Bob Richardson from IL emails:
Re: Lynching Buckley;
You write:
“And this is (and has been) a crucial component of the warâ€â€one that many on the anti-war side are loathe to admit: that their constant naysaying, though it is well within their right to voice, has objectively hurt the war effort…”
As someone who always stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States, I disagree here. It is not the naysaying that is hurting the war effort; it is the war effort that is hurting America.
This criminal war was doomed from the start. The Laws of God and history was never going to reward deceit and imperialist aggression against another nation. That is Nazism. And like Nazism, the criminal American war machine will get its justified comeuppance and fail. It will meet resistance because it has to face resistance. It will fail because it has to fail. Doesn’t
anybody read their Gibbon or Kipling or Bible any more??
My response:
Actually, I have written that there are several components that have gone right with the war and several components that have gone wrong—I just don’t shoehorn the litany into every individual post. But as an example, I have been critical of the US strategy to get its message out effectively; about its original mishandling of places like Fallujah; about its failure to clearly identify the enemy, and etc.
But the particular post you reference dealt with our media and anti-war critics supplying the insurgency—a group that is now fighting against Iraqis who’ve elected and Iraqi government—with propaganda, mostly by perpetuating a number of falsehoods (though the tenor of the criticism is also problematic, in my opinion).
Criticizing the war (strategy, tactics, plans, etc) is legititmate, as I thought I made clear in my post; which is why my disagreement w/ Buckley (a paleocon and not much of an interventionalist to begin with) was respectful.
But pushing phoney stories about Americans using chemical weapons on freedom fighters, of flushing the Koran, or of “indiscriminately rounding up and severely mistreating Muslims after 911” (said by a former VP before a Wahhabist audience) is empirically and objectively, in my opinion, worthy of criticism as well. And analyzing the effects of such things in light of the terrorist strategy to break our collective will seems to me quite a valid exercise, particularly from a writer who has from the very beginning concerned himself with rhetoric, memetics, and the way “official” narratives come to be sanctioned and ossified.
Had many of my critics bothered to read my post rather than rely one of the leftwing sites’ easy (and predictable) mischaracterizations of it, all this might have been clear; I laid no “blame” for the “failure” of the Iraq war on the left—first, because I don’t agree with the premise of a failure, and second, because I don’t believe The Left™ (unlike, say, the homogenous Cult of Bush) are all of a single mind. Instead, I noted that certain anti-war critics were providing the insurgency the raw material for one part of its strategy to fight the US and the west (specifically, to weaken American resolve by using spectacular attacks, the cultural guilt professed by some Americans over our “imperialist” past, and a genuine partisan hatred for the current President)—and this is objectively true.
Whether or not it is appropriate for war critics to criticize the war so vocally and so consistently is for them to decide, ultimately; however, it was my position that the more hyperbolic and vicious critiques—based too often on falsehoods and ideologically-weighted arguments that failed to provide adequate context for their criticisms—were doing damage to troop morale, to the morale of the US electorate, and were helping in the propaganda efforts of the insurgents (who have no legitimate claim in Iraq)—and they were working in this harmful capacity far moreso than they were weakening the President’s resolve or helping the people of Iraq. I suggested that those who were anti-war—having registered their disagreement—are therefore doing no good by working hard to bring about our defeat at this point in the campaign, or by openly crowing for a civil war. But they are making it more difficult for our troops, our State Department, the DoD, and our allies.
Such capring then, it seems to me, boils down to cynical ego gratification (being against the war from the first, many of these critics now wish to see their predictions validated at the expense of what consequences a US withdrawal might bring). But those who quoted Buckley with such obvious glee failed to note that his position, essentially, is that Arabs aren’t ready for democracy.
I disagreed—and I have disagreed with this position from the very start; and I further disagreed with Buckley’s assessment of the state of the war, which I thought was a premature and largely driven by sensationalism and worst-case fears. I allowed that I could be wrong, of course: a civil war could break out at any time, and the situation is precarious (though the Sunnis have decided to return to the political process); but nevertheless, that was my position, and I considered it a reasonable rejoinder to Buckley’s essay.
You are free to do all the criticizing you want, Bob. You can screech of American Nazism, “criminal” invasions, American war machine comeuppance, etc.
To me, it sounds like a bad monologue from, say, the Strawberry Statement or R.P.M., but have at it. Just know—and this was the point of my post—that such actions have consequences. And that it is not ME who is running away from the consequences of my actions: I continue to support the war, and I analyze it to assess what, in my opinion, are its successes and failures (see this recent post, for instance); and looking at the way the war is being depicted here at home by the media and by people like you, who—if you are willing to share your opinions with me, unsolicited—are certainly out there making the same arguments to people you have actual physical contact with. And this is how misinformation spreads.
The Iraqis have voted to try for freedom and a democratic system; they are being aided in that decision by the US military and its coalition partners. They are being opposed by deposed Ba’athists and al Qaeda fighters (aided by Iran and Syria). And, it appears, people like you, Bob.
I’ve taken responsibility for what my support for the war has wrought. I haven’t walked back my support, because the effort to me seems driven by the convenient intersection of American security interests and humanitarian relief (why Milosevic and not Saddam?)
What I don’t understand is, why can’t you and your friends on the left1 who are so quick to (mistakenly, and in my opinion, intentionally) assert that I have laid blame for the failure of the war at the feet of the left take responsibility for what YOUR actions have wrought—even if you believe those actions were justified? The best and worst of (subjective) intentions, after all, have empirical consequences. And to deny that the anti-war campaign, coupled with a media that concentrates on calamity rather than success, hasn’t had a deleterious effect on US will—and a positive effect on the persistance of the insurgency—smacks to me of willful blindness and, frankly, a rather patently obvious defensiveness.
****
1 In a follow-up email, Bob notes that he has a framed Constitution on his wall and is a “libertarian conservative” [see: Justin Raimondo], which I guess explains the Nazi talk; in the email, he similar extols the virtues of Pat Buchanan and “liberty” while calling me a “neocon pantywaist” for daring to question real conservative Americans. Evidently, disagreeing respectfully with people like Buckley over his analysis of the war doesn’t fall under the kkkinds of liberties Bob wishes us to have, framed Constitution or no, which explains the dashed off email to a total stranger whose opinions differ from his own.
But I’ve long pointed out that the progressivist left and the Buchananite right have circled around to join each other in a kind of neo-isolationism. All that differs is the language and the baggage of the two labels. Bob, bless him, has only strengthened my position.
Your correspondent, Jeff, perfectly exemplifies the left’s no-so-subtle alignment with our enemies.
To Bob: Doesn’t it bother you just a tad that your rhetoric and that of any mouthpiece from Al Qaeda’s are almost identical?
BTW, “standing shoulder to shoulder” means something completely different when those standing thusly are also bending over and dropping trou, begging, as it were, to let one’s enemies roger you from behind. No thanks, Bob.
You’ll have to excuse Bob, Jeff. We here in Illinois have been sensitive about Nazism ever since The Blues Brothers showed us the devistating effects Nazis could have on the wacky antics of two “Blues Brothers”.
Or maybe you simply choose not to understand Illinois culture?
I hate Illinois Nazis
A polite yet direct smackdown, Jeff. But negative nationalists do not change their opinions. Your words will only serve to exemplify the evil nature of the U.S. as it exists in their minds.
I really like that sentence. Well put.
shorter Bob with aid of a time machine:
It’s only Poland for christ sakes! Have some perspective people.
Upon further consideration, I think it’s possible “Bob” could be an imposter. Nowhere in his little screechy missive did he mention Halliburton. Serious style points deducted, Bob. Serious.
Perhaps we can chalk this oversight up to emailing in furious, spittle-spewing haste. Who knows. But right now his moonbat creds are in doubt. Sad, isn’t it?
Jeff,
Thank you for putting into words what I could never bring myself to say, especially that you did it eloquently and rationally.
“As someone who always stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States,”
Wow. That says it all, really. The United States is the flipping Other to this guy.
Do you seriously beleive that the insurgency would be any less severe if we simply covered our eyes and ignored what was happening in the country?
Is that your contention? That the insurgency, as it exists now, would be somehow weakened if we all would just shut our mouths? If we didn’t pursue stories that the U.S. may have used chemical weapons, or if we ignored the treatment of Muslims in this country after 9/11.
Then there is your argument that dissent in war time is somehow sacrosanct, lest it aids the enemy. This, as you probably know, is an unAmerican idea. To wit:
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Thomas Jefferson
I don’t notice a corollary there “…unless the Party in power decides dissent is not in their political interest.”
With the exception of Bob, your emailer, those opposed to this war are not rooting of America to lose. We believe this war will come back to bite us in the ass as Iraq becomes a terrorist sanctuary much like Afghanistan became. Which, of course, means that in twenty years, terrorists from an organization sheltered by Iraq will blow up Los Angeles. And in response, we’ll attack Cuba.
“The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.” – excerpt from The Iraqi Liberation Act official White House Statement, 10/31/1998
Much of Bill Clinton’s fan base today either think Iraqis don’t have a right to vote, or they don’t deserve any better than Wyclef Jean’s “Father Saddam”.
Actually Bob I do read Gibbon, Kipling, and the Bible frequently, and I’m getting an entirely different message. It seems that you and many of your friends don’t understand the definition of “imperialism”. If you want an example of the effects of the leftist rhetoric on the was from an historical perspective that you understand, read Kipling’s poem “Tommy”. Many on the left who call the American war effort “criminal” are really just trying to criminalize the soldiers fighting there.I hear you saying to Tommy, “throw him out, the brute!”
A note to the patriotic dissenters. Dissent all you want, but if your words sound as if they could have been written BY our enemy, expect to catch shit for it.
LionDude:
“We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions—the fact that the sanctions exist—not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein’s ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq…” – Colin Powell, 24 February 2001
“But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” – Condi Rice, 29 July 2001
I’m with Vino and the Poorman. D’ya really think that what the media says has anything to do with the progress of the war? D’ya really think that leftists, no matter how virulent, have had any impact on the behavior of the insurgents and militias? D’ya really think that it matters what Gore says in Saudi Arabia? D’ya really think that Jane Fonda cost us the war in Vietnam?
I mean, really, all this hair-splitting (“I’m not a Bush Kultist! Phosphorus isn’t a chemical weapon! The Koran was NEXT TO the toilet, not IN the toilet!”) is ridiculous.
The war’s a freaking mess because the people who planned it were working from fantasyland. Even if you believe that we were right to go there, we went there without a plan that took into account the perfectly obvious challenges that were to follow. Troop morale today isn’t dragged down by surly dissidents at home. Troop morale is dragged down by IEDs that blow holes in their buddies.
And here’s more of the real deal: the chronic naysaying that’s been going on all along hasn’t had one iota of impact on the “war effort.” Bush has gotten every policy, every dollar, every strategy that he wanted, despite the nonstop opposition of millions of Americans. He’s got the Congress. He’s got the Pentagon. He’s gotten every law he wanted, every allocation, every green light he requested.
Need more soldiers, Mr. Prez? “No,” says he, “it’s all good.” Need more money? “Yes, here’s the bill.” Sure thing, sir. Need more laws? “Just this Patriot Act.” Gotcha. How about National Guard? “Send ‘em over.” Sure thing, Mr. President. More armor, more health care, more VA benefits, more anything? “No, everything’s fine.”
So how, HOW, pray tell, has this insidious left, this carping opposition, hurt the war effort?
Answer: it hasn’t. The war effort is hurt by the civilian leadership.
Vino, you may want to reread the post before you embarass yourself again.
Jeff was explicitly not attacking legitimite “dissent,” as you say; but the willful perpetuation of false and malicious propoganda.
Which, of course, means that in twenty years, terrorists from an organization sheltered by Iraq will blow up Los Angeles. And in response, we’ll attack Cuba.
And here the real you slithers out from under its rock. The contempt for America found in this statement is rather excessive. It implies that:
1. We will be so negligent in our relations with the new client-state of Iraq as to allow terrorist groups there the space to secure WMDs, and the organizational structure to exploit them.
2. We will then neglect the real, proximate threat entirely, in favor of settling old scores with Castro (who you presume would have nothing to do with the hypothetical attack).
3. American citizens would acquiesce to this blinding idiocy.
TW: “needs,” as in “Vino needs to find more respect for his fellow citizens.”
I don’t get it. And I think I know why.
To a large extent, those opposed to the war are opposed on the merits. We don’t think it was a good war to fight from the beginning. We don’t think it was adequately planned. We don’t think that Iraq as currently comprised is disposed to a federal democracy. And we don’t trust the Bush administration to competently solve any of these problems.
Guess what? That’s pretty close to objective reality. One can argue whether getting rid of Saddam Hussein was worth the damage to American prestige and morale that this war has caused, but one cannot argue that Saddam was a clear and present danger to the United States. (To his own people, perhaps–but by that standard, we have to engage in wars to cleanse Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, and about three dozen other nations whose leaders are objectively evil; Saddam was evil, but he was garden-variety evil.)
But whatever we believe, we have had little to no influence on the actual prosecution of the war. This war was launched by a Republican president. It has been funded by a Republican congress. In all phases of the war, it has been planned and executed by the right. And no matter what the level of dissent at home, that seems unlikely to change before January 2007 at the soonest; Bush’s subterranean approval numbers haven’t led us to pull out, last I checked.
So wherefore do you blame those on the left for causing us to lose this war? We’ve said things, sure, but the war is conducted by troops on the ground, not CNN. The only conclusion I can draw is that you honestly believe the war is won or lost based on what the media says, not based on objective reality. If the media calls it a win, it’s a win–no matter if Baghdad is burning and in ruins or not. If the media calls it a loss, it’s a loss–no matter if our troops really are being greeted with candies and flowers.
Back in the reality-based community, we actually believe that the war is won or lost based on the war being won or lost. And while we don’t cheer for defeat, sadly, we expect it; the present administration hasn’t proven competent on any other front. Why should this be different?
Vino,
I can’t help but notice that your argument seems to be that Saddam should still be in power. Of course, that includes the rape rooms, the mass graves, the support and training of terrorists, etc. etc. I’m sorry if this offends you, but by your own words you are objectively pro-facist, pro-terrorist and pro-mass murder. Congratulations it’s the evil trifecta. Have you perfected the art of shaving without looking in the mirror? Or are you dishonest enough to tell yourself that being a Saddam supporter is a good thing?
“But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let’s remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.†– Condi Rice, 29 July 2001
Maybe you missed it, but an event less than two months later changed our perspective on hostile governments who harbor bad people and actively seek bad weapons.
Jeff,
Told you so.
beetroot,
Ah, “fantasyland” – I must have missed that in the CGSOC Course catalog. Do they produce fantasyland qualified personnel at Leavenworth or is that the War College? Maybe the National Defense University?
Quite an assertion – pity that you cannot back it up. You know, with some sort of ..er, evidence. And, no, you screeching that events show this to be true doesn’t work. Back to Logic 101 for you.
I guess it is mere coincidence that our enemies and domestic opponents parrot the same phrases. Lucky that.
So Mr. Fecke, you don’t think the people blowing up children and sawing off heads want negative reporting/slanting/repeating of lies and misinformation (as Jeff points out above) and lots of vituperative opposition to the current CinC inside the US? OK then, back to your “reality” with you…
Actually, no: Howard Zinn, apparently. ChiCom stooges or no, Google has a pretty good search engine: I suggest that you try it next time.
Jeff Feck and beetroot,
The record doesn’t support your assertions as far as the claims of the left go. I refer you to Michael Moore who referred to the insurgency as being populated with freedom fighters, I refer you to Al Gore and all the rest, including Howard Dean and John kerry who have attmepted to portray American soliders as war criminals. The opposition from the left has not been based on tactics or strategy it has been based upon its hatred of capitalism, democracy and America.
Likewise claiming that the left has no impact upon the war is another convenient lie you are telling yourseleves to absolve yourselves of the blame for Al Qeda’s public realtions successes. Chris Matthews noticed that OBL sounds just like a Democratic politician. So did the American voters, Bush’s victory can at least in part be attributed to the appearasnce of another OBL tape in which, surprise.. he sounded an awful lot like a member of the DNC and a subscriber to Utne Reader and Mother Jones.
I sincerely hope that your dishonesty is only for public consumption. I hope that at home among others who agree with you, you can admit the truth to yourselves…that you hope desperately that an Al Qeada victory in the Middle East will bring your party some short term election success. Being able to admit that would after all only show that you were dishonest, terrorist sympathizers. Not being able to admit what is obvious to everyone who listens to you is proabably an indicator of a fairly serious cognitive-emotional problem. Further comment from your end will probably make clear which is the case.
In Vito, for your consideration the quote you attribute to Jefferson, is not in fact by Jefferson. In fact, it is likely to be only a couple of years old, and penned by an anti-war activist.
I have one that he did say, and which you should familiarize yourself with.
I should have stopped reading at “I mean, really, all this hair-splitting (“I’m not a Bush Kultist! Phosphorus isn’t a chemical weapon! The Koran was NEXT TO the toilet, not IN the toilet!”) is ridiculous. ”
When stipulating “facts” is identified as “hairsplitting”, we’re obviously not having a reasoned debated.
Vino, beet and Jeff:
Do any of you believe the insurgency has a chance of winning in Iraq?
Moe beat me to it. Curse you moe.
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
Dissent is dissent.
Patriotism is patriotism.
The two may overlap. And then again, they may not. It depends on the situation.
Cliches such as that, Winey, aren’t much use to anyone and indicate a lack of critical thinking on your part. But if the cliche keeps you all warm and cozy at night and helps soothe any nagging doubts you may have, well then, knock yourself out.
Hell’s bells dissent away. Just be judicious and logical…not childish and paranoid!
Another neo-Jeffersonian collectivist (am I right?) blows his own head off trying to fit minimalist domestic constitutionalism in a time of small wooden ships—not that that’s not a good thing—to foreign policy in a time of WMD’s:
Well, that’s cute, Veritas, but why is it you guys aways beg a few preposterous questions before either (1) answering them with some terterary-level, self-serving bullshit, or (2) completely losing your already mentally ill partisan-tainted minds in public. Or both.
Don’t bother; I know why. I just like to hear you go off, check the reason compass 180 degrees the other direction, and have it all reinforce how stuff really works.
(And who left the back door to Kos open again?)
tw: children
Hey Major John: You don’t believe in Fantasyland/
Go look at today’s papers. Murray Waas is reporting: “Two highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war cast doubt on key public assertions made by the president, Vice President Cheney, and other administration officials as justifications for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, according to records and knowledgeable sources.”
Or do I need to remind you of all those great administration lines: “we’ll be greeted with flowers”? That a long-term occupation was “wildly off the mark”? That the insurgency is in its “last throes”?
Come on, man, every time we turn around, we hear more reports about intelligence assessments that were ignored or misrepresented.
Didja read that CIA guy’s story, Pilar, the former head of the mideast bureau? He REAMS this administration. I heard an interviewer ask him if the Prez had ever asked his people for advice on the aftermath of invasion, or for intelligence on what the military might find on the ground once the regime was deposed.
D’ya know what he said? He said, “The short answer is, no.”
Did you hear that? We’re planning to invade an occupy a huge country with incredible strategic importance, to spend lives and treasure and take a huge diplomatic risk, and we’ve got this intelligence apparatus in place, and THE PRESIDENT DIDN’T ASK FOR INTELLIGENCE.
Dude. These guys know what they want to hear and they don’t hear anything else. And you’re right—that ain’t what they teach in War College. Fantasyland is its own deal.
And as for you, Corovan, mr. “objectively pro-facist, pro-terrorist and pro-mass murder,” who’s next on your list? There’s a lot of evil regimes out there. What’s next? Somalia? Burma? Belarus? Russia? Iran? Come on, let’s go. Where to?
No huhu, Defense Guy. Better safe than sorry.
So if I understand the various lefties on this thread is that the progress of a war is NOT affected by media reports.
Propaganda is meaningless. Media reports do not enhance or diminish a war effort. Winning the hearts and minds is only accomplished via military might.
Something seems wrong with that logic.
Gobbels would be a bit shocked to discover that fact.
The “dissenters” dislike being criticised. They have to attack the critic, rather than show their “dissent” has no impact upon enemy behavior.
Well, Jeff, it looks like Messers IVV, beetroot, and Fecke won’t answer your question. Instead, they prove your point by promptly urinating on non-lefties.
But a short note to beetroot: I congratulate you, sir/madam. Your post is a marvelous summary of just about every discredited leftard talking point to date. It should be published by Cliff Notes for future generations of political scientists. BTW, on sending the National Guard? That’s what they are here for. No one complained when they went into Bosnia. Same thing for the Reserves.
Mr. Fecke? I read your post up to this point, and ceased taking you seriously: ”And we don’t trust the Bush administration to competently solve any of these problems. ” I saw it as the premise of your argument as to why you are blameless in anything. You confirmed my analysis by whining about ”But whatever we believe, we have had little to no influence on the actual prosecution of the war. ” Mr. Goldstein did not say ANYTHING about the left being to blame for the war’s “failure”. If you were distracted by a ZING!, that his point flying by your head.
IVV: as someone else pointed out, those quotes were all pre-9/11. Subsequent events changed our minds. That tells me your personal clock stopped working a few minutes before the first plane slammed into the WTC, and since then that you have been living in a self-created time warp. Congratulations, you’ve outdone all of the physicists of the past 150 years.
TW: Someone needs a hospital, and it ain’t me.
I’m with Vino and the Poorman. D’ya really think that what the media says has anything to do with the progress of the war? D’ya really think that leftists, no matter how virulent, have had any impact on the behavior of the insurgents and militias? D’ya really think that it matters what Gore says in Saudi Arabia? D’ya really think that Jane Fonda cost us the war in Vietnam?<i><blockquote>
Er, yes on all accounts. Ask General Giap what effect he thought the “peace movement” (in reality, the surrender movement) and Jane Fonda had on the war in Vietnam. (Hint – he said it was critical to the Norths’ success.)
The terrorists are savy enough to know that they don’t have to beat the U.S. on the battlefield (indeed, they know they cannot), they only have to win the media war. Spewing enemy propaganda and undermining the war effort on the home front, as many anti-war activists are doing, is helping the terrorists achieve that goal.
You tell me: What constitutes valid use of force, beetroot? Armed robbery? Reckless endangerment? Murder?
How about torture. Ah, oppressing women and killing children? Gassing civilians?
Or when a psychopath (guess which one) has nukes?
And by what moral standard would you make this claim, beetroot? How about the UN? The unalienable right to life and liberty? The right not to have your head sawed off and your hands chopped off?
You tell me. Or are brown kids expendable? Yellow ones? Black? Are you really an anarchist or did that end when you threw your bong away?
.
Beetroot, please post a link to a western or UN leader or intelligence official (that doesn’t troll for dates at Burger King) who said during the “run up” to war, that Iraq did NOT have WMDs.
TW: Let’s go, while we’re young!
Of course the insurgents can’t win and especially not the AQ. The sunni in Iraq were not especially devout under Saddam so why would they allow the AQ to take over Iraq? Signs are that the sunnis are getting irritated with the foreign fighters and in a tribalist society where the dominant mode of communication is word of mouth, if the AQ had any sense they would be heading for the door.
If the lefties want to fault Bush for pushing a false narrative then they should nail him for his constant pushing the idea that the AQ is going to win if we leave.
beetroot
It’s Iran, almost assuredly. Try to steel yourself for it, because it is coming. The upside is that we only need the head of one more tyrant before we can send away for our little orphan annie decoder ring (now with fake Jeffersonian quotes!)
Moe
You’re right of course.
Real convincing there, beet. How about this: “Highly-placed sources today confirmed that Saddam Hussein was given extremely sensitive information that in all likelihood ended any chances that the U.S. could prevail in Iraq. These sources further identified the source of the leak as John Kerry.” A lie? You bet. I made it all up. Lucky for you I’m the only person in the world (other than Bush, of course) who might possibly lie…
The fact that UBL actually mentioned “My Pet Goat”—and that Moore bragged about it…right down the memory hole, evidently. But hell—look at the way you guys turned on Chris Matthews, a Carter speechwriter—for making a similar observation. Put you hands over your ear and SHOUT THAT YOUR MILLIONS OF WORDS AND IMAGES ARE IMPOTENT!
You are all correct. Your words have no effect on the war. None. Completely irrelevant. Which begs the question: why all the cyber and print and televised masturbation to demonize the war over the last few years? Lose the hacky sac?
Iran seems to warrant the most attrention at the moment, beet. As far as Pillar’s statement its been covered here. It’s been covered everywhere on the internet, and it didn’t add anything new to the discussion. Nothing you’ve said has added anything new to the discussion. Other than to illustrate your continued support for tyranny not only in Iraq, but all over the rest of the world as well. Dude, you are like, so facist. You sure you’re not a Buchanan supporter. No, compared to Al Qaeda Pat’s a little tame for you, I guess.
TW friends, as in with friends like beet democracy and human rights doesn’t need any enemies.
But of course I forgot!! The left is aligned with the AQ!!
If famed anti-imperialist Rudyard Kipling is wise to us, I guess the game’s up.
At the risk of dating myself…is it me or does anyone else find the humor/irony in leftists’ new-found, evangelical faith in the CIA? The same agency that the same political faction spared no effort to gut and emasculate starting in the post-Watergate era and continued through Clinton’s terms?
Vino,
Corvan makes my point. Do you or do you not believe Saddam should still be in power? Do you or do you not believe Iraqis should be able to hold representative votes free from a tyrannical dictator who would just as soon use them as landfill? Deflecting with the WMD issue doesn’t cut it, seeing that it wasn’t the only reason for the 2003 invasion, and regime change was echoed by the previous administration.
But I don’t remember vomit-ins being held on the steps of San Francisco’s city hall in 1998.
As far as the pre-9/11/2001 quotes by Powell and Rice are concerned, if Father Saddam was “disarmed”, he did generate some amazing Kurd carnage with his bare hands in the mid-90’s.
<chortle> Good one, Paul.
BECAUSE THEY DON’T SPEAK ENGLISH!
But seriously, let me get this straight, leftists.
What’s the most precious, most essential right?
Freedom of speech, correct? It’s tantamount to freedom and life itself on every incensed Leftist campus in the known universe, right? It’s bread. It’s water. It’s the bullhorned thug. It’s the underground leaflet. It’s the phone pole in the quad with the million staples in it.
Free speech is life itself to the Left, especially when it involves abortion or tolerating terrorists as “alternative” thinkers or even in snuffing traditional religion and ethics. I mean, we can’t even abide the thought of a white conservative Christian so much as looking like he’s gonna say something to interfere with free speech.
I can dig all that. The pen is mightier than the sword.
So what’s this shit about “dissention” being said right and responsibility (when it’s message cuts only one way, but that’s almost beside the point) but having no effect whatsoever? Well, beyond pissing off conservatives, that is.
The only answer is that dissention is the essential ingredient for speech and freedom in the US … but it falls in the ocean at our borders. It evaporates. It ceases to exist in the world.
Sounds racist. You’re smarter then them. Hell, they’re completely illiterate.
Or, maybe you guys all know it’s just useless rhetoric. You’re propping up empty words (or laser-targeted words aimed only at conservatives; whichever) and shining a 100kW spotlight on it because it’s just noise.
(The Turing word for that line of reasoning should be cognative fucking dissonance… )
Forsooth! Another terrorist symphatizer, whose words have given comfrot to the enemy:
“Today, with all three components of the “axis of evil’’—Iraq, Iran, North Korea—more dangerous than they were when that phrase was coined in 2002, the country would welcome, and Iraq’s political class needs to hear, as a glimpse into the abyss, presidential words as realistic as those Britain heard on June 4, 1940.”
– George Will
Would that Republican bloggers have the same intellectual honesty that their counterparts in dreaded MSM have.
So Vino, why do you hate brown people? Bacause they can’t read?
tw: Twenty more ways to play this game of turnabout, Vino. At least twenty.
Good G-d Wino, not only can you not be counted on to vet your Jefferson quotes, you clearly have no idea what Will is refering to. Here’s the money quote from that day.
Doesn’t quite make your point does it?
Vinny, a little more veritas and a little less vino.
Are you arguing that George Will wants to see Saddam Hussein in control of Iraq again, Vino? I’m sorry, but that’s not what he said. Look if you have a reason Iraq and the world would be better off if Saddma Hussein was still in power make it. If you claim you’re not supporting a facist government by wishing Saddam Hussein was still in power…claim it. All you’re doing right now is proving you read no better than you reason.
I’m practically in tears. Vindication! I am justified!
My high-school theory that political ideologues will in fact say or do ANYTHING that is convenient or they believe makes them look right is now illustrated in black & white, as the left here proclaims that the sword is mightier than the pen, and that violence is the only answer.
I mean, the hypocrisy of saying you’re free to dissent but no one may criticize you for it is par for the course, nothing new. I hate to accuse people of disingenuousness (it’s such an annoying word), but can anyone be that blind?
tw: Next up, Sting will sing about how there IS a military solution!
So, if I may try liberal logic out for a minute:
If dissent is the highest form of patriotism,
And no one has dissented more strongly to America’s foreign policy than Osama bin Laden,
then ObL is our greatest patriot!
Wow, whoda thunk it! And while this may seem like a parody of left wing thinking, some of the left’s idols have deemed Osama’s representatives as today’s minuteman and freedom fighters.
God, you people are [deliberately] obtuse:
From the column:
“So Prime Minister Winston Churchill sternly told the nation: ‘We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations.’
Or by curfews, such as the one that cooled the furies that engulfed Iraq after the bombing last week of a Shiite shrine. Wars are not won simply by facing facts, but facing them is a necessary prerequisite.”
In the words of that other great statesman, who Jeff and Co. seem to be acolytes of:
“Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true!” – Homer Simpson
And for the record, no tyrant can claim sovereignity for a nation. As such, their rule continues only as long as we permit it, and we should permit it only when weakness deems it necessary.
Chairman e,
Funny thing is, from Jan. 1993 to Jan. 2001, is was a “highest form” of patriot, but many, oh…Klinton KKKulti$ts, to adapt a format…called me a “hater.”
What changed?
Cordially…
“God, you people are [deliberately] obtuse:”
This coming from a person caught out misquoting Thomas Jefferson. Droll.
Moe
“As far as the pre-9/11/2001 quotes by Powell and Rice are concerned, if Father Saddam was “disarmedâ€Â, he did generate some amazing Kurd carnage with his bare hands in the mid-90’s.”
This Kurdish Massacre?
In Vino Veritas invokes Will:
Which facts do you suppose he was referring to, IVV?
Hey, IVV, (and thanks for appropriating one of my pet phrases for your stupid leftist drivel) no one that I know who backs the war is afraid of facts. We’re just sick of leftist assertions repeated ad nauseum passing as facts.
Don’t make us guess Vino, tell us what you think Will means by facing the facts? Is he merely being ironic by pointing to that Churchill speech?
Vino’s Dictionary of Familiar Quotations:
Entry 1 – I don’t placate.
[attrib. to Thomas Jefferson]
Iran, please.
You guys will be with us there, right? Since many of you pointed out that Iran was a better target in the war on terror…?
Defense Guy, it occurs to me that we’re begging an assertion of our friend IVV. Is that also a logical fallacy?
With all the contortions going on around here, I admit I’m having trouble tracking the logic. My being a paleocon and all.
Homey don’t play dat.
-Benjamin Franklin
To crush your enemies, drive them before you and hear the lamentations of the women.
-Wendell Wilkie
Ardsgaine, a mental experiment occurs to me. While it depends on an impossible scenario to get it rolling, it works like this:
If algore were in office, and had 9/11 occured, along with the stern Democrat stance on killing terrorists and finding WMD’s and demanding firm action by the weekend, we’d have the Left now firmly behind the effort. And behind the rhetoric. Behind the words.
As would be the Right. But because of the principle.
So, we’d have a supermajority of support.
Would it be based on reality or on appearances? On partisan words?
And they say the sword is mightier than the pen. Or something. The Leftists, I mean.
tw: We really should have elected him.
I’m the only other person I’ve ever seen make that argument in a public forum. While people are reading Gibbon, Kipling and the Bible, they should check out Locke occasionally. I mean, after all, our form government isn’t based on Gibbon, Kipling or the Bible.
You bet, but it’s bound to be a funny one, and if you can’t laugh at some of our leftist friends then what’s the point?
Whan that April
With his shoures soote
-Fred Flintstone
Ah, yes, the chickenhawk ad hominem, last refuge of morally defeated leftists.
Yes, I am a chickenhawk. I could have served; I was able-bodied enough and in fact I wanted to join the Marines when I was 18, but was talked out of it when I got a scholarship and the chance to be the first in my family to earn a 4-year degree. But that was my decision, and I take responsibility for it. I feel that those who do serve are better men than me, and I applaud their courage and their sacrifice, and thank them for their service.
But I have other sins to confess as well, You see, I am also a chickencop. I believe our police should pursue criminals and enforce laws, even though this puts their lives at risk, but I myself have never served as a policeman. Again, I feel that those who do choose to serve and protect the community are better men than me, and I applaud their courage and thank them for their service in a dangerous occupation.
Sadly, those are not my only sins: I am also a chickenfirefighter. I have never risked my life going into a burning building to rescue someone, but I do believe others should perform this service, and appreciate those who do.
I am also a chickendoctor. I can’t stand the sight of blood, or the idea of cutting someone open and messing with their insides, but I have had surgery myself, and I believe others should continue to provide these medical services that I myself have not, and would not perform. I am a chickenscientist. I think we should do research science and that the government should fund it, but I am not willing to suffer through the boredom of four more years of grad school, or the grind of repeating experiments over and over. I am a chickenactor. I am a chickenfarmer. I have no interest in farming myself, but I am more than happy to eat the food others produce, and I believe people should continue to farm, and the government should encourage this.
The moral of all this is that we live in a republican democracy. We elect public officials, and they set policies. Some people volunteer to do jobs that involve carrying out those policies despite personal danger and hardship, but as you can see it makes little sense to demand any citizen who advocates a policy be required to personally implement that policy.
Hey, you leftards how about addressing Jeff’s point instead of regurgitating your Kos talking points that we have all heard ad nauseam which in the blogosphere seems like forever. If you can’t or won’t defend your treason begone!
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were. Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee…
-JJ ‘Dyn-o-mite’ Walker
The lefties on this thread would have a point if Osama didn’t quote Michael Moore in one of his rants.
I’m not sure how any person can honestly say that the media is not attempting to undermine the war with all of the negative reporting. The reason, for the media, imho, is more b/c violence/death/terror sells. I agree their ideology factors into it but I think overall, the MSM is just interested in making a buck off the news, even if they have to invent it themselves.
They also serve who only stand and wait.
–Gov. Kathleen Blanco
The hardcore America haters would still be against us, but yes, the ones who are anti-war because they are anti-Bush would be with us. Can you imagine Gore formulating the principle of preemption though? The war would have begun and ended with some sort of action in Afghanistan that fell short of regime change, and nothing would have been done about Iraq or Iran.
The crater underneath the WTC after the first attempt was seventy feet deep. Anyone who saw that hole had to know the seriousness of the attack, and had to be able to extrapolate to the results had it succeeded.
Still, I don’t single the Clinton/Gore administration out for censure. Every president of the past 27 years has contributed to what happened by retreating from conflict in the Middle East when we were attacked. Bush Sr. took the strongest stand, but he fell short in the final analysis.
When it comes down to it, I don’t think Gore had the guts to respond to 911 with a general war. Bush just barely did.
Someone above said that Bush has been able to get everything he asked for in spite of the dissent. The effect of the dissent has been in what he’s been able to ask for. The more pushback he has gotten, the weaker he has become. This should be a war on particular Islamic states, instead it’s a War on Terrorism, like the War on Drugs, with propaganda campaigns urging people to “Just Say ‘No’ to Jihad”– er, make that “Just Say ‘No’ to Extremism.”
I’m still waiting for the president who will finish this thing.
VDH, once again, offers us up the antidote to the current round of hand wringing over the war. Worth a read.
-James Earl Carter (Mrs.)
Time to call the bluff:
OK, Vino et al–Chimpy doesn’t have a clue. So your plan is…what again?
Not one fucking iota of what to do, just that Bushco is not cutting it. Cut and run? I know–let’s engage the UN. Or perhaps the Iranians will have a useful idea. How about putting Saddam back on the throne? Anyone have a shovel so that we can dig up Nasser and do the pan-Arab shuffle again?
Liberalism–the political philosophy of spoiled children. And I KNOW I quoted Mr. O’Rourke correctly on that one. Your own leaders have called the entire Iraq policy a failure when every benchmark of political progress has been met despite your highly patriotic cries that they would not. And now you seem…disappointed…that the civil war you so feverishly desire is not going to happen.
Governing is for grown-ups, children, and the world is not going to automatically become a Strawberry Shortcake happy place because you think the proper US policies are…exactly what again?
Do the letters F.O. mean anything to you?
I’m finally pissed.
I sort of savor the irony of this:
from Jeff Fecke.
Actually, Jeff, what you said bears no resemblance to objective reality. Put down the hookah, friend:
(1) To a large extent those opposed to the war aren’t opposed on the merits; they’re merely afflicted by BDS.
(2) There is no such thing as a “good war”; the operative question is whether the war advanced U.S. geopolitical interests. It was not in U.S. geopolitical interests to have a bloodthirsty tyrant sitting on top of some of the largest oil reserves in the world, while repeatedly shooting at our planes, flouting UN Security Council resolutions regarding disclosure of his WMD stockpiles, and otherwise repudiating the ceasefire agreement under which hostilities were suspended against him, and he was permitted to keep his regime, following the 1991 Gulf War. Particularly given that said bloodthirsty tyrant was in a perfect position to give aid and comfort to the psychotic death cultists who killed three thousand of our countrymen one early fall morning in 2001.
(3) Has the management of the war been above reproach? Of course not; hawks have been among the more vocal critics of, for instance, the first Fallujah debacle. But the suggestion that this administration is somehow uniquely incompetent at the prosecution of war and its aftermath evinces an astonishing ignorance of history. Wars are complicated. Things go wrong. Not everything can be planned for, and sometimes even good plans fail. The rest is all Monday morning quarterbacking.
(4) I’ll simply note the egregious racism inherent in the assertion that Iraq as currently constituted is not disposed to federal democracy. ‘Nuff said there.
If there is good-faith opposition to this war, the left has not provided it; if there are responsibily criticisms of this war, the left has not offered them. The reason all your carping and sniping and bitching is so destructive is simple: a sufficiently demoralized public, thrall to leftwing and media (to the extent that the two are distinguishable) fairy tales about how the situation is a hopeless and unmitigated catastrophe, could very easily pressure government to cede to the enemy a victory that it could not have won on the battlefield, with grave long-term repercussions to American interests and influence. But you don’t care about that—you don’t give a flying fuck about what failure in Iraq would mean to the United States in the long term; you can’t be bothered to appreciate the blood that’s still on our hands after your ideological confreres forced our withdrawal from Southeast Asia, for instance. Your only concern is bringing down an administration you despise.
“Reality-based community”, my hairy white ass.
Exactly. The Bush administration is only borderline capable to deal with this. The problem isn’t neocon Bush, it’s moderate, globalist Bush trying to placate the “moderate” collectivists, which is an impossible task.
The Left therefore simply has no idea just how serious the problem is and they’ll never elect a POTUS with a view superior to their own, provided one exists. The problem is our national vision and resolve, not Bushco.
One more note: At least in the Cold War days, the traitors on the Left would at least admit that what they advocated was surrender. Because OUR policies were the problem and the Soviets were just, you know…misunderstood.
You bunch of fucking intellectually cowards.
A long-dead Master from the long-dead country of Chou
To claim that ongoing, Iraqi-related, free speech (pro & con) has no effect on Iraqi outcomes is to deny the whole power of free speech.
I fear that those who claim that their actions have no meaningful effect will never free themselves from seeking new ways to find and assign blame. This is a sad fate for any person.
…and for those of us who realize that this war is unlikely to be encompassed within one President’s terms, it’s obvious that the underhanded form of dissent Jeff’s talking about is intended to sap the American will sufficiently to install a weak-kneed dove in the Oval Office in 2009. And if Iraq then falls to external and internal pressures that could have been (and are now being) kept at bay by a strong American presence and the sure knowledge that we’re there to foster a real, not “traditional Middle East one man, one vote, one time” representative democracy, the resulting blood is going to be on your hands, disingenuous dissenters, not mine.
Would the insurgency be less severe if there were no dissent? Who knows? Would it be less emboldened? Gonna go out on a limb and say YES. And since the only chance for them to win is if we leave, and the only way for us to win is if they become sufficiently marginalized and powerless that we can leave with confidence that the Iraqis can handle the remaining “situation” entirely on their own a la Israel, breaking (or at least severely constraining) their will constitutes our victory, and emboldening them extends the timeframe for our soldiers’ deployment in Iraq – which, as I pointed out in the first paragraph, is not a given if you get your candidate in. How are you helping with that? Hint: not on the “breaking their will” side.
And finally. You do two things simultaneously: you dissent, and you claim that your dissent has no effect. Why dissent? Because (in a nutshell) you believe that we should lose this war, for whatever reason. Ending the war isn’t enough; you actually want it to end with our defeat. Why claim you’re powerless to bring about that end? Because if you’re successful, the majority of the American people, some fraction of whom no doubt think we shouldn’t have gone to war but are not now hoping we lose it, will never forgive you for it, and you’ll be out of power until their memories die. You have to claim to be “powerless,” because if you’re powerful you’re also rooting for our undoubted enemies.
TW: attack of the italics. Sorry. Bit of a rant.
Heck, I’d be satisfied with somebody doing something about the Sudan. You know, the country where a brutal genocide is being waged against Africans. I’ve heard the conflict is starting to spread to neighboring nations. And then there are the brutal gang rapes and massed displacement of refugees. This looks like a job for the left! Surely you have time to devote to this noble cause in amongst berating the US. Perhaps you can use your efforts to persuade someone to step in and help? I hear the French are staunch supporters of civil rights, and its not like they are doing much good at the moment…
As an aside, a Danish newspaper publishes twelve political cartoons and riots sweep the Muslim world. Twelve political cartoons. And people are convinced the media has no impact?
Beautiful, Jeff.
I would add that I would like to see some responsibility taken- or estimates made- for the consequences of whatever action they now prescribe.
Nobody can imagine, I presume, that simply doing the opposite of what Bush is doing will bring about the opposite result.
Dissent away, but tell me what will happen if I join you.
— Robert E. Lee
It’s been going around since Socrates, but in diplomatic circles it’s not practical. Our only excuse for inaction is the limit of our strength, but despited being the strongest nation on Earth we certainly can’t take on all tyrannies, especially without the support of other free nations, who now seem unmoved by the cause. Therefore we must place nice and recognize and trade with countries that have no right to exist so long as they stay within certain bounds of humanity. And, to reference Milton Friedman, this isn’t ultimately a bad strategy, as interdependency and dollar democracy seem corrosive to authoritarian regimes. We’re starting to see this in China and elsewhere, and it’s clearly preferable to war.
It should be noted, though, that several countries are not the least bit swayed by the seduction of engagement, as was the case with Saddam, and as such they simply couldn’t be tolerated. For this reason I find it so unbelievable and dishonest that liberals will, like in the above comments, ask why if we topple one tyrant we don’t topple them all. They don’t truly advocate the latter, and surely they, the masters of nuance, can appreciate a multi-faceted approach based upon the case presented by each tyrant. More importantly, though, is that even if they don’t recognize either our limitations or our strategy, why don’t they at least want to topple every dictator?
“The history…presents full proof that party spirit may impose misrepresentations, upon a whole people, and mislead a great portion of them into opinions directly contrary to facts.â€Â
-Noah Webster
It’s amazing that something someone said almost two hundred years ago would be so appropriate to what’s going on today.
What’s even more amazing is that the “misrepresentations” Webster was alluding to were the ones propogated by members of the Republican Party. The Republican Party that became the Democrats. Paleo-Dems, if you will.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I say to Bob,Vino and all the rest of the constant carpers … BULLSHIT! Let me repeat … BULLSHIT!!!
So it’s been proven that I’m a leftist fucktard Kos regurgitator – – or at least, it’s been stated.
But it hasn’t been demonstrated that ANY unpatriotic dissent has had ANY consequences that damaged the war effort.
Let’s review Jeff’s position. “I noted that certain anti-war critics were providing the insurgency the raw material for one part of its strategy to fight the US … and this is objectively true.”
So Jeff says that some dissent helps the enemy. He even says that it’s “true.” But how? Where? ‘cuz Osama mentioned Michael Moore? Didn’t he do that AFTER he killed 3,000 Americans? What’s more damaging to the war effort, the fact that we’ve got half the troops needed to successfully occupy Iraq, or that Michael Moore made a movie? What’s more damaging, that the war has dragged on for three years, or that it’s dragged on for three years after the President and his administration promised a cakewalk?
Yeah, send my stuff to the Smithsonian. I’d be proud to represent the constant drumbeat of criticism that this administration has ignored. I want history to remember that while part of American was wallowing in ideological dreamland, lusting for blood in the wake of 9/11, a lot of us were shouting, “This is crazy! Iraq didn’t attack us! Bin Laden attacked us!” Is it us lefties’ fault that Bin Laden is not only still alive, but sending thousands of new recruits to blow up Humvees right down the road? Yeah, I’m a fucktard all right.
And you bet I’m steeling myself for Iran, Defense Guy, and why? Because starting a new war would be just the kind of asinine idiot thing that this administration would do. Two aren’t enough I guess.
But let’s go back to Jeff and his accusation: us lefties are hurting the war. “… to deny that the anti-war campaign, coupled with a media that concentrates on calamity rather than success, hasn’t had a deleterious effect on US willâ€â€and a positive effect on the persistance of the insurgencyâ€â€smacks to me of willful blindness and, frankly, a rather patently obvious defensiveness.”
But Jeff, Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. Now that you’re done remembering your happy days boinking sorority girls, can ya give us one significant instance in which the left’s opposition has weakened American resolve?
Taking for granted, of course, that American resolve HAS weakened, which polls tell us it has. (I’m inclined to think that our resolve is weakened not by grouchy lefties but by a) the steady drumbeat of death, b) the steady increase in organized insurgency, c) the steady flow of evidence of incompetence dribbling from the White House. But that’s just me, your loyal fucktard).
Shorter Vino:
“The NYT promised me a civil war in Iraq and all I got was Jeff Goldstein’s commentators making me look like a flippin eejit.”
I love the fake Jefferson quote. Anyone remember Barbra Steisand’s fake Shakespeare quote from 2003-4? The one the whole leftard “reality”-sphere was quoting? The one that was so clearly fake b/c it was such an egregious mangling of the English language? And yet the Leftards believed Shakespeare had written it! B/c they’s sooooo smart.
Good times my friends. Good times.
Oh gawd. While I’m typing my post beetie comes in and repeatedly uses “drumbeat” in his leftard post. Wasn’t that the centerpiece of the Barbra fake Shakespeare quote? You cannot make this stuff up. More beet, give me more.
Drumbeat, beetroot, you had me up until drumbeat. Now I know you’re a fax machine.
You assume that we will even have a choice in the matter, which I suppose is right in line with the rest of your ‘thinking’.
PS I’m still steaming about some of the silliness I see here, Jeff. You wrote:
“What I don’t understand is, why can’t you and your friends on the left ….. take responsibility for what YOUR actions have wroughtâ€â€even if you believe those actions were justified?”
On behalf of the dissenting community, I’ll “take responsibility” when you tell me what the our “actions have wrought.”
If I need to be held responsible for irritating a lot of people like Corvan, Major John, Real Jeff, 6gun, etc, then I plead guilty. Send me to troll prison.
But you’re gonna have to be a little more specific if you want anything more than that.
Oh, and beetroot? How do you reconcile this,
…with all the liberals screaming that Bushco is incompetent because he’s gotten anything and everything he’s wanted from the Republican War Juggernaut? Check the Buckley thread/flameout here for bushels of that theory.
You guys need to synch those fax machines. Tie Hilary’s to Dean’s to Reid’s, willya?