A White House official who attended the meeting, and spoke on condition of anonymity in order to describe details, said Mr. Bush’s first question to the Democratic leaders was, “When can you get me a bill?”
And, this official said, Mr. Bush told the Democrats that he hoped to ultimately follow several of the guidelines set forth last year in a report by the Iraq Study Group, which called for an eventual draw-down of American troops. According to the official, Mr. Bush noted that the Study Group, whose co-chairman was his father’s former political aide, James A. Baker III, had suggested that a temporary troop increase could be a necessary step on the way to an eventual withdrawal.
Let’s tease apart the insulting stupidity of this reasoning. Say that I break your leg in three places. How could you get angry with me? Medical doctors break bones all the time. I could pull out a manual where it says – in plain English – that you sometimes need to break a bone when an old break doesn’t set right.
The president obviously does not plan to pull troops out of Iraq. Maybe he honestly thinks that people are morons, maybe he fails to see the stupidity of his own statement, whatever. The remarkable thing here is not the president’s quotidian stupidity but the almost totally counterfactual nature of his claim. Surging troops now will not only do nothing for a withdrawal that won’t happen, but our current troop surge will make a safe withdrawal nearly impossible.
Our army was tired before the “surge.” Even then our commitments were hardly tenable, sustained by rapidly deteriorating equipment and a massive callup of the National Guard and reserves. Readiness is a real crisis and increasing our troops now will only make it that much worse. When our “surge” winds down the army will need a significant time before America is able to commit new troops abroad for any reason.
The “surge” does more than just put off the date that we leave Iraq. It also ensures that pullout orders will go out to tired troops with worn-out equipment and virtually no hope of reinforcements. If Iraq remains hot when the inevitable pullout comes, Americans will die because Frederick Kagan convinced the president to spend our last resources on a quixotic troop buildup.
To broaden the point, compare this with the mantra that we should invade Iraq because of 9/11. Think about what group could possibly have wanted America to invade Iraq as badly as the neocons. If al Qaeda doesn’t ring a bell, it should. Iraq relieved al Qaeda’s siege in Afghanistan, threw our resources down an insurgency hole, brought on exactly the public-inflaming occupation of Islamic holy lands that AQ tried and failed to accomplish in Afghanistan, and (bonus!) it saved AQ the chore of knocking over Saddam themselves.
Again the unique Bush gift goes beyond making a plainly stupid argument to some ethereal plane of counterproductive mendaciousness. A sworn enemy of the United States could not manufacture a Manchurian president-bot that would serve their interests better than our current leadership.
Tim, why do you continue to torture yourself?
You know Bush’s stand. There is nothing he can do to change your opinion of him. Even if he said “starting tomorrow, everybody is coming home” you would probably still find that unsatisfactory. In fact I know you would.
As would the majority of the public. Bush’s word means absolutely nothing any more. Only his actions matter and his actions tell us not to trust anything he says. If you still have faith in his words then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Bwaaaah. Tim would probably find “starting tomorrow, everybody is coming home” unsatisfactory because George Bush has spent the last six years lying to our faces about every issue under the sun. And reasonable observers would, rightly, presume that George Bush is lying about withdrawing troops.
What really irks me, though, is the lack of stern response by the Democrats. All I’ve seen is stories suggesting that Reid might support a funding bill without a firm timetable. As though Bush’s petulant crap worked. I thought they were going to give W a “come to Jesus” moment this week. What actually happened?
That’s just unfair.
Many of us have very high opinions of Bush. So high that I, for one, imagine him standing atop of a majestic purple mountain with the strong winds of liberty blowing at his back.
Can we PLEASE stop calling it a “surge,” for f*&%’s sake?!
Using the GOP talking-point terminology makes rational discussion of what’s at hand–an escalation of the number of US troops in Iraq WITHOUT a significant change in strategy–next to impossible.
It’s like calling those who are against individual privacy in women’s health and reproductive matters, “pro-life.” It’s a crass oversimplification and misdirection tactic.
Well, Hillary Clinton and the troop-hating Democrat Congress should have thought of that before they got us stuck in Iraq! (mark my words, these are their talking points from the future!)
While Commander Codpiece strategerizes, our CENTCOM head prepares the new MilSpeak for run away
That’s probably true, but only because there are some things that he just can’t seem to do. However, I would accept:
* competent government
* a sincere apology
* his resignation
Typical personal attack from a rightie with nothing meaningful to say.
I knew I’d get an ad hominem from you, Tim. :)
Was that an apology for making a baseless personal attack? It didn’t sound like an apology.
I’m simply curious to see how this all plays out. Dems present a bill with time tables, W vetos, Dems don’t have enough votes to override…then what? They do it all over again?
Baseless?? I didn’t know you were a secret member of he GWB fan club.
Bush irritates me because he’s incompetent and he’s taking our country down a risky path. His words are just fluffer.
Um. That’s why it was baseless. Never mind.
Why would anyone need any more data to form an opinion about Bush?
But back to Tim’s point: Bush is intensely irritating to people who understand and have experience with the promulgation, management, and execution of complex processes. Why? Because they know the he has none of that understanding or true experience, yet, in theory, his position requires it more than most any other position in the world. His response any time things get a little complex (which, for him, means about 30 seconds after he wakes up on any given day)?
He extends the middle finger.
“When can you get me a bill?” – extending the middle finger.
Twisting the suggestion of a temporary troop increase to facilitate withdrawal? – extending the middle finger.
Problem is, he’s now extending the middle finger to about 70% of the populace, and it’s wearing thin.
Bush has the intellectual curiosity of a teenager. This is not necessarily a terrible thing for most people, but to run the greatest nation on Earth, one needs to be inquisitive, flexible, and earnest. He’s none of these things.
This must be some lame attempt to bore me to death. If you’re going to accuse me of mental illness then defend that. I guess you prefer not to, so now you want to plead down to the idea that I just don’t like Bush. Gosh. That really distinguishes me from, oh, most of America.
Here’s a tip: decide what you mean to say and then say it. Writing doesn’t work as well the other way around.
Boy Tim, you got me there.
You’re reading more into my comments than I intend. If you weren’t so defensive you’d see that I was trying to help you. I said “Don’t torture yourself”
From the many posts I’ve read by you, you’re always irritated by what Bush does or says.
Getting back to the point of this post. Of course Bush would use the ISG. That’s just politics. He’s trying to push his agenda through resistance.
Talk about ad hominem attacks. On teenagers.
No, say it ain’t so.
Plus, if you think something would be impossible to mess up, he will find 10 ways to fuck it up beyond belief before he even hits his stride. He’s that good.
I had no idea it was International Understatement Day.
Of course, if you had written Why President Bush Makes People Want to Tear out Their Hair and Scream, it would still be an understatement.
Why yes. One could say his stupidity is like a masterpiece, waiting to be unveiled.
Face it, the man is just plain lazy. For a long time he got pretty much what he wanted without having to work. A little growling here, a sound bite there, everyone fell in line. Now, when pressed, he throws out the first lie that comes to mind. (“Mind”? Never mind.)
I’m sure during his next address we’ll hear how he made a perfectly reasonable offer to the DemoNcRATS and they threw it back in his face. Maybe he really sees it that way. Maybe he thinks people still support this war. Hard to say what goes on in the mind of a master.
I’ve been saying it for five years: The reason why the terrorists haven’t attacked us since 9/11 is because they HAVE been attacking us since 9/11. Every day. OBL comes from the Saudi oil aristocracy, just as GWB comes from the Texas oil aristocracy. OBL was equipped by the CIA (GHWB’s old group) in Afghanistan, against the Soviets. He’s been exposed to US TV and culture all his life. He KNOWS us, far better than we know him. And I’ll bet that he had it figured to a fine degree that if he whacked us the way he did, GWB would respond more or less the way he did. The result? Just what OBL wants: The destruction of America’s leading place in the world; the erosion of America’s military might; the sapping of America’s financial strength; and the destruction of America’s liberties. ALL done from within, without OBL or AQ lifting so much as a finger.
George Bush and the Republicans are OBL’s secret weapon, that he’s been using his secret weapon to destroy America, and doing a very good job of it, too.
The Other Steve
Clearly you suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome.
That’s really funny, since you didn’t “get an ad hominem” from Tim, you only got his acknowledgment that he got an ad hominem from YOU.
I think it’s the smirk.
We have all way, way misunderestimated the guy.
People used to laugh when I’d say (in 2000) that Bush would do to the US what he did to Arbusto. Little did I know how understated that would be.
No, you got me. As you said:
I am trying to find a way that this does not mean that I am a crazy irrational Bush hater, but for some reason it just doesn’t work. Help a brother out.
RA you misunderstand. Tim always calls out ad hominem to anything I say. So you see, I just acknowledged that I got another one. If I said Tim has a “T” in his name he would say I’m insulting his intelligence. Oh, Oh that might get me another one.
That’s interesting. The right uses BDS to shut down arguments from the left. But I was trying to say that Tim is biased and there really is nothing GWB can say to satisfy him. So we get another rant from Tim about how irritated he is with Bush (Manchurian president-bot) for being a politician. Geez.
Tim, I’d be happy to oblige. I’m at a loss though, I can’t think of anything that Bush has done that you’ve approved.
Again, I think using the ISG as an argument for the surge is good politics. I mean good as interesting.
I haven’t got time to look it up but I once read that when FDR was trying to get approval for funding the Manhatten project, one of the senators said ” and in what part of my state will you be building it”. Politics.
No, I don’t misunderstand at all. It is you who misunderstands. You didn’t get an ad hominem from Tim, you only got the acknowledgment that he got an ad hominem from you. It is NOT the same thing at all.
How am I supposed to rant, when you are writing my material?
Actually, I think he might say you’re insulting your own intelligence… and I’d have to agree with him.
Tell me you get this, please.
A couple of points there, BR.
Must I remind you that this is supposed to be about finding a way out of the catastrofuck that is Iraq, not about politics? If it is about politics, then Mr. McFlightSuit is doing the very thing he is accusing the Democrats of, playing politics with the lives of our troops.
More importantly, the time to use the ISG Report as a strategy was when it was released, not months and months later, when it has clearly been overtaken by events. To wit, according to people who should know, WE_ HAVE_LOST.
My opinion about the situation in Iraq is informed by people like Bill Odoms, retired General and Reagan’s NSA Chief, and William F. Buckley, Crypto-fascist. So I’m not exactly out on a limb with the liberal fringe in holding this judgement of the situation there.
What we have here is a failure, by POTUS, to recognize a horrific truth. But why are we surprised that he can’t perceive reality? In the past, he has always been bailed out by his father. Hell, the ISG was his father’s attempt to try to help junior save face. I have no sympathy for the Bush family, but you’ve got to believe they are aghast as what junior has done to the family name, not to mention his party.
The fact that he is now invoking ISG probably means he is looking for any way out that makes Democrats look bad. It’s not about winning anymore, it’s about assigning blame.
My job as a Democrat is to make sure that my elected representatives get us out of Iraq without more loss of life while at the same time making sure everyone in America understands that the biggest foreign policy clusterfuck in our history can be laid at the doorstep of the GOP.
It’s going to be hellacious, but I think it can be done.
A bit more seriously, I still can’t make heads or tails of the “We can’t tell the enemy what we’re going to do,” schtick because it is always followed by many long, stirring, freedum n’ democracy (TM) speeches about what we’re going to do.
Hell, because we have a dearth of translators, little old ladies in Bagdad probably know WTF we’re going to do before Bush does.
The Other Steve
Could it possibly be because that’s the only thing you ever argue?
tim doesn’t trust what the president says? how dare he! i say we flay him alive.
Flay me right along with him, because I don’t either.
BR — no senator knew anything about the Manhattan Project. In fact, when the Truman Commission wanted to investigate even to find out anything about it, the word came down from the White House — “Don’t.” Truman didn’t — so he didn’t even know we were building a Bomb, much less that we had already done so, until he became President himself.
Six paragraphs? That’s it? I think a guy could write his doctoral thesis on a topic like this.
Hey, anyone who claims that the Iraq War isn’t about US Politics clearly doesn’t know a damn thing about Iraq, wars, the US, or politics.
That said, this is definitely not good politics. On the contrary, it is incredibly bad politics. Bush is trying to sell the same war he was hocking six years ago, before 9/11 even happened, and he doesn’t even have the brainpower to change the sales pitch a little.
The ISG Report begins with this statement:
So far, Bush has moved aggressively in the exact opposite direction. “Interesting” would not be the word I would use to describe this political strategy. That he further seeks to shield himself from criticism with the exact same report he’s completely disregarded – cherry picking intelligence in the same way that he cherry picked us WMDs and Al Qaida connections – stinks of cowardace, irresponsibility, and incompetence.
Bush isn’t FDR. He’s not fighting WWII, he’s not secretly developing a weapon to defeat Terror(tm), and this isn’t just a matter of bribing the right Senator with a bit of pork to grease the political process. Bush is all the worst aspects of LBJ and Nixon rolled into one giant clusterfuck of a human being (there, now my BSD is showing, you happy?) and this isn’t a bit political poker he’s playing, but the status of our country as a Superpower he’s dropped on the table – with a ridiculously bad hand, I might add.
And in true 10 year-old fashion, our president’s basic premise regarding failure in the war is “smelt it, dealt it”. Harry Reid’s remark about the war today was a big headline for the usual suspects, but you can bet the bank that those same suspects will blame the result on those who said it was failing as it happened.
My, what a lot of words to explain why Bush is irritating. My much shorter version is that he is a smirking, dangerous moron, who couldn’t get a job at a gas station without his daddy’s help. That’s why he irritates me.
And my apologies to people who work at gas stations.
There’s also the “We can’t tell the American people what we’re going to do” shtick. “We’re about to engage in a war in which civilization itself is at stake, so you all should go shopping. . .and not worry about military recruiting shortfalls. . .or paying for it all. . .or whether we have a workable plan and the right people to carry it out. Just trust me.”
As if he’s ever worried about the financial health of anything in the past….
Let’s imagine that you always begin an argument by punching a kitten. In this hypothetical exercise, tell me whether you could legitimately complain if somebody accuses you of frequently punching kittens. I will gladly stop pointing out your ad hominem arguments the moment you stop making them.
You clearly misunderstand what I wrote. Nobody cares that much if the president uses the ISG for politics. The guy waves 9/11 like a bloody towel, so misusing the ISG seems like a fairly minor sin. The larger problem is that surging troops without any movement towards withdrawal makes a safe, organized withdrawal – as the ISG recommends – nearly impossible. The story reaches Bush levels of irritating because the president wants to wear the ISG’s mantle at the same time that he contravenes the ISG’s recommendations in the severest possible way.
To avoid irritating me, try representing what I say in something resembling good faith.
The only danger with the Democrats taking the white house in 2008 and ending the war will be the GOP hanging the entire fiasco at their feet. They will attempt to re-write the history of the last 6 years. Maybe that’s why all their candidates are patent morons: the best way for them to get out from under this whole mess is to give power back to the Democrats.
Hey, if you’ll stop disagreeing with me, I’ll stop punching kittens. I think the real question is why do you hate kittens so much that you make me punch them?
Republicans have been playing the “Government doesn’t work!” card for the last 12 years, and that’s how they rode into power. They then proceeded to prove exactly how much government could not work. Since the ’06 elections, Republicans have been trying to rewrite history on an almost daily basis – suddenly filibustering is ok, a balanced budget is important, and the federal government shouldn’t be too powerful with all of this oversight and investigation mumbo jumbo. But I like to think that people aren’t completely brain-dead. You can only play the same trick so many times before everyone recognizes it. Even the diehard conservatives have resorted to tossing up their hands and claiming that they don’t like anybody, regardless of the letter in front of their names.
There’s a reason Republicans spent 40 years in the wilderness after WWII, but Democrats only had to spend 12. This crop of Republicans failed so miserably, so catastrophically, that it will be ingrained in the American consciousness for a generation. At the same time, Democrats have been pulled so far to the center that their mild, common-sense, de-radicalized approach to virtually every topic makes them very universally appealing. All the Dems need to do in the next four years is do the right thing. Republicans can slander till their blue in the face, but results win votes more than rhetoric. I’m not worried.
well, now we’ve got a party.
why must you “punch a kitten”? why not something less graphic, like “pounding the cat”? See, according to Google, it means the same…oh…wait…nevermind.
Yes, he does bring a whole new level of meaning to the word irritation, doesn’t he?
My Stormy wouldn’t be very happy with all this talk of feline abuse.
Zombie Santa Claus
If those kittens belong to known Al Qaeda sympathizers, I think we should send them to Gitmo and find out what they know. Punching them may ruffle some feathers at Amnesty International, but if one of those kittens knows something about the next terrorist attack on America I, for one, am willing to accept that harsh measures are sometimes necessary to protect America.
To be fair, they’re the only ones who’ve even tried to do something about The War On Christmas. God bless ’em for that, if not for their covert aid TWOC would’ve been lost 3 years ago.
Zombie Santa Claus
BTW, fuck PETA. Those guys have ties to ELF. ELF is worse than Al Qaeda.
Mr. Zombie, aren’t you, by your very undead nature, part of the War on Christmas? I’m confused here.
I want to see the fur fly, and I don’t care if it raises anyone’s hackles or ruffles their feathers.
The ISG was in the highlighted section of your post. I mean if I can’t use what you emphasize, then I guess you hold all the cards.
As for the accusation of BDS, I guess I misread your post. Let’s see in this one post you refer to Bush or Bush’s actions as “insulting stupidity”,”thinks that people are morons”,”president’s quotidian stupidity”,”ethereal plane of counterproductive mendaciousness” and of course the MPb (Manchurian president-bot). Now that I re-read this, those are just everyday adjectives anybody would use. Silly me.
It’s not wrong to write like this because it sure makes for lively comments. That’s the mark of a good blog post.
Why does it matter what adjectives are used? It’s the sentiment that is important, and while I might not use the same adjectives, I mean the same thing, everyday.
Join the mile high club!
RA, I don’t understand why you don’t understand that I understood what you understood. I wrote a comment that Tim took as a personal attack. He wrote:
I said Tim called ad hominem. What don’t you understand?
I know this might seem tedious but it’s important to me that you understand.
But, now I feel you’ve given me an exercise… perhaps we can spend this time exploring all the adjectives we could possibly use. This could prove to be fun, and I got time right now. Let’s begin, shall we?
I nominate putz, idiot, imbecile for starters (I’m starting with simple to understand words, all for you, BR).
Please feel free to add some more, everybody.
Um, BR? Really, that poor ‘lope is looking pretty frail.
The facts are that Tim made a series of accusations. You could have legitimately accused him of an an hominem attack, since he didn’t bother to back those accusations up one by one. But you didn’t — you chose to make a snide remark. By what I take to be “the official rules of civil discourse in the comments session”, that’s a legitimate rhetorical counter. However, you didn’t expect to get away with it unscathed, did you?
Then again, maybe you did. After all, you’d like us all to believe that the President’s quotidian stupidity and monumental arrogance are not established by his past behavior, which implies that you hold a stunningly low opinion of your fellow citizens’ powers of observation.
In fact, I’d call it “monumental arrogance”, if I were to try to coin a two word phrase for it.
Exactly. Words are expressing sentiment.
I know this might be a little beyond your comprehension level, but you said you “got ad hominem” from Tim. You didn’t get ad hominem, you gave it. What you got from Tim was acknowledgment that you gave him ad hominem. Now, was that so hard?
Yes, that was a snide remark I made. And I got caught so when I commented back at Tim, I used a smilely. See?
I’d call it compensated interest, personally.
RA, when I said I “got” an ad hominem I meant that I got called about using one. So there, we can finally put this to rest. When I said “got”, I meant accused.
So, what you’re saying is you feel intimidated by Tim’s creative use of the English language? Huh, I thought people who had a better grasp of language than myself were admirable.
You know, if you have trouble understanding anything Tim says, you could always go to http://www.dictionary.com and look up the words for yourself.
There is no war that you can’t say that about. Every war is politics playing with the lives of our troops.
Yeah, but what you say you got and what you got are actually two different things, and I’m making the distinction. Since I make the distinction, I’m not the one who is wrong here, you are.
No, I read his sentiment. He doesn’t like the president, he doesn’t like this war, he doesn’t like our troops. There is nothing wrong with that because that’s how he feels.
Who says you’re wrong? I said we both understand. I think if someone says to me that I’m making a personal attack then I think that they are accusing me of using an ad hominem logical fallacy.
Jaysus Christ, people. It’s a beautiful Friday, Sanjaya has finally been sent home, there is beer to drink and steak to barbecue, and you two are splitting hairs over semantics? :)
Whoa, hold on there Nelly, where did he say that?
Prove it, or you’re a liar. Tim does not hate the troops.
I said you were wrong, and you said you weren’t. That says you were saying I was wrong, and I still haven’t seen you admit that getting an ad hominem and getting an acknowledgment that you gave an ad hominem are two different things, completely.
The problem here is the relationship between giving and receiving. Got it?
Because he’s stupid and he’s an asshole and he makes Ivan the Terrible look qualified?
I’m simply curious to see how this all plays out. Dems present a bill with time tables, W vetos, Dems don’t have enough votes to override…then what? They do it all over again?
April 19th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Yep. That’s right – over and over. The vast majority of the population of USA wants it. Congress simply needs the guts to stand up to the boy-king. The tide is turning – away from Dumbya. It’s about time.
I know, I know. Sanjaya :) That’s funny.
Oh, I see now. I know they are different. You didn’t think I knew. Was my earlier definition sufficient?
If “qualified” means “impaling people’s anuses on pikes”, then Ivan did a great job. Strangely enough, Bush also did a great job.
I didn’t say that. I said he doesn’t like them.
BR, of course, must be referring to Tim’s old post, “Why the Troops Irritate People,” where he accuses them of punching kittens…
Seriously, though, brings us all right back to Tim’s original post, “Typical personal attack from a rightie with nothing meaningful to say.”, doesn’t it???? heh.
Okay, prove that Tim does not like the troops. You’re not proving anything, and you’re pointing to a conclusion that is difficult to swallow. I don’t like this war at all, but I understand that the young men and women in the field are merely performing a duty, they are obligated to do what leadership tells them to. The troops are not to blame, and I know for a fact that Tim understands this. It’s time shit started rolling up towards the decision makers.
Now, where exactly did Tim say he didn’t like the troops?
Now this is interesting. First I’m a crazy irrational Bush hater, now I don’t like the troops. But I don’t hate them. That means that my feelings for the troops sit somewhere between hate and a borderline DADT violation. But where? Is it closer to the casual discomfort you feel when somebody leaves a free urinal unflushed? Or is it more like more like the slow-burn anger that simmers when the next car in line can’t work up the nerve to merge? Help me out blogreeder, since you seem to know me better than I do. It will be fascinating to hear what evidence led you to assume that I
hate loathe disdaindislike the troops.
BR, Tim F, Rome….OMG Stop it! I’m laughing so hard at this exchange I can’t get any work done!!
Oh that’s easy.
What does that mean??? Our Army was tired? Every one of our troops are tired? Our commitments aren’t tenable? Our equipment is shoddy? I guess we can split hairs and say you like the troops but don’t like the armed forces.
It means he is concerned about the state of military readiness and cares for the troops, you ass.
Let’s take a sports analogy. Your favorite team is ready to play the playoffs. You are concerned about their readiness. If all you talked about was how tired they were and the state of the equipments and you don’t think they can beat the competition. People would question why they’re your favorite team.
Oh, I forgot, saying something is better makes it so. Carry on.
Of course, I don’t mean this, you’re looney-toons if you think only psychology is involved. If your favorite team is in bad shape, of course, no amount of talking them up is going to change that. You’re crazy if you think otherwise.
Take your patriotic rah-rah somewhere else please. We live in the reality based community, not the “oh I wish it were so” community.
No, let’s hold off on splitting hairs and focus on the obvious for a minute. We can start by noting that you obviously have a hard time understanding written English. Not a thing that you quoted suggests that I have the smallest beef with the troops. In fact, if a person feels concerned about the well-being of the troops and feels that they are being insufficiently supplied, he’d be a real shit not to point it out.
Funny how I haven’t heard the least concern out of you.
So it’s better to be delusionally confident than realistic about one’s chances?
Ok, that’s fine in baseball. But people don’t die in baseball.
blogreeder, I liked you better when I didn’t think that you were a moron. How many players died in the last World Series? I don’t keep up on this sports stuff, maybe you can remind me.
I must have touched a nerve there. If you have time to come down from your horse I will explain. If you noticed, I used a sports fan analogy. I wasn’t saying sports is like the war. If someone likes a sports team they will say something positive every once in a while. Can’t find anything positive here. Throw me a bone. Has the Armed Forces done anything good? Have you ever written a post about an Iraq war hero?
I’m concerned that the troop are getting a bad rap over here.
How exactly does anything Tim says about them change the circumstances of their lives on single iota?
Oh really? You wish we were out of Iraq, don’t ya? That’s not gonna happen anytime soon.
What I wish isn’t important. Why don’t you cite for me how moral it is that we’re over there telling Iraqis how to live their lives?
You’re right. Nothing anyone can say here will change anybody’s circumstance. You’re brilliant. But I just thought these comments were a smattering of facts and opinions not meant to change anyone’s circumstance.
Now that would be an interesting discussion. What are our moral obligations? I don’t think you’re up for it.
Excuse me, but I’m not the one suggesting that cheerleading will make circumstances any different, YOU ARE!
Case in point:
You equate sports with war (thus, the patriotic cheerleading displayed by you and other Fox-addicted Bushies makes perfect sense), you only understand it as if you’re some spectator watching a fucking game, and if you don’t cheer loud enough your “favorite team” might lose.
You are an idiot!
Don’t bet on it. My morals say we should never have bombed a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 in the first place. And, ummm, where exactly is Osama bin Laden again?
Thanks for playing, try again!
That’s why I don’t think you’re up for it. You already painted me as a right-wing conservative (I think Tim used the color Maroon). I only watch American Idol on Fox. (That’s why I knew what Krista was talking about.)
Have a nice weekend wherever you are.
Your rah-rah stance doesn’t fool me in the least, sorry.
You know what? I’m thinking that BR is going to be a first rate addition to the local fauna. Of course, that’s from me, and my opinion is probably not worth anything…
glad to have you with us, mr. clinton.
As I recall making an analogy specifically implies that A is like B. If you don’t want me to laugh you off as a wanker, correct yourself to say that war is like sports in a very limited way and we should ignore the differences that some of us consider extremely relevant.
For example, when the Pirates head for the World Series (cough) I don’t worry how many of them will come back alive. I don’t wonder how many of them will never walk again, will be unable to drive in traffic and will spend the rest of their lives with debilitating neurological problems. I don’t wonder whether the World Series is the best use of their resources because in baseball, unlike war, when the World Series is on there is nothing else for a team to do. Even if game seven runs into a fifteen-inning slugger’s duel we know that every team has months to wrap their sprained ankles and wind down before they have to start earning their paycheck again.
So you ask me why I don’t root for a war like I root for a sports team, I will tell you that war is not sports. The differences go beyond the cosmetic and, frankly, any attempt to analogize the two strikes me as callous in the extreme.
not a cubs fan, i see…
Yeah, I must have missed a memo. When did everyone decide to treat BR as a real person instead of the centrist spoof he so obviously is?
I was wondering what “the surge” reminded me of, and this has brought it into focus.
“The surge” is just like the Battle of the Bulge.
We are sooooooooo fucked.
I think the “war as sports” analogy is very apt. A lot of people DO see this war as a game, and they show their support by putting their bumper stickers and magnets on their car, right next to their “My Child is an Honor Student” sticker. Ask them to pay higher taxes to adequately fund the troops either on or off the battlefield, cut back on their consumption, or at the very least, require accountability from their government for its decisionmaking, and oh, then it’s someone else’s problem and saying anything might jinx it. They’ve done enough by buying that ribbon magnet.
(I didn’t know this thread was still kicking..)
Tim, since you seem to have a limited reading ability, let me help you out. First of all, I wasn’t comparing the war to sports, I was comparing your support of the troops to being a sports fan. Remember when I said you don’t like the troops? You see I had blockquoted a section of a previous comment. I was commenting on that comment. That’s what a blockquote does. It lets you zero in on a section that you’re making a point about. You might not have caught that. You know, that blockquote thingy.
And anyway, you sure sound whiney when you insist I say “in a very limited way” when you can say such colorful things like “moron”.
It just so happens I AM a Cubs fan. :) I never say bad things about them. I feel good the rest of they day when they win. Which of course isn’t very often… but at least I acknowledge a win.