Ken Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon are on Fareed Zakaria’s GPS, so make sure you read the transcript. Right now I am listening to Ken Pollack claim that Democrats wanted to stifle good news from Iraq because the war is good for them electorally. Sadly, no one was there to tell him to go fuck himself, so I will take that opportunity right now.
Michael O’Hanlon clearly does not have a mirror in his house, is unshaven, and looks like a cross between Kramer and John McEnroe.
what happened to Michael Ware’s nose?
Who’s Jim McEnroe?
@ Bobsim.. you know.. the angry ass tennis player.
Yeah, I got crossed up while writing it. I was originally going to call him Jimmy mac, then decided to just call him his real name, and the end result was Jim McEnroe, when it should have been James.
Yaaaawn. That bullshit is one day younger than war gone bad. Not this war, any war that isn’t going the way the numbskulls who started the mess want it to go.
Next up: Brain dead ball-washing attention whore claims Nancy Pelosi is planting bombs in Iraq to blow up the ponies of victory and make everyone real depressed.
You mean John McEnroe crossed with Jim Cramer crossed with Cosmo Kramer?
I tuned in based on your effusive praise of Zakaria’s show last week.
This week we are treated to a balanced panel of war supporters.
Fareed Zakaria’s “Warmed Over Old Tyme Neo-Con Hour” is something that I’m going to have trouble tuning into again.
I just learned something!
Fareed Zakarie broke the whole APPEASEMENT argument down by pointing out that they called Reagan (their hero) an appeaser for talking to Gorbechev!!!
*Filing this away into my mental rolodex*
This is the standard wingnut response:
“You are an idiot for comparing Obama to Reagan. Typical lib moral equivilance”
Can’t tell those wingnuts nuthin’.
Put that Reagan thing on Malkin’s site and I guarantee that what I wrote above will be their response.
By any chance, did he have any examples of good news? Is it good news when Iraq’s leadership tells America to get out, and Moqtada al Sadr re-starts his offensive against American forces? Is it good news that al Sadr has ordered his faction to sit out elections? Maybe Pollack thinks we should be happy that a pair of suicide bombings killed 2 people and wounded 45 yesterday?
The Other Steve
I’m curious why anybody invites them on to comment, considering neither one particularly knows anything.
Ambooggie – Rugby.
The best definition of “neocon” is “person who overestimates every threat.”
Start with Team B, continue with Gorbachev, and proceed to Saddam.
“I’m curious why anybody invites them on to comment, considering neither one particularly knows anything.”
Their boss, billionaire Haim Saban? Just a guess.
Except what they overestimate the most is their own abilities.
It ain’t Jim or Jimmie or James or Peter – it’s John McEnroe.
And he does look like him. And Opie.
You and I watched the same “right-leaning” broadcast. What tripe. There’s a “disconnect” among Democrats? At least they know who’s in charge of the Russian government and what an economy is. CNN is a travesty; pretty faces – empty heads (except for Blitzer who loses on both counts).
I think I am losing my mind. Fixed.
Michael Ware did a good job of pointing out that this quagmire has had the effect of installing a satellite branch of Iran in Iraq’s government.
Zakaria needs to understand that stupid jokes about being sent to Guantanamo are tasteless and not funny.
He looks like Patrick McEnroe.
What we need is an “War in Iraq is Awesome” channel. Oh, yeah, that was pretty much every channel from 2003-2005. It might be that the media is liberal and out to destroy the GOP – or, it might be that the GOP cried wolf on Iraqi awesomeness so many times, viewers are changing the channel.
Either way, it would be an really good idea for Republican mouth pieces to bring up Iraq often in this election season. Mix that with a little more racism and a healthy dose of self-righteous patriotic indignation over stuff like flag pins, and they should be good to go. More power to them.
Anyone notice that they kept repeating that in 5 0r 6 years, the Iraqis MAY be able to run their own country and defend their country?? If they said 5 0r 6, they meant 10 or 12. Said it was totally improbable that the US could withdraw within 18 months, and the two campaigns of Obama and McCain would be coming closer together about this….maybe somewhere between 18 months and forever? I despise them.
The Grand Panjandrum
A critical point to remember about the “good news” coming out of Iraq is that Maliki and his army were NOT independently successful in the Basra offensive. The more the Americans backed them up, the more successful they were. Also the Iraqi Army is years aways from being able to do all the G-4 (supply) functions of a competent standing army. Without American firepower (air and land) and American re-supply backup the Iraqi army would be just another mediocre sectarian militia. So much for the all the success.
The real success has been Petraeus ability to control the message. He is one genuinely smart motherfucker when it comes to handling the PR.
Remember, it’s always okay on national television to label the Democrats as pretty much troop-hating traitors, but responding to that isn’t quite as encouraged.
Huh? It’s always OK to respond to that claim with the simple truth: “Yes, they are, aren’t they?”
“American re-supply backup the Iraqi army would be just another mediocre sectarian militia.”
Or more to the point, without American re-supply they’d logically turn to Iran to fill that role.
The annexation of southern Iraq by Iran is essentially a done deal. The only thing keeping it from becoming a fait accompli is our presence propping up the the puppet Green Zone Maliki government. By staying, we are only holding back and thus delaying the natural religious and political arrangememts created by at least 1400 years of history in the region.
And when we leave, Iran will fill the void and the Sunnis will rightfully feel threatened and turn to Saudi Arabia and the other Sunni nations in the Middle East for support. And when that happens the powder keg will have the fuse lit for all out sectarian war.
So thank you George Bush and the neocons for placing America squarely in the breach of facilitating and likely participating in a war of ancient tribes half way around the world. But then there’s oil in them thar hills and the fine print claims it’s ours.
Even if O’Hanlon had a mirror, he wouldn’t look into it, because he would be scarred by what he saw. That, or he wouldn’t see any reflection at all, because he’s one of the undead.
John got the rabies!
Or, since he’s become a DFH terrist appeaser: The Arabies!
Did any of them have the wherewithall to address this McClatchy article? Particularly this part:
To Paraphrase: “War crimes? What war crimes? In a time of war, the President is immune from culpability for committing war crimes.” How did I miss the coup d’état where George W. Bush became Emperor?
Did Fareed give that discussion any airtime??
Just thot you might be interested in this wiki excerpt.
The Grand Panjandrum
Zakaria, and many others, were supporters of the war in the earliest stages along with the many caveats stated in the wiki piece. Unlike, Zakaria and the others, I was against it. I am not smarter than any of them, but I believe I used better judgment. Why? Because I once fought in an ill conceived war fought by this country’s leaders. I promised myself I would NEVER support a war that did not fall within certain strict criteria.
1. Did they attack us?
2. Did they attack an ally with whom we have a formal mutual defense treaty?
If I can’t answer yes to one of these I do not support any war fought by our government. Period.
Afghanistan? Yes. And Bush fucked that up because he just had to have Saddam.
Oh get off it. The Democratic Party has had one grand total of one policy on Iraq or terrorism that they’re willing to be held accountable for. Ie, that no matter what happens, the Democrats should never suffer politically.
Dennis - SGMM
Ah, the unmistakable odor of stupid wafting off of a troll.
Fareed brought up Guantanamo in a stupid joke. He said: “many of you also complained about this background…We hear you. And we are getting rid of that background, right now. And the person responsible for this is now at Guantanamo Bay.”
So he thinks that Gitmo detentions are a laughing matter. Maybe it was just a weak attempt at humor but it was incredibly tasteless. On a week when the Sup Ct decided in a narrow 5-4 decision that indefinite detentions and military kangaroo courts are unconstitutional, I would have expected a serious discussion about what the future trials would look like, differences in the McCain/Obama positions, or other related topics.
Remember when the trolls actually tried hard?
This is what I mean by critical reading. I am an outspoken critic of the occupation, meaning I want it to end. Period. Zakaria is a critic of how the occupation was handled – just like McCain.
Zakaria is an exmaple of what Salman Rushdie called cultural amphibians. He will always have a place at the table because he spouts the administration line in the costume of the Other, when in fact he is the Same.
Zakaria needs to understand that he fits the profile of someone who could get sent to Guantanimo and held there indefinately by the Bush/Cheney cabal.
What a dildo.
I’m afraid I don’t know enough about Zakaria to argue that one way or the other. I do know that his choice of guests made me cringe.
You mean you’re cheerleading for America to lose, where as John McCain (and Zakaria too presumably) are looking for ways for America to win. No wonder we’re still in Iraq.
Great. The US went to war without you. Now what?
That’s so stupid. You’re saying that if we decide we’re sick of being bogged down in Iraq for no good reason and decide to leave on our own accord, we’ve lost. Really? You really think that?
I wonder how many tours Koz has done. His experiences over in Iraq would add valuable information to the debate.
Grumpy Code Monkey
And here’s the nut of the whole thing; what does it mean to “win” in Iraq? What is the victory condition, at which point we can bring everyone home? What does it mean to “lose”?
I mean, by Bush’s standards, the mission was accomplished years ago. So why are we still there?
You can not win or lose an occupation. You can only leave or stay.
This aint a fucking football game you stupid git.
Point…Game…Set…Match…no matter which McEnroe (or Opie) somebody looks like.
POTD. Simple truth can be so elegant sometimes.
I didn’t see the Zakaria thing, but this is presumably what he’s talking about. We were getting bogged down in Iraq in 2005-2006. The game has changed since then, and if you don’t know that, it might have something to do with the fact that the MSM is filtering the news away from you.
The point where we can say that it’s not inevitable that the Middle East is ruled by the Saddam Husseins, ayatollahs, or Osamas of the world.
I dunno, maybe because not everything Bush said turned out to be right, if that possibility isn’t too wild to contemplate.