It’s like watching a pad of pompous, congested margarine aspiring to the heights of buttery importance — only to be laughed at by a stack of waffles.
But with far less pathos. And (unless I miss my guess) a thong.
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
I had to turn him off after about 5 seconds, I got the popcorn lung.
I only made it through two and some change minutes. On the positive side, it makes his writing exciting in comparison!
I got the popcorn lung
Hee!
I turned him off a little later. I noticed that his evidence that Petreaus has been giving glowing reviews of “the war” were actually evidence that Petreaus has been giving glowing reviews of the Iraqi security forces.
Which, last I checked, were a discrete organization, not to be confused with the Iraqi government, sectarian violence, reconstruction efforts, Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Quds forces, IEDs, Iraqi police forces, or a woman with a disfigured face.
Someone care to summarize? I don’t feel like wasting my bandwidth on him.
I’d like to be able to help you out, Alice, but I swear it was so boring I kept refocusing my attention on the bookshelf behind him.
I’m guessing, in advance of a full viewing, that it can all be boiled down to something like “quit questioning our patriotism, traitors!”
Yawn…
Ooohh…WAFFLES!
At no point during that entire Greenwaldian spiel did the bass player ever manage to play the fucking thing in tune.
Imagine the caricaturist’s burden, to render the Glenns without bringing on a lawsuit from the Seuss estate for an unlicensed likeness of Yertle.
“Fuck it. I’m drawing Schwimmer.”
The dude looks like a muppet.
I can’t stop laughing, Wilson McEllerson looks like a fucking muppet.
God, Glenn lip syncs worse than Britney Spears… Though he may or may not look better in a thong..
Alice, Greenwald uses the examples of General Patraeus’s former politicking (his 2004 interview on the Charlie Rose show, his op-ed sinx weeks before the 2004 election) to show that, in his opinion, the General has always been too optimistic re: the Iraq strategy of the moment (build Iraqi security forces or the Surge). He then moves on to show that the President and Fred Kagan and members of the “establishment” use the General’s words to commit to further time in Iraq, in direct contradiction to what Glen sees as the obvious failure of US policy there.
In stead of relying on the same “serious” people who get to make decisions re: American foreign policy (Greenwald argues these people have been wrong since 2002), he wants Americans to contact their Reps and Senators and influence policy.
That concludes the book report. Frankly, I think the stuff on General Patraeus’s recent interviews and writings are pretty persuasive, and maybe that’s how I made it all the way through.
Then again, I was promised waffles
First cupcakes, now waffles. Mother of mercy, is this the end of PIE?
Well, if Glen sees it…
Because really, who would know better about how things are proceeding on the ground — Petraeus and those running the counterinsurgency? Or Greenwald, and those he is trying to spur into what amounts to signing a verbal anti-war petition based on his dictating to them their views of things on the ground.
Phony populism.
Thing is, Americans already do influence policy. Via elections. And they twice elected the same CiC.
I think it needs more cowbell.
I’ll have you know that Glenn Greenwald is a bestselling auth–oh, fuck it.
Wilson, Ellers, Ellison, any of you guys want to go get some waffles?
You know, for once I’m going to side with Greenwald. It think everything would be better if Bush and General Petraeus were really, really pessimistic because that’s way more helpful to making a chaotic situation into an orderly one. Also, I think that the “Tao of Pooh” needs to be replaced with “The Lamentations of Eeyore” in all childrens bookstores and libraries because those little bastards are just too footloose and fancy free.
Seriously, that’s what passes for “substance” with Greenwald?
I loved the Tao of Pooh. Good stuff.
How do we know that is actually Gleeen Ellers McGreenwald? It could be the Brazilian cabana boys, in drag.
Gleens could put them Ambien people out of business.
t. Frankly, I think the stuff on General Patraeus’s recent interviews and writings are pretty persuasive, and maybe that’s how I made it all the way through.
Dude, did you even glance at the bookshelf? Didn’t you wonder, in passing, what some of those titles were? And, then there was Glenn’s hair; was it still wet, or was that “product?”
Try watching some of it with the sound volume turned way off.
I don’t know guys, that’s one manly man.
way=all the way
Oh, here‘s a brilliant suggestion that’s sure to pan out. Can’t miss:
Brilliant!
bdoran, you left out a phrase.
Because it’s fairly clear that people have been contacting their Representatives and Senators in order to influence policy; it’s just that the influence isn’t in the direction that Glen(s) want(s).
Cast your mind back to June and July. Reid and Pelosi were in full cry, but the nutroots were already starting to express dissatisfaction, sometimes bitter, because the troops weren’t home yet and Bush was still in office. If you look at the pattern of votes and debates, it’s fairly clear that the Democratic leadership was pretty well hamstrung by the fact that their claimed mandate simply did not exist. Democrats who unseated Republicans in 2006 overwhelmingly did not make immediate withdrawal and impeachment major parts of their platform; in fact most of them played Iraq down to the extent possible, concentrating on the “culture of corruption” and (perceived) misdeeds by Republicans. The result is that Pelosi and Reid have a Democratic majority, but they do not have a withdrawal-and-impeachment majority no matter how much they declare that one equals the other.
Then came the August recess. Representatives went home to their districts and began listening to constituents, the real people who really cast votes in real elections, and from all appearances they got an earful — and it was not demands to Impeach Chimpy and Surrender Now! Pelosi herself may have, her District being like that, but the other Democratic Party Representatives which she depends on to get votes through the House did not, and it looks like they told her so, in meetings carefully arranged to avoid the radar. At the same time, the results of the new tactics in Iraq started coming in, and they were by no means in accordance with MoveOn’s and Kos’s expectations.
The result, for the MoveOn wing of the Democratic Party, is enormous frustration. They can’t get their desired programs enacted because no matter how loudly they declare themselves “the center” they are not, nor anywhere close to it, so they can’t get the Representatives and Senators who are nearer the center to vote for them. What you are seeing is that frustration boiling over into vitriol and failure to think about their words at the level they need to.
Kind of fun to watch, really.
Regards,
Ric
Yeah, bdoran. If somebody tells you what a great job he’s doing, you should just believe him. Especially if he’s wearing a uniform with lots of shiny stuff. Yours is not to question why.
One quick note: I’m here (Baghdad) and the General and Ambassador are spot on in their assessments.
It’s a marathon folks, not a sprint.
What I like most is watching ill-prepared and ill-informed people like Gleen try to match wits with a pretty spiffy four-star (and I ain’t talking about Wes Clark) and a wily Foreign Service Career Ambassador (it’s a rank equiv to a four-star and there are only a half-dozen or so in the State Department).
Your head. In over. As Yoda would say. (Since B Moe already hit the muppet reference)
Rather to listen to Gleen(s) and obey.
Yeah, bdoran. If somebody tells you what a great job he’s doing, you should just call him a liar and traitor. Especially if he’s wearing a uniform with lots of shiny stuff.
There. Fixed it for ya.
Much better. It’s an absolute outrage that anyone dares question the absolute moral authority of General David “Troops” Petraeus by disrespectfully pointing out what he’s said in the past. Quoting someone’s previous statements is just so scurrilous and underhanded!
Total loyalty is exactly what’s being called for here, Moops. Good catch on that. I think there must be other sites on the ‘nets that could use some of keen insight, if you’re so inclined.
“Quoting someone’s previous statements is just so scurrilous and underhanded!”
Are you sure you want to go down that road? Really?
Because that would force me to do Google searches on all the “clear and present danger” characterizations of Saddam Hussein by some of the same people who now so bravely refuse to submit to the General’s mind rays, Moops.
And since Petraeus has also been quoted on the Senate floor, I can’t see where Gleen’s Brazil-based Iraq bloviations are in any way superior. Except for the beaches, because, take it from me–the Iraq Gulf Coast doesn’t hold a candle to Ipanema.
Is that Armando the Corporate Shyster, slart? The former Kos Kiddie?
Because that would force me to do Google searches on all the “clear and present danger†characterizations of Saddam Hussein by some of the same people who now so bravely refuse to submit to the General’s mind rays, Moops.
Go ahead. I don’t really see how it’s germane to the topic, but if you think it will somehow help the case for the unassailable infallibility of General Petraeus, Google away!
Moops: Three words:
Christmas in Cambodia
Great point, BJTexs. Kerry’s statements about his service in Southeast Asia clearly demonstrate that Petraeus is not to be questioned. Someone needs to get these great ideas to the Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee pronto!
“Fight the Power”, moops! “Fight the poers that be!” Anybody in here say that the good General has “unassailable infallibility”? Anyone? Buehller? It’ simple, moops. I was against this battle, but I would tend to believe a general who is commanding the actual troops than lefty media dopes. The truth for me, at least, probably falls in the middle (leaning towards the expert, the General). But go ahead and fight the good fight.
Whereas “Betray Us” is just fine. Gotcha.
Up is down. Stanley is Ollie. Groucho is Zeppo.
I have no idea. I wouldn’t be surprised, one way or another.
Or the case for presumed betrayal of all that’s holy, even.
Moops, just what is it that gives the Gleens the kind of unassailable infallibility that you can’t grant to anyone else? Is it their long and unblemished record of reliable predictions? Is it their many long years of military service to the US? Is it their expertise on matters of military strategy and counterinsurgency? Is it their clear and succinct style in presenting the thorny issues of our day?
I’m not denying that Petraeus could be wrong. His statements of 2004 were obviously too optimistic. Granted, in my case, I prefer my leaders (civilian, military, political, you name it) to believe that their missions are achievable. I find that it tends to make them more likely to accomplish those missions successfully, as compared to leaders who believe they’re doomed from the start. I’ve also worked on a lot of difficult projects that ran over schedule and over budget due to unforeseen complications, yet those projects still managed to be completed through perseverance, hard work, and the project leader’s belief and insistence that the job get done. You may not feel the same, in which case you won’t be so forgiving of misplaced optimism.
I also won’t deny that most of the politicians (GOP and Dem) questioning Petraeus were completely behind the effort early on, nor will I deny that they believed the same intelligence reports that everyone else in the world believed, nor will I deny that they confirmed him unanimously a few months ago. But then, I was in agreement with most of those decisions, so I’m willing to forgive them for being mistaken in light of incomplete intelligence and subsequent facts. You may not feel the same, in which case you won’t be so forgiving of their policy decisions.
So I guess you could say that while I find General Petraeus and the Congressional leadership to be fallible, I also feel similarly about Misters Greenwad. That said, I’m willing to believe the guys spending their time in Iraq over the guys spending their time in Brazil. So what is it that Gleen(s) possess that gives hims such credibility in your eyes, Moops? Because I gotta admit that I’m missing it.
What a nasally dork that G. Greenwald guy is.
Sorry, Slartibartfast. I thought this post was about Glenn Greenwald’s claim that Petraeus has, in the past, made overly optimistic statements about how things were going in Iraq, and how the proper response is to feigned bemusement and dismissal because Petraeus is a General and Greenwald isn’t. Thanks to your helpful comment, I now realize it was about that “Betray Us” ad. I guess I was just confused because there aren’t any actual references to “Betray Us” before your comment, but I’m so glad you were here to help me out.
Good lord, have any of you people attributing the egoistic stance of “unassailable infallibility” to General Petraeus (and/or Ryan Crocker)…been listening to the testimony ? The actual words ?
Neither of them has even come close to claiming anything but limited (bottom up, not top down) progress in Iraq, largely as a function of “tribes, Sunnis” and a whole lot of other people being sick of being blown up by the brain dead.
But moops! Kerry has absolute moral authority, doesn’t he? Just like Cindy Sheehan? Molly Ivins said so!!!
Please don’t come here and play the “infallibility card.” No one is saying that and that sort of language is part and parcel of the KosKiddie left. You guys toss that stuff around like water balloons that never break. Everytime any soldier (even the ones that don’t turn out to be frauds) speaks out against the war he/she is annointed with the holy mantle sainthood, progressive style.
So if actually wanting to hear what the commanding general has to say about the military situation in Iraq (a view of security progressthat has recently been buttressed by wingnut media types like The Guardian, der Speigel and Katie Couric) makes me, in your opinion, a mindless, slavering milbot then I would suggest that your tolerance is not where it should be.
Ellers McEllerson’s problem is not that he’s misinterpreted the General but that he’s proclaimed loud and clear that he’s not worth listening to, unlike the the “quoted on the Senate floor” military expert Thomas Gleen McWaldian.
Go find an echo chamber.
Nuance, it’s what’s for dinner.
Greenwald doesn’t have absolute infallibility, Squid. That’s reserved for people wearing uniforms. Indeed, Greenwald is such an evil sockpuppeting America-hater that we don’t even have to evaluate whether he’s accurately characterizing Petraeus’s statements and their relationship to the situation in Iraq at the time we were made. We can just point out that Petraeus is a General, pretend to be oh-so-weary of Glenn and his traitorous rantings, and be done with it.
“Anybody in here say that the good General has “unassailable infallibilityâ€Â?
Not me, I usually try to avoid being repetitively redundant.
Actually, the post was about Greenwald’s coloring and speaking voice.
But now that you mention it, Moops, yeah, I trust Petraeus’ take on conditions moreso than Greenwald’s. Even were Glenn not a suckpuppeting faux populist whose brush is so broad that were it a tie, it would have been quite in style in the 70s.
Nah. The proper response to Greenwald is: Jesus, what a (bunch of) dork(s). Or did Greenwald, somewhere in that segment, clue us in to the real situation on the ground?
6 minutes of Greenwald? I don’t think so.
Double Super Secret Clue for Moops: It may have something to do with the difference between an interview for TV and sworn testimony before Congress.
Slart:
Nope! Just how the over optimistic reports on Iraqi security training renders anything that the General has to say today as irrelavent. ‘Cause Gleen says so.
Sometime moops makes me miss mona a little.
“suckpuppeting”
I thought it was suckpoppet?
General Petraeus also exhibits a range of intellect and a grasp of the character and nature of Iraqi society (and the larger Middle East) that is quite amazing.
I have no doubt that “progress” in Iraq is also a function of his character and communication skills as well as those of Ambassador Crocker.
You really have no idea what your talking about, do you? And no ability to correlate facts beyond the latest set of talking points?
Good points, all. Petraeus never said anything anywhere about progress in Iraq that was ever questionable, and there’s no reason to think he might be overly optimistic in his current assessments. We can be sure of this because Glenn Greenwald sockpuppets, John Kerry said he was in Cambodia on Christmas, and MoveOn.org put out a mean ad. Fantastic stuff all around.
Good Ghods, there’s straw flying all over the place from Moops’s latest flurry.
It’s hugely embarrassing to see a Representative like Silvestre Reyes (chair of House INTELLIGENCE committee…D-Tx “al qaeda is shi’ite and if you want to ask me a question about who is Hezbollah, do it in Spanish”) and a Senator like Barbara Boxer (D-CA…sheesh, where to start…) even pontificating on national TV.
And nimrod blow job Kerry bringing up the Vietnam wall in his ramble…
I hadta turn off the telly, I was getting hives.
“Petraeus never said anything anywhere about progress in Iraq that was ever questionable…”
If you’re attempting to paraphrase me, that was not my point and was not what I said.
As for moveon.org & Soros (“I am NOT PARANOID, like previous generations of my family!”) (sure george) and that somewhere around $70 grand “ad for the braindead” in yesterday’s nytimes, well, you should really be quaking in your boots for the survival of the Republic.
With this proliferation of idiots.
First cupcakes, now waffles. Mother of mercy, is this the end of PIE?
BELGIAN waffles, no doubt.
Actually, not to nitpick, but our gracious host indicated that
I’d say that’s about as close to unassailable authority” as one is going to get (outside the Vatican referring to the Pope), but that is dangerously close to “quoting somebody as criticism” and we know that’s a “no-no.”
Nope, Mona was very predictable. Former hardline Republican, dontcha know. But now: vote Democrat, not because you believe in what they stand for, but because, well, Bush sucks. Inspirational stuff.
Moops, on the other hand: more unpredictable. Means either what he says, or the exact opposite. Possibly some points in between, too, but since he can’t be bothered to stick to one point or another, and discuss it in anything like serious fashion, who cares?
So, not much like Mona; more like annoying in a completely orthogonal, though still irrelevant, way.
In slightly amending my comments as to the testimony, Prime Minister Maliki is mentioned often in Petraeus’ testimony.
And the council of 5 who met last week (Maliki, Talibani, 3 others representing the 5 main regions of Iraq).
His point would seem to be to give public credibility to the al Maliki regime, since, obviously, there has been some back and forth there (with good reason).
This is neither deceitful nor lying but simply another aspect of strategy.
(adios)
Saying we don’t think Petraeus is lying is not the same as saying he is infallible. Does anybody on the left own a fucking dictionary these days?
Hell, I’m not even saying that I think Petraeus isn’t lying. I’m just willing to give him the benefit of a doubt, until some evidence shows up that says he’s a liar strongly enough that I’d be willing to risk making an ass out of myself to make the accusation publicly.
And, of course, risk having to apologize and retract, possibly in person, possibly with some accompanying nasal and ocular damage.
It’s true. I am wholly unserious. For serious discussion, free of knee-jerk invocation of talking points, I refer you to Slartibartfast’s awesome reference to the “Betray Us” ad.
BJTexs nails it. Because questioning the accuracy of someone’s assessment is the same as accusing them of lying.
Petraeus never said anything anywhere about progress in Iraq that was ever questionable, and there’s no reason to think he might be overly optimistic in his current assessments.
If that were actually the point that Gleen was making, it would be reasonable.
I believe nobody here would have a problem with someone arguing:
1) General Patraeous was overly optimistic in past statements and those overly optimistic statements turned out to be just that, overly optimistic, and
2) therefore, his current take may also be overly optimistic.
that, however, is not Gleen’s and the left’s actual claims or argument regarding General Patraeus. Instead, the left is either implying or outright saying that General Patreus is lying and is more or less saying that they won’t even listen to him. And, they are slandering him with outrageous things like calling him “General Betray Us” (as an aside, the left then wonders why we question their patriotism – aparently it’s ok for them to do so, but bad form for us).
In other words, the left and congress demanded he report, but when he comes to report they are sticking their fingers in their ears like children. Nyaa, Nyaa, I won’t listen to you, you aren’t saying what I want to hear!!
So, in a nutshell, it may be that his report is overly optimistic about Iraq, however, he is 100 times more credible than, say, Gleen on Iraq – or you.
Indeed, the bottom line, is that the left is not going to believe anyone on Iraq except someone who says we are dooomed, doomed and must pull out now. So, who is blindly folling a script and unwilling to face facts? In reality, it is more the left’s problem than the right’s.
We on the right may be accused of being overly optimistic about how things are going in Iraq. I would rather that in my leaders however than the surrenderer and defeatists who make up the left.
As another aside, I think people are pointing out that the left never cares about people’s former statements when it is pointed out to them that all major dems were saying the same thing as Bush about Iraq and WMD’s well before Bush was president. they shrug such off and simply don’t care. So, it is strange that the left would care so deeply about alleged inconsistencies now. Of course, that is typical with the left, they don’t hold onto a principal or position long enough to pin them down.
As if we needed you to tell us that.
Who brought up John Kerry, again?
Moops,
To clarify this argument for everyone, do you believe General Paetraeus, in his current report, is
a) 100% wrong but giving his honest opinion;
b) lying;
c) not 100% wrong, but overly optimistic, and giving his honest opinon; or
d) not 100% wrong, but overly optimistic, and his over-optimism is a lie (i.e., he knows the over-optimism is wrong).
Your answer to this would be telling. My personal belief is that he is probably a little bit (c).
Um, Slart, that was me. I was trying to make a comparison between his sarcastic portrayal of Patraeus as “infallible” with the high moral authority of “Christmas in Cambodia.” Moops just took off from there.
Moops is engaging in drive by sniping/dumping without so much as a whisper as to what Gleen was actually saying, that Patraeus is utterly unbelievable. moops is just going to pick at that sore and ignore the counter arguments in the best alphie/semanticleo/heet/actus tradition.
For those of you who are not as context-challenged as Moops has demonstrated itself to be, I invite you to go ahead and skim down Greenwald’s Opinion section at Salon, and see for yourself to what extent Greenwald is “questioning the accuracy”, and to what extent he’s accusing, if indirectly, Petraeus of being just another Bush toady. Even if it takes him several thousand words to put the entire accusation together.
A Paul Simon song comes to mind, and it’s not 50 Ways To Leave Your Lover. Something about a pony, I think.
For instance, item number one, top item in Greenwald’s column:
Greenwald’s objecting to it being called an “interview”, but try as I might, no one’s calling it that except for Greenwald. So: lots of scathe, not very much substance. In fact, I question the accuracy of this entire piece.
Gee, I wonder why you cut out the context there, Vandalay?
That statement refers to the fact that Petraeus put paid to the idea the the White House wrote his report for him.
He said the White House did not, nor did they vet his testimony.
So to say otherwise is to say he is lying. About his testimony / report.
Jesus. It’s like arguing with ten-year-olds.
Jeff wrote:
Ten year olds will grow up, so you’re being very unfair comparing them to Gleen’s crowd.
You can think he might be overly optimistic. That’s your call. Far different from suggesting that he’s carrying water for the administration, or that they vetted his testimony, etc.
Again, I like my chances with Petraeus over Greenwald, though Greenwald, being a true conservative libertarian who is all for freedom and such, will do everything he can to make sure that such optimism is strangled in its crib.
I’ve asked this before — and it’s necessarily hypothetical — but what would have happened had we shown a united front over here, rather than showing signs that we couldn’t be trusted to honor our commitments?
Just spitballing here, but perhaps Greenwald and his like have something, however minor, to do with eroding the conditions that led to that optimism in the first place.
Heisenberg and all that.
Can we put Gleens in a box with some poison and never take off the lid? Pleeeeeeze?
Having suffered through Gleen(s)’s print version of this videoscreed, I would note:
When Gen. Petraeus made optimistic statements, there was reason for him to make them. But it’s a war, and the enemy gets a vote. AQI worked to foment sectarian violence throughout 2005, leading to the mosque bombing in early 2006… and it worked.
Perhaps I should scrub throu GG’s old blog, pick out every misstatement, and then accuse him of being a liar in hindsight. I can’t imagine it being very difficult.
Also, we know that Gleen(s) was part of the Townhouse, so accusing other folks of coordinating things takes some chutzpah.
Nah. I’d want to open the box every once in a while to make sure.
I’ve asked this before  and it’s necessarily hypothetical  but what would have happened had we shown a united front over here, rather than showing signs that we couldn’t be trusted to honor our commitments?
Good question. Probably al-Quaeda would have been utterly defeated, Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds embraced in the streets, and Iran had a velvet revolution. All this accomplished through little more than the sheer force of our unified and undivided will, like so many middle-aged divorced women watching The Secret, then finding true love and losing those last stubborn 5 pounds.
Oh. So you’re saying it might have changed the complexion of things a bit?
I concur, though my optimism isn’t so grand as yours.
Why, you’re beginning to sound like General Petraeus, Moops.
Careful. I hear you can get kicked out of the club for even joking about such things.
Moops, could you respond to the question posed in #70 above? It’s a fair question, and might better establish where you’re coming from here.
Moops isn’t coming from anywhere in particular, except that place where snark is maximized.
But he has slain regiments of strawmen; all by himself, too.
Shorter Moops: Visualize Utter Defeat.
When you are saying that someone is being deliberately untruthful (knowingly making statements of questionable accuracy as though it were 100% truthful – such as “I did not have sex with that woman”), you ARE accusing them of lying.
While I certainly don’t think Petraeus is lying per se, I do think he is being a Pollyanna. Whether or not he truly believes everything he says is the question for me. I’m wasn’t hoping for a litany of misery and woe, but we do need a steely-eyed realist commanding the Iraq operation.
I am inclined to think that these “progress reports” to Congress are kabuki theater, and everyone involved knows it. The generally cheery presentation and lack of hard-charging follow up by Congress indicates to me that nobody takes this very seriously.
Cheery presentation? Cynn, please point out the “cheery”.
Moops – tell you what, I mobilize in less than two months now to go train the IA. I’ll see conditions for myself and send back word as I can – or would you think I would simply lie?
I’ve made the offer to Jeff, and he has been gracious enough to let me know that he would pass word along here on the PW main site.
“The generally cheery presentation…”
LMAO! You must be a real ray of sunshine to hang out with, cynn.
What’s your evidence for this? Did you watch the hearings? Are you reading the stuff coming from those guys in Iraq now?
I really want to know. Because I don’t consider it “measured” simply to affect a “measured” attitude. Petraeus and Crocker didn’t sound like they were sugarcoating things to me. If anything, they seemed far more measured than their interlocutors.
Oh. So you’re saying it might have changed the complexion of things a bit?
Damn straight. With mind bullets!
Great banana – (c). With some nuances I won’t get into for fear of making B Moe even more confused and angry.
Angry? I think you are fucking hilarious, moops.
Karl,
Funny how that gets overlooked, as if there were a blueprint and a construction plan that simply ought to be done by now, dammit!
Makes me wonder why New Orleans is such a shit hole and what the hell is wrong with those people.
So if you think Petreaus is reporting honestly, why would you be defending the smear that the Gleens are doing on him, Moops?
Oh, and B Moe said the F word. Unleash the hounds! And then feel free to bring the nuance.
What are you talking about?
Do you honestly think that the political situation here hasn’t given Iraqis pause in choosing sides? Has it had an impact on gathering allies? On other countries in the region waiting to see what we’ll do?
Seriously. I’m astounded that people who’ve spent the last 40 years defining the world down to rhetoric are now so cavalier about dismissing rhetoric as a force that can have a tangible impact on people’s actions.
But then, I bet you only do so selectively. In your private moments, you probably tell yourself you can get a girl out of her pants just by quoting a little bit of Rilke at her over a glass of Clos du bois.
Nuance, is that like when a bunch of little moopsies come tumbling out of his tiny car?
Or would nuance be more like arguing that using rhetoric to sway opinion doesn’t work in a thread where you seem to accuse Petraeus of doing just that? Because you are correct, that might confuse me a little bit.
Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. This is Moops you’re talking to.
I suppose measured is probably a better characterization. I didn’t watch the entire proceeding, but a good portion of it. And no, Petraeus and Crocker weren’t doing the minstrel bit. I guess I just am uneasy with the practice of trotting a commander before Congress to rehash information that any respectable government reporting agency could produce. Crocker, I don’t have so much of a problem with, since he is a diplomatic official. But Petraeus should be left alone to do the military job he was appointed to do, and not be paraded around to justify the operation or educate lazy lawmakers.
Is this typical with major conflicts? Did Stormin’ Norman have to give such performances? Maybe so; seems unprecedented to me.
From what I hear, it wasn’t the administration’s idea to send Petraeus. Congress, apparently, insisted on it.
Wow, six minutes without blinking. Does the Gleens run on Amerikun or Uropeein voltage?
“Does anybody on the left own a fucking dictionary these days?”
Don’t you dare question the left’s vocabulatriotism.
I know it was Congress who added the report provision. It’s still unseemly.
“Don’t you dare question the left’s vocabulatriotism.”
Wouldn’t dream of it, especially not with a vocabulatrix like this dude in the house:
https://proteinwisdom.com/pub/?p=258#comment-2629
Do you honestly think that the political situation here hasn’t given Iraqis pause in choosing sides? Has it had an impact on gathering allies? On other countries in the region waiting to see what we’ll do?
Which Iraqis choosing which sides? I hear there are several to choose from. And do you really think the main problems in Iraq are that we don’t have enough allies and other countries are waiting to see what we’ll do? If the whole country was the united front you think it should be, what would be the difference on the ground?
If one were cynical, one might suspect that you simply act as if rhetoric is so important so you can accuse those who disagree with you regarding the wisdom of the occupation of undermining the troops. If one were cynical.
“what would have happened had we shown a united front over here, rather than showing signs that we couldn’t be trusted to honor our commitments?”
I won’t venture an opinion, but I certainly believe that political climate and the resulting rhetoric is an influence on the other players. However, this Iraq conflict was bound to become contentious, and rather than projecting the idea that the U.S. wouldn’t honor its commitments (an obvious attempt to demonize the left), why not turn it around?
Thanks to the awesome power of rhetoric, a calculated video by Osama catapulted the right into a vicious attack on the left, equating them with terrorists. What message did that send? United front, indeed.
Careful, moops, I don’t think that is a nerf bat you are hitting yourself in the face with.
Obama is equating them with terrorists, cynn. And they have done precious little to dispute it.
What difference does it make? Non-responsive reply. The question is whether our political situation has an impact on the decision making process of the players. It’s not that complicated.
Hillary and Obama do. And al-Qaeda is counting on it.
It sure would be fun to find out, wouldn’t it? And given that this endeavor was approved by an overwhelming majority, it makes sense that we ought to try it, just once.
I agree. Watching moops using his little debating tricks to score his little debating points is hilarious. You guys should go easier on him though. Think of how he must feel watching the Petraeus show trial and knowing that the anti-war Democrats don’t have the votes to stop the war. Or impeach Bush. Or do much of anything moops wants. So go easy on the poor guy.
But if Bush had chosen not to have Petraeus give the report as demanded by the Dems, they would have accused him of … pretty much what they’re accusing him and Petraeus of anyway.
So, I think “unseemly” is kind of weak tea for describing this, unless one hopes to avoid looking too closely at the petty partisan politics-playing that the Democrats have been doing on this whole issue.
I was just disembling, moops. Really you have made me so angry. SO ANGRY!!! I really have to get drunk and shoot heroin just to calm down a little. YOU HAVE TOTALLY BLOWN MY MIND, MOOPS!!!
I miss semanticlown.
Ah, yes. Right back to the old “pointing out what they’ve said” is the same as “attacking” them.
Listen, I’m sorry UBL thought he could win support by parroting progressive talking points. I’m sorry he thinks the nation is near the tipping point of withdrawal, and that a concerted effort to ease us into showing ourselves to be the weak horse he thinks we are rankles you.
But that’s not equating you with terrorists — except on those points upon which you (apparently) agree.
Is pointing out your points of agreement an “attack”? Because to me it is an empirical fact, and one that speaks to who bin Laden thinks he must appeal to to save face.
My reading of the situation. Could be wrong, but there’s nothing improper about it.
Moops —
I think Pablo handled that well, so I don’t need to comment further, other than to note that I never said “the main problems” in Iraq have to do with our not presenting a unified front; instead, I ventured that showing a unified front would have helped shore up Iraqi resolve; helped us with our allies; and put the fence-sitting nations in the region on notice that we are determined to see this thing through — making it unlikely, I should add, that terrorism, an asymmetrical warfare strategy aimed at sensationalism and propaganda victories, would have worked as it has, and for as long as it has, in Iraq.
Was watching Cspan this morning, and saw two things that really exemplify the democrats. The first was a response to an amendment by a rethug senator comdemning the Moveon.org. ad stating that there wasn’t enough time (15 minutes) to take a vote due to the complexity of the debate on the Transportation appropriation bill. The second was Joe Biden satnding up and talking for well over 20 minutes during the same debate-Transportation) about how much he loved the troops but disagreed with Petraeus. The irony there was so rich that my blood became 2 colors deeper red.
My take on it, and it’s probably wrong, was that he was protecting his and other asses from condemning Moveon because the truth is that they ARE bought and owned by Soros Et al.
Jeff — Sorry, maybe we agree to disagree. I happen to think that Osama’s audience was the right, which is slowly fracturing. I don’t care about “what you’ve said”; it’s irrelevant in Petraeus’ case, and it’s irrelevant vis comparing Dems to terrorists. It’s all about what I can do to trigger a reaction that further sunders potential alliances. That’s how I see the strategy of the terrorists. Just my take.
So you think he’s seeking converts as opposed to preaching to the choir? Interesting.
Yes, and it’s working so well that we now have factions, a majority in certain venues (such as Congress) in fact, willing to surrender to it immediately if not sooner. But don’t question their patriotism because, you know, it’s not like they matter or anyone is paying any attention to them. Don’t let the fact that their prescriptions amount to handing al-Qaeda an enormous victory trouble you.
I’m not sure why that is, but I’m told it’s not cricket and doing so probably makes you a racist.
I think what cynn is trying to say is that Osama is hoping that by sounding like a Democrat, he will drive Republicans farther away from Democrats. The question, cynn, is why wouldn’t this drive Democrats closer to Republicans?
After reading the thred, I’ve come to the following conclusions:
1. Moops didn’t bother to listen to what the General and Ambassador actually SAID in the hearings. It sure wasn’t all unicorns and cotton candy.
2. Moops conveniently ignores people who have experience in these environments (Iraq or Afghanistan) who disagree with whatever passes for his knowledge of where the policy is and how it is going. (Like Major John and, oh yeah, ME for example.) The United States will not lose this war unless we choose to do so. Some are apparently comfortable with that choice. I, quite frankly, don’t know how they sleep at night.
3. Cynn, as usual, swings away and whiffs at a basic point: OBL sure sounds like a John Edwards stump speech (except for the taxes portion) doesn’t he? Well, DOESN’T he? That’s not an attack–just a request for comparison.
4. I’d like another waffle please. With BUTTER. No margarine.
Uh-huh. He sure chose all the correct talking points to appeal to the right, eh? All sorts of lefty causes? About the only thing I’ve heard of that could be counted as an appeal to the right was a flat tax — and he pitched that at such a low figure, it’s laughable.
As for the “the right is breaking up!” — that story line gets trotted out every other year or so. Generally some lefty reads some argument between two people on the right and blows it into “the economic conservatives are going to split from the religious conservatives!” or the like. It never happens, because while the right is a loose coalition, it’s a coalition that realizes none of its parts has the numbers to accomplish anything on its own, and that a real split would do more damage to their preferred policies than it could ever help.
Wishbone, if you are in MND-S, I may see you come the winter…
Oops, dammitall, you are in Baghdad, right?
B Moe, while of course I speak only for myself, Osama’s ill-considered bloviating is so transparent. He may have some socialist/lefty bona fides; I neither know nor care. But to see him drag out the (even to me) tired old memes that not all of us hold is an ironic slap in the face because we are free-thinkers, dammit! We are not an archetype!
Plus the fact that this dyed, shriveled uber-wealthy pisshead presumes to act all expansive while stealing our routine really pisses me off. Wizened is too honorable a descriptor for this phony piece of shit.
So sadly, yes; I would much rather deal with my fellow countryfolk who despise me for my beliefs because we have a cause in common, than be in any way associated with this sneaky loser. Bad move, Osama.
The cause in common I refer to is the future of our nation, just to be clear. As possible.
Oh, and if the Bin Ladins are so fucking wealthy, why don’t they buy Irag? Oops, did it again.
Correct, MJ–in the B-dad.
At the Embassy Annex for the moment.
You appear, however, to be the exception. Once you understand that, you’ll understand the way we feel about the rhetoric from your side.
Let me put it this way — Democrat politicians have declared that the exceptional and punished crimes committed by individuals in American services are the norm, while barely batting an eye over our enemy’s preference for murdering the defenseless.
For crissake, we’ve seen Democrat politicians showcase photos from porn sites as “evidence” of US “atrocities”.
The sad reality is, it’s no surprise that Osama’s trying to appeal to the American left by usurping their talking points. The anti-globalists were asking themselves “which one of us did it?” on 9/11. The “peace” movement was organizing while the ruins were still smoldering. We’ve had six years of hearing about “little Eichmanns”, “chickens come home to roost” and “a million Mogadishus”.
“Bush Lied, People Died” — remember that? Remember “Fahrenheit 9/11” and Moore sitting beside Carter at the Democrat Convention? Remember which side of the political aisle has been leaking real classified information about our anti-terrorism programs?
Osama — or at least, his speech-writers — remembers all that. And he sees it as an opportunity.
Maybe you should think about this for a while — maybe even ask some others who share your political leanings — “is it possible that the tone of our rhetoric is damaging the ability of the US to succeed?”
Rob Crawford: That’s the point I’ve been trying to make. Those all ring false as talking points. It’s the received wisdom of months ago; not everyone toes the line. I give up, It’s pointless in the face of a drumbeat you can’t even hear.
To whom? You? MoveOn? The Kos Kiddies? Potential Jihadis? The Christian Right?
Some of the above are sucking it right up.
But you miss the point that those are the very same talking points being espoused by those who represent themselves as not only the middle of the Democratic Party, but also the middle of the road for the general public, as well.
These are the very same people who have been pushing for impeachment of President Bush because of those very same talking points you currently deride, even as Obama gleefully reiterates them.
There is not a 1-to-1 correlation between Obama’s latest messages and the DNC party platform, but the differences are minor, to say the very least.
At the very least, such a large degree of agreement should have been enough to make any sentient being stand back and say, “wow, maybe we should rethink some of these positions”. Instead, they jumped out with a full-page ad calling the man a traitor without having known anything specific of what he was going to say. One Democrat even went so far as to say that it didn’t matter what Petraeus was going to say, he wasn’t going to believe it anyway.
What does it say when the Speaker of the House meets with the leadership of a country that has been proven to be a State Supporter of terrorism that has killed Americans? This in preference to meeting with her own President! (“Logan Act” – Google it!)
Treason has been defined as those who either 1) wage war against the United States or 2) adhere to her enemies, rendering aid and comfort. Which party’s policies have been most comfortable for Al Qaeda? Which party would make Al Qaeda more comfortable in the future? Which party is he advocating for?
Which Iraqis choosing which sides?
Any Iraqis, choosing our side; the winning side.
If the whole country was the united front you think it should be, what would be the difference on the ground?
Priceless.
I think that should be “Osama” (as in Osama bin Laden), not “Obama” (as in Barak Hussein Obama).
I give up, It’s pointless in the face of a drumbeat you can’t even hear.
Maybe you’ve got a banana in your ear.
Bull; they’re sucko talking points. Do better. I cannot believe you rally behind such crap. A quick review: treason, abandon the troops, ouch, yadda, dems are evil, yadda, usurping the rhetoric, yah, yah. And et cetera. Chow, righties,
Mmmmmm, chow.
hee, that’s funny; I’ll leave it.
“sucko talking points”?
I think you can do better than that. Hell, Josh Marshall has named an entire blog, and made a pretty decent living from, talking points.
Better arguments, please. This doesn’t qualify as one.
How about VerbalBlurbs?
Cynn,
You’ve found something we can agree on. It is unseemly for a General to have to keep getting dragged before Congress to testify, but Congress requires it and have since before there was a United States.
George Washington reported to Congress on the conduct of the War of Independence. After quite a lot of deliberation is was decided that he should stand before Congress, doff his hat and bow while COngress itself would remain seated, establishing in the customs of the time the supremacy of the civil over the military.
I said it was unseemly. Not because I ave any issues with civil control of the military, but because Generals have a lot of work to do that they can’t do when testifying.
Some of Congress Greatest Hits in this regard include the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War (1861 – 1864),
The House Unamerican Activities Committee, and the Church Commission.
And there’s talk of dragging GEN Petraeus back in March. If its already determined that what he says can’t be trusted anyway, why bother paying for the JP-8? Because it lets Congress appear to be doing something, which is always better than actually doing something.
So what drumbeat is that, cynn? What sucko talking points?
Might you be struck at some point by the irony of assessing appearances by the rules of appearances-centrism? As a conservative, by now I’ve accepted that it’s my job to look like shit to liberals.
Were I to suggest that, say, Kucinich gives every indication of having forever sacrificed the privilege of representing the country, would that assertion appear so poorly as to be off the debate table? I mean, Kucinich can, by those of us who still possess a shred of moral compass and historical context and a perspective on simple principle, be factually described as an example of a despicable, deplorable American politician — there is ample, objective data to support that view, except to someone who preempts the conversation with the observation it’s a sucko talking point.
How about Rockefeller or Pelosi for the same crime against reason and trust? Any two out of the three? Is there a standard someplace? See, by the vague standard you imply, in #87 you had the rather interesting position of also framing Petraeus and his entire audience as theater. As a ginned up appearance, his ample, cold, hard facts notwithstanding — that old congressional fink who tried dressing him down the other day had the temerity to tell him, likewise, not to bother with the facts.
If it’s all about how shit looks, cynn, then indeed there are no facts. At which point talking points are all the Right has, at least in your eyes. This raises the question of absolutes, and from there, why it makes any sense to discuss anything with you whatsoever.
It is my job to offend liberals by my appearances, if not my appearance itself. Do I care anymore?
But “Bush Lied, People Died” and calling the Commanding General of our Iraq forces “General Betray-us” are epitomes of wit, eh?
I don’t know about a thong, but he’s definitely not wearing pants. No clothing could constrain such manly manliness.
yours/
peter.
First cupcakes, now waffles. Mother of mercy, is this the end of PIE?
Wasn’t that the “stretch call” last Saturday?
“EAT PIE(PDF!) was close up on the backstretch and stopped in the turn.”
(It’s not like I know this fact because I was massively drunk and bet on a horse named EAT PIE solely due to the name or anything…)
cynn-
I guess I just am uneasy with the practice of trotting a commander before Congress to rehash information that any respectable government reporting agency could produce.
Which was demanded by the Democrat- controlled Congress as one of their conditions for approving “The Surge”… try to keep up!
Did Stormin’ Norman have to give such performances? Maybe so; seems unprecedented to me.
You are correct.
It was a Democrat controlled Congress w/ a Repub President then, also.
What has changed?
Can you say, “Nutroots”?
Rob C-
Generally some lefty reads some argument between two people on the right and blows it into “the economic conservatives are going to split from the religious conservatives!†or the like. It never happens, because while the right is a loose coalition, it’s a coalition that realizes none of its parts has the numbers to accomplish anything on its own, and that a real split would do more damage to their preferred policies than it could ever help.
More importantly, is that these arguments actually do occur quite often on the so-called “Right”.
See: “McCain/Feingold”, “H. Miers”, “Immigration”, “Schiavo”, “MediScare D”, “Gang of Fourteen”, “SS reform”, “Kelo v”– even ‘little’ stuff like the “steel tariffs”, “gay marriage”, or a “Mark Foley/Larry Craig/D. Vitter” situation…
I remember strong arguments offered on both sides of all these issues- solely among the Libertarian/Right axis.
Meanwhile, have you ever seen a “friendly-fire” argument in the “comment section” on any issue at a popular leftist blog like “hAtrios”, “LiarDdogFake”, or “Kooks and Criers”?
BTW, I didn’t include the “Daily PsyKOS”… because they have had at least three “splits” on serious issues-
1)The Ginger/MaryAnn “piefight ad”-
2)Kos dissed NARAL-
3)Kos “banned” Twooferism-
“Meanwhile, have you ever seen a “friendly-fire†argument in the “comment section†on any issue at a popular leftist blog like “hAtriosâ€Â, “LiarDdogFakeâ€Â, or “Kooks and Criersâ€Â?”
It is not allowed, and it is a large reason the lefty blogs always get surprised in elections. They supress dissent to the point they have no idea what there own party is. As I have mentioned before, I come from a family of blue-collar, hard core union Democrats who are all far to the right of me on abortion, civil rights, gay rights, immigration and creationism/religion in schools, yet they are considered the Democrat base while I am ostracized for supporting the war and believing in property rights and economic freedom.
Go figure.
What the hell are you talking about? The things I listed are the positions of the Democrat party. I have no doubt there are Democrats who disagree — but given the party’s continuing behavior and statements, those who disagree don’t have enough influence to make their disagreements count. It’s rather like “moderate Muslims” — I have no doubt they exist, but they clearly don’t exist in the numbers necessary to resist their mosques being taken over by Wahabbists and Deobandis.
Again, what the hell are you talking about? You’re having a difficult time communicating here; are you pissed because I noticed the behavior and actions of Democrats and judged them to have negative consequences? Are those the “talking points” you’re referring to?
If that’s what you’re saying, well, tough shit. I’ve observed the way the left and Democrats act, what they say, and where they draw their ideas.
If you consider that to be a bunch of bullshit talking-points, that’s your own problem.