So I was cruising the right-wing blogosphere today, and I see the conventional wisdom in Greater Wingnuttia regarding the so-called Petraeus Report is as follows:
“Leftards are trying to undermine General Petraeus because the surge has been so successful and they think we are doing so well in Iraq that it hurts them politically, so they need to ruin his credibility so they can continue to convince the voters that things are bad in Iraq. They are terrified of Victory in Iraq.”
Seriously. Then again, many of these guys are the same folks who thought Terri Schiavo was gonna go for a walk.
leefranke
So you went to a public bathroom?
Incertus (Brian)
Yeah, I wake up nights in a cold fucking sweat because I’m terrified that Iraq might revert to the Garden of fucking Eden under the current leadership. I take pills to control my quivering bowels from the fear that “my side” might be proven wrong when Iraqis sprout wings and halos and show the rest of the Middle East the glories of democracy as spread by the Republican party.
Thanks for the laugh, John. I needed that this morning.
whippoorwill
capelza
One interesting little trend I’ve noticed is, and it is little, that DU is mentioned in qutie a few posts I’ve come across lately. I hadn’t even thought about DU for a very, very long time and yet someone seems intent on dragging them up into the light of day to remind everyone how “unhinged” the left is.
Has anyone else noticed this? One guy actually equated DU with the DNC.
Anf John, don’t yopu know? If “we” hadn’t killed Terri, she’d have been up in no time and would have been in the frontlines of the Surge, after she had a sandwich, of course.
jake
An-an-and, they hate ponies. And candy! And they can hear what you think and change your thoughts to make you do things like touch yourself when the President is on TV!1!
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Watching these guys enter DEFCON 3 of all out, thermonuclear, melt-down is hee-larious.
Jon Stewart should just read pearls of wisdom from fRightblogistan and do his trademark “Trying real hard not to laugh,” smirk. It’s not like the writers for TDS have had to do any real work for a while.
The Other Steve
Isn’t Petraeus trying to sell a book or something? Perhaps he’s just a disgruntled former employee of the White House?
Phil
John, have you sent in your donation to the DNC yet? Seriously John, this is getting a little tiring. If it walks like a talk and quacks like a duck, it’s more than likely a f*cking duck.
If you’re going to echo Democratic talking points for the rest of your life, you might as well become a Democrat.
Meanwhile:
“This has nothing to do with what the president or anyone in the administration says … this is the procedure and the reports the Democratic Congress passed into law.
(A) The President shall submit an initial report, in classified and unclassified format, to the Congress, not later than July 15, 2007, assessing the status of each of the specific benchmarks established above, and declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved.
(B) The President, having consulted with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, and the Commander of U.S. Central Command, will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress.
[…]
(D) The President shall submit a second report to the Congress, not later than September 15, 2007, following the same procedures and criteria outlined above.
So the same report Bush and Petreus are going to present to Congress that you’re saying “Bush is tampering with!!! OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!” is the report that the Democrats, MANDATED INTO LAW. John, I’d say you’ve lost it, but do I even need to at this point?
I’m guessing a post excusing the fact that Osama bin Laden’s latest video now sounds like a DNC talking points memo by claiming it’s all a KARL ROVE SETUP!!! is on its way any minute now too.
Although we all know there’s no way the Democrats would support a flat tax. Guess OBL is trying to appeal to the independents now too. And that beard dye is just awful!
dslak
When bin Laden echoes GOP talking points by saying that Iraq is a central front in a global war, does that mean that Republicans are now terrorist sympathizers?
Phil
“When bin Laden echoes GOP talking points by saying that Iraq is a central front in a global war, does that mean that Republicans are now terrorist sympathizers?”
Nope, not really, it means we should be destroying Al Qaeda and its sympathizers anywhere they may exist. But OBL does seem to have some sympathies for a flat tax, so I guess you got us there. But just for the record, I do NOT support a 2.5% flat tax ala OBL! Surely tax rates must be at least 10% percentage points greater than that. How else would we pay for Lindsey Lohan’s gold plated burqas, praise be to Allah?
On the other hand, if a mass murdering terrorist sounded an AWFUL lot like me, paragraph after paragraph, I’d be ashamed. That is, if Democrats had shame. Or standards.
Or decency.
Or honor.
Or integrity.
Or anything really.
John Cole
If the guy I declared war on 6 years ago was still free, making videos, I would be ashamed. That is, if Republicans had shame. Or standards.
Or decency.
Or honor.
Or integrity.
Or anything really.
SEE! Anyone can be a partisan wingnut!
Incertus (Brian)
When bin Laden echoes GOP talking points by saying that Iraq is a central front in a global war, does that mean that Republicans are now terrorist sympathizers?
Only if you use Republican logic–you know, the same kind of logic that said “since Bin Laden was a Saudi, and so were 15 of the 19 hijackers, and since they were based in Afghanistan and aided by the Taliban, we should attack Iraq.” I try to stay away from that stuff, personally.
dslak
I’m afraid that, in the battle to understand my comment, John wins.
capelza
Phil. OBL allegedly parrots talking points and the Dems should be ashamed?
Why? Really, why?
It certainly worked on you. Didn’t it?
Dennis-SGMM
Phil, you’re right. And we’re way behind in you in indictments, convictions, investigations and outing too.
OBL plays you people like trout.
Tempest
Phil phil phil…. is it really so hard to understand how much the party you’re a part of (and I used to be) has been taken over and supported by a dangerous combination of idiots, glory-seekers, and con-men?
The republican party, and people like the ones John quotes above, have COMPLETELY FUCKING LOST IT. They’ve lost in Iraq, they’re losing the American economy straight down the shitter, and they’re so stuck in pre-enlightenment morals I’m surprised they let their wives out in public.
The republican party of today is a pale shadow of anything good it might have been in the past; pointing that out doesn’t make one a democrat (or even a DNC sympathizer), it makes one a realist.
Keep up the attacks though Phil, it’s a great study in projection.
Wilfred
That’s quite a wide stance you’re taking, Phil.
Phil
Oh and btw John, I remember you putting up a cute little chart a while ago, showing that you were still to the right of the center, but that the right-blogosphere had gone so FAR right that it was now well to the right of you.
But then you said this in your recent “predictions”:
“Afterwards, numerous Blue Dog Democrats state to the media that the General was impressive, and has assured them that we are making progress, and, as such, they are reluctant to do anything.”
While I am “nuanced” enough to realize there is a certain sarcasm to this, it is not based on nothing. Its a recognition that Blue Dog Democrats are more likely to believe Petreus than you are.
So my question to you John, in all seriousness, is the following: Are you still to the right of the center John? Or did the center (including Blue Dog Democrats) move to the right of you?
A serious reply would be appreciated.
rawshark
Reality is optional for republicans. All that matters is what has to be true so that republicans can continue to erode the new deal.
Xenos
OBL understands us much better than our government understands him. Pathetic, really. He has been playing Bush like a fiddle. I think Cheney understands what game OBL is playing, and is happy to play along – the game has earned him and his family an immense amount of money.
Dos that make me a sympathizer, suitable for destruction, Phil?
Tempest
The center’s stayed just where it always has been Phil; it’s the Republican party, and you’re beloved BDD’s, that have run to the right.
If you guys ever decide to come back to reality (stay out of people’s personal affairs, no more wars of opportunity, limited but efficient government, etc) you’d be surprised how many of us old-school republicans are still around.
dslak
Also, John, did you move to the left of Daily Kos, or did Daily Kos move to the right of you?
Phil
Tempest, back whatever horse you’d like. I’d never back this one:
or this one:
or this one:
(waits for Tempest to respond with picture of Donald Rumsfeld with Hussein from 1980s, while ignoring that photos posted above happened as recently as a couple of days ago)
Tempest, while you’re at, please point me to a time (any link or article will do) when a US political party was actively trying to discredit a 4-star general in the middle of a war he was currently engaged in and imply he was a liar?
Somehow I don’t think this happened to Eisenhower. Perhaps its not the Republicans who have lost it, perhaps it’s John and you.
John Cole
I still think I am center right.
I am also under the impression that the current republican Party needs to be completely and thoroughly destroyed for the good of the country. I have no problem aligning with the lesser of two evils.
Your standard bearers are Hugh Hewitt, Michelle Malkin, the Powerline, the NRO, and the crooks and frauds at Weekly Standard. You stand for torture, unlimited surveillance, the security state, the imperial Presidency, trashing the Constitution, and permanent war.
The Democrats, if allowed to, would probably blow the budget doing things like trying to save the environment, provide healthcare for everyone, and a litany of other things I don’t approve of. But they are not worse. Period.
Phil
And btw Tempest, John’s inadvertent admission that the Blue Dog Democrats are more likely to believe Petreus than he (or apparently you) do/es is as telling a statement of where the center is and who has truly “lost it” as there ever will be.
But alas, I must leave. Toodles, it’s been fun. Have you gotten your “conservative with a conscience” badge sewn on your sleeve yet?
Phil
“I still think I am center right.
I am also under the impression that the current republican Party needs to be completely and thoroughly destroyed for the good of the country. I have no problem aligning with the lesser of two evils.
Your standard bearers are Hugh Hewitt, Michelle Malkin, the Powerline, the NRO, and the crooks and frauds at Weekly Standard. You stand for torture, unlimited surveillance, the security state, the imperial Presidency, trashing the Constitution, and permanent war.”
John, I appreciate the honest answer. But when you sound more like a Kos diarist than a normal human being, I think it’s time to come home John….to the Democratic Party.
rawshark
Hey look. Wingnuts are being dismissive of John because he doesn’t reflexively agree with the right anymore. Once you start thinking independently they have no use for you anymore. You’re supposed to believe and spout the party line so that political order can be established and maintained.
capelza
Phil doesn’t realise that conservative and conscience can go hand in hand. Apparantly in his world the two are poles apart.
rawshark
As I was saying, dismissal. He doesn’t even need to debate you John, he says you sound like a Kossack, you’re point, if you had one, is dismissed without even being addressed. This is how reality bending starts.
John Cole
I don’t think I have EVER said I do not or will not believe Petraeus, and if I have given that impression or said so, I mispoke or spoke hastily and in a typical fit of anger. However, he has allowed himself to become very politicized and has a history of overly optimistic predictions. I think he is going to go forward in his testimony and honestly put forward the best case scenario. I think he is going to accentuate the positive aspects while glossing over or downplaying the the negative aspects. That is not necessarily a bad thing- we want commanders with a can-do kind of attitude.
I don’t think he is going to lie, but I don’t think that is what he should be doing, either. I think what he should be doing is going in and simply reciting the facts as they are on the ground. Not trying to make a case for one thing or another. That is why I think it was so inappropriate for him to state that he “could accept” withdrawing 4000 troops for political reasons.
That isn’t his fucking job. His pay grade is to state whether he needs the fucking troops or not. Not to make political judgements.
Which is why I wanted to see what his report to Bush was going to be- I wanted to see the data, just as I have seen the data from the independent reports. And then I wanted to see how the Bush White House, the group that brought you the Office of Special Plans, spins things in their “petraeus report.” And then I wanted to square both of those with the testimony from Petraeus.
Apparently wanting to do that, and wanting to make an informed decision about what to do in Iraq makes me a leftard or to the left of the DKOS to some. I would argue that it makes me sane, and that all the people who continue to fucking run cover for this WH a bunch of braindead assholes.
TrishB
Color me confused. How does agreeing or disagreeing with Petraeus’ assessments define one’s entire ideology as conservative or liberal? I didn’t know there was a test and that it had only one question.
whippoorwill
Phil, just listen to yourself, it’s party this and party that. Take your head out your ass, and look around. This country is in trouble and the non-conservative cult- of- Bush is to blame.
I’d been a registered independent all my life and not much interested in politics other that to vote, usually. I even voted for George W.’s pappy and still think he’d been a great president if he’d had a clue about domestic policy. But Jr. is a whole other keg of apples. I still don’t know exactly why, but after watching one of the debates in 2000 the next day I went and registered as a democrat, for the first time. Something about the way George W. handled himself scared the shit out me. Unfortunately, those fears got confirmed. So today I don’t give a tinkers damn about labels or party loyalty. I do care about getting this country back to some semblance of what I remember it to be.
PK
John
So the democrats will “blow the buget saving the environment and providing healthcare for everyone”.
You don’t approve of saving the environment and healthcare for everyone?
Sorry, but that makes you a republican! So there Phil!
Ned R.
…does Phil like pie?
Incertus (Brian)
The Democrats, if allowed to, would probably blow the budget doing things like trying to save the environment, provide healthcare for everyone, and a litany of other things I don’t approve of.
If I have to choose between blowing the budget on tax cuts for the wealthiest and a war fought (at least in part) for the purposes of profiting friends of the administration, or blowing the budget on health care and saving the environment, it’s a no brainer. I’m going with the latter, because then I get something out of it.
Bubblegum Tate
This is so true and so sad. I’ve long since given up trying to explain this dynamic to wingnuts; it was a futile effort to begin with. But hell, even Bush’s political team understood that when bin Laden made that pre-2004 election tape, he was doing Bush a huge favor. And he did so for very specific reasons. OBL has been able to get damn near anything he wants out of Bush–he doesn’t want America to vote out such a predictable, compliant president. It’s sort of amazing how incredibly willing the wingnuts are to get played by bin Laden.
cleek
Republicanism is a loyalty cult. anything but unquestioning loyalty to Bush and everything he does is a sign that you are the enemy.
Jess
Even more importantly, it’s pretty darn important for this country’s long-term economic survival. Unregulated capitalism is useful for many short-term goals, but for long-term survival the incentive of short-term profit just doesn’t seem to work. And the crony capitalism that we have now–very far from a free-market system–REALLY f**ks things up for everybody but the executive class. And even for them, eventually–their kids aren’t immune to asthma and fertility issues either, and their beach-front property is going to be among the first casualties of global warming.
Davis X. Machina
The Democrats, if allowed to, would probably blow the budget doing things like trying to save the environment, provide healthcare for everyone, and a litany of other things I don’t approve of.
“The legitimate object of government,” Lincoln once said, “is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but can not do at all, or can not so well do, in their separate and individual capacities.”
Given any reasonably representative form of government, do not the people themselves decide ‘what needs to be done, but cannot be done, or done so well, in their separate and individual capacities’? There is, in a democracy, no ex-ante list of proscribed activities.
Providing health care for all is something John doesn’t approve of. He’s not claiming that it’s a violation of the laws of nature, or signs of the end times, or whatever. He doesn’t issue fatwas, or pronounce anathemas, as from on high.
Providing health care for all is something doesn’t approve of. He’s not claiming that it’s a violation of the laws of nature, or signs of the end times, or whatever. He doesn’t issue fatwas, or pronounce anathemas, as from on high.
He is welcome to disapprove of providing health care for all, and welcome to militate against its provision in the public square. I disagree, and will militate contrariwise. That’s an argument.
John distinguishes himself from vast swathes of current ‘conservative’ writers by accommodating Lincoln’s insight.
I like that.
dslak
I think the implied question in Phil’s comments is: “John Cole, are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?”
Ted
These people have no self-awareness whatsoever. You’d think they’d rather not even mention OBL’s name, lest it remind everyone yet again that Bush blew off catching/killing the greatest terrorist against the US in history. Every new video is a further mocking reminder of that point. I guess that explains the furious spinning and projection.
Cain
Yes, you’re either with us or against us. There is no middle ground. The republican party is not the bastion of conservative ideology. Sorry buddy.
Perhaps one should go back to the original definition of conservatism before religious wingnuts started throwing their weight around back in the early 80s. Bring out your conservative measure stick and measure what the current republican party has done to move forward conservatism principles and you’ll have your answer. Before you bring up tax cuts supporting those does not make you a conservative.
It’s quite possible to not be a member of the Republican party and still be a conservative whether Democrat or Independent.
cain
Bruce Moomaw
Judging from the glaring errors in his famous optimistic 2004 newspaper op-ed, I’d say Petraeus is more than capable of undermining himself.
jake
DEFCON 3.5.
If the greatest satirists of all time sat down to mock the far-out Right, they couldn’t do any better than a true believer like Phil.
O noes! John, quick, kiss a picture of Bush otherwise people like Phil will doubt your credibility and…uh…
Hang on I’m trying to think of a reason this is a bad thing.
When cogent dispute reared its head,
Sir Philip bravely turned his tail and fled…
—-
And one of you all please fix the fricking long assed link. How hard is it to figure out?
Ted
At least then, when our grandkids look over the national credit card statement, they’ll at least find the splurges noble in intent.
Jill
It should be called the “Betray us Report”.
Tsulagi
Alright, if it wide-stances like a Bush fluffer, quacks The Message like a Bush fluffer, it’s more than likely a not-f*cking f*cking Bush fluffer. Embrace your inner and outer 28%ness, Phil.
Also did some navigating (I don’t cruise) through the tighty righty blogs who see “the big picture.” A lot seem to be getting off on OBL’s latest tape. That Osama’s own words paint him as a Democratic operative as they long suspected. Good to see the really, really smart ‘serious adults’ assign the same level of honesty to OBL as they do Petraeus.
Osama is missing the boat. He just doesn’t fully understand the depth of our 28%ers. He should have said he insists on living in a cave and must be poor in order to advance his radical Islam and jihad. The Malkinettes would have started building a palace and demanded a C-130 drop a load of cash bricks on him. They’re tough and smart like that.
nabalzbbfr
Only lefturd moonbats deny the reality that General Petraeus has made measurable progress on the security front in Iraq. He has also cleverly leveraged local tribal politics to bring about the beginnings of a political surge on the local level. On the national level political progress has been actively sabotaged by Iran and their Iraqi Sadrist proxies. It is time to give the Iranian mullahs a foretaste of our military power by bombing Revolutionary Guard training camps for Shiite terrorists. If they don’t get the message, we should launch an all-out aerial, naval and special forces assault (if necessary using tactical nukes) on the underpinnings of the Iranian mullahcracy and liberate the Iranian people from their oppressors.
Dennis-SGMM
nabalzbbfr, thank you for so concisely synopsizing the ignorance of history, ignorance of foreign cultures and their politics and delusional ignorance of military realities that pass for Republican foreign policy these days.
grumpy realist
(I hope that nabalzbbfr is a parody….)
Could any one of these brilliant “we must attack Iran NOW” believers please tell us lowly peons down here exactly what the US is expected to do in the following situation?
1. US attacks Iran.
2. Unbeknownst to the US, Iran has planned for this, and sinks one of our battleships in the Straits of Hormuz, blocking all navigation. (Heck, they could even place one of their own ships in the Straits of Hormuz and wait for us to “sink it”. We’ll probably be dumb enough.)
3. Oil prices shoot up dramatically. World undergoes $200/bbl price shock.
4. US economy crashes.
“…but no one would have DREAMED that the Iranians would close the Straits of Hormuz…!”
As said before, expect that to be carved on every neocon’s tombstone.
capelza
Ya think? I can only assume that Bush and his cronies are relying on an ignorance in the American public that doesn’t know just how well armed, populous, and determined Iran is. Not to mention how BIG it is.
And that it’s population and certainly the real thinkers in the government are not just sitting around waiting for the U.S. to attack them, but planning accordingly.
The other thing that just slays me is the idea some wingnuts have that the rest of the world would not react at all.
caustics
LGF type wingnuts believe he’s dead anyway, because L’Est Républicain said so in 2006. They need this to be true.
The “less crazy” wingnuts seem to secretly hope a live and kicking UBL will continue to give them what they have sorely lacked since the fall of communism – a uniting fuck-ball of hatred of those who are not like “us” on a grand scale. And any chance to lump liberals in with Islamofacism is just icing on the cake.
I really can’t think of any other reason why Osama bin Laden is still alive. In Pakistan. Probably in the Waziristan region.
demimondian
GR…
Well, it isn’t quite that easy.
The straits of Hormuz, although certainly not large, are also not small. Blocking all the shipping lane by sinking ships would be harder than people like me like to pretend — it is several kilometers wide, although “only” 50 meters deep.
Ned R.
I guess ‘nabalzbbfr’ is what happens when you try to gargle the words ‘Ann Coulter’
capelza
The straits are that wide, though how much is open to large ships I can’t find out. Was looking for a navigation chart online. Moving north from the Arabian peninsula and Oman there looks like some reef areas, hence the shipping curves around the north of this.
The more open areas are in Iranian waters, again as far as I can tell. The Iranian navy’s main base is right there in the straits, but I wouldn’t doubt that they’ve moved some of their vessels (cruise missle carrying) to a less focused target.
I’m thinking mines. If they wanted to stop traffic, mining the entrance would be the way to do it.
Crap, the fact that we are even having this discussion just pisses me off.
rawshark
It may be a few kilometers wide but its still the only way out and you don’t have to block all the shipping lanes. Think about how the Somalis controlled our militarys movements with just tire fires and roadblocks.
Dennis-SGMM
demimondian, you’re correct about the difficulty of blocking the Straits of Hormuz. I would submit that the Iranians have five extremely stealthy diesel-electric subs, as well as anti-ship missiles (They have been making them for some time) and plain old artillery – not to mention suicide squads in rubber boats. For all we know, they may have prepositioned sea mines for deployment. The US has not been exactly prescient in anticipating the strategies employed by an innovative enemy.
How many tankers would they need to sink before the rest choose to stay in port?
grumpy realist
The question is not the width; it is how wide are the channels that permit the passage of oil tankers with sufficient tonnage. Dumping stuff in there–or mining–definitely would be something to worry about.
Also, doesn’t Iran have the range with its missiles to hit at least some of the places the US is hangin’ out in the MidEast? I thought I saw a map showing they could hit Qatar, no problemo.
In short, if Iran decided it was going to be totally attacked and decided on the Samson strategy, they could make a lot of people really really unhappy all over the MidEast…and this isn’t even starting to look at what would happen to our people in Iraq. Iran takes out as many supply landing ports that we use as it can, and tells whatever people it has contact within inside Iraq “ok, we may be going down, but here is whatever money we have left. Make those US SOBs really upset that they attacked us, okay?” Result? Saigon Redux, except I submit most of our people would not make it out.
(And if I, a theoretical physicist with no background in strategy, can see this–I don’t think the Iranians are that dumb that they’re not going to come up with this as well.)
demimondian
Umm…folks, I included a link to a map so that you all could look for yourselves. The shipping lanes are each roughly 2km wide, and are separated by a 2km buffer zone. Strikingly, the straits are very shallow (25-50m deep) north of the Oman-Iran border, which would largely prevent most supertankers from passing through there.
Like capelza says, mine, not ships. Problem is, mining the straits is something for which the US has straightforward countermeasures; the major issue would be preventing an overreaction in the oil markets. (Of course, if I were Iranian, I’d want that — the US clears the shipping lanes, and oil prices get an artificial boost, too. That’s what an oil exporting country bent on affecting both the geopolitical environment and it’s own economy calls a “win-win” scenario.)
Rick Taylor
I still remember, month after month, reading conservatives warning us, boy you liberals are going to look really stupid when they find all those WMD. David Kay will be making a report, and you’ll be completely discredited. It doesn’t even surprise me by now. Eventually we will get out of Iraq. And when we do, no matter when it happens, the right wing will say it was exactly when we were just starting to win.
Redhand
Victory in Iraq?! At this point “victory” can only mean Bush’s ability to keep the conflict going till he gets out of office, so that “defeat” can be pinned on an incoming Democratic president when s/he pulls the plug on this madness.
Badtux
Silly moonbats! General Pet Rayus is going to announce that Iraq is now a paradise, a paradise I say, and that everybody gets a pony! I like ponies. Why do you moonbats hate ponies?
– Badtux the Snarky Penguin
Jess
Bingo.
This is really the only viable exit strategy for Bush and his cronies. There is a method (of sorts) to their current madness of “stay the course.”
VidaLoca
Rick,
This is the optimistic scenario. The pessimistic scenario turns on “no matter what happens” — because if (or when) our erstwhile Iraqi allies decide that our presence interferes too much in their ongoing project to shape their country according to their own ideals (and those may be anything from sharia law to regional warlordism across the terrain of one or more failed states but surely will not involve Jeffersonian democracy) they’ll close the bottleneck at Basra and cut the roads we depend on to get everything from bombs to peanut butter from the ports to Baghdad. Then we’ll be in a world of hurt.(1)
Call it Stalingrad in the desert.
We persist in the perverse and arrogant fantasy that we control events over there. The Iraqis are willing, for the time being, to permit this and the right wing is willing to claim the credit for what they call “starting to win”. And in a way they’re right, they’re “winning” by splitting the Democrats: a trifling victory indeed.
(1) As Tim pointed out a few weeks ago, pay attention to the news reports about bridges being blown up.
Pb
You know, the simplistic “left or right” analysis of American politics is rather dated and tiresome. Probably the best way to assess these things is to do it issue by issue, and then compare that against the positions of a given party or group. For instance, I think Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are both pretty close together in their positions on the Iraq war — but that’s about it. Therefore, that one issue doesn’t make them “both left” or “both right” or “the same” etc., etc.
Dave
You know I read this all and I get really depressed, then I think that tomorrow at 8 am, football returns in earnest and I feel better.
stickler
Demimondian and others have covered this already, I guess. But still, regarding the Straits of Hormuz:
There are really two different sets of issues to consider when you’re looking at what — obviously — is a natural choke-point.
1) The US military logistical issue. Keeping the Straits open to US military resupply will be, obviously, critical to the health of our forces in Iraq. Our military is optimistic that they can maintain this through brute force, though I’d bet the Iranians can make that long supply route very expensive to us.
2) The world oil-supply issue. One poor bastard pinging away with a British Enfield could send the tanker insurance market into a tailspin. If the Iranians wanted to, they could seriously fuck up the oil markets just by targeting the random tanker, and that takes far less than the Islamic Republic of Iran already has. This would require the US military to escort each and every tanker in and out of the Straits, and probably (as in the early ’80s) reflagging them as US ships. Although if we’re in a de facto state of war with Iran, that flag won’t be particularly advantageous. For this scenario, think oil at $100 (absolutely best scenario) to $600 per barrel. This means either $6/gallon at the pump, or (insert fictional, rationed price here) and lines at the gas station. REMEMBER: all — let me emphasize this — all of the oil from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, and Iran, comes out this route. One little disruption, and the world oil market dances a tantarella.
The Other Steve
I give up. No amount of logic, reason, intelligence, will change the course of the Republicans. They’re intent on running this country into the ground because they just really don’t care.
Phil
“I still think I am center right.
I am also under the impression that the current republican Party needs to be completely and thoroughly destroyed for the good of the country. I have no problem aligning with the lesser of two evils.
Your standard bearers are Hugh Hewitt, Michelle Malkin, the Powerline, the NRO, and the crooks and frauds at Weekly Standard. You stand for torture, unlimited surveillance, the security state, the imperial Presidency, trashing the Constitution, and permanent war.
The Democrats, if allowed to, would probably blow the budget doing things like trying to save the environment, provide healthcare for everyone, and a litany of other things I don’t approve of. But they are not worse. Period.”
Here, let’s do another. Question for you John, do you personally think George Bush blew up the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 or had advance knowledge of the attack?
That’s crazy?!? Right John? Only those wacko 9/11 Truthers think nonsense like that, right John?
Woops, silly me! Looks like 35% of Democrats do think that and 26% of Democrats aren’t sure. So if you ever had difficulty turning decimals into fractions John, let’s put it this way: For every 5 of the new “non-crazy” friends in the Democratic Party that you’ve made, more than 3 of them believe George Bush was personally involved in 9/11 or have suspicions that he may have been.
Hey John, how’s that “community based reality” treating you over there? Personally, I think I’ll stick with the right-wing crazies like General Petreus, who have the audacity to think we just might stand a chance of winning the war in Iraq after all.* It’s just a crazy hunch of mine John. But I’m not sane like the “community based reality” so what do I know, right John?
*even though Andrew Sullivan doesn’t
Punchy
Fizz’xed.
Beej
Gosh Philly, 1 in 7 Republicans believe the same thing! What does that make them? Oh, and will you explain to me why the President of the United States and his Vice President can’t seem to get it through their heads that it was not Saddam Hussein who attacked us on 9/11? And while you’re at it, maybe you can explain why so large a portion of the American public, Republican and Democrat alike, also seem to believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Could it be because the Republican spin machine has been so successful at selling this flavor of Kool-Aid?
Yes there are sites where all of these claims can be substantiated, but I’m too damned lazy to find them. Google for yourself.
John Cole
Now you are just being a jackass. No, I don’t think Bush blew up the WTC.
You don’t have to be a 9/11 truther to think this has been a criminally incompetent administration, and to think the Republican party is hopelessly corrupt and has strayed totally from their alleged principles. You also don’t need to be a left-winger to notice that.
And I don’t think Petraeus would agree with you, btw. “WE” can not win this war in Iraq. The Iraqi’s are the only ones who can do that, through political reconciliation. We are allegedly there to provide them with the security to do just that.
They didn’t take advantage of it, did they? Absent national political developments, it will be more of the same for eternity.
And learn how to embed your god damned links- I am tired of doing it for you. It is real tricky. Hit the button titled “link.”
TenguPhule
I’m glad Phil stands with the man who gave Iraqi guerillas weapons to kill American troops with and has betrayed his command by placing politics over reality from day 1 in Iraq.
May you get what you deserve.
craigie
I can’t imagine why, after 6 years of daily lying, these people would be willing to entertain an idea like that. Nope, just can’t figure it at all.
In fact, the only argument against BushCo blowing up the towers is that the towers actually got blown up. That seems far beyond the talents of these numbskulls.
TenguPhule
And OBL is still free and alive because…
Oh right, Phil’s hero had other priorities.
Republicans, weak on Security and quivering in their depends on terror.
TenguPhule
QOTD.
Welcome to Crazyworld, where sanity is disloyalty.
incontrolados
I judge people on their ability to post links.
Phil, you fail.
stickler
Whoops.
At the risk of threadjacking a fine discussion of wingnutty Phil madness, let me amend my previous statement:
Iran bombs ships, oil market does a tarantella. Americans see signs saying “No Gas Today.” White House tells us to drive more.
rachel
Blockquoting seems to be beyond him also, which–given how simple both are to do on this page–says something about the feebleness of his mental processes.
Pb
Ok, so Gen. P is in line with Bush on the surge, no surprise there. But guess who disagrees — his commanding officer:
Listen to the
GeneralAdmiral! Oh, and:Shocked, I’m not.
Larv
Phil, you’re not doing yourself any favors by both mischaracterizing that poll and neglecting to provide the numbers for Republicans. “George Bush blew up the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001 or had advance knowledge of the attack” is not even a remotely honest representation of the poll question. The first part, about Bush blowing them up himself, is wholly made up by you in a rather brazen attempt to tar your opponents as crazy moonbats. The poll question was simply the latter part, whether Bush had advance knowledge. You know, like that gleaned from PDBs entitled “Bin Laden determined to strike in US.” Considering that 14% of Republicans also answered in the affirmative, it’s probably safe to say that most of those in the yes column did not think that Bush knew specifically that terrorists were going to hijack airplanes on that date and fly them into the WTC and Pentagon, but simply that he had some warning that attacks were coming. You’re welcome to your own “Democrats are eeeevil” interpretation, but I can’t see why anyone should find it convincing.
Nikolay
Why, of course Bush had some advance knowledge of 9/11. That’s an undisputed historical fact. Not enough to prevent it, but probably enough to prevent it were he not such a lazy idiot. Spinning those numbers to claim that majority of Democrats believe that Bush was part of some sort of “9/11 conspiracy” is what truthers do.
chopper
what i find moderately funny (yet wholly idiotic) is that this phil jackass is dragging this out in response to john claiming not to be a dem.
here’s the conversation:
phil, you’re an idiot.
grumpy realist
I hadn’t even thought about the insurance aspect–good point.
In short, these lunatics are probably thinking that they can do a “miniwar”–just go in to Iran, knock out the suspected sites with air power, and everything will be hunky-dory and dancing in the streets. Several problems: A) a heck of a lot of these “suspected sites” are undoubtedly in or near large population centers and no people that I know of takes kindly to a foreign power dropping bombs on their heads, no matter how loudly said foreign power claims it is being done “for their own good.” B) This totally ignores the fact that we would be, in fact, “attacking a sovereign power.” If said sovereign power is bigger nastier, meaner, has more money and friends than the country we are already totally embroiled in with such piss-poor results, what am I supposed to conclude about the feasibility of said project of attacking Iran? Heck, forget the oil card. China simply says “we’re not going to buy any more of those gov’t bonds the next time you try to fill that gap in your budget”, and by the way, while you’re involved in that your little power-grab in Iran, we’ll take Taiwan, thank you very much.” C) considering the total lack of planning that these bozos are involved in, their *wonderful* track record with dealing with Iraq….does anyone believe that any “mini-attack” on Iran would be carried out with ANY competence at all? They’ll cherry pick the data to support the theories they have, make up more, be overly optimistic about every prediction, and then mewl “…but no one would have DREAMED…..!” when it all blows up in their faces. WWI started this way as well, I may remind you. Everyone (in Europe) thought it would be a short, sweet war, just enough to show “the enemy” how wrong he was, and everyone would be back home to parades of victory within a few months. Ha.
And finally, D) With what army does the Administration expect to carry this out with? Our troops are exhausted and need to be replaced even for Iraq–from where does the Administration think it is going to get the number of troups it needs for Iran? Or is it brain-damaged enough to think it could do this entirely by air power?
(I don’t even want to think of the blowback if we are so stupid to use nukes….)
Ah well, exit America. We had a good run, but we didn’t keep our crazies and incompetents tied up tightly enough. Maybe China will do better.
The Other Steve
Oh, Phil is just a raving wingnut!
Let me ask you a question Phil…
Do you personally think Bill Clinton ordered the burning of Koresh’s compound at Waco?
What about the murder of Vince Foster?
Do you think he smuggled Cocaine through Arkansas with the help of the CIA?
Oh hell, what about any of these?.
Wait… Is Osama bin Laden going to come over take over the US and turn us into an Islamic state?
Do you wet the bed whenever you think of a terror attack?
What about Terri Schiavo? If we’d all just prayed for her, wasn’t she going to get up and dance a jig?
I don’t think you want to get into an argument about isane beliefs.
Go away now, the adults want to talk
The Other Steve
Look, it’s not that Bush was purposeful, or even lazy.
He just didn’t care. It was vacation time, and he didn’t want to be bothered during harvest season on his brush farm.
Redhand
As this debacle deepens what is ever more appalling to me is how tenaciously Bush clings to the lie that Iraq is “another front on the war against terror, just like Afghanistan.” What it is, is a failed experiment in “nationbuilding” whose only tie to “the global war on terror” is that 9/11 made it possible for Bush & Co. to sell a gullible and fear-driven Congress on the other lies that got us in there. It became the perfect cover for acting out the neocon fantasy that we could “democratize” the Middle East through supposedly benevolent “we will be greeted as liberators” conquest.
Meanwhile, Bush & Co.’s domestic attacks on our civil liberties, via the “PATRIOT Act” (how Orwellian that a jingoistic acronym was used to undermine basic civil liberties) and its other “secret” progeny have done even more grievous damage to our system of government and institutions. Bush and Cheney’s “inherent executive power” grabs have made all of us more vulnerable to illegal surveillance, arbitrary arrest and detention in the name of “safeguarding the Homeland.” Again, a compliant and fear-driven (Democratic) Congress has gone along. That has to be the most serious sign yet of the institutional damage Bush & Co. have done.
It’s fashionable among the wingnut right to excoriate the moonbat left for its invocation of “Bushhitler” as a rallying cry. What I think is that this Administration has come about as close as it’s possible to get, given our long political history and the basic strength of our governmental institutions, to creating a fascist regime here. Unlike Weimar Germany, Bush can’t destroy our institutions as easily as Hitler did Germany’s. But does anyone doubt that he and Cheney would go “all the way” if they could? The 9/11 parallels to the Reichstag Fire really are worth a look, even if it’s on Wikipeda. If this opinion make this former Republican a moonbat, so be it.
I pray that we’ll get an overwhelming Democrat majority in Congress and a Democrat President in 2009. I pray that they’ll have the balls to investigate this administration’s excesses, with the power of incumbency behind them, and initiate criminal prosecutions against the guilty. On the top of my list are Dick Cheney, Gonzo and David Addington. Bush should have been impeached long ago but that won’t happen. And, unlike the others, he probably has a good defense: criminal insanity. (Joke)
Sorry for the rant, but it’s been building for some time.
jake
Blockqouting and linking require two hands.
Phil always has one hand buried in a bag of Cheetos.
Ergo, no links or blockquotes.
And we already know how that argument goes: The civilians who get fragged should have driven out Ahmenadlongname. People who live near a suspect site or a site that was mistakenly identified at a suspect site or a site that wasn’t either but got flattened due to a targeting fuck were aiding and abetting Ahmenadlongname so while the Librul Media might whine about “collateral damage” and “women and children,” President Codpiece will know he took out a bunch of terrorists. Heh.
Further more, they voted for the guy after the Deciderator asked them very nicely and pretty please to vote for a moderate Iranian so, serve them right. Hyuck.
canuckistani
“The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.”
— Ralph Waldo Emerson
David
Yeah, those damn liberals playing politics with the war…
Bruce Moomaw
What’s really interesting about this latest line by the remaining Bushites is their straight-faced belief that Osama would say, in a message that has also been sent to his followers: “Please, America, stay in Iraq” — whether he really wants us to do so and thus exhaust our strength (as the CIA suspects he does) or not. And, of course, unless we can find a way to actually win there (presumably without a draft, since even the Bushites are opposed to that), what the hell military relevance does it have to our situation WHAT Bin Looney says?
Barry
stickler Says:
“Demimondian and others have covered this already, I guess. But still, regarding the Straits of Hormuz:
How many tankers would they need to sink before the rest choose to stay in port?”
That’s the key – how much damage can they do, for how long?
I assume that this plays to US strengths (air/naval warfare), except for the fact that we need to keep a chokepoint open, and they need to restrict it – not shut it, but restrict it.
“1) The US military logistical issue. Keeping the Straits open to US military resupply will be, obviously, critical to the health of our forces in Iraq. Our military is optimistic that they can maintain this through brute force, though I’d bet the Iranians can make that long supply route very expensive to us.”
I have a feeling that the long supply routes in question will be those in Iraq; that’s where the Iraqis have the strength. IIRC, what’s left of the government of Iraq is rather Iran-friendly; the Shiite militias are either Iran-friendly, America hostile or both. So we could end up with most of the Iraqi Army, Police and militias attacking us. Or most likely our supply routes, assuming that frontal assaults on fortified bases are not to their taste.
“2) The world oil-supply issue. One poor bastard pinging away with a British Enfield could send the tanker insurance market into a tailspin. If the Iranians wanted to, they could seriously fuck up the oil markets just by targeting the random tanker, and that takes far less than the Islamic Republic of Iran already has. This would require the US military to escort each and every tanker in and out of the Straits, and probably (as in the early ‘80s) reflagging them as US ships. Although if we’re in a de facto state of war with Iran, that flag won’t be particularly advantageous.”
Reflagging won’t help for sh*t; an attack on Iran will start a war with Iran. The government of Iran has pretty much just two cards in their hand – screwing with us in Iraq, and trashing the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf.
If they can’t stir up a lot of trouble in Iraq, and can’t inflict significant problems with the flow of oil, they’re in trouble. Note: Iran supplies 4-5% (?) of the world’s oil supply; a war would automatically take that off of the market. If Iran can take Iraqi production offline, that’s a nother 1-2% (?). So their starting point is a 5-6% reduction in the world oil supply.
canuckistani
I understand they also have some serious hard-ass Russian anti-shipping missiles, suitable for sinking damn-near anything in the US Navy.