Rep. John Boehner is getting beating about the head and neck for some remarks he made the other day, and they are not fair lumps he is taking (although they are fairly big). In an interview with Wolf Blitzer, Boehner stated the following:
BLITZER: How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?
BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We’re making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda here, if we’re able to stabilize the Middle East, it’s not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.
This statement is being bandied about as if it means that Boehner is indifferent about the lives of soldiers, and that is unfair. And before I go on to explain why, let me make something clear- I don’t fault the Democrats and lefty bloggers for making hay out of this. I can’t. There is simply too much evidence of the right doing similar and worse, spending hundreds of thousands of hours lying about what Democrats have said and spinning their statements to make them look like traitors and treasonous.
Hell, as I write this, John McCain is viciously attacking Hillary Clinton for having the temerity to ask what can only be characterized as cautiously forward questions of the newly anointed Caesar, Gen. David Petraeus. The same John McCain who rotted away in the Hanoi Hilton for a half-dozen years while Robert Macnamara and William Westmoreland lied their asses off about Vietnam is now trying to inflict maximum political pain on Hillary Clinton for fulfilling her obligations as an elected United States Senator (*** Update *** A commenter notes that “Westmorland had been gone for five months when McCain was shot down, and McNamara was out of office three months later.” My point remains the same- insert the names Nixon and Kissinger, and I believe Westmoreland was Chief of Staff of the Army from 68-72. Bashing Clinton for asking a few questions is ludicrous.).
So I understand why folks are making hay of Boehner’s remarks, but that doesn’t make it right. Rep. Boehner is asking exactly the right question- the question that every member of Congress SHOULD be asking regarding Iraq, and that far too few are asking:
“Is the price worth it, and can we succeed?”
In Boehner’s judgement (flawed as I think it is), the price is worth it for America. You don’t have to agree with him, as I surely do not, but it would be nice if the “Gotcha” crap would stop. The Republicans are too base and crude and unprincipled, I doubt it will ever start with them.
tng
This post shows why I like to read this blog, most of the other political blogs are run by rabid partisans that are not able to get over their biases.
Xanthippas
I read that and thought the same thing. I’ve seen a few bloggers picking on him, and then I read the comments on thought “That’s what they’re mad about?” What he’s trying to say is the price is only small compared to the payoff, which is statement more about the upsides of peace in the Middle East, and less about the “small” scale of the casualties we’ve endured. We may disagree, but he’s hardly saying that 3,000 dead soldiers is insignificant. “Gotcha crap” is pretty much what this is.
rilkefan
He didn’t have to say “small price” – he could have said, “a tough price … but given the stakes worthwhile”. How would he react to calling the loss of life on 9/11 in the context of the Congo “small”?
ThymeZone
This is probably the most astute and apt observation on the political world I’ve seen this week.
And whatever points we have conceded to McCain in the past for his heroic service, are now being nullfied by his absurd posturing lately. I don’t know of any other way to describe his behavior this year other than “bizarre and embarassing.” The man should retire and come back to Arizona and manage the Budweiser distributorship his wife owns and which paid for his political career.
Ripley
I have to disagree. The US could have stopped AQ without invading Iraq – everyone and their brother knows that. Boehner may have muffed his delivery but we know it’s exactly how the people on that side of the aisle think: ‘No price is too great, esp. when I’m not paying it.’ Frankly, I don’t see much of anything that could be called a success, either.
I’d take the opposite position – no outcome is worth the price the US and, especially, Iraq have paid. We don’t have the right to kill and displace Iraqis in the name of America’s Freedom or Peace in the Middle East. Iraq was not the problem. Hussein may be gone but Iraq is surely no better than it was, and I see nothing from our alleged leaders that will make things any better.
One can only wonder just how harsh a mistress Karma will be for these fools.
Elvis Elvisberg
I disagree, John. As Mark Kleiman pointed out, the financial cost alone has been beyond astronomical.
You’re right that the discussion should be about the likelihood and the cost of “success,” whatever the hell that means, but Boehner doesn’t even get points from me on that.
Merely acknowledging the fact that there are costs, only to falsely wave them away as “small” when stacked up against a fantasy-world stable Middle East and a vanquished phantom menace of AQI, doesn’t count as addressing that essential question.
Incertus (Brian)
If Boehner had ever, in this entire discussion, been honest about any of this, I’d give him the benefit of the doubt. But he never has. Boehner has been indifferent to the lives of soldiers and Iraqis both throughout this entire war, so whether or not he’s being indifferent right now really doesn’t matter to me. His legislative and rhetorical record does far more damage to him than this one statement.
KC
I hope Boehner gets pounded. Hard. I want to see the Dems draw some blood. I’m tired of listening to Republicans say the looniest and most spiteful things all the time, and not paying any price for it. I’m even more tired of witnessing them throw these flames at Dems who 1) simply ask questions about policy that they don’t like or 2) have a syntax slip up in the course of talking about something important (see Kerry, John) all the time. These bastards, who thrive on building raging fires over tiny branches, need to get burned.
ThymeZone
The fact is that the GOP and its idiot president care more about the politics of the war than they care about its costs. Bush’s foolish complaints about how much he “cares’ about dead soldiers and how “hard” this all is on him and his dumbass wife, the neocons’ constant brushing aside of every legitimate concern and question about cost and benefit here, the idiotic hooking of this war to a general “war on terror” which never existed in the first place, the instransigence of Republican members in the face of the disaster that happening to their party in the service of this bumfuck president …. all justify the criticism Boehner is getting, and more. Lots more.
Fuck the stupid Boehner and the horse he rode in on and the guy who shoes the horse and the owner of the stable that boards the horse and anything else these assholes touch. Fuck them very much.
Pour on the criticism. Give the fucker no quarter.
Tom Hilton
I think a) John is right that it’s sort of a cheap shot, b) Elvis Elvisberg is right that Boehner grossly underestimates the cost, c) Boehner’s statement is thoroughly ridiculous because his ‘ifs’ are so far-fetched that they simply can’t be taken seriously, and d) even if it is a cheap shot at Boehner I’m glad to see it getting made because those motherfuckers deserve a hundred times worse.
Mike S
After the botched joke BS with Kerry I can’t help but think he deserves this. It would be nice if this shit stopped but you are right, until the current batch of New Republicans are gone it won’t stop.
Incertus (Brian)
It won’t stop after that happens either, Mike S, because the sad fact is that electorally, it’s a successful strategy more often than it isn’t. Consider–it took multiple screwups of monumental proportions for the Republicans to get hammered in congressional races, and if they get hammered again in 2008, it won’t be because their general strategy didn’t work, but because the policies their president has insisted on using have failed so miserably. But the tactics haven’t failed them, at least not yet.
Mike S
The nice thing is that people are now seeing through the tactics becuae the GOP has successfully shown that their policies don’t work.
Pb
Dear Boehner — if you think it’s worth it, why don’t you pay for it? Would you like to take responsible for the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars, the ethnic cleansing of millions of Iraqis, the deaths of (at least) hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and thousands of American troops? Congratulations, it’s all yours. Of course, this means that you’re a murderer and a fraud, but the millions of years of imprisonment and torture that you and all of your relatives and descendants will serve will be a ‘small price’ to pay for it.
Not so glib when the shoe is on the other foot, eh?
MNPundit
Of course. For SOME goals the losses we have taken in Iraq ARE a pittance, are completely worth it.
But not for whatever the hell we are doing in Iraq.
whippoorwill
This nasty style of politics got started with Lee Atwater and the first group of Texas republican thugs in the White House. The House Republicans then made it an art form in the 1990’s and the Democrats just kinda let it pass as typical rebublican non-sense. Meantime, the Democrats refusal to stand-up and dish it back coupled with the growth of the Right-Wing Noise Machine succeeded in painting the Dems as feckless cowards in the publics mind.
Then comes the Iraq national disaster and slight signs of Democrats growing a spine. Then we get Republican corruption on a grand scale and the Wingnut Wing of the Republican party goes supernova with vitriol cause it’s all they know and here we be.
The only way it’s going to stop is by election with the defeat and complete political destruction the Wingnut/NeoCon assholes that still get a front seat on all the Sunday Talk Shows calling for more bombs and bullets to fix the worlds problems.
All the recent polling says this is likely to happen in 2008. If it doesn’t, Gawd help us all!
Andrew
Heh, you said “Boehner.”
jake
You know what? Despite John’s eloquence and logic, I have to reply with a Big Fucking Deal. It isn’t as if Boehner has been a decent guy who happened to phrase a comment in a clumsy way (see J. Kerry). A few days ago you asked why the Right is so angry and wondered what, exactly, they had to be angry about. You even suggested that if the wingnuts were subjected to the same crap as the libruls there’d be dead burnt bodies in the street. Well guess what? This is how libruls express anger. Ta da! A little talk and that’s about it (not hundreds and thousands of hours). You won’t hear any serious shrieks of treason or calls for his head on a platter, no dumb ass, whiny requests for an investigation.
‘Sides, anyone who justifies keeping soldiers in this never-ending nightmare for the sake of “the children” is so full of shit it makes me want to practice random acts of anger and senseless acts of violence. It’s never about any actual existing children (it sure as fuck ain’t about the Iraqi children) because that might force dipshits to confront the fact that a number of children would be thrilled to have mommy or daddy back home, or wish mommy or daddy were still alive or still wonder what happened to mommy or daddy’s damn legs or can’t understand why mommy or daddy wake up screaming or any number of things that happen to real children when their real parents are sent off to stoke some cokehead’s ego.
Nope, Boehner wants to keep the soldiers in Iraq because of some completely imaginary American children who are somehow being threatened by bad guys half-way around the world. The real ones can take a hike. Good thing the little ankle biters can’t vote, eh JB?
chopper
i agree in that i don’t think what he said merits the response.
however, given the gooper response to kerry’s ‘botched joke’, and the way the gop rakes over everything a dem says with a fine-toothed comb under the auspices of ‘patriotic correctness’ in order to take absolutely anything they say out of context…well, in politics, turnabout is fair play.
the funniest thing is, she represents new york state. and new yorkers are, on the whole, quite cynical about this war. by asking questions, she’s basically representing her constituents. like democracy and stuff.
Chuck Butcher
Boehner is an ass and can take his well deserved beating, from the Cleveland Plain Dealer:
A Boehner spokeswoman said his remarks referred to the monetary investment the United States has made to win the global war on terror and ensure U.S. security. She observed that Boehner visited Iraq this week to thank U.S. troops for their service and assess the “progress on the ground that some Democrats are so desperate to ignore.”
“It’s apparent that some Democrats and the far-left wing of their party are deeply afraid we are winning in Iraq now, and it’s clear they will do anything they can – including making false representations – to ensure our troops come home after defeat, not victory,” said Boehner spokeswoman Jessica Towhey.
I have a bit to say about it over at my site.
Rick Taylor
I agree with you about Boehner. The self-righteous indignation is hard to take when it comes to either side.
Wilfred
Sometimes it’s more self-righteous to act as if one shouldn’t be self-righteous – that’s the veil of light, behind which the Christian right sits blind. Chuck B.’s right, Boehner’s a hard core scumbag, fuck him.
KCinDC
Anyone suffering pangs of remorse about unfair treatment of Boehner should take into account the vile accusations he made (through his spokewoman) in response to the criticism, hiding behind the troops to save his skin like a typical modern-day Republican politician:
SPIIDERWEB™
I was gonna say I agree with Ripley and then realized I agree with many commenters here.
Boehner is wrong. It isn’t a “small” price and “success” is elusive if not impossible.
Iraq will never be a pristine democracy with happy shiny faces all around. The area is tumultuous and probably always will be. Our presence just makes it more so.
We’ve invested a train-load of money and nearly 4,000 US soldiers’ lives and thousands if not a million Iraqi lives for…nothing.
This has to stand out as the epitome of a fool’s errand. Unfortunately the US had the perfect fool for the job.
CMcC
On the one hand, Republicans are constantly telling us that this is an existential conflict, a clash of civilizations, World War IV or whatever, and so on.
On the other, people like Boehner get ever more tax cuts, and they don’t have to worry about getting drafted to actually put their lives on the line.
Damn right, it’s a small price. For guys like him, there’s no price at all that has to be paid.
PK
The whole statement is deceitful on so many levels. How big a problem is Al-Queda in Iraq? How do we know what level of violence is al-queda and how much is Shitte or how much is Sunni insurgency. I think these guys use the words AL-Queda to make the war more palatable, whereas Al-Queda is not the biggest problem.
Secondly stabalizing the middle East-a grand delusion if ever there was one-is not going happen by stabalizing Iraq. The middle east is unstable because of the Israel-Palestinian crisis. Bush has shown no intrest in solving that!
They don’t know what the problem is, how are they going to solve it?
STEVEinSC
Cole, why don’t you read the whole statement and then tell us it’s not just repuke talking points with a change in sauce. Fuck him and fuck you.
RSA
Personally, I’m not indignant about Boehner’s statement; I do think it gives some insight into his point of view. By analogy, imagine someone saying, “I think that $1.2 million is a small price to pay for the fastest car in the world.” We’d think that guy had a lot of money and not a lot of sense. When Boehner calls on the order of $1 trillion and 4,000 dead American soldiers “a small price”, we recognize that he’s not even thinking about the deaths. I don’t know if he cares or not, but he’s certainly clueless.
jake
Bwuck, bwuck, bwuck. No surprise Brave Sir Boehner (R-Chickenshit) is hiding. This is the same pussy who whined that he knew about Foley’s IMs but he told Hastert and so it wasn’t his fault at all. When Hastert got pissed he suddenly couldn’t remember what he’d said or when he’d said it. (Do I need to point out that if a Dem had pulled this same crap he’d have been torn to shreds by angry Republican Congress critters? Didn’t think so.)
But since it seems treason is (again) the charge du jour I repeat the question that has been troubling me for a while, why the hell doesn’t he do something more than cluck? If defeat in Iraq means The Children will all have to worship Allah or be blown to pieces, shouldn’t he be calling for the arrest of the Dreadful Democrats or at least pushing to have them removed from their committees? I mean, I think undermining the war effort is some pretty heavy shit. But then, I also think hitting on minors is fairly fucking wrong. Must be my crazy moonbat values.
Mike
If Boehner’s response had been “Crap, that came out badly. I know it’s a huge price for everyone serving overseas, and I feel awful that my words implied otherwise.” I might go along with John in feeling bad about the piling on. His actual response (thorough a spokesmonkey) was
Fuck him. Pile on harder.
mrsnrub
Josh Marshal at Talking Points Memo calls this the ‘Bitch Slap Theory of Politics’ – and the GOP is very good at it. Get a Democrat to say something minorly stupid, twist it out of context, and then force the Democrat to apologize for it. It reinforces the public notion that the Democrats won’t stand up for themselves.
I agree with you, John Cole that it’s bullshit, but I have to confess I’m curious to see how this plays out.
(posted from the beach house – yay! vacation!)
Detlef
John,
You do know that this statement is nonsense, do you?
Boehner wants to stop Al Qaeda? He should have shouted at the top of his lungs when his “decider” declared that he isn´t too concerned about Bin-Laden (any longer). Just a few years ago, remember? And we can view the results in Afghanistan and Pakistan today.
Now, I´m not an American. I´m just wondering about Americans sometimes…
It´s perfectly clear that there is/was a difference between “Al-Qaeda” and “Al-Qaeda in Iraq”. Not to mention that foreigners were only a small part of the insurgency in Iraq. So defeating “Al-Qaeda” in Iraq probably means nothing.
(And after all, listening to the Bush administration nowadays, it´s all the fault of the Shiite Iranian government anyway.)
Simply put, Boehner is deliberately confusing “Al-Qaeda”, “Al-Qaeda in Iraq”, Sunni insurgents, Shiite militias etc.
Without even mentioning that the real masterminds of 9/11 seem to be pretty safe in the Afghanistan / Pakistan border regions.
IMHO Boehner isn´t asking “Is the price worth it, and can we succeed?”.
He´simply saying “Al-Qaeda” -> 9/11 -> you have to fight them there so we won´t have to fight then here.
And that´s it.
In what way will a long term investment (= troops) in Iraq inconvenience Bin-Laden in Pakistan?
He should be criticized because his “small price” in Iraq won´t do anything about the security of our kids.
Joe1347
It’s too bad that we’re still unable to have an honest discussion on the reasons why the US needs to (or doesn’t need to) stay in Iraq. At this point, I suspect that anyone that least bit knowledgeable about the Iraq Fiasco believes that stopping terrorists from attacking the USA has (or had) anything to do with why the US attacked Iraq and is still in Iraq. Of course, I’m implying that that the reason the US is still in Iraq has something to do with insuring that the Oil (from the Middle East) continues to flow to America. Is it time for the Politicians to be honest with the American public and state that Americas dependence on Oil is the only reason we’re still in Iraq and to ask the American public to trust the US Government to eventually stabilize Iraq which will insure that we’ll get the oil to keep our SUV’s running?
The Sanity Inspector
The Sanity Inspector
That is a rarity. The comments are also a draw for me, nowadays. It’s rare to encounter a blog where opposite sides can meet in roughly equal terms. I’ve been a long time though not especially regular visitor here, and was surprised when I started getting flamed by other commenters. It must have been about the same time that John dropped out of the VRWC. But it’s still a good blog. And at some other blogs, listening to like-minded people gather together and spraymark, with the odd troll thrown in, gets boring after a while.
incontrolados
Just curious. Why did my comments get deleted?
Captain USA
It’ll stop after we crush them.
No quarter.
TenguPhule
Gotta Disagree with you, John.
The Democrats are showing a spine here. Please don’t rail against that after we all have railed for them to grow one.
As for Boehner, Fuck him and his spokespeople. They could be honest whores, but that would mean a pay cut for them.
Johnny Pez
Okay, everybody who mentally pronounces his name “boner”, raise your hand.
(Raises hand.)
incontrolados
I must have tipped the mona meter.
John do you really put up with her shit? Really?
Redhand
Maybe it’s me, but I thought your post was a remarkably understated exercise in sarcasm. Why? Because it’s obvious Boehner isn’t “asking the right question.” He is in lockstep with Bush’s delusional CYA rationale for more of the same; his “small price” gloss on Bush’s policy is just another example of Republican blindness to this disaster and refusal to deal with it responsibly.
IMO no thinking person can believe that the Iraq debacle will bring stability to the Middle East. Even a stable Iraq will not create a peaceable kingdom in that sand and oil cesspool, or signal that, d’oh, “Freedom is on the March” in the region.
The best we can hope for at this point is some kind of internationally brokered settlement in Iraq based on its neighbors’ fears that the killing and chaos will spread to their backyards, and that won’t get going until we signal we’re pulling out.
Even with some kind of international “peacekeeping” force to police this failed state, or a defacto partition of it, the Middle East will still be a cesspool. Israel will continue to be a canker to absolutist Muslim regimes that use jihad rhetoric and threats against it as a way to divert their people from domestic problems. That state of affairs will be more lasting than the Cold War.
John Cole
Not sure- they may have been sucked up in the spam filter.
hunh?
John Cole
Can we succeed and is it worth it seem to be the only questions that should matter. Not sure why you would consider that sarcasm. It is clear from Boeyhner’s comments he thinks “yes” on both accounts.
I disagree with him.
timb
Sort of different from the other place you hang out, eh, Sanity Inspector.
Anyway, I hate to agree with John again, but the attack on the Boehner remark is Hannity-esque. Personally, I NEVER was to be a part of political movement that uses Hannity tactics.
grumpy realist
I say–pound him harder. The Republicans have been screeching like rabid monkeys everytime anyone who says anything against their Dear Leader or the Wisdom of the Wah on Terra (witness Boehner’s response). Any criticism, no matter how mild or rational, has been taken as Evidence The Speaker Is A Supporter Of Al-quaeda. Being “reasonable”, “rational” and “polite” has been used nothing more than an excuse to paint the Democratic Party as being a bunch of insipid wimps.
The only way for bullies to learn NOT to be bullies is for them to get pounded flat into the ground every time they try to go over the line. I see no reason for the Democratic Party to play by the Marquis of Queensbury’s rules when the Republicans have shown, over and over again, that they think such rules are for wimps. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Tit-for-tat strategy.
Redhand
I suppose because I felt Boehner’s answer answer was so ridiculous:
Consider it a generational thing. I’m an old s.o.b. whose “kids” are of military age and thus represent the generic “kids” he’s talking about. Nothing about this insane conflict, which Bush started based on lies about the threat Saddam posed to vital U.S. national interests, justifies one drop of the blood that’s been spilled during it. In this quagmire I see absolutely no cause-and-effect relationship between our “stopping al Qaeda” and “stabilizing the Middle East.” The best we can hope to do is cut our losses IMO, and prevent further destabilization there. I think we can best do that at the least cost by the course I suggested earlier.
In a genuine effort to promote serious discussion, how do you define “success” in Iraq these days John?
Xanthippas
The only way for bullies to learn NOT to be bullies is for them to get pounded flat into the ground every time they try to go over the line. I see no reason for the Democratic Party to play by the Marquis of Queensbury’s rules when the Republicans have shown, over and over again, that they think such rules are for wimps. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Tit-for-tat strategy.
Ugh. One would think that people who purportedly subscribe to some liberal beliefs would see the difference between being “tough” and just outright stupid. I’m sorry but however mad you are at Boehner for being a partisan hack-which he is-or for just flat out being wrong-which he is-it makes YOU look pretty stupid to go “see, by his use of the word ‘small’ Boehner is showing that he doesn’t value the lives of our soldiers!” Seriously, it does. Any reasonable person who isn’t partisan is probably going to know what he means, and frankly lefties just come off looking poorly for making a big deal out of this.
John understands why people want to get mad at this, but I don’t. Please try to remember that for all of the insane smearing some on the right have perpetrated, it did not preserve the GOP majority in 2006. Being “tough” does not mean adopting their unhinged, hysterical and extremely partisan rhetoric. I prefer “tough and smart” where Republicans are hammered again and again on substantive points they make. You want to call Boehner an idiot for learning nothing from the last four years and presuming that peace is possible in Iraq? Go ahead. But saying he doesn’t value the lives of soldiers by misconstruing his plainly obvious point is a “gotcha” and a dumb one at that.
jake
So someone can think whatever crazy-assed shit they want, no matter what the cost of those opinions, and so long as those opinions are (in your opinion) sincerely held it’s all good?
How then do you tell people like Boehner who say the cost is worth it from people like Bush who say the same?
That reminds me. Could someone point me to the unhinged rhetoric that’s being spouted in by elected Democrats? I saw a few things at TPM but compared to the response to the MO.O ad it didn’t flip the needle on my Unhinge-o-meter.
Rick Taylor
And now Boehner’s spokesman is saying that Democrats who criticize are trying to make us loose in Iraq. Great. We’re facing one of the most delicate intractable challenges imaginable, with hundreds of thousands of lives and a whole country in the balance, and the discourse of our leaders is on the level of six year olds. Via talking points memo :
incontrolados
incontrolados
acckkk I give up.
Rick Taylor
I will also add that while I agree most of the criticisms of his remarks are of the gotcha variety, I disagree that he’s asking the right questions or being honest. All the Republicans have turned this into a war with Al Qaeda, because that’s what sells, but it’s a lie. Al Qaeda in Iraq is one small part of what we’re fighting; it could disappear tomorrow and Iraq would still be a horrific mess. It’s fundamentally dishonest, and more reprehensible than his remark people have pounced on, because as long as we keep fighting a fantasy war against the forces we want to be fighting instead of facing reality, more lives are going to be wasted. We can all disagree what the right thing to do is, it’s a heart-rendingly awful situation we’ve created with no easy answers; but we have to start by facing up to what’s really happening. And every Republican official I’ve heard (and I’d love to be given a counter-example) clings to the fantasy that everything in Iraq would be great except Al Qaeda and Iran interfered, because facing the reality of what’s happened and happening would make them look bad. So I actually do think he (and nearly every other Republican I’ve heard speak on the matter) deserve a lot of harsh criticism for what he’s saying; just not the criticism he’s been getting.
I’m looking for honest Republican officials. Not necessarily one who supports the policies I do, but one who’s upfront with what’s happened, what we’re facing, and what we’re trying to accomplish. They’re in short supply.
grumpy realist
Well, that’s the thing–look at Boehner’s retort, which is basically saying that any Democrat who criticizes him is someone who wants to lose the war.
I’m sick and tired of turning the other cheek. It doesn’t convince the other side of anything, except that we’re being fools and patsies.
Rick Taylor
And, Lincoln Chafee just left the Republican party. That shortens my already short list of honest Republicans by one.
Jody
The same John McCain who rotted away in the Hanoi Hilton for a half-dozen years while Robert Macnamara and William Westmoreland lied their asses off about Vietnam…
Point of fact: Westmorland had been gone for five months when McCain was shot down, and McNamara was out of office three months later. But I suppose they did keep on lying…
Rome Again
Turning the other cheek is a religous thing, in politics it doesn’t work and all bets are off if you try to. Religion and politics were NEVER MEANT to be mixed, so stop mixing them. You don’t get by in politics by turning anything but money into power.
Rome Again
Yeeouch!
TenguPhule
Fortunately for us all, ‘Reasonable Serious People’ who think we all need to come together and sing kumbaya for compromise between Date Rapists and their Victims are in short supply and tend not to vote anyway.
TenguPhule
And I’d like a flying pony to divebomb Bush with Pony Surprise during his speeches.
Voters as a group tend to be stupid. Welcome to Politics, first visit here?
John Cole
Thanks, Jody.
jake
Wow, Chafee was on my list of people who proved the entire party wasn’t completely rotten. His departure was inevitable, but still a shame. It really seems like someone at GOP HQ started the self-destruct sequence. But maybe America will finally get a viable more-than-two-party system.
whippoorwill
amusement
liberal
jake wrote,
Not possible in a “first past the post” system. We’re stuck with two parties.
Neville Ross
Speaking of AQ, Gwynne Dwyer has a different take on the situation in Iraq, and on how we should handle things:
Calm ‘n’ collected
Terrorist plot in cool-headed Germany shows that hysteria at borders does not pave road to security
By GWYNNE DYER
So what lessons can we draw from the fact that German police raided a house an hour east of Dusseldorf September 5 and arrested three suspected Islamist terrorists?
The first is that the potential terrorists are already in the West, and all the border controls in the world will not stop them.
The three had accumulated enough hydrogen peroxide to build a bomb with the explosive power of 550 kilograms of TNT, and they had scouted potential targets like Frankfurt International Airport and the huge U.S. Air Force base at Ramstein. As usual, the German police released only their first names and initials: Daniel S., age 22; Fritz G., 28; and Adem Y., 29.
It was the closest call yet for Germany, which has so far escaped attacks like those in Madrid and London. More attempts will doubtless follow, for Germany has peacekeeping troops in Afghanistan and Lebanon, and the disaster in Iraq has poisoned the well so badly that Western troops in any Muslim country look to some young Muslims like part of the “Zionist-Crusader assault on Islam.”
But the response of the German media was instructive. There was, inevitably, the “blame the immigrants” gang, like Jacques Schuster in Berliner Morgenpost: “The government must increase the pressure on Muslims to integrate. Even peaceful parallel societies cannot be tolerated.”
Which kind of missed the point that two of the three men arrested were ethnic German converts to Islam. (The other was a Turkish citizen long resident in Germany.)
There was also the realism and refusal to panic characteristic of a society that has some previous experience of dealing with terrorism in the days of the Baader-Meinhof Gang. As Stephan Speicher put it in Berliner Zeitung: “We will just have to learn to live with the threat of terror.”
But the most trenchant comment came from Richard Meng in Frankfurter Rundschau: “It was Fritz and Daniel who were arrested with Adem, not Mohammed or Mustafa. It can no longer be denied that it is foolish to regard immigrants as a greater security threat than the indigenous population. It is even more foolish to make sweeping judgments about Islam.” Exactly.
“Islamist” extremism is a political phenomenon, and it has precisely the same appeal to the disoriented and the alienated as previous millennial doctrines, from the Hashishin (Assassins) of the 12th-century Middle East to the anarchists and Bolsheviks of 20th-century Europe. Like many such doctrines, it wraps itself in religious symbolism: most religions are, after all, millennial. But terrorism is not religion, and “Islamism” is not Islam.
http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2007-09-13/news_story4.php
Aaron
Let me take a stab at this. Im going for a running start:
Dick Cheney 1994:
He made similar comments in 2000.
GWB said he didnt believe in nation building.
So what changed?
Im sure they would say “9/11 changed everything” but it didnt change the laws of physics and it didnt change the reality of Iraq.
Again, so what changed?
I dont think they became stupider (not enough at least).
I dont think they were brainwashed a la manchurian candidate.
What changed is that they were in power. Now they were in charge.
And the war could be used as a multipurpose partisan and political tool.
And the war could be used to steer spending to companies run by ‘good republicans’ who would in turn make the appropriate campaign contributions.
But for this to make sense several other presumptions would also have to be true:
The value of the lives of the American Military would have to be zero.
The value of the lives of Iraqis would also have to be zero.
And the value of the US reputation in the world would also have to be zero.
And that same analysis applies to every other Republican congressman and senator.
The fact is that Boener doesnt think the loss of American lives is a ‘small price’. He and the rest dont consider it a price at all. Unless its being used against them politically. Then its another round of ‘how dare you not support our troops.
And if your not convinced by this analysis that republicans dont give a damn about american lives, and human lives consider 9/11. Despite numerous warnings they didnt do a god damned thing. Afterwards, instead of being rightly concerned about that the security of our nation is in the hands of nincompoops, idiots, and incompetants, the Republican congress did everything they could to make excuses and deflect blame. Hey look, its Al Sharpton! And Nancy Pelosi!! and look Kerry botched a joke!!!
Consider also Katrina. Despite numerous warnings they didnt do a god damned thing. Afterwards, instead of being rightly concerned about that the safety of American and whether its in the hands of nincompoops, idiots, and incompetants, the Republican congress did everything they could to make excuses and deflect blame. Hey look, its Al Sharpton! And Nancy Pelosi!! and look Kerry botched a joke!!!
Fact is Brownie was doing a heckuva job. At drawing fire rightly meant for the Republican leadership.
So does Boener deserve criticism for this? Damn straight he does. And so do all the rest of those scumbag republican politicians.
Xanthippas
Did I say that? No, I said you attack him on his substantive points, which is the same thing as what you’re saying here.
I’m not talking about Democrats. I’m talking about bloggers attacking Boehner. That’s clear from my post.
Xanthippas
“Politics” also encompasses being smart, and not playing gotcha games that the average voter sees right through. I invite you to play all the gotcha games you want with the GOP. Perhaps that will work as well for the Democrats as it did for the GOP in 2006.
I honestly thought most people on my side of the aisle would have learned a thing or two from Bush about the difference between being tough and looking tough. If you think the correct reponse to things like the GOP calling Democrats “defeatocrats” is to seize on a word to “prove” that Republicans actually hate the troops, I sincerely hope you’re someone who’s NOT in a position to advise an actual Democratic politician anytime soon.
PK
Aron
I pretty much agree with what you say, but one thing which is a complete mystery to me is how can Dick Cheney believe the exact opposite of what he believed in 1994. He may be an evil scum but he was smart enough to realise in “94′ that occupying Iraq would lead to disaster. Those facts don’t change. A war leading to quagmire does not help the republicans, military deaths do not help the republicans, indifference to Katrina does not either.
Are you saying that they went to Iraq with pure greed and profit as their only motive? If that was the case then they did not really care about the republican party either!
STEVEinSC
Xanthippas=DLC
Jake
Did you say this?
[Hint: Nope.]
Sorry, I just pulled a quote from your post mainly out of laziness. I got the impression from a number of other posts that elected Democrats were going after Boehner with meat hooks. I looked and could find nothing of the sort, therefore my request for links &tc. Apologies for the confusion.
Aaron
PK-
Bush also wanted revenge on the man who tried to kill his daddy.
And Dick Cheney would profit personally- do you know how much Haliburton stock he owns?
And the rest of the Republican party would get in line behind the leader.
They are only concerned with the current election cycle. And if you screw things up, they just spin madly, spew garbage and distractions endlessly, and count on the complicity of the corporate media.
They really dont give a damn about the lives of Americans.
fecapult
I’m not a big fan of the ‘He who lives by the sword dies by the sword’ and ‘fight fire with fire’ arguments here, and in other circumstances I’d say that resorting to that sort of political hatchetry is entertaining in a schadenfruede sense but not to be encouraged: Fer gods sake, look what hate has done to the right! They’ve alienated everyone because they couldn’t make a pack of rabid attack dogs who didn’t eventually turn on each other.
However, Boehner is playing political football with people’s lives in an unecessary and tragic war. At the moment, I’d say any tactic to crush and cow the opposition and get us out of Iraq (especially before we go into Iran) is justifiable. If they want to play politics with people’s lives, then get down and dirty, destroy em all, and bring the boys back home.
bittern
“In Boehner’s judgement (flawed as I think it is), the price is worth it for America. You don’t have to agree with him, as I surely do not, but it would be nice if the “Gotcha” crap would stop.”
Thank you, John Cole. Glad somebody is saying it.
Fellow libs: The median voter may be poorly informed, but s/he is quite satisfied to have the national interest protected by a relatively small number of servicemen. That median voter has his/her share of faults, but is not so stupid, IMO, to be swayed very far by gotcha crap from antiwar people. Oh, I see Xanthippas covered this already from the other side. Well said, X. By the way, seeing as that Boehner meant what he said, this would be poor fodder even if gotchas were worthwhile.
TenguPhule
That is why they are stupid and easily led around by the nose if you yell loud enough and remember to use small words.
G-E-T I-T N-O-W-?
Funny, it worked perfectly well for the GOP from 1980-2005 and tore the Democratic Brand to shreds in the process. It took an unpopular war and a gay sex scandal to turn it around. And when Democrats listen to stupid advice like ‘don’t fight back, be polite’ they get raped.
The problem is they’ve listened to ‘serious’ thinkers like Xanthippas for too long and forgotten that Politics is an ugly brutal sport where the rules are made by the winners.
I sincerely hope the Ds fire the campaign consultants who operate under Xanthippas ‘Lose and lose badly’ ideals of campaigning before 2008 rolls around.
We have enough troubles as it is without the Ds shooting themselves in the foot again.
jake
Christ, what are we? A bunch of school girls listening to some 45 year old fuck tell us he really n’ truly loves us, that’s why it’s OK for him to stick his hands up our skirt?
Whether or not Boehner means it (and leaving aside how anyone but Boehner knows what he means) doesn’t make a whole hell of a lot of difference. If he does really “mean it,” he’s a delusional sack of crap. If he is just spouting talking points, he’s a lying sack of crap. And since the R’s have been insisting for years that we can’t mention soldiers without genuflecting, and the GOP is the party of big tough guys and the Dems are all Nancy boy surrendercrats, I think he’ll survive whatever sniping that goes on in Blogistan.