Pajamas Media is liveblogging the Alberto Gonzales hearings, which—like most politically-motivated witchhunts—is devolving into a cartoon version of some sixties protest. Writes Captain Ed:
“They’re breaking for lunch, and the audience is catcalling Gonzales, yelling ‘Liar!’ and something about torture, and now ‘Impeach! Impeach!’ It’s a farce, and so is this hearing, on both sides.â€Â
Meanwhile—in a further Democratic effort to bring America together and, in the process, raise US troop morale—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told journalists, “I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week.”
Reid said he had delivered the same message to US President George W. Bush on Wednesday, when the US president met with senior lawmakers to discuss how to end a standoff over an emergency war funding bill.
“I know I was the odd guy out at the White House, but I told him at least what he needed to hear … I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically.”
Which means, presumably, Nancy Pelosi donning a headscarf and trying to “engage” terror leaders.
To complete the groveling, perhaps she can take along Jimmy Carter, who will readily concede that the US and its Jewish puppetmasters are to blame for all the world’s ills, and then offer to build a Palestinian state using volunteers from Habitat for Humanity.
[…] Bush on Thursday was addressing an Ohio town hall meeting and defending the war on terror launched in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
“It is the most solemn duty of our country, is to protect our country from harm,” Bush told the invited audience in Tipp, Ohio.
“A lesson learned was that—at least in my opinion—that in order to protect us, we must aggressively pursue the enemy and defeat them elsewhere so that we do not have to face them here.”
But Reid drew a parallel with former US president Lyndon Johnson who decided to deploy more troops in Vietnam some 40 years ago when 24,000 US troops had already been killed.
“Johnson did not want a war loss on his watch, so he surged in Vietnam. After the surge was over, we added 34,000 to the 24,000 who died in Vietnam,” Reid said.
Protests right out of the Vietnam era, and Vietnam analogies used to determine current foreign policy.
Strange that those who call themselves “progressives” haven’t been able to progress much since 1968, don’t you think?
Worse, Reid is using precisely the calculus terrorists depend upon to formulate policy: successful terror attacks and deaths are proof that fighting terror can’t work. Meaning that all it takes for the US to turn tail and run is its military inability to prevent carefully staged terror attacks meant as spectacle to break US and Western morale.
And so long as that is the accepted calculus for our willingness to pursue a conflict to its conclusion, the US can never win another war—nor should it even try.
Which, incidentally, is precisely what left-liberals desire. Because once the US military is sufficiently marginalized, the new paradigm for international peace keeping will be unelected transnational bodies—the first step toward a dissolution of sovereignty and a movement toward a “world government” run by diplomatic elites.
Probably not what the founders had in mind—but then, who cares? Those slave-owning bozos served their purpose; now it’s time to give control over how things should be run to those who have a greater “historical appreciation.” After all, Ben Franklin wasn’t alive to fully appreciate the beauty and equality fostered by soft-socialism! Whereas John Kerry? He’s been in the shit, man!
Now if you’ll excuse me, I think I’m going to be sick.
****
update: Having just listened to the latest Blog Week in Review, it turns out I rehearsed many of these same points during the show. Those interested can catch the discussion between me, neoneocon, and Austin Bay here.
Precisely. The moment this war was “lost” was the moment that Bush and his communications team allowed “victory” to be defined as the “absence of violence” in Baghdad.
Reid has a nack for saying exactly the wrong thing at precisely the right moment. He may be the Senate M/L but he still only represents Nevada. If Harry wants to surrender Nevada that’s fine, but he might first want to make damned sure the support he’s got is that of those he represents.
You are depressing me Jeff, and I too, I think, am going to be sick. Elections for national office seem to have devolved into contests to discover the most craven and ignorant amongst us.
If Dems follow the path of their Vietnam defeatist past, this time around they will be greeted with the largest anti-defeatist protest in American history.
We have learned from our mistakes and this time Americans are not going sit on the sidelines waiting for another image of Democrat-instigated mass slaughter by withdrawing in defeat.
I’ve believed for some time now that decisions become worse in proportion to the number of people who participate in making them. Past a critical threshold of three or maybe four people, the dropoff in quality is dramatic. Elections are a time when we all get together as a society and make the worst decisions possible.
And how do you suppose they’ll deal with those fanatical head choppers who simply can’t be beat? They’ve never accomplished a goddamned thing without a heaping helping of US forces.
If Reid thinks the war is lost, why his he still trying to get the war funded. He should stand up on the floor of the Senate tell the world the war is lost and propose no more money. That should go over just great.
The Vietnam parallels are interesting to me and I think the single biggest difference between the mind set of the right and the “mind” set of the left.
The left sees the U.S. leaving Vietnam (who was backed by the Soviet Union, a STATE run entity) and seeing ONLY South Vietnam, being over run by the communists (which a great deal of the left already is/was ideologically in bed with anyhow). The U.S. was not threatened by the North Vietnameze so obviously exiting was the right thing to do. The Soviet Union evenutally dissolved, so no harm no foul is the cry from the left.
They see this same line of progression in the exiting of Iraq. They equate Islamofascism with a political ideology only. Their mantra is, if we just get out, things will die down and eventually modernity will bring these backwood A-rabs into the fraternity of the liberal west. So much of the left has NO idea what religious conviction is or what that idea is all about. They have no capacity to understand. They have no capacity to understand the power, the longevity (going on 1400 years), and the passion of these 7th century religious whackos. Islam, for the TRUE Mohammedans, cannot be parsed into separate categories. Their STATE is their RELIGION. Yes, there are many moderate Muslims out there who are attempting to parse the two apart, but really, how well is that going? The True Mohammedans don’t count those Muslims as TRUE Muslims, and in actuality they are 100% correct.
This comparison of apples to oranges is lost on most of the left.
Oh, and of course the right just HATES brown people.
I am not following the latest flap on Gonzales, but I did see a clip with him equivocating on the right to habeas corpus some while back. Unless there was something strange about the context, I’d rather not have an AG who stalls on something so basic.
In addition to Steve’s point ( we all remember the executive order that suspended Habeas, right?), I would point out that further marginalizing this administration over another pretend scandal ensures that American power will not be brought to bear anywhere. Thus enbaling people like me to succeed. Enjoy infidels.
Reid forgets that the Surge in Vietnam, if it was such, worked.
The Viet Cong were destroyed. The NVA was pushed out of South Vietnam entirely, and were held back by the RVN forces until 1975 … when Congress cut out funding for their air force.
Of course, Reid either doesn’t know that or doesn’t care or worse, assumes nobody else does.
(The sad thing is, that last assumption is probably justified. Few people seem to realize it, though it’s hardly a secret. The continual doom-bell tolling of “defeat in Vietnam” has made simply ignoring the actual victory too easy.
After all, everyone knows the US lost the Vietnam war!)
Well, then. Bush should call him on this rhetoric and ask Congress to come up with terms of surrender. What kind of reparations should we offer to the Baathists and al-Qaeda? What U.S. territory should we cede to them? (I vote for Vermont, personally.) When should we turn over to the “winners” the U.S. leadership who voted for the war, including Harry Reid himself, for war crime trials? Have Harry and his guys spell it out for us.
Seriously, enough equivocating. Tell Reid to formalize the goddamn thing, or just shut his piehole.
As John Hawkins says: if America has lost the war, who has won?
Al`Qaeda.
Well, and the democrats. Funny how often their goals end up being the same.
Hmmm. Sounds like maybe you want to trust rule by an elite few?
The war is not lost.
The Democrats now totally own defeat, and they know it. They must manufacture a defeat to make its base proud. The bastards won’t win this time, though. There are too many of my generation who carry a bitter grudge about their traitorous behavior in Vietnam, especially by that great liar, Walter Kronkite.
Bear up. We will win the war on terror, and Iraq is but its first battle.
Harry Reid? I question his patriotism.
Everyone should, especially his own vestigial spine or vestigial balls.
“I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically.”
What’s most troubling to me is how often this statement is made as though it shoud be some kind of epiphany. A glorious revelation that will drop the scales from the eyes of us warmongers.
It is, as far as it goes, a perfectly true and sound statement.
As far as it goes.
Thing is, that, absent a military effort, the 4 dimensional space required to achieve anything political, diplomatic or economic, will never happen. That door’s gotta be forced open and for the time being the Iraqi military can’t do it on it’s own.
As Sigivald pointed out, the Dems want to do to Iraq what they did to S. Vietnam in 1975.
If there’s anyone you can trust to set you up and sell you out, it’s a Dem.
It’s really bizarre watching them blather, the supporters with no idea of and the ideologues with no care for the consequences.
Is it just me, or does Reid seem to bleed the life right out of any scene that he is in? If there is such a thing as Negative Charisma, this man has it in large amounts. Bland, lifeless, dull, pathetic little man.
“The moment this war was “lost†was the moment that Bush and his communications team allowed “victory†to be defined as the “absence of violence†in Baghdad”
Indeed
Christ on a crutch, can’t we at least get a leftard with a fucking bit of originality? That is about the tiredest schtick in the blogosphere, em.
Apparently not.
BUSH LIED!!11!!, you know.
“Allowed”? I know some people seem convinced that Bush is worse than Hitler, but they don’t have control of the media. Anything Bush and his “communications team”(sic) says tends to get soundbited and warped into something else.
Btw, is emmandine trying to compete with alphie?
Dennis Kocinich vs. Harry Reid match. Hard to say who would throw in the towel first. Doubt it would go two rounds of intense finger jabbing and face slapping.
After the Kocinich/Reid card would be the Moore/Kennedy match.
Not as tired as equating Democrats with terrorists.
Republicans have been using that “schtick” going on 5 years now, and this blog is yet another entry in that echo chamber.
I’m confused about the whole Bush=Hitler thingy. I thought the Holocaust never happened?
Not equating, Theo. They’re aiding and abetting, they are not one and the same.
Stay with the tour group, Scot. It was shot on the movie lot right next to the moon landing.
Right – people who equate Bush with Hitler would deflate their argument if they denied the Holocaust. You’re thinking of Mel Gibson’s dad.
Besides, Margaret Cho said it best: “Bush is NOT Hitler…he would be, if he applied himself.”
Aiding and abetting? That’s a law enforcement metaphor – and I thought terrorism wasn’t a law enforcement issue.
C’mon – I know you know you wanna use that “aid and comfort” thing from the Constitution. It makes it so much more fun to equate dissent with treason, and then fantasize about treason’s punishment.
Pajamas Media is liveblogging the Alberto Gonzales hearings, whichâ€â€like most politically-motivated witchhuntsâ€â€is devolving into a cartoon version of some sixties protest.
Did you actually watrch this? The premise of your piece hinges on this statement being true and it is easily shown to be false. With the exception of first in line fo AG’s AG spot he was dismissed out of hand by everyone else. Hardly a witch hunt. And you pull some quote that you source from one of your fellow travellers as additional proof, maybe that was someone who, like you, is merely an uniformed moron.
Then this tripe:
Which means, presumably, Nancy Pelosi donning a headscarf and trying to “engage†terror leaders.
To complete the groveling, perhaps she can take along Jimmy Carter, who will readily concede that the US and its Jewish puppetmasters are to blame for all the world’s ills, and then offer to build a Palestinian state using volunteers from Habitat for Humanity.
I get it, satire. So then you gin up some arbitrary shit rife with subjective exaggerations and present them as further “proof” of your thesis. The headscarh thing is particularly pernicious ase it ignores the reality of simple ubiquitous diplomatic techniques. That’s the best you can come up with? And then making fun of Jimmy Carter because he builds houses for poor people instead of kicking them out of them?
Worse, Reid is using precisely the calculus terrorists depend upon to formulate policy: successful terror attacks and deaths are proof that fighting terror can’t work.
Is this really precision? I mean it’s one sentence. And it’s really not much of an equation either, pretty basic. But I agree we are living in scary times when the leaders of congress have suriptious barley concealed even connections with our most desperate and insidious enemies. WE ARE DOOMED! Or not.
You need to try and think a little harder.
Bashki
Is that what they use to make lite beer?
To our esteemed visitors: yeah, yeah, all of us who believe that not only is the battle for Iraq winnable but (a) that it can only be won by actually fighting it (in conjunction with ongoing diplomatic and economic measures), and (b) that it in fact ought to be won, we all fantasize about stringing up all of you on the other side. It’s the only thing that puts me to sleep at night.
Seriously, do you – do any of you – honestly believe that Bush “would be Hitler if he applied himself”? Because, if true, I have to borrow a phrase from your own nuanced lexicon and say, wow. Just… wow.
I’m so darn frustrated with you. The Democratic party and the American/Euro Left are not, as a group, terrorists. They do, however, share the goal of our terrorist enemies: getting us out of Iraq with no further action. Are you able to refute that statement? What is so hard about actually hoping, planning, and acting for victory, rather than begging, expostulating, and protesting for retreat? Especially when those doing the work of it are hoping, planning, and acting for victory?
Theo – Isn’t Mel Gibson opposed to the war in Iraq? Welcome to the club.
Cho’s a comedian, Jamie – so that was a joke. No, Bush isn’t Hitler – Hitler knew how to occupy a country! (That’s a joke, too, by the way.)
I’m sorry you’re so guldurned frustrated with those of us in the reality-based community. It’s probably going to confound you even more that (a) there are still people who thought Vietnam was winnable and (b) that you’re confusing the invasion of Iraq with the “war on terror”.
See, it only became the “central front” when we invaded. Up til then, we had everything pretty neatly boxed in. Personally, I remembered what happened to the Soviets when they tried to occupy a country in the Middle East – which was reason #1 why I opposed the war from the start; it was (and is) a bonehead tactical move.
Funny – lil’ ol’ hippie/commie/socialist me, I had much more insight into this war than the people who “are hoping, planning, and acting for victory”. That’s really got to burn.
You left out “/humble” and “/psychic”.
The soft-leftist endgame would never work because international institutions cannot enforce any agreements without military force. Even with economic sanctions, few countries are really enthusiastic about cutting off trade (e.g., France, Germany, Russia, China).
Rendering our military strategically useless will just give rise to piracy and terrorism. Because those persons are not interested in abiding by international agreements.
I’m sorry, I missed this bit of absolutely fabulous military analysis at first glance, I thought you didn’t know what you were talking about. Major John, are you guys taking notes,?
Funny – lil’ ol’ hippie/commie/socialist me, I had much more insight into this war than the people who “are hoping, planning, and acting for victoryâ€Â
Hilarious, General.
Seriously, thanks for the morning laugh.
Of course to take your silly comments at face value, one has to believe we lost already.
Personally, I remembered what happened to the Soviets when they tried to occupy a country in the Middle East – which was reason #1 why I opposed the war from the start; it was (and is) a bonehead tactical move.
So you were against invading Afghanistan then, correct?
OOPS, look like the smug little boy made a bit of a mistake there…
See, it only became the “central front†when we invaded.
And?
So tell us, person who has never served, why it is a bad thing to dictate the course of battle to your enemies?
Up til then, we had everything pretty neatly boxed in.
Right. “Boxed in” as in having Saddam murder tens of thousands of his own people, pay suicide bombers, continue WMD development, and having his intelligence services meet with al Qaeda to plan God knows what.
Tell us, General, exactly how long were we supposed to tie up 22,000 military personnel and spend (in 1998 dollars) a billion a year to “tie up” Saddam?
I was for taking out the Taliban, not “invading Afghanistan”. Occupying any part of the Middle East is a fool’s errand – as the Soviets, Saddam, and now we have learned. OOPS.
You tell me, what part about Iraq, “planned” by people who never served, have we dictated? Rummy said he doubted it would go six months, and now we’re four years in. Nice strategery there.
Saddam used the gas we gave him to murder the Kurds, and Reagan barely blinked an eye. All your other assertions of WMD and links to al Qaeda have been thoroughly debunked, and 22,000 soldiers and a billion a year, if correct, is pocket change compared to the blood and treasure wasted on Iraq now.
Damn, this is easy. Is this really the best you guys’ve got?
in the good old days, retorting “Get a Job!” and “Take a bath!” would have been the proper statement in response to our professional protesting class. In the wake of the Imus affair however, that might be viewed as insensitive to odor-Americans and to the unemployed as a whole, rather than taken as a paired set.
Ignoring for a moment that that comment smacks of the same kind of elitism that liberals are accused of on a daily basis, it turns out the “odor-Americans” were right about Vietnam and Iraq.
Surely, you’re not so shallow as to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives simply because liberals were right…are you?
(That’s a rhetorical question, by the way. Liberals ended up being right on climate change and health care, too. And civil rights. And Social Security. And…)
The point about the Bush “communication team” is important. I consider the fact that thousands of Al Qaeda and would-be AQ members killed in Iraq hugely important, and a victory. I consider the establishment of a free, democratic and prosperous Kurdistan a huge and important victory. I consider the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime a victory for mankind. Like everyone else, I’m disgusted by the Arab-on-Arab bombings (they seem to just love murdering each other), but, unlike Bush & Co. I have no problem with the idea of partitioning the country and seperating the sunnis and shiites if necessary. Why should lines drawn up a hundred years ago by the British have any meaning in 2007?
My unapologetic priorities are: first, aggressive destruction of AQ wherever they dwell; a clear message to terrorists and terrorist enablers that we have the will and the way to fight anywhere and everywhere and simultaneously if necessary; and third, an opportunity for normal people – in the mideast and wherever – to have freedom, if they can hold on to it. Three is a noble and good goal, but if it doesn’t happen, so be it, the first and second goals are still in effect. I supported the invasion of Iraq and still do. To me it was part of a what was supposed to be a wave of totalitarian-toppling in the mideas (with Syria next). The conduct of the occupation, the various strategies after the war, etc. is up to debate, and Bush’s communication skills are abysmal of course, and I wish that were otherwise. Unfortunately, its one of those things we can’t control. Much like how millions of Iraqis, Sunni, Shia and Kurds, who just want the basic rights and dignities of any human being, are terrified (naturally) by the few thousand murderer/terrorists who are just willing to kill anybody randomly, and all for the purpose of MSM cameras and newspapers. Iraq right now is a land of a thousand Chos. With corresponding media attention and confusion. One way or another – partition or successful surge or just time – Iraq will stabilize, the US will draw down (but there will always be a presence) and the MSM will turn elsewhere.
Yee-ikes.
I was for taking out the Taliban, not “invading Afghanistanâ€Â.
Hilarious.
Thank you for confirming my point.
You tell me, what part about Iraq, “planned†by people who never served, have we dictated?
Huh?
Who “planned” the invasion operations who “never served”?
Name one person and prove they did the planning ,moron.
And since your answer will be false, let me be clear about this:
the military did the planning for it, and Rumsfeld served.
Idiot.
Rummy said he doubted it would go six months
No he didn’t.
Saddam used the gas we gave him to murder the Kurds
The US never gave Saddam weapons of any kind.
All your other assertions of WMD and links to al Qaeda have been thoroughly debunked,
Hilarious.
Who, exactly “debunked” them?
Oh, you don’t know and can’t say.
Mainly because this is false.
nd 22,000 soldiers and a billion a year, if correct, is pocket change compared to the blood and treasure wasted on Iraq now.
Uh, note how you can’t respond to the point. Which is, Saddam wasn’t “boxed in” as his WMD programs were active, and he was supporting terrorist groups.
Further, note how you can’t answer the question. Now why do you think that is?
Damn, this is easy. Is this really the best you guys’ve got?
Yes, “easy” to avoid direct questions, lie, and make up facts.
Of course it’s easy, chickenhawk.
Funny – lil’ ol’ hippie/commie/socialist me, I had much more insight into this war than the people who “are hoping, planning, and acting for victoryâ€Â
. . .it turns out the “odor-Americans†were right about Vietnam and Iraq.
I think that the best course of action is to prosecute the war to win, while at the same time making people like this feel like they were right all along. That’s all they really want in the first place.
Everybody wins!
Thank you for having no answers to mine.
Hilarious.
Liberals ended up being right on climate change and health care, too. And civil rights. And Social Security. And…)
Huh?
How can liberals be “right” about “climate change” when the climate is always changing? Were they “right” talking about “the population bomb” and global cooling?
How about communism? How’d that work out for you morons?
“Health care”
Note you can’t explain this. Don’t worry we know why.
Yes, all those good Democrats being “right” about “civil rights”
Comical.
“Social Security”
Why bother? Seriously? To say you are mindlessly ignorant and a buffoon is an understatement.
Thank you for having no answers to mine.
Chickenhawk,
everything you have written is false.
Not one or two things.
Everything.
ll your other assertions of WMD and links to al Qaeda have been thoroughly debunked,
This is what is called an emotional investment.
You can’t prove this, so you merely repeat it.
Though I do enjoy this:
Surely, you’re not so shallow as to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives simply because liberals were right…are you?
Huh?
Where have “hundreds of thousands” been “sacrificed”?
And, what were liberals “right” about?
You keep saying you were against the invasion. Prove it.
Show us a statement.
Further, provide any statement by “liberals” describing the situation in Iraq as it exists now, that was made priort to boots on the ground.
Go ahead, clown. I dare you.
And Social Security
Only a mindless moron would say you were “right” about a program that takes money from the pocket of a guy making 30,000 and gives it to retired millionaires.
Okay Theo, I’m in…
I love that phrase “reality-based.” Right away it tells me that the upcoming or proceeding statements aren’t. I think very few people that aren’t begging for surrender think that Iraq and the War on Terror are synonymous. I don’t think anybody with a whit of smarts doubts that Vietnam was winnable. So… I’m not even sure what this straw man sets up. So yes, I’m confounded to a degree. Please, carry on.
Ah, you remember the Soviets in Afghanistan. And… you immediately did a copy/paste for American and Iraq and came up with the same endstate. Nice critical thinking. That has all the military science validity of saying “I remember what happened to the Italians at the 12th Battle of Isonzo, so clearly fighting near rivers will always go poorly.” Must be some of that golldurned “reality-basing.” As was pointed out above, waiting for the next enemy move is, apparently ALWAYS the right ‘tactical’ thing to do. Please post a memo to those dolts at the JCS and G-3 planners that slapdashed this thing together. Oh, and was the ‘neat boxing’ represented by the IAD radar-lockups on our patrolling aircraft, or by the genocide of the Marsh Arabs?
If that’s what passes for ‘insight’ then I’m afraid you are a tad arrogant to think that anybody is even slightly discomfited by your laser-like view of the situation. Amused, perhaps, but ‘burned,’ and speaking only for myself here, hardly.
And Theo does they useal two left feet lefty two step, taking someone’s words out of context.
If we look at the speech itself, and the following paragraph we see a bifurcation in the subject. A bifurcation that makes it clear the former SECDEF was speaking of two processes; defeating the Hussein reigeme and then rebuilding Iraq.
Incidentally that first part which durationw as being predicted, took about 3 weeks.
And once more the reality-based representative gets slapped by reality.
You’ll have to show me. On both counts.
Please be specific and thorough
Dick Cheney. Paul Wolfowitz. And Dubya’s “service” was a cruel joke to anyone who’s actually been in country.
Rummy said he doubted it would go six months
“And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
Right, sorry – they allowed American corporations to sell them to him.
All your other assertions of WMD and links to al Qaeda have been thoroughly debunked,
The 9/11 Commission.
Which we still haven’t found after 5 years. Amazing.
There you go – facts and answers to direct questions. Of course, that isn’t going to mean much to someone who doesn’t even know the meaning of the word “chickenhawk”.
all your other assertions of WMD and links to al Qaeda have been thoroughly debunked,
Inconvenient truths:
I found Saddam’s WMD bunkers’
Saddam Sent WMD to Syria, Former General Alleges
Saddam agents on Syria border helped move banned materials
Saddam’s WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief
Iraqi Official Testifies to Links Between Saddam and Al Qaeda
-At the time of the 9/11 attack Nidal was the #1 most wanted terrorist in the world. And he was in Baghdad.
Clinton Admin:
Commissioner Lee Hamilton:
-He’s referring to VP Cheney’s comments that Saddam and AQ had “ties” and “connections”
Clinton Admin:
There’s also this section from the 9/11 commission report:
Plenty more, but I’ll stop there.
Nobody has “debunked” those facts.
Dick Cheney. Paul Wolfowitz. And Dubya’s “service†was a cruel joke to anyone who’s actually been in country.
Again,
lies. They did not “plan” this. You insisting it so, doesn’t make it true.
The 9/11 Commission.
Uh, that isn’t an answer. And they “debunked” nothing, idiot.
You clearly don’t know what that means.
But tell us, clown. Was any evidence of a relationship found after the 9/11 Commission report was issued?
Why yes.
And funny how you’re ignoring that, huh?
Rummy said he doubted it would go six months
Uh, you taking quotes out of context isn’t a “fact”
This was addressed above already.
You look like an utter fool for a) suggesting this is true and b) cutting off the rest of the text of his speech.
There you go – facts and answers to direct questions. Of course, that isn’t going to mean much to someone who doesn’t even know the meaning of the word “chickenhawkâ€Â.
You making false assertions doens’t constitute “facts”
And you still haven’t answered the original question posed to you.
Wonder why?
Yes, you are a chickenhawk. You advocate military action of which you’d never be a part. Not to mention you have never served.
Dick Cheney. Paul Wolfowitz. And Dubya’s “service†was a cruel joke to anyone who’s actually been in country.
Prove they did the planning.
Go ahead, please do.
And, ask yourself dumbass, did the US have plans for occupying Iraq prior to the Bush presidency?
Oh, don’t let facts and logic penetrate your idiotic “thinking.”
Boy, you got me there. My stenographer called in sick that day. (Geez.)
Forget liberals, how about the CIA?
http://tinyurl.com/2pso5o
The estimate came in two classified reports prepared for President Bush in January 2003 by the National Intelligence Council, an independent group that advises the director of central intelligence. The assessments predicted that an American-led invasion of Iraq would increase support for political Islam and would result in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict.
One of the reports also warned of a possible insurgency against the new Iraqi government or American-led forces, saying that rogue elements from Saddam Hussein’s government could work with existing terrorist groups or act independently to wage guerrilla warfare, the officials said. The assessments also said a war would increase sympathy across the Islamic world for some terrorist objectives, at least in the short run, the officials said.
The 9/11 Commission.
Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show
That’s post “9/11 Commission”
So was this:
Some “debunking” huh clown?
Theo,
There is a difference between ‘making the decision to go to war’ and ‘planning invasion operations’. You seem to be conflating the two.
RTO Trainer took care of your ‘six months’ point.
Yes, US corporations sold weapons to Iraq, but I am pretty sure if you look into the amounts, it was miniscule compared to other sellers.
Stephen Hayes has consistently debunked the absence of an Iraq-Al Quaeda connection, and has arguably been more ‘reality-based’ than those who simply assert that a secular dictator like Saddam would not have cooperated with religious fanatics like Al Quaeda.
I can’t find a link, but wasn’t there a story about Saddam being about a year away from a nuclear weapon when we invaded in the NYT either last year or in 2005? I don’t know if logistically that’s feasible, but I do remember there was a story of that nature, so the idea that he was not pursuing WMD doesn’t seem to be as iron-clad as you think. Plus, aside from the reality of his pursuit of them, he wanted people to think he had them to enhance his image at home and put fear into his enemies abroad. Even if all our invasion ended up being was a calling of his bluff on that score, I’m OK with that. Condi Rice still said it best with her line about smoking guns and mushroom clouds.
Fine, but what about the long run? Isn’t that much more important? I see a need to push political Islam into conflict with us sooner rather than later. The West isn’t getting any younger and war with political Islam (which I think is redundant, although others may disagree) is inevitable. Why would we not want to fight it now, when our chances of winning are higher? By winning, I mean destroying political Islam’s will to fight in a manner as thorough as the way in which we destroyed Nazi Germany and Shintoist Japan’s will to fight.
Please refrain from generic platitudes like ‘war never solves anything’, etc.
Forget liberals, how about the CIA?
Uh, this isn’t an answer.
You said liberals were right”
Prove it, clown.
I wanted to see how long he was going to ignore it.
Thinking maybe of dinner and a movie?
A few things, “Ace”:
1. Your linked sources are all from right-wing rags; at least attempt to use non-partisan sources in order to be credible.
2. Citing where Democrats were also wrong about Iraq doesn’t make your case that the war was right.
3. I don’t know what your standards for “proof” are – all I can do is provide links to generally agreed-upon information. Your constant insistence for impossible proofs are beyond juvenile.
4. Chickenhawk – a political epithet used in the United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, but has never personally been in a war, especially if that person is perceived to have actively avoided military service when of draft age.
I’m not “strongly supporting” the way the Bush administration has waged either war, thus I am not a chickenhawk. If you have not served, however, that would definitely make you one.
RTO Trainer: I think he’s about to whine about how it’s not FAIR you actually went to the original sources to show he was lying by quoting out of context.
We’re supposed to read his carefully-selected quotes and blindly follow it.
Right. So every man and woman who served in CONUS, USAREUR, 5th Fleet (you know, where Rumsfeld was), 6th Fleet, SAC, NORAD, ADC (You know, where Bush was), etc., their service was a cruel joke because they weren’t in country, Theo?
Hey, why don’t we take this to its logical conclusion? Who gives a shit what Deuce and Korea vets think, what have they done for us lately? Vietnam vets? Hey, the killing fields have been plowed under and Kerry’s a senator, so quit yer bitchin’. Grenada, Panama? Who cares if you got shot at, call those wars? Gulf One? If you slackers had done your job we wouldn’t be in this mess, right?
TW—blood68… theo wanted it then and he wants it now. Just not from the same side as the rest of us.
First of all – thank you, veni, for being the first person I’ve talked to in this thread who can conduct himself reasonably.
Second, the question posed to Rumsfeld was about “a full mobilization of Guard and Reserve”. If you believe Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” statement that major combat operations were over and that we had prevailed, fine – but I’m pretty sure “the surge” derails that notion.
Hussein’s Iraq and Terror Connection
So you’re an irresponsible fool.
You’re willing to create a political vacuum and let the chips fall where they may? Damn the civilian population, full Tomahawks ahead.
At least you’re consistent, since that’s what you advocate for Iraq too.
Your military experience is showing.
RTO: His knowledge of US Navy traditions is certainly showing.
(…and I’ll bet he’s valiantly hoping no one actually listened to the whole speech and/or read the transcript and will only read his carefully selected quotes or allusion to such things. Again. Gosh, a pattern appears…)
our linked sources are all from right-wing rags
You mean like CNN, The New York Times and a text of a grand jury indictment, right?
Funny thing, I knew you’d question the source as you’d don’t have a response. Or are you suggesting there are no translated Iraqi documents? Or are you suggesting the NY Sun made up those quotes from Bob Kerry?
Note how I also quoted the 9/11 Commission and Chairman Hamilton too, clown.
I don’t know what your standards for “proof†are – all I can do is provide links to generally agreed-upon information.
You provided no links that:
“Liberals were right” about Iraq
That Bush or Cheney “planned” the occupation
Do try and keep up.
Citing where Democrats were also wrong about Iraq doesn’t make your case that the war was right.
Uh, I never said this.
I provided facts. The facts are:
Saddam had WMD’s.
Saddam supported terrorists
Saddam had connections to AQ.
I can cite Democrats saying all 3 things.
That was a very, very piss-poor attempt at a strawman.
I’m not “strongly supporting†the way the Bush administration has waged either war, thus I am not a chickenhawk.
Idiot:
You strongly support removing the Taliban<b>.
You haven’t shown up at the local recruiter’s office.
You are a chickenhawk.
Wiki is not a source.
I’m using the standard you and your silly ilk have used for the past 5 years.
I’m pretty sure most of those people were “in country”, and I honor their service.
Bush whizzing around in a few planes in Alabama in the champagne unit and then taking off? Not so much.
And I did not once denigrate Rumsfeld’s service. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
John Kerry’s service was mocked repeatedly by the right in 2004, so I hardly think they have a monopoly on how to honor military service.
Theo,
I’m in Afghanistan, and you’re siting on a sofa somewhere else shooting at my back.
But I’m unreasonable.
Wonder why I’d take that personally?
I’m not “strongly supporting†the way the Bush administration has waged either war
Illiterate clown:
The definition says “a war” or ”other military action”not “the way the ____ Administration” has handled any war.
You support a military action against Afghanistan.
You won’t go fight in it, chickenhawk.
Your linked sources are all from right-wing rags
Yes, because linking to a Web page that is citing a soon to be released report in a German newspaper is “fact” for you.
Way to go clown. You have embarrassed yourself beyond parody.
Bush whizzing around in a few planes in Alabama in the champagne unit and then taking off? Not so much.
And tell us, which unit were the following a part of:
Harry Reid
Dick Durbin
Howard Dean
John Edwards
Osama Obama
Steny Hoyer
That is leaving out the grandma with a gavel and Hillary!
But still 90% of the Democratic party leadership.
I’ll tell you what clown, you got some balls mocking someone who actually flew a F-102.
Words that did not cross the President’s lips on 1 May 2003: “Mission Accomplished.”
Words that the President actually said on 1 May 2003:
“We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We’re bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We’re pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We’ve begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We’re helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people.
“The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq.”
So again, you remove context and hear only what you want to.
and I’ll bet he’s valiantly hoping no one actually listened to the whole speech and/or read the transcript
Exactly.
RTO Trainer, right on cue.
By that logic, we should still be Somalia.
And Haiti.
Here to Help, Ace.
No, he removes context and hopes people won’t go look up the transcripts. He wants other people to hear or read only the out-of-context quotes.
It’s possible more than a few people are either too busy or too lazy to do their own internet searches, so that can have an effect, unfortunately… and creatures like Theo are depending on it.
I don’t know.
I’m not sitting on a sofa, I’m not shooting at you, and I did not call you “unreasonable”.
I’m not sure I can help you with taking your own hyperbole personally.
But I thank you for your service.
Theo,
When I was a college student (and a better Democrat) I watched the footage of a dead US soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu behind a pickup.
I was opposed to the Somalia intervention at the time. I’d voted for President Clinton, but the change in the mission from protecting aid shippments to hunting for an individual in a foreign country (something we have not historically done well) was not somthing I was inclined to support.
And then that day–I was sitting in the Student Union at Old Miss between events at a drama symposium, and the report came on CNN.
A friend asked me, “What does this mean? What will we do now?” I answered, “Maybe this means that we’ll actually get serious about it and commmitt to it. To really get the job done.”
And then we pulled out.
18 dead soliders who’s deaths meant nothing because of a spineless decision made in Washington DC.
If it’s worth committing troops to than that’s supposed to mean it’s worth dying for. And that’s nto a deicison the public should be allowed to repent from at their leisure, if only because it’s our labor.
If you want Iraq to be our new Haiti? Pull out. If we’d stayed. If we’d made the investment there, we wouldn’t have to go back every 5 years or so to stop some new rebellion or potect an election or whatever. But if that’s the relationship you want with Iraq for the next century, or if you’d rather ignore Iraq (like Vietnam) then perhaps after their killing fields of millions are plowed under and 40 years have elapsed then just maybe they too will finally be emerging into the international community, no thanks to us.
Stuff it. Your thanks isn’t worth the photons it’s represented in.
If you valued my service you’d want it to mean somehting. Instead, I’ve invested 2 years of my life in Afghanistan and away from my wife, my family, my job, and my friends and you advocate policies that will invalidate all of it.
If that’s not shooting at my back I don’t know what is.
Words that did cross the President’s lips on 1 May 2003:
That’s the text.
The subtext is “mission accomplished”, with a handy banner in the background to drive it home.
The context was that he believed the fighting (“major combat operations”) was over, that the Coalition had “prevailed”.
There is another 7 paragraphs of similar glad-handing (context, that RTO removed), before he got to the parts of the speech about finding WMD and rebuilding, neither of which panned out.
OMG! OMG! OUR PLAN DIDN’T SURVIVE CONTACT WITH THE ENEMY!!!!
There’s only one person that can attach value or meaning (or lack of it) to your service, soldier – and that’s you. There are 33 families in Blacksburg, VA that may or may not find value or meaning in their children’s death; the act, itself, however, is unquestionably meaningless (unless you’re a homicidal autistic schizophrenic, that is).
It could just as easily be argued that the Vietnam war (which was also created under false pretenses – the Gulf of Tonkin “Incident”) set that country back 40 years; it’s entirely possible it would’ve collapsed under its own weight like the Soviet Union or slowly converted to capitalism like China is. We’ll never know.
the act, itself, however, is unquestionably meaningless
HUH?
How could shooting 61 people, with 32 of them dying, be “meaningless”?
You guys do know you’re argueing with the balloon fense boy?
Only he, after taking the beat down he has here, would have the shamelessness to post this:
Only the very rare simian is that ignorant of context.
RTO, the Ace, you have made deconstructing/humiliating (if that were possible in this case)the lame claimes of Theo the Pea-Brained look easy, but you continue only at the expense of your own self-respect. Theo has none.
Man, are you stupid.
Sorry, just got back.
Am I to take it Theo thinks he’s making points here we haven’t painstakingly—with careful sourcing— shot down a thousand times before?
Does he think he’s outmaneuvering the wingnuts rhetorically?
Does he even know what major combat operations are?
All rhetorical questions by the way, Theo. And just so you remember, when you begin talking about how you’re being called names, not being engaged on the merits of your points, blah blah blah (which is inevitable, believe me, because that’s what happens when trolls like you get their asses handed to them), you entered the discussion here this way:
How many times have you read this blog before today, Theo? Truth is, you know next to nothing about what I write. I don’t equate Democrats with terrorists. I have, however, tried to point out to the anti-war Dems AND Repubs AND libertarians, on occasion, how they are doing the bidding of al Qaeda—as spelled out by al Qaeda in their very own strategy documents.
I cannot help that the wishes of a certain anti-war contingents would bring about the very kind of “victory” al Qaeda hoped for, using our media, our “dissenters,” our short attention span, and our reluctance to sacrifice against us.
It is what it is. You can call that “equating Dems to terrorists,” but me, I’ll just borrow a phrase from Big Al and call it an inconvenient truth.
Recall: Strong horse, weak horse.
Saddle up, Harry! And leave a space on the bitch seat for Theo while you hightail it out of Dodge!
You’re going to call me “soldier?” Have you not been patronizing enough already?
If you attach no value (and you don’t) then why “thank” me? Because it’s PC to do so, and you expect me to get less prickly because you’ve been nice. But it’s phony posturing.
And FWIW, the word “Soldier” is capitalized when used as an address.
Finally, your invocation of the completely unrelated deaths at Virgina Tech to score debating points and the degeneracy that illustrates in you is noted.
And he calls me pea-brained.
Ah, there it is. Speeling flames.
Stick a fork in him. He’s done.
oh, we’ve devolved to pointing out typos now? good times, good times.
Yeah, I went to the Hank Write (or was it Wright, I don’t know) School of Creative Spelling & Three Fingered Typing.
I just figure most people can decipher what I’m trying to say by context.
It’s my only hope.
I have, however, tried to point out to the anti-war Dems, on occasion, how they are doing the bidding of al Qaedaâ€â€as spelled out by al Qaeda in their own strategy documents.
The Iraq war has mobilized radicals in a way Osama bin Laden couldn’t have dreamed possible.
We did Iran a massive favor by eliminating their greatest enemy. The occupation of their neighbors has them more nervous about getting the bomb than ever, and the overextension of our military makes our options against them extremely narrow…
…and you’re going to tell me what Harry Reid said to George Bush is more catastrophic?
I believe that bitch seat is yours, my friend.