• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

The next time the wall street journal editorial board speaks the truth will be the first.

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

Republicans do not pay their debts.

You can’t love your country only when you win.

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. let’s win this.

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

That’s my take and I am available for criticism at this time.

This blog will pay for itself.

Thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.

If you are still in the GOP, you are an extremist.

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

We are aware of all internet traditions.

Take hopelessness and turn it into resilience.

American History and Black History Cannot Be Separated

It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.

I’m pretty sure there’s only one Jack Smith.

Ah, the different things are different argument.

Republicans choose power over democracy, every day.

I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.

In my day, never was longer.

“And when the Committee says to “report your income,” that could mean anything!

“woke” is the new caravan.

Nothing worth doing is easy.

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Republican Stupidity / Not My Party

Not My Party

by John Cole|  June 27, 20054:35 pm| 55 Comments

This post is in: Republican Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

Via Sullivan, this Santorum gem:

Like most American Catholics, I have followed the recent sex scandals in the Church with profound sympathy for victims, revulsion over priests who prey on minors and frustration at the absence of hierarchical leadership. Unlike most, I have been visited by the gift of hope; for I see in this fall an opportunity for ecclesial rebirth and a new evangelization of America. This “new evangelization,” advocated strenuously by Pope John Paul II, has the potential for restoring confidence in the priesthood while empowering all American Catholics.

The most obvious change must occur within American seminaries, many of which demonstrate the same brand of cultural liberalism plaguing our secular universities. My hope was rekindled last week as our American Cardinals proposed from Rome an “apostolic visitation” of seminaries emphasizing “the need for fidelity to the Church’s teaching, especially in the area of morality.” It is an arduous task. However, the Pope made it clear last week that he expects the strong appeal of the Cardinals to be followed by decisive Episcopal action.

It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning “private” moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.

Evil liberals, besides being traitors, are objectively pro-pedophilia. And you thought I was joking when I wrote this about Santorum stepping back from Rove’s smear:

Rove may not speak for him because he merely hinted liberals are traitors- Santorum might want to throw in ‘non-believing sodomites.’

These guys never cease to amaze me. At least they are predictable. More here.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « The Dobson Test
Next Post: Wasted Energy »

Reader Interactions

55Comments

  1. 1.

    Stormy70

    June 27, 2005 at 4:50 pm

    Sullivan is dead to me. If you post things found through Sullivan’s site, I treat it like you would treat me referring you to an article through Dobson’s site. Not pretty, but there it is. Ace of Spades does a great job taking on that quack-a-doodle-do, Sullivan.

  2. 2.

    John Cole

    June 27, 2005 at 4:55 pm

    Well- since you hate Sullivan, I guess Santorum didn’t say that stuff.

    I like Ace, too, and you could just as easily go through my archives and find as many things said about leftists. But the difference between me an Rove, is I was talking about the fringe left who needs to be beat down. Rove was pretty clearly (to me, at least) tarring all Democrats.

  3. 3.

    Rick

    June 27, 2005 at 5:00 pm

    Rove was pretty clearly (to me, at least) tarring all Democrats.

    John,

    In spite of you being P.O.’d today about something or other, you’ve actually cooled off/backed away. And, of course, much of the fun over the Rovian episode was the debate over whether his characterization was “tarring,” or just twitting the sensitive, sophisticated, encounter group nuance of the portsiders.

    Have we heard from Sens. Collins, Chaffee & Snow?

    Cordially…

  4. 4.

    Mike S

    June 27, 2005 at 5:02 pm

    Covington Diocese to pay $120 million

    Fund for sex abuse victims to settle class-action lawsuit

    By Frank E. Lockwood

    HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER

    The Covington Catholic Diocese has agreed to create a $120 million fund to compensate sex abuse victims, a move that would end a massive class-action lawsuit and rank as the costliest sex-abuse litigation settlement in the country.

    In a joint news release yesterday, Bishop Roger Foys and victims’ attorney Stan Chesley unveiled the deal. If the agreement is approved in Boone Circuit Court by Judge John Potter, victims would receive payments ranging from $5,000 to $450,000 each, minus attorneys’ fees, depending on the length and severity of the abuse. Money would also be set aside to provide counseling for scores of victims.

    snip

    The Covington diocese covers 14 counties and includes parishes stretching from Carroll County to Lewis County. More than 27,000 families are affiliated with the diocese.

    If the full $120 million is paid out, it will surpass the $100 million settlement by the Orange County (Calif.) diocese and the $85 million payout in Boston.

    snip

    A 2003 Covington Diocese study found that sex abuse was widespread over the past half-century and that 30 of 372 priests had probably abused children. Plaintiffs blame the diocese, accusing it of concealing the crimes and shielding abusers.

    The diocese has already spent millions to settle other claims, including $5.1 million that was paid to about 30 victims in the Lexington area. The Covington Diocese included Central and Eastern Kentucky until the Lexington diocese was created in 1988. Most of the abuse occurred in the 1950s and 1960s.

    In 2003, the Louisville Archdiocese reached a $25.7 million settlement with 243 victims.

      Yesterday, Bishop Foys offered a “profound apology” to those abused by diocesan priests — “especially to those who, in the past, were not treated with respect and courtesy when they came forth.”

    Link

    “After personally meeting with more than seventy victims, I am painfully aware that no amount of money can compensate for the harm these victims suffered as innocent children,” he said in a written statement. “Nevertheless, I pray that this settlement will bring some measure of peace and healing to victims and their loved ones.”

    I had no idea there were so many libruls in Kentucky.

    As an Ex-Catholic I’ll say that had the Church sounded anything like Bishop Foys I may still be a practicing Catholic. What happened was horrific and made worse by the cover ups and the way the Church has reacted ever since.

  5. 5.

    Stormy70

    June 27, 2005 at 5:08 pm

    Well, Rove mentioned Move On in the next sentence, and I took it to mean the liberals who were piping up with their,”Why do they hate us” Schtick.

    I wasn’t clear above, but Santorum has never been that bright a bulb to me. I have a very dim view of most Senators, of either party. I expect them to say stupid things on a daily basis. It is like saying water is wet, or Ted Kennedy is drunk. Why do you jump on Santorum, but find excuses for Durbin?

  6. 6.

    Rick

    June 27, 2005 at 5:22 pm

    Or just keep the mic open next to Pelosi or Byrd. {{{{{SHUDDER}}}}}

    Cordially…

  7. 7.

    mr stupid head

    June 27, 2005 at 5:22 pm

    I seem to remember signing the Moveon petition urging a measured response following 9/11, as I also remember wondering why the hijackers did what they did. I also supported the invasion of Afghanistan as it was clear the Taliban were harboring and financially supporting Al Qaeda. Still trying to figure out why the two responses are supposed to be mutually exclusive.

  8. 8.

    Sam Hutcheson

    June 27, 2005 at 5:30 pm

    Stormy says: Well, Rove mentioned Move On in the next sentence, and I took it to mean the liberals who were piping up with their,”Why do they hate us” Schtick.

    Maybe. But that doesn’t mean he wasn’t being Karl Rove, nonetheless. His next sentence:

    “Submitting a petition was precisely what Moveon.org, then known as 9-11peace.org did. You may have seen it in The New York Times or The Washington Post, the San Francisco Examiner or the L.A. Times.

    The obvious question is where, exactly, Rove gets the information that 9-11peace.org became MoveOn.org. It is my understanding that MoveOn.org was founded during the height and fallout of the Lewinsky scandal. “Move On” is the advice suggested for the partisans frothing to impeach, etc. As such, that organization in all likelihood long predates any 9-11peace.org.

    Perhaps, as MoveOn morphed into the juggernaut uber-site for web activism on the left, the (assumed) 9-11peace.org merged with MoveOn? Or perhaps it was simply another URL ran by the MoveOn collective? We don’t really know. At least, I don’t really know, and if all I have is Karl Rove’s word on the matter to suggest that the two are in fact one, color me far from convinced.

  9. 9.

    Sam Hutcheson

    June 27, 2005 at 5:36 pm

    Stormy says: Well, Rove mentioned Move On in the next sentence, and I took it to mean the liberals who were piping up with their,”Why do they hate us” Schtick.

    Maybe. But that doesn’t mean he wasn’t being Karl Rove, nonetheless. His next sentence:

    “Submitting a petition was precisely what Moveon.org, then known as 9-11peace.org did. You may have seen it in The New York Times or The Washington Post, the San Francisco Examiner or the L.A. Times.

    The obvious question is where, exactly, Rove gets the information that 9-11peace.org became MoveOn.org. It is my understanding that MoveOn.org was founded during the height and fallout of the Lewinsky scandal. “Move On” is the advice suggested for the partisans frothing to impeach, etc. As such, that organization in all likelihood long predates any 9-11peace.org.

    Perhaps, as MoveOn morphed into the juggernaut uber-site for web activism on the left, the (assumed) 9-11peace.org merged with MoveOn? Or perhaps it was simply another URL ran by the MoveOn collective? We don’t really know. At least, I don’t really know, and if all I have is Karl Rove’s word on the matter to suggest that the two are in fact one, color me far from convinced.

  10. 10.

    JPS

    June 27, 2005 at 5:37 pm

    Disgusting. The bolded part of Santorum’s statement is no different than someone who hates the U.S. military seizing on its worst abuse, gloating over it, then saying,”Well, what do you expect? They’re the military.”

    Who was the genius who on this site, some weeks ago, posted the Best Comment Anywhere, Ever?

    “In Santorum’s defense, he is really, really stupid.”

  11. 11.

    JPS

    June 27, 2005 at 5:41 pm

    On further thought, my analogy really doesn’t work. The failure to make distinctions, and the willingness to slander a large mass of people to score rhetorical points (or to try), is what I was comparing. Sorry. Should think more carefully when pissed off, rather than type in haste.

  12. 12.

    ppgaz

    June 27, 2005 at 5:54 pm

    JPS, please don’t start a trend. I only reach a state of High Dudgeon once or twice a week, as it is. Take pity on an old man.

  13. 13.

    Tim F

    June 27, 2005 at 5:56 pm

    where, exactly, Rove gets the information that 9-11peace.org became MoveOn.org.

    In government circles that’s known as, ‘making shit up.’

  14. 14.

    Tim F

    June 27, 2005 at 6:01 pm

    Why do you jump on Santorum, but find excuses for Durbin?

    When I say ‘unreachable,’ this is what I mean.

  15. 15.

    Pug

    June 27, 2005 at 6:01 pm

    The obvious question is where, exactly, Rove gets the information that 9-11peace.org became MoveOn.org. It is my understanding that MoveOn.org was founded during the height and fallout of the Lewinsky scandal. “Move On” is the advice suggested for the partisans frothing to impeach, etc

    That was my understanding also and I think you are right. MoveOn.org was around before 9-11. Maybe this other website was somehow affiliated with MoveOn, but I’d never heard of it.

    Santorum and Rove and the guys must have a whole list of things liberals endorse. I know terrorism and child molesting are two things liberals support enthusiastically.

    I especially like the “Republicans prepared for war” part. How? They all rushed out and bought yellow ribbons to put on the back of their SUV’s? Karl makes ’em sound like a bunch of badass mofos (hat tip to Rick Perry) who immediately took steps to mobilize to personally fight the enemy.

    Hell, even Karl probably laughs at the thought of Karl in a uniform toting a gun. That’s almost as laughable as Jenna and Barbara joining the Marines. Or George P. in the real 101st Airborne. You know, Jimi Hendrix’ old outfit.

  16. 16.

    ppgaz

    June 27, 2005 at 6:04 pm

    I especially like the “Republicans prepared for war” part. How? They all rushed out and bought yellow ribbons to put on the back of their SUV’s?

    My favorite line of the day, by far.

  17. 17.

    CalDevil

    June 27, 2005 at 6:55 pm

    Don’t really want to rehash Rove in a thread that should rightfully be devoted to the idiocy and misguided hate that are Santorum’s slander, but want to clear up the confusion about MoveOn and 9-11Peace.

    This article from Mother Jones indicates that the now infamous “moderation & restraint” petition originated with 9-11peace.org, but was then adopted by MoveOn via its founder Wes Boyd.

    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1329/is_3_28/ai_100879480

    Relevant text:

    “So in the immediate aftermath of September 11, when he wanted to protest the president’s demand for vengeance, Pariser created an online petition, 9-11peace.org, which urged “moderation and restraint.” In what would prove a powerful lesson in online organizing, Pariser emailed the link to 30 friends. They did likewise, and so did their friends. “A few days later I got a call saying the site was crashing because too many people were logging on,” Pariser recalls. Within two weeks, more than half a million people had signed the petition, and Pariser was fielding calls from the BBC and the South China Morning Post.

    He also heard from Wes Boyd, the founder of MoveOn. Boyd’s Internet activist group had gotten its start during the Monica Lewinsky scandal–calling on Congress to censure the president and “move on”–and had since thrown its weight behind progressive candidates. A former software exec who made a small fortune off flying-toaster screensavers, Boyd offered Pariser both tactical and financial support. “Eli was in the same place as we were when we got started,” he says. “We got in touch and said, `Can we help?'”

    The two soon merged their websites.”

    By the way, did I mention how ridiculously stupid Santorum’s statement is?

  18. 18.

    Stormy70

    June 27, 2005 at 7:02 pm

    I guess if you are not in the military, then you can have no opinion on the war? Last I checked, this is not a military dictatorship, and America is run by a civilian government. Let’s ask the troops if they prefer people showing their support with magnets, or do they prefer the anti-war lefties, who accuse our troops of torturing the poor, misunderstood terrorist. Your arguments are bankrupt if you have to resort to the old “chickenhawk” argument. Instead you slander people who put magnets on their cars, and I bet you drive around sneering at them. How do you know that the owner of the SUV with the magnet doesn’t have a relative in the military. The military knows which party supports them, and which party is full of left wing loons that despise them.
    For example.

    Popular anti-Bush (but pro-forces) site bartcop.com used to run a prominent daily body count of US troops killed in Iraq. It

  19. 19.

    Jess

    June 27, 2005 at 7:22 pm

    Hey Stormy-
    While you’re doing a poll of the troops, why not ask them how they feel about their lack of proper equipment (body-armor, etc.) and difficulties getting sufficient medical benefits? And if you’re so determined to support our troups, what are you doing about this problem? Are you supporting our troops if you don’t speak up about this situation? Are you a traitor if you do? Criticizing how this war is being managed is a far cry from “despising” the troops or hating America.

  20. 20.

    Jess

    June 27, 2005 at 7:23 pm

    Hey Stormy-
    While you’re doing a poll of the troops, why not ask them how they feel about their lack of proper equipment (body-armor, etc.) and difficulties getting sufficient medical benefits? And if you’re so determined to support our troups, what are you doing about this problem? Are you supporting our troops if you don’t speak up about this situation? Are you a traitor if you do? Criticizing how this war is being managed is a far cry from “despising” the troops or hating America.

  21. 21.

    albedo

    June 27, 2005 at 7:27 pm

    “The military knows which party supports them, and which party is full of left wing loons that despise them.”

    If, by support, you mean send them to an optional war under false pretenses with no viable exit/occupational strategy, then absolutely, I’m sure they do know. Those stickers do spruce up the old Hummer, though…

  22. 22.

    hadenoughofthisyet

    June 27, 2005 at 7:27 pm

    Since feedback tells me a clear majority of bartcop.com readers believe our soldiers are

  23. 23.

    Stormy70

    June 27, 2005 at 8:47 pm

    I’m just saying you don’t know what those people with the magnets on their car are actually doing to support the troops, but you make fun of them. I can opine on the war and support the war without having to justify myself to the likes of the “chickenhawk” criers. Have you ever worn an Aids Awareness ribbon? But unless you have Aids, then how dare you wear the ribbon. It’s a lameass argument, period. I don’t have to give you my military bonifides to make an argument in support of the war, and I will not. Then that means I can’t critisize the government unless I run for office or I’m a hypocrite. See, dumb arguing technique. One can be against the war, and we will debate it back and forth in a quasi-reasonable manor (hi ppqaz, my beer drinking buddy!), but don’t throw that “chickenhawk” type argument around. I want to like you left types, really, I do.

  24. 24.

    Sam Hutcheson

    June 27, 2005 at 9:02 pm

    By the way, did I mention how ridiculously stupid Santorum’s statement is?

    I find pointing out the obvious about Santorum to be tedious at this point. I mean, there just aren’t that many to say “Rick Santorum is an idiot, and evil, evil idiot, and anyone who supports him is a mindless poopy head.”

    Thanks for the clarification on the 9-11peace/MoveOn connection. I can trust Mother Jones, more or less. Less than 100%, much more than Karl Rove.

  25. 25.

    albedo

    June 27, 2005 at 9:11 pm

    “Have you ever worn an Aids Awareness ribbon? But unless you have Aids, then how dare you wear the ribbon. It’s a lameass argument, period. I don’t have to give you my military bonifides to make an argument in support of the war, and I will not. Then that means I can’t critisize the government unless I run for office or I’m a hypocrite. See, dumb arguing technique.”

    The difference being, there’s not a shortage of people with AIDS, and if there were, it would be a good thing. 25 perecent recruiting shortfall, troop shortages, etc. I think it’s fair to point out to vocal hawks, that, you know, there might be something a little chicken about cheerleading an (undermanned) war they refuse to participate in.

  26. 26.

    brenda

    June 27, 2005 at 9:15 pm

    Santorum

  27. 27.

    Katherine

    June 27, 2005 at 9:19 pm

    that quote is two or three years old…funny that it’s getting noticed now instead of during the original man-on-dog controversy. But yes, pretty disgusting.

    I don’t think he’s getting reelected.

  28. 28.

    Stormy70

    June 27, 2005 at 10:39 pm

    The war is not undermanned, and they dropped the troop levels since January. Recruitment is down in the guard, but the active duty guys are reupping. But latch onto a specious argument about recruitment, instead of listening to the Generals who just told Congress that troop levels were fine in Iraq. How do you know what level of participation one has in the war? That kind of rhetoric tells me you don’t know what you are talking about. Typical of a leftist, you know jack about actual military matters. Why would anyone take what you say seriously?

  29. 29.

    Sojourner

    June 27, 2005 at 10:43 pm

    Uh, Stormy, did you have too many beers over the weekend?

    If the war is not understaffed, why are there so many parts of Iraq where it is not safe to go?

    I’ll believe there is no staffing problem when it’s possible for reporters to actually move around in Iraq.

  30. 30.

    Stormy70

    June 27, 2005 at 10:53 pm

    Reporters are pansies. They hang around one hotel in Baghdad, and I’m supposed to believe they know what the hell is happening in the rest of Iraq? No way! I can read the many blogs being written by the Iraqis or the soldiers and marines themselves. There are four provinces with an active insurgency, out of fourteen provinces. The reporters only want the news that bleeds, because they are mostly against the war. No way do I trust hotel reporters who are ignorant and afraid to go out to the rest of the country. Sorry, I’d rather get my reporting from an Austin Bay who knows what the hell he’s talking about. The hotel reporters can go back to their cocktail parties and reporting on the next celebrity trial. They certainly don’t know the first thing about war reporting. I read the embedded reporters because they have the balls to get out with the troops and report on battle specifics, not whine about car bombs specifically set off around their hotel.

  31. 31.

    Sojourner

    June 27, 2005 at 10:58 pm

    And how many reporters have died in Iraq?

    Stormy, you are absolutely shameless.

  32. 32.

    Stormy70

    June 27, 2005 at 11:06 pm

    Why? Because I don’t think reporters holed up in a hotel know what is happening in a country the size of Cailfornia? Those reporters can’t ask to be embedded with the troops in other parts of the country? War reporting is dangerous. War reporters are worthy of respect and are extremely brave. Reporters sitting around the hotel in Baghdad paying for info from some anonymous Iraqi source, are not on the level of an actual war reporter. There are great stories going on around the country that are not reported because reporters are not doing their jobs.

  33. 33.

    Sojourner

    June 27, 2005 at 11:30 pm

    Tough words from a girl who calls people pansies who live with death threats while sitting on her ass in front of a computer.

  34. 34.

    albedo

    June 27, 2005 at 11:37 pm

    “The war is not undermanned, and they dropped the troop levels since January. Recruitment is down in the guard, but the active duty guys are reupping. But latch onto a specious argument about recruitment, instead of listening to the Generals who just told Congress that troop levels were fine in Iraq.”

    Hmmm. Okay, I’ve got one:

    WaPo
    The former U.S. official who governed Iraq after the invasion said yesterday that the United States made two major mistakes: not deploying enough troops in Iraq and then not containing the violence and looting immediately after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

    Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, administrator for the U.S.-led occupation government until the handover of political power on June 28, said he still supports the decision to intervene in Iraq but said a lack of adequate forces hampered the occupation and efforts to end the looting early on.
    “We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness,” he said yesterday in a speech at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. “We never had enough troops on the ground.”

    I could dig around and find fifty thousand more that back this up, but since you haven’t done me the courtesy of attributing word one, I think I’ll leave it there. It’s common knowledge that the war has been generally undermanned from the get-go. But I guess I’ll just take your expert word for it.

    “Typical of a leftist, you know jack about actual military matters. Why would anyone take what you say seriously?”

    You’re right. Democrats have never participated or won any
    wars, right? Anyway, how can you take someone who doesn’t have a giant W sticker on the back of their Canyonero seriously?

  35. 35.

    ARROW

    June 28, 2005 at 1:03 am

    “It’s common knowledge that the war has been generally undermanned from the get-go. But I guess I’ll just take your expert word for it.”

    If you won’t take Stormy70’s word, how about taking the word of the generals in charge of the war. I can get all kinds of quotes from has-beens, and never-will-bes, saying that Iraq was not staffed or planned correctly. None of these “testimonials” mean dick.

    The people in charge are getting what they say they need! At least that the testimony that they recently gave to Congress. You’ve been listening too much to Swimmin’ Ted “it’s a quagmire” Kennedy. He hasn’t even been to Iraq… 57 other Senators have. However, if want to know a good Scotch, I’m sure the he could be of assistance.

  36. 36.

    Mike S

    June 28, 2005 at 1:37 am

    From the liberal pansy Tacitus.

    Ridiculous. It is completely accurate. To say that “the argument that we needed more troops on the ground has some merit” is like saying that Barbarossa was a strategic misstep: it’s a euphemism for the cardinal mistake (in this case, coupled with a lack of meaningful postwar planning) of the war. Incompetence has been the very hallmark of the war’s political and strategic (as opposed to operational and tactical, which has been oft-brilliant) execution.

    I won’t tell you I’m unbiased: I have friends who are telling me what it’s like there, and what they are having to face. My friend Kim Hampton, an only daughter, was shot down and killed over Fallujah, in no small part because the strategic decision was then in effect to allow that wretched town to be an insurgent haven. My OBC commander Eric Paliwoda is dead of shrapnel to the heart, because there wasn’t manpower around Baqubah to run enough patrols to keep the mortar teams away.

    I always love the way the apoligists and happy talkers bring up the “generals say there are enough troops” line. As if the generals have much of a choice in the matter. President Bush and Rumsfld say there are enough troops and no general is going to dispute them. But since it’s obvious to anyone watching what’s been happening the happy talkers fall right in line and defend them to the end.

    But the truth keeps coming out.

    Not Enough Troops To Hold Ground
    Charlotte Observer
    June 3, 2005

    U.S. Army officers in the deserts of northwest Iraq, near the Syrian border, say they don’t have enough troops to hold the ground they take from insurgents in this transit point for weapons, money and foreign fighters.

    From October to the end of April, there were about 400 soldiers from the 25th Infantry Division patrolling the northwest region, which covers about 10,000 square miles.

    “Resources are everything in combat … there’s no way 400 people can cover that much ground,” said Maj. John Wilwerding, of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which is responsible for the northwest tract that includes Tal Afar.

    snip

    “There’s simply not enough forces here,” said a high-ranking U.S. Army officer with knowledge of the 3rd ACR. “There are not enough to do anything right; everybody’s got their finger in a dike.” The officer spoke on the condition of anonymity because of concern that he’d be reprimanded for questioning American military policy in Iraq.

    link

    Now why would this officer be worried? You can use all the happy talk you want but when you get right down to it you are being dishonest. Supporting the troops requires honesty. Not happy talk.

  37. 37.

    stickler

    June 28, 2005 at 1:42 am

    Arrow wrote this, though hard to say with a straight face:

    The people in charge are getting what they say they need!

    Yeah, the generals in DC sure have a habit of hewing the party line, don’t they. While guys on the ground — and obvious facts like the total lack of security in the capital — say otherwise.

    What might have happened to cause this behavior? You might ask General Shinseki about that. He was bracingly honest in 2002 about the troop level requirements for postwar Iraq. He told the Congress what he thought would be needed. He was humiliated and fired by Rumsfeld.

    Message received.

  38. 38.

    ARROW

    June 28, 2005 at 1:50 am

    Nothing you have posted changes the fact that the generals om the ground in Iraq, and in charge, have said they have the troop levels they need. You can quote all the commentators you want, and it still won’t change that FACT.

    General Shinseki was never in charge of the current Iraq war.

  39. 39.

    Mike S

    June 28, 2005 at 2:00 am

    Capitalizing FACT only makes them saying it a FACT. But keep up the happy talk. That’s about all you’ve got left.

  40. 40.

    stickler

    June 28, 2005 at 2:06 am

    Oh, Arrow, your enthusiasm is admirable but your comprehension leaves something to be desired.

    General Shinseki was never in charge of the current Iraq war.

    Yeah, that’s true. And I’m typing very slowly here so you can keep up: he wasn’t put in charge of the “current Iraq war” because

    A) He defied Rumsfeld and Bush and told the truth: we’d need a hell of a lot more men than Rumsfeld had promised.

    and

    B) Even if Shinseki had publicly defied common sense and his own professional integrity to agree with the neocons, the President is Commander in Chief and is, therefore, in charge of “the current Iraq war.”

    The FACT you ought to pay attention to is not the wind generated by diddling factotums in Washington DC — even if they’re wearing lots of pretty medals. No, the fact you should pay attention to is the cost of a taxi ride from the Green Zone to Baghdad International Airport. When that dips down below $5000 each way, you’ll know we’ve made some progress.

    You know, you could actually travel to Baghdad and find out firsthand. Let us know what things are like, won’t you?

  41. 41.

    Stormy70

    June 28, 2005 at 5:55 am

    Tough words from a girl who calls people pansies who live with death threats while sitting on her ass in front of a computer.

    Is that supposed to be your argument? I explained why I don’t trust reporters who can’t leave their hotels to report accurately on the situation in the entire country. Funny how some of you guys replace an argument with this:

    You know, you could actually travel to Baghdad and find out firsthand. Let us know what things are like, won’t you?

  42. 42.

    Stormy70

    June 28, 2005 at 6:14 am

    I know you guys like polls, so here’s one:

    Despite growing criticism of the administration’s performance, nearly 60 percent of those polled said they believe U.S. forces should remain in place until civil order is restored in Iraq.

    Fifty-two percent said they think the war has contributed to the long-term security of the United States, up five points from early June.

  43. 43.

    Sojourner

    June 28, 2005 at 8:00 am

    Reporters can’t leave their hotels in Iraq because of a reasonable fear that they will be shot or beheaded. Ask Danny Pearl. And you wonder about the state of the war in Iraq? And call them pussies? I love your sense of entitlement. You demand that they travel around and risk getting killed so you can trust what they are telling you. All demanded from the safety of your home.

    As to your poll, it’s no surprise that people feel we need to stay – Colin Powell’s you break it, you own it. As to the second number, that contradicts several other polls claiming that the war was a mistake.

  44. 44.

    Stormy70

    June 28, 2005 at 8:11 am

    The poll is current, and read this site for some real war reporting. Yes, it is dangerous, so why did the networks send reporters who usually cover celebrity trials, and missing people to a cover a war? And why would I want ananlysis from liberal reporters, who are against the war to begin with, and who don’t know the first thing about military history? Those reporters can embed with the military, and find out what is happening in the rest of the country, just like the real War reporters are doing. But they might not get their daily latte.

    Danny Pearl was a brave reporter following Al Qeda’s trail in Pakistan. I have the utmost respect for him. Hell, Charlie Daniels has seen more of Iraq, than some hotel reporters.

  45. 45.

    Sam Hutcheson

    June 28, 2005 at 8:27 am

    Stormy: The poll is current, and read this site for some real war reporting. Yes, it is dangerous, so why did the networks send reporters who usually cover celebrity trials, and missing people to a cover a war?

    Perhaps because there aren’t a lot of veteran journalists of WWII hanging around the office? You go to war with the reporting staff you have and all that…

  46. 46.

    Sojourner

    June 28, 2005 at 8:31 am

    Reports from a few soldiers and an occasional embedded reporter hardly gives us an understanding of what’s going on in Iraq. It may tell us what the military are doing but it tells us nothing about the Iraqis and what they’re up to. Remember, there’s at least two parties in this war as well as a bunch of civilians. Hearing from one side does not qualify as comprehensive coverage of the war.

    I have no idea what you mean about celebrity reporters covering the war. They’re not the ones over there. Your biases have little to do with reality.

    The bottom line is you just want to hear the Bush party line on the war. You’re not interested in a balanced view. Hence your reliance on just the military’s perspective. It’s that narrow mindedness that got us in this disastrous war to start with.

    Your comment about Charlie Daniels is simply ignorant.

  47. 47.

    Stormy70

    June 28, 2005 at 8:33 am

    You go to war with the reporting staff you have and all that…

    Hah! Good one. On that note, I have to leave for work.

  48. 48.

    Geek, Esq.

    June 28, 2005 at 9:08 am

    Shouldn’t John Kerry challenge him to a duel or something?

  49. 49.

    Uncle Kvetch

    June 28, 2005 at 9:21 am

    “So in the immediate aftermath of September 11, when he wanted to protest the president’s demand for vengeance, Pariser created an online petition, 9-11peace.org, which urged “moderation and restraint.”

    Disgusting. They should be ashamed. Moderation and restraint have no place in American foreign policy.

    Good thing the administration rejected this call and stuck with true American values: bloodlust, massive tax cuts, and an avalanche of fear-mongering bullshit designed to dupe the people into an unrelated war. The results speak for themselves! Imagine the shit we’d be in if we’d exercised moderation and restraint instead!

  50. 50.

    albedo

    June 28, 2005 at 12:54 pm

    “If you won’t take Stormy70’s word, how about taking the word of the generals in charge of the war.”

    Well, since they’re completely beholden to the administration and toe the line for fear of reprisals (see Gen. Shinseki), no thanks. I’ll stick with what common sense and word from the ground tell me, that the troop numbers were not adequate going in, and remain inadequate. The sheer fact that the insurgency rages on tells me, ipso facto, we don’t have enough of a troop presence on the ground. If we did, wouldn’t the insurgency have been handled by now? Oh, I forgot, it’s in its last throes or something.

    “I can get all kinds of quotes from has-beens, and never-will-bes, saying that Iraq was not staffed or planned correctly. None of these “testimonials” mean dick.”

    Indeed there are a mountain of testimonials from “has beens” (like Paul Bremer – what a loser) saying Iraq was bungled. It may pay to examine why they’re no longer involved over there. Largely because they either couldn’t stand being part of the bungling any more, or they were excused by the administration for rank competence. BTW, if it suited your fancy, you could get plenty of quotes from servicemen still involved who claim they’re undermanned. (To say nothing of under-body-armored and under-insured). But I guess they wouldn’t mean dick, since they don’t agree with you, right? Agreement with you being the current gold standard in dick-meaning.

    “The people in charge are getting what they say they need! ”

    No doubt. It’s the fighting men and women on the ground that have been screwed at every possible turn.

  51. 51.

    ARROW

    June 28, 2005 at 3:50 pm

    “No doubt. It’s the fighting men and women on the ground that have been screwed at every possible turn. ”

    How would you know??? That aside, keep up the unhappy talk and spin away my friend!

  52. 52.

    albedo

    June 28, 2005 at 4:38 pm

    From the extremely liberal Army Times. But, yeah, I’m just spinning. Plenty of body armor, insurance, and benefits to go around.

  53. 53.

    albedo

    June 28, 2005 at 4:39 pm

    Supposed to be a link there.

    http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292259-1989240.php

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Sadly, No! says:
    June 27, 2005 at 4:41 pm

    Boston, You’re My (Sodomite, Decadent, Leftist) Home!

    Senator Man-on-Dog Sex trashes my home town (via CapitolBuzz): Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no…

  2. Catch says:
    June 27, 2005 at 7:22 pm

    They’re must be some depraved reason they call it Beantown

    Via the extremely prescient John Cole of Balloon Juice, we find this mind-boggling quote from Rick Santorum regarding the Catholic priest pedophilia scandal:

    It is startling that those in the media

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Kathleen on People Are Highly Overrated (May 28, 2023 @ 12:13pm)
  • Frankensteinbeck on Sunday Morning Open Thread: The (Debt Limit) Beat Goes On (May 28, 2023 @ 12:05pm)
  • Another Scott on Sunday Morning Open Thread: The (Debt Limit) Beat Goes On (May 28, 2023 @ 12:04pm)
  • realbtl on People Are Highly Overrated (May 28, 2023 @ 12:03pm)
  • YY_Sima Qian on Sunday Morning Open Thread: The (Debt Limit) Beat Goes On (May 28, 2023 @ 12:02pm)

Balloon Juice Meetups!

All Meetups
Seattle Meetup on Sat 5/13 at 5pm!

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!