Hot Air’s Michelle Malkin and Bryan Preston are in Baghdad. They’re not in the Green Zone, rather they’re embedded with an Army unit and they’ve been out on patrol in Baghdad’s slums.
According to Bryan:
We’re safe, we’re well and we’re going out on patrol again later this morning. We’ll meet local leaders and visit sites that have been in the news recently. And we’ll bring you whatever we find out. Michelle will have some photos from our first patrols posted at her blog later on.
As I write this, the first of those meetings has taken place. The site? Allah explains in the comments at Patterico’s:
They’re not just touring secure areas, either. I don’t want to scoop Bryan, but he tells me they were [out and about in undisclosed but important locations, many of them heavy with Arabs –jg] today…
Finally, someone who isn’t the AP and isn’t the Iraqi government is going to [Arab-rife places to see what’s what – jg]. Keep an eye on Hot Air. Feel free to invent preemptive leftist rebuttals in the comments, and we’ll have fun later finding where they were put to use around the Leftosphere.
Fair Warning to Trolls: Vile commentary and those who leave it will be dealt with mercilessly. However, gracefulness will shock and amaze everyone, should you care to go that route.
****
update: Bob Owens continues the search for Nessie. And the AP wept.
Could I ask you or one of the site proprietors to remove the info about where they are? I made a mistake mentioning it at Patterico’s. Sorry.
MAGALAGALONGONGALONG! So HAH!
WTF! This again? Are you guys all hooked on bathroom crank? YOU’RE ALL RESPONSIBLE FOR GETTING JAMIL GUDAB HARRARI MENTOS SUAD BABALOUIE HUSSEINN-EEE ARRESTED AND SHUT UP!
Malkin and Preston in Bahgdad? So what? Your still a chickenhawk if YOU DON’T CARRY A GUN AND SHOOT BROWN PEOPLE! They can talk only after they have kicked down some doors and sprayed a room full of people. UNTIL THEN THEY ARE CHICKENHAWKS! CHICKENHAWKS IN BAHGDAD!!
This is a catastrophe of epic hysteria histroicall proportions and platitudes and you guys still think that Jaime Qutb Gange Hussyanne doesn’t exist. THE AP KNOWS MORE THAN YOU SCUMBAG WINGNUT RACIST CHIMPS! I HOPE ALL THE BLOGGERS GET CAUGHT IN A FIREFIGHT AND WET THEMSELVES LIKE THE CHICKENHAWKS IN IRAQ THAT THEY ARE!
There, Pablo, is that what you were looking for?
I don’t think we need ALL CAPS BJTexas. Thats just plain rude.
The caps help set the tone, Theresa. BJ is going for an authentic moonbat look.
I USE teh CAPS BECAUSE I’M YELLING AT THE CHICKENHAWKS WHO WON’T LISTEN WHEN WE REALITIES TELL YOU THAT IRAQ WAS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG BUT YOU WON’T LISTEN BECAUSE YOU ARE MCCHIMPYBURTON STOOGES AND WON’T LISTEN AND ARE teh STUPID TOO!
I hope that has cleared up any misconceptions.
*burp*
Bryan Preston? More like Bryan Press-on-nails. HAH!
Eat my wit, warstooges!
BAM!
A thousand pardons, Allah. I assumed that bit had a past tense quality to it. I’ll still be all pins and needles, though…
So, then all of that leftist howling about how the AP has proven everyone wrong is once again based on a guy who doesn’t exist?
When you find Jamil are you going to hang him and videotape it too? How COMPASSIONATE you kkkonservatives are.
Go ahead and kill people, we all know that Iraq had nothing to do 9-11
Producers Susan Sarandan and Sean Penn in association with Steisand Blathering Productions Present the new Truthiness Musical.
Chickenhawks in Iraq!
Written by Al Franken and Tim Robbins
Music by Micheal Stipe and Bruce Springsteen
Edited by Michael Moore
Technical Advisors: Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan, Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.)
Directed by George Clooney
Including songs like:
“I’ve Grown Accustomed to Mistakes.”
“Jamil! I Once Knew a Cop Named Jamil.”
“Sunset in Fallujah”
“I’m Gonna Wash Muqtada Out of My Hair”
“I’m Just Ape over AP!”
“Chickenhawk’s Got a Gun”
“Send in the Brown (people)”
“Embed My Heart With the 101st Boys” (co writen with Greenwald.)
Coming post surge in the spring of 2008. A portion of all proceeds benefit the Israeli Balloon Fence Missile Defense Project.
More importantly, why do you guys associate moonbat with opposition to the war. William F. Buckley, Gordon Smith, Chuck Hagel, Paul Craig Roberts, Norm Coleman. Here’s a Novak column on the growing Republican opposition.
Now, while I welcome all thinking Americans to the realization that intervention in Iraq was a bad idea and is a continuing bad idea, I don’t exactly see myself as politically related to Norm Coleman or Buckley, or any of the others.
In other words, it’s not just “crazy leftists who listen to llamas and Al Franken” who think the war is horrible and we need to get out. It’s the broad spectrum of the American political landscape.
Who would you guys need to hear? McCain? Guiliani? Cheney? The Prez? Where is your tipping point?
It goes without saying that I wish Michelle and her crew best of luck. She’s too hot to die.
PS Before you guys tell me I’m stupid (Pablo), abuse me with rhetoric (Jeff), parse my words and say I generalize (BJ), and the host of others I am curious: What is victory (to anyone who wants to comment)?
When can we acknowledge we did what we said we’d do (topple Saddam and oversee a democratically elected government)? When can our people, except those in the FOB’s, be redeployed from Iraq?
How can you people make fun of this travisty of a calamity of a disaster of a…. oh goodie another dead soldier, man I am so gonna win this thing!
See TimmyB, I don’t have a tipping point. They cannot defeat us. Pure and simple, the only way we lose is if we give up and walk away. I’m not one for defeat – been there done that, seen the consequences firsthand. So for me, there is no tipping point, only weak willed fools who would sacrifice long term stability for short term relief.
We can, Timmy, as of December 2005. Why do you suppose that no one in the media or on the left wants to do that?
We’ll probably get them out of Germany, Japan and South Korea first. Don’t you think that would be a good idea?
And when you’re making your “nice Republicans” list, don’t forget Pat Buchanan.
You base your opinions on those of others? On some poll somehwere? I’ll change my mind in the event hat I determine that this was not, is not, or has ceased to be, the right thing to do and not until.
Good greif. You’re really going to continue to re-ask the answered question.
When they also have the necessary security apparatus to keep it.
Why aren’t you askign these questions about Afghanistan?
When the elected government of Iraq possesses a monopoly on the use of force, and is able to defend the rights of all its citizens regardless of religion or sect or tribe or whatever. Also, when the elected government of Iraq is able to secure its borders and protect itself from the violent outside influences of its neighbors and organizations such as AQ. Iraq is not in that state now.
Other than that, its tough to comment further on your questions, as your premises are flawed. You manage to blend the fallacy of numbers with arguments from authority quite well. Personally, I don’t care what Buckley or any of those other people think or thought. Nor do I care whether I am in the majority or minority opinion. I’ll make up my own mind, thank you, and right is right regardless of who or how many believe otherwise. But in order to find what’s right, I need to know the truth. You know, the facts, so to speak. And what you have been missing all along is that Jeff and Pablo and Karl and everyone else commenting here have all been after just that in order to make their own minds up as well.
TimmyB
The consequences for leaving Iraq before the country is strong enough to handle enemies from inside and outside the borders are tremendous. The sort of bloodshed and inhuamity we are seeing now will seem like the calm before the storm if we leave too early. In addition, there is a solid argument which can be made for the notion that since we broke it, we are duty bound to the actual human beings involved, to see it through regardless of the price.
Which parts of the above to you disagree with and why? If you disagree with none of it, how do you reconcile it with calls to pull the troops out now?
Thanks in advance for your reply.
The terrorists are attacking soldiers over there as opposed to civilians over here.
As for my moonbat impression, and since it hasn’t been covered.
SHE’S PROLLY THERE OVERSEEING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW INTERNMENT CAMPS! Racsits!!!!!!!
There are Arabs in Iraq?
Winning?
They’re actually Esquimaux – they just like screwing with people’s heads. Pretty funny, huh?
The religion’s a joke too. Shhh – don’t tell anyone!
And somebody bill BJT for “bolding maintenance”, before s/he/it starts using up all the italic tags!
Defense Guy,
Now that’s a good one! It sounds like Sadly, No! Or maybe Gilliard.
They’re finite? There goes my over-the-top but whimsical style…
BTW: HE!
Pat Buchanan, David Duke, the entire foreign policy realist apparatus (which includes holdovers from the Bush I presidency, etc.)
Timmy B, we’re not calling you a leftist. We’re calling you a Nixonian.
JOIN US, TIMMY! COME JOIN THE JFK DEMOCRATS / NEOCONS!
Timmy B and the non-adults plan for Iraq:
1. Leave.
2. Blame Bush for the calamity that follows.
3. Pretend they didn’t mean for THAT to happen when we have to shoot our way back in 2 years in a landscape that no one can even remotely take a stab at forecasting. And, oh yes, blame Bush.
It will shock you, Timmy, yes, shock you that long ago many of us believed more troops were necessary and by long ago, I mean Septmber 12, 2001.
As others have pointed out, “Timmy” (and, oh God, how I have fought against using South Park references to this point)–the only way we lose is to do what you want.
I say we let Michelle Malkin walk the streets of Baghdad for a few minutes to enable her to finally get the ‘real story’ as to what’s happening over there. What does everyone think?
http://www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
I think she’s already doing just that, whether we let her or not.
What is victory when dealing with crime?
The president declared war against terrorism (and not a war in name only, like the one against poverty), with islamofascism at it’s core. To quote Bushs speech last night, victory won’t look like the one in WWII.
To me, we already achieved victory in Iraq (though the war on terror continues). We took out Saddam, witnessed the election of a democratic government (that is pro-American), have a powerfull military force in a stratigic location, denied AQ an obvious haven from Afganistan, ended UN sanctions that had the twisted effect of punishing the people and enriching the corrupt (oil-for-food), and prevented attacks on US soil (flypaper).
All we have to do now, is keep what we have achieved.
Why don’t you want to keep what we have achieved Timmy?
No, Minorripper, I think that we should giggle uncontrollably at the Iranians when they protest that their consulate was “violated” by US Troops.
Then we should have a collective knowing nod when you put (escalation) next to surge on your blog.
Finally we should whoop with abandon as you quote “renowned” moonbat Sy Hersh saying that the Bush administration is “lusting” for war with Iran. You completely forgot to include Pops Chomsky as you need to include the proper buzzwords like Economic Imperialism and Colonialist Hegemony.
In all, you have made the “reality wing” trifecta by blaming Bush for everything and, yet, never getting around to blaming Iran, foreign terrorists or die hard Baathist thugs for anything.
Well done! After all, you did get me to look at your threadbare site.
Once.
Somehow I believe that, for many on the Left, any violence at all in Iraq is emblematic of a loss. Thus, the insurgents can keep us from “winning” in the Left’s mind by using IEDs ad infinitum – and there’s no lower limit on the number that the Left could use as evidence that we are losing. One per month should do it.
Why isn’t Tiny Tim practising his U-Uleley ?
He’s dead, Bill.
General response: so it’s war without end.
Have you guys ever noted there are plenty of nations on the Earth who don’t fit the criteria of “elected government of Iraq possesses a monopoly on the use of force, and is able to defend the rights of all its citizens regardless of religion or sect or tribe or whatever. Also, when the elected government of Iraq is able to secure its borders and protect itself from the violent outside influences of its neighbors and organizations such as AQ. Iraq is not in that state now.” Pakistan, Lebanon, Israel, Sudan, Somalia, Chechnya/Russia, India, hell, most of Central Africa.
Specific responses:
Mawoods: I have no problem with how you decide, just wondering what it takes people who made a decision in 2002, decide against all evidence to
The contrary, to adhere to a position long after most everyone else abandons it. I’m not opposed to being in the minority. I am trying to find my fellow citizens’ rationale(s).
ThomasD: I asked two questions and you answered the first, but never did say what victory is. Only that you refuse to be defeated (dear Lord, I’m glad you weren’t President in 1951 or 1972).
Pablo: I’ve heard John Edwards, Chuck Hagel, and John Murtha say something in the last three weeks or so. It is the official Edwards campaign position.
Finally, mi ami, RTO: I base my opinion, like you, on what I learned and what I know. I oppose war and military intervention except as a last result or as a correction to gross human rights abuses (and no, Saddam did not qualify for that in 2002, thanks to our “no-fly” zones, e.g. Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia) because it wins few friends and kills innocents. On that basis there was no need to invade Iraq, QED
But, if some believed otherwise, and have changed their minds, why haven’t others? That’s why I asked.
Lastly, we’re in Afghanistan because, and you might know this, there’s a war on the terrorists who are trying to get rid of us and they live in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Further, you and I know, but apparently I’m the only one who will say, that there is no real functioning central government in Afghanistan. Karzi has no power (unless accompanied by foreign troops) outside of Kabul. Dostum controls the north, Khan controls Herat and the Taliban are pretty much running Kandahar. Unless we want resurgent Al Queda (remember them) to start checking out real estate near the ruins of old Balkh, we’d better stay.
By the way, when I ask you a question (transformation) you don’t bother to respond, but, when you want to quarrel, you out of the gate in 10 minutes?
As I’ve tried to tell you guy and gals, we are not enemies of each other. Being less partisan wouldn’t any of us. In fact, it’s why I point out the “moonbats” aren’t the only ones who oppose the war.
PS One other thing, I was wrong about Coleman. He opposes escalation/surge, but not the war.
Happy parsing.
Where’s my answer Timmy! Damnit I demand to be included in your response! Are you afraid of my questions?!?!?!?
I’d settle for a fruit rollup if you’re too busy to respond.
Timmy B:
In general, I just think that you are misguided and wrong.
Last I checked, the US military was not actively engaged in armed conflict in or with those countries you listed, so I don’t really see what your point is when bringing them up. You asked what victory in Iraq was and I gave you my opinion in response, so there was no parsing there. Pointing out the imperfections in other countries is not much of a rebuttal. Besides, of the countries you listed, most have functioning and sovereign goverments, and while nowhere near perfect can not be considered failed states of the same vein as pre-invasion Afganistan.
To the rest of your response, reread my first. I don’t care if one-time supporters have abandoned their position. That in and of itself is no reason for me to change mine. I see everything they see but come to a different conclusion. I don’t see the situation as hopeless or a failure at the present time. Rather, I recognize that the only way we can fail, or be beaten, is for enough people to believe just that and for us to quit the field as we did in Vietnam. And personally, the only way that I see for our soldiers to have died for a mistake, or to have sacrificed in vain, is to retreat now (and no matter how many times you or anyone else calls it “redeployment” it is retreat).
Timmy, as has been said, since we “broke it”, we need to “fix it”. To do anything less is morally wrong and dishonors those who gave their all. Its funny to me how people can sit in their safe little homes here in America and what is fast becoming the new Caliphate (eurabia) and make statements based on media information which has been proven false or distorted over and over again. How do you make your decision based on false information Timmy? If your source is the AP or nyt, you are not armed with all the facts. The US has gone down the cut and run road before. Millions of people died because of a lack of intestinal fortitude. Those self same “geniuses and knowers of all things” are the ones squawking the loudest. Lies, half-truths, treason has be the modus operandi of the “loyal” opposition. Here is one final thought and what I base my decisions on. WHEN YOU SEND TROOPS INTO COMBAT, YOU, AS A GOVERNMENT AND PEOPLE ARE MORALLY OBLIGATED TO SUPPORT THEM. That has not happened in this hollow shell of today’s America. The troops support the mission. Why don’t you Timmy?
Timmy writes:
Well, when you beg the question that way.
Of course, many of us don’t see “all evidence to the contrary.” Half-glass-full people, I guess.
DON’T HATE ME FOR MY OPTIMISM, TIMMY!
Yet you expect others to be swayed by the opinions of Buckley, et. al? Why the double standard?
QED if we accept your premises that war and military intervention are only justified on the grounds you cite. I don’t accept that. Now what?
So? Did we create that condition in Pakistan, Lebanon, Israel, Sudan, Somalia, Chechnya/Russia, India, hell, most of Central Africa. (India and Israel do not belong on your list here, in any event.) We did in Iraq and Afghanistan (which you still don’t mention–why not ask these same questions about Afghanistan?) and so we remain engaged until that condition is corrected. You want to see a prime example of what happens to a country where we don’t remain so engaged? Look at Haiti through the 20th Century. We failed to make the full investment there, so we end up going back every 3 – 5 years or so.
Wrong again, Timmy. It’s war until the IED/kidnap crowd gives up, or until the central government is mature enough to handle the IED/kidnap crowd on its own. Why is it so hard for some to understand this?
Yes, the present situation in Iraq is horrible. Yes, the newly elected government isn’t helping, and in many ways is hurting the effort. Yes, we’re fighting against the pent-up rage of a people who were brutally beaten down for over 30 years. Yes, we’re stuck between two hostile regimes sending everything they can across the borders to keep the conflict burning. Yes, we’re short on manpower because nobody in the past five years had the political will to expand the size of our army.
Even in the face of all that, some people think it’s worth the sacrifice in order to keep Iraq from exploding into all-out civil war. We think it’s worth it because such a scenario would be a nightmare, both strategic and humanitarian. Millions dead, American foreign policy crippled for a generation, and every evil regime emboldened to act as aggressively as they want, because they know that no force on Earth will oppose them with more than a sternly worded declaration. The chaos and misery would reach far beyond Iraq, though here in the States we could pretend to be secure for a few years, until the chaos reached our shores.
But you don’t seem to care, Timmy. Why? Is it because they’re brown people? Is it because they’re a bunch of savages who really deserve no better than to be victims and refugees? Is it because they have oil, and so they should be doomed to misery so that we’ll have more motivation to go Green? Is it because it’s somehow nobler for civilians to die in LA and Baltimore and Miami than for soldiers and Marines to die in the Middle East?
Why do you want to abandon the Iraqi people to limitless murder and destruction, Timmy? Why do you want the rest of the world to suffer under tyrants and madmen? Why?
Defense guy, between the “writing” and posting of my comments, I miised you. Sadly, out of fruit roll-ups, I will step to the plate (sort of, at least)!
Yours is exactly the position of my Marine cousin. He humanizes it even further more by arguing that these are people who personally helped him when he was out on patrol and he feels honor bound to protect them.
In essence, how can one not sympathize with your opinion? I know I believe in Colin Powell’s philosophies, whether it’s the overwhelming force/definitive exit or the Pottery Barn.
My rebuttal is that we aren’t protecting anyone outside of the Green Zone. In the Atlantic, Col. Bing West, ret wrote an interedting piece on the Haditha “situation,” noting in 2003 the police chief did support us and helped us clean the joint out. The Pentagon pulled those soldiers for Fallujah, the insurgents returned and shot the police chief and his sons. The Americans came back after Fallujah, the mayor helped us, and, when we left again, he skedaddled. Several of his political allies weren’t so lucky; they were strung up. Clayton himself admitted there were damn few people who trusted him and those people dwindle every time we surge into Baghdad.
In the end, it is my contention a lot of more innocent Iraqis are dying now and will die, whether we die or not. That is not a happy thing, but, as I have maintained, a withdraw to the FOB’s means we can pick and choose where to intervene, keep the other countries out, and use air power and Special Ops to conbat the remaining AlQueda folks.
I think your position is the most thoughtful and moral position of anyone who wants to stay. I reject it only because I can’t see if bus loads of janitors are getting shot while we’re dying means we’re preventing mass death.
Thank for the discussion, though. Your obligation to be polite has been filled and you can now abuse me.
History would make it seem so. It is definitely war until one side stops fighting back, then the other side wins.
<blockquote>I think your position is the most thoughtful and moral position of anyone who wants to stay. I reject it only because I can’t see if bus loads of janitors are getting shot while we’re dying means we’re preventing mass death.</blockquote>
That is a truly awe-inspiring level of incoherence.
Given your update, it seems that you don’t actually want all the brown people to die. We seem to be dealing with a difference in tactics more than a difference in philosophy, which changes the nature of the debate considerably.
I retract my accusations and humbly apologize.
Theresa, I base my info on what I’ve read, what I’ve seen, and on the two relatives who have returned from iraq within the last three months. My brother-in-law just returned the week before Christmas, and, even though he was in the South, my good Texas, formerly gung ho b-in-law said the southeastern part of the country was a chaotic nightmare.
So, I’ve got my sources and you can poo=pooh the AP all you want (hell, Jeff can make an entire post just on that phrase), but the AP’s stories are corroborated by Central Command (your source) and Reuters and every other media outlet 99.9% of the time.
They’re not sitting smack in the middle of all of our oil, Timmy.
I’m sure Buchanan will be tickled to know that. Do you want to tell him or should I?
There’s a battle for Baghdad, obviously. Anbar has some awfully stubborn jihadis, despite the fact that we keep stacking them up like cordwood. But Iraq is a big place, and the vast majority of it is not chaotic. Your rebuttal is wrong. Ask any Kurd.
Now, is there an Iranian influence we should be tremendously concerned about, and does it extend throughout large portions of Iraqi society? Yes.
They’re at war with us, and they’d like to turn Iraq into another Shiite theocracy.
Now what?
Oh, and they’re building nukes, natch.
Now what?
B Moe, thanks, as usual, let me say if I can wirte it correctly. Recently, a bus load of janitors on their way the airport, where they are contracted by us and Iraqi government, was machine gunned and four guys or gals died. If that is our idea of being there to prevent mass death, then I would say what we’re doing is not working.
If the definition insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results, then what we’re doing in Iraq by supporting the same ol’ tactics is getting our guys killed and the Iraqis killed.
I know the rephrasing doesn’t make it any mor epalatable to you, but someday, someday, I am going to make you express an opinion toward substance, instead of correcting grammar, spelling, or just being insulting. I swear I will draw an opinion (besides Tim is an ass, I already know you think that) out of you!
PS Squid, thanks
Jeff, I liked Nixon’s foreign policy (except for the lying and bombing of Cambodia). I believed in realism tempered by moral considerations. I also believe when we intervene, we smash the enemy, and get the hell out. Pretty sure I too would have stopped on the road to Baghdad (well, after a couple of days strafing the Republican Guard), and I would have provided air cover for the Shia right after. Otherwise, call me Bismark
How about if I just repeat the ones you have already ignored in this thread:
Wait a minute.
Timmy: “My rebuttal is that we aren’t protecting anyone outside of the Green Zone. In the Atlantic, Col. Bing West, ret wrote an interedting piece on the Haditha “situation,†noting in 2003 the police chief did support us and helped us clean the joint out. The Pentagon pulled those soldiers for Fallujah, the insurgents returned and shot the police chief and his sons. The Americans came back after Fallujah, the mayor helped us, and, when we left again, he skedaddled.”
I thought we were supposed to smash the enemy and get the hell out.
I think by talking out of both sides of your mouth, you have (inadvertantly) illustrated the Iraq conundrum (whatever the heck that word means). In the short term it appears we will need to clear areas of jihadi idiots, and then hang out until the Iraqis can deal with the jihadi idiots by themselves.
If we don’t pull this off we get Mogadishu style anarchy fueled by oil revenue.
Realism, however, is morally bankrupt, post-Cold War.
And if what you are looking for is an Iraq where no one gets hurt, killed or murdered, so sorry. It ain’t happening.
Central Command (your source)
Timmy, how the hell do you figure my source is the above? I too have family and friends who have gone several times. In fact, my nephew is in Balad and a very good friend just got back from Baghdad. So, Cent Com is not my source for information. Dude, you never answered my question. The troops support the war. Why don’t you? After all, they are the ones fighting and dying, not you.
Because he wants it to be, because that makes it easier for him to convince himself he’s besting you in the argument.
Timmy B:
Other Timmy: I don’t like ANY of the answers I got, so I’ll make up my own!
So when Hezbollah commits terrorist acts on U.S. soil we smash Lebanon then leave. Accomplishing exactly what? Worsening and further radicalizing another failed nation state that will continue to serve as a base of operations for Iranian and Syrian backed proxy wars.
Damn, I’m thankful you never will be POTUS.
Rather than trying to cut the heads off of this hydra how about we go for the heart?
Who was that prat who posted the other day asking why Michelle Malkin wasn’t in Iraq? And where is his retraction and apology?
Timmy,
Your description is a bit at odds with what I experienced in Afghanistan, and RTO might be able to chime in about the TB basically running Khandahar, you know, since he was recently stationed there…
Did he really say that? What an especially ignorant comment, if so.
I haven’t been in Kabul for quite a month yet, but we’ve received no word of a loss of Kandahar.
Here’s a straightforward question for you, Timmy: By what measure is this or has this not been, the most bloodless, most successful military operation in the recorded history of the world.
In fact any of the lukewarm supporters, as well as former supporters, might chime in as well.
TW:asked68–The number of times TimmyB has asked what Victory is.
Is anyone else as tickled as I am that the new left is forced to admit it is basicly Nixonian when it comes to foreign policy?
That’s fine with me: I never voted Republican during the realist stage (I supported Reagan precisely because he was an idealist), and I will not vote Democrat now if they attempt to mimic the Bakers and the Buchanans and the Colin Powells of the world.
I do, however, agree that we should go to war like we are going to war—everyone here and on the left side of the blogosphere knows where I stand in terms of how I think we are letting perceptual fears dictate our military strategy, often taking the most risk-averse path—but aside from that, nothing Timmy says makes much sense to me morally.
And of course, just because we can’t fight everywhere there are injustices doesn’t mean that when our interests collide with those injustices, we shouldn’t act. To me, such actions are completely morally defensible.
iirc, this was just before Christmas? RTO dissappeared for about a week around the time you posed the question, I was gonna recommend you email it to him, but then forgot about it, what with the holidays and all. just thought I’d mention that for the record.
and my interpretation of this is, “everyone else jumped off the building, why didn’t you?” This has got to be the stupidest argument for giving up on Iraq I’ve seen and yet, people keep trotting it out.
Proponents of the “pull out now” method of fighting the Iraq war usually don’t like to talk about the long-term consequences. So if you’re still reading this, TimmyB, what do you think the long-term consequences for the US would be if the US accepts defeat in Iraq?
I agree with President Bush. The long-term consequence of American defeat in Iraq would be to embolden the radical Islamists. They would gain new recruits and launch new attacks worldwide in the pursuit of their new Caliphate. Do you think that could happen? Do you think they would be more likely to attack here again than if they were defeated in Iraq?
If you have a scenario in which an American defeat in Iraq results in less world wide Islamic terrorism, I would like to hear it. Really, I’m asking for new information. I might be able to change my mind. I changed it once before.
Maggie said:
Well, it’s unsurprising that they keep trotting it out. They think those of us who don’t think Iraq is a disaster are nothing but mindless drones doing what we’re told. So if folks like TimmyB can find the “right” person to proclaim failure, then it means we mindless drones will follow.
Oh wait, I’m just repeating your assessment of stupidity, just not as briefly. Sorry.
“Michelle Malkin is not a real woman!”
“She’s a Christian.”
“She’s a Jew.”
“She’s funded by Haliburton.”
Timmy, You’ll have to forgive me. I’m in a war zone. Real life interrupts all of us sometimes, but here it really is a distraction from blogging.
If you’d like to e-mail me your question, I’d be happy to answer. RTO.trainerATgmail.com
Patrick Chester
Drones just like them, no doubt: Yea, only when Quinn The Eskimo finally speaks will I listen.
There we go. Only took my lunchbreak to dig it up.
How about a full and sincere apology from “msbldop” on this site. Correctly he should write to Michelle Malkin as well, but that would require some guts.
In Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Iraq, and Colombia, and Somalia,and Indonesia, and the Philippines, and Saudi Arabia, and Denmark, and France, and England, and the US, and Kazakhstan…. Did you miss the “Global” part of this thing somehow? Are you unaware of the campaigns being fought in all these places, and many others?
How do you come by the idea that this could be geographically circumscribed?
I won’t say it because it’s not true.
Out of date. Not so since 2003-2004 timeframe.
You are aware that I was living there until about three weeks ago? Just total bull.
You are aware that this is not a war on al Qaeda, right? They are only one enemy. And stow the snark. Of course we “remember them,” it’s been the main target sicne the beginning. That has not changed.
From furriskey’s retroactivly throttled troll:
Out of three people mentioned, two of them do not work at the NYT. msbldop is apparently both an asshole and a moron. Nice twofer, troll.
TimmyB
Sorry about the late response.
Do me a favor and thank your cousin for me for his service to our country. No matter what else happens, those that have served in this WoT deserve our respect and thanks.
Agreed, it takes 2 to tango and those who are doing the killing now seem inclined to do it regardless of anything else. They will continue to do so up until the point where they are killed or captured before they can carry out their evil or until they can be convinced that we will not give up, ever. Our presence helps with the killing and capturing part and our willingness to stick it out is helpful in convincing our enemies that they are fighting a lost cause. Which they are.
I don’t think this is an unsupportable position. I’m not sure if I agree with it 100%, but it is certainly an idea for which a solid argument can be made. This gives me hope that you perhaps understand that it is simply too morally reprehensible to abandon those to whom we have given our word.
I appreciate the compliment.
To be fair, one’s obligation to be polite is never really fulfilled. Not that I expect I am capable of living that ideal, but for today I seem ok with it.
RTO Trainer wrote:
Probably is aware, but hoping most people aren’t.
You would think a lesson like this would be like a thunderclap in Timmys poor, propagandized bean, causing him to re-examine what he thinks he knows about the progess of the war. Unfortunatly I’m sure, sadly, it was just a rustle in the grass as one of his brain bunnies scampers for cover.