• 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.

People really shouldn’t expect the government to help after they watched the GOP drown it in a bathtub.

“Jesus paying for the sins of everyone is an insult to those who paid for their own sins.”

The arc of history bends toward the same old fuckery.

the 10% who apparently lack object permanence

Of course you can have champagne before noon. That’s why orange juice was invented.

Trump’s cabinet: like a magic 8 ball that only gives wrong answers.

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

My years-long effort to drive family and friends away has really paid off this year.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

There is no compromise when it comes to body autonomy. You either have it or you do not.

You passed on an opportunity to be offended? What are you even doing here?

Second rate reporter says what?

Do not shrug your shoulders and accept the normalization of untruths.

I am pretty sure these ‘journalists’ were not always such a bootlicking sycophants.

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

Republicans in disarray!

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

The worst democrat is better than the best republican.

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

“Just close your eyes and kiss the girl and go where the tilt-a-whirl takes you.” ~OzarkHillbilly

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

We know you aren’t a Democrat but since you seem confused let me help you.

People are weird.

This fight is for everything.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / And While I Am In A Ranting Mood

And While I Am In A Ranting Mood

by John Cole|  February 15, 20075:51 pm| 85 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

If I hear one more Democrat or Democratic talking head (as I am right now on Hardball) utter some variation of the following, I am going to blow my gasket:

The reason we support the non-binding resolution is because the voters sent a clear message…

Steve McMahon, some strategist for the Democrats, just said this a few times, and I almost threw my remote at the television. In short, Steve (and the rest of you), NO NO NO NO NO!

The reason to support the non-binding resolution is to do anything you can without cutting off funding to get this President to seriously confront the problem in Iraq. The reason to support the resolution is because this administration didn’t even listen to the people who came up with the idea and are now half-ass implementing it. The reason to support the resolution is to acknowledge that right now, with this President and this administration, we are probably doing little more than throwing more good lives down the drain.

Not because the voters sent a clear message. Hell, we are idiots. Some of us voted for Bush. Twice. We liked the Macarena and watch Tom Cruise movies and bought Pet Rocks and eat too much fatty foods and don’t work out enough and so on. We, collectively*, don’t know what the hell we are talking about or what is good for us.

You support the resolution because it is the right thing to do to try to get this administration to honestly change course in Iraq. Not because the morons (myself included), sent a clear message.

* I do, however, think individuals do, for the most part, know what is best for them.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « I’ve Been Abducted By Aliens
Next Post: The Stakes Have Been Raised »

Reader Interactions

85Comments

  1. 1.

    jg

    February 15, 2007 at 5:55 pm

    The reaon to support the non-binding resolution is because its in the country’s best interests.

  2. 2.

    dreggas

    February 15, 2007 at 5:56 pm

    Not because the voters sent a clear message. Hell, we are idiots. Some of us voted for Bush. Twice. We liked the Macarena and watch Tom Cruise movies and bought Pet Rocks and eat too much fatty foods and don’t work out enough and so on. We, collectively, don’t know what the hell we are talking about or what is good for us.

    John I agree wholeheartedly with the entire post up until this part at which point I was laughing my ass off because it’s people like this I hear opposing this resolution on the house floor and realizing just how many people it took to send them there…

    Oh and uh, I hate the Macarena and Tom Cruise.

  3. 3.

    Andrei

    February 15, 2007 at 6:01 pm

    10 out of 10.

    Fuck that.

    20 out of 10.

  4. 4.

    Bubblegum Tate

    February 15, 2007 at 6:05 pm

    There’s a dictum you should never forget, John:

    “A person is not stupid; people are stupid”

  5. 5.

    numbskull

    February 15, 2007 at 6:08 pm

    John,

    I think you’re nitpicking a little here. Regardless, I don’t agree with your argument. I think that it is important that politicians listen to the electorate. To give up on that idea is to agree with Leo Strauss, to hold that only a few wise men should know the truth and that they should be allowed to do whatever they see fit to save us from ourselves. Of course, we elect people to lead, and sometimes that means doing unpopular things. It’s a balance, one that Cheney and puppet don’t acknowledge.

    Also, on a pragmatic level, the message that is being astroturfed by the Democrats is one that will serve to further politically isolate Cheney and the puppet. If enough Republicans perceive that isolation, they hopefully will find the “courage” to finally curb the Administration.

    So, while they may believe all the things you say they should be saying, they may be saying what they are saying to get us where we need to be: enough Rs crossing over to finally force the WH to deal with reality.

    Hey, I guess they’re leading, and they’re doing it in a way that is unpopular with you! ;)

  6. 6.

    Zifnab

    February 15, 2007 at 6:09 pm

    Jay: Why the big secret? People are smart, they can handle it.
    Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.

    I think that’s what you were going for, Bubblegum.

  7. 7.

    numbskull

    February 15, 2007 at 6:13 pm

    John’s last line is:

    I do, however, think individuals do, for the most part, know what is best for them.

    Hey, no fair! Did you put that last line up while I was nitpicking your nitpicking? Sorry if I missed it.

  8. 8.

    Bubblegum Tate

    February 15, 2007 at 6:14 pm

    I think that’s what you were going for, Bubblegum.

    Probably. I was initially given that pearl of wisdom by a record store owner last year, and I’ve loved it ever since.

  9. 9.

    John Cole

    February 15, 2007 at 6:15 pm

    Actually, looking at the timestamps, I was probably putting it up as you were commenting.

  10. 10.

    Jake

    February 15, 2007 at 6:40 pm

    We, collectively*, don’t know what the hell we are talking about or what is good for us.

    Bravo!

    If we (as a people) take any lesson from the past six years it’s that we don’t want “just plain folks” running the show. I don’t care if Candidate X is a “down home type” or “stiff,” or what colours he wears. I expect him to be smarter than me (sorry to set the bar so high but there it is) and possess such traits as empathy, honesty and impulse control. But for some reason we’re now supposed to vote for people based on the fact we could imagine having a beer with them and equate outward displays of intelligence with elitism.

    C.S. Lewis was right I tell ya!

  11. 11.

    The Other Steve

    February 15, 2007 at 7:02 pm

    Most Democratic strategists are morons.

    But then again, they’re still smarter than the Republican strategists who try to ignore reality.

  12. 12.

    RLaing

    February 15, 2007 at 7:11 pm

    That bit about people knowing what’s best for them raises some interesting philosophical points.

    Hitler said that about a third of the people were simply too stupid to know their own best interests, whilst speaking of those, indifferent to world affairs, who had to be goaded into war by their leaders. Hindsight shows that the real idiots may have been his followers instead, and perhaps the man himself, who after all died of suicide much earlier than would otherwise have been the case.

    This is with hindsight. History could have taken other paths. Germany might have got themselves the A bomb first. Germany probably would have beaten the Russians, if the latter hadn’t received so much material support from the West. They could have wound up with this big badass empire built on Eastern slave labor and raw materials, in which case the doubters would have been the idiots.

    I think any society maintains a certain quantity of the credulous (to use a charitable term) so as to act as the teeth and claws of the nation when the demand or opportunity for aggression pops up.

    Also, if we’re going to be honest, I think we have to recognize that propaganda, or advertising if you like, has genuine power to alter the public ‘mind’, raising real doubts as to what, if anything, ‘most people’ would think if left to themselves.

  13. 13.

    Darrell

    February 15, 2007 at 7:15 pm

    You support the resolution because it is the right thing to do to try to get this administration to honestly change course in Iraq.

    The resolution is pure political drama. Politicians posturing, safe in the knowledge that all their stern talk is “non-binding”.

  14. 14.

    grumpy realist

    February 15, 2007 at 7:23 pm

    Your problem, John, is that you assumed, like any intelligent adult human, that competence was taken as a given prerequisite for filling Bush’s cabinet.

    Bush has never had to be competent in his life, nor has he ever suffered anything from being incompetent. Therefore, he surrounded himself with people who told him what he wanted to hear, ignoring whether they were competent or not.

    The result is the present mess.

    I think I’ll add another aphorism to my list of Aphorisms to Live By: “Stupidity should hurt. So should incompetence.”

  15. 15.

    Darrell

    February 15, 2007 at 7:28 pm

    We liked the Macarena and watch Tom Cruise movies and bought Pet Rocks and eat too much fatty foods and don’t work out enough and so on

    John, why don’t you nonbindingly resolve to eat less fatty foods and to work out more often?

  16. 16.

    RLaing

    February 15, 2007 at 7:34 pm

    The obvious ambition for the Democrat party here is take the place of the Repub party as the darlings of the corporate world, and pick up the cash now being doled out to the ‘other’ side. Hillary ‘Wal-Mart’ Clinton already got herself half a billion bucks to buy the presidency with, and a chimp bought the office for less, if I recall.

    It’s not the politicians who are being ‘stupid’ or ‘incompentent’ here–take a look in the mirror if you want to see a real gang of chumps.

  17. 17.

    Darrell

    February 15, 2007 at 7:42 pm

    Bush has never had to be competent in his life, nor has he ever suffered anything from being incompetent. Therefore, he surrounded himself with people who told him what he wanted to hear, ignoring whether they were competent or not.

    Oh brother, nothing but recycled leftwingnut talking points. If Bush wanted to surround himself with yes-men, then why did he pick Colin Powell?

    Bush has made some mistakes, but the real problem in Iraq is not with George Bush’s competency, but with too many Iraqis who would rather blow up women in markets and buses than to build a free democratic society. Petraeus says he thinks a surge will work and wants to give it a shot to root out bad guys and secure the streets. Given our committment in Iraq and Petraeus’ reputation, I think he should be given that opportunity.. and our elected CiC agrees. There’s no upside with the non-binding resolution.

  18. 18.

    Joathan

    February 15, 2007 at 7:47 pm

    One way or another, any government which remains in power is a representative government. If your city government is a crooked machine, then it is because you and your neighbors prefer it that way — prefer it to the effort of running your own affairs. Hitler’s government was a popular government; the vast majority of Germans preferred the rule of gangsters to the effort of thinking and doing for themselves. They abdicated their franchise.

    –Robert A Heinlein

  19. 19.

    RLaing

    February 15, 2007 at 7:51 pm

    Thanks for the recycled rightwingnut talking points Darrell.

  20. 20.

    Andrew

    February 15, 2007 at 7:58 pm

    If Bush wanted to surround himself with yes-men, then why did he pick Colin Powell?

    Because Colin Powell is a dishonorable yes-man.

    This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

  21. 21.

    The Other Andrew

    February 15, 2007 at 8:06 pm

    Darrell–if the surge doesn’t work, do you think Bush should be given any more chances? Just curious.

  22. 22.

    Darrell

    February 15, 2007 at 8:19 pm

    The Other Andrew Says:

    Darrell—if the surge doesn’t work, do you think Bush should be given any more chances? Just curious.

    First of all, he’s the elected Commander in Chief of our military, so he’s already been “given” that power by voters. By agreeing to move forward with this surge, he is asserting his constitutional powers as President.

    If we don’t see any signs of improving stability in Iraq after Petraeus is given his chance, we probably ought to acknowledge that the Iraqis just aren’t able or willing to take the opportunity given to them. There may be too many Iraqis whose culture is too broken. Or not. We’ll see

  23. 23.

    Richard 23

    February 15, 2007 at 8:19 pm

    The reaon to support the non-binding resolution is because its in the country’s best interests.

    Yeah, undercutting the troops in a time of war and emboldening the terrorist enemy is in the country’s best interests. What a great “reaon.” More deep thinking from the ‘reality-based’ community. By all means keep screaming “truth to power” so the country knows how far out the wackjob left really is.

    Oh brother, nothing but recycled leftwingnut talking points.

    That’s what constitutes ‘deep thinking’ on the left. But you already knew that.

    Bush has made some mistakes

    No he hasn’t. Care to back that up?

  24. 24.

    Darrell

    February 15, 2007 at 8:20 pm

    Richard23 = tBone. What do I win?

  25. 25.

    rachel

    February 15, 2007 at 8:31 pm

    I think I’ll add another aphorism to my list of Aphorisms to Live By: “Stupidity should hurt. So should incompetence.”

    Stupidity does hurt; it just doesn’t necessarily hurt the stupid people. This is the sad story of the human race.

  26. 26.

    fabulinus

    February 15, 2007 at 8:44 pm

    I like how the Dem’s BARELY win both houses (razor thin margins, really) then with a public approval rating of 30% on their handling of Iraq, the Democrats, who promised a plan to WIN in Iraq, have not offered a single counterplan except pull-out… and they have the gall to act like they have a mandate from the people.

    The Dem’s “symbolic resolution” has a 51% approval rating compared to 46% disapproval rating. With the nation CLEARLY divided on this issue, the Dems talk as if this resolution is what Americans “clearly” want.

    58% of Americans are opposed cutting off funds, but watch what Murtha and Pelosi have planned.

    I feel your pain, but I have gotten over throwing remotes… I just change the channel.

  27. 27.

    Richard 23

    February 15, 2007 at 9:27 pm

    Richard23 = tBone. What do I win?

    A boot up the ass. You missed the space, dummy.

  28. 28.

    lard lad

    February 15, 2007 at 9:29 pm

    Bush has never had to be competent in his life, nor has he ever suffered anything from being incompetent. Therefore, he surrounded himself with people who told him what he wanted to hear, ignoring whether they were competent or not.

    Oh brother, nothing but recycled leftwingnut talking points. If Bush wanted to surround himself with yes-men, then why did he pick Colin Powell?

    And look what happened to Colin Powell during his term as Secretary of State… cut off at the knees and clotheslined in the windpipe again and again by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, not to mention unctuous little pricks like Doug Feith.

    And Powell really was a yes-man! Well, he was more like 90% of one… not the pure hundred-percent undiluted Bush toady that our president feels comfortable working with. That’s why the White House treated him like the family retard for his four years at State.

  29. 29.

    tBone

    February 15, 2007 at 9:36 pm

    Richard23 = tBone. What do I win?

    Wrong again, whackjob. We are all DougJ.

    (I’m really not Richard 23. He’s a filthy moonbat masquerading as a true patriotic American. Whereas I, as you well know, have a deep and abiding love for our Leader. And ponies. I loves me some ponies.)

  30. 30.

    Dreggas

    February 15, 2007 at 10:05 pm

    First of all, he’s the elected Commander in Chief of our military, so he’s already been “given” that power by voters. By agreeing to move forward with this surge, he is asserting his constitutional powers as President.

    GEORGE W. BUSH WAS ELECTED )or not) PRESIDENT WE DO NOT ELECT COMMANDER’S IN CHIEF WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU FUCKING MORONS NOT GET? ARE YOU THAT MUCH OF A MENTAL MIDGET OR JUST TOO FUCKING DRUNK JACKASS?

  31. 31.

    Remfin

    February 15, 2007 at 10:30 pm

    “Razor thin margins” is a +7 million vote differential.
    But a “mandate” is a +3 million vote differential.

    This has been another episode of “The Republican Spin Machine”

  32. 32.

    Pb

    February 15, 2007 at 10:51 pm

    Beat me to it, Remfin.

    The Dem’s “symbolic resolution” has a 51% approval rating compared to 46% disapproval rating.

    A clear mandate! Oh man, after they pass this, what will the Democrats do with all the rest of their political capital? It’s too much!

  33. 33.

    Darrell

    February 15, 2007 at 11:24 pm

    WE DO NOT ELECT COMMANDER’S IN CHIEF WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU FUCKING MORONS NOT GET? ARE YOU THAT MUCH OF A MENTAL MIDGET OR JUST TOO FUCKING DRUNK JACKASS?

    Ok, the anti-war left has made their case above, and with such class and eloquance as always.

    Look, Bush has done a goatf*ck on the PR, but he does have one hell of a case. With the noblest of motives, we toppled the most blood-soaked dictator in the middle east, giving Iraqis a legit fighting chance at democracy in order to help them, while undermining the numerous other despots in the region who have spawned so much terrorism. If the left had a shred of decency they would acknowledge that fact.. but they can’t, and that says it all about who they are.

    They blame Bush ENTIRELY, and never acknowledge the broken Iraqi culture which suffered decaded of oppression with the murderous sectarian killers it spawned that are the real culprit. Read what the leftists write and listen to what they say to get the full truth on how depraved these lowlifes really are.

    Truth is, the islamic radicals will certainly spin any pullout from Iraq through Al-Jazeera and their network of jihadi websites as a defeat for the infidel forces who were driven away by the brave Islamic jihad warriors of Allah… and Iraq will then endure even more violence and more will be driven to islamic extremism.. all Bush’s fault. Craven and despicable as hell on the part of the liberals? You bet it is.

    And the Democrat plan? pathetic as hell, and John Cole knows it, but doesn’t give a rat’s ass (because he’s so principled). The Dem ‘solution’ offers what, a combination of increased cooperation with the UN (?), maybe targeted military strikes, weapons inspections until we’re kicked out (again), and more internal US security. John Cole and anyone with a brain who’s not a drooling moonbat knows damn well that none of that will work for long… it’s a Dem plan destined for disaster. And John cole KNOWS it, but out of “principle” he rails for non-binding crap resolutions. Yeah, principled my ass.

  34. 34.

    Perry Como

    February 16, 2007 at 12:24 am

    Listen up moonbats: just because Bush waged a preemptive war with too few troops; just because Bush removed all civil structure in Iraq; just because Bush disbanded the Iraqi army and order broke down; just because Bush reopened one of the most notorious prison under Saddam and US troops tortured Iraqis there; just because Bush turned Iraq into a free market free for all that destroyed local businesses that couldn’t compete with cheap goods from foreign countries; just because Bush had no plan for reconstruction; just because Bush didn’t have a plan for dealing with centuries old sectarian hatred; just because Bush let Iraq free fall into chaos; just because Bush sent 363 tons of cash to Iraq that disappeared; just because Bush allowed US contractors to make loads of money for substandard work with no oversight…

    Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t listen to him now. Sure, a mistake or two may have been made. But give the guy a chance. Bush can’t help it that Iraqis decided to turn to tribal alliances in a country destroyed by war. Is anything ever good enough for you whackjobs?

  35. 35.

    Dave A

    February 16, 2007 at 12:41 am

    Darrell,

    You say…

    Look, Bush has done a goatf*ck on the PR, but he does have one hell of a case. With the noblest of motives, we toppled the most blood-soaked dictator in the middle east, giving Iraqis a legit fighting chance at democracy in order to help them, while undermining the numerous other despots in the region who have spawned so much terrorism.
    .
    .
    .
    They blame Bush ENTIRELY, and never acknowledge the broken Iraqi culture which suffered decaded of oppression with the murderous sectarian killers it spawned that are the real culprit.

    Your analysis of the administrations lack of culpability because of the ‘broken Iraqi culture’ doesn’t work for me. Blaming the Iraqis might have been a wee bit more reasonable had this administration given more than a passing thought and preparation, prior to invading Iraq, to what would have been required to stabilize, maintain security and give an Iraqi democracy a firm footing. Unfortunately, for us, and even more tragically for the Iraqis themselves, the Bush administration didn’t. This was a war of choice driven by ideological principles, with the messy details of what it would take to truly succeed simply dismissed and buried. Even though toppling Saddam was discussed in the first NSC meeting in the early weeks of the Bush administration, serious, substantive discussion and planning of post war efforts were ignored at best, ridiculed and worse.

    So yes, I do blame the Bush administration for putting the US in this situation. To the extent that the Democratic majority and some Republicans can force some accountability, I’m all for it.

    Don’t blame the Iraqi people when the decisions, or lack thereof, by the Executive branch and the US military hardly gave them a chance to succeed.

  36. 36.

    Richard 23

    February 16, 2007 at 2:26 am

    Yeah, principled my ass.

    You still deserve a boot up your ass. Next time use a space in my name you worthless lying sack of crap.

  37. 37.

    dylan

    February 16, 2007 at 2:28 am

    Yeah… That message that they sent is that they want some serious resolutions and measures passed.
    Perhaps some “binding” ones.
    Or maybe there are some “clearer” ones.
    Talking heads are just what they sound like.
    They could be talking phones or talking cupcakes…. do we really listen to them?
    Have we not yet discovered that the parties that illegitemately picked and implemented this war, have made no plans or concessions to ever finish it?
    Is there any doubt that they don’t plan on peeking thier little snouts above ground before our own little constitutional term limits send them off to pasture?
    Embarassed am I.

  38. 38.

    Scruffy McSnufflepuss

    February 16, 2007 at 4:55 am

    Cut the funding. Give the Administration 12 months to pull our troops out of the war.

    Or, wait until a sane Administration comes along, then start the withdrawal.

    Or, we can keep fighting it until your grandkids come home in coffins. It’s pretty much a choice between one of those three options at this point.

  39. 39.

    Richard 23

    February 16, 2007 at 5:20 am

    Or, we can keep fighting it until your grandkids come home in coffins.

    I don’t have any grandkids (that I know of) so let’s win this thing. Of course you’d probably rather have Saddam still in power. In fact, I think he’d poll better than Obama and Osama on the Democrat ticket.

    And those that don’t come home in coffins (typical liberal goth imagery) will come home to tickertape parades. Except for far left moonbats like you who will be spitting on our returning troops again, you filthy hippie.

  40. 40.

    Scruffy McSnufflepuss

    February 16, 2007 at 7:29 am

    I don’t have any grandkids (that I know of)

    Not yet. That’s my point, you dunderhead.

    Of course you’d probably rather have Saddam still in power. In fact, I think he’d poll better than Obama and Osama on the Democrat ticket.

    Good point. Also, the many school murals adorning the walls of the new Iraqi public schools will forever attest to the glory of Halliburton.

    And those that don’t come home in coffins (typical liberal goth imagery) will come home to tickertape parades. Except for far left moonbats like you who will be spitting on our returning troops again, you filthy hippie.

    Only if we send them home in time machines which bring some home in 1945, others home in 1969. The ones coming home in 2009 will only have to face a shattered economy and substantially diminished veterans’ benefits.

  41. 41.

    Scruffy McSnufflepuss

    February 16, 2007 at 7:32 am

    Actually, I’d like to be in America in 1945. Decent jobs would be plentiful. Also, I could obtain evidence of J. Edgar Hoover’s cross-dressing and Joe McCarthy’s morphine addiction, nipping those two fucksticks’ careers in the bud early.

  42. 42.

    Dreggas

    February 16, 2007 at 8:59 am

    Look, Bush has done a goatf*ck on the PR, but he does have one hell of a case. With the noblest of motives, we toppled the most blood-soaked dictator in the middle east, giving Iraqis a legit fighting chance at democracy in order to help them, while undermining the numerous other despots in the region who have spawned so much terrorism. If the left had a shred of decency they would acknowledge that fact.. but they can’t, and that says it all about who they are.

    Undermining other despots? Noble Intentions? My god how the hell can you believe this fluff. Bush didn’t undermine shit or did you forget about Iran now being emboldened since their chief concern (namely Hussein) has been removed from power. Syria doesn’t look too worried and the rest of them are still “Allies” even though they’re happy to send their weapons and jihadis against us. As for noble intentions the road to hell is paved with those too, and avenging some sense of personal honor or fighting for some personal vendetta is NOT noble.

    They blame Bush ENTIRELY, and never acknowledge the broken Iraqi culture which suffered decaded of oppression with the murderous sectarian killers it spawned that are the real culprit. Read what the leftists write and listen to what they say to get the full truth on how depraved these lowlifes really are.

    So now it is “blame the iraqi’s” and “blame the Iranians” so much for the much touted ideal of personal responsibility huh? Bush started a war in a country for no other reason than avenging some stupid family honor. Saddam was brutal and we put him there in the first place. All the other bs reasons given by this administration were to “sell” Bush’s bs war to the American public

    Truth is, the islamic radicals will certainly spin any pullout from Iraq through Al-Jazeera and their network of jihadi websites as a defeat for the infidel forces who were driven away by the brave Islamic jihad warriors of Allah…
    and Iraq will then endure even more violence and more will be driven to islamic extremism.. all Bush’s fault. Craven and despicable as hell on the part of the liberals? You bet it is.

    Oh you mean like it is now? The Iraqi’s don’t give a rats ass that we’re there they’ll shoot at us too meanwhile thousands of iraqis a month are dying in a civil war. All we are at this point are targets. And yes given the fact that Bush created a haven for terrorists where none existed before I will lay this squarely at his feet. You can blame everyone else Darrell it just proves you are the craven boot licker who can’t accept the truth.

  43. 43.

    Zifnab

    February 16, 2007 at 9:33 am

    Or, wait until a sane Administration comes along, then start the withdrawal.

    I think that’s the plan everyone has in mind. Honestly, Democrats don’t really want this war to end, from a political standpoint. Every time a Republican says the word “tax-cut”, the Democrat can reply “war-debt”. Democrats can raise non-binding resolutions every day till Nov 7th 2008 and make Republicans vote again and again either against the President or against their constituency.

    Of course, ’06 was a referendum on war and corruption. Both were issues Republicans couldn’t win. If the Democrats can’t or won’t do something more… binding, people will lose faith in them as well. Pelosi’s 100 hours was so strong because she got real important measures passed quickly and successfully. We’ll see if the Senate is equally successful in moving the ball down the field. Otherwise, Bush’s incompetence will only mirror by Democratic inaction.

  44. 44.

    Darrell

    February 16, 2007 at 10:17 am

    Your analysis of the administrations lack of culpability because of the ‘broken Iraqi culture’ doesn’t work for me. Blaming the Iraqis might have been a wee bit more reasonable had this administration given more than a passing thought and preparation, prior to invading Iraq, to what would have been required to stabilize, maintain security and give an Iraqi democracy a firm footing.

    I agree that the amount of sectarian violence was underestimated.. by everyone, Dems and Republicans. When Dems were rattling the cages for war with Iraq I didn’t hear any of them predicting the extent of the sectarian violence. Closest came Bush himself who warned from the onset that it would be a long fight.

    But after decades of oppression with Sunnis having their jackboot over the Shia and Kurds, you’re out to lunch if you believe ANY amount of planning could have prevented the sectarian violence. Yet that is precisely the dumbass assertion which you, and the rest of the leftists are making.

    The big LIE once more

    Don’t blame the Iraqi people when the decisions, or lack thereof, by the Executive branch and the US military hardly gave them a chance to succeed.

    It’s not the fault of Iraqis blowing up buses and marketplaces, or foreign Al Queda fighters.. no it’s all the fault of George Bush… and Halliburton.

  45. 45.

    Darrell

    February 16, 2007 at 10:19 am

    Undermining other despots? Noble Intentions? My god how the hell can you believe this fluff

    My bad. I forgot that we went into Iraq to steal their oil.

  46. 46.

    Dreggas

    February 16, 2007 at 10:23 am

    Darrell Says:

    My bad. I forgot that we went into Iraq to steal their oil.

    No we went in, or so we were told, to find wmd which did not exist. Then the rationale changed again…and again…and again. Of course you conveniently forget that and only adhere to the latest rationale that the administration pulls out of it’s ass. Hell if the administration was honest we would be able to declare victory and go home after all Saddam is gone and the threat of wmd was proven non-existant. Given that WMD was the initial reason for this war it should be over with, and really it is over, they have a government, a constitution, there are no wmd and saddam is gone. Now we are just caught in the middle of their civil war.

  47. 47.

    Darrell

    February 16, 2007 at 10:26 am

    just because Bush disbanded the Iraqi army and order broke down; just because Bush reopened one of the most notorious prison under Saddam and US troops tortured Iraqis there

    the sad truth is, leftists can’t go beyond these well-rehearsed talking points which they are all taught to repeat.

    Bush disbanded the army because, well, because it was run by Baathist thugs. In hindsight, it could have have been done better, but that’s just second guessing with benefit of hindsight. The disbanding of the Iraqi army was a reasonable decision at the time. And I love the talking points claiming equivalence of torture chambers under Saddam with US actions.

  48. 48.

    Darrell

    February 16, 2007 at 10:36 am

    No we went in, or so we were told, to find wmd which did not exist. Then the rationale changed again…and again…and again.

    bullshit, there were over a dozen stated reasons given, including the fact that Saddam had flouted numerous UNSCR resolutions over a 12 year period violating his ’91 terms of surrender, and 12 years of ‘second’ chances was enough. Violation of terms of surrender = resumption of hostilities

    As for WMDs, he had them, he used them, Iraq admitted to having tons of Vx and chem weapons when inspectors were blocked and forced to leave in 1998. After 9/11, would it really have been reasonable to just take Saddam’s word for it, especially given his disregard for sanctions and resolutions? The only time Saddam ever complied was with a gun to his head.

    But please feel free to rewrite history to fit your leftist narrative. Just don’t whine like a little bitch when someone shows how full of sh*t you are.

  49. 49.

    jenniebee

    February 16, 2007 at 10:38 am

    Well, at least Darrell’s backed off of the “nuh-uh, we are too winning in Iraq” meme.

  50. 50.

    Darrell

    February 16, 2007 at 10:43 am

    jenniebee Says:

    Well, at least Darrell’s backed off of the “nuh-uh, we are too winning in Iraq” meme

    What did I write which could be interpreted as “backing off” the idea that we are winning in Iraq. I’ve said it may be possible or not. Please cite my statement which you claim is a “back down”

  51. 51.

    Darrell

    February 16, 2007 at 10:52 am

    The wingnut case for invading Iraq

    At the moment the U.N. inspectors were kicked out in ’98, this is the proper language: there were substantial quantities of botulinum and aflatoxin, as I recall, some bioagents, I believe there were those, and VX and ricin, chemical agents, unaccounted for. Keep in mind, that’s all we ever had to work on. We also thought there were a few missiles, some warheads, and maybe a very limited amount of nuclear laboratory capacity.

    After 9/11, let’s be fair here, if you had been President, you’d think, Well, this fellow bin Laden just turned these three airplanes full of fuel into weapons of mass destruction, right? Arguably they were super-powerful chemical weapons. Think about it that way. So, you’re sitting there as President, you’re reeling in the aftermath of this, so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I’ve got to do that.

    At the moment the U.N. inspectors were kicked out in ’98, this is the proper language: there were substantial quantities of botulinum and aflatoxin, as I recall, some bioagents, I believe there were those, and VX and ricin, chemical agents, unaccounted for. Keep in mind, that’s all we ever had to work on. We also thought there were a few missiles, some warheads, and maybe a very limited amount of nuclear laboratory capacity.

    That’s why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for. So I thought the President had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, “Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.” You couldn’t responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks.

  52. 52.

    Steve

    February 16, 2007 at 11:07 am

    Wow, Darrell thinks finishing inspections is the same thing as invading Iraq. Different thread, same old idiocy, huh?

    Disbanding the Iraqi army – regarded far and wide as one of the hugest mistakes of the whole debacle – was “a reasonable decision at the time.” Man, some people will defend anything.

  53. 53.

    dreggas

    February 16, 2007 at 11:12 am

    Darrell I am curious what will it take for you to finally admit you are wrong? How many more straw men must be knocked down before you relent or will you continue to be a sheep of this administration?

  54. 54.

    Darrell

    February 16, 2007 at 11:18 am

    dreggas Says:

    Darrell I am curious what will it take for you to finally admit you are wrong?

    dreggas, you have had your “arguments” shredded to pieces on this thread, yet you come back without responding to any of the points which have been made, pretending as if you have ‘won’ the debate. I expected as much coming from a leftard like you.

  55. 55.

    Darrell

    February 16, 2007 at 11:31 am

    Disbanding the Iraqi army – regarded far and wide as one of the hugest mistakes of the whole debacle – was “a reasonable decision at the time

    Just because it turned out to be a mistake, doesn’t change the decision was not reasonable at the time.

    First, there was no army left to “disband” as the Iraqi army had already largely vaporized, throwing out their uniforms and dispersed before we could do anything. Second, the Iraqi army was infiltrated with Baathist murderers. Third, the Shia conscripts would likely have been out for blood revenge on their Sunni officers if we had kept the army in place.. All ‘reasonable’ assumptions at the time, although in hindsight, probably not the best course of action.

    From what I’ve read, most of the former Iraqi army who wanted to continue to serve, have now joined into the new Iraqi army, so they are not the cause of the insurgency now.. except perhaps for the bitter Sunnis who didn’t want to return to serve with the ‘dirty’ Shia.

  56. 56.

    dreggas

    February 16, 2007 at 11:38 am

    Darrell Says:
    dreggas, you have had your “arguments” shredded to pieces on this thread, yet you come back without responding to any of the points which have been made, pretending as if you have ‘won’ the debate. I expected as much coming from a leftard like you.

    What’s there to respond to you keep promoting the same tired arguments that have been proven wrong time and again. You continue to see things that just don’t exist. There’s nothing more to be said and nothing to debate. Your one of Dick Cheney’s dead enders period.

  57. 57.

    Darrell

    February 16, 2007 at 11:49 am

    Your one of Dick Cheney’s dead enders period.

    dreggas wrote:

    WE DO NOT ELECT COMMANDER’S IN CHIEF WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU FUCKING MORONS NOT GET? ARE YOU THAT MUCH OF A MENTAL MIDGET OR JUST TOO FUCKING DRUNK JACKASS?

    Uh dreggas, the elected President of the US is the CiC. Please see Article II of the US constitution for more details. I hope this new information from a “dead ender” helps.

  58. 58.

    Dave A

    February 16, 2007 at 12:15 pm

    Darrell, you said…

    I agree that the amount of sectarian violence was underestimated.. by everyone, Dems and Republicans. When Dems were rattling the cages for war with Iraq I didn’t hear any of them predicting the extent of the sectarian violence. Closest came Bush himself who warned from the onset that it would be a long fight.

    But after decades of oppression with Sunnis having their jackboot over the Shia and Kurds, you’re out to lunch if you believe ANY amount of planning could have prevented the sectarian violence. Yet that is precisely the dumbass assertion which you, and the rest of the leftists are making.

    You missed my point. The administration actively discouraged and wanted no part of post war planning. There were more than a few groups and individuals in a variety of military and non-military government departments that developed (or tried to develop) comprehensive plans for “securing the peace”, only to be slapped down by the true believers who thought that we’d be greeted with flowers, that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for this good deed, that most of our troops would be out within months. The quotes are public and on the record – I’m not going to dig them out again.

    Republicans are supposedly better at careful planning, thinking through the consequences and eventualities, considering unintended consequences, etc. The war with Iraq, well at least the postwar, was subject to none of this critical, honest thought and analysis. The ideological blinders wouldn’t allow for it. Neither would the public uproar that would have ensued if there had been any suggestion before the war that our involvement might last for years rather than months.

    The big LIE once more

    …..Dave A said “Don’t blame the Iraqi people when the decisions, or lack thereof, by the Executive branch and the US military hardly gave them a chance to succeed.”

    It’s not the fault of Iraqis blowing up buses and marketplaces, or foreign Al Queda fighters.. no it’s all the fault of George Bush… and Halliburton.

    Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say Al Qaeda. I didn’t say Halliburton. I said that the actions by the US “hardly gave them a chance to succeed”. The absolute refusal to seriously consider post war planning and hostility to those who had temerity to do so is inexcusable. To this extent, at very least, this administration is culpable and must be held to account.

  59. 59.

    dreggas

    February 16, 2007 at 12:51 pm

    Uh dreggas, the elected President of the US is the CiC. Please see Article II of the US constitution for more details. I hope this new information from a “dead ender” helps.

    Darrell we do not elect a Commander in Chief, the president is not solely commander in chief and never was he’s a civie playing at being a military leader. He’s not and never was. If you’d read article II you’d also realize that the president is president commander in chief is not his job, it might be part of it but not the whole. You speak of it as if it is the whole. Keep living in cod-piece fantasy land if you want.

  60. 60.

    Dave A

    February 16, 2007 at 1:05 pm

    Article II

    Section 2 – Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

    Italics in the quote are mine.

    Note that Bush is not my Commander in Chief – he is my President. A subtle (actually, not so subtle) but vital difference.

  61. 61.

    dreggas

    February 16, 2007 at 1:12 pm

    and you exclude the following

    when called into the actual Service of the United States;

    You talk as if he is nothing more than CiC and should be deferred to regardless of whether or not he deserves it.

  62. 62.

    dreggas

    February 16, 2007 at 1:14 pm

    Also notice Section 2 speaks of CIVILIAN CONTROL OVER THE MILITARY. Nowhere does it state that he should be deferred to and given the authority that he claims to have.

  63. 63.

    Darrell

    February 16, 2007 at 2:14 pm

    You missed my point. The administration actively discouraged and wanted no part of post war planning.

    As written, that is an entirely false statement. We can argue that not enough planning was done in some areas, or the planning was not thorough in other areas.. but to assert that the administration wanted “no part” of post war planning is absurd on its face

    Neither would the public uproar that would have ensued if there had been any suggestion before the war that our involvement might last for years rather than months.

    We were warned by Bush himself from outset that the war would be long and hard

    I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.

    Dave A wrote:

    Don’t put words in my mouth

    I didn’t. In fact I quoted you verbatim. I’ll do it again here

    “Don’t blame the Iraqi people when the decisions, or lack thereof, by the Executive branch and the US military hardly gave them a chance to succeed.”

    The Iraqi people who are causing the mayhem are precisely the ones to blame. They were most definitely given a chance to create a free and democratic society, but many chose to blow up bombs in marketplaces instead.

  64. 64.

    Darrell

    February 16, 2007 at 2:16 pm

    Note that Bush is not my Commander in Chief – he is my President. A subtle (actually, not so subtle) but vital difference.

    My bad for not spelling out for you geniuses that “Commander in Chief” refers to CiC of our military.

  65. 65.

    Dave A

    February 16, 2007 at 3:03 pm

    Darrell said:

    As written, that is an entirely false statement. We can argue that not enough planning was done in some areas, or the planning was not thorough in other areas.. but to assert that the administration wanted “no part” of post war planning is absurd on its face

    As has been widely reported, the absurdity is precisely the opposite. I’ve got work I need to get done, so here are just a couple of links that back up my statement. Try googling “iraq post war plans discouraged” yourself.

    Here’s one from that bastion of liberal media… The Christian Science Monitor

    and USA Today USA Today

    There are books you can read too. The Assassins Gate by George Packer (who agreed with the decision to invade Iraq) is just one.

  66. 66.

    Steve-o

    February 16, 2007 at 3:24 pm

    Telling us you are an idiot was not necessary after writing in your first sentence that you were watching Hardball. The reason for passing the non-binding resolution is to attempt a buy-off of the Democratic base that wants to defund the war. It won’t work.

  67. 67.

    Dave A

    February 16, 2007 at 3:44 pm

    Darrell,

    Silly me. Even better links are right here on

    Balloon Juice (see Norks, War And Open Thread)

    and a post it references here

  68. 68.

    Steve

    February 16, 2007 at 4:22 pm

    It’s just amazing that Bush allowed guys like Rumsfeld to go out there and tell everyone the war probably wouldn’t last six months, when he so desperately wanted everyone to know what a long, hard struggle it would be. I mean, these guys predicting a cakewalk were obviously way off the reservation. How odd that Bush never did anything to dissuade them, since it was so important to him that everyone know it would be a long war. But yeah, the people who think Bush was in a hurry to declare “Mission Accomplished” are obviously full of shit.

  69. 69.

    gringo

    February 16, 2007 at 4:39 pm

    Neither the dem. strategists now you explain why this should be a non-binding resolution. Heck, cut the funding now, if you think this is what the American people want, or that this is what must be done.

  70. 70.

    DougJ

    February 16, 2007 at 7:15 pm

    Steve McMahon, some strategist for the Democrats, just said this a few times, and I almost threw my remote at the television. In short, Steve (and the rest of you), NO NO NO NO NO!

    Thanks you, John. I absolutely could not agree with you more. This makes me furious and I’m glad I’m not the only one.

  71. 71.

    Perry Como

    February 16, 2007 at 8:02 pm

    Darrell says:

    The Iraqi people who are causing the mayhem are precisely the ones to blame. They were most definitely given a chance to create a free and democratic society, but many chose to blow up bombs in marketplaces instead.

    Then there’s:

    “The looting was the decisive moment,” Adelman says. “The moment this administration was lost was when Donald Rumsfeld took to the podium and said, ‘Stuff happens. This is what free people do.’ It’s not what free people do at all: it’s what barbarians do. Rumsfeld said something about free people being free to make mistakes. But the Iraqis were making ‘mistakes’ by ruining their country while the U.S. Army stood there watching!
    …
    The looting, he adds, “totally discredited the idea of democracy, since this ‘democracy’ came in tandem with chaos.””

    — Kenneth Adelman, far Left moonbat

  72. 72.

    tBone

    February 16, 2007 at 9:41 pm

    Ooh, I had forgotten about that article. It’s a goldmine.

    Drooling Leftard David Frum:

    “the insurgency has proven it can kill anyone who cooperates, and the United States and its friends have failed to prove that it can protect them. If you are your typical, human non-hero, then it’s very hard at this point to justify to yourself and your family taking any risks at all on behalf of the coalition.” This situation, he says, must ultimately be blamed on “failure at the center.”

    Rabid America-hater Frank Gaffney:

    Gaffney describes the administration as “riven,” arguing that “the drift, the incoherence, the mixed signals, the failure to plan this thing [Iraq] rigorously were the end product of that internal dynamic.”

    Far Left Whackjob Richard Perle:

    Perle cites another example: the mishandling of a contract to build 20 health clinics . . . “A complete fiasco.” He knows, he says, “dozens” of similar stories. At their root, he adds, is America’s misguided policy of awarding contracts to U.S. multi-nationals instead of Iraqi companies.

    So, these dishonest blame-America-firsters claim:
    -We should be held responsible for not securing the country.
    -That the Bush administration was too dysfunctional to properly plan for the post-invasion period.
    -That we should have gotten the Iraqis much more involved in the reconstruction.

    Darrell, you need to drop a truth-bomb on those dishonest to the core Leftists. Preach it!

  73. 73.

    tBone

    February 16, 2007 at 9:42 pm

    Strike the strike-through above. What kind of Leftard came up with this tagging system, anyway?

  74. 74.

    Darrell

    February 17, 2007 at 9:51 am

    tBone Says:

    Ooh, I had forgotten about that article. It’s a goldmine.

    Darrell, you need to drop a truth-bomb on those dishonest to the core Leftists. Preach it!

    Dishonest to core is who you scumbags are

    David Frum
    There has been a lot of talk this season about deceptive campaign ads, but the most dishonest document I have seen is this press release from Vanity Fair, highlighted on the Drudge Report . Headlined “Now They Tell Us,”…

    Frank Gaffney
    In the annals of political dirty tricks, last weekend’s bait-and-switch caper perpetrated by Vanity Fair will probably be but a footnote. Still, the magazine deserves contempt for having made promises it had no intention of honoring, promises about facilitating a serious discussion of President Bush’s efforts to fight our Islamofascist foes in Iraq and elsewhere by some of the most adamant supporters of those efforts. None of us who responded candidly on the basis of such promises to thoughtful questions posed by reporter David Rose would likely have done so had the magazine’s true and nakedly partisan purpose been revealed.

    Richard Perle
    Vanity Fair has rushed to publish a few sound bites from a lengthy discussion with David Rose. Concerned that anything I might say could be used to influence the public debate on Iraq just prior to Tuesday’s election, I had been promised that my remarks would not be published before the election.

    I should have known better than to trust the editors at Vanity Fair who lied to me and to others

    What the left is doing, is trying to twist words and outright lie their asses off in order to blame Bush, rather than the insurgents who are creating the havoc. It’s no different really, then blaming police for a rise in violent crime. Sure, the police made mistakes and could have done some things diffeently, but at the end of the day, it’s the fault of the criminals who commit the crime. This basic common sense, but leftists have a narrative to push, and facts and truth can’t get in the way.

  75. 75.

    tBone

    February 17, 2007 at 10:12 am

    Dishonest to core is who you scumbags are

    Sure:

    Some of the neocons also claim that the Web excerpt quotes them out of context—implying, perhaps, that in other parts of their interviews they had praised the performance of Bush and his administration. That charge is untrue. Meanwhile, not all the neocons are unhappy. On Wednesday, November 8, with news of the Democratic takeover of Congress still fresh and Rumsfeld’s resignation still hours away, I receive an e-mail from Adelman. “I totally agree with you,” he writes. “Why keep Issue #1 behind closed doors until the American people have a chance to vote? That’s why I was (among the only ones) not giving any ‘rebuttal’ to the [Web] release, despite being asked and pressured to do so, since I think it’s just fine to get word out when it could make a difference to people.

    “Plus I personally had no rebuttal. I thought the words I read from you were fair and right on target.”

    Darrell sez:

    What the left is doing, is trying to twist words and outright lie their asses off in order to blame Bush, rather than the insurgents who are creating the havoc.

    Yes, Darrell. It’s the Leftists (including several of the chief architects of the war) who are lying their asses off, not you. Bush must be held blameless for the chaos in Iraq. Those ungrateful Iraqis – why don’t they want to clean up after all of the ponies we gave them?? Ingrates.

  76. 76.

    Darrell

    February 17, 2007 at 10:17 am

    Bush must be held blameless for the chaos in Iraq. Those ungrateful Iraqis – why don’t they want to clean up after all of the ponies we gave them?? Ingrates.

    Nice strawman with the “held blameless” assertion, as no one has said Bush should be held blameless. But in case you haven’t noticed, Bush is not the one blowing up outdoor markets and crowded street corners.. it’s Iraqis and Al-Queda.

  77. 77.

    Darrell

    February 17, 2007 at 10:25 am

    Vanity Fair then set my words in its own context in its press release. They added words outside the quote marks to change the plain meaning of quotations.

    What? Vanity Fair twisting words and adding their own to shill for Democrats on the eve of an election? And libs on BJ and elsewhere still pushing the lies? Whooda thunk

  78. 78.

    tBone

    February 17, 2007 at 10:28 am

    Nice strawman with the “held blameless” assertion, as no one has said Bush should be held blameless.

    Fair enough. You’ve only strongly implied it.

  79. 79.

    tBone

    February 17, 2007 at 10:38 am

    What? Vanity Fair twisting words and adding their own to shill for Democrats on the eve of an election? And libs on BJ and elsewhere still pushing the lies?

    OK. Let’s look at some of the quotes without any of the surrounding text, and you tell us how they should be interpreted:

    “The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn’t get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly. At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible.… I think he was led to believe that things were chugging along far more purposefully and coherently than in fact they were. I think he didn’t realize the depth of the disputes underneath. I don’t think he realized the extent of the opposition within his own administration, and the disloyalty.”

    “I am extremely disappointed by the outcome in Iraq, because I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional.”

    “People were aware in February or March of 2003 that the planning was not finished,” Frum says. “There was not a coherent plan, and in the knowledge that there was not a coherent plan, there was not the decision made to wait.”

    “This president has tolerated, and the people around him have tolerated, active, ongoing, palpable insubordination and skulduggery that translates into subversion of his policies.… He doesn’t in fact seem to be a man of principle who’s steadfastly pursuing what he thinks is the right course. He talks about it, but the policy doesn’t track with the rhetoric, and that’s what creates the incoherence that causes us problems around the world and at home. It also creates the sense that you can take him on with impunity.”

    “I think that even though the president remains rhetorically committed to the idea of what he calls his ‘freedom agenda,’ it’s over. It turns out we stink at it. And we don’t just stink at it in Iraq. We stink at it in Egypt. And in Lebanon. And in the Palestinian territories. And in Jordan. And in Yemen. And in Algeria. And everywhere else we try at it. Because, fundamentally, the message hasn’t gotten out to the people on the ground.… There is no one out there saying, ‘These are the marching orders. Follow them or go and find a new job.’ That was what those fights were about. And the true believers lost. Now, that’s not to say had they won, everything would be coming up roses. But I do think that we had a window of opportunity to avert a lot of problems that we now see.”

    “I always believed as a speechwriter that if you could persuade the president to commit himself to certain words, he would feel himself committed to the ideas that underlay those words. And the big shock to me has been that, although the president said the words, he just did not absorb the ideas. And that is the root of, maybe, everything.”

    Damn moonbats, twisting the words of these loyal Republicans!

  80. 80.

    Darrell

    February 17, 2007 at 10:55 am

    “The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn’t get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly. At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible.… I think he was led to believe that things were chugging along far more purposefully and coherently than in fact they were. I think he didn’t realize the depth of the disputes underneath. I don’t think he realized the extent of the opposition within his own administration, and the disloyalty.”

    But we’ve been told over and over and over that Bush has surrounded himself with “yes men”. How are we ever to believe this contradictory evidence?

    As for Adelman whom you quoted, he disagreed strongly with Rumsfeld, and he had a stick up his ass over what he believed was incompetency on Rumseld’s part.. but regarding Iraq, on Meet the Press just last Dec. (after the Vanity Fair article) he was still claming that Iraq was winnable and that it’s worth fighting for.

  81. 81.

    Darrell

    February 17, 2007 at 11:03 am

    “I think that even though the president remains rhetorically committed to the idea of what he calls his ‘freedom agenda,’ it’s over. It turns out we stink at it. And we don’t just stink at it in Iraq. We stink at it in Egypt. And in Lebanon. And in the Palestinian territories. And in Jordan. And in Yemen. And in Algeria. And everywhere else we try at it. Because, fundamentally, the message hasn’t gotten out to the people on the ground.… There is no one out there saying, ‘These are the marching orders. Follow them or go and find a new job.’ That was what those fights were about. And the true believers lost. Now, that’s not to say had they won, everything would be coming up roses. But I do think that we had a window of opportunity to avert a lot of problems that we now see.”

    I disagree that “it’s over”, and apparently so does Gaffney, whose out of context quotations in VF he explains

    As with others, I find myself being quoted not only out of context but making remarks that have — albeit in more fulsome ways — been said by me many times before. As with their remarks, mine have been part of the texture of the debate about Iraq for years. They do not reflect remorse about effort to help free the long-suffering people of that country, and others under Islamofascist assault, let alone a so-called “neo-culpa.”

    For the record, I remain convinced that the liberation of Iraq was a necessary and laudable measure to prevent a megalomaniac from handing off to terrorists weapons of mass destruction for the purpose of attacking us and our allies. Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. government has proof that Saddam Hussein had precisely such plans ready to implement. In fact, such evidence was actually documented in the Iraq Survey Group’s final report released last year with much obscuring fanfare about the absence of recovered WMDs.

    I am also as committed as ever to the consolidation of the fully justified liberation of Iraq.

  82. 82.

    Rome Again

    February 17, 2007 at 3:38 pm

    You support the resolution because it is the right thing to do to try to get this administration to honestly change course in Iraq. Not because the morons (myself included), sent a clear message.

    Thank you for pointing this out John, I wholeheartedly agree.

  83. 83.

    Perry Como

    February 17, 2007 at 3:43 pm

    I disagree that “it’s over”, and apparently so does Gaffney, whose out of context quotations in VF he explains

    You’re missing something here. The complaints about the VF quotes were because they came out before the 2006 election. From your own link you can see the date: November 5, 2006 7:33 AM. The linked VF article that is cited was published in January of 2007.

    What’s even funnier is that you obviously didn’t even read the article. Instead you relied on the months old cover job from NRO. The entire issue is covered in the link I gave:

    II: Let the Finger-Pointing Begin

    I turn in my piece on Thursday, November 2—five days before the midterm elections. The following day, the editors phone to say that its contents—especially the comments by Perle, Adelman, and Frum—are so significant and unexpected that they have decided to post an excerpt that afternoon on the magazine’s Web site, vanityfair.com.

    The abridged article goes up at about 4:45 P.M., eastern standard time. Its impact is almost immediate. Within minutes, George Stephanopoulos confronts Vice President Dick Cheney with Perle’s and Adelman’s criticisms during an on-camera interview. Cheney blanches and declines to comment, other than to say that the administration remains committed to its Iraq policy and will continue to pursue it, “full speed ahead.” By the next morning, news of the neocons’ about-face has been picked up by papers, broadcasters, and blogs around the world, despite a White House spokesperson’s attempt to dismiss it as “Monday-morning quarterbacking.”

    Some of my interviewees, Richard Perle included, protest in a forum on National Review Online that they were misled, because they believed that their words would not be published until V.F.’s January issue hit newsstands—after the midterms. Posting a preview on the Web, they say, was a “partisan” attempt to score political points. In response, the magazine issues a statement: “At a time when Vice President Dick Cheney is saying that the administration is going ‘full speed ahead’ with its policy in Iraq and that ‘we’ve got the basic strategy right,’ and the president is stating that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s job is secure, we felt that it was in the public’s interest to hear now, before the election, what the architects of the Iraq war are saying about its mission and execution.”

    Some of the neocons also claim that the Web excerpt quotes them out of context—implying, perhaps, that in other parts of their interviews they had praised the performance of Bush and his administration. That charge is untrue. Meanwhile, not all the neocons are unhappy. On Wednesday, November 8, with news of the Democratic takeover of Congress still fresh and Rumsfeld’s resignation still hours away, I receive an e-mail from Adelman. “I totally agree with you,” he writes. “Why keep Issue #1 behind closed doors until the American people have a chance to vote? That’s why I was (among the only ones) not giving any ‘rebuttal’ to the [Web] release, despite being asked and pressured to do so, since I think it’s just fine to get word out when it could make a difference to people.

    “Plus I personally had no rebuttal. I thought the words I read from you were fair and right on target.”

    Smart. Strong.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Pajamas Media says:
    February 15, 2007 at 7:15 pm

    The Voters Have Sent a Message!

    “Steve McMahon, some strategist for the Democrats, just said this a few times, and I almost threw my remote at the television. In short, Steve (and the rest of you), NO NO NO NO NO!” (Balloon Juice)…

  2. On the Traitors at politburo diktat 2.0 says:
    February 15, 2007 at 9:52 pm

    […] There is no one here who has the magic answer, the quick fix. But there is widespread sentiment against this war. To limit it in some way is what the people voted for. A 100% withdrawal this month or next year may or may not be the best option. Drawing things down, preventing an escalation, i.e. doing more than merely making speeches and passing non-binding resolutions, is not merely a Congressional option; it is a mandate from the people. […]

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - Albatrossity - Serengeti Day 2, Round 3 9
Image by Albatrossity (6/12/25)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

We did it!

We raised the 25,000 for The Civics Center, and with the external matches, that gives them $60,000 for this Spring effort!

You guys rock!

Recent Comments

  • Odie Hugh Manatee on Well, This is Fucking Horrifying (Jun 13, 2025 @ 3:04am)
  • Bruce K in ATH-GR on Well, This is Fucking Horrifying (Jun 13, 2025 @ 2:59am)
  • prostratedragon on Well, This is Fucking Horrifying (Jun 13, 2025 @ 2:24am)
  • No One of Consequence on Well, This is Fucking Horrifying (Jun 13, 2025 @ 2:20am)
  • columbusqueen on Thursday Night Open Thread (Jun 13, 2025 @ 2:00am)

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
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

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

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

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

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

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

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

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

Email sent!