Time Magazine columnist Joe Klein is feeling the hate from the left these days. He’s against the Iraq war, against the idea of a troop surge, and can’t stand the administration. Well then, what’s the problem? you may ask. Here it is: he wants us to win in Iraq. He’s also very critical of war plan critics in the press, like the NYT’s Paul Krugman. Klein wrote yesterday:
I’m afraid I’m going to get cranky about this: The Democrats who oppose the so-called “surge” are right. But they have to be careful not to sound like ill-informed dilettantes when talking about it.
The latest to make a fool of himself is Paul Krugman of the New York Times, who argues that those who favor the increase in troops are either cynical or delusional. Mostly the latter. Delusional neocons like Bill Kristol and Fred Kagan, to be precise. But what about retired General Jack Keane–whom Krugman doesn’t mention–and the significant number of military intellectuals who have favored a labor-intensive counterinsurgency strategy in Baghdad for the past three years? They are serious people. They may be wrong about Iraq now, reflexively trying to complete a mission that has been lost, but they are not delusional. They may be wrong about Iraq now, reflexively trying to complete a mission that has been lost, but they are not delusional. The counterinsurgency doctrine they published in 2006 is exactly what the U.S. military should be doing in places like Afghanistan.
[...]
Liberals won’t ever be trusted on national security until they start doing their homework.
Check the comments to that post. It would seem that Klein committed numerous “nonos” with the anti-war far left: 1) he attacked liberal icon Paul Krugman, 2) he slammed liberals for not being more informed on the issue, and 3) he wants us to win the war in Iraq.
In a follow-up post last night, Klein responded to his critics:
The illiberal left just hates it when I point out that the Democratic Party’s naivete on national security–and the left wing tendency to assume every U.S. military action abroad is criminal–just aren’t very helpful electorally. The fact that I’ve been opposed to the Iraq war ever since this 2002 article in Slate just makes it all the more aggravating. But it’s possible to have been against the war and to hope for the best in Iraq. I’d bet that the overwhelming majority of Americans who now oppose the war are praying for a turn for the better in Iraq. Listening to the leftists, though, it’s easy to assume that they are rooting for an American failure.
And so a challenge to those who slagged me in their comments. Can you honestly say the following:
Even though I disagree with this escalation, I am hoping that General Petraeus succeeds in calming down Baghdad.
Does the thought even cross your mind? As for me, it’s easy–I’ve been rooting for U.S. success ever since the invasion because, after the overpowering arrogance and stupidity that led to this disaster, we owe some peace and stability to the Iraqis and the region.
Klein’s just hit on what so many anti-war leftists (including certain members of Congress) don’t want to admit: they don’t want us to succeed in Iraq. Success in Iraq would not just be a victory for America, but also for President Bush’s policies in the war on terror, and that doesn’t sit well with the Bush-haters in the Democratic party who have portrayed him as a bumbling, inept Commander in Chief.
Back in December of 2005, I quoted a post of Steve Verdon’s at Outside the Beltway, which I thought summed up what the anti-war Democrats’ attitude on Iraq perfectly. Verdon wrote:
Frankly, the Democrats tactic of saying we can’t win in Iraq strikes me as precisely the wrong approach to the problem. If the Democrats “win” on this one the result is that we lose. We lose in Iraq and we quite possibly degrad[e] our ability to prosecute the war on terrorism in other parts of the world. Maybe that is what the Democratic party leadership wants, but it doesn’t look like a very good strategy for making the U.S. safer…which ironically is one of the Democrats complaints about invading Iraq in the first place.
He was right then, and even more right today. If America loses in Iraq, the Democratic party ‘wins.’ Klein is clearly a liberal, but he nevertheless pushes and hopes for American success in Iraq. It’s not about party to him, it’s about winning. Unfortunately, all too many other Democrats don’t hold his position and equate being an advocate of winning in Iraq (in spite of being against the war) to being a Bush shill.
It’s a sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party who are now, unfortunately, the new majority in Washington, DC. The only way they ‘win’ on the issue is if we lose in Iraq. Think about it.
Related: Speaking of anti-war Bush-haters, check out this imbeach, I mean, “Impeach Bush” rally held a few days ago at San Francisco’s Ocean Beach. Note how the word “Bonfire” is outlined in red in the first pic 
(Hat tip: See-Dubya, guest blogging at Michelle Malkin’s)
Flashback:
| Email This Post | Print This |
I looked at all the pics of the impeach deal at the beach. What total moonbats these folks are and they all looked so cute in their tin foil hats.
I also checked out bumper stickers … God but these folks really hate Isreal …..PATHETIC.
Comment by Drewsmom @ 1/9/2007 - 10:30 am
The most interesting aspect of Klein v. Krugman to me is Klein’s pointing out that Gen. Petraeus’s counterinsurgency tactics might well make the difference in Afghanistan.
If the general had been in charge in Iraq three years ago, things might be different now. At least he understands how to fight these kinds of wars instead of relying on the same old same old we’ve been using without much success for sixty years.
As for these far leftists who want us to lose: I don’t know any of ‘em so I can’t comment on that. I imagine there are some out there, but hopefully not very many.
Comment by Leslie @ 1/9/2007 - 11:23 am
I have only one request- when you say “win” or “lose,” please define that term, at least loosely. Otherwise, it simply seems that supporting W means win, and not supporting him means lose, regardless of what he is proposing to do. If that is what you mean, then apparently the majority of the country wants America to lose, which doesn’t seem right.
Comment by barracuda @ 1/9/2007 - 3:38 pm
Yawn. It’s pathetic how you trot out just another tired old version of the “Democrats hate America!” line.
Based on all the mistakes, bad strategy, undermanning and improperly equipping our military that Bush and his boys have done since Day 1 of the war, it’s a lot easier to make the case that HE’S the one who wants America to lose.
But if you’re right, apparently (depending on which polls you believe) anywhere between 75% and 90% of America wants to lose, too.
Have fun crying in the dark. The Dems will be busy making sure our men and women in uniform get home safely.
Comment by MattM @ 1/9/2007 - 3:41 pm
Bush Inept? Bumbling?
The Lefties who make this claim are idiots.
$9 Billion of this country’s Treasury just doesn’t go missing by accident.
BushCo know exactly where it went.
As for the Lefties who want us to lose, supply names please.
Comment by Robert @ 1/9/2007 - 3:45 pm
Nah, the only people who want us to lose are the far leftists who didn’t want us to go to war in Iraq in the first place. Truth hurts, doesn’t it? Cutting and running from Iraq doesn’t equate to support, no matter how much you and your other far left pals want to spin it, Matt. Deal with it.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 1/9/2007 - 3:45 pm
“As for the Lefties who want us to lose, supply names please.”
You? For starters.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 1/9/2007 - 3:47 pm
i’m so tired of this “…the lefties want us to lose…” rant. what garbage. why don’t you righties find someone capable of winning anything and then we can talk. your president has f’ed up every step of the way. going back to his oil company and the texas rangers baseball team. every single step. and now you want us to commit more money and kill more brave soldiers…why? because he thinks it’s a good idea? he has thought that every other idea was a good idea. and he couldn’t have benn more wrong. you would have to be insane to listen to him now.
Comment by jay k. @ 1/9/2007 - 3:49 pm
I’ve felt Iraq was being handled a bit like your favorite sports team that decides not change the game plan at half time once it is clear we’re getting beat. It is incredibly frustrating. Iraq was, from my perspective, number 8 or 4 or whatever on the list of important to do’s but was treated like it was number 1. So not only did we focus way too much on a medium priority before getting the other things done, we executed a poor game plan. That being said, I was hopeful there might be a hail mary. But it really doesn’t look like that anymore. After all, it would be great if Bush’s exceedingly long shot plan actually worked and there was stability in the middle east. But that’s like assuming that even Tiger Woods will get a hole in one on a tough par 4. Rare indeed, but it does happen.
Liberals may think Bush is a dangerous idiot, and they may be conflicted about the war, but I really think only a small percentage want us to lose. What they want is for Bush to be exposed fully as the poor president they think he is. And it seems as though that is happening. Being pessimistic about Iraq isn’t the same as wanting us to lose.
Comment by fountain @ 1/9/2007 - 3:50 pm
Sister, it must be nice to live in a fantasy land where America never loses, Vietnam never happened, and other superpower-vs-middle east country wars (see: USSR vs Afghanistan) never took place.
We did not lose this war. It was unwinnable. And blindly, desperately pressing forward in an attempt to “win” at the expense of our brave men and women in uniform’s lives is anti-American and traitorous.
Comment by MattM @ 1/9/2007 - 3:58 pm
what does lose mean? what does win mean? if win means we defeat all the terrorist threats against america, by fighting in Iraq, it is a foregone conlusion we are going to lose. seriously, we need to define the terms, otherwise this is a useless discussion, amounting to people on the right simply saying liberals are against america, but coding it by saying liberals want to lose. this argument finds its parameters in supporting The W and his policies, so that when liberals get on board with those, then they want to “win.” if this is not so, then someone please tell me what we are talking about, if anyone knows.
Comment by barracuda @ 1/9/2007 - 4:02 pm
Wow, S.T., you stirred up the nest this time. I’m curious, for all you Bush haters, do the democrats who voted for this war bear any accountability? Please don’t give me the “They voted for the authority to go to war, but they didn’t think he would USE it!!”, that’s pretty lame and stupid. Come up with something original.
Also, what should have we done with Iraq? Nothing? Something? What?
Please, all you armchair generals, enlighten us all with your expertise on foreign policy, national defense, and terrorism. You guys sound like the last 100 episodes of the Keith Olberman show!!
Comment by NC Cop @ 1/9/2007 - 4:03 pm
ROTFL! Let’s see, the first argument was a strawman, and the second one was downright funny, Matt. Wanting to win is now defined as “traitorous” and “anti-American”? Thanks for the laugh
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 1/9/2007 - 4:10 pm
Well, I don’t know if the dems want us to lose. But I do know that it’s very telling when Al Qaeda is happy about the election outcome.
LINK
Ouch!!! That’s gotta hurt!!!
Comment by NC Cop @ 1/9/2007 - 4:10 pm
barracuda: you know, WIN, kinda like the Democrats did back in November?
jay k.: “Find someone capable of winning”? You mean like the people in your party who control Congress, now? I hope not. We already know what their definition of “winning” is.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 1/9/2007 - 4:11 pm
NC: “Wow, S.T., you stirred up the nest this time.”
ST: I got a link from the Daou Report at Salon today … is it that obvious?
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 1/9/2007 - 4:14 pm
“so many anti-war leftists (including certain members of Congress) don’t want to admit: they don’t want us to succeed in Iraq.”
No, we just believe the US has already failed, and therefore don’t invest emotionally in the idea of winning. It might look the same as wishing for defeat, but it’s quite different. We’re not wishing for, but rather acknowledging, defeat.
I honestly want things to turn around in Iraq. I just don’t believe they will, and would rather leave now than in a few years, once another few thousand americans are dead.
The main point of disagreement at this point is whether things will get better in Iraq. Obviously it would be irresponsible to advocate staying (or escalating) if you didn’t believe things at least could get better. Right? You all believe things can get better over there, right? Is there anyone here who doesn’t think things can get better, but advocates staying (or escalating)?
We on the left don’t believe things can get any better in Iraq while we are there, so we advocate leaving. It’s not about wanting the US to win or lose…its about recognizing that we either a) can win or b) have already lost. That’s where the honest difference appears to be.
Comment by ME @ 1/9/2007 - 4:15 pm
do the democrats who voted for this war bear any accountability?
Yes, absolutely. That’s why I have particular respect for the democrats that had the guts to vote against the war.
The rest of congress let it happen by jumping on the bandwagon of deception. But at least they weren’t driving that bandwagon. And it’s not like the left is piling on republican senators about the war in general, so the comparison is apples-oranges.
Comment by ME @ 1/9/2007 - 4:19 pm
barracuda: you know, WIN, kinda like the Democrats did back in November?
jay k.: “Find someone capable of winning”? You mean like the people in your party who control Congress, now? I hope not. We already know what their definition of “winning” is.
so, apparently what you’re saying is the democrats definition of winning is losing, but by losing they won in november.
seriously, though, what do you mean by win- no more terrorists? democratic govt in Iraq? depose saddam hussein? find weapons of mass destruction? world peace? What is winning. I am beginning to suspect that you, like your leade the W, don’t know, which is why you cannot tell anyone. Winning is more than just a slogan.
NC Cop:
the democrats who voted for war should be held accouintable, but that does not mean that, by and large, this war is not Bush’s baby. In addition, what we should have done was not invaded Iraq, but that is in the past now. but now that we’re there, the fact that people aren’t sure what to do doesn;t mean that they can’t oppose The W doing something which they think is more stupid than what he is doing now, ie, a surge. opposing a bad plan is not mutually exclusive from not knowing what to do. for instance, I may not be sure what my next best career move is, but opting to not do something bad for my career is better than doing that bad thing simply for the sake of doing something.
The W is under pressure to do something, but he doesn;t know what to do, so he wants to keep doing the same thing, but with more people (surge). Maybe this is the right thing to do, I’m really not sure, but if the administratiojn didn;t lie about everything, they would have the credibility left for people to trust them. but they don’t. hence the predicament. i am for winning, unless that means doing things that are stupid under the slogan of “winning.” in which case, i guess i’m not for winning. i’m never for losing. whatever any of those terms mean. someone help me out here.
Comment by barracuda @ 1/9/2007 - 4:27 pm
Yes Sister. I’ll repeat myself. Cowardly sending more and more American soldiers to die in Iraq when “winning” is not possible is anti-American and traitorous.
Not many people believe we should have stayed in Vietnam to continue suffering thousands of American lives. And you’re in the vast minority of people who believe we should stay in Iraq and keep getting killed in a war we can’t win.
Comment by MattM @ 1/9/2007 - 4:30 pm
Sistah, the Democrats have not worked to portray W has a bumbling, inept Commander in Chief. He didn’t need any help from the Democrats. He’s done quite well on his own.
The Democratic congress folk who voted for the authorization of use of force regarding Iraq did so because the Republican party was busy vilifying them and questioning their patriotism. This is Bush’s war. This is his responsibility and it has been his management of this war that has brought us to the sorry state we are in now. No one wishes for defeat in Iraq — can you provide any citation or credible quote from anyone on the left who has said that they wish for the US to lose this conflict? These strawman arguments are counter-productive and pretty self-serving.
Comment by Peter @ 1/9/2007 - 4:31 pm
And speaking of straw man arguments, Sister, your “If you’re not for winning, you’re for losing” rhetoric is old and tired.
Democrats are FOR winning the war on terror. Which starts with inacting the recommendation of the 9/11 commission - something the Republicans couldn’t bring themselves to do.
Comment by MattM @ 1/9/2007 - 4:34 pm
In addition, what we should have done was not invaded Iraq
Yeah, that will solve the problem.
Comment by NC Cop @ 1/9/2007 - 4:37 pm
“so, apparently what you’re saying is the democrats definition of winning is losing, but by losing they won in november.”
Um, no. Democrats should put as much energy into coming up with ideas to help us win this thing as they did trying to get elected. That would be a refreshing change.
“seriously, though, what do you mean by win- no more terrorists? democratic govt in Iraq? depose saddam hussein? find weapons of mass destruction? world peace? What is winning. I am beginning to suspect that you, like your leade the W, don’t know, which is why you cannot tell anyone. Winning is more than just a slogan.”
I’m beginning to suspect that you, like your other anti-war comrades, don’t really care to define winning because why understand something you’re not interested in doing?
Winning has been defined many times by the CIC, and those who actually LISTEN to what the man says know that.
Just for you, though, I did a simple search of the WH website so you can see what the President himself has said about it:
National Strategy for Victory in Iraq
Some of the things on that page have probably been redefined, as often happens in a war, but the essential goals remain the same.
Now, what was that about my “leade” not knowing what winning was again? And why is it that you and so many other lefties continue to assert that the President hasn’t defined what winning in Iraq means when he clearly has? Is this one of those “if we repeat it so many times it should become an Accepted Truth” thing from you guys?
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 1/9/2007 - 4:38 pm
ME (straight from the horses mouth folks) said, “No, we just believe the US has already failed, and therefore don’t invest emotionally in the idea of winning. It might look the same as wishing for defeat, but it’s quite different. We’re not wishing for, but rather acknowledging, defeat.”
That’s why we don’t like you. Because you’re gonna get us killed. …. What movie did Samuel L. Jackson say that in????
No. Really, we like you ME but your are a defeatist. You aren’t focused on averting a humanitarian crisis and you aren’t listening to Zarqawi himself when he talks of implementing the Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East and using the resources gained to make Islam dominant in Europe and America. I certainly don’t want our women in burka’s. I will not submit to Islam. Only women.
BTW leftists. The line about Bush failing to supply the troops and do this and that is funny because it’s as if you think there is no Pentagon or Department of Defense. That Bush supercedes 100’s of thousands of Defense emplyees who are responsible with ordering equipment based on Congressional budgets that were asked for and appropriated for based on requests from the Pentagon and Defense Department. Your micromanaging rhetoric (repeated often by lefties) only serves to show us how without basis your arguments are. It does nothing to convince us but actually the reverse. It serves to show us flaws in your thinking and sources of information.
Comment by Baklava @ 1/9/2007 - 4:38 pm
If the problem you are referring to is terrorism, then you are correct, not invading iraq will not solve the problem. However, invading Iraq also does not solve the problem, but, in fact, creates many other problems which would not have been created were it not for the invasion. Thus, i stand by my suggestion that we should have not invaded, and continued to do what we were doing, which was contain the situation.
I realize that this does not have the ass kicking satisfaction that many people desire, but it was a sustainable policy. I feel that this should not need to be mentioned, but Iraq was not connected to 9/11. before iraq, we had a lot of other people somewhat on our side. After Bush, etc squandered international goodwill, lives, and billions of dollar we’re stuck in a big hole with no good end in sight.
so you tell me concretely how invading iraq has solved the problem, and then your “solution” can be considered better than mine.
Comment by barracuda @ 1/9/2007 - 4:45 pm
“Yes Sister. I’ll repeat myself. Cowardly sending more and more American soldiers to die in Iraq when “winning” is not possible is anti-American and traitorous.”
It sure is, if you’re a defeatist Democrat.
“Not many people believe we should have stayed in Vietnam to continue suffering thousands of American lives.”
Um, we people who supported staying in ‘nam didn’t support it because they wnated to “continue suffering thousands of American lives.” They wanted us to win in Vietnam. Big difference. Your strawman tactics are becoming the stuff of legend in a short time, Matt. Kept it up.
“And you’re in the vast minority of people who believe we should stay in Iraq and keep getting killed in a war we can’t win.”
See above. I’m a realist and I know there will be American casualties in war. That doesn’t mean I want people killed. I just know that it happens. That’s one of the differences between people who understand wars are sometimes necessary and those who don’t.
“And speaking of straw man arguments, Sister, your “If you’re not for winning, you’re for losing” rhetoric is old and tired.”
I swear, the truth is like a disease to you guys and you work hard at staying immunized from it.
“Democrats are FOR winning the war on terror. Which starts with inacting the recommendation of the 9/11 commission - something the Republicans couldn’t bring themselves to do.”
Think again.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 1/9/2007 - 4:45 pm
ST said:
“Klein’s just hit on what so many anti-war leftists (including certain members of Congress) don’t want to admit: they don’t want us to succeed in Iraq.”
Can you back this assertion up with a link? I’d be surprised if any member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, has ever said they don’t want us to succeed in Iraq.
Comment by Colin @ 1/9/2007 - 4:46 pm
Peter: “No one wishes for defeat in Iraq — can you provide any citation or credible quote from anyone on the left who has said that they wish for the US to lose this conflict? These strawman arguments are counter-productive and pretty self-serving.”
It’s not a strawman argument. It’s the truth. Anyone who agrees with Murtha’s suggestion that we should cut and run - anyone who agrees with the Democratic idea to stop the war by pulling the purse strings on the funding for it right now, are defeatists who don’t want us to win this war.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 1/9/2007 - 4:49 pm
“Can you back this assertion up with a link? I’d be surprised if any member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, has ever said they don’t want us to succeed in Iraq.”
Of course they wouldn’t come out and say it, in the same way that Bush wouldn’t admit to starting this war for oil, which is what the far left believes. Difference being is that Democratic actions and rhetoric back up what I say (wanting to cut the funding, wanting to leave too soon, etc) whereas the left doesn’t have a leg to stand on on the ‘war for oil!’ claims.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 1/9/2007 - 4:51 pm
the democrats who voted for war should be held accouintable
Ok, how? How should they be held accountable? Seems to me that all of the dems who voted for the war got re-elected. Why is that? Because it’s Bush’s “baby”, or because they sold the public on their “We didn’t see all the evidence on Iraq”? That’s just cowardice.
Another question to all the Bush haters here is: How do you define victory in Iraq? What should have happened in Iraq that would have allowed you to declare it a victory?
Doing nothing about Iraq? I guess that means for all the “sanctions fans” that you were ok with killing hundreds of thousands of children?
“You kill people without blood or organs flying around, without angering American public opinion. People are dying silently in their beds. If 5,000 children are dying each month, this means 60,000 a year. Over eight years, we have half a million children. This is equivalent to two or three Hiroshimas.”-Ashraf Bayoumi, former head of the World Food Programme Observation Unit, in charge of monitoring food distribution in Iraq (Al-Ahram Weekly, 24 December 1998).
When asked on US television if she [Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State] thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children [from sanctions in Iraq] was a price worth paying, Albright replied: “This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it.”
— John Pilger, Squeezed to Death, Guardian, March 4, 2000
Wow, that must be that liberal compassion I keep hearing about.
Comment by NC Cop @ 1/9/2007 - 4:51 pm
Wow NC - those facts just keep on rolling in.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 1/9/2007 - 4:53 pm
nc cop
democrats who voted for the war should be held accountable…to the point that they voted based upon cooked intelligence. of course you will will respond that they had the same intelligence the president had. malarkey. bob graham, who at the time sat on the intelligence committee, was able to see the real intelligence and voted against the war. and he spoke out as much as he could about classified information. most of the people on the hill saw only what the white house wanted them to see. they didn’t see that there were real doubts about curveballs credibility. they didn’t see that there were real doubts about the yellow cake from niger. they didn’t see that there were real doubts about the aluminum tubes that supposedly could only be used for nuclear arms. they didn’t see that there real questions about links between alqueda and iraq. i9t is pretty clear today that bush let cheney cook the books…thus it is, in fact, bushs war. what ever happened to republican values like accountability?
Comment by jay k. @ 1/9/2007 - 5:00 pm
I copied Bush’s definition of winning in Iraq from the like provided above. The document is dated 2003, three long years ago. Only the short term goals have been met on even a limited basis. The medium and long term goals are farther away than they were three years ago. How long will we have to wait to achieve the long term goal, of an Iraq that is peaceful, united, and stable? I fear that it not be achieved in my lifetime and I do not want any more Americans to be killed or maimed for goals that are not achievable. My son is in the Army, currently stationed in Ramadi and I have a very personal interest in this. How many here who believe we can “win” in Iraq can say the same?
Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.
Comment by carolha @ 1/9/2007 - 5:05 pm
here…we’ve gotten what bush and cheney and the other neo-con-men went there for…now let’s get our soldiers out of there.
LINK
Comment by jay k. @ 1/9/2007 - 5:06 pm
Colin wrote, “I’d be surprised if any member of Congress, Democrat or Republican, has ever said they don’t want us to succeed in Iraq.”
They have said that Iraq is unwinnable. Splitting of hairs doesn’t help your side.
jay k. wrote, “based upon cooked intelligence”
Is intelligence always 100% accurate? No. Did Russian, British, French, German and American Intelligence all think that Iraq had biological and chemical weapons in the amount of stockpiles? Yes. Did Bill Clinton, Albright, Kerry, Gore all say before Bush was in office that Iraq had these thing? Yes. Seems to me you just got SPANKED with your faulty logic. You are quick with your Bush Derangement Syndrome to make accusations that you can’t back up. Citing faulty intelligence was not done by just Bush and is easy when the intelligence game is a faulty operation. It’s relying on information you think is accurate at the time and is never 100% correct. To assert that Bush cooked it shows your faulty logic and shows more about your faulty mindset than actually convincing anybody here of anything you think. It’s instructive.
Jay K. flat out lied with this statement, “most of the people on the hill saw only what the white house wanted them to see. Jay K. the line on that one is that Democrats weren’t priveldged to see the Presidential Daily Briefings that the president saw. Otherwise everyone on the intelligence committee had access to ALL of the DETAIL that the president saw and your faulty assertion goes to show everyone here your propensity to make stuff up. Very instructive.
Jay k. wrote, “what ever happened to republican values like accountability?”
Let’s see if you will be accountable for your inaccurate accusations. Conservatives don’t see Bush as 100% right on the issues. But what we see is your propensity to make stuff up and accuse inaccurately. Making false allegations does not help you look smart. It makes you look negligent.
Comment by Baklava @ 1/9/2007 - 5:14 pm
Ah, yes, I see your definition, the good old national strategy for victory in Iraq, aka “Pie in the Sky Guide to Middle Eastern Nation Building.” you see, it is interesting that The W is also a fli flopper- he was against nation building before he was for it. i don’t remember these being the main goals of the invasion, but, ok, i like them, too. seriously, I think these are noble goals, but don;t they kind of seem like things the iraqis could define victory by for themselves, not us? How is this a victory that can be achieved by the military?
I guess the idea is that we put in enough troops to sustain a foreign military occupation, and that will create the environment in which all of the other things can happen. you see, I happen to disagree with this method. therefore, i do support Bush’s ends, just not his means. why is this so hard to understand? why am I a traitor because i don’t think more troops are going to make this any more likley to occur? What will make this happen? currently, i have no idea- probably nothing until the iraqis get some civil war out of their system, and God only knows what the other regional players are going to do.
perhaps we could make this happen, but we would probably have to choose sides, in which case we would be actively invoilved in someone else’s civil war. i seriously doubt the american people are going to get behind that.
NC Cop-
it is touching that you care about the children. i almost believe you care. almost. that has nothing to do with what’s happening now. in fact, there were altern
PLEASE stop submitting your message numerous times. –ST
Comment by barracuda @ 1/9/2007 - 5:16 pm
“That’s one of the differences between people who understand wars are sometimes necessary and those who don’t.”
Exactly. And this war wasn’t necessary. Finding Bin Laden, protecting our ports, implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, keeping the Afghani drug trade and the Taliban from making a comeback - THOSE things were necessary.
Comment by MattM @ 1/9/2007 - 5:17 pm
err, sorry about that. slip of the keyboard.
Comment by barracuda @ 1/9/2007 - 5:17 pm
I let the condescension get to me. or is it “hate”?
Yes, the thread proves Joe Klein’s point doesn’t it ST?
Comment by Baklava @ 1/9/2007 - 5:18 pm
they didn’t see that there were real doubtrs about the yellow cake from niger.
Do you mean the doubts that came from…
Joe Wilson?
Actually Wilson admitted that in 1999, a senior Iraqi “trade” delegation went to Niger. Uranium accounts for 75 percent of Niger’s exports. The rest is goats, cowpeas and onions. So, I guess you think Saddam was looking to import some goats, huh?
they didn’t see that there real questions about links between alqueda and iraq.
Do you mean stories like this one:
LINK
Let me highlight a few paragraphs for you, just in case you miss them:
In fact, during President Clinton’s eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton’s defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam’s regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.
So was Clinton completely wrong or perhaps was he part of Bush’s evil plan? Perhaps Bush was manipulating Clinton while he was still governor of Texas?!?!
LOL!! Well, this has been fun, but I’ve got some things to do.
Remember Bush haters, never let the facts interfere with your arguments!!!!!!
Comment by NC Cop @ 1/9/2007 - 5:25 pm
it is touching that you care about the children. i almost believe you care. almost.
That’s your answer?! Priceless!!!!
That’s ok, barracuda. I almost believe that you care about our troops. almost.
Comment by NC Cop @ 1/9/2007 - 5:26 pm
The only reason this war wasn’t ‘necessary’ to you, Matt, is because it’s Bush waging it. I doubt you had any objections to Clinton’s cruise missile strikes against Iraq back in the 90s which was, btw, an act of war.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 1/9/2007 - 5:27 pm
“you aren’t listening to Zarqawi himself when he talks of implementing the Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East and using the resources gained to make Islam dominant in Europe and America. I certainly don’t want our women in burka’s. I will not submit to Islam.”
You listen to Zarqawi? Has it ever occured to you that they want us to stay in Iraq as long as possible so they can continue “bleeding us dry”? (they’ll fail at that monetarily, we are far too wealthy a nation to be bled dry, but they are already are using this as a recruiting tool).
You are playing into their hands by fearing them as you do. They want a USSR-Afghanistan redux, and you are unwittingly giving it to them.
“anyone who agrees with the Democratic idea to stop the war by pulling the purse strings on the funding for it right now, are defeatists who don’t want us to win this war.”
wow…I don’t even think you believe that. I think you are totally capable of understanding that they honestly don’t believe we can win. I just want to know, what makes any of you think we can win? What piece of knowledge do you posses that allows you to say “we will win if we stay long enough”? What have you figured out about fighting guerilla warfare that no other conventional army in the history of the world has ever figured out?
I wonder if you guys are the type who would tell your daughter that she is forbidden from seeing her boyfriend…you think you need to be strong and take a stand, after all, the stakes are SOOO high! she could lose her virginity, or worse, get pregnant! But you end up inadvertantly fueling the fire instead. The daughter? she just got impregnated by her bf while you weren’t looking, and won’t tell you about it, ever, because then you’ll ask what happened to the baby (it got aborted).
My daughter, she got the pill instead of a decree forbidding her from her bf. She’s not pregnant, and I actually know what’s going on in her life, because she isn’t afraid to tell me.
Your rightie ways get you an aborted baby and lack of communication with your daughter…even though you were only trying to avoid “bad” problems to begin with.
Comment by ME @ 1/9/2007 - 5:30 pm
- This response is directed at all the Left dribblers in the audience, who always seem to feel the special need to hold forth with an avalaunch of verbal gushing and lexiconal gymnastics, everytime someone simply calls them out on what has been the overall “regain power” agenda of the left since a few weeks after 9/11. You moonies know, or should know if you’re going to go forth and gamely, if pathetically, try to dance around your purpose.
- That purpose is now, and always has been to turn the WOT back on the Republicans, through any and all means possible, including the propaganda mills, our beloved Liberal press, running in league with you, and willing to do and say anything to further the “cause”. You’re betting that most americans do not follow the politics closely enough to see through your garbage.
- Your reason’ de terre is simple. Everyone in politics knows that a reasonably successful outcome to the WOT during Bush’s admin. would be the kiss of death for the Left. Failing to turn it into another VietNam, would just about doom the Dems to another round of watching Republicans control the Congress and the White House. Ergo. Do everything you can to undermine, stall, and just generally defeat American will here at home, and American efforts to help transform the Middle East. The hell with the fight against the Islamists. The hell with the idea that we’d be leaving ourselves open to additional attacks if we go isolationaist. The cause, and partisan politics, is the only thing you believe in, or are interested in, plus regaining power.
- Them’s the facts moonbats. Anything else is attempts to obfuscate with polemic anti-American propaganda. Personally I hope you continue down this path, particularly with ploys like using so-called “oversight”, to cripple our troops, and their necessary funding. If you do that, and from the things Kennedrunk, Weird Charley Rangle, and gramma Pelosi are saying, it seems you’re hel lbent on going that way. If you do, you can all bend over and kiss your asses goodbye in ‘08.
- Now, one of the questions the Libtards are trying to evade with, is what does “winning” mean. Apparently the Insurgent gangs, all of them collectively, have no problem understanding what losing means to their side, or they wouldn’t be blowing themselves up with desperate abandon, trying every inhuman, uncivil trick they can think of, to avoid stability. What happened to all that Geneva talk? I guess according to you on the Left, they get their cake, and eat it too. Well here it is. shove this in your tin-hats and smoke it.
* Winning *
- A stable, even warped, version of Democracy in Iraq, self governing, economically viable, and decidedly not a process by writ of beheading does the following.
1) Places another strong Democratic example right in the center of the Middle East, joining Israel, and making recruitments for Insurgents 1000 times harder, and in time would most likely drive a dagger right through the dreams of Celiphate.
2) Makes Irans Mullahs look like total idiots, and sets an unacceptable example for them to overcome, particularly since the majority in Iraq are Shite’s. The Mullahs days would be numbered with such an example for them to explain to their own surpressed people.
3) 35 Million Iraqui’s would finnaly have a chance to live under a relitively free system, in a part of the world where freedom is as much a dirty word as it seems to be to every form of “Socialist” movement in the world.
- Socialism, and all its many forms and guises, is the enemy of every free individual. Read it and weep SecProgs.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 1/9/2007 - 5:31 pm
nc cop…
it’s one thing to say we think, another to say we KNOW. and another altogether to say we KNOW to congress under oath. that’s perjury and bush should actually be impeached for it. there are a number of books out on the selling of the war…i suggest you read them and find the truth. if bush was not cooking the books why have the republicans stopped their investigation of this matter? what are they afraid of? when the democrats start up that investigation again we will hopefully find out. i listed a bunch of areas, which you couldn’t debate so you resorted to personal attacks. i’m sure there are more.
and if you really think that regular house members were seeing what bush was seeing, you are naive beyond all belief.
gotta go…enjoy.
Comment by jay k. @ 1/9/2007 - 5:35 pm
Come on, cop. don’t tell me that you actually thought about starving Iraqi children for more than the 30 seconds it took you to read a news article back in the sanctions days.
I do care about the troops. I think its tragic that they have to die for no good reason. what should I do to prove I care? How do you care about them, other than supporting Bush? In my opinion, supporting Bush is not supporting the troops because he actively and recklessly endangers their safety without an achievable military goal. supporting war is not the same as supporting the troops. i guess you should say you support their deaths.
Comment by barracuda @ 1/9/2007 - 5:35 pm
ST said:
“Of course they wouldn’t come out and say it, in the same way that Bush wouldn’t admit to starting this war for oil, which is what the far left believes. Difference being is that Democratic actions and rhetoric back up what I say (wanting to cut the funding, wanting to leave too soon, etc) whereas the left doesn’t have a leg to stand on on the ‘war for oil!’ claims.”
OK, so, no, you cannot provide a link of any Congressman stating they want us to fail in Iraq.
The Democrats have not introduced legislation to cut the funding of the war. A bill was introduced today to prevent funding for *increasing* our force in Iraq, which is completely different.
Baklava said:
“They have said that Iraq is unwinnable. Splitting of hairs doesn’t help your side.”
Stating one’s opinion that the Iraq war is unwinnable is not the same as hoping we fail in Iraq, which is what ST has accused as yet unnamed Democratic Congressmen of doing.
She is essentially accusing Congressmen of treason — that’s quite a charge and I think it should be backed up with specifics. Otherwise I have to assume she’s just making noise.
Comment by Colin @ 1/9/2007 - 5:38 pm
Sister Says:
Most americans want the US to lose the war in Iraq.
Because when you say “Anyone who agrees with Murtha’s suggestion that we should cut and run - anyone who agrees with the Democratic idea to stop the war by pulling the purse strings on the funding for it right now, are defeatists who don’t want us to win this war.”
and you combine that with the fact that 54% (that would be most americans) want us to pull out within 12 months.
Then the only conclusion is that:
Most americans don’t want us to win the war.
Now, reasonable people will agree that there’s no way most americans want their country to lose, so Sister must be mistaken.
Comment by ME @ 1/9/2007 - 5:45 pm
Matt M says, “Exactly. And this war wasn’t necessary. Finding Bin Laden, protecting our ports, implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, keeping the Afghani drug trade and the Taliban from making a comeback - THOSE things were necessary.”
It always goes back to the 4 year old decision that you disagree with. Unfortunately for you we are there and you don’t offer solutions going forward. You are stuck on the 4 year old decision that you disagree with. Accept what is. Now move forward. Would you Matt create a bigger humanitarian crisis by removing our troops before Iraq can stand on it’s own? Do you know what happened when we pulled out of Vietnam? Millions of Vietnamese were slaughtered and/or put in “reeducation” camps. Be brave and state your desire for going forward. We understand that you disagreed with the past decision. You also disagreed with the majority of Congress at the time also. It’s convenient to say now that I disagreed with the decision and then not have a good idea for moving forward.
Comment by Baklava @ 1/9/2007 - 5:59 pm
ST. Or the war in Yugoslavia waged at 15,000 feet. It was necessary? How was Haiti in our strategic interest?
Comment by Baklava @ 1/9/2007 - 6:01 pm
Let me eliminate all the mind-reading for you.
I as a Democrat and a liberal don’t like Joe Klein because:
a) he was a cheerleader for the Iraq invasion, when I and many of my other friends knew better.
b) now that it’s obvious the invasion of Iraq was a disaster, Joe Klein is trying to change his tune and say he *wasn’t* for the invasion of Iraq,
c) and worst of all, now that he’s pretending he was against the invasion, he’s still criticizing other liberals for being against the invasion, because they’re being too ’shrill’ about it or something.
As if being against something is only acceptable if you’re properly polite about it, and don’t hold Joe Klein accountable.
I also don’t want the US to lose, and I don’t want soldiers to die for nothing.
But if the US is going to lose, then I don’t want soldiers to die so that Bush can run out the clock and hand the mess to someone else, pretending that he would have won.
If you want to actually understand why a Liberal would feel this way, read this article:
LINK
“1999 war games foresaw problems in Iraq
WASHINGTON — The U.S. government conducted a series of secret war games in 1999 that anticipated an invasion of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, and even then chaos might ensue.”
Get what that means?
The best military experts in the US’ employ determined that Iraq would take at least FOUR TIMES the soldiers we have there now - and even then it would be iffy.
So there is NO CHANCE we can win with the amount of soldiers we have now - under the best of conditions.
Therefore let’s stop marching our sons and daughters forward into a spinning saw.
Comment by jim @ 1/9/2007 - 6:05 pm
Wow, that must be that liberal compassion I keep hearing about.
Bingo, right on the nose!
These same “compassionate” liberals are the ones making all the Vietnam references, how we should bug out like we did there. Well, the often overlooked facts are that the disgraceful abandonment of Vietnam resulted in 3-4 MILLION dead in SE Asia!!! I know those are small potatoes to those of their heroes, like Stalin and Mao, but cripes, millions dead, and that’s the kind of debacle they are longing for again.
They care about casualties only in the abstract sense that they can use them as arguments, when no longer useful for that, after the war is lost, then they care nothing. It’s the same liberal “compassion” that lets children die of malaria in Africa by the millions rather than abandon a junk science based ban on DDT. All so they can pat themselves on the back because they are the only ones who really “care.”
Comment by Severian @ 1/9/2007 - 6:22 pm
Seems telling that the liberals are in here arguing what the definition of “lose” when you point out they want to lose in Iraq. No no, it’s “redeployment” or some such drivel, right out of Orwellian Newspeak. Same as arguing what “sex” is, or what the meaning of “is” is. Hide behind changing terms and feints of language to hide the fact that you want defeat just to teach Bush a lesson, regardless of how much damage it does to the country or the world. BDS gone rampant and haywire.
Comment by Severian @ 1/9/2007 - 6:26 pm
Nope, Sister’s not mistaken, ME. I meant exactly what I said, but reserve a special note of disgust for those people on the left who never wanted us to win to begin with. The increase in the number of people who want a timetable for withdrawal includes people who USED to support this war who now think it can’t be won. There is a difference in those people and the Bush haters who’d despise the man no matter what he did, and who can’t put their hatred aside in order to be a part of the SOLUTION (winning) rather than the PROBLEM (losing).
Joe Klein pegged it right.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 1/9/2007 - 6:38 pm
My son is in the Army, currently stationed in Ramadi and I have a very personal interest in this. How many here who believe we can “win” in Iraq can say the same?
God bless you and your son, and please thank him for his service to our country!
That being said, in 2004 I resigned from my police department and took a job with a civilian contractor training Iraqi police. I was at a military base in Taji and I worked alongside U.S. soldiers helping to train the police around Baghdad. I spent 14 months there and made many friends, Iraqi and American. In Dec. 2005 while traveling back to the base from Baghdad the vehicle I was driving was hit with an IED. I lost both my legs below the knee and am now going through physcial therapy in an attempt to go back to police work. So, I like to think that I have a personal interest in this and I do think we can win. I think we can achieve the medium term goals, but I do agree that the long term goals need to be achieved mainly by the Iraqi people and it’s government. Yet, if we pull out too soon and the government collapses, how can we expect the long term goals to be reached.
I do care about the troops.
Gosh, I guess we’ll just have to take your word for it, huh barracuda? So instead of commenting on the damage that the sanctions were doing, you accuse me of not caring about the troops? Typical liberal tactic. As far as the Iraqi children. I routinely had candy and toys sent from home to hand out to the kids. I played soccer with the kids whenever I could and gave a few of them some money whenever I could. I participated in a shoe giveaway with the soldiers that I worked with and made it my goal to leave a good impression with those children since they will be the ones who will be in charge someday. Several of the soldiers I have worked with keep in touch, visit, and I have even helped them get jobs in law enforcement.
Now, I know this may not be as much as you ever did, but I think it entitles me to a little bit better perspective on what goes on over there. I know I’m not like Richard Belzer who reads alot of newspapers on the subject, but I think I can comment with some confidence on the situation there.
Comment by NC Cop @ 1/9/2007 - 6:40 pm
Bravo, NC, and thank you for your service
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 1/9/2007 - 6:42 pm
As satisfying as it ought to be to see the insanity of Bush and the neocons exposed for all to see, I find it hard to take much satisfaction. After all, my primary motivation for disliking them and hoping to see them discredited was to save the nation from the damage that they were likely to do. But it has come too late; at this point, all of my worst fears have been realized. The magnitude of the disaster, both for US interests and for Iraq, completely saps any pleasure I might have taken from being able to say, “I told you so.”
I even find it hard to oppose the escalation, even though I fully expect it to fail, and that the ultimate result will be the same as if we had pulled out, but with greater loss of American life. Still, after the price that Iraq has paid for our botched conduct of the war, it almost seems like we are morally obligated to try, even though it appears hopeless.
Comment by trrll @ 1/9/2007 - 6:42 pm
Joe Klein is a dishonest fool to claim – as he does – that liberals either hate America or want to lose in Iraq. This is probably the lamest of all of the strawman arguments that conservative commentators have attempted to pass off. I can respect either conservatives or liberals who are up-front about what they believe and defend their position with honesty and fairness. I don’t know if Klein is just a lying shill, or if he’s actually seriously deluded, but I don’t know any mainstream liberal (and I’m talking about the vast majority of all liberals) who wants us to fail in Iraq.
Sister, why don’t you and Joe put your reputations where your mouths are and come up with a list of all the liberals you can demonstrate have made statements that indicate that they want us to lose. No attempting to read other peoples’ minds allowed – provide the actual evidence and compile the statistics. Show us all of the supposed liberals who want us to lose in Iraq or shut the hell up.
Comment by Bob @ 1/9/2007 - 6:44 pm
“Sister, why don’t you and Joe put your reputations where your mouths are and come up with a list of all the liberals you can demonstrate have made statements that indicate that they want us to lose. No attempting to read other peoples’ minds allowed – provide the actual evidence and compile the statistics.”
I’ve already posted my answer here.
“Show us all of the supposed liberals who want us to lose in Iraq or shut the hell up.”
You can take your orders to shut up and shove ‘em, jerk!
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 1/9/2007 - 6:48 pm
Colin: “OK, so, no, you cannot provide a link of any Congressman stating they want us to fail in Iraq.”
Someone doesn’t have to SAY something in order to get a point across.
It’s kind of like people who are poorly informed on an issue. They don’t have to say they are for me to know it.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 1/9/2007 - 6:52 pm
It does not matter what you, or the “Left” (AKA the vast majority of America according to all recent polls) wants… all that matters is the fact that the Iraq war, as prosecuted by the Bush administrations, is, was, and always will be unwinnable. It is the single worst US foreign policy decision in our lifetimes, and it has George W. Bush’s name at the top of the masthead. As such, he deserves the most blame, followed by the Neocon idiots who egged him on, and only then followed by his enablers in Congress.
Comment by jvf @ 1/9/2007 - 6:57 pm
carolha: “I copied Bush’s definition of winning in Iraq from the like provided above. The document is dated 2003, three long years ago.”
ST: The document is dated November 2005.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 1/9/2007 - 6:57 pm
Joe Klein is a dishonest fool to claim –
I love it!! They are even turning on each other. What was somebody else posting about conservatives drinking “the Kool aid”?!?
Comment by NC Cop @ 1/9/2007 - 6:58 pm
boy, there sure are a lot of “leftists” these days…
LINK
Comment by jvf @ 1/9/2007 - 6:59 pm
jvf: “It does not matter what you, or the “Left” (AKA the vast majority of America according to all recent polls) wants”
ST: 54% is a “vast majority of America”? Wow - then I guess that means since GWB was elected by 51% of Americans he won over a vast majority of Americans and really did have a mandate. Thanks for clearing that up!
jvf: “boy, there sure are a lot of “leftists” these days…”
ST: Please learn to read very carefully through the comments before commenting further.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 1/9/2007 - 7:00 pm
“Seems telling that the liberals are in here arguing what the definition of “lose” when you point out they want to lose in Iraq. No no, it’s “redeployment” or some such drivel, right out of Orwellian Newspeak. Same as arguing what “sex” is, or what the meaning of “is” is. Hide behind changing terms and feints of language to hide the fact that you want defeat just to teach Bush a lesson, regardless of how much damage it does to the country or the world. BDS gone rampant and haywire.”
Well said, as always, Sev. It’s like parsing the definition of funding for the war, too. Their ‘logic’, well, defies logic.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 1/9/2007 - 7:03 pm
Bugger off, creep! –ST
Comment by Bob @ 1/9/2007 - 7:05 pm
“The document is dated November 2005. ”
who cares when it dates from? Bush is an incoherent fool anyway. He didn’t even know that there were Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq as late as 2003.
Comment by jvf @ 1/9/2007 - 7:11 pm
61 to 36 (and growing) seems like a vast majority to me.
Comment by jvf @ 1/9/2007 - 7:13 pm
Learn to read carefully. 54% want a pull out by the end of the year.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 1/9/2007 - 7:15 pm
So Sister Toldjah - you have no facts or evidence, but it feels right to you that us liberals and Leftists want the US to lose.
Guess what? I think conservatives want to eat anchovies on their pizza because they’re gay.
Now, none of you would come out and SAY this…but I know what you’re thinking. And really you’re not fooling anyone.
Comment by jim @ 1/9/2007 - 7:20 pm
no where in the poll I cited does it say anything about 54%….sorry.
also, approval of Bush’s handling of Iraq is 26%. Impressive.
the floor is falling out of support for this disaster. you can spin it any way you want. But it’s true. You people are dead enders.
Comment by jvf @ 1/9/2007 - 7:23 pm
Well, since we are whipping out the polls now. How about this?
Gallup: Most Americans feel media reporting from Iraq innacurate
So if that’s the case, can’t it be argued that Americans are basing their opinions on innacurate information?
56%, that’s a majority, right?
Comment by NC Cop @ 1/9/2007 - 7:27 pm
“no where in the poll I cited does it say anything about 54%….sorry.”
Probably because you didn’t bother to actually read the poll numbers for yourself.
“the floor is falling out of support for this disaster. you can spin it any way you want. But it’s true. You people are dead enders.”
Nah, but one thing’s for certain: you guys are pro-losing. No doubt about it.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 1/9/2007 - 7:54 pm
Dear Sis,
I suppose one could make the claim that Bush “losing” the war is not a totally bad thing, because clearly if there were any possible way for BushCo to spin the situation as anything better than “not losing”, he would have seen that as validation for his pre-emptive policies, and continued the invasion into Syria, Iran, and who know where, and things would have ended up being far worse than they are even now.
But no one is really making that claim.
So, while many felt that, “Hey, it’s a poor idea to invade, but maybe the intelligence about WMD is right?” (Hah!),they probably believed that, if we did invade, it would at least be with competent leaders.
Now we see the depths of their incompetence, the willfull blindness, the complete lack of understanding of the issues (does Bush now know the difference between Shi’ite and Sunni?), and a post-conflict plan for stabilization (”We don’t do nation-building.”) that never had a chance in hell of succeeding. It is not possible for someone with any understanding at all to see that, win or lose, it is too late for a military victory in Iraq.
BushCo. has no other idea than to keep sacrificing our soldiers while claiming that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Why? To cover his ass, and hope to get lucky, maybe with one of Daddy’s pals handing him a way out. Meanwhile, our soldiers die. Only a “Commander in Chief” who has never done any kind of serious military service, the kind that Bush shirked, could be such a moral cretin as to continue this despicable foolishness so as not to look stupid. Too late.
There may be things that can be done to ameliorate the situation there, but BushCo, his multi-national oil cronies, and his neo-con con-men are not the people to do it.
NOW Bush wants to propose a plan to give the Iraqi people some way to make a living and re-build their country? Where was he three years ago? Oh yeah… that was when Halliburton got all the contracts, for ten times what qualified Iraqi civil engineers were willing to do it for and put their own people to work at the same time. No profit in that, is there, Dick. Who the hell is in charge of this clown-fest, anyway?
Anybody?
Bring home the troops. Now.
Jack Flackett, ex- Sgt.E5 USAR
Comment by Jack Flackett @ 1/9/2007 - 7:56 pm
“So Sister Toldjah - you have no facts or evidence, but it feels right to you that us liberals and Leftists want the US to lose.”
Yes, they do. When they want to cut and run, they don’t want us to win. This is not rocket science.
“Guess what? I think conservatives want to eat anchovies on their pizza because they’re gay.
Now, none of you would come out and SAY this…but I know what you’re thinking. And really you’re not fooling anyone. ”
What a stupid analogy. Reasonable conclusions can be drawn from how people act and what and how they say things. You have no reasonable basis whatsoever for your silly anchovies/gay analogy. I can’t believe you have the audacity to act like because someone hasn’t SAID something that they don’t believe it. I guess because Bush hasn’t ‘admitted’ he didn’t start the war because of oil that means he really didn’t, then, right? I look fwd to the end of that far left assertion promptly, going by your (il)logic.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 1/9/2007 - 7:57 pm
He didn’t even know that there were Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq as late as 2003.
Good point!! Unlike our new Dem intel chair who didn’t know anything about the group that slaughtered 3,000 Americans on 9/11.
LINK
Gosh I feel safe.
So Sister Toldjah - you have no facts or evidence, but it feels right to you that us liberals and Leftists want the US to lose.
Well, there’s that and the fact that liberals are doing exactly what Osama Bin Laden said America would do. Does it bother you to be part of Al Qaeda’s plan for victory???
“After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers.”-Osama Bin Laden
“But I plan to speak about the repeated errors your President Bush has committed in comments on the results of your polls that show an overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. But [Bush] has opposed this wish and said that withdrawing troops sends the wrong message to opponents …”-Osama Bin Laden
“I can reply to these errors by saying that war in Iraq is raging with no let up, and operations in Afghanistan are escalating in our favour, thank God, and Pentagon figures show the number of your dead and wounded is increasing not to mention the massive material losses …”-Osama bin Lade
Now, is it me, or do Osama’s quotes bear an uncanny resemblance to some of the posts of our visitors today?
Comment by NC Cop @ 1/9/2007 - 8:18 pm
Oh thats ok NC Lefty Democrats have a tendency of meeting with the enemy…
From John Kerry meeting with Syrian President:
or further back when he went to Paris…
Link
to “important Democrats”..
Link
When did it become normal process for Senators to meet with the enemy, to talk?
Don’t we have special envoys for that, and do they not need permissions to do that from either Congress or the President in such meetings where they are possibly getting or trying to get concessions?
What is the normal procedures for meeting with Nations or terrorist groups that the President has said we will not meet with?
Comment by sanity @ 1/9/2007 - 8:38 pm
Shame on you sanity!!!!!!