An simple explanation for John’s post below: most Americans don’t want to see Bush escalate the Iraq war.
When President George W. Bush declared earlier this month that the only way to quell sectarian violence in Iraq was to send more than 20,000 additional American troops, he probably knew the move would be unpopular. Indeed, the latest NEWSWEEK poll finds that Bush’s call for a “surge” in troops is opposed by two-thirds (68 percent) of Americans and supported by only a quarter (26 percent). Almost half of all respondents (46 percent) want to see American troops pulled out “as soon as possible.”
Like me and most people I know Americans are clearly sick of the dissembling nonsense, they understand that the president couldn’t lead his way out of a paper bag and they’re tired of hearing him try to cover up his failures with half-assed excuses and blameshifting. The administration doesn’t have any credibility left.
Even so, 68% seems like an amazingly high number to me. Do that many Americans oppose the general idea of putting more boots in Iraq? I doubt it. The right sales pitch might even convince a loony leftist like me, if for example we need to temporarily up troop levels to make sure that a withdrawal happens safely. In the vast space between me and Hugh Hewitt there are undoubtedly many Americans who think that a decent leader could pull off a win and who wish sadly that we had one. Maybe I’m wrong about this, but I suspect that a decent fraction of that 68% comes from people who might have warmed to the idea if it didn’t have to be implemented by our discredited pinhead-in-chief.
ThymeZone
Didn’t have any two years ago. We only marvel at the campaign to “sell” Social Security “reform.” With every appearance, Bush drove public support down even further.
The man is a study in dishonesty, ineptitude, and self justification. And he reinforces those ideas with his every utterance.
With every passing month, he proves me wrong …. it actually can be worse. Two more years of this shit. Twenty four more months, twenty four more times to be suprised by this asshole.
The Farting Housecoat
Typical Balloon Juice. Sam Brownback announces he’s running for president and they put up another poll.
r€nato
I’m buying the first round, 24 months from today.
The Farting Housecoat
I appreciate the sentiment renato, but I hope that round is lemonade.
ConservativelyLiberal
Yup, the emperor truly has no clothes. People are starting to realize this, thank God.
Zifnab
Let’s be serious. Even the right wing doesn’t care about Sam Brownback.
The Farting Housecoat
Zignab – Hillary is a woman.
Gender confusion is so typical of the Left.
Zifnab
Please learn to type before you try to be a smartass.
James Cape
Tim F.:
Not to be a total prick, but what exactly constitutes “a win” in Iraq? What is the desired endstate—the goal to be accomplished—in Iraq that a more competent/less corrupt administration would have gotten us?
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone (right, middle, or Hitchens) explain what exactly we’re supposed to be getting for all this horror. As a matter of fact that struck me square in the forehead as the real point of the ISG report: figuring out a bullet-point list of what exactly the U.S. government is trying to accomplish in Iraq.
The Farting Housecoat
Zignab – Sure sweets.
Perry Como
Ponies.
Blue Shark
Here is the way to get 100% of Americans behind any plan the current administration wants to float…
…”If you support this plan and this plan fails…I will resign”.
ThymeZone
As of what date?
Today?
Whatever results in a reduction in American bloodshed, AFAIC. After that, a reduction in bloodshed in general. Minimizing the humanitarian calamity that is probably inevitable. After that, a stable outcome for the people there, whether Iraq remains a country or not. No war with Iran. And distance between the US and the bellicose policies of Israel, the greatest destabilizing force in the region.
Tim F.
Tell you what spoof, you can care about Sam Brownback for the both of us.
Well, the neocons envisioned a liberal democracy that sold its oil to us at discount prices, recognized Israel and provided a safe jumping point for further mideast adventures. Yes, that just proves that the brilliant minds behind this war have the strategic perspective of a whimsical five-year-old. But there it is. At this point most of us would count a ‘win’ as anything that didn’t leave the country worse off for our strategic interests than it was before the war. To me that seems about as likely as the neocons’ addled fantasies but as I said, there are a lot of people between me and Hugh Hewitt. No doubt many think we might yet get there if the country wasn’t run by Inspector Clouseau.
The Farting Housecoat
Tim F. – Yeah, well old McCain is in the crapper, and that cross-dressing Giuliani is going to get creamed in the corn belt. So who do you think is going to take the GOP nomination?
Tim F.
God I hope Brownback takes it. He’s a nut who will get slaughtered in the general.
Fair warning, I will be offline for the rest of the day.
CaseyL
A
Western-style liberal democracygovernment in control –No, wait: if not a Western-style liberal democracy, at least a
non-sectarian, non-IslamicRepublic –Maybe a
US ally who also doesn’t want to destroy Israel–Uh… would you believe a
stable, unifiedIraq?How about a
stablede-confederated Iraq?Umm, would you settle for a kinder, gentler “Saddam-lite” in power, who lets the US control the oil?
And, in return, we don’t make much of a fuss about the Shia killing all the Sunni, or the Kurds upsetting Turkey, or Iraq being bestest buddies with Iran – or, you know, any number of things which would mean more war, more instability in the region, yadda yadda… just so long as Bush’s buddies in the oil bidness keep that crude a-pumpin’.
Yeah! That’ll sure be worth all the lives, money, and international standing we lost!
ThymeZone
Ah, you reminded me, I need to add to my list of “what constitutes a win.” After all the stuff I listed, please add: “The Bush family, and Halliburton, end up screwed.” Because that’s what they deserve. Screwed in every possible way, financially, politically, you name it.
scarshapedstar
My sources tell me that Giuliani gets creamed in the corn belt every Saturday night. (A PJ Media exclusive!)
Jonathan
TFHc:
What do you think of the fact that Rumsfeld threatened to fire anyone on his planning team who even mentioned planning for phase 4, or the occupation phase of the Iraq invasion?
Do you think General Scheid was lying when he was quoted above?
“A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.” – U.S. Military Academy Honor Code
Jonathan
Who cares?
After the Decider gets done no one with a functioning brainstem will vote for a Republican for a generation.
Which is probably how long it will take to dig out from under the mountain of crap the Decider has dumped on the country.
rmp
Like Tim, I probably could be convinced that this is a good idea IF it came from someone CREDIBLE. As it is, to me this seems like ‘whack a mole’. We ‘might’ lessen the chaos in Bagdad but I don’t see it making the difference in creating real stability.
Otto Man
More stunning is the fact that the War in Iraq now has less support than the War in Vietnam ever did. Ever.
As Drum notes, opposition to the war in Vietnam never surpassed 61%.
Meanwhile, the mouthbreathers over at Hugh Hewitt are still insisting that the majority of Americans support the war, aside from those treasonous Demmycrats. Check out the comments for delusions like this:
Actually, Republicans have been insisting they’re the only legitimate Americans for years now, so the deep denial shouldn’t be surprising. If you’re not in favor of Operation Bull in a China Shop, you’re not a real American and your polling response is moot.
RSA
I think it’s interesting to see how this judgment has evolved. My impressions: Back in 2002, a win would have meant “Iraq does not have the capability of attacking the U.S. with WMD in the foreseeable future.” Well that was easy, but it turned out to be difficult to extricate ourselves for a while, so then winning became “having built a democratic Iraq, as the first domino in the Middle East.” When it became obvious (as it hadn’t been before) that this wouldn’t work in the way we were going about it, I think winning became “preventing a civil war in Iraq from spreading to the rest of the region.” Even that looks chancy now, and certainly a goal of prevention doesn’t have as clear measures as a goal of achievement. I don’t think there are any good, feasible ideas left about what winning means. Call me a defeatist, but right now I think our best option is to minimize our losses.
uptown
Just think what we could do with 20,000 more troops in Afghanistan; we might even be able to catch Bin Laden.
Of course they don’t have any oil, so why bother?
demimondian
Make that all three.
And here’s hoping he gets the nomination, and picks fellow Kansan Phil Kline as his running mate.
Jonathan
Pentagon memo predicts 10,000 or more US deaths by the end of 2008.
Jessica
The problem with the “troop surge” is that 20,000 troops isn’t nearly enough to make a dent in the sectarian fighting, and this is even recognized by the Bush administration. Yet they did it anyway, for no other reason than to be seen “doing something” by the voting public. This is insane! We’re essentially putting 20,000 people in harm’s way for no good reason. That’s what most Americans recognize and reject. If you’re going to put more boots on the ground over there, then it needs to be in numbers that will actually have an effect, something that has been said since before the invasion and yet continues to be rejected. If you’re NOT going to provide sufficient numbers, then there’s no point in endangering more lives of our military by sending a token number over there.
Most Americans reject wholeheartedly the idea of spending American blood for nothing more than the opportunity to have a sound bite on the evening news. Apparently 26% of Americans are either too stupid or callous to realize the implications, but we can’t seem to be able to overcome that kind of willful stupidity.
Jonathan
Completely OT but I couldn’t resist.
All your hymens are belong to us.
Darrell
You’re not paying attention
As for what we’ve gotten for “all this horror”, how about the deposing of Saddam & Sons, and no longer having to worry over Sadddam and his unaccounted for WMDs and established weapons programs?
lard lad
Shorter Darrell: “Visualize ponies.”
Pelikan
Darrell:
Who was worried? Was it you?
ThymeZone
You’re the one not paying attention, you incredibly dishonest and stupid piece of shit.
Your snip from whitehouse.gov is what is generally referred to as “A Pony.”
Not gonna happen. Never was gonna happen. All based on magical thinking, never grounded in any historical reality or any other version of reality.
You might as well add “An Iraq where spaghetti grows on trees and mermaids swim in the rivers.”
Complete, total, bullshit. Not only was it completely dishonest to frame that outcome, it was criminally dishonest to conduct the war in such a way that no part of it ever had a chance to come true in any way, shape, or form. From Day One of the invasion and occupation, that outcome has been made impossible, even if had been reasonable in the first place, which it was not, thanks to completely inept and ham-handed conduct and management of the operation at every level.
Get the fuck outta here.
Darrell
Mistakes have been made, but nothing particularly colossal using any historical perspective. Please spell out why you think Bush’s leadership in Iraq is such a ‘complete’ failure, and be specific. Are you pissed that we haven’t taken out al-Sadr yet? If so, we have agreement on that one. Please elaborate.
Also, from what I’ve read, terrorist haven Fallujah has been tamed to a large extent, so let’s stop pretending that the “only” successes are new schools and hospitals being painted.
Darrell
When you have nothing intelligent to say, recycled snark is all that’s left.
Jonathan
Darrell:
What do you think of the fact that Rumsfeld threatened to fire anyone on his planning staff who dared even mention planning for phase 4 or the occupation phase of the invasion of Iraq?
Do you think General Scheid was lying when he made the statement quoted above?
“A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.” – U.S. Military Academy Honor Code
Darrell
These folks were. Any other questions Pelikan?
demimondian
Where did you read the Fallujah had been “tamed”? _Pony Runners Digest_? “101 craft projects with Fairy Dust”?
Jonathan
Darrell:
Silence is the tacit nod of acquiescence.
Mike
Another thread gone to hell….
ThymeZone
Excuse me? The public information space, the literature of current affairs and commentary, the public discourse and blogosphere, the Iraq Study Group’s report, testimony before Congress …. all tell the tale.
Nobody here owes you any such fucking accounting.
Get your sorry fucking ass outta here.
Jonathan
Darrell:
Why won’t you talk to me, bro?
You don’t seem to have any problem talking to anyone else.
Are you prejudiced against dirty fucking hippies?
I promise I won’t make fun of you or call you names.
Silence is the tacit nod of acquiescence.
demimondian
Darrell — those folks weren’t worried; they were being careful. I realize that you don’t understand the difference between taking a precaution against something you think unlikely but possible and outright aggression, but that’s because you exhibit a deeply authoritarian personality disorder. The rest of us do understand the difference.
So, D-boy — who was worried?
Jonathan
Here is a scary video documentary of the spread of fundamentalist Wahhabism in the UK supported by Saudi money.
But Saudi Arabia is a good friend of the Decider and a good ally of the USA, eh?
SPIIDERWEB™
I’d be in favor of doubling the troops, if we could, if it were to defend the flank during redeployment, but that was never the idiot-in-chief’s plan.
More cannon fodder is more cannon fodder and Bush couldn’t care less if there’s any chance he can escape this nightmare.
RSA
Anyone who seriously considers this winning has to say what “steady progress”, “standing up”, “maintaining security”, and “tackling key economic reforms” actually mean. Because under some interpretations of all of these things, we’ve already won. By other interpretations, not so much. But the White House has consistently refused to be specific about any kind of evaluation of its incompetence—oh, why bother. . . It’s a pony.
Jonathan
Darrell:
It’s been half an hour now, where are you?
I’m starting to think you are prejudiced against dirty fucking hippies.
You aren’t a bigot, are you Darrell?
I really, really do promise not to make fun of you or call you names.
Silence is the tacit nod of acquiescence.
ThymeZone
Darrell doesn’t talk to people. He just moons the thread and then keeps doing it, or runs away, depending on the reaction he gets.
Jonathan
Oops, I screwed up the link for the good friend of the Decider.
Darrell:
Silence is the tacit nod of acquiescence.
Jonathan
TZ:
I’m really starting to think that Darrell is bigoted against dirty fucking hippies.
Silence is the tacit nod of acquiescence.
Jonathan
demimondian
Jonathan — careful, there, quoting Tom Paine brings out the nascent authoritarian in *me*.
ThymeZone
Heh. Well, I don’t if he’s that well organized.
Darrell is a rare combination of bad things, the core of which is a deep hatred for anything more progressive than Thomas E. Dewey. He’s bigoted … against Mexicans, against gays, against Arabs, against anything that they don’t like down there in his Houston trailer park. Hippies? I don’t know if he is old enough to know what a real hippie is. He wouldn’t know one if one sat on him.
Darrell is your worst case scenario righty. He has no particular agenda or position, no first principles, no identifiable passion for anything. He just wants to shit on you. It’s the feeling he gets as he squeezes out the waste and plops it into your soup that keeps him coming back.
Jimmy Mack
What do you expect? The media has been telling everyone that it’s a mistake, that all the generals oppose it, etc. etc. etc.
It’s a shame something this important can’t get a fair hearing. It’s sad that partisanship triumphs over reason yet again in a matter of national importance.
Darrell
That’s funny.. Bad visual, but still well done.
demimondian
Y’know, TZ, I’m not sure that’s true. Darrell seems almost like a spoof of an authoritarian, at least as described by that prof up in Canada. Darrell seems almost to be the kind of idiot who would be willing to take the extreme position that RWA’s should be locked up (due to the threat that they pose to civil society), ignoring the fact that he himself would be first in the lockbox.
Jonathan
TZ:
Well, it’s been an hour and we have not seen hide nor hair of the Darrellster.
I couldn’t get a single conservative to respond to me about Rummy over at Right Wing Nuthouse. Just dead silence even when I taunted them with their own impotence on their own turf. They are scared and their own fear makes them angry and ashamed so they lash out, but only when they have the advantage. Now their advantage is gone and the conservatives are easy prey, they roll over and wet themselves like scared little puppy dogs when confronted with someone who has facts, logic and rhetoric at their command.
ThymeZone
These are not good days to be a Republican, especially if you are bound to the fortunes of George Bush.
Watch them now get meaner, uglier, crazier as they lash out at their tormentors.
Uh … look out!
{ plop }
Darrell alert!
Jonathan
There you are Darrell.
Why won’t you reply to my post above regarding Herr Rumsferatu?
Jimmy Mack:
I’d like to hear from you too. What do you think of Rummy threatening to fire anyone on his staff who even mentioned planning for the occupation phase of the Iraq invasion?
Silence is the tacit nod of acquiescence.
demimondian
Jeebus, Jimmy Mack, you’re annoying. We’re onto your spoof already, man. You’re not a bad concern troll, but you’re not convincing, either.
The Farting Housecoat
I really don’t know about this shitting on people thing. Who knows, I might even suffer a bout of performance anxiety and become constipated. There has been an occasion or two today where I have felt the squitters coming on, though. Hope that at least helps.
But at least I’m not a hippy. That way if I did sit on Darrell the experience would be fresh for him.
Darrell
Petulant mental illness is annoying:
ThymeZone
Some figures of speech are best not taken literally.
ThymeZone
Yes, Rain Man.
Jonathan
TheFartingHousecoat:
You too, what do think of Rummy threatening to fire anyone on his planning staff who even mentioned planning for the occupation phase of the Iraq invasion?
Zifnab
Darrell’s right. We need to stand by our President. Because, if we don’t then Bad Things(tm) will happen. I, for one, embrace our Corporate Overlords(R) and ask only that they spare me from a draft or high taxes or some other form of “cost” for this conflict.
So, to those of you who would doubt our Dear Leader, I would refer you to the words of our distinguished Vice President as spoken to the foul little Senator Leahy on the Senate floor.
All Hail President Jesus Bush.
Jonathan
Sun Tzu had it figured out 2400 years ago. Why does it take conservatives so long today?
jake
Fixed.
Grrr
Darrell:
Way to back up your point by quoting an “Executive Summary”.
In case you missed it, America hit the mute button on Bush’s executive pronouncements by voting *out* FartBoy’s back-up singers.
Hold and clear *this* dickhead.
The Other Andrew
Jimmy Mack, do you think that partisanship is the only reason that people oppose the troop surge? Do you acknowledge that there are legitimate, logical reasons to oppose it, as have been laid out by many parties?
Darrell
Now those crazed wingnuts are talking about bombing N. Korea!
ThymeZone
Wingnut? At least it isn’t (a) some trailer-park maintenance man from Houston, or (b) some little drunken prick whose rich family got him elected president.
ConservativelyLiberal
Jonathan Says:
Being able to read and comprehend what is written are prerequsites for the ability to reason. You have to have the mental capacity to take in facts and come to a conclusion. Most conservatives are really closet socialists, they do not want to have to do the heavy thinking. So they seek out and listen to the approved parrots of the party line, who feed them one liners that are shaped to excite the flock.
That is why you can’t argue with a faux conservative. They have no depth to them, they simply recite the pablum they are fed. Once they have exhausted that, they toss the kitchen sink into the discussion, call you some names and stalk off feeling like they have put you in your place. They have absolutely no idea how fucking stupid they end up looking. If you confront them face to face, they look like a deer in headlights. But in the online world, they can disillusion themselves into superiority.
That is why all I see when Darrell posts is:
Blah blah moo blablablah oink quack…
I have no problems reading what a real conservative says. There are still real ones out there, but they are getting pretty elusive. They have been used, and now they are being marginalized and pushed to the side by the neo-cons for not supporting the war. I have been hearing some of them speak up on Washington Journal, and they are not happy.
When you attack your own party members, you know that things have gone to hell.
Jonathan
Personally, I don’t oppose the escalation in Iraq. If we don’t let the Decider have his way, we will never hear the end of “the liberals lost Iraq”. The troops mostly voted for the Decider, they cast their lot and will have to live or die with the consequences.
The Decider is going to play this out until Jan 20, 2009, no matter what anyone does, I want the blame to rest squarely on his shoulders with no possibility of it being deflected on to anyone else.
The stake needs to be pounded mercilessly through the scrofulous heart of the neocon movement, just like you would with with the soulless undead they so closely resemble. The only way to accomplish that is to let this tragedy run until the very last line.
It will take much more blood and treasure to end this Orwellian saga, but those who initiated it must pay the price or all the blood and treasure that has already been spent will go for naught.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787.
Durrell
It’s time for BJ to emulate RedState.
Ban. Darrell. Now.
Permanently.
Spoofs are funny. Trolls are not.
He can go to RedState and participate in their echo chamber circle jerks. We will all (including him)be happier.
Jonathan
CL:
Jimmy Mack
AlanDownunder
That’s the worry. It’s not just a cock up. It’s cultural and institutional.
Jimmy Mack
If true, it’s pretty troubling. Maybe it’s part of the reason he got canned. It’s funny that you all hate Rummy so much yet hate Bush for canning him. Doesn’t make much sense.
ConservativelyLiberal
The problem is that if Bush does his thing and it fails, then you can bet the same machine that would have blamed the dems for failure/surrender will still demonize it for political gain. It is a real no-win situation for everyone.
Making a hail mary pass with the lives of our soldiers. How low have we stooped? I am against the deployment, but I am resigned to the fact that he will get away with it. At least for a short time. I really hope he can pull the proverbial rabbit out of the hat, but I know that the chance of that happening is next to nothing.
The Soviets failed in Afghanistan, where we stood a chance to winning, and we threw that out of the window for an unwinnable war in Iraq.
A bird in the hand is worth nothing to the Bush. He wants another one.
ThymeZone
We’re sorry, your call cannot be completed as dialed. Please hang up and try again.
Jonathan
CL:
I have no pity for the conservatives, I got very much abused by a lot of them before the war for speaking out against it.
The conservatives didn’t speak up when it might have done some good, so as far as I’m concerned let them go down with their fellow travelers the neocons.
Character is much easier kept than recovered.
Thomas Paine
Jonathan
I haven’t heard anyone criticize the Decider for canning Rummy, at least not on the left.
Do you think General Scheid lied when he made the statement about Rummy?
stickler
Sorry, Jonathan, but this:
is bullshit. Plenty of conservatives spoke out against the Iraq disaster in 2002-03. The problem was, this Administration isn’t actually conservative. So most of the “real” conservatives weren’t in the halls of power. Read Pat Buchanan’s American Conservative for evidence: they were against this thing from the get-go. Hell, that’s why the magazine was founded. And they were derided for being Frenchified traitors for their efforts.
Bush and his cabal are a bunch of radicals — in the Trotskyist, Robespierrian sense. “Blow up the world and make it anew” kind of freaks.
Fortunately, they’re also pretty incompetent most of the time, so all we’ve ended up with has been a nasty case of the Mayberry Machiavellis. So far.
Dreggas
And they couldn’t possibly be right?
Here go read this article Too bad they don’t have the cover pic, nothing like seeing and Iraqi kid with an AK-47 in his hands…this is what we are creating, there is no liberating anything or anyone anymore. We are creating more jihadists than existed even before 9/11. But a surge is just what we need, perhaps we should just kill these kids too??? There is no national importance involved anymore, the only important part is extricating ourselves from this mess.
Rome Again
You’re new to this, aren’t you?
Rome Again
and another, and another, and…
CaseyL
An editorial cartoon a few years ago summed Bush up perfectly: it showed him as a child opening presents. The Tax Cuts present had been opened, ripped apart, and discarded. The Afghanistan War present had been opened, ripped apart, and discarded. In the cartoon, Bush was in the process of opening the Iraq War present…
… and here we are, years later: the Iraq War present has been opened, ripped apart, and discarded. Now Bush is reaching for the shiny box labeled “Iran War.”
He’s a monster, pure and simple. And anyone who still supports him is also a monster, pure and simple.
Rome Again
Yup, and don’t forget that pretty shiny package over in the corner labeled “Nuclear Annihilation”.
jake
By their vapid slogans and soulless eyes ye shall know them.
BadTux
National debate? There is no national debate. There are just screaming harridens of the far right and screaming harridens of the not-quite-as-far right, screaming nonsense that has nothing to do with reality at each other while
RomeAmerica burns. Until we have some sort of “Fairness Doctrine” for the public airwaves that calls for *all* sides to be heard, not just the ones supported by the big corporation that happens to be leasing a particular frequency from us (the public, who own the public airwaves), there will be no national debate. Because you can’t have a debate where only one side is allowed to speak. Which is why Redstate and FreeRepublic.com are a total waste of time.Rome Again
Glad to see someone got the irony of my name. Thank you BT.
ConservativelyLiberal
Rome Again Says:
Fixed. ;)
Rome Again
Doesn’t matter what it’s called, the pretty picture of the shiny red button on the paper will be what attracts him to it.
TenguPhule
Shorter Darrell: Sure they fucked everything up, but think of the *PONIES* we have yet to find there!
Darrell, you dishonest sack of shit, the entire Iraq campaign has been nothing *but* a colossal FUCKUP. Off the top of my head I can come up with ‘Debaathification’, letting the looting go on for MONTHS, firing the Iraqi Army, making promises we couldn’t keep to the Iraqi people regarding electricity, water and security, Abu Ghraib, Sending in GOP lapdogs to be in charge of reconstruction, doing the contracts no-bid and not denying there was a guerilla war to the point of absurdity.
You can bleat about Saddam and his sons all you want. The ‘raperooms’ and torture chambers you dishonest Bushlickers like to crow are closed are simply UNDER NEW MANAGEMENT. The theft in Iraq before? The place has turned into a money pit from hell now. Your Lord Fuckup couldn’t even dispatch Saddam competently, turning him over to Sadr’s forces that gave *HIM* the boost for killing Saddam and making Saddam look like a dignified martyr while leaving the USA looking like a chump as our spokespeople ended up FLIPFLOPPING on US involvement in the execution in front of the entire world.
And your tired old lies about non-existant WMDs and programs no longer in existance is beneath contempt.
If you’re trying to put SCS out of a job as the official sucker of Dick’s Dick, you’re making good progress.
TenguPhule
Shorter Jimmy: I am his Majesty’s Dog from Phew, pray tell me sir, can I lick your balls too?
TenguPhule
CL, I must object to your use of the term hail mary for Bush’s abomination.
Hail Mary’s occasionally work.
The Farting Housecoat
Someone above asked me my opinion regarding Rummy threatening to fire anyone on his staff who suggested planning for an occupation phase of the Iraq invasion.
Pretty silly question given the author’s perspective. On the one hand you people want us out of there, on the other you want to pillory former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld for not planning a long-term stay occupation.
You can’t have it both ways. Donald was always for peace, it’s just that certain people in Iraq wouldn’t allow it.
Rome Again
Fixed!
TenguPhule
Farting Housecoat wins the Doublespeak Fail for the day.
TenguPhule
On one hand you have people who think Farting Housecoat is a moron and on the other you have him setting out to prove them right.
You plan for everything, even stuff you don’t want to happen. Pie in the Sky is for idiots who don’t mind causing unnecessary casualties.
Tulkinghorn
FH:
we have had plans for what to do after conquering Iraq for 20 years. Rumsfeld refused to employ them. Post-occupation policy was made up as we went along, with klepto-bureaucrats screwing up so consistently that by early 2004 we had lost any prospect for ‘winning’ the war, or at least, the ‘peace’. Now it is too late for any plans to be implemented, as we have painted ourselves into a corner.
But,
I guess the true fault lies with the clear-headed folks who advised against this adventure from the beginning, because they sapped the nation’s will to prevail, or something. Whatever. Nobody is buying that crap, sell it somewhere else.
Dave
All you need to know about the current U.S. involvement in the middle east.
Of course as the flatulent housecoat states: Donny was always for peace
jake
I nominate this the single most meaningless string of words in the history of speech. Especially when the utterer does not follow up with a list of mistakes.
Then you’re saying Sept. 11th was nothing particularly colossal using any historical perspective. You’re saying Hussein’s atrocities were nothing particularly colossal using any historical perspective. The Taliban and Al-Queda? A rag-tag bunch of thugs; from the historical perspective.
In fact, if you take the historical perspective, you must agree that very few things are particularly colossal.
So, why are in Iraq again?
Rome Again
::raises hand:: It’s a word that sounds like Royal without the R.
ThymeZone
Because Saddam tried to kill George’s daddy.
(Actually, Rome’s answer is closer to the truth).
Jimmy Mack
Who calls Rumsfeld “Donald”? “Donald” means Trump. And he’s certainly not for peace…
Rome Again
You know what’s funny TZ, I usually use your answer, but a few weeks ago I saw a diary on Kos where they showed the map of oil reserves in Iraq and which country/company was supposed to take over which area (I believe this was mapped out before 2003) and ever since then I use the oil answer. Check it out if you haven’t seen it, it’s in Occams Hatchet’s diaries.
James Cape
Tim F.:
I suppose my next question is how the negligent homicide of two-thirds of a million people could ever be in or made to serve my interests?
Mike
Operation
I want a
Legacy
!
!
Punchy
I’m ALL for escalation in Iraq if I get a Pawnee out of it. I love Indians. I heard Trot Nixon is one now…
demimondian
Four word:
* Dresden.
* Tokyo.
* Hiroshima.
* Nagasaki.
Jonathan
Demi:
That wasn’t negligent homicide, it was deliberate and purposeful homicide.
There is a difference.
ThymeZone
Air war is mechanised terrorism. Nothing more, or less.
Air war is the sanitizing of war against civilian populations. By putting the destroyers in a machine high above the destruction, or in a bunker far from the destruction, the people doing the mass killing of civilians can be fooled into thinking that they are not doing what they actually are doing … incinerating children, women, old people, hospital patients.
Let’s call a spade a spade.
Jonathan
Indeed, that’s why I called it deliberate homicide rather than negligent homicide.
Personally, I think they should have dropped the first atom bomb on Tokyo Bay, that would definitely have shocked and awed the Japanese high command while keeping civilian casualties to a minimum.
But then, what do I know?
ConservativelyLiberal
Sorry about the Hail Mary analogy, my apologies to Mary. ;)
I have always had mixed feelings about dropping the bomb on Japan. But you really have to put yourselves in their shoes at the time. There was absolutely no love lost in waging the war with Japan. Japan did use the ‘to the last man, in any way possible’ method of war, but it was largely due to historical reasons that only existed in Japan. The European side of the conflict was bad enough, but the Japanese were determined to fight literally to the last man, woman and child.
An uncle of mine was in the Navy in WWII, and he fought in the Pacific. Just before the first bomb was dropped, he got his marching (or floating…lol) orders to Tokyo. He (and many others) were not looking forward to fighting on the mainland as they knew a lot of people were going to die. It would have been a bloodbath.
It would have been nice to have offered the Japanese government officials or their military heads an invite to a bomb test on a remote Pacific island. If they would have been able to see the destruction one bomb caused, they may have considered surrender. Give them a week to consider it before dropping the first one. That would have put the responsibility (at least a part of it) directly on their shoulders.
As hard core as their military was though, I doubt that it would have influenced their decision anyway. Heck, the Emperor wanted to surrender, and their military even tried to pull a coup at the last minute. But at least we could have said:
We gave you a chance, right?
demimondian
I’m going to disagree. The direct casualties of the four attacks I listed were unquestionably deliberate homicide. I was thinking of the indirect casualties: the people who were sucked into the firestorm in Dresden from outside the area that was supposed to burn. The people who jumped into the canals in Tokyo, and were then boiled alive like lobsters. The people who died due to radiation poisoning at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whose numbers dwarfed the “intended” direct casualties.
chopper
PoTD. no mention of “WMD-related program activities” tho.
pharniel
demimondian Says:
Odd bits of ‘weird’ triva –
Re: Time line of dropping The bombs – we had an agreement with russia that they would stay out of japan untill I think November of ’45 or so. thus the hurry up offenice as we didn’t want yet ANOTHER divided battlegound.
re: testing – the engineers were of the opinion that they coudnl’t gaurentee a blast. and no one wanted to drag offical japanese envoy’s out for nothing.
re – weird ass timing : in laste fall 45, when we would have had a huge ass normandy sized flotilla assembled a Kamikaze swept through. A/K/A Katrina Sized Tyhpoon (the same thing that buggered old kublikahn right good and the origin of the word)
re – war – war, in general is deliberate killing. the planners of the japan invasion were invisoning 4-5 million american casualties, dropping the bomb and killing even a few million japanese sounded like some pretty enlightened selfishnes.
T. Mitchell
ThymeZone,
You are quick to call Darrell a bigot and racist and all sorts of things, but look first in the mirror. For example, by immediately afterwards assuming that he lives in a trailer park in Houston, you show your own bigotry and prejudice against:
A) People who live in mobile homes
B) People who live in the South
C) Republicans
D) And people who don’t seem to agree with you
It is interesting that so many people here take the first opportunity to tell anyone who disagrees with them to ‘get the fuck outta here’. Why come here just to pat each other on the back because you agree with each other? Wouldn’t it be better to have differeing views so that there could be intelligent debate without such sharpwitted responses as “I want to ride a pony” and “stupid fucking idiots”?
Or is it just automatically assumed that anyone who isn’t a Democrat is an idiotic redneck who drinks beer and watches Nascar?
Many of you like to play the “what if” game. So, barring the horrible way we approached/carried out this war, what if we hadn’t gone into Iraq?
What if Saddam (Who definitely liked to get the world to believe that he was pursuing WMD’s regardless of whether or not he had them) was now 4-5 years into an arms race with Ahmedinejad to see who could get nukes first? Who can say what Iraq would look like today if it was still under Saddam’s rule.
What if, instead of using WMD’s that everyone (included the faultless Democrats) believed he had as our excuse, we used the legimate excuses of his blatant disregard for the UN’s sanctions and resolutions against him as our basis for war? Where would public support be then? What if we had found WMD’s?
It is a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. If he went, he gets torn down. If he didn’t go, quite possibly now he could get torn down for not acting fast enough. There are a plethora of reasons why Saddam didn’t deserve to be in power, and why he was a threat to the United States and/or her allies.
That all being said, before you flame me for being a “Redneck Republican living in a card board box who hates everything not white protestant” My fiance is a Baghdad native, I am a Muslim myself, and though the war was horribly mismanaged, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be there. All that means is that we should have done a better job.
Our Constitution says that “All men are created equal” and that we all have “certain inalienable rights, among them being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” What is so wrong with us helping other people (who are equal to us) gain those same rights that we all take advantage of? It doesn’t say all Americans, but all of us.
TenguPhule
Shorter T. Mitchell: What if fairies danced on sugarplums for the magical ponies to be found in Iraq?
Bullshit strung upon lines of bullshit do not form a rationale for attacking another country where no clear threat exists. Bad in theory, bad in execution. So quit trying to excuse it with ‘they just botched *how* they did it’.
Easy for you to say, your descendants are going to be the ones actually paying for it through the nose, not you.
By all means try to save the world by destroying it.
T. Mitchell
In all actuality, though our descendants might still be “paying for it through the nose” we too are descendants “paying for it through the nose” because of the British and Spanish colonial governing and the way that the Ottoman Empire was split up after WWI, or you could go back further and say we are still paying for it because of the three “Holy Crusades” to take Jerusalem.
“Save the world by destroying it” Hm, that seemed to work in Japan and Germany and most other countries that survived WWII. Because we didn’t “botch” it when we fought them. We fought them to submission and then occupied with enough force to keep the peace.
And, I suppose you are right Saddam wasn’t a threat. He surely didn’t pay 10’s of thousandsof dollars to the families of suicide bombers that attacked our chief ally in the region. But then I guess you could be akin to some countries who don’t consider a threat to their allies a threat to themselves.
Considering that the main factors in failing popular support are one of two things:
1.) The fact that there were no WMD’s
2.) The low approval of ‘how Bush is managing the war’
I would say that the ‘excuse’ of how they botched is probably the best reason at all. For had they sold the war differently, and managed it better, that support would have never faltered.
TenguPhule
Fallacy meet T. Mitchell. T. Mitchell..oh wait, you’re already bosom buddies.
We? You fought exactly jackshit. WW II was a war for survival, we had *no* *choice* but to fight. Iraq was a war of choice and not worth a single American life. We *had* our chance to help them when the Shiite rebelled against Saddam. No Mulligans. And double fail for trying to compare to WW II.
Shorter T. Mitchell: But he spent money on Palistinians!
You want a list of countries that help fund the bombers? Line starts at Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE and keeps right on going. Israel didn’t consider Iraq a threat as long as he was contained, they were more worried what he might do if the US attacked him. So try to peddle you tired old bullshit elsewhere.
And if wishes were fishes in the sea, nobody would starve.
‘Selling the War’. They sold the war alright, based on bullshit that too many people sucked up and called honey. If you can’t figure out what’s wrong with that, you truly have no hope as a human being.
Raincitygirl
“Save the world by destroying it” Hm, that seemed to work in Japan and Germany and most other countries that survived WWII. Because we didn’t “botch” it when we fought them. We fought them to submission and then occupied with enough force to keep the peace.
Um, you do remember that Germany and Japan STARTED the Second World War? Poland? Pearl Harbour? Any of this ringing a bell? I have family members both male and female(granted, most of them now deceased) who served in WWII, in the military, and in reserved occupations that were bloody dangerous (munitions factories can be rather explosive workplaces even when airplanes aren’t trying to drop bombs on them).
Maybe this is just old family trivia, but the point is that the British didn’t CREATE the Munich Crisis. And when the war really did start, it wasn’t their doing. The Nazis invaded Poland, got an ultimatum, and ignored it. Of course, Hitler and his buddies did try to make the war look like they didn’t start it. Staged a fake border incursion with German soldiers in Polish uniforms.
It’s funny how the guys who start wars always go to great lengths to make it look like they were provoked. Spending blood and treasure to protect your nation from an attack is one thing, morally speaking. Spending blood and treasure to start a war of conquest is quite another. And no, I am not saying that Iraq under Saddam is generally comparable to 1939 Poland. But it is comparable in one key respect: they didn’t start the damn war.
T. Mitchell
It is a fallacy to think that the conflict between the Middle East and the West started with the arbitrary drawing of lines on a map by Britain. Strange because I’ve heard many Arabic people talk about the way that the map was drawn with no regard to tribal or cultural differences.
Please, excuse me for using We to describe the actions of my country, I could have sworn that I was a part of it and all of it’s history. Though the meaning was clear, and that was just a simple pot shot, I see why it took you an hour to respond, had to think pretty hard. I was reading your response, and you also use the word “we” did you fight in WWII? Oh I’m sure that was just in mocking me, right?
Oh and also, were you the one that decided not to help the Shi’a rebellion against Saddam? Because…there again you used the word ‘we’. Quite a list of accomplishments.
Yes, we had our chance to help the Shi’a and we didn’t, I guess that’s their bad luck. So it is better to just say, “Oh well, screw you!” It’s bad enough to go back on our word once, but even more than that?
I am not unaware of the other state sponsors of terrorism for the Palestinians (check your spelling please). In one of the links that I put up there myself it states that.
And if you actually put any unbiased thought into what I wrote, or read anything else that I have written, I didn’t say that I condoned the way that the war was played to the American public. Nor did I say that there was nothing wrong with it, so don’t put words in my mouth. It wasn’t just republican morons that fell for it, it was a vast majority of country, and even more the world. (Save those countries that were benefitting from the Oil-For-Food corruption, you know, the two countries that vetoed any action against Iraq?)
To the lady, I remember who started WWII. I also know that there is a good chance that had we started it oh, I don’t know, when we read mein Kampf and listened to his speeches about world domination, or perhaps when he built up an army as had been forbidden, or maybe when he started taking “German” land and we (sorry, they!) let him…a lot of deaths could have been avoided.
But then “If wishes were pre-emptive action against Nazi Germany, or keeping our word with people in the Middle East, a lot fewer Jews and innocent Iraqis/American Soldier’s would have died”
For the rest of you and your cute terminology:
Shorter T. Mitchell: “NeoCon idiot, get the fuck outta here, we like being rude patting each other on the back more!”
demimondian
Shorter T. Mitchell: Dochslosslegende.
TenguPhule
Jackalope Foul. -10 Credibility Penalty. Iraq is no ‘Middle East vs West conflict’, it’s a war of choice waged on the cheap by people more interested in poll numbers then actual competent leadership. Trying to conflate the costs being run up on the National Credit Card with WW II and ancient history that is not relevant with the current mess is just Darrelling.
Bullshit. The USA had *one* chance to interfere. The Shia rebellion was it. Any further credibility was lost when Bush Sr. let Saddam slaughter them. Coming in later with promises that couldn’t be kept was sheer stupidity. ‘Go back on our word’, the US was forsworn the moment the first boots hit the ground in Iraq.
No, you only said you agreed with the basic stupid idea of attacking Iraq in the first place when it wasn’t a threat based on your belief that it would be a better place because of it. You bullshitted and got called on it.
Vast majority of the country and even more of the world, who are you trying to kid? Try peddling that lie someplace that can’t factcheck you. The mask was coming off of the official bullshit from day one and it was only *after* Bush launched the invasion that public support rallied around ‘the troops on the ground’. Not that the GOP screaming ‘traitor’ at anyone who kept poking holes in the Bush admin’s case for war helped matters.
Shorter T. Mitchell: I lie very badly. Perhaps I should take lessons from Darrell.
Raincitygirl
To the lady, I remember who started WWII. I also know that there is a good chance that had we started it oh, I don’t know, when we read mein Kampf and listened to his speeches about world domination, or perhaps when he built up an army as had been forbidden, or maybe when he started taking “German” land and we (sorry, they!) let him…a lot of deaths could have been avoided.
But then “If wishes were pre-emptive action against Nazi Germany, or keeping our word with people in the Middle East, a lot fewer Jews and innocent Iraqis/American Soldier’s would have died”
I’m sorry. THAT’S your answer? Forget it. You’re a frakking idiot. I mean, I don’t even know where to start with the above, and I really don’t have the time. I’ll let someone with a bigger masochistic streak than mine attempt to explain the history of the 1930’s to you.
By the way, I think you should be very wary of using the Holocaust as some kind of apologia for the US colonial adventure in Iraq. You’ll probably find some people in this thread who are actually related to some of the dead Jews you’re pretending to care about. And I’m one of those people (not all my relatives are English). Which is yet another reason for me to end this conversation before I say something I’ll really regret to someone who isn’t worth the aggravation.
T. Mitchell
Here look at the polls.
It wasn’t until November of 2004 that the public opinion really started turning against the war. Strangely enough, even so they voted him into office for another four years.
You’re right, the vast majority of the country didn’t fall for it.
“The mask was coming off of the official bullshit from day one and it was only after Bush launched the invasion that public support rallied around ‘the troops on the ground’.”
Um, actually it was after the failure to find WMD’s that public support faultered. Then after the fact that we had no planning for occupying and transferring Iraq. Not “day one after the invasion”. Then the public felt betrayed and lied too. The fact that quite a few countries sent even a token force to shows that a good portion of the world agreed with us.
“Jackalope Foul. -10 Credibility Penalty. Iraq is no ‘Middle East vs West conflict’, it’s a war of choice waged on the cheap by people more interested in poll numbers then actual competent leadership. Trying to conflate the costs being run up on the National Credit Card with WW II and ancient history that is not relevant with the current mess is just Darrelling.”
Let’s see, where to begin with that. If it is a war waged on the cheap by people more interested in poll numbers, why then is it that the polls are so low and we are still there? And why do you then go on to say that I am trying to conflate the costs being run up on the National Credit Card? It is not a cheap war, it’s interesting to know that you think “on the cheap” is billions of dollars and thousands of lives. And actually I was talking about the end of the Ottoman Empire, which is WWI, not II. I also wasn’t using that to justify the war, it was a direct response to the fact that you said our descendants would be paying for this. Which I stated, we too are descendants paying for this.
You are incorrect when you say Iraq is not a Middle East vs. West conflict. A better term would have been to say was. It most definitely is a conflict now between all extreme factions of the Middle East, and the only superpower left in the West. That is why you find fighters from Iran to Eqypt in Iraq. Like most people who disagree with the war, your thought process hasn’t evolved away from, “There are no WMD’s! What the hell!?!1?” It is too late for that now, regardless of what you agree with about the president.
“Coming in later with promises that couldn’t be kept was sheer stupidity.”
The only reason that promise couldn’t be kept was because of the way the war was managed, which I have already stated.
RainCityGirl, don’t assume who I do or do not care about. You are a ‘frakking idiot’ if you think that a lot of lives couldn’t have been saved if Europe had united and acted the first time Hitler gave Europe a reason to go to war with him, instead of waiting until all of Europe was under his control and he had started working his way down Africa. They were all wary of going to war as an after effect of WWI, and they thought that he would stop after just a few smaller pieces of land were given to him.
Kind of like, had we went in with the Shi’a rebellion that we promised to help but then sat and watched the slaughter from Kuwait? But then the brilliant Tengu reminds us, we aren’t allowed to have a second chance.
T. Mitchell
senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&v…
This link didn’t make it in, for some reason this post editor didn’t like it. To go with the fact that yes, the majority of the country did actually believe it was necessary to go to war. Also interesting to note that in May of 2003 70% of those polled thought that the Iraq war was worth it with or without WMD’s.