (uhftQ)

91 Actually, limits are for anyone in the real world. "No limits" is a slogan fit for a steroid case's workout sweatshirt


Hey I resemble that remark.

Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at March 08, 2013 01:24 PM (JRU+g)

92 If you read Rand's speech--the unofficial transcripts are at his website---he doesn't get into any of the serious points about Al-Aulaqi's activities.

Hopefully he can come out and say more clearly that he believes that Al-Aulaqi was a legitimate target.

Many on the Left--and some of the Libertarians do not believe that--and I am not sure Rand Paul disabused them of that notion.

It would be helpful if he did that.



Posted by: tasker at March 08, 2013 01:24 PM (r2PLg)

93 Limits are for cowards and for losers.

That's what I told daddy when I maxed out the American Express card

Posted by: Meghan McCain at March 08, 2013 01:24 PM (mCvL4)

94

You have to be a Grade A prime anal aperture to tarnish your own brand in return for a smidgeon of self-satisfaction.


Posted by: soothsayer at March 08, 2013 01:24 PM (QVBzT)

95 Good thoughts, Ace.

I think my position has evolved since 9/11. Maybe pretty initially hawkish, but at the same time wanted to do it with less money, not spend a billion dollars on an embassy in an islamist country. Screw that.

I think as technology has evolved -- remember if Bill Clinton had a drone in the late 90's Bin Laden would have been dead.

Back to Rand Paul, I think I had no great love of the Patriot Act at the time, and want no part of further erosion of liberties. So he struck a chord. Right man, right place, right time to make a stand, and he did it well, on this issue.

McCain needs a pasture and a bucket of stfu.

Posted by: Regular Moron at March 08, 2013 01:24 PM (feFL6)

96 56 I think this may have been Miss Lindsey's last stand. Someone will step up to challenge him this time. Please?
Posted by: BSR at March 08, 2013 01:18 PM (CBCxo)

Doesn't Wynona (Puffier Face) Judd live in South Carolina?

Posted by: madamex at March 08, 2013 01:25 PM (iqWMW)

97 honestly, this is where I think Bush was wrong (and me, and so many others, in following him).

---

I'll disagree with you a little on this. I think Bush was actually more right.

Afghanistan - bomb it and be done. Bush never really got into the nation building there.

Iraq - There were pieces to work with, but knowing you can't attack everyone, try to set up a regime that would be somewhat of a buffer to Iran. I think he underestimated the insurgency, and by the time he fixed it, his presidency was already waning. Not just because of Iraq, also Katrina, but they both converged on competency.

In short, Iraq was the central focus. Afghan was necessary, but you can always contain Afghan, just don't get bogged down inside it.

Regardless, we were always going to shift as we got further and further from 9/11. The best approach is to give ground on some things as public opinion shifts while keeping what is most important.

And this is where you are right. Is it really that important to hold the position that McCain is trying to hold. Of course not.

Posted by: SH at March 08, 2013 01:25 PM (gmeXX)

98 Rand Paul accomplished more with that fillibuster than the GOP leadership has in the last 5 years.

Meanwhile, McCain trashes him while praising his new BFF Carl Levin who we all "OWE" a "DEBT OF GRATITUDE."

I wish I could travel back in time, find a young, healthy John McCain and break his fucking arms before the Vietnames commies got their chance.

Posted by: Warden at March 08, 2013 01:25 PM (0DlnM)

99 remember if Bill Clinton had a drone in the late 90's Bin Laden would have been dead.

No, I don't think so. No reflection on the rest of your comment but a) drones existed in the 90s (they were rare, though) and b) Bill Clinton turned down Bin Laden on a silver platter at least once, and I think twice.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at March 08, 2013 01:26 PM (xN73L)

100
Democracy Building.

Yeah, we've got to make the world safe for multinational corporations to put their factories in other countries, right?

Posted by: wheatie at March 08, 2013 01:26 PM (Jjnh4)

101

McCain is turning into Arlen Specter.

Posted by: soothsayer at March 08, 2013 01:26 PM (wAng0)

102
Yet, McQueeg and Grahamnesty are
jibbering-jabbering like this is what Paul is calling for. Purposefully,
to try to confuse the issue in the minds of low-information voters out
there. It's stupid, and it's dishonest.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at March 08, 2013 01:14 PM (YYJjz)

Miss Lindsey was too busy eating some tossed salad at the White House while McCain was showing off his culinary skills at the White House by peeling some potatoes, so they never heard what Senator Paul actually said.

Posted by: Ashley Judd's Puffy Scamper, formerly MrCaniac at March 08, 2013 01:27 PM (Zd/NW)

103 We need to establish a new category for hawkishness.

Ace - Hawk
McCain - Super Hawk
Jwest - Ultra Super Hawk

What's the difference? In a particular circumstance, Ace woud appease, McCain would put boots on the ground and that would leave me who would rain Dresdenesque death down on the populus.

This is born from a philosphy that the Hawks and Super Hawks use concerning who is to blame for bad actions that make military intervention an option. Most in the first two categories believe the common people living in the country in question are blameless innocents, with only the evil leadership making trouble.

With this point of view, nothing will ever change as one bad actor is replaced by another, along with general public hating the U.S. as it knocks off their oppressive leaders. By holding the civilians accountable for the actions of their government, you establish a reason for mothers to stand in front of tanks to stop reckless actions that could bring the wrath of the U.S. down on them.

Germany and Japan should stand as examples of what good friends you can make by incinerating some cities.

Also, as with healthcare, taking the Ultra Hawk position is far cheaper than the other methods. We have invested trillions in equipment and training to kill people effeciently and it's a shame not to use that ability to the fullest.

Posted by: jwest at March 08, 2013 01:27 PM (u2a4R)

104 Yeah, we've got to make the world safe for multinational corporations to put their factories in other countries, right?

There are worse ideas (purely in theory). When people can get rich following peaceful pursuits, they're a little less likely to follow violent courses of action.

Of course when "in theory" meets "the real world," it's seldom the theory that wins.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at March 08, 2013 01:28 PM (xN73L)

105 @73
Carl Levin is a loyal democrat party apparatchik. LOYAL party member. Nothing more. Party loyalty first, foremost, always, and only.

...and that's what's wrong with the modern democrat party, since 1972, since the Reagan (anti-communist) Democrats were driven out of the party.

Posted by: Skandia Recluse at March 08, 2013 01:28 PM (Def8E)

106 My son, a youngArmy infantryman as I once was,recently deployed to Afghanistan. Let me just say that my interest in foreign affairs and current events on the international scene has jumped appreciably in the last few months, particularly where Afghanistan is concerned. I know more about that fucking barbaric shithole than (evidently) some members of the press.

To the point, I don't want my boy hurt or killed because the President is incompetent, the Secretary of Defense is way, way out of his league, or that John McCain has ideas about warfightingand American projection of powercompletely at odds with geopolitical realities. McCain is, as always, politically tone-deaf. He's also still under the assumption that we have nothing to fear from a president named Obama. He is, in short, a wrongheaded, bullheadedfool. Let the Democrats be fools. The GOP can't afford them. We can't afford them.

Posted by: troyriser at March 08, 2013 01:28 PM (vtiE6)

107 During the 2008 primary, I hoped that someone would ask McCain exactly how did he manage to get himself shot down. I figured he'd probably have a stroke.

Posted by: TC at March 08, 2013 01:28 PM (vYB+W)

108 As Governor Perry remarked, relating, I think, the feelings of a Marine: "They say America's at war, but America's not at war. America's military is at war. America's at a shopping mall."


What's worse than having TFG as president is knowing exactly who should be president right now.

Damn.

Posted by: eleven at March 08, 2013 01:29 PM (fsLdt)

109 Far from being a pacifist, I'm more of a limited engagement proponent myself. The problem with that is that it requires having a goal -- something that, when reached, means, "We've been victorious," -- and then withdrawing when the goal has been completed. we can't keep moving the goalposts mid-goal and expect our kickers to get it through the uprights. If our military accomplishes the goal we've set for them then that should be the end of it. If another goal presents itself as an attainable extension of the original plan, then do it. But keep it clear, and for God's sake, let our warriors actually make war. Stop castrating them in every single way except the literal. Let them shoot people who deserve to be shot.

I know that a lot of people would like to close up some of our bases around the world, but that's one thing I DON'T agree with. I think, personally, that it's important to have outposts all over the globe, for purposes of quick response to specific threats, or as simple reminders of our military presence. "Do not fuck with us, and we won't fuck with you."

Of course, YMMV.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at March 08, 2013 01:29 PM (4df7R)

110 12 I'm for military intervention when it serves American interests. Bombing the shit out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Awesome. Do it.

Nation building? No. Forget that. Bomb them, leave the rubble and let them rebuild themselves. If they start acting stroppy and threatening us again, bomb them again, leave the rubble and let them rebuild themselves. Keep doing this until they STOP THREATENING US.

Simplistic perhaps, but that's my personal take on it.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at March 08, 2013 01:11 PM (4df7R)


Thanks, MWR. That's pretty much what I was going to say. You saved me the trouble.

After 9/11, I was with the "Nuke Mecca" crowd. Shortly thereafter I became persuaded that W's efforts to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan were noble and worth supporting.

Perhaps those efforts could have succeeded, given enough time and a consistent policy. The problem is, the public grows weary of open-ended occupations, and our democratic system makes consistent policy over time all but impossible.

There's also the little matter that we simply can't afford this kind of thing anymore. We're broke.

So now I've come full circle, back to "nuke 'em till they glow" if it becomes necessary.

Posted by: rickl at March 08, 2013 01:29 PM (zoehZ)

111 I think McCain is pissed that Paul was stealing the spotlight from him and Graham and their dinner with the president, because nothing that he and Graham has said on the filibuster has made any sense, or less sense than usual.

Posted by: Dr Spank at March 08, 2013 01:29 PM (4cRnj)

112
In the case of Iraq, I think this was probably
the goal, mostly, but it wind up being rubbished when *we couldn't find
any nuclear or biological materials.* So we had to keep on looking, and
then the major goal of the operation shifted to democracy-building.





Posted by: ace at March 08, 2013 01:18 PM (LCRYB)

I think there is more to it. Had Bush and Bremer not announced the disbanding of the entire Iraqi Military, and if they had not announced that all people who had been members of the Baath party (Everyone who had any competence at all.) would no longer be permitted to work for any branch of the government, then we would not have stirred up the hornets nest that was the insurgency.

Doing so made the strategy of beat them up and leave untenable. Because we provoked a massive insurgent war with our stupid policies and announcements, we were left with the choice of appearing to have been thrown out by insurgent victors, or stay and fight through the long slog necessary to defeat them.

A policy blunder is the direct cause of a massively expensive subsequent occupation, which was politically necessary because the alternative was so politically bad. (Leaving Iraq with our tails tucked between our legs.)


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 08, 2013 01:29 PM (bb5+k)

113 A guy who praises Carl Levin is not on my fucking side, that's for sure. No shit, he actually sent this out. Read it again and try to process how fucked up the GOP is.





"Sad to hear my dear friend
distinguished colleague Sen. Carl Levin will retire - Michigan
America owe him a deep debt of gratitude"

Posted by: Warden at March 08, 2013 01:29 PM (0DlnM)

114 McCain is turning into Arlen Specter.





Posted by: soothsayer at March 08, 2013 01:26 PM (wAng0)


Not enough.

/denounce

Posted by: Tami at March 08, 2013 01:30 PM (X6akg)

115 I went to McCain's senate websites and submitted a comment that he should not belittle the efforts of Rand Paul and that the citizens of the United States are entitled to know the answer to his question, could we be subject to a drone strike if Obama thinks we are an enemy.

I requested an answer.

Why doesn't everyone do the same to the Bobsey twins?

Posted by: CarolT at March 08, 2013 01:30 PM (z4WKX)

116 Okay, now my meeting has finally ended(ish).

I'm escaping to Chick-fil-A.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at March 08, 2013 01:30 PM (xN73L)

117 We should give McCain some credit. Younger generations of Americans have not had an opportunity to see a silly old coot in action like this since Gabby Hayes died.

Posted by: SurferDoc at March 08, 2013 01:30 PM (6H6FZ)

118 Bill Clinton turned down Bin Laden on a silver platter at least once, and I think twice.

Because he was relying on word of mouth from a local as to whether to take the shot or not, in one of the instances. If he could have zoomed in on an image of Bin Laden in real time I think the odds of him pulling the trigger would have increased exponentially.

But the point was, that I never finished is now we have the technology to make Al Q #1 and Al Q #2 the most dangerous and short-lived job positions on the planet.

Posted by: Regular Moron at March 08, 2013 01:30 PM (feFL6)

119 I think you're complicating McCain's reaction to Paul. It's nothing more than bruised ego. While McCain was wining and dining with a tyrant, Paul was where the voters sent him to be, on the senate floor defending the Constitution. He's upsetting Graham's and McCain's carefully laid plans for their legacies. Rand made them look really bad and they know it.

Posted by: Soona at March 08, 2013 01:31 PM (tuJzL)

120 (Rather like how the crossbow was reviled as a coward's weapon because it killed knights so easily and didn't put the archer himself at great risk.)


If you find yourself in a fair fight, you fucked up. And yes, Murphy was a grunt.

Posted by: rickb223 at March 08, 2013 01:31 PM (GFM2b)

121 Good post Ace.

Posted by: LEAD VOCALS at March 08, 2013 01:31 PM (zrpm5)

122 If were President, my military policy would be simple: The US desires fair trade with all other countries. If we don't like what you're doing in your country (genocide, oppression, etc..), we won't trade with you. The way you run your country is your business. How we to treat with you is ours. Do as you will.

BUT....

If you attack us or our citizens, soldiers or embassies, we will descend upon you like the wrath of God. My doctrine would not be of proportional response, but exponential response. Attack our soldiers? We'll respond by bombing your bases. Attack our base, we'll sink as many of your ships as we want. Mount a major attack on us and we will utterly decimate your entire armed forces, leaving you naked before your enemies for all time. Use a nuke and we will exterminate you. Period.

Leave us alone and we'll leave you alone, but if you call the tune, we'll make sure you pay the piper, and none of this Powell doctrine bullshit either. I will spend not one dime, not one life, to rebuild. That's on you. Our military exists to kill people and break things in our national interest. You really don't want to test us on this, because we're awfully good it it.

I'd extend a limited version of this protection to Israel, but that's it.

Posted by: Weirddave at March 08, 2013 01:31 PM (aH+zP)

123
Not enough.

Soon though.

Posted by: soothsayer at March 08, 2013 01:31 PM (QVBzT)

124 >>>Iraq - There were pieces to work with, but knowing you can't attack everyone, try to set up a regime that would be somewhat of a buffer to Iran

well that's not really working.

My thought is this: We went into Iraq so we wouldn't have to go into Iran. Theory is, we do Iraq, Iran gets afraid, backs down, the people in iran demand freedom, Iran becomes peaceful and democratic without having to invade it.

Now, that almost happened (but the Green Revolution was put down, and Obama helped put it down) but it didn't actually come to pass.

So whereas, I think, it was supposed to be 2 for the price of 1, in fact we only got 1, and we got the less important 1.


Posted by: ace at March 08, 2013 01:32 PM (LCRYB)

125 I thought Romney should have taken the position in the election that he would pull us out of Afghanistan. One I dont' think the public really cared that we were there. Two, Obama already said we would withdraw, so let's get it done with. Three, while I can agree with the idea of listening to generals, I hate this idea that we will only do what they say and on their time table. Our military is led by civilians, and sometime that point needs to be made.

Posted by: SH at March 08, 2013 01:32 PM (gmeXX)

126 When you get down to it, a few Morons yesterday had the real reason right;

McCain is an attention whore just like his offspring. He was supposed to have mobs of reporters fawning over him as he was coming out of the romantic candlelight dinner with TFG

Instead, the young punk with the messy hair was getting all the attention

Posted by: kbdabear at March 08, 2013 01:32 PM (mCvL4)

127 Kennedy's "bear any burden" rhetoric all stemmed from Munich. He was playing Churchill.

Posted by: Jeanne of the North at March 08, 2013 01:32 PM (GdalM)

128 Actually, limits are for anyone in the real world. "No limits" is a slogan fit for a steroid case's workout sweatshirt, but not for American military policy.

I recall Trayvon's twitter handle being "No Limit N*gga". That didn't work out too well in the end.

Posted by: Heralder at March 08, 2013 01:32 PM (+xmn4)

129 Sad to hear my dear friend distinguished colleague Sen. Carl Levin will retire - Michigan America owe him a deep debt of gratitude

Oh, bullshit. How long had Levin been in Congress - since 1979? You can't pry these tax-fatted, corpulent coprophagicclowns out with a crowbar. That's nine-tenths of what's wrong with this damned country right there.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at March 08, 2013 01:32 PM (zF6Iw)

130

btw, Tami, you are now a Hate Group

Posted by: soothsayer at March 08, 2013 01:32 PM (0w+w3)

131


McCain's knee-jerk reaction showed he wasn't even listening to Rand (imo).

One of Rand's concerns was how much power ended up in the hands of the POTUS. This one, and those to follow. And, how it rubbed against the Constitution.

McCain turned this into a military circus act tantrum.

And, yea, folks are tired of war. Partly because so many of our allies just laid down their weapons, cut back to beef up socialization, (or came up with creative ways out - like becoming "peacekeepers"), and we are taking more and more of the burden.

Media has a lot to do with it as well. We see everything in real time, now. It's sickening and heartbreaking -- like war is, but many never made the connection.

And, the world is shrinking. We see just how large our enemy is.

Posted by: tgibeach at March 08, 2013 01:32 PM (XYSwB)

132
It would be a good start for the Republican party to stop being the party of constant war.

Huh? Who got us involved in Syria and Libya?

Here's a hint: it wasn't Republicans.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, who did not vote for this shit at March 08, 2013 01:32 PM (+z4pE)

133 I have yet to see ONE person on our side support McCain on this RAnd Paul debate. I think McCain has finally done it..his career as a politician that people listen to is officially over.

Posted by: LEAD VOCALS at March 08, 2013 01:32 PM (zrpm5)

134 Lindsey Graham is a super-hawk as long as the JAG corps is making all the decisions regarding strategy and rules of engagement.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at March 08, 2013 01:33 PM (nZvGM)

135 McCain got caught with his hands in his Depends. That's why he blew his stack.

He's eating dinner with the President as if he ubiquitously represents Republicans. Then, if someone doesn't agree with him they're extremists or something. Right. As he offers not intellectual argument and calls people names.

Paul changed the conversation and got many people to rally on the issue- essentially building opposition (finally) to the president. It;s something most of us can finally agree on as the correct move.

McCain and Graham want to cut deals with Obama on several issues- which is what they were discussing. Now the likelihood of that is much more remote.

So, conclusively they are pouting .

Posted by: Marcus at March 08, 2013 01:33 PM (GGCsk)

136
Posted by: soothsayer

You also are now designated as a Hate Group.

Posted by: soothsayer at March 08, 2013 01:34 PM (wAng0)

137 >>>If you find yourself in a fair fight, you fucked up.

true dat.

Posted by: ace at March 08, 2013 01:34 PM (LCRYB)

138 They need to stop?

They need to drop dead.

Posted by: Attila at March 08, 2013 01:34 PM (Cs2tJ)

139 btw, Tami, you are now a Hate Group





Posted by: soothsayer at March 08, 2013 01:32 PM (0w+w3)

I hear a buzz over the house....


Posted by: Tami at March 08, 2013 01:34 PM (X6akg)

140 Agreed thoroughly. I would add one exception to the "there have to be limits" idea, though: That applies only when our own national survival isn't on the line.

In a case like World War II or the Cold War, you do whatever needs to be done to defend the United States -- you bear all burdens. As Reagan made clear. You negotiate, you sacrifice -- you never surrender in any form.

And my guess is Ace agrees and is talking about intervention in cases like those he mentioned, in Syria and Libya. Not American national survival and direct threats to liberty and way of life.

Posted by: Benson at March 08, 2013 01:35 PM (qzcNU)

141 We were just talking about McCain. He looks very disconnected to normal people. Everyone in the country followed Rand's filibuster. Rand made everyone think, including the lib/left/dem crowd. And, he was himself up there. Yeah, he's Ron's son but that doesn't mean that he can't think for himself and have his own beliefs. If you listen to him you see that he probably doesn't agree with a lot of the stuff his dad has said but he has enough class not to say this in public.

The discussion started with a republican saying that he hated to admit it but he's glad McCain lost because "God knows how much money and people he'd have spent on war" and he quoted the 100 years comment. More than anything else, that comment hurt him with republican voters. Probably on some level, Romney's grasp of foreign policy hurt him too, with his own party. Cause the American people are tired of war and tired of spending money. They're getting tired of "foreign aid" too, that's the next thing they want to go.

When you promise a hundred years of war that colors everything you say from that day forward. And then when you call a guy that everyone thought did the right thing a wacko, people then start looking at you and wondering if you are ok.

The best thing the dinner goers can do for the republican party is to keep quiet and let the young guns take leadership. But they won't. They can't stand relinquishing control. They'd rather destroy the party than back down.

We going to see if reince is up to the task.

Posted by: Thanksgiving turkey at March 08, 2013 01:35 PM (/b8+5)

142
No, I don't think so. No reflection on the rest
of your comment but a) drones existed in the 90s (they were rare,
though) and b) Bill Clinton turned down Bin Laden on a silver platter at
least once, and I think twice.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at March 08, 2013 01:26 PM (xN73L)

IIRC, the had him lined up to have "an unfortunate gardening accident" several times, but Billy Jeff put the kibosh on it because he didn't know how to deal with Bin Laden.

It would be simple what we did. Put him on a jet with enough fuel to get half way across the Pacific, have the pilots and guards parachute out, but forget to include a parachute for UBL. At that point, the guards could tell him he should just jump because Allah will just catch him and carry him to heaven.

Posted by: Ashley Judd's Puffy Scamper, formerly MrCaniac at March 08, 2013 01:35 PM (Zd/NW)

143 A senator's got to know his limitations ...

Posted by: Harry Callahan at March 08, 2013 01:35 PM (mCvL4)

144

a h8 drone?

we have them now?

Posted by: soothsayer at March 08, 2013 01:36 PM (vuIm8)

145 44 >>>Nation building? No. Forget that. Bomb them, leave the rubble and let them rebuild themselves. honestly, this is where I think Bush was wrong (and me, and so many others, in following him). The truth of the matter is that yes, we did a noble thing, but that noble thing came at too high a cost, and NO, if you asked me if pacifying Iraq and sparing iraqis the horrors of civil war was worth 4500 US lives I would have said "No fucking way." But we got into a deal where it was just 10 this week, 12 the next.... and pretty soon we're way beyond the number any of us would have agreed was an acceptable cost beforehand.

-------

I make no excuse, I was all for Iraq and Afghanistan, out of a sense of sheer revenge. They were muslims, didn't matter. No, I didn't try to sign up for the army, I was that guy at the shopping mall, the armchair general. I severely and painfully regret that stance, all of those dead Americans were not and could never be worth the life of one stinking jihadi or the creation of anew Middle East hellhole.I believed the bullshit aboutt them throwing flowers at us instead of roadside bombs.

That doesn't mean that I'm a Code Pinko, but the Bush/McCain doctrine is not viable now if it ever was.

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at March 08, 2013 01:36 PM (YmPwQ)

146 One of Rand's concerns was how much power ended up in the hands of the POTUS. This one, and those to follow. And, how it rubbed against the Constitution. McCain turned this into a military circus act tantrum.

It's quite clear neither McLame nor Miss Lindsey listened to a word Rand or his fellow Senators said during that whole 13 hour fillibuster.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at March 08, 2013 01:36 PM (4df7R)

147 OK, because its fun...I will speculate.

What if the prezzy dinner was a discussion about war with Iran and thus McCain et al are all juiced up for rally round the flag / know there will be terror repercussions?

Fun over with, I think the Randian point is to be a bit more careful with the Presidential authority to simply choose Americans off a list, have an executive off-the-record discussion about it, and then whack them with a drone.

That I agree about.

Al-Awaki had evidence against him. He's not some good ol boy from Alabama who got drunk once and did a rebel yell. His son, by the way, died as collateral damage. Who knew hanging around with AQ elements in Yemen could be dangerous.

Posted by: sexypig at March 08, 2013 01:36 PM (dZQh7)

148 This is the very reason McCain would have made a terrible president.

Posted by: lions at March 08, 2013 01:36 PM (EMFgH)

149

what does a h8 drone do, drop glitter bombs?

Posted by: soothsayer at March 08, 2013 01:36 PM (wAng0)

150 re: our enemies? blow their shit up and leave 'em to sort things out. why we gotta democratize everybody?

Posted by: Buddha at March 08, 2013 01:37 PM (8NlUk)

151 Have we reached a consensus that McCain and Graham attacked Paul because he stole their retarded thunder? If so that's a 1st here.

Posted by: Dr Spank at March 08, 2013 01:37 PM (4cRnj)

152 My thought is this: We went into Iraq so we wouldn't have to go into Iran.

It was strategic positioning for many reasons.

Some sort of "democracy" at that pinpoint on a map.

Posted by: tgibeach at March 08, 2013 01:37 PM (XYSwB)

153 well that's not really working

---

No, but is Bush totally to blame for that. Obama was then in charge.

There are a lot of variables, so it is hard to make clear pronouncements. But I do think Bush had it right. But he also made mistakes. I mentioned underestimating the insurgency. The other was relying too much on weapons of mass destruction as the rationale for going in there and then not defending the invastion properly afterwards. Also, the limited nation building he attempted. This was probably caused by not capturing bin laden immediately.

History will tell. I'm not down on Bush's actions. But I agree with your larger post.

Posted by: SH at March 08, 2013 01:37 PM (gmeXX)

154 You also are now designated as a Hate Group.
Posted by: soothsayer at March 08, 2013 01:34 PM (wAng0)



Ooh! Ooh! May I join, too?

Also, soothsayer, since when has your hash been "wAng0?" Because that is singularly awesome.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at March 08, 2013 01:37 PM (4df7R)

155 104 Yeah, we've got to make the world safe for multinational corporations to put their factories in other countries, right?

There are worse ideas (purely in theory). When people can get rich following peaceful pursuits, they're a little less likely to follow violent courses of action.
Of course when "in theory" meets "the real world," it's seldom the theory that wins.

----------

Yep.
Here's a thought...let's apply that 'theory' here at home.

It would be nice to have those factories here, in our own country, creating jobs.
With the highest Corporate Tax Rate in the world...and one of the highest Minimum Wage rates...that's not going to happen.

Unless, we stop making the world such a safe place for putting those factories elsewhere.

Posted by: wheatie at March 08, 2013 01:38 PM (Jjnh4)

156 I think you are giving McCain too much credit.

Paul is now *the* up and coming Republican. And he isn't going to bow and scrape before Obama like McCain did.

This is about honor, but McCain loses honor if challenging President Precedent is a successful strategy, irrespective of which issue it is on.

Posted by: 18-1 at March 08, 2013 01:38 PM (zPVBH)

157 McLame's ego rivals obama's.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 08, 2013 01:38 PM (uhftQ)

158 Judd is running in KY. Idiot.

Posted by: NCKate at March 08, 2013 01:38 PM (n7zrG)

159 http://www.youtube.com/watch ?v=eFx-zoJOJjw

King Baraka buys a pack of smokes.

Posted by: aMessNBC at March 08, 2013 01:39 PM (bGlsD)

160
my hashes are exotic...

just like my underwear...

that I rarely wear

Posted by: soothsayer at March 08, 2013 01:39 PM (oxIUw)

161 This is jolly good news, because ultimately this line of weak, populist thinking will morph into myway of thinking. Peace in our time, chaps. Peace in our time.

Posted by: Neville Chamberlain at March 08, 2013 01:39 PM (pmsMR)

162 Actually, I think many people who feel sorry for Iraq should consider:

Saddam was not a nice guy.

Saddam had used and hidden WMDs. (For example, without his son-in-law defecting, the UN would never have known about their weaponized anthrax program.)

The Iraq war saw so much human suffering, but I suspect that we simply caused the Sunni-Shia civil war that would have happened anyways once Saddam died. See Libya, see Syria. Especially see Syria.

Americans died in Iraq, but we did do some good there both for Iraq and for America.

Posted by: sexypig at March 08, 2013 01:39 PM (dZQh7)

163 Everyone in the country followed Rand's filibuster.

Eh. No, only a very very small subset of the American people followed it. More than have ever watched Lena Dunham's show, but certainly fewer than were watching Wednesday's Law ampersand Order: SVU rerun instead.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at March 08, 2013 01:40 PM (/kI1Q)

164 >My thought is this: We went into Iraq so we wouldn't have to go into Iran.<

Backed by nothing but speculation. Specifically, Iran was tangential to the overall strategy. It was not a primary objective.

In fact, the ending of various regimes and transition to democratic/parliamentary governments was indeed one objective and Iran was in that orbit. But you forget the added complexity of tribal/religious affiliations and other factors.

Actually, the regional dissolution of certain governments can be seen as one byproduct (Syria, Libya, Egyptetc.). It's just that Obama has fumbled the hand-off and allowed those states to descend into anarchistic, dangerous, quasi-theocracies.

Posted by: Marcus at March 08, 2013 01:40 PM (GGCsk)

165 shit Superhawk is gonna die on that hill.

Posted by: vote Lord Humungus 2016 at March 08, 2013 01:40 PM (HEa5q)

166 It just occurred to me that Rand Paul ACTUALLY reached across the aisle, but not to the Democrat politicians--he reached over to leftists and moderate voters.

When McCain reaches across the aisle, he conspires with the left wing power structure to undermine and backstab conservatives.

But Paul didn't do that--he did something usefull and effective, found a principle both the left and right could agree on and used it as wedge issue against the Democrats.

That's why McCain threw a fit. Paul actually accomplished something, while McCain's "moderate" stance is just ego, posturing and settling accounts.


Posted by: Warden at March 08, 2013 01:40 PM (0DlnM)

167 Judd is running in KY. Idiot.
Posted by: NCKate at March 08, 2013 01:38 PM (n7zrG)


Running in KY? That is stupid. She'll slip and slide all over the place and faceplant in a cowpie.
Lucky for her her puffy face will cushion her fall.

(I keed! Me and my damn puns)

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at March 08, 2013 01:40 PM (4df7R)

168 I have yet to see ONE person on our side support McCain on this RAnd Paul debate. I think McCain has finally done it..his career as a politician that people listen to is officially over.
Posted by: LEAD VOCALS at March 08, 2013 01:32 PM (zrpm5)


----------------------------------------------


The media will still listen to McCain, but instead of just taking his word as that of the whole repub party, they'll seek out Rand and ask him if he agrees (or not).

The formal split in the repub party commenced with Rand's fillibuster.

Posted by: Soona at March 08, 2013 01:40 PM (tuJzL)

169
Iraq - There were pieces to work with, but
knowing you can't attack everyone, try to set up a regime that would be
somewhat of a buffer to Iran. I think he underestimated the insurgency,
and by the time he fixed it, his presidency was already waning.

Posted by: SH at March 08, 2013 01:25 PM (gmeXX)

Bush and Bremer CAUSED the insurgency. I distinctly remember everything was quiet in Iraq till they made that stupid announcement. (All Iraqi Soldiers are fired, all members of the Baath party are blacklisted.)
It was like two days latter, attacks and explosions commenced and never let up.

The announcement affected the Sunnis disproportionately, and they are the ones who had been running the country and knew where all the weapons were. All we did is make them understand that their future was shit as long as the United States retained control of their country.

It was the most idiotic and easily predictable tactical blunder of which I could have conceived. We did not even try that stupid shit on the Germans after World War II. We used the existing power structure.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 08, 2013 01:41 PM (bb5+k)

170 116
Okay, now my meeting has finally ended(ish).



I'm escaping to Chick-fil-A.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at March 08, 2013 01:30 PM (xN73L)

H8TER!!!!!!!!
(btw, can you bring me a couple of sacks of sandwiches and waffle fries and 30 peach shakes?)

Posted by: Meggie McCain at March 08, 2013 01:41 PM (Zd/NW)

171
Well, this is a bit better than AllahPundit's hour to hour decisions on how Iraq should be run based on the latest polling.

So much wrong here - all of it very common, very much a product of the media marinade in which almost all seem to sit, and cannot get beyond - but bottom line is only a fool or someone not paying attention would put their butt on the line for this country any more. I sure would never consider inconvenience, much less hazard, again. Not just because it's a fundamentally unserious country (see national govt., personnel, etc.). But because the smart people are also mostly out to lunch, and unserious.

Cannot "debate" meaninless vapid jargon like "hawk" and "dove", or "nation-building". So will just dump a few stark propositions/assertions/observations:

* McCain isn't very bright (just said that again here yesterday). His positions, or articulation of them, cannot be treated as a serious version of any serious point of view.
* Kosovo was a classic fuck-up by the clueless Dems - strangers to foreign policy common sense since Vietnam - because it was a missed opportunity to drag Europe away from the children's tableand shame them into SOME adult responsibility. The specific criticism of McCain in this case is completely wrong. The air-war only approach was idiotic, irresponsible, and characteristic of the clueless Beltway Dems - an attempt to "do something" without political risk. "Boots on the ground" in the Kosovo case would have resulted in far lower civilian casualties among both Serbs and Kosovars. Ground action is, in most cases, the key element of any military operation. To this day, I have yet to hear a convincing explanation as to what ACTUALLY happened in that dust-up: the Serbs folded at Russian direction, and when the air war was stalled and stumbling (Chinese embassy hit, lots of civilian casualties in Serbia), and Clinton was desperate.

Recall that in early 1991, during the latter stages of the air campaign in Kuwait/Iraq, we had the usual dopes in the Beltway recommending "hey, let's just have an air war! it's easy! it saves lives!". Complete idiocy, of course, but it was echoed by many otherwise non-idiots of my acquaintance. Against a tiny isolated island regime, perhaps pounding from the air followed by humanitarian air drops would makes sense. In Kuwait in 1991, in Kosovo in 1996 (though again the whole thing was dubious), and in Iraq in 2003, air-only made no sense at all.

* Light footprint and limited goals always made sense in A-stan. For obvious substantive reasons - nothing to do with "hawks" or "doves". Commitment to convincing, intimidating total victory always made sense in Iraq. For obvious substantive reasons - nothing to do with "hawks" or "doves". A-stan strategy's hard to explain, but not impossible. In Iraq we prevailed virtually the moment we DECIDED to - not very complicated. The feckless inaction and taffy-yanking in 05-06 was indefensible - and widely seen as such by those there on the ground at the time. The Iraqis were just waiting for us to act intelligently and show some will, when we did - presto - the "insurgency" essentially collapsed. And that's WITHOUT what was most needed - an extremely nasty punishment campaign against Iran for their intervention, including JDAMs on Pasdaran facilities (easily, even amusingly, deniable) in western Iran, and aggressive snatch/kill ops against Pasdaran personnel.

Again - "hawk" and "dove" had nothing to do with anything.

* "Nation-building". The reminder that "conservative" types can be just as lazy and dopey as "liberal" types is to see "nation building" trotted out. You consolidate and exploit success, you go after your objectives in various ways. Helping set up a security apparatus and some rule of law in an occupied country formerly run by a dangerous enemy is just common sense to achieve your objectives beyond the primary goal, which is destruction of your enemy. We didn't go into Japan or Germany to "nation build," and we didn't go into Iraq to nation-build, but not leaving the play in disarray is just common sense. The implied concept of "drive-by regime change" apparently embraced by all those who snark about "nation-building" is just as idiotic as bombing-only campaigns in most military situations.

Sorry for the verbosity. But I give up. The whole terms of debate are so screwed up that a massive discussion is required just to start off with a meaningful framework. (sort of like discussing ANY public policy issue with most misinformed "educated" Americans today)

But in conclusion - what the hell does the bizarre WH bumbling over non-existent authority to strike people in the US without warning have to do with foreign policy? Answer: nothing.


Posted by: non-purist at March 08, 2013 01:41 PM (afQnV)

172 But he also made mistakes. I mentioned underestimating the insurgency.
***
The insurgency was created by the "anti-war" movement.

In the aftermath of the invasion the corrupt Muslim world was suddenly willing to cooperate with the US, because they feared they were next.

Obama's ilk showed that to not be true, and they went back to working against us - in Syria and Iran's case in creating an "insurgency" in Iraq.

Posted by: 18-1 at March 08, 2013 01:41 PM (zPVBH)

173 Posted by: soothsayer at March 08, 2013 01:32 PM (0w+w3)

I hear a buzz over the house....

Posted by: Tami at March 08, 2013 01:34 PM (X6akg)



This actually happened to my brother.

He turned down a DoD contract, and HS swooped in to "audit" his company and tear it apart.

That same week, black helicopters hovering over his estate.

Never saw them before, never saw them again.

He said the whole ordeal scared the sh*t out of him. Never in America, he thought.

Guess again.

He's not even the paranoid type.

Posted by: tgibeach at March 08, 2013 01:41 PM (XYSwB)

174 As for Afghanistan I'm glad we're departing but I suffer under no delusion that the Taliban will suddenly turn to peaceful poppy-growing for dinner table centerpieces. They're going to grow poppies, turn it into heroin, smuggle it into Russia, keep little girls from getting an education, and as quickly as possible return vast areas of the country to the 8th century. Because islam is a deeply flawed religion.

First it was the USSR.
Then the USA, and other countries tried their hand.
It's someones elses turn.

Posted by: Regular Moron at March 08, 2013 01:41 PM (feFL6)

175 Getting rid of Saddam got rid of Irean's biggest nightmare. We now have a pro iranian regime in Iraq. I never believed in Iraq had nukes, look how long it is taking iran. But I did believe that f*cking liar Bush/Cheney that he had biological and chems.

Posted by: occam at March 08, 2013 01:41 PM (fbUla)

176 Great post Ace. I thought it was a movie review at first but no - just some really dense (in the good way) content.

Posted by: Muad'dib at March 08, 2013 01:42 PM (KjlbF)

177 Running in KY? That is stupid. She'll slip and slide all over the place and faceplant in a cowpie. Lucky for her her puffy face will cushion her fall. (I keed! Me and my damn puns)
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit
***

Swimming in AstroGlide is more fun.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 08, 2013 01:42 PM (uhftQ)

178
The media will still listen to McCain, but instead of just taking his word as that of the whole repub party, they'll seek out Rand and ask him if he agrees (or not).

The formal split in the repub party commenced with Rand's fillibuster.
Posted by: Soona at March 08, 2013 01:40 PM (tuJzL)

________________

Yep.

That's probably why Holder waited till it was over to issue his one word reply.

"No".

Posted by: tasker at March 08, 2013 01:42 PM (r2PLg)

179 Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at March 08, 2013 01:40 PM (/kI1Q)

Have they released the numbers yet?

I think you'll be surprised.

Also, people were programming their tv's from work to make sure they could watch when they got home. There were a lot of funny jokes on twitter about people never thinking that the letters DVR and CSPAN would ever meet in their world.

Posted by: Thanksgiving turkey at March 08, 2013 01:42 PM (/b8+5)

180 If Ashely lifted her skirt I may vote for her over McConnell.

Nah. Just kidding.

Posted by: Marcus at March 08, 2013 01:42 PM (GGCsk)

181
If were President, my military policy would be
simple: The US desires fair trade with all other countries. If we don't
like what you're doing in your country (genocide, oppression, etc..), we
won't trade with you. The way you run your country is your business.
How we to treat with you is ours. Do as you will.



BUT....



If you attack us or our citizens, soldiers or embassies, we will
descend upon you like the wrath of God. My doctrine would not be of
proportional response, but exponential response. Attack our
soldiers? We'll respond by bombing your bases. Attack our base, we'll
sink as many of your ships as we want. Mount a major attack on us and we
will utterly decimate your entire armed forces, leaving you naked
before your enemies for all time. Use a nuke and we will exterminate
you. Period.



Leave us alone and we'll leave you alone, but if you call the tune,
we'll make sure you pay the piper, and none of this Powell doctrine
bullshit either. I will spend not one dime, not one life, to rebuild.
That's on you. Our military exists to kill people and break things in
our national interest. You really don't want to test us on this, because
we're awfully good it it.



I'd extend a limited version of this protection to Israel, but that's it.

Posted by: Weirddave at March 08, 2013 01:31 PM (aH+zP)



10,000 times this.

I'm big believer in serious incentive. After 9-11
had I been president I would have put the pressure on all these fucking
imans. Simple deal, reign in your goat fucking followers, or I swear to
god the next time I hear allah akbar I'm gonna nuke that fucking borg
cube in mecca and burn the entire ME.

Posted by: Berserker at March 08, 2013 01:42 PM (FMbng)

182 McCain's hissy fits really illustrate a trait I've long thought that he shares with TFG. Both of them have a pathological need to be the Smartest Man in the Room regardless of who's in the room. Both of their egos need their own hangar.

Paul basically did a brain dump and spoke for hours and hours on the Constitution and liberty. McCain couldn't do that for an hour and it's for damn certain TFG couldn't. He can't ask for another dinner roll without a teleprompter.

Posted by: B at March 08, 2013 01:42 PM (DRWGY)

183 The end result is this. McCain's influence is basically over. The youngins have taken over. Their position has broader public support. I do not fear that Ted Cruz is an Paulian isolationist. If McCain had done this kind of filibuster over Hagel, I suspect we would all have a lot more respect for him. He didn't. He has no future with the party, and the left no longer needs him.

Posted by: SH at March 08, 2013 01:43 PM (gmeXX)

184 77
*we couldn't find any nuclear or biological materials.*



Except that's not true. Well, maybe "nuclear or biological"
specifically, but we found plenty of chemicals and lots of places still
set up to manufacture chemical and biological weapons.




There was plenty of evidence of biological weapons. Chris Kyle described it in "American Sniper." All of it is probably in Syria now.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 08, 2013 01:43 PM (UOM48)

185 Judd is running in KY.

When CBS shows her ugly scrunt face on my television instead of the basketball game she's pretending to watch, that gets reported to the FEC as an in-kind campaign contribution, right?

(I'm still pissed from last year's tournment. *spit*)

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at March 08, 2013 01:44 PM (/kI1Q)

186 McCain and Graham need to be retired.

Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at March 08, 2013 01:44 PM (DGIjM)

187 Maybe McLame's still pissed at losing to the TGF. Deliberately working against conservatives and working for TFG. Kind of a F.U. to the masses?

Posted by: Bosk at March 08, 2013 01:45 PM (n2K+4)

188
The 'big irony' about McCain's hawkishness...is that he practices appeasement here at home, with our own Tyrant in the White House...while being against it, with the tyrants in other countries.

Posted by: wheatie at March 08, 2013 01:45 PM (Jjnh4)

189 168
The formal split in the repub party commenced with Rand's fillibuster.
Posted by: Soona at March 08, 2013 01:40 PM (tuJzL)


You may be right about that.

A day or so ago, I remarked that the widespread outpouring of support for Rand from across the political spectrum might be the stirrings of a new party in the making.

Posted by: rickl at March 08, 2013 01:45 PM (zoehZ)

190 McCain to Graham:"Here we are at dinner, sucking Obama's cock for all we're worth, and this little bastard is back at the Senate grabbing all the headlines!"

Posted by: SurferDoc at March 08, 2013 01:45 PM (6H6FZ)

191 I am a recovering Iraq nation-builder. I was wrong. We toppled a brutal Sunni minority government for an Iranian puppet brutal Shia majority government.

I overestimated democracy and liberty and underestimated theocracy, sectarianism, tribalism, and Islam.

But I learned from that. McCain has not learned anything from any of his jihadi "freedom" fighter mishaps. After three or so you think he might notice.

Posted by: Beagle at March 08, 2013 01:46 PM (oCdqI)

192
No matter anybody's thoughts, in the end, the final score was that Rand Paul got the letter and answer from the WH, and McCain and Graham got set up by Obama and look like fools.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at March 08, 2013 01:46 PM (p/cQy)

193 pretty good stuff, but I disagree on the public's view re: Iran.

The no-information voter has no information because 2012 election's binders of bayonettes and stealth ghey marriage left no room for actual talk about Iran, or Obama's secret wink wink down-low relationship with iran (ghey). Nor, for that matter, was the public engaged in why Obama did what he did in Libya.

Ya, see? You can't have Libya hawkism with Iranian ostrich in the sandism.

And sadly, the media and the gop weren't all that interested in it anyway, so they arent' issues to the non-information voting public as the donks bus them to the polls.

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at March 08, 2013 01:46 PM (QxSug)

194 "But [Bush] also made mistakes. I mentioned underestimating the insurgency. ... Also, the limited nation building he attempted."

Family tradition.

Bush the Lesser (41) underestimated the Somali insurgency, and a bunch of superb Americans died horribly for absolutely no good reason as a result.

As for Bush the Even Lesser (43) having attempted nation building after first as a candidate promising to forswear nation building, that too is family tradition. Remember that Bush the Lesser promised us that he stood for "No new taxes!" and then turned around and socked us with fat new taxes after all.

Now we have yet another member of the Bush clan planning to run for president in 2016, and saying that if he wins, he will govern "like Lyndon Johnson". Because LBJ with his "Great Society" welfare state bullshit is an example to which all conservatives should aspire, yes?

This wretched family have destroyed the entire post-Reagan legacy of the GOP. The country as a whole would be far better off if not a single one of the Bushes had ever even been born.

Posted by: torquewrench at March 08, 2013 01:46 PM (gqT4g)

195
What if the prezzy dinner was a discussion about war with Iran and thus McCain et al are all juiced up for rally round the flag / know there will be terror repercussions?

Posted by: sexypig


If so, probably Syria. Which, yes, is a proxy for Iran. I think the full potential for Syria to turn into one of those regional clusterfarks is highly underestimated.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at March 08, 2013 01:46 PM (QKbPo)

196 Except that's not true. Well, maybe "nuclear or biological"

specifically, but we found plenty of chemicals and lots of places still

set up to manufacture chemical and biological weapons.


Dr. Sanity had the best metaphor...there's no chocolate cake in her kitchen. There's butter, sugar, eggs, a mixer, an oven, chocolate, a sink full of dirty pans and spatulas, and someone may have seen her walk a chocolate cake over to her neighbor, but there's no chocolate cake in her kitchen.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at March 08, 2013 01:46 PM (/kI1Q)

197 Great article. Something I haven't thought about. Used to be a super duper hawk, now I am a dazed and confused hawk.

Posted by: Eaton Cox at March 08, 2013 01:46 PM (q177U)

198 It's too bad one of our most successful programs in the War on Terror-

the RPA program--the one that saves countless infantry form having to enter hostile territory is one that Americans now fear and probably will not want to invest in becasue they have a fear of the new technology.

I really hate to see it being used as a wedge issue--when it is more than just a "kill program" that Americans now fear will be used against them.

Most of the flight missions are for RECON and they have been instrumental in the IED fight--for various reasons--plus again--saving ground troops.

Posted by: tasker at March 08, 2013 01:46 PM (r2PLg)

199 I abandoned Bush on his ME strategy when it became clear that Iran was behind most of the material and expertise in the IEDs that were killing our guys in Iraq and he did nothing about it. We didn't need to invade. We could have just taken out their air force, navy and a good chunk of their armor and then let their people decide where to go from there.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at March 08, 2013 01:47 PM (nZvGM)

200 the RPA program--the one that saves countless infantry *from* having to enter hostile territory

Posted by: tasker at March 08, 2013 01:47 PM (r2PLg)

201 Maybe McLame's still pissed at losing to the TGF. Deliberately working against conservatives and working for TFG. Kind of a F.U. to the masses?
Posted by: Bosk
***

McLame has ALWAYS hated Conservatives. He's made it a point to go out of his way to stab them in the back.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 08, 2013 01:47 PM (uhftQ)

202 Swimming in AstroGlide is more fun.


I could see doing the dog paddle, but the breast stroke would be a bitch.

Posted by: rickb223 at March 08, 2013 01:47 PM (wUw8Q)

203 This actually happened to my brother.



He turned down a DoD contract, and HS swooped in to "audit" his company and tear it apart.



That same week, black helicopters hovering over his estate.



Never saw them before, never saw them again.



He said the whole ordeal scared the sh*t out of him. Never in America, he thought.



Guess again.



He's not even the paranoid type.

Posted by: tgibeach at March 08, 2013 01:41 PM (XYSwB


Our friend who put up a sign in front of his business, "I DID build this business. Obama can kiss my ass." said he heard from people all over the country (especially after he appeared on Greta) and had 95% positive responses, and a few hate calls to his business.


He kind of chuckled and told us, "Then I started getting a 'black helicopter' vibe."

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 08, 2013 01:47 PM (UOM48)

204 Ok, so killing Americans on American soil without due process good....waterboarding known foreign terrorists bad???? So tell me, how did McCain lose to Barry again?

Posted by: s-man at March 08, 2013 01:48 PM (GgAvo)

205 A day or so ago, I remarked that the widespread outpouring of
support for Rand from across the political spectrum might be the
stirrings of a new party in the making.


In my lifetime, third parties formed around one charismatic figure haven't been very successful. But they have benefited the Democrat Party.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at March 08, 2013 01:48 PM (/kI1Q)

206 While Iraq, like all wars, had some major SNAFUs, by 2008 it was in decent shape and could well have continued a positive evolution to modernity. But Obama pulled our troops out in 2009 - deliberately - allowing Iran to sneak in and twist the place to its designs. We won the war until the current Administration deliberately lost it.

As to Afghanistan, Bush had the right approach - bust up the jihadi control and let it stew in its backwardness while maintaining a nominal military presence as a base for call-back operations if needed. The country remains backwards but is right in the middle of a Russia/India axis and a China/Iran axis - the old Silk Road crossroads.

Obama thought a way out was to go in big then retreat. That would achieve his main goal of getting out of China's way while giving himself political cover as a tough guy.

I worked my butt off campaigning for McCain in 2008, even going door-to-door within the sound of Obama's voice during a rally at UN-Reno. Had to do it but so sorry he was the only realistic candidate I could support.

My opinion of McCain now? "Be gone, damned spot!"

Posted by: Whitehall at March 08, 2013 01:48 PM (1+mGd)

207 199 I abandoned Bush on his ME strategy when it became clear that Iran was behind most of the material and expertise in the IEDs that were killing our guys in Iraq and he did nothing about it.

________________

Bush initiated the RPA program for exactly that reason.

Posted by: tasker at March 08, 2013 01:48 PM (r2PLg)

208
I tried, guys. Serious. I really tried.

Posted by: The Blob on John McCain's Face at March 08, 2013 01:48 PM (vl5mg)

209

What makes me laugh (before I sign off for a bit) is that now we are FAR RIGHT TEA PARTY CUCKOOS for supporting Rand versus the two old freaky men.

Posted by: tgibeach at March 08, 2013 01:48 PM (XYSwB)

210 >>>If you find yourself in a fair fight, you fucked up.



true dat.

Posted by: ace at March 08, 2013 01:34 PM (LCRYB)

And that's how the Media people feel about us.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 08, 2013 01:49 PM (bb5+k)

211 Despite the fact that bloomberg has ruined the NYC school system, most Americans aren't stupid. McCain keep underestimating "the little people".

Posted by: Thanksgiving turkey at March 08, 2013 01:49 PM (/b8+5)

212 I think the correct explanation is found at Glenn Reynolds, the McCains are just a bunch of monkeys pushing the media reward pellet button like media reward pellet junkies. And the only way to get a media reward pellet is to be a useful democrat idiot, reliable self-basher.

And, if the GOP had a unified approach to anything at this time, it's time to go back to George Bush W before 9-11, more limited intervention, no boots on the grounds, no bombs in the sky, and to take the next step:

start preaching conservatism to preserve the culture.

Cultural confidence is why we are where we are with the car in the ditch and obama sipping a slurpee as teacher union thugs teach kids that america sucks and only gheys getting marriage can save us.

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at March 08, 2013 01:49 PM (QxSug)

213 It just occurred to me that Rand Paul ACTUALLY reached across the aisle, but not to the Democrat politicians--he reached over to leftists and moderate voters.

This.

As Americans, there are a lot of things that the left and right have in common. Maybe our reasons for believing one thing over another aren't the same, but it's the end product that matters. I don't believe in abortion because I believe life begins at conception; a far-left wacko might be against abortion if its done for purposes of gender selection. Either way we both have a similar interest in limiting the scope of abortion. We'd probably hate each other if we ever met, but on this one thing we could find some kind of middle ground. Sure it would be a fight, but that's what the court of public opinion is supposed to be for.

Politicians -- the political class in general, including the MFM -- doesn't like to admit this. They like to paint all of us as being the extreme of what we really are. They hate to admit that left and right have some common beliefs -- like the belief in due process, as evidenced by the filibuster and its fallout -- and that "reaching across the aisle" shouldn't be about forfeiting one side's beliefs wholesale in favor of the other side.

Juan McLame thinks that voting for a Democrat's bill, or destroying a fellow Repubican, is a form of compromise, but it's not. It's surrender.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at March 08, 2013 01:50 PM (4df7R)

214 Yeah, John McCain was fighting for us in 2008 when he suspended his presidential campaign during the financial crisis. And when he allowed his advisers to mismanage Sarah Palin, a political fighter nonpareil, further diluting the political distinctions between the GOP and Dems.

The days of the "Gang of 16" and "Hands Across The Aisle" and "Blue Dog Dems and Fat Cat Pubs Living Together" are over. Harkin - Out Levin -Out Rockefeller - Out (did I miss anyone?). There's no mileage in sucking up to the MSM anymore,. Rand Paul is part of a new generation whose voices will be heard.

Posted by: mrp at March 08, 2013 01:50 PM (HjPtV)

215 John McCain is a terrible spokesman for anything.

Except maybe insulin or something. Or medic alert.

Posted by: Truman North, last of the famous international playboys at March 08, 2013 01:50 PM (yJOh7)

216

A female hawk is a called a hen.

*cheers
get some sun and exercise today

Posted by: tgibeach at March 08, 2013 01:51 PM (XYSwB)

217 A long commitment in Iraq is no more a problem than a long commitment in the Philippines or currently in Korea . America may be hardwired for short wars but we also have a history of invading other countries or their colonies break their things, give them a less threatening government and stick around to rebuild infrastructure and train a new military . The Afghans will remain , for quite some time , the exception that test the rule . Too many tribes that have their second favorite pastime killing each other .Iraq is important in a lot of ways . As for the Afghans , unless the Spice Road is going to be reopened , it's like Papua New Guinea , a backwater that may need brief periods of containment .

Posted by: DrDrill at March 08, 2013 01:51 PM (sOFZs)

218 By the way, McCain is about 5' 3" now, and shrinking. I met him last summer. Weird surreal experience.

Posted by: Truman North, last of the famous international playboys at March 08, 2013 01:51 PM (yJOh7)

219 Count me in Gingrich's camp. I'm always in favor of bombing foreigners if it's in our interests. But we don't necessarily need occupation troops or a commitment to building up a new government to go along with the bombing.

Sometimes just vaporizing the right guy or two is all you need in order to keep hellhole problems purely local hellhole problems. We used to be much better at this.

Posted by: Mætenloch at March 08, 2013 01:51 PM (XkotV)

220 This is the money quote for people who only read comments:

>>>"Rather, public and Republican opinion on this point has already moved, but is currently being falsified because no one ever wants to admit they're wrong, and Rand Paul is offering people an opportunity to express their real opinion."

Posted by: Eaton Cox at March 08, 2013 01:51 PM (q177U)

221 **The days of the "Gang of 16" and "Hands Across The Aisle" and "Blue Dog Dems and Fat Cat Pubs Living Together" are over. **

and remember, his treason to W during W's nomination battles lead to the decade of filibusterless filibustering of good con judges while the obama regime is flooding the bench with commies.

Posted by: joeindc44 wonders if anyone has any advice for the GOP at March 08, 2013 01:51 PM (QxSug)

222 across the political spectrum might be the stirrings of a new party in the making.>>

Call it the Foundation Party with the platform of First we fix the foundation (Govt spending/size, Freedoms/rights, Schools and infrastructure) and we can argue about the furnishings (abortion, gay rights...) later

Posted by: Buzzsaw at March 08, 2013 01:51 PM (81UWZ)

223 Is McCain really a super hawk or is he just wrong on everything?

Posted by: SpongeBob Saget at March 08, 2013 01:51 PM (epxV4)

224
Obama is incredibly vulnerable when attacked from the left on foreign policy and tax policy.

Posted by: MJ at March 08, 2013 01:52 PM (vl5mg)

225 A lot of people saw Rand as a nice reasonable guy who is willing to talk and work together.

By attacking Rand, McCain made himself unimportant.

Posted by: Snarky the Bear at March 08, 2013 01:52 PM (/b8+5)

226 Bush the Lesser (41) underestimated the Somali insurgency, and a bunch of superb Americans died horribly for absolutely no good reason as a result.torquewrench
***

Wrong. It was under Clinton that "mission creep" occured. The left LOVES them some U.N. cooperation.It was also under him that our forces were refused heavy armor that would have ended things much earlier.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 08, 2013 01:52 PM (uhftQ)

227
"Angry Hobbits"

Isn't that what McCain called the Tea Party people?

Posted by: wheatie at March 08, 2013 01:53 PM (Jjnh4)

228 Dr. Sanity had the best metaphor...there's no chocolate cake in her kitchen. There's butter, sugar, eggs, a mixer, an oven, chocolate, a sink full of dirty pans and spatulas, and someone may have seen her walk a chocolate cake over to her neighbor, but there's no chocolate cake in her kitchen.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at March 08, 2013 01:46 PM (/kI1Q)


-------------------------------------------------


Mmmmm. Chocolate cake. Damn you, HeatherR!

Posted by: Soona at March 08, 2013 01:54 PM (tuJzL)

229 Posted by: Mætenloch at March 08, 2013 01:51 PM (XkotV)



Holy shit....Cob! Cob in the thread!




*looks frantically for pants*

Posted by: BCochran1981 at March 08, 2013 01:54 PM (da5Wo)

230 I dont get McCain.. what kind of DC sell out do you have to be to go from a prisoner of war... to white house tyrant appeaser in one lifetime?

Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at March 08, 2013 01:54 PM (DGIjM)

231 A show host kept calling Graham "linda graham" yesterday and not a single caller mentioned it or corrected him. It was very funny.

Posted by: Snarky the Bear at March 08, 2013 01:54 PM (/b8+5)

232 Isn't that what McCain called the Tea Party people?
Posted by: wheatie at March 08, 2013 01:53 PM (Jjnh4)


Yes. Hence my nic.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at March 08, 2013 01:54 PM (4df7R)

233
John McCain would have made a great President.

Said no one.

Posted by: MJ at March 08, 2013 01:55 PM (vl5mg)

234 175
Getting rid of Saddam got rid of Irean's biggest nightmare. We now have a
pro iranian regime in Iraq. I never believed in Iraq had nukes, look
how long it is taking iran. But I did believe that f*cking liar
Bush/Cheney that he had biological and chems.

Posted by: occam at March 08, 2013 01:41 PM (fbUla)

No nuclear program there, nope none at all. No 550 metric tons of yellow cake uranium found there. Nope, nothing there at all.
http://tinyurl.com/heydickweed

Posted by: Meggie McCain at March 08, 2013 01:55 PM (Zd/NW)

235
#112
you are spot on about de-Baathification. A monstrous mistake.You'dve thought that such "smart" people like Bremer would have an inkling of recent history regarding our actions with members of the nazi party during post WWII occupied Germany.

Posted by: fastfreefall at March 08, 2013 01:55 PM (zUvAE)

236 McCain is part of the aristocratic crowd. We need more populism on the right. Paul has tapped into it. Now that Paul has one this, I hope he continues to push on drones. I don't really care about drones over foreign skies, but I sure as heck don't want them over our skies. Let's see how Obama feels about that. Let's coopt this issue for conservatives now. This shouldn't be about the war on terror, this should now be about execute power and drones.

Posted by: SH at March 08, 2013 01:55 PM (gmeXX)

237 Holy shit....Cob! Cob in the thread!*looks frantically for pants*

Posted by: BCochran1981 at March 08, 2013 01:54 PM (da5Wo)



Calm down, Cochran. Maet's probably not wearing any either.



Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at March 08, 2013 01:55 PM (4df7R)

238 I'm with you on this one. I supported Iraq and Iran whole-heartedly once; it's going to be to my eternal regret and shame that so many others sacrificed so much for what I now, sadly, understand was a mirage--the idea that we could rebuild those societies 'right'. (Funny, rebuilding a society right, where have I heard that before? Odd what you find you share, even mistakenly...)

Mind you, it could have been done, in theory. We've done it before--native tribes no longer roam North America, following the buffalo and observing the old ways (for better or worse). But remember what that took, what it did to those people. That's not who we are anymore, again for better or worse.

It was a fool's crusade. And now it's coming here, by our own hands, unless good people put a stop to it...somehow. I'm not even sure how anymore.

I guess the atom wasn't the only genie that couldn't be shoved back in the bottle.

God forgive us, we knew not what we did...

Posted by: Brother Cavil, the future Pope Ampersand I at March 08, 2013 01:56 PM (fMiHM)

239 >>McCain got caught with his hands in his Depends.

Perhaps Rand borrowed one without asking.

That would explain *everything*.

Posted by: Mama AJ at March 08, 2013 01:57 PM (SUKHu)

240 I could see doing the dog paddle, but the breast stroke would be a bitch.
Posted by: rickb223
***

You can swim with your breasts?
BTW, I hate KY because it clogs my blow hole.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 08, 2013 01:57 PM (uhftQ)

241 Maybe just a little O/T

"I can tell you that the United States is fully capable of defending against any North Korean ballistic missile attack," said White House spokesman Jay Carney.

I'd bet my last dollar that Jay Carney grew up in a household that denigrated Ronald Reagan and referred to his proposal for a missile defense system as 'Star Wars'. Now he has to depend on it to keep him safe.

Posted by: Regular Moron at March 08, 2013 01:57 PM (feFL6)

242 Second look at Eisenhower's More Bang For The Buck?

Posted by: Ook? at March 08, 2013 01:57 PM (OQpzc)

243 BTW, I hate KY because it clogs my blow hole.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 08, 2013 01:57 PM (uhftQ)


That's not KY....

Posted by: BCochran1981 at March 08, 2013 01:58 PM (da5Wo)

244 Obama's ilk showed that to not be true, and they
went back to working against us - in Syria and Iran's case in creating
an "insurgency" in Iraq.


Posted by: 18-1 at March 08, 2013 01:41 PM (zPVBH)

Bush/Bremer's bad decision created the insurgency. I don't know why other people can't see this. The very day they made that announcement I started screaming at my radio that that decision was the most colossal blunder of which they could have conceived. It told anyone who would listen at the time that the previously pacified Iraqi populace is going to suddenly turn violent with a ferocity unlike that which they displayed while fighting for Saddam.

They awoke a sleeping giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve. (Suni Baath members. )

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 08, 2013 01:58 PM (bb5+k)

245 The two of them can keep it up, in a retirement home. Let's replace them with Republicans instead.

Posted by: Roy at March 08, 2013 01:58 PM (VndSC)

246 237 Holy shit....Cob! Cob in the thread!*looks frantically for pants*

Posted by: BCochran1981 at March 08, 2013 01:54 PM (da5Wo)


Calm down, Cochran. Maet's probably not wearing any either.



Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at March 08, 2013 01:55 PM (4df7R)

Maet is probably wearing the official AOS snuggie.

Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at March 08, 2013 01:58 PM (DGIjM)

247 237 Holy shit....Cob! Cob in the thread!*looks frantically for pants* Posted by: BCochran1981 at March 08, 2013 01:54 PM (da5Wo) Calm down, Cochran. Maet's probably not wearing any either. Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at March 08, 2013 01:55 PM (4df7R) Maet is probably wearing the official AOS snuggie.
Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at March 08, 2013 01:58 PM (DGIjM)

Or the thong

Posted by: The Jackhole at March 08, 2013 01:59 PM (nTgAI)

248 219 Count me in Gingrich's camp. I'm always in favor of bombing foreigners if it's in our interests. But we don't necessarily need occupation troops or a commitment to building up a new government to go along with the bombing.

Sometimes just vaporizing the right guy or two is all you need in order to keep hellhole problems purely local hellhole problems. We used to be much better at this.
Posted by: Mætenloch at March 08, 2013 01:51 PM (XkotV)

__________________


The RPA program works really well in that scenario--now Americans fear it.

Do you think if Rand Paul is President he will be able to invest in that program with a straight face?

Posted by: tasker at March 08, 2013 02:00 PM (r2PLg)

249 That's not KY....
Posted by: BCochran1981
***

My blow hole is exit only, thank you very much.

Posted by: Tilikum the Killer Assault Whale at March 08, 2013 02:00 PM (uhftQ)

250 "Kosovo air war" -- that makes me think of Bosnia -- and that makes me post

"Samuel Nelson Drew
Colonel, United States Air Force
August 23, 1995: The Director of European Affairs for the National Security Council, died August 19, 1995 when the armored vehicle in which he was riding plunged off a mountainside in Bosnia.

His daughter was in several of my high school classes. She went to Air Force Academy after we graduated in 96. Lost touch, but know she'll be great at whatever she does.


Posted by: DCPensFan at March 08, 2013 02:00 PM (ma/2m)

251 A day or so ago, I remarked that the widespread outpouring of support for Rand from across the political spectrum might be the stirrings of a new party in the making.
Posted by: rickl at March 08, 2013 01:45 PM (zoehZ)

Historically, it takes a big issue or event to precipitate a major party split, an issue so stark and clearly defined no compromise is possible.For example, proto-Republicanssuch as Lincoln and Fremontfell away from the Whig Party because of Whig unwillingness to confront the Democrats over the expansion of slavery into the territories, as well as the tepid Whig response to the Dred Scot decision, which obligated Northerners--law enforcement in particular--to return runaway slaves.

True enough, moderate and conservative Republicans don't get along but there's nothing out there substantive enough to justify a full-blown schism. Not yet, anyway. 'Just because' isn't good enough.

Posted by: troyriser at March 08, 2013 02:00 PM (vtiE6)

252 >>Maet is probably wearing the official AOS snuggie.

I don't really like mine. The arms are somehow crossed and attached in the back. What's with that??

Posted by: Mama AJ at March 08, 2013 02:00 PM (SUKHu)

253 Maet is probably wearing the official AOS snuggie.


Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at March 08, 2013 01:58 PM (DGIjM)



------------------------

Or the thong

Posted by: The Jackhole at March 08, 2013 01:59 PM (nTgAI)



So we've got snuggies and thongs, but no tshirts? Come on Ace!

Posted by: BCochran1981 at March 08, 2013 02:00 PM (da5Wo)

254

nood

Posted by: soothsayer at March 08, 2013 02:01 PM (oxIUw)

255
DiogenesLamp, wow. You are 100% wrong. And, per my comment above, regurgitating some of the dumbest conventional wisdom.

If you know modern Iraq in general, and know the situation in 2003 at all, you would know that nothing "caused" the "insurgency" other than the same thing that caused Iraq to be such a shit-hole for the last few decades: Sunni arrogance, fear, greed, racism, and craziness - with the added factor that regime-Sunnis through their depradations forced ALL Sunnis to hunker down (at least) just to survive the feared retaliation for all their misdeeds. The Sunnis in Iraq, by normal standards, actually deserved/deserve NO FUTURE in that country. Contrary to what you wrote, most Sunnis quickly recognized the US as the only thing between them and widespread and understandable pay-back from the rest of the country. This was evident even during the ridiculous "insurgency", during which in several cases our "enemy" insisted on our participation in deals with the fledgling new Iraqi govt., because they trusted us.

You really think that the Iraqi military - which by the way self-disbanded, uh, did you notice how quickly the 2003 campaign went, how do you think that happened? - was there ready to take orders from the new masters in April 2003? WTF? Are you familiar with Iraqi military sociology prior to 2003? Damn right we should announced a special pay and training event for the Iraqi military - and locked up 95% of the (very small) number of Sunni officers and personnel who would have shown up in preventive detention for the duration.

And de-Ba'athification was optional? Really? Do you have any familiarity with Iraq? This has no similarity to Germany, and getting the railroads to run again. In Germany the Nazis co-opted many people who generally had no blood on their hands (directly), and the further down you went on the functionary ladder, the easier it became to find people to run stuff. Iraq was totally different - the ethnic divide was magnified tremendously by the Sunni "insurgency", to where Shi'a who had volunteered without hesitation to fight the hated Persian foe in the early 80s were looking to the Pasdaran for help in protecting themselves (since the US just sat on its ass, with Gen. Casey presumably smiling while reviewing the "diversity" of his personnel rosters - between cigars - and Gen. Chiarelli stomping out of meetings with civilians who easily debunked his idiotic strategy of reconstruction-before-security).

Iraq was/is a broken society, sickened by decades of stalinist oppression, much of which was tailored to the worst fissures that already were there (Sunni chauvinism). No decisions by CPA or the Coalition had anything to do with creating or changing the basics - those had to play out, and they mostly have, though it took far longer than it should have thanks to there being (in a memorable phrase spat at an MNF-I officer who had no response) "no military solutions to military problems". Too much war college, not enough war.

We didn't invade Iraq to fix it, we invaded to remove an intolerable, un-manageable threat. Having invaded it, it was/in our interest to leave it in as favorable a state (for OUR interests) as is feasible.



Posted by: non-purist at March 08, 2013 02:01 PM (afQnV)

256 Bush and Bremer CAUSED the insurgency. I distinctly remember everything was quiet in Iraq till they made that stupid announcement. (All Iraqi Soldiers are fired, all members of the Baath party are blacklisted.) It was like two days latter, attacks and explosions commenced and never let up.

That's how I remember it, too, though I don't perfectly trust myself about that. I remember thinking (and probably saying) at the time, how 'bout instead of sending all the bad guys on a working vacation together, you kill all of them? Because they're the problem?

I'm a "hawk" in the opposite way McCain types are. I think if it's time to have a war, everyone in the enemy's government and military has to die--and nobody else does (though undoubtedly a bunch of them will). The citizenry can be left with a stern suggestion that they choose their next ruling class more wisely.

"Hawks" just want "our boys" to kill "their boys" and die. Because honor. It's psychotic.

Posted by: oblig. at March 08, 2013 02:01 PM (cePv8)

257 Maet is probably wearing the official AOS snuggie.

Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at March 08, 2013 01:58 PM (DGIjM)


Uh...umm...ok I'm wearing pants now. So everyone straighten up and I want those comments nice and tight and with proper closing of tags for once.

Posted by: Mætenloch at March 08, 2013 02:01 PM (XkotV)

258 My brother in-law is a Colonel in the Army.
He has seen action in Haiti, Kosovo and Iraq.
He has also consulted on many low-level missions in Central America. He cannot tell me everything but after Iraq he said: What we need to do is pull every America out, air drop weapons all of the country, stand back and let all the Muslims kill each other - because they would if we did not interfere. That should be the Syria strategy. Just drop weapons in
and let them have at it. Soon the Middle East oil fields will be ablaze once again and then we need to ramp up production in America. This is the only way to defeat this enemy. They will never join as an Islamic United States. The egos in these Islamists is too large.

Posted by: redguy at March 08, 2013 02:01 PM (oKH8p)

259
There was plenty of evidence of biological
weapons. Chris Kyle described it in "American Sniper." All of it is
probably in Syria now.


Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 08, 2013 01:43 PM (UOM4

Not only that, I saw a few weeks ago an article regarding Assad's possible use of chemical weapons against the rebel forces. The article had the insight to ask " Where did Assad acquire chemical weapons?"

Where indeed. From Iraq.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 08, 2013 02:02 PM (bb5+k)

260 Is McCain really a super hawk or is he just wrong on everything?
Posted by: SpongeBob Saget at March 08, 2013 01:51 PM (epxV4)Every fucking thing!!

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at March 08, 2013 02:02 PM (R8hU8)

261 Rand is smart to make this his "defining issue", No drones over american airspace is quite popular even with LIVs. Two more for him to consider:

Internet Freedom (no SOPA/PIPA)

Abolish the TSA

Sound conservative principles and popular too

Posted by: BSR at March 08, 2013 02:02 PM (CBCxo)

262 Mccain is sitting on the fence he didn't build.

Posted by: Huggy at March 08, 2013 02:02 PM (vVmp0)

263 I think part of the problem is that McCain is a pro-giant-state loves-the-pomp super-hawkish permanent-insider.

And part of the problem is that he's a dick.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/czbcvf4

http://preview.tinyurl.com/d4xtebx

And on and on. That's just McCain-Feingold-Soros and the Big Soros Money to McCain.

McCain is a fine example of what I mean when I saw our "representatives" represent the government, not us.

Rand Paul and some of the others aren't part of "the club," apparently.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith's Other Mobile at March 08, 2013 02:02 PM (bxiXv)

264 Maybe McLame's still pissed at losing to the TGF.
Deliberately working against conservatives and working for TFG. Kind of a
F.U. to the masses?

Posted by: Bosk at March 08, 2013 01:45 PM (n2K+4)

Stockholm syndrome?



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 08, 2013 02:02 PM (bb5+k)

265 In my lifetime, third parties formed around one charismatic figure haven't been very successful. But they have benefited the Democrat Party.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at March 08, 2013 01:48 PM (/kI1Q)


------------------------------------------


My comment about a formal split in the repub party wasn't about forming a new party. It was about the battle within. It's on like donkeykong now.

What I'm saying is that the line in the sand has been officially drawn for the heart of the repub party. Rand gave us a headstart.

Posted by: Soona at March 08, 2013 02:02 PM (tuJzL)

266 Bush initiated the RPA program for exactly that reason.
Posted by: tasker at March 08, 2013 01:48 PM (r2PLg)

Okay, let me change my wording. Bush didn't retaliate against the regime that was waging covert war against our troops. What you're describing is a worthwhile improvement in the defense against IEDs, but what I thought was needed (and still do) was the application of extreme force against the regime and its military. An opportunity missed as we no longer have the legal or moral justification for that kind of action.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at March 08, 2013 02:03 PM (nZvGM)

267 Or the thong
Posted by: The Jackhole at March 08, 2013 01:59 PM (nTgAI)

The official AOS Borat thong?

Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at March 08, 2013 02:03 PM (DGIjM)

268 @195

Sunni Salafi foreign fighters from everywhere are already fighting Iranians and Hizballah. It has that regional, if not world war feel to it. Erdogan called it Karbala and Iran is heavily involved. Should be interesting.

Posted by: Beagle at March 08, 2013 02:03 PM (oCdqI)

269 I believe that the bashing of Paul by McCain/Graham is happening for a far more simplier reason - Overblown egos.
They consider themselves the 'Lions of the Senate' like Capt. Oldsmobile.
THEY will dictate what fights the Republicans take on and what ones they don't. Upstarts like Paul, Cruz, Rubio need to be silenced. After all they are the Tea Party trash.
Good news is Miss Lindsey is up for re-elction next year and hopefully he can be replaced by an actual conservative??

Posted by: Cheri at March 08, 2013 02:03 PM (G+Wff)

270 251
Historically, it takes a big issue or event to precipitate a major party split, an issue so stark and clearly defined no compromise is possible.

...

True enough, moderate and conservative Republicans don't get along but there's nothing out there substantive enough to justify a full-blown schism. Not yet, anyway. 'Just because' isn't good enough.
Posted by: troyriser at March 08, 2013 02:00 PM (vtiE6)


How about Statists vs. Anti-Statists?

OK, I've got to get back to work now. This has been a great thread.

Posted by: rickl at March 08, 2013 02:04 PM (zoehZ)

271 "Bush/Bremer's bad decision created the insurgency. I don't know why other people can't see this. The very day they made that announcement I started screaming at my radio that that decision was the most colossal blunder of which they could have conceived. It told anyone who would listen at the time that the previously pacified Iraqi populace is going to suddenly turn violent with a ferocity unlike that which they displayed while fighting for Saddam."

Run the alternate history, and when you read the news stories about entire battaltions of unreformed baathists slaughtering Shias or turning their guns on Americans, how do you feel then?

And the Kurds & Shias would not have been on-board with no de-baathification.

I think you need to take a peek at Syria. Basically Syria is having the civil war that Iraq had. We caused the civil war by uncovering it, not creating it. It also ended more peacefully since we were there. Syria has actually artillery bombardments of towns and cities.

p.s. I would agree with you that we should not have disbanded the army, BUT there were costs to doing that as well, AND it could have turned out very bad just as easily.

p.s.s. Many of the units had already dissolved anyways.

Posted by: sexypig at March 08, 2013 02:05 PM (dZQh7)

272
Now we have yet another member of the Bush clan
planning to run for president in 2016, and saying that if he wins, he
will govern "like Lyndon Johnson". Because LBJ with his "Great Society"
welfare state bullshit is an example to which all conservatives should
aspire, yes?

This wretched family have destroyed the entire
post-Reagan legacy of the GOP. The country as a whole would be far
better off if not a single one of the Bushes had ever even been born.



Posted by: torquewrench at March 08, 2013 01:46 PM (gqT4g)

I will vote for a Democrat before I vote for Jeb Bush. That family has done quite enough to fuck up America, thank you very much.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 08, 2013 02:05 PM (bb5+k)

273 Uh...umm...ok I'm wearing pants now. So everyone straighten up and I want those comments nice and tight and with proper closing of tags for once.
Posted by: Mætenloch at March 08, 2013 02:01 PM (XkotV)

Sorry, Sir. I will straighten up. ; )

Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at March 08, 2013 02:05 PM (DGIjM)

274 "I actually don't believe in Paulian pacifism and do believe in the need and justification for American intervention on a limited basis and in pursuit of a limited number of objectives." Is there any evidence that RAND Paul believes in this? His loon-bat father sure does, but his son appears to have a far more reasonable perspective on military power. Or does Ace know something the rest of the world doesn't? Why not share your insight into the rest of the world, Ace?

Posted by: Strawman Alert at March 08, 2013 02:05 PM (d4ZzM)

275 I'm not saying that Rand Paul was right, and McCain was wrong.
But at the end of the night, which one was on a date with the President?
And which one spent hours speaking clearly, directly and without a teleprompter about how our form of government works?
Power shifted that night.
Not by much.
But McCain will never be looked upon the same.
And it's beyond his ability to understand why.

Posted by: VIA, on the tiny keyboard at March 08, 2013 02:06 PM (WVeRY)

276 I laughed when I read that POTUS picked up the tab for their dinner love fest. Are you fricking kidding me?? The American taxpayer picked up the tab.

Posted by: Cheri at March 08, 2013 02:06 PM (G+Wff)

277 I am certain that others in this thread have stated this more eloquently than I, but my issue isn't so much hawkishness or pacifism as it is going into a conflict with a. some at least vague comprehension of the goals to be accomplished and b. actually fighting a war. Yes, yes, plans don't survive first contact and all that, but if we are going to intervene in areas when we have not been directly attacked by a known state or known state sponsor of terrorism, then can there be at least some idea of what it is that should be accomplished? Hell, at least cops know that they're there to break up a fight. If someone gets stabbed during that fight, okay, they'll investigate that too. We're being world cops with no idea what the situation is to which we are responding. These open ended missions with no articulated goals are worse than pointless.

The military exists to kill people and break things. It's fantastic that our military can also provide relief services and floating hospitals and airlift food but that's not the point. Kill people. Break things. Stop sending troops to places and then telling them that they can't protect themselves. That's so far beyond crazy it approaches the She Who Must Not Be Named realm. We're not there to win hearts and minds. We're there to kill until the other side screams stop. Is that bloody? Yes. That's the entire point. War is awful and terrible and horrible and it has to be or otherwise the incentive is not there to stop it.

Humans are not kind communal creatures. Humans are vicious nasty killers who need to be reminded that the stick pokes back.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Now with extra taunting. at March 08, 2013 02:06 PM (VtjlW)

278 "I am certain that the way forward is not continuing to talk the way McCain talks, in that Kennedyesque "We will bear any burden" way. When Kennedy said that, it was a lie. It was just a bit of noble-sounding rhetoric. He didn't really intend to "bear any burden." It was a quote for the press."

Totally wrong. You have no idea what you're talking about.

JFK volunteered for service with his two brothers in a war that enlisted 3% of the total US population into the military. 50% of US industrial production was dedicated to war production. Rationing of gas, sugar, nylons were in effect. He lost a brother and a brother-in-law.

Throughout his career, JFK did nothing to end the Selective Service program or American nuclear weapons production or the long-range bomber program or our ICBM program. He did nothing to prevent the smooth establishment of another Wartime Production Board and a draft of America's population in the event of another World War. And as a politician, JFK did not shirk from drawing lines in the sand against Soviet communism. There was no actual requirement that America remain committed to West Berlin or South Vietnam or a nuclear-free Cuba, or establishing short-range ballistic missle bases in Turkey. But he did.

You may recall hearing about the Cuban Missle Crisis, when JFK violated international law to establish a blockade around a soveriegn nation to block another soveriegn nation from delivering missles. This was not seen as the horrible moment when JFK's noble-sounding rhetoric would be called and we would have to admit we weren't going to do shit. It was seen as the horrible moment when we'd begin a third world war the way the second ended - by destroying cities.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at March 08, 2013 02:06 PM (0Bs6G)

279 I imagine the cite of "Paulian pacifism" is in regards to Paul the Elder.

Posted by: BSR at March 08, 2013 02:07 PM (CBCxo)

280
I abandoned Bush on his ME strategy when it became clear that Iran was
behind most of the material and expertise in the IEDs that were killing
our guys in Iraq and he did nothing about it. We didn't need to invade.
We could have just taken out their air force, navy and a good chunk of
their armor and then let their people decide where to go from there.

Posted by: somebody else, not me at March 08, 2013 01:47 PM (nZvGM)

I have been in favor of Kicking Iran's ass since 1979. You are exactly right. Bomb their toys into crap and ask them if they want more.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 08, 2013 02:08 PM (bb5+k)

281 I think that polling data to determine if a run is feasible for Jeb Bush will indicate that the "Bush Brand" is damaged goods.

Posted by: Cheri at March 08, 2013 02:08 PM (G+Wff)

282 Remember when McCain wanted US troops in Georgia and US navy ships off its coast? following the Russian invasion?

That was a bit too gung ho, even for me.

Yea, and McCain wanted a carbon tax too.

Posted by: Whitehall at March 08, 2013 02:09 PM (1+mGd)

283 "But I did believe that f*cking liar Bush/Cheney that he had biological and chems."

You need to read the history of the UN weapons inspections. Prior to Kamel's defection (Saddam's son-in-law) the UN had already agreed that Iraq had no biological weapons...case closed.

After Kamel defected and told the UN about the weaponized Anthrax, that's when we found the hidden factories.

Thus, you can obviously see that Iraq had the capacity to hide its capabilities. You would be a fool to assume they were "clean" at anytime. Tony Blair, the Senate Dems, Bill Clinton, and Bush are not fools.

Posted by: sexypig at March 08, 2013 02:09 PM (dZQh7)

284 Posted by: torquewrench at March 08, 2013 01:46 PM (gqT4g)

So much wrong in so little a post. If you are the face of conservatism God help us.

Posted by: polynikes at March 08, 2013 02:09 PM (m2CN7)

285 McCain and sweet Lindsey are just pissed because Rand Paul stepped on their news cycle.

Posted by: Nigel Wanklin reporting at March 08, 2013 02:09 PM (nDeB2)

286 281: I actually disagree. People find comfort in familiarity, its how all these familial dynasties start.

However the real push they'll make for JEB is that hill win hispanics. Watch for it.

Posted by: BSR at March 08, 2013 02:10 PM (CBCxo)

287
I worked my butt off campaigning for McCain in
2008, even going door-to-door within the sound of Obama's voice during a
rally at UN-Reno. Had to do it but so sorry he was the only realistic
candidate I could support.

My opinion of McCain now? "Be gone, damned spot!"


Posted by: Whitehall at March 08, 2013 01:48 PM (1+mGd)

I sent the bastard $750.00. I feel so stupid for it.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 08, 2013 02:10 PM (bb5+k)

288 one of the problems with your theory though is to really win wars you have to retain territory. only way is boots on the ground.

agree McCain needs to be put out to pasture.

Posted by: pointsnfigures at March 08, 2013 02:10 PM (MOSsR)

289 McCain's not a superhawk and is certainly not "no limits" since he is opposed to waterboarding and is fine with wide open borders. He's just an opinionated cuss who thinks he's smarter than everyone else and can't stand when the limelight is on someone else.

Posted by: Sam at March 08, 2013 02:11 PM (ccZt9)

290 "However the real push they'll make for JEB is that hill win hispanics. Watch for it."

Jeb was on Mornin' Joe today discussing immigration policy.

Posted by: Lizzy at March 08, 2013 02:11 PM (QEUX+)

291 Unless, we stop making the world such a safe place for putting those factories elsewhere.

Sorry, I was at lunch.

Or, you know, we could try to reduce our own Corporate Tax Rate and Minimum Wage. There's that option, too.

The fact is, like so much else, "it's complicated." With the world as connected as it is, lower priced products (because they're cheaper to make elsewhere) are good and tend to lead to more jobs here. The economic term is "relative advantage" I think.

Foxconn in China is not why there are so few jobs here. But if what you're concerned about is industrial construction jobs, the answer is to make our own environment better. It's not like it's safe to have a factory in Iraq or Afghanistan. It's just safer than it was.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at March 08, 2013 02:11 PM (xN73L)

292 My cousin did 3 tours in Iraq.. he is convinced to this day Sadaam had all kinds of chemical weapons ready to use. They are in Syria.

Sadaam deserved what he got.. so did his offspring. nasty evil people.

Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at March 08, 2013 02:11 PM (DGIjM)

293 I'm in line with Ace's thinking too. I was on active duty during Kosovo and volunteered to go there, even though I didn't see our stake in it. And history has shown that EVERYONE involved was an asshole, not just the Serbs. But now I'm tired of seeing our men and women killed helping ungrateful goat fuckers like the Afghans. We can't help people who are content to live like medieval serfs.

In the future, we should destroy those that fuck with us, and let them put themselves back together.

Posted by: UGAdawg at March 08, 2013 02:12 PM (WYOrt)

294 I will vote for a Democrat before I vote for Jeb Bush. That family has done quite enough to fuck up America, thank you very much.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 08, 2013 02:05 PM (bb5+k)

Don't you have birth certificate to ponder over or something.

Posted by: polynikes at March 08, 2013 02:13 PM (m2CN7)

295 In my lifetime, third parties formed around one charismatic figure haven't been very successful. But they have benefited the Democrat Party.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs a beer at March 08, 2013 01:48 PM (/kI1Q)


You know I love ya, but we basically have three choices, reform, replace, or fail.

And the GOP is mostly united against reform.

Now, if you can change that, it would be a "better option," but it seems to be getting worse rather than better.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith's Other Mobile at March 08, 2013 02:13 PM (bxiXv)

296 In the future, we should destroy those that fuck with us, and let them put themselves back together.
Posted by: UGAdawg at March 08, 2013 02:12 PM (WYOrt)

couldnt agree more.

Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at March 08, 2013 02:14 PM (DGIjM)

297 And history has shown that EVERYONE involved was an asshole, not just the Serbs.

This. The media continues to beat the drum that the Serbs were Nazis and the Muslims were oppressed, but that's incomplete at best. Reality is more of a "can both sides lose?" type of deal.

Posted by: Ian S. at March 08, 2013 02:14 PM (B/VB5)

298 one of the problems with your theory though is to really win wars you have to retain territory. only way is boots on the ground.

Sure it is. But who says they have to be our boots?

Take Syria as a ferinstance: Assuming we're not just going to arm both sides (my preferred solution), let's say we pick a side we're going to support. What would be wrong with blowing the crap out of the other side, and letting "our" side handle the ground portion of the operations?

There are also the questions of objective (why are we there) and how long our boots will be on the ground. The kind of open-ended commitments represented by Iraq and Afghanistan are the kinds of things we should really try to avoid.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at March 08, 2013 02:15 PM (xN73L)

299
Department of DOOM

Posted by: Red Shirt at March 08, 2013 02:16 PM (FIDMq)

300 #112
you are spot on about de-Baathification. A
monstrous mistake.You'dve thought that such "smart" people like Bremer
would have an inkling of recent history regarding our actions with
members of the nazi party during post WWII occupied Germany.

Posted by: fastfreefall at March 08, 2013 01:55 PM (zUvAE)

Thank you for acknowledging it. I'm surprised no one else has chimed in regarding this. It was a serious tactical blunder, and it turned what could have been a relatively inexpensive success into a costly quagmire/failure.

Had we left the existing power structure alone, we would have made our point (don't fuck with us) and we would still have a very anti-Iranian country on their border.

The Sunni minority were running things for a reason; The Shias are much more insane and stupid.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 08, 2013 02:17 PM (bb5+k)

301 Amen Ace, amen.

Posted by: and irresolute at March 08, 2013 02:17 PM (DBH1h)

302 He's cranky because Depends no longer come in "desert camo".

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at March 08, 2013 02:17 PM (Qxdfp)

303 #255 non-purist -

Superb. Thanks.

Posted by: mrp at March 08, 2013 02:18 PM (HjPtV)

304 Sadaam deserved what he got.. so did his offspring. nasty evil people.

But you've got to admit they had a real eye for interior decorating.

Posted by: eleven at March 08, 2013 02:19 PM (fsLdt)

305
I'd bet my last dollar that Jay Carney grew up
in a household that denigrated Ronald Reagan and referred to his
proposal for a missile defense system as 'Star Wars'. Now he has to
depend on it to keep him safe.

Posted by: Regular Moron at March 08, 2013 01:57 PM (feFL6)

If we owned a media outlet, we could do a tv show that features prominent Democrats denouncing the SDI program, claiming it will never work.

We NEED to remind people that Democrat Ideas ALWAYS FAIL!!!!! And we need to do it in an entertaining fashion. The nation has become too stupid to listen to anything that isn't entertaining.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 08, 2013 02:20 PM (bb5+k)

306 But you've got to admit they had a real eye for interior decorating.
Posted by: eleven at March 08, 2013 02:19 PM (fsLdt)

My cousin was one of the Marines who took a shower in Sadaam's palace.. he said the idiot even had golden clown statues.

Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at March 08, 2013 02:21 PM (DGIjM)

307 @277

Right. The mission creep is killing far more Americans than the actual war from a ground taking perspective. The invasion of Iraq was less dangerous than driving from the airport to the green zone in 2007. We cannot win Muslim hearts and minds unless we all convert to Islam. Which often looks like the plan from our governments and institutions.

Posted by: Beagle at March 08, 2013 02:22 PM (oCdqI)

308 291...Or, you know, we could try to reduce our own Corporate Tax Rate and Minimum Wage. There's that option, too.

Or we could do both.
Stop being the 'policeman for the world'....and...reduce our Corporate Tax Rate and Minimum Wage.

Then, we just might be able to afford having the most expensive government in the world...and stop having to borrow money to pay for it.

Posted by: wheatie at March 08, 2013 02:25 PM (Jjnh4)

309 Posted by: non-purist at March 08, 2013 02:01 PM (afQnV)


Too many of your points to address, so I won't.


My point is easy. Human nature, being what it is, tells you to expect a fight out of a cornered rat.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 08, 2013 02:26 PM (bb5+k)

310 ""Bush the Lesser (41) underestimated the Somali insurgency, and a bunch
of superb Americans died horribly for absolutely no good reason as a
result.""


"Wrong. It was under Clinton that 'mission creep' occured."

The initial decision to enter Somalia with American forces -- a catastrophically wrong decision -- was taken by Bush, not by Clinton.

Clinton (and Les Aspin) proceeded to take an already impossibly fucked-up situation in Somalia and fuck it up even further with their liberal nonsense, but Bush created the original fucked-up situation.

When Bush first proposed to go into Somalia, I said that it was a reeking used condom of a country that didn't deserve a single penny of American aid. I said that if the USA were going to do anything at all to deliver things to Somalia, instead of delivering food on foot, we should be delivering Arc Light strikes with B-52s. Subsequent disastrous events bore that out in full.

Posted by: torquewrench at March 08, 2013 02:30 PM (gqT4g)

311 "Let's be smart about this, let's remember that the United States is made up of actual human beings who do in fact have limits, and start thinking about Some Limits. Smart Limits. Realistic Limits. Workable Limits."

You mentioned Baby Talk. This is Baby Talk.

Your Smart Limits will not be set by victory, or even momentum on the battlefield. They will be set by political momentum in Washington. Imagine George Patton told to ask John Boehner for permission, so he didn't go beyond America's Limits.

We will still fight wars, because we will find political mileage to get from starting a war. We will not win the war, lest we appear too cruel. From the momement we start, we will be waiting for the supreme Cronkite Moment when the smart guys will look to evacuate.

That's all you're going to achieve here, to convert the War on Terror to the War on Poverty. It will continue because it looks so bad to end it, but, we won't actually expect anybody to win it and we'll lock ranks to expel the kooks who want to quit and the kooks who think it can be won in ten years.

You don't have a blank slate, here. You have a military deployed around the world on bases given to us by allies who have been assured, who trust, that we will defend them if they are attacked, to the point of defeating their enemies.

See, all the current military, that's just the tip of the iceberg of American military might. If it really hits the fan we'll draft 30 million troops, and commit 50% of our industry to the war, and just about flatten anybody else on the planet. And that's if we fight a conventioanal war, which we may or may not. That's the been the plan.

Only now, when it becomes apparent that we won't do anything of the sort to obliterate people who bomb on New York City, then it becomes clear we won't bother for Poland, or South Korea, or Turkey.
We'd fight; we just won't win. We'll set a Smart Limit on the whole thing.

And the more that gets around, the more states will opt out like France and the Phillipines. There's no point suffering the troubles of hosting Americans when you can look forward to being told to piss off when the going gets rough.

But I guess its too late now, since it will come down to a political argument to get the American people to adopt principles, and the Republican Party isn't in the business of salesmanship. Just marketing.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at March 08, 2013 02:34 PM (0Bs6G)

312
My policies would be based upon :
"Does it serve the interests of protecting the life and liberty of Americans?"
"Friend of Liberty everywhere but a guarantor of our own."
"Your choice, best of friends when a friend, or the worst of enemies when an enemy."
"Overwhelming and complete response to aggression that stops it."
"If we break it, you fix it; and don't make us come and break it again."
"Islam is a totalitarianism antithetical to modern Western values."
"The borders mean something. And they mean something different to a foreigner from a citizen."

Posted by: Minuteman at March 08, 2013 02:35 PM (dSE0q)

313
#255
I must disagree with your assessment of DiogenesLamp's analysis. It's not 100% wrong. Was de-baathification the only thing causing an insurgency? Most probably not. But it caused a huge power vaccuum not only in the military but in the other areas of national power. The "applecart" asbroken as it was and built over the many years Saddam was in power, was tipped over, so to speak. Certainly Iraq is no Germany and their society has been fucked up for a longtime and can be blamed much on the Sunnis. However, those Sunnis, sonsabitches though they might've been, had at one time been our sonsabitches when Saddam was getting shit from us during Iraq-Iran war.
Not de-baathifying may have proved more advantageous in the short and even long term. Ideal and inline with our Amercan values? Probably not but still advantageous to our longterm interests.

Posted by: fastfreefall at March 08, 2013 02:36 PM (zUvAE)

314
"Run the alternate history, and when you read the
news stories about entire battaltions of unreformed baathists
slaughtering Shias or turning their guns on Americans, how do you feel
then?
"



Not to be evil, but why should I care? American Interests were to prevent WMD acquisition, and make an example of someone believed to be involved with attacking us. Why should internal conflicts within a nation be of a concern to the United States? As for those attacking us, they should be dealt with violently.


"And the Kurds Shias would not have been on-board with no de-baathification.
"


The Kurds could take care of themselves. The Shias? From what i've seen from them, I can understand why the Sunnis feel the need to keep a foot on their neck.




"p.s. I would agree with you that we should not have disbanded the
army, BUT there were costs to doing that as well, AND it could have
turned out very bad just as easily.
"
Posted by: sexypig at March 08, 2013 02:05 PM (dZQh7)





My thinking is that we should have used all that money we sent over there to pay these people to keep doing their jobs while the place was being cleaned up. Army units could have been re-mustered and assigned tasks at generous salaries.
Make it in people's best interest to tamp down aggression and they will do so. Give them no hope for the future and they will attack you with every means they can.






Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 08, 2013 02:36 PM (bb5+k)

315 Posted by: Chris Balsz at March 08, 2013 02:06 PM (0Bs6G)


It was JFK's incompetence and back stabbing which CAUSED the Cuban Missile crises. Had Chicago not fucking stolen the election, we never would have HAD a Cuban missile crises.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 08, 2013 02:40 PM (bb5+k)

316
Don't you have birth certificate to ponder over or something.

Posted by: polynikes at March 08, 2013 02:13 PM (m2CN7)

Apparently I ruffled your feathers about something. Not sure what it was. Are you a Jeb Bush supporter or something?



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at March 08, 2013 02:43 PM (bb5+k)

317 As I recall it even the zookeepers left their jobs in Iraq and they didn't return immediately when the US occupation offered to pay them, so, there was something more going on there than just general disillusionment with personal careers due to debaathification.

Also, the Iraqi militiary and political hierarchy was imposed from the top down by Saddam, so, to leave it in place without shooting troublemakers would create another kind of political vacuum.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at March 08, 2013 02:46 PM (0Bs6G)

318 McCain is vaingloriously defending a hill that was lost in 2008, if not 2006. It's time to pick a more defensible hill.

_________________

For now--even if he did it in artfully--he was simply defending the RPA program and the notion that Americans should fear it more than an F-16.

The RPA program is one of the best things we have going for us in the new age of terrorism.

[--btw--not on the McCain bus, not on the Rand Paul bus.]

Posted by: tasker at March 08, 2013 02:47 PM (r2PLg)

319 >>It was JFK's incompetence and back stabbing which CAUSED the Cuban Missile crises. Had Chicago not fucking stolen the election, we never would have HAD a Cuban missile crises.

OK for one thing - was it a phony? Was JFK bluffing because he wouldn't really "bear any burden"?

Apart from that, which was why I mentioned it - how was it JFK's fault? I put that one on Castro and Kruschev. Are you saying the Cold War would have been softer if NIXON won?

Posted by: Chris Balsz at March 08, 2013 02:49 PM (0Bs6G)

320 For now--even if he did it *in-artfully*--he was simply defending the RPA program and the notion that Americans should fear it more than an F-16.

The RPA program is one of the best things we have going for us in the new age of terrorism.

Posted by: tasker at March 08, 2013 02:49 PM (r2PLg)

321 @132,

I'm talking about public perception when I say "the party of constant war". I haven't seen anything that makes Afghanistan Obama's war.

There are areas where libertarians can meet with Tea Party Repubs. We just have to point them out to the libertarians. I don't read the Democratic sites, but I bet there are Dems asking why more Dems didn't support the filibuster. Dems were in favor of limits to Presidential power when Bush was President. They need to be reminded of that, because there won't always be a Dem in the White House. It will be interesting to see where Paul goes next with this.

Oh, and McCain and Graham will be on all the news shows this weekend, just like normal. CBS really loves them.

Posted by: notsothoreau at March 08, 2013 02:50 PM (5HBd1)

322 92 If you read Rand's speech--the unofficial transcripts are at his website---he doesn't get into any of the serious points about Al-Aulaqi's activities...

That was one of the handful of problems I had with what Sen. Paul was saying, as he was using that situation as one of his examples and was downplaying Aulaqi/Awlaki's involvement with al-Qaeda through his characterization. But if McCain and Graham (who have been guilty of being equally naive at times) want to have actual foreign policy debate, they need to stop being catty and listen.

Posted by: 80sBaby at March 08, 2013 02:51 PM (YjDyJ)

323 I at first read the post as saying "the public wisely rejects" - only one letter different from "widely rejects" - and I agree with either. Even for those of us who are firmly committed to a strong defense, there have to be limits!

Posted by: Rational Hawk at March 08, 2013 02:51 PM (JbbCZ)

324 That's a great post, Ace

My precise sentiments

Posted by: Reaganite Republican at March 08, 2013 02:51 PM (oK767)

325 322 92 If you read Rand's speech--the unofficial transcripts are at his website---he doesn't get into any of the serious points about Al-Aulaqi's activities...

That was one of the handful of problems I had with what Sen. Paul was saying, as he was using that situation as one of his examples and was downplaying Aulaqi/Awlaki's involvement with al-Qaeda through his characterization. But if McCain and Graham (who have been guilty of being equally naive at times) want to have actual foreign policy debate, they need to stop being catty and listen.
Posted by: 80sBaby at March 08, 2013 02:51 PM

__________________

Did you catch the list of reasons Americans could be targeted?

I agree it's been a poor response.

Both sides are too emotional for my tastes-actually.

I'm not sure who the proper Republican is to bridge the gap.

Inhofe, IMO.

Pretty sure he appreciates the importance of the RPA program.

Hopefully it blows over--so perhaps he doesn't have to intervene.

Posted by: tasker at March 08, 2013 02:55 PM (r2PLg)

326 I think Ace gives McCain too much credit in assuming his tantrum has anything to do with national defense. I don't think it does. I think it has more to do with the internal struggle between the RINOs and the politicians on the right who still have a bit of principle. It also has to do with McCain's huge ego and his getting upstaged by the young guys.

McCain only reaches across the aisle to the leadership of the other party. On this issue, Rand reached across and made common cause on substance with the rank and file. Rand did what McCain only plays at doing and it makes McCain look like the weak and feckless tool that he really is. It makes him look like an elitist and part of the apparatus rather than like a maverick. What better contrast could there be than Rand standing on the Senate floor passionately defending the Constitution and demanding accountability while McCain wines and dines with Obama?

And if there is one thing self-important blowhards can't stand it is being made to look irrelevant by people they perceive to be beneath them... you betchya!

Posted by: Voluble at March 08, 2013 02:56 PM (qYvEa)

327
(Rather like how the crossbow was reviled as a coward's weapon because
it killed knights so easily and didn't put the archer himself at great
risk.)









You're just DARING us to digress aren't you, Wicket?

Actually, I'm pretty sure that it wasn't the "coward" factor, but the class warfare factor. For noblemen, being a medieval knight isn't nearly as much fun if a peasant with minimal training and a crossbow can skewer you with a bolt before you even get the chance to cleave his skull with a broadsword.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at March 08, 2013 02:58 PM (TIIx5)

328 How does McCain rationalize the fact that the President has the authority to kill Americans on American soil without due process (I'll assume he thinks only in extreme circumstances) , but we can't torture non-Americans under the same circumstances.

Posted by: taylork at March 08, 2013 03:03 PM (ppNDn)

329 "282 Remember when McCain wanted US troops in Georgia and US navy ships off its coast? following the Russian invasion?"

And Romney virtually promising a war with Iran and to subcontract our Mideast policy to Israel?

Quibble if you want but that is exactly what the wishy-washy LIVs heard.

I think some of the support that Rand got from Toomey, Johnson, Thune, Rubio was due to their perception that war-war-war is not the best motto for the GOP.

McCain is unbalanced and Graham is just plain giddy on this stuff.

And thanks for the great essay, Ace.

Posted by: TooCon at March 08, 2013 03:09 PM (f+yEj)

330 "I still consider myself a hawk."

Yeah. Without you typing your little squirts of venomous Internet jism, sitting on your ass waiting for another bowel movement, we would have never lost those wars.

You're a fucking hawk, ace. You should be valorized. Maybe we can find a Wounded Warrior to shit in your mouth.

Posted by: andrew breitbart at March 08, 2013 03:10 PM (ULHYG)

331 I was a super-hawk, much like Ace.

Now I'm halfway to Luap Nor relatively.

I want to pull out of Europe. Let Europe fund their own defense. We can sell stuff to Isreal, and make alliances with them, but I don't think we need to be in the area the way we are now(Saudi Arabia etc).

We need to hold China back from adventurism though. At least until their population gets too old to go on military adventures.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at March 08, 2013 03:13 PM (xAtAj)

332 SurferDoc: 190 McCain to Graham:"Here we are at dinner, sucking Obama's cock for all we're worth, and this little bastard is back at the Senate grabbing all the headlines!"

You do know that Lindsey wasn't actually objecting to the menu...I'm just sayin'.

Posted by: TooCon at March 08, 2013 03:14 PM (f+yEj)

333 trolls should at least try to make sense. Is this guy 12?

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at March 08, 2013 03:15 PM (xAtAj)

334 And where is the BH3000?

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at March 08, 2013 03:16 PM (xAtAj)

335 trolls should at least try to make sense. Is this guy 12?

Maybe, 13. References to seminal fluid and excrement raise the age factor just a little.

Posted by: Regular Moron at March 08, 2013 03:19 PM (feFL6)

336 331
I want to pull out of Europe. Let Europe fund their own defense. We can sell stuff to Isreal, and make alliances with them, but I don't think we need to be in the area the way we are now(Saudi Arabia etc).

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 45% more DOOM! at March 08, 2013 03:13 PM (xAtAj)


If we hadn't spent so much money defending Europe during the Cold War, they wouldn't have had the money to build up their lavish welfare states.

You know, the ones that American liberals have been longing to emulate.

Ironic, ain't it?

Posted by: rickl at March 08, 2013 03:20 PM (zoehZ)

337
"I think McCain is blowing his stack for two reasons"


There are others. He's a pathological diva who seethes over Rand Paul's attention, and an Establishment relic scared and enraged and envious over the the new wave of rising conservative-libertarians. In fact, McCain along the rest of the GOP have, through their abandonment of conservative principles and serial accommodations to the big government Left, guaranteed their own fall.
McCain is ancien regime and this is how ancient regime and its pettier grandees always behave in their dying days.

Posted by: rrpjr at March 08, 2013 03:26 PM (r5HoA)

338
great post, I enjoyed reading it and agree with it.

never-ending war is just as idiotic as not having a standing army.

never-ending war is the tool of tyrants despots.


there are threats to us in this world, the way to handle them is swift and harsh.

go in, kill everyone, destroy everything and then get the fuck out of there and go home.

we are currently accomplishing absolutely nothing in Afghan except unnescessary death and destruction, but on and on it goes, why?

politics politicians, ego's scoreboards, that's why our good young people are dying now, that and nothing more.

Posted by: Shoey at March 08, 2013 03:37 PM (jdOk/)

339 I just noticed the Stain in full damage-control mode on Fox News, cowed even by clueless Shep.

Obviously, Ace's essay brought him to his knees. LOL.

Posted by: TooCon at March 08, 2013 03:42 PM (f+yEj)

340 I'm ashamed of my knucklehead brothers. There was so much enthusiasm for "unending war." What happened? I can tell you what happened. The swarthy man was elected president. And now, right-wing knuckleheads are falling over themselves to put daisies into the barrels of guns. Who knows? This could be the prelude to the knucklehead summer of love, 2013.

What a bunch of fucking hypocrites. I'm so glad I'm dead.

Posted by: andrew breitbart at March 08, 2013 03:43 PM (ULHYG)

341 Posted by: tasker at March 08, 2013 02:55 PM (r2PLg)

Paul is right about the need to be more specific in defining the term "enemy combatant" but I feel the more basic use of the term fit in that particular case.

My foreign policy views lie between Paul's and McCain/Graham's (hawkish but not super-hawkish). We cannot be naive and complacent towards those who would do us harm but we cannot be the world's policeman, either. So I feel the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were/are justifiable but our intervention in Libya and meddling in Egypt were/are not.

Posted by: 80sBaby at March 08, 2013 03:45 PM (YjDyJ)

342 Ace,
Not to suck up or anything, but can I just say that you are brilliant. This was one of the best reads I've had in a while and is just so spot on accurate in so many things.

Carry on.

Posted by: Scott at March 08, 2013 03:51 PM (crMaz)

343 Isn't this the same McCain who threw a hissy over waterboarding a few terrorists? So that is just awful but the President unilaterally deciding to kill American citizens in America and not in combat is no big deal?

This isn't super-hawk. It's super idiotic.

Posted by: DaMav at March 08, 2013 03:55 PM (rT08W)

344 Ace, 9/12, 2001: "I was gripping the steering wheel, listening to the radio, my knuckles turned white, grinding my teeth – "Those mommy-fuckers...kill them all..." And then you drove home and spent zero hours enlisting in the military, and 100,000 hours typing your little jihads against liberal traitors.

Ace: 2005, or so: " if any of you guys who load the bombs on planes don't mind… Could you write my name on one of the rockets..,. That would be so cool, like sucking Dick Cheney's nuts"

Ace, right now: Cooooooo. I'm so non-interventionist, my ass puckers at the very mention of "war"

You're a fucking diabolically confused cocksucker.

Posted by: andrew breitbart at March 08, 2013 03:55 PM (ULHYG)

345 "344 You're a fucking diabolically confused cocksucker."

Lindsey, stop projecting already. We all know your scene.

Posted by: TooCon at March 08, 2013 04:01 PM (f+yEj)

346 Just heard a McCain intervue on the Michael Medved(spit) show. He's digging his heels in "I will not be intimidated by anyone" What a corn hole.

The callers lambasted him for being a divider. Rightly so.

Posted by: Attila at March 08, 2013 04:06 PM (Cs2tJ)

347 Excellent work!

Posted by: Gator70 at March 08, 2013 04:14 PM (WSmYl)

348 "Nation building? No. Forget that. Bomb them, leave the rubble and let them rebuild themselves. If they start acting stroppy and threatening us again, bomb them again, leave the rubble and let them rebuild themselves."

That'd be great if it worked. It doesn't seem to work. Not now, at least.

1) It's not 1917 anymore. The enemy no longer needs to rebuild their entire industrial infrastructure before they can stage an effective retaliation.

2) The power vacuum of a failed state is a wonderful opportunity for hostile powers looking to extend their influence.

3) It's easy to hide in rubble. Preventing #1 and #2 requires very close observation over a very long time. An occupying force.

4) Occupying a country for an extended period of time without doing any rebuilding is almost as expensive as occupying while rebuilding. And it can be even more expensive if you have to build and maintain your own private infrastructure.

5) Rebuilding is control. Douglas MacArthur didn't rebuild Imperial Japan as a western democracy because he was a bleeding heart. He did it because he knew it would make it much more difficult for Japan to ever become a threat to us again.

Posted by: GalosGann at March 08, 2013 04:40 PM (T3KlW)

349 Ok, so the Obama Administration promises to not kill a US citizen on US soil.

How about resident aliens? Illegals? People on tourist visas?

Do they check for green cards first?

Posted by: Whitehall at March 08, 2013 04:41 PM (1+mGd)

350 I'm also tired of the Super Hawk shit.

I'm not "Ron Paul "on foreign policy (and I detest it when he sometimes goes into Jane Fonda mode) but let's just say I'd like to see a whole more "isolationism" from the GOP. People like McCain genuinely want the US to be some modern Roman Empire. Unless the homeland is directly threatened, stay the hell out of it.

If you want to know why this country in now in the hands of socialists, it's because of NeoCons. Had Bush never gone into Iraq, we never would have heard about Barack Obama.

Posted by: McAdams at March 08, 2013 04:41 PM (zK9uN)

351 I'm not quite sure why 9/11 would have changed anyone's worldview.

The message I took away from 9/11 was not that the world is a mean place full of people who want to take what we have, and failing that just hurt us for having it. That should have been evident, like, forever, or at least since the fall of Rome which in the case of what most Americans got from our public schools was probably sometime before forever.

No, 9/11 instructed us that we fucked up, we weren't paying attention. I found the maudlin handwringing over it to be embarrassing. I was a Curtis LeMay NEFOconservative before 9/11 and I was a NEFOconservative after; I have long been disappointed at the lack of houseboat rentals at the Lake Tora Bora we never created, and that Google Maps still shows a city called Abbottabad where perhaps there ought to be a lot of rubble.

There are wars of necessity and wars of convenience, and while it's really a continuum you do need to draw a line somewhere. Afghanistan was a war of necessity, though you could quibble with how we fought it; Iraq was a war of convenience. Korea was narrowly a war of necessity, though we perhaps brought it on ourselves; Vietnam was a war of convenience.

Please note that I am not saying that all wars of necessity are good, nor are all wars of convenience bad. The Mexican War was at the time derided as a squalid little imperial land-grab, but we should now consider ourselves damned fortunate that Polk pulled it off.

The key is this: the people will put up with just about anything if they believe a war is truly necessary. The threshold is drawn in a whole lot further for those that are suspect. The lesson one takes from the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War is that the public will quite happily acquiesce to a war of convenience if aggressively and successfully fought; the lesson one takes from Iraq and Vietnam and Somalia and the Philippine Insurrection is that the public is, for a while at least, too tolerant of one that is fought sloppily and halfheartedly, but when they do turn it will be dramatic. The lesson one takes from Nicaragua in FDR's day and Kosovo and Operations Northern Watch/Southern Watch is that if an administration can keep a war of convenience small enough the public will forget about it.

The one thing, though, that you NEVER do is to take on a war of convenience that weakens your ability to respond to a truly existential threat.

The world is still a menacing place, and the only thing that's going on in the Mideast that represents a real threat to the US - not a nit like 9/11, for it was a nit, but a real threat - is Iran's nukes. We have an increasingly limited ability to spend in response to Iran, or China, or the Norks, or a grumpy Putin, but these are the threats that could truly hobble, if not really end, the American experiment.

McCain's continual argument that, in this era of exceptionally limited means, we should spend money that should go into major-threat readiness on an endless parade of trivial wars of convenience that will bleed our treasury but attract no attention from the public, is fundamentally irresponsible.

Posted by: JEM at March 08, 2013 04:45 PM (o+SC1)

352 @348 - the lesson of WWII is that before you can rebuild a nation you need to flatten them hard enough that there isn't any will to resist left.

The lesson of Iraq is that if you go in with half the boots necessary to actually control the place, you won't be able to control the place. Whatever one may think of GHWB's Presidency otherwise, this is a mistake his son acquiesced in that he would have had the experience not to make.

Posted by: JEM at March 08, 2013 04:51 PM (o+SC1)

353 You are giving McCain too much credit. He's blowing up because Rand Paul took the spotlight off of him for dining with Barry. He was going to milk that for all it's worth for as long as he could to get face time on TV. Plain and simple. But Yosemite Sam is his own worst enemy. The mainstream media and all the leftist blogoshpere were determined to ignore the filibuster. Now with the extended tantrum from Mr. Straight Talk Express, Rand is getting mucho coverage..ergo so is his filibuster.
Thanks again John for keeping Rand Paul on the front page for 2 and probably more days.

Posted by: buffy at March 08, 2013 05:11 PM (INAPN)

354
McCain's experience in combat was from thousands of feet above in an attack plane. It's one thing to propose face-to-face combat - quite another to do it. Also, I have always suspected that the malign influence of the Democrat Colin Powell ("You break it - you fix it") had something to do with the nation-building of Iraq. I have belonged to the Let 'Em Glow Club since my own military service years ago.

Posted by: Irregular Maroon at March 08, 2013 05:53 PM (pcT5w)

355 348
5) Rebuilding is control. Douglas MacArthur didn't rebuild Imperial Japan as a western democracy because he was a bleeding heart. He did it because he knew it would make it much more difficult for Japan to ever become a threat to us again.
Posted by: GalosGann at March 08, 2013 04:40 PM (T3KlW)


Very true. I started to think that Iraq and Afghanistan had gone off the rails when we allowed them both to write constitutions that enshrined sharia law. Could anybody imagine us letting something like that happen in Germany or Japan post-1945?

Posted by: rickl at March 08, 2013 07:20 PM (sdi6R)

356 So, john, hie your fat commie ass to the front lines in syria and start shooting. You stupid mother fucking jackass. I hate you. I'm past done caring about your "alleged" bravery in a pow prison. Based on what I have seen, they turned your puerile ass. And you have been shafting us every fucking day since you got back.
You were a bottom of his class hack and couldn't fly your way out of a wet paper bag. You probably weren't even shot down, you just lost control trying to scratch you ass.

Posted by: Torqued at March 08, 2013 07:50 PM (AKS75)

357 "go in, kill everyone, destroy everything and then get the fuck out of there and go home."

How can you be allowed to do that? You might catch some American citizen noncombatant terrorist supporters not imminently preparing an attack.

Posted by: Chris Balsz at March 08, 2013 08:05 PM (0Bs6G)

358 3 words:
S. E. Spades

muahahahahahaaaa

Posted by: Blacksmith8 at March 08, 2013 09:32 PM (Yzu6e)

359 AllenG,
"Except that's not true. Well, maybe "nuclear or biological"
specifically, but we found plenty of chemicals and lots of places still
set up to manufacture chemical and biological weapons."

We found and removed entire flights of fighter bombers full combat load with dirty bombs attached.

We found entire warehouses stuff with chemicals for weapons.

We found entire barren landscapes where former anti-bath party people and khurds USED to live.

We found the very WMDs that the former general and race baiter colin powell lied about and lied about again.

We found a lot of fun things in the desert. Most which was never reported in the USA.

Posted by: Blacksmith8 at March 08, 2013 09:45 PM (Yzu6e)

360 Blacksmith8: "We found a lot of fun things in the desert. Most which was never reported in the USA."

Show us. But you never can.

Stupid blowhards who won't admit when they've been played by cheap con-men and lying gasbag pols.

Posted by: TooCon at March 09, 2013 12:48 AM (f+yEj)

361 McCain, Graham Need to End the Super-Hawk Crap

---------------------
McCain, Graham just need to end, period.

Posted by: fred at March 09, 2013 02:22 AM (edQyR)

362 With apologies to General MacArthur, a McCain adaptation:

Old mavericks never die, they just never fade away

Posted by: Kurt Mudgeon at March 09, 2013 02:03 PM (X4/Xn)

363
There is another reason for the McCain freakout.
Remember that as a member of the "gang of eight" McCain tried to elevate his influence in the Senate as the veto block to the filibuster (of justices).
I suspect that McCain would like to use this agreement to become the cetral power for the GOP in the Senate. Of course, Paul sticks a nice needle in this balloon.
In my opinion, McCain and Graham needed to be deflated. Now they need to go away. They are unworthy of the people they supposedly represent.

Posted by: deignan at March 09, 2013 02:04 PM (4pvQt)

364 About McCain's weird name calling: We cannot agree with Paul's sentiment that our president should say without equivocation that drone strikes (strikes by our own military) are off limits on Americans on American soil? If I have to choose between McCain and Paul on that I am lining up behind Paul.

I am definitely no pacifist, but we don't do that.

I am with Ace on there better be more than honor before we march our kids to battle. We are not the world police. And we better stop running our mouth if we cannot deliver the goods to back it up. No more paper tigers and no more fighting wars not ours or our allies.

Posted by: Shan at March 09, 2013 02:27 PM (V9MHw)

365 Another thing. When Paul filibustered, could no other senator used that time to come to the floor and directly challenge him? Is that not allowed under the rules of the Senate? If they could, maybe McCain and Graham should have confronted him right to his face and then let there be a frank discussion for us all to see and then judge for ourselves who had the better argument. The backbiting is really undignified.

Posted by: Shan at March 09, 2013 02:53 PM (V9MHw)

366 The supreme irony is that McCain is himself a TRAITOR. YES! Our "war hero" ratted out the US while a Vietnam POW.
And if that wasn't enough, when he got back he did everything he could to stop the US govt from bringing the other POWs back
WHY? Was he afraid they'd tell what he did? Did he rat out his fellow soldiers too? I'm sure he did.
He is a slimeball. Just read this to exactly what kind of a man this RINO is:
http://tinyurl.com/ae24pvh
And when you've done, read this to see how he fudged his Navy records:
http://tinyurl.com/3urjqg

Posted by: charlotte at March 09, 2013 06:31 PM (uk//v)

367 McLame was near the bottom of his class at Annapolis. He is one of the only people to become a war hero -- not by killing enemies -- but by being captured. A shameful golddigging idiot whosedecaying brain requires him to find "honor" in everything. Maybe some time I'll tell you how I feel about him.

Posted by: DarthYoda at March 09, 2013 06:42 PM (Pm6lm)

368 Ace,

You seem finally to have emerged from the "Dark Side" :-)

Steve

Posted by: Steve J. at March 09, 2013 07:38 PM (S6Jq4)

369 Bah bah bah
Bah bahm Iran

Posted by: Markercan at March 09, 2013 08:26 PM (YaaxB)

370 Gosh. Some pent up aggression here in some of the comments. He acts like an old fart, gas bag war mongering attention whore sometimes. Seems par for the political course. Call him out for his wrong stance and then move on. Otherwise you become petty as McCain. And that's pretty petty my friends.

Posted by: Shan at March 09, 2013 08:34 PM (V9MHw)

371 John McCain is an embodiment of our wrong military orientation, invading distant lands but not defending our own lands and keeping them for ourselves.

The war-making function of our governments legitimately exists to protect us from invasion. When our lands are settled by aliens, we become losers in the Darwinian game of life. Human communities that did not fight to keep their land for themselves were selected out.

As we are being selected out. Because of course our governments don't oppose mass immigration, they sponsor it, and favor the immigrants over us.

This specifically includes Muslims. A decade and more into the so-called war on terror, we still take Islamic immigrants. What a sick joke.

Under these circumstances, the military is pointless. It only provides a potential civil liberties risk, but no real protection.

Posted by: Chromoly Man at March 09, 2013 08:35 PM (uYpZO)

372 350 I'm not "Ron Paul "on foreign policy (and I detest it when he sometimes goes into Jane Fonda mode) but let's just say I'd like to see a whole more "isolationism" from the GOP.
-
Me too.

Posted by: Chromoly Man at March 09, 2013 08:40 PM (uYpZO)






Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.0778 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0256 seconds, 381 records returned.
Page size 257 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

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)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
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)
News/Chat