Let’s see: a timeline for troop drawdown is announced, and the non-existent al-Qaeda forces in secular Iraq cheer a Democrat victory in Congress, brand us as retreating cowards, and announce plans to bring back the Caliphate while blowing up the White House.
Nope. A timeline won’t embolden the terrorists or be seen as a date for surrender. It’ll be viewed as an opportunity for diplomacy, and a chance for the “international community” to join hands and buoy the fledgling Iraqi democracy!
Ahem.
SWIM, CAMBODIANS! SWIM!
****
update: More, from AJ Strata
I’ve decided to switch to the Kevin Federline beat. It’s what America really wants.
Well, you can’t deny that it is both a “change” and a “New Direction.” Just like Pelosi promised.
You hit the nail on the head. Up until now there has not been a major movement of refugees out of Mesopotamia. No matter what other metrics people cite, this is the best indicator that we are not losing. If a refugee crisis develops in the next couple years look for the MSM to blame it all on Bush.
So Iraq is another Vietnam?
Who, exactly, are the “Cambodians” this time around?
– Just look in the mirror monky…you may be joining them shortly.
– If the Dems do the deed, and the whole thing collapses, culminating in another murderous attack on American soil, SecProggs like monkey will becaome as scarce as Dodo birds…..
It is now. Thanks to your guys.
Not that anybody ever said so before this very minute, Mr. ADD poster child.
I guess you’d have to be really inept to control both houses of Congress, as well as the White House and the civilian administrators at Defense Department, and have your glorious war plans foiled by a ball-less minority of timid Democrats.
I mean, that would be downright sad.
If you read the link, it looks like its the freely elected purple-fingered democracy in Iraq that is happy:
But I know how this messes up your narrative. I never read your fiction thats not on this blog. But I’m quite ready to assume its good.
Who, exactly, are the “Cambodians†this time around?
I would think that the Kurds could possibly play that role. Well, and anyone else in Iraq who supported Democracy. Does this really need to be explained?
Change. New Direction.
I don’t know if this counts as ‘major.’ But there has been movement.
The fact that the Commie Vietnamese government, after kicking our butts, went into Cambodia and overthrew Pol Pot and his murderous gang seems lost on the right.
We actually supported Pol Pot during that fight.
Out of spite, I suppose…
Timid Dems? You mean like the PR arm of the DNC, aka MSM, that destroyed national intelligence programs by publishing them?
Please do explain the glee from the Islamists. And tell me George McGovern is suddenly holding symposium with 60 Congressional Democrats to plan America’s surrender to Islamists.
So we secretly bombed Cambodia to bring them clandestine democracy?
That really does need to be explained…
Why are you so blind comrade Goldsteineoconski?
The only “secular Iraqis†were the Baathist, a bunch of Western-educated anti-communist/anti-Islamist Arab nationalists backed by Washington, Paris and the Vatican throughout the Cold War.
The pro-Israel Trotskyite lobby of Tex-Aviv decided to remove Saddam and replaced him by a puppet-government controlled by two pro-Iranian terrorist groups:
1) “Hizb Al Da’wa†= The party of Islamist Predication
2) The Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI)
After doing so, the Neocon said they were “troubled by Prime Minister Maliki’s rapprochement with the mullahs of Teheranâ€Â!!!
In the past six years, Rumsfeld and Cheney run the show and shared the spoils of war, while the White House was turned into a sand-play area where hapless retards such as Bush and Rice were content to play.
During that most infamous period of our nation’s history, Rumsfeld and Cheney turned America into some kind of gigantic banana republic, a corrupt state controlled by a sinister assortment of Saudi princes, Israeli lobbyists and other Middle-Eastern agents.
As Senator-elect Jim Webb famously said: “it’s time we got our country backâ€Â.
Shorter Vic: it’s the JOOOOOOS!
– Nevermind the Jihadists “glee”, I’m more interested in the Lefts “glee”. Actually making notes for future reference as it were.
Let them chirp, Darleen. They think they have a checkmate because any failures or setbacks now can always be blamed retrospectively on Bush, while any successes will naturally fill the Dem side of the ledger.
And really, that’s all that matters. Debate-scoring. To them it’s about power and points. It’s a team sport. Iraqis are simply the latest pawns.
Party uber alles!
Sniff sniff.
Anybody else spell teen spirit?
Kakistocrat, I guess your guys are in power now, aren’t they? “The worst,” I mean…
Let them chirp, Darleen. They think they have a checkmate because any failures or setbacks now can always be blamed retrospectively on Bush, while any successes will naturally fill the Dem side of the ledger.
According to the note I got from George Soros in my Gay Agenda, we’re all collectively happy because it only took George Bush 6 years to destroy a conservative power base that’s been in the making since 1964.
That makes me giddy…
Kakistocrat, I guess your guys are in power now, aren’t they? “The worst,†I mean…
Yes. Soon you’ll be forced to get gay married to an aborted fetus culled from the womb of an Islamist. It’s the first prong in our trident of Capitulation.
Moron.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that I needed to make an EXACT comparison- tat for tat- between the two situation. I assumed, because of the loose liberal comparisons of Iraq to Vietnam, that it was understood that there was a bit of “fudging” as to exact comparable situations.
The Cambodians were punished for being “enemies of the state” (for being part of the previous administration, or of being educated). In an Islamist sense, anyone would encourages Democracy in the Middle East is a similar enemy of the state.
– Yeh. When the whole thing collapses around thier heads, they plan to move right on to the “It was all Bush’s fault” memes, rejecting for the 67th time, that pacifism dies first. Rather normal for psuedo intellectuals to think thier ideology infallible.
– The good news is, soon it will be known.
Actually, it’s all about the fact that America started the slaughter currently going on in Iraq, and and it will only stop when we leave…
It also makes you yet another troll who relies on cartooned depictions of your “adversaries” to advance your “arguments,” which don’t appear to be arguments at all. That is, you seem to think you’ve landed in some bastion of social conservatism where you can take pointed potshots at poor mouthbreathing biblethumpers.
Instead, you’re just boring me.
Many people here support gay marriage (I’m not one of them, but a majority of the readership here does; for my part, I support full-benefit civil unions).
So unless you have something to offer of value besides what only you believe is a clever internet handle, stop dropping turds.
As for the George Soros reference, is ironizing his involvement with funding the Democratic base supposed to make it less true? Not that it is at all relevant to this post, mind you—just curious why you feel so defensive about it.
“Actually, it’s all about the fact that America started the slaughter currently going on in Iraq, and and it will only stop when we leave…”
…and then we can settle down to a period of peace until the slaughter moves to Aamerica’s shores, and then you can be somwhat less giddy….
monky
It seems lost on YOU that the North Vietnamese PUT Pol Pot in power, and the Khner Rouge captured the Cambodian capitol two years after the Case-Church Amendment.
It also is lost on you that NV didn’t invade to depose Pol Pot out of any “humanitarian” reasons (1978 THREE years after the last US helicopter left Saigon), but because Pol Pot had in 1977 declared Vietnam “the enemy” and started raiding Vietnamese territories and killing Vietnamese and NV couldn’t get Pol Pot to the negotiation table and neither could China. And NV just installed other Khmer Rouge adherents to run Cambodia.
The US never supported Pol Pot and why you feel the need to tout that is something you need to take to a psychiatrist.
Darleen sweets – I’m guessing the shrinks have given up on monkey, and thats why he’s here….
Well, at least you’ve admitted you guy’s don’t really give a rat’s ass what happens to the Iraqis, BBh.
Perhaps you could now explain exactly how the “Islamonazis” are going to invade America?
And also maybe you could explain how providing them with recruits and allowing them to train in Iraq is actually making America “safer.”
The Cambodians were punished for being “enemies of the state†(for being part of the previous administration, or of being educated)
Ememies of what? Enemies of the Khmer Rouge? The Khmer Rouge wasn’t the state until they came down from the hills and fought a bloody civil war – they were insurgents. Ironicly for your analogy, it was the US’s suspension of foreign aid in 1973 and it’s clandestine bombing of the Cambodia/Vietnam border that helped the Khmer Rouge come to power.
Who’s swimming where again?
It also makes you yet another troll who relies on cartooned depictions of your “adversaries†to advance your “arguments,†which don’t appear to be arguments at all.
When your argument (if you can call it that) is that the terrorists are giddy because the Democrats won, it deserves no actual answer. Instead, all it deserves is pity, scorn, and mockery because it not only shows that you’ve run out of substantive criticism, but that you’re infract rhetorically bankrupt.
And separate but equal worked out well as a transition period for last time, so we all recognized how truly progressive your position on this issue is.
He really hasn’t caught on that it’s all about Kos. Not soros.
But i’d say the bigger things ot fear with soros as far as agenda setting power is his OSI, not the funding of the your move-ons or what not. It’s the funding of the engines of ideology, the rivals to the AEI’s and heritages of the world, that will have lasting effect.
“So we secretly bombed Cambodia to bring them clandestine democracy?
That really does need to be explained…”
No, we secretly bombed Cambodia to defeat a murderous mass movement and their (at the time) satellites in Cambodia.
And you idiots then blamed the man (Nixon) who bombed those satellites for their massacres after you forced us out.
Which part of the “Blow up the White House” screech didn’t you understand Kakistocrat?
actus still doesn’t grasp the difference between a public institution and a private relationship.
That bar card is just beyond your reach, actus.
No, we secretly bombed Cambodia to defeat a murderous mass movement and their (at the time) satellites in Cambodia.
Remind me, how did that end up anyway? Did it ever work out?
Kakastan
NORTH VIETNAM put the Khmer Rouge in power. Both times.
whoops … typo, should be:
Kakacrat
actus – The hard Left and Kos were kicked to the curb the instant the Dems won back the Congress. Try to keep up.
Emanuel threw the roses on your political grave on National TV yesterday. But hang in there, every few political cycles the ground is furtile again for your idiotic idea’s.
I know it’s got to smart, but deal with it.
NORTH VIETNAM put the Khmer Rouge in power. Both times.
Really Darleen? Is that a fact? You did know that Communist Vietnam and the Khmer Rouge fought a war, right? You’re aware the Vietnamese and the Cambodians HATE each other, and the Khmer Rouge tried to ethnically cleanse them. They’re not friendly, even if they have some nebulous ideological similarities…
Some of you people need to take a history class…
Be more interesting…discuss the pros and cons of partitioning Iraq.
“…even if they have some nebulous ideological similarities…”
– and that of course, by way of the usual Lefturd reach, ties in nicely with your assertions concerning America’s involvements….
– I’d say someone else needs some history comprehention reading lessons….
You’re out of your league Kakistocrat.
The Khmer Rouge came out of the same Indochinese Communist Party that Ho Chi Mihn dominated. The Vietnamese were imperialists and saw their party as ruling vessel for all of Indochina. The Party itself came out of that capital of civilization, Paris, where so many of these third world mass murderes were clinking glasses with guys like Sartre.
It was only after Pol Pot got into power that they realized that their supposed vessel had his own aims. Up until then, they were the same people.
The most pathetic thing is that you dumbasses were perfectly happy to take credit for the Khmer Rouge until you guys couldn’t hide the scale of their crimes any longer.
Then it became Nixon and Kissinger’s fault that you removed the one force that could have stopped them.
“…discuss the pros and cons of partitioning Iraq.”
– that isn’t necessary, because the “partitioning” will be taken care of from the bloodshed that will follow when we cut and run.
The U.S. supported the Viet Minh during WWII, MIR.
Doesn’t that mean we’re responsible for that whole Indochina mess?
Kaka
Did you forget that the NV entered into an alliance with Pol Pot in 1970 in order to destroy the Sihanouk government? Did you forget that for the next couple of years the NV trained/armed the Pol Pot’s KR, even fought in their stead against the Cambodian government? Did you forget that in 1979, when Pol Pot fled, that NV installed yet other Khmer Rouge, rivals of Pol Pot, to run Cambodia as Vietnamese proxies?
just WHO is in need of history lessons?
– Of course monkeyshit. In the eyes of the Marxist faithful, every time America tries to help settle boundry disputes, or force an end to widespread “cleansing”, using our military force, We’re immediately guilty of evil for all time.
– A good case in point would be Castro. But no wait. I shouldn’t have used him as an example. That little pecodello is the jewel in the crown of the Left’s forever hall of shame. Let me think of another…..
monky
so, the US wasn’t supposed to fight the Japanese during WWII?
“The U.S. supported the Viet Minh during WWII, MIR.
Doesn’t that mean we’re responsible for that whole Indochina mess?”
The US supported the USSR during WWII too, to an extent that dwarfs cooperation with the Communist Vietnamese (they recovered a few American pilots).
Was the US responsible for the Great Purges or enslavement of Eastern Europe? (laugh)
We also supported indirectly the Communist Chinese, through the Nationalists. The US is responsible for the Great Leap Forward, too, I presume.
Comparing limited US arms assistance to the Communist Vietnamese wit hthe fact that the Khmer Rouge came out of the Indochinese Communist Party that Ho Chi Mihn ran is a little bit tortured. But, that should be obvious on its face to anyone who doesn’t see history as something that should be twisted for ideology.
“It’ll be another Vietnam” is not a prediction. It’s a threat.
They’ve carried out that threat here at home; now they’re going to do it overseas. Watch the new Congress cut the ‘08 funds for forces in Iraq.
Not doubt when Muqtada al-Sadr takes over Iraq, you will dismiss it with the “good intentions” of the Republicans…
Isn’t the real lesson that funding violent groups for a short term advantage always comes back to bite America in the ass in the long run?
– I think the Dems are really painted into a corner on Iraq.
– Time is quickly running out for them to come up with this “invisable†plan they’ve been claiming for 2+ years. I don’t think they have a clue as to what to do.
– If they really do pull out in a rush, this bull about how we’re the reason for the bloodshed will show how wrong they are. Iraq will turn into an all out bloodbath within a few days, and you can bet the winners will be just another tin pot dictator like Hussein, and the whole thing will have been for nothing, and we’ll get to do it all over again someday, under even worse conditions.
– The Dems know that anything that even looks like a total collapse in Iraq, which can be layed at their doorstep as a direct result of abandoning the war, will be the kiss of death for their party. It will, once and for all prove, that Bush was right, and they can’t be trusted with the WOT.
– Personally I think the Dems are going to get exactly what they deserve, after working so hard against America’s interests, and safety, all based on the morons in the hard Left gaggle, who want to play “multi-culturalism†experiments with our future, ala the Euro block Socialist states that are, even now as we speak, being overrun by Celiphate minded immigrents. Wonderful.
Dream on, BBh.
Iraq is a Republican mess no matter what the Democrats do.
Think of the Demos as a relief pitcher who enters the game with his team behind…the only thing that can be charged to their record is a win.
Everyone here understands that both kaka and monky are happy that South East Asia fell to the Communists, right ? They don’t even bother hiding their glee. How that is germane to our current situation, well……
– Right on cue monkeycrap. If you think that will save the Dems ass’s with the electorate in the event of a bloodbath, and a reestablishment of the Wahhbists in Iraq, you’re a total fool. But then knowing the things you support, to the suferage of your own country, your foolishness is a given. I must admit the one thing I do not see, is what’s in it for you. What’s the payoff you idiotarians expect to gain with your hoped for destruction of America.
Oh, and your snarky comment concerning “relief pitchers” was incomplete in it’s analogy. When the bench warmers get their chance and fail, they are usually absent from the roster, the following season.
Are you saying the people of Vietnam would be better off if the war was still going on now, thirty years after it ended, Sit?
Perpetual war is great for the people making a buck from it…for the people actually involved in it…not so much.
What are you talking about? Marriage vs. Civil unions? They’re both.
Yeah, because after the killing fields and the re-edcuation and fleeing of millions of from Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, it became a pretty decent place to live. I hear some actually vacation there now.
You got to break a few eggs and all that.
Monkyboy; One day you will learn, some things are worth fighting for.
No. I’ve educated you before about the true driving force behind the VietNam conflict. It was never about the politics, the people, or any of the usual dead end arguments that the Left seem never able to wrest themselves out of. Well I can understand. No one likes to think all that hard effort at jostling with windmills was for naught. Especially when you were jostling with an idiot like Nixon. that right there should have raised the Lefts intelligence antenna’s if they really had any.
– You want so badly to bring things back to a discussion about vietNam, because you fancy that as your one great “victory” for socialism. It was not of course. But it’s your holy grail. Good luck with your travels.
– If the Dems are stupid enough to listen to the faded voices of the war that never was, America is about to make the worst mistake of it’s entire existance.
The concept of winning is totally out of reach for you, isn’t it?
He still thinks he’s the one that did this. As to my political grave? Its certainly not the one where we are constantly reminded that the democrats will not, I repeat, not be impeaching the president. Thats a fantastic line. They should keep on using it. As often as possible.
Except, of course, the temptation to insure Iraq is another Vietnam to hurt “the Bushies” and all Republicans (at the expense of fledgling Democracy in the ME, and most likely the rise of world-wide terrorism ) will be too great.
Onward with the Impeachment of BUSH!
Did you forget that the NV entered into an alliance with Pol Pot in 1970 in order to destroy the Sihanouk government? Did you forget that for the next couple of years the NV trained/armed the Pol Pot’s KR, even fought in their stead against the Cambodian government? Did you forget that in 1979, when Pol Pot fled, that NV installed yet other Khmer Rouge, rivals of Pol Pot, to run Cambodia as Vietnamese proxies?
Ok, so why do you think the KR joined forces with the NVA? To get the French the fuck out of South East Asia, not out of some desire for a new Glorious Communist Dawning. In the middle-to-late 60’s, after the French had been beaten away, your buddy Sihanouk began to move away from China and towards the United States, aided by General Lon Nol. Lon Nol cracked down on leftists, most of whom were poor farmers, driving them into the hills where they began to arm themselves, and with help from the NVA, plan for revolution. It was only then that they entered into a pact, which was of mutual use to both – get American influence the fuck out.
You mention Paris, which is funny, because that’s exactly where Sihanouk was when the KR came down from the mountains and started murdering everyone. Between the US bombing campaign along the border, and Lon Noi’s political crackdowns, the actions of the ruling party helped to drive popular support away, and towards the KR, who were seen as a better option ( that is, before the reeducation camps). Lon Noi killed somewhere in the neighborhood of 200,000 people during his reign.
Before the US bombing began, there were estimated to be around 2500 KR in the jungles of Cambodia. After, that number jumps to between 50,000 and 75,000. Lon Noi was too corrupt to effectively fight them ( his own solders sold weapons and material to the KR ), and eventually was forced to flee the country in 1975.
So why did the NVA fight against the KR (their communist buddies!) after 1975? Because the NVA was being supported by Russia, and the KR was supported by China, and the Chinese and the Vietnamese HATE each other, and have for hundreds and hundreds of years. Pol Pot claimed that the Vietnamese has designs in place to take Cambodian territory, and increased his prescience on the border, and war broke out. After Pol Pot was diposed, the NVA brought back Sihanouk, who was only too happy to have his throne back, even if it meant supporting the NVA.
What it is all about is not East vs West, Communist vs Capitalist, but the desire for South East Asians to win atonomous rule. Nothing more. Ideology never trumps Nationalism.
So listen, you can summarize Wikipeida all day, but you don’t seem to know the history of it.
“He still thinks he’s the one that did this.”
– No, not really. He knows, like everyone, the loud obnoxious voices of adalpated ideologs that are willing to make idoits of themselves in public at every opportunity, are usefull up to a point. After that they become a liability.
– That, and the Dems do not intend, if they can possibly help it, to repeat the sins of the recent past. No more Kerry’s, or hard left. Get used to it. Your shining days of glory, and getting in that cute campaign workers pants, are pretty much over. Well you can still hang around Dem campaign headquarters, as long as you don’t feel the need to slah any tires.
I think he’s kind of already in charge of a lot. Isn’t he the biggest bloc in the ruling coalition?
shorter kaka; you are all a bunch of anti-communist paranoids. The fact that ALL supplies came from the Chinese? Coincidental at best. They were just the local supplier. As Rummy would say, “you go to war with the arms you have.”
Your shining days of glory, and getting in that cute campaign workers pants
And you guys can continue to make inappropriate advances to underage male pages, right?
– I guess I’d have to defer to Condit concerning underage sex. He was Nancy’s favorite if I remember right.
Are all your thoughts so centered on fighiting ghosts?
Are all your thoughts so centered on fighiting ghosts?
– If I had to make a choice between ghosts and Vietnam windmills, I guess I’d opt to go with Rather and Ed. At least he’s honestly senile, instead of willfilly ignorant.
Kaka; If you actually believe Vietnam was about Colonialism and Nationalism, why did we not help out the French in Algeria? Truth is we could give a shit less what France lost. We went to war in Southeast Asia to fight the Communists. Full stop.
That fact that some cynical Communist Generals used nationalism to motivate some peasants is totally incidental and you know it.
If you actually believe Vietnam was about Colonialism and Nationalism, why did we not help out the French in Algeria?
Because it wasn’t in our interest. Because those who were in charge at the time found no value in interceding on the behalf of a declining empire. Why would we help France in 1950? They were getting their ass kicked on three continents, and we were content to let their power dwindle. Vietnam is not France.
In Vietnam, we were the French…
That fact that some cynical Communist Generals used nationalism to motivate some peasants is totally incidental and you know it.
Funny, I could say the same thing about American attitudes towards Communism.
– The Lefts entire mantra is the “spectre of American hedgemony”. That’s it. If you’ve heard that you know all you need too, to write the rest of their entire one trick pony act. The simple fact is, true Democracy, individual freedoms, even worse a majority rule Republic, is the dagger through the National Socialists hearts. Everything they do, act out, and screech, springs from that premise. They don’t even bother trying to hide it anymore. Which is fortunate. Even more forunate, thier lies cannot survive in a free speech society, but even less now with the advent of instant highspeed communications. They thought they had a wrap on things, with the capture of massive Liberal press. The blogosphere, they did not count on. Back to the sidition drawing board.
When really we should have been fighting for the nationalists and the peasants. Too bad we let the commies have that side.
National Socialist…
Pssssssst – The national socialists (aka, the Nazis) weren’t leftists, they were rightests.
Please explain. France was losing North Africa, and we ignored it. France was losing Vietnam, and we stepped in. Why? What was our interest ?
Pssssst – so are the SecProggs…. don’t tell anybody….ok…..
“France was losing Vietnam, and we stepped in. Why? What was our interest ?”
– Two things:
– Starting with Eisenhower, all the way to 74’, the under the covers US policy was two fold. “Advance the spread of Communism world wide”, and find a way, and develop, and deploy “MAD”. then we couold get out of VietNam, and anywhere else we didn’t need to be.
– With the deployment of the initial MIRV’d Tridents to the existing fleet, MAD was finally obtained, along with the steady upgrade to the nuclear sub fleet with the full up “Boomers”, up until even today. Every Marxist/Communist despot in the world absolutely hates those on station nukes.
– Communism never advanced a single inch anywhere in the world after that. The shame is that it even took that long. End of the “What was VietNam” answer alex for 1000.
BBH
You have been feeding that troll for some time now. Funny, he argues himself in circles…Kinda like a dog chasing his tail….Or just one to hear himself talk….
“Stop the advance….”… obvious typo
I hear you loud and clear BBH, but I was waiting for kaka to come with some snark about “corporate interests”. Or something.
We have and always will choose selectively our enemies and allies. We do this because we must be in the international stage; WWI and WWII (in particular) taught us this.
Arguing about how we chose to side with bad people and who chose to do it is utterly pointless. In international politics, everything and anything goes.
American Hegemony is the best damn thing the world has. Get over it, bitches.
Oh, and Communism is worthless. Always has been always will be. It’s Marx’s ‘Opiate of the Masses’.
Also, The Mainstream Press is progressive and ideological. While lacking in direct political voting power, it has a great deal of clout in shaping public perception. The idea? Force an idea down people’s throats enough and they’ll start believing it. Doesn’t always work. But it works often enough to be useful.
That being said, not everyone in said press is progressive. But the system has become thus; it is now considered professional for a reporter to be ‘above’ his nation, meaning that even ‘conservative’ reporters can decide not to give a f*ck about the USA, and still have the esteem of their colleagues.
Their ‘profession’ was corrupted the moment it became a ‘profession’.
Did I mention it before? Communism is crap. Its an idea that works for 10 people but could never work for a nation because it IS NOT A POLITICAL SYSTEM. Instead, a political system needs to be provided. What one is? Oh, of course– the easiest one. Despotism. Moving on…
The Democrats won ‘control’—I.E. a narrow margin– but with their power comes their responsibility. They can’t really impeach Bush, because, it would be so stupid and lame. And besides, wouldn’t that make Cheney Prez? That would be 1000’s of times worse for progressives.
If there was something revealed in this election it was that Republicans failed to be real conservatives.
The hard left, in other news, lost miserably. With the exception of CAIR’s candidate, in places where there were good choices– especially Joe– the hard left went down like Kos’ mother.
Ooops. Let that one slip out there.
Moving on…
Conservatives are a little annoyed and some dismayed, but theres no weeping and gnashing of teeth. Why? Because conservatives are more concerned about America than they are about politics. To us it was overall a lose-lose election. We mourned gradually over the past 12 years, and we’s all cryed out. Sorry.
As for that conservative base? Keeps growing. And by the way, you f*cks, I’m not a conservative. I’m a Jacksonian Liberal.
Also, I would like to remind you that national parties do not have any kind of specific ideology. They are a cooperation between politicians willing to caucus. There isn’t in reality anything deeper to it at all.
Also, George Bush is not powerful. He never was. He was always just an ordinary man that everyone thought was either God or the Devil. ‘The Most Powerful Man in the World’ is figurative; he is the head of the most powerful nation. It doesn’t mean he has any kind of supreme power. We don’t have a king. We never will. The democrats though ‘in power’ don’t really have that much power. Its part of the way our system works.
Oh, by the way. Did I tell you that communism is foolishness? I’d like to re-iterate if I already mentioned it. Because I mean, there’s no better way to make people lazy than to guarantee pay no matter how hard they work.
Oh, and another thing. The USA? It’s totally awesome. We kick so much ass, that at times there is no ass left to kick. So what happens? For practice, we kick ourselves in the ass. Sure it stings, but it keeps the kickin’ foot ready.
We are the best damn thing this bloody planet has to offer.
Did I mention we’re awesome?
Yeah, I’m recalling that I did.
Get over yourselves and start living the awesome.
Class dismissed!
TW: Europe is pissed, River.
– Eisenhower knew “got” it.
– Kennedy didn’t like it at first, but after his massive fuckup, putting missles in Turkey pointed right at Russia’s heart, and triggering the Cuban missle crisus, that shook him so badly, he got with the program. May have been why a Marxist kook snuffed him.
– Johnson was aware, but a small town mayor, who found himself accidently president, couldn’t handle it. Especially since he knew he was treading water while our guys were dying, and the scientists were tinkering. Drove him nutz.
– Nixon was only vaguely aware of the plan. he was too busy mumbling over his “enemy” lists.
– Through it all, the State department just lowered their heads, while the chaos of the Left and Nixon raged on around them, and kept on trucking.
– If they hadn’t, it’s doubtful many of us would be here blogging today.
– So I’ve got your hedgemony monkeyfart. Go find some more Capitalistic boogymen windmills to joust with.
Yep. It truly is ‘Nam all over again with leftist twats like you. Same as JF’nKerry calling ‘Nam…Nixon’s war.
I may be a twit, kelly, but I’m hardly a leftist.
I takes more than waving a few flags, quoting a few lines of scripture and funneling billion of dollars to your cronies to win a war.
Iraq was winnable…
Incompetence lost it, not politics.
Now that is what I call arguing in good faith.
Funny, monky, because now that we’ve got a Dem Congress, the media’s going to discover that the war’s going a lot better than had been thought.
Yeh Dan….and can you believe how fast the economy’s turned around in just a few days…. amazing…
We spent too much money over there? What?
I believe the word was twat, monky.
But thanks for playing.
RiverCocytus, nice comment, but you may confound Kakistocrat with abstracts like perspective and grasp. Dogmatists need their labels (I know because I use em all the time to shove the Left’s religion back in their faces using my handy Thought Challenging Irony Lever. Naturally they don’t get it, thus proving the point.
By the same token Kakistocrat may not get it. Nor monkyspunk, actard, et al. Trees vs forests over there, 24/7.)
Dogmatic anti-Rightism requires that labels superceed principles, because principles mostly don’t matter to the Left, they being akin to that standing back part, where you stop shuffling cards in your smoky room and step outside for a clean breath.
The Left, as Godwin keeps reminding us, lacks vertical. It’s all about the horizontal, Kakistocrat’s parsing and defining and nitpicking as a substitute for getting into the meat of the matter, that being that the tyranny of thought and principle and “natural law” seen in socialism or worse is itself simply inherently “leftist”. It constitutes an unnatural limitation on the mind that prevents the vertical notion of principle (or perspective or grasp) from playing a part in evaluating political organization, or in the case of today’s discussion, even in grasping that such behaviors superceed the formality of their surrounding political structures.
If a Rightist is observed running down a typically tyrannical Leftist path into ruin, then all conservative principles are suspect. Cracks me up.
We’ll get into trouble jamming those definitions on various behaviors, causes, and effects. But with the perpetually horizontal argument from the perpetually horizontal Left, those handles and definitions are the entire point.
So we’ll just go around all day about Vietnam or which side of the current Congress gassed up the helicopters in Iraq last month.
It’s almost never about principle and the mind, and it’s never about the soul; it’s always about effect, appearances, and political man’s idiocy … as long as it’s the Right pulling off the idiocy, typically by playing by the Left’s rules as Bush just found out. The Left gives itself a free pass because it, naturally, means well, even with all the noble first effects of all those tragically flawed tactics and theories and attempts to rewrite souls by force of law.
In other words, if Kakistocrat can make a political connection and thereby hang a Rightist cariciture, so be it. The point that no reasonable human is going to call a Rightist a conservative by say, Kirk’s standards goes completely by the boards.
The Left can only succeed by manipulating appearances. Erecting phantom villains is their natural stand-in for actually debating concept, principle, human nature, and therefore the vertical. It’ll always be Nixon this and Bush that.
From Godwin today. Godwin-Goldstein ‘08!
Don’t tease the comic relief, folks….
Iraq was messed up not by Republican incompetence, but by AMERICAN incompetence.
Screwball.
TW: it almost appeared as though monky was going to make a real point.
Huh. No wonder Bush can’t tell the difference between Democrats and terrorists. Both hate him. Both enjoy seeing him neutered. The sad thing is, what’s bad for Bush can often be good for America, and the republicans can’t tell the difference.
That’s why they lost.
Wow, look at actus getting all ballsy. Comparing me to a racist because I believe the definition of marriage should remain traditionally defined, while new relationships that we recognize and are fine with—monogomous relationships between same sex couples— would receive a new designation.
Sorry, actus. But that kind of oblique suggestion of my -phobias doesn’t faze me. I’ve thought through my positions, and I don’t worry when pissants who rely on PC bromides to shield themselves launch their rhetorical bombs at me.
It’s like getting hit with a nerf ball thrown by a 5-year old girl.
Meanwhile, Kaka writes:
Well, see, there’s your problem, K. It’s not my “argument.” It is what is happening. That’s why the links were provided.
I can’t help that these terrorists are excited over the change of direction here in the US, or that they characterize that change as cowardice. You really need to take that beef up with them.
You can mock, throw scorn, stomp your widdle feet and pretend it isn’t so—which, let’s face it, that’s what progressives do best—but if you want me to invent criticisms you find substantive because you don’t like the ones that are in fact ripe for the plucking, sorry, I’m not here to cater to you.
The base of the Democratic party ran on a platform that sent every signal to the terrorists that the war in Iraq is a disaster, and that we should be pulling back to Okinawa. If you want to scoff at me for pointing out that our enemies were paying attention, have at it. But mind you, it doesn’t change the facts on the ground.
6-gun, that isn’t Godwin, that’s Gagdad Bob.
Not that anyone asked me…
Gagdad Bob is Robert Godwin…
You can mock, throw scorn, stomp your widdle feet and pretend it isn’t soâ€â€which, let’s face it, that’s what progressives do bestâ€â€but if you want me to invent criticisms you find substantive because you don’t like the ones that are in fact ripe for the plucking, sorry, I’m not here to cater to you.
Sigh. I remember when I could come here several times a day and find stuff like this. Any. Old. Time. Don’t tell Mrs. PW, but I miss ya Jeff. Aren’t you done hanging curtains yet?
Hiya Carin!
I’ll be back soon—I’ve got some legal wranglings I’m dealing with in addition to the screenplay, and my son is getting to be quite the handful in this house (we need to childproof everything)—but in the meantime, I appreciate your contributions to the discussions, and though I haven’t been able to stop by every day, I’ve been quite happy with the quality of the guest posting, particularly when the guest posters began finding their own voices.
Pssssssst – The national socialists (aka, the Nazis) weren’t leftists, they were rightests.
Pssssssst – The key word there is socialists, Perfesser. The left persists in identifying communists as leftists and fascists as rightists, when in fact there’s not a whit of practical difference between the two. They’re both totalitarians. Under communism, the state owns the means of production, and under fascism, the means of production remain (nominally) in private hands. That’s it.