January 25, 2007

Here comes your "national nervous breakdown."

Oh, who's to blame?
Bush schadenfreude. Partisan pleasure in George Bush's pain dates to the anguish of the contested 2000 election loss. The Democrats have run against something called "Bush" for so long that this sentiment is now bound up in any act or policy remotely attached to the president. Iraq's troubles, or Iran or North Korea, are merely an artifact of crushing this one guy.

The Iraq Study Group. The ISG report wasn't defeatist, but it enabled the vocabulary of defeat. Its warning of a "slide toward chaos" was re-defined as the current Iraqi status quo. They called their bipartisan solution "phased withdrawal," but it was a euphemism for defeat. Momentum was already building in this direction, and the ISG propelled it.

The leadership vacuum. The administration never rallied the nation behind the war in a concrete way. A young Marine officer recently returned from combat in Iraq told me this week he is taken aback at how disassociated the American people seem from Iraq, no matter how constantly it's in the news. He says it's as if the problem is not so much what is actually happening in Iraq but that the war is "annoying" to Americans, as if to say: Can't it just go away or not be on the front page all the time? Rallying a nation at war is a president's job.

The opposition vacuum. One reason the negative mood in politics is so disconcerting is that the opposition's alternative vision is nonexistent. On joining the opposition recently, GOP Sen. Norm Coleman announced, "I can't tell you what the path to success is." Joe Biden says the "primary" Iraq strategy should be to force its leaders to make the political compromises necessary to "end the violence."

71 comments:

Icepick said...

Can't I just listen to "Nineteenth Nervous Breakdown" again instead?

PatCA said...

AFter 30 years of relentless indoctrination against American ideals and history from media, academia and the arts, this 'malaise' comes as no surprise. To the too prosperous and unchallenged, there's something very soul satisfying about the whiff of martyrdom and fatalism of the left.

Side note: After six years of national experience with jihad, the sole new course proposal at our campus in Soc Sci is about McCarthyism in the '50s and other strategies in a "culture of fear."

Sigh.

Revenant said...

The leadership vacuum. The administration never rallied the nation behind the war in a concrete way.

I strongly agree with this point. Bush has done a lousy job of explaining why the war is important and what our plans and goals are. It is his greatest failing as President, in my opinion.

Freder Frederson said...

AFter 30 years of relentless indoctrination against American ideals and history from media, academia and the arts, this 'malaise' comes as no surprise.

And what exactly are these "American ideals and history" you claim we have been indoctrinated against? Strong unions and decent working class wages and job security? Respect for the working man? Concern for the least among us and that government had a role in ensuring that they did not fall through the cracks? Belief that the government is a force for good in society. That government can inspire the society to achieve great technological feats and overcome great obstacles. That we should ask not what our country can do for us but what we should do for our country? That government, working hand in hand with industry can deliver electricity, water, and telephone service to the most remote parts of this nation. That government is not always the problem but is often the solution?

Or were you thinking of something else?

Anonymous said...

No other reasons given?

Like the war was always a bad idea, and then it was executed horribly, with massive corruption, and many many lies and pushed on us by the WSJ, Daniel Henninger, Ann Althouse and other nattering nabobs of mass destruction?

You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Talking ourselves into defeat?

We lost precisely at 2:40 p.m. on 9/11 when all of us knew who was behind the attacks yet Rumsfeld said "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H." – meaning Saddam Hussein – "at same time. Not only UBL" – the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.

Talking ourselves into defeat?

We lost when we moved troops from Tora Bora and the pursuit of Bin Laden to Iraq. We lost when Rumsfeld refused to plan phase IV and vowed to fire anyone that brought up the post invasion plans.

We lost when the American people were lied to, and scared with bogus threats, and told this was a Christian war.

We lost when we encouraged torture, and took away Geneva Convention rights.

We lost when constitutional law professors preferred blogging about American Idol than blogging about abuses against the constitution.

The blood, Ann, is on your hands.

Smilin' Jack said...

Color me one of those who finds the war "annoying." That's because there are really two Iraq wars. In the first, our mission was to make sure Saddam Hussein never threatened us with nuclear weapons--mission accomplished, let's celebrate.

The second, currently ongoing, Iraq war is essentially between Sunni and Shiite over which is the One True Religion, which is like two asylum inmates fighting over which of them is really Napoleon. Our mission in this second war is (or should be) to sit back, make popcorn, and watch.

R2K said...

So the democrats made Iraq fail? You cant ever be happy I guess: if you lose the election you hate the democrat that won, if you win the election, you blame all your problems on the damn dems. For most of the last 6 years, the republicans were in complete control.

RogerA said...

I'm with Revenant: Bush has to be the most inarticulate person to occupy the White House in recent memory--absolutely no use of the bully pulpit; and not just with respect to the war. His inability to rally the country behind social security reform--a very needed initiative, and his immigration plan are two striking domestic failures IMHO. Credit to him for tackling them, no credit for follow-through.

The Exalted said...

i dont understand this post one bit. i dont have the first clue what its trying to say. who is to blame for what?

Zeb Quinn said...

That's because there are really two Iraq wars...

Actually there's a third. The war at home, against those who will stop at nothing to undermine anything and everything Bush has attempted to do. People who rejoice in perceived failure in Iraq because it redounds upon Bush. Plus they think it entitled them to act smug say "told ya." Without ever having to offer up any constructive suggestions of their own. Just snipe. We see 'm right here at this site --indeed this very thread-- oozing their snarky negativity

Anonymous said...

Mr. Frederson- how about these for ideals?

That finding a job and working at it are important; it is the quality of your work; not the quality of the job that is important.

That each of us is responsible for themselves first, their family second and their community third; that the government is not responsible for you.

That America is a leader in the world because of our actions. When those actions are wrong (just like when we err personally) we step up and take the blame.

That we have friends and allies we WILL stick with, come Hell, high water or insurgency.

I am fed up with the culture of defeat the alleged intelligentsia have indoctrinated the youth of this country with since they infested college campuses back in late sixties. We are a great country. We got where we are by hard work, intelligent thought and action. We have made mistakes. When you perform enough actions you are bound to make a few.

I had a boss tell me one time (after I had committed a fairly grave error) that the only fella who never made a mistake is the one who hasn’t ever done anything; a perfect comparison for modern Democrats. They have had the perfect ability to stand on the sidelines and carp since the GLOBAL (yes, GLOBAL) War on Terror began.

Their first official action seems to be figuring out what the President wants to do, and then oppose it. Why? Because that seems to be the only thing they are capable of.

Sorry to have seemed to go off the deep end here, but there is a tie in- it was the sixties radicals who made all of their decisions the same way- what is the “Establishment” for? Then I am against it! Organized religion, sexual fidelity, short hair and hard work; Red Necks, White Socks and Blue Ribbon Beer, as it were.

Has President Bush done a good job of selling the country on the need for the war (and reconstruction) in Iraq to our security? Nope, sure hasn’t. Has the MSM helped at all? Nope, not unless it was by accident.

I think the MSM still smells LBJ’s blood on the war issue and think they have the way to bring the Republican dynasty to an end; the Hell with the cost to the country.

The Mechanical Eye said...

We see 'm right here at this site --indeed this very thread-- oozing their snarky negativity.

On the one hand, let's admit something - they do deserve a told ya so moment. I don't agree with half (or even most) of what the anti-war crowd said, but at very least the conclusion is right to me.

But you get no credit for stuff like THE BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS, ANN. Our hostess wasn't exactly a Hugh Hewitt clone, and you look like a college freshman making a speech at the student union center after reading a Chompsky book from the library.

As for the article itself...

I believe out of all the bullet points, the leadership vacuum is the most decisive factor. It's lazy to blame the Democratic Party and "the media" - No one should expect a passive, unquestioning opposition. Yeah, the media is "liberal" - so? Let's quit using that as a crutch for bad news.

One major point left out was the pre-war planning - Rumsfeld apparently planned things around "the military that we have" and not around the military we actually needed for victory.

No matter what your personal views on our need to depose Saddam, the Iraq War was a war of choice, and as such we should have chosen a time better suited for our choosing - we should have increased the size of our military before the war.

The article notes the awful feeling of resignation to the country. I acknowledge that, and if I really thought there was a way to victory, I'd be for it. But its not "European" to notice that the Bush administration screwed up the planning so badly that victory would have been an accident.

Simple cheerleading about the American spirit isn't going to change reality.

Freder Frederson said...

Without ever having to offer up any constructive suggestions of their own. Just snipe. We see 'm right here at this site --indeed this very thread-- oozing their snarky negativity

Well I'll offer up a constructive suggestion. Let's follow the suggestions of the Iraq Study Group to the letter. Did Bush ever explain what exactly was wrong with the ISG report? Did he even bother to read it?

From now on, because I have been accused in the past of just being negative and not offering any constructive alternatives, that will be my answer. I say follow the ISG. After all the president said he was going to seriously consider it.

Seven Machos said...

Exalted -- I know it's too much to ask your dull, little mind to follow the link and find out the complete context.

Fred -- Do you really disagree that American ideals and institutions have not been under attack in academia for the last 30 years? Do you deriously deny that the attackers have themsleves cast themselves on the left?

I do wish the left in this country would stop complaining and attempt to implement, you know actual policy. You have the House. You have the Senate. We'd all like to see a political solution to the Iraq problem. High-minded resolutions that criticize but solve nothing...are going to solve nothing.

Seven Machos said...

The blood, Ann, is on your hands.

I really love that. I love how these goofballs think in one poor metaphor after another and just ooze melodrama.

Hunter McDaniel said...

The whole "Bush didn't explain it" mantra is a bum rap, IMHO. As an orator he may not match Churchill and Lincoln, but few presidents do. And if we as a country will only respond to the like of Churchill or Lincoln then, frankly we're screwed. I'll wager he is at least as good a speaker as Harry Truman was (another President who had to deal with a lot of backsniping over his conduct of a war).

If you actually look back at Bush's speeches and public announcments, the rationale for the Iraq war is all there; always has been. But from day one the media have refused to report what Bush actually says on a straight-up basis, always finding some way to insert doubt or find an invented contradiction.

The case has been made, but folks don't want to hear it.

Revenant said...

I'm with Revenant: Bush has to be the most inarticulate person to occupy the White House in recent memory--absolutely no use of the bully pulpit; and not just with respect to the war

It isn't really even that he's inarticulate -- he can get the point across in his speeches just fine when he wants to. The problem is that he's just plain uncommunicative. He'll give one speech, apparently just assume that everyone was paying attention when he said it, and then say nothing more on the subject for weeks or months. In previous wars Presidents talked to the nation *constantly* about how and what we were doing and why we were doing it. Nobody in America read reports of the D-Day invasion and said "wait... why are we invading *France*?".

Sure, the generalized lameness and lack of intellectual curiosity on the part of the media is a problem, too. But if Bush was pushing the message all the time, it'd get through.

I was talking to some coworkers a few months ago about the arguments in favor of making Iraq a democracy (instead of just leaving it in Hussein's hands). When I was done one of my coworkers nodded and said "that makes a lot of sense, but how come Bush never talks about this stuff". Sigh. Wish I knew. He hasn't really led America. He's just kind of directed it and assumed we'd figure out what he was up to.

Anonymous said...

Red meat for Freder, "reality" check, Doyle, et al. Don't forget your towel so you can wipe up afterwards.

You want to offer criticisms of lackluster leadership and failures to plan properly, that's fine, but get off your moral high-horse. The most the opposition has had to offer has been to throw barbs and then retreat to claims of impotence when challenged to offer better alternative solutions. For six years we've heard little but bile-spewing from the Left. Is this constructive? And to what end does it serve? To the end that they're pissed because they didn't receive their birthright after the outrage of the Clinton impeachment.

I stopped listening to your bullshit long ago. I'll start listening again when you can offer an argument that doesn't include, "Oh, yeah! Well, Bush is a Nazi!"

The Drill SGT said...

I think the press in America is one of the major problems. Or maybe that we no longer have an American Press.

PWS said...

First, even though I don't support the war, Bush could have made it much more palatable had he explained it better. FDR was famous for this as Newt Gingrich has noted.

As far as the WSJ, by commenting on the "defeatism" of the day, they only augment it.

Plus, isn't it true that most, if not all, of the arguments about pulling out are just as applicable if we continue to stay and fail? Reduced credibility, hard on the troops' psyche, world standing diminished, bad for the region, etc.

Everyone worries about defeat if we leave. If we stay for 10 years and things don't improve, isn't it just affirming our defeat?!?

Most Americans realize if you've gotten into a hole, you stop digging.

There's nothing wrong with being a little isolationist for a period. It's going to take a series of small steps for us to build back up our credibility in the world.

Bruce Hayden said...

The second, currently ongoing, Iraq war is essentially between Sunni and Shiite over which is the One True Religion, which is like two asylum inmates fighting over which of them is really Napoleon. Our mission in this second war is (or should be) to sit back, make popcorn, and watch.

Except being Americans, we can't. If we truly did step aside, then there would be a bloodbath in Iraq - even before the Saudis and their Sunni Arab allies entered to help protect the Sunni Arab Iraqis being butchered, and then Iran stepped in to protect their Shia brethern.

Gahrie said...

Belief that the government is a force for good in society.

This is an excellent example of " relentless indoctrination against American ideals and history ".

The basic premise of our Republic is that government is a necessary evil.

Our Founders made every attempt to limit the power of government for a reason. The Left has spent the last 75 years doing everything they can to reverse this.

The Exalted said...

@ "seven machos" -- why the repeated puerile insults? just because you probably live in your parent's basement is no reason to pick a fight with me in every thread. you should get out more.

somefeller said...

An Edjamikated Redneck said... a bunch of conservative cliches and banalities not worth responding to.

As far as the blood on Ann's hands comment, I don't think I'd go that far, but the fact is that so-called liberals/moderates like Ann who supported Bush on the Iraq fiasco acted as his enablers. They provided intellectual cover for him, so people who (rightfully) were disgusted with the social conservative base of the GOP would still feel comfortable voting for Bush, because socially liberal folk like Ann felt comfortable doing so, and she was an articulate spokesman for that point of view.

So perhaps some of the blood and failure is on her hands, but I'd rather pin it where it belongs. This debacle is the fault of Bush, the GOP and Bush's followers. History won't be kind to them.

gj said...

From the outset Bush and the Republican party used this war as a tool for partisan gain. That is why the country has not rallied around the war and why we are in the process of losing. It's very sad.

downtownlad said...

You want to know who is to blame? It is neocons like Daniel Henniger, who propagated the lie that Iraq had WMD's and that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 - and fooled America into starting a foolish war.

That's who to blame. What a joke of an editorial. Yeah - let's blame the Democrats for the situation in Iraq, even though they've been out of power since 2002 and are now afraid to withdraw funding for the war. Yup - it's all the Democrats fault.

I actually don't think the Americans are that stupid this time. Lots of them like me will realize than Henninger is the true enemy of this country.

Anonymous said...

When Perry White can't bring himself to say "The American Way" in Superman Returns, you know you have a problem.

(awful film, by the way)

Kirk Parker said...

Freder,

"Let's follow the suggestions of the Iraq Study Group to the letter."

And the reason you think they have the perfect, infallible approach that the enemy can do absolutely nothing to counter is???

proudtobealiberal said...

The fundamental problem with the war is that Bush & his staff never had a realistic plan for what would happen after Saddam fell. Theyhad a fantasy that the US would be greeted as liberators, yet they did not do what was necessary to ensure that the weapons of Saddam's government would not be looted to be used against American troops.

They ignored the possibility that what might after Saddam could be worse for the US - a pro-Iran Shiite government, as one possibility as well as civil war.

vbspurs said...

How about the Althouse Reader Nervous Breakdown, with just a few posts and replies to read per day?

*twitch twitch*

Cheers,
Victoria

kettle said...

This is one of the clearest, most cogent posts I've read here.

Just wanted to chime in and say that your decision to moderate comments rather than allow the captcha to do the job automatically has really turned me off visiting. Not because the content is any less interesting or because you regulate what users say - you don't seem to do much of that. The problem is that visitors and commentors are no longer able to have conversations due to the fact that you have other responsibilities.

The two most attractive things about this blog (to me) which kept me returning on a regular basis after that first accidental visit via NYTimes were the variegated and fairly even-handed content, and the fact that interesting dialogues occasionally appeared in the comments section.

Much of the sense of the latter has disappeared with your decision to accomodate not very clever software.

It's too bad.

Ann Althouse said...

"your decision to accomodate not very clever software"

What does that mean? I'm moderating comments because if I didn't one person would post, 100+ times a day and ruin the comments. Your preference for the immediacy and the back and forth is also mine, but it is unobtainable.

hdhouse said...

Hunter McDaniel said...
The whole "Bush didn't explain it" mantra is a bum rap, IMHO. As an orator he may not match Churchill and Lincoln, .. But from day one the media have refused to report what Bush actually says on a straight-up basis, always finding some way to insert doubt or find an invented contradiction...The case has been made, but folks don't want to hear it."

Ahmmmmm my little neo-con minds. Read my lips please. We were told specifically that it was WMDs. That was THE REASON. the media played it in full. It gave President Whoopee a full and clean shot. When that turned out to be a trumped up concept the media still gave Mr. Numbnuts a clean shot at whatever and it turned out to be one bucket of hogwash after another. There never was a plan and the media gave him oddles of time to specify it.

As to contradictions: they abound.
People giving him enough time: JUST HOW MUCH FRIGGIN TIME DOES HE NEED?

Anonymous said...

somefeller said...An Edjamikated Redneck said... a bunch of conservative cliches and banalities not worth responding to.

Not worth, or not able?

Pogo said...

The reason? The Left wants the US to lose. They repeatedly claim that the US is the most evil place in the world, and nothing we ever do is right.

Yet now they have succeeded in taking control of the House and Senate what do they offer? A new tax on small businesses (er, I mean the 'minimum wage'. And P.S. guys, if it's such a great idea, why not set the MW at $50/hr? Then there'd be real prosperity!)

But for Iraq, the left and its lapdog press has indeed succeeded in turning a victory into a perceived defeat. Just like Vietnam! Yay Left!

But where's their plan to withdraw? If so opposed to the war, why keep funding it? Cowards, all. They lack any courage in their convictions, and act just like a slacker, bitching about his parents but never moving out of the basement. Pusillanimous sloganeers, devoid of fortitude and vision, and after 100 hours I'm already sick of the whole lot.

dix said...

Ahmmmmm my little neo-con minds. Read my lips please. We were told specifically that it was WMDs. That was THE REASON.

Absolutely. That's why it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom.

somefeller said...

An Edjamikated Redneck said... "Not worth, or not able?"

Not worth responding to, as I said the first time. Don't flatter yourself, Cletus. And try to pick up some new cliches to pepper your comments with. References to the Global War on Terror are so Hugh Hewitt in 2004. And references to the sixties and those dadgum hippies fighting the Establishment, my heavens, like we haven't heard those whines before.

Sloanasaurus said...

Bush has to be the most inarticulate person to occupy the White House in recent memory

Certainly Bush has done a poor job at communicating to the masses. However, to those on this board who hold themselves out to be some what intelligent and able to read and comprehend the great issues of our times, Bush's ability at giving pep speeches should matter little.

I hear time and time again from those on the left.. "where is the plan.. what is the plan" blah blah blah... well there are hundreds if not thousands of pages of plans that can be read at the department of defense web site, the white house etc... Before you make such statements, you need to read. An announcement that there is no plan is just an announcement that the person putting forth the statement is a naive imbecile.

Sloanasaurus said...

The blood, Ann, is on your hands.

Great quote reality check. Does that mean that the blood of the millions of victims in Saddam's mass graves is on your hands? Or in your view does omission equal non-responsibility.

monkeyboy said...

Dix: We had the conversation already about the President describing freedom as God's gift to thw world.

He has been very consistent in his belief that even funny talking brown people want freedom. It is to the lefts eternal sorrow that all they heard was the one part that might be a particular therat to themselves, and not the threats to others.

Sloanasaurus said...

Henninger is right about the Bush hatred. For example, I have a sibling, who is a devout liberal and lifetime government lawyer, who prior to the war expressed that she would consider supporting the invasion for the purpose of freeing the people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. I have an email to prove it. They now argue that Bush is Hitler despite that she and others like her are now those who spout that we need to do something about Darfor or that we failed in Rwanda. (a strange contradiction) There is no liberal among them who would admit to supporting anything Bush does, even if it meant freeing millions from bondage.

When Bush went to war, I think he thought he would have the support of such liberals - those who support the use of American power to spread liberalism (18th century liberalism), to offset the paleo-conservatives who were sure to bolt at the first sign of trouble. After all, the Iraq project is inherently a liberal project.

Sloanasaurus said...

We should not forget that in most cases gloom and success are over exerted. What the Democrats and the Left should fear most now is success in Iraq. They have been so negative on the war at this stage, that progress in the war will be over magnified as well. If there is even a glimmer that Petreus new plan is working in Iraq, you will see the Democrats in congress run for the hills. A great historical comparison of course is the summer of despair in 1864, where Lincoln had all but given up any choice for re-election and Union victory in the war. Then Sherman took Atlanta, and everything changed - the Copperheads went into hiding. The change wasn't from any strategic importance in Atlanta (the southern army was still alive and well), it was from the sudden shift of dire news to positive news. People went crazy partly from their hunger for success.

Sloanasaurus said...

As an orator he may not match Churchill and Lincoln

I am not even sure if Lincoln should be put into the Orator category. He wasn't a great speaker. It was the genius and substance of his words in his short writings that made him great. Lincoln would fail in the era of television and radio.

John Adams was the better orator.

RogerA said...

If HDHouse is representative of the American left, clearly one of their problems is their inability to read--WMD was a prominent argument, however, there were quite a few others put forward--I think thats all in the public record.

RogerA said...

I probably should have provided a link to what have been at least 21 publicly stated reasons for going to war--this like even gives the reasons in visual form:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2679

WMD was the most cited reason in terms of textual analysis, however, it was clearly not the only reason.

Its hard to believe that these questions of fact are even in debate--but alas.

Freder Frederson said...

The basic premise of our Republic is that government is a necessary evil.

Where on earth did you get this absurd idea? Is this part of the indoctrination of the left you are complaining about? If so, then I agree with you 100%.

How about this quote from a truly radical document: "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." That sounds like a downright positive view of government--that it is instituted to secure our most fundamental rights. But I guess the founders wouldn't buy into that kind of crap.

Fred -- Do you really disagree that American ideals and institutions have not been under attack in academia for the last 30 years? Do you deriously deny that the attackers have themsleves cast themselves on the left?

My point was that if you and I compared what we considered "American ideals and institutions", our lists would be very different (e.g., I doubt "excellent public education for all", "strong unions and protection of the right to organize" and "commitment to public works and maintaining our infrastructure" would be on your list but they would certainly be on mine). I don't see that those ideals have been under attack by academia over the last thirty years although they certainly have been by the supposedly leftwing MSM and the right.

Freder Frederson said...

And the reason you think they have the perfect, infallible approach that the enemy can do absolutely nothing to counter is???

And where did I say it was a "perfect, infallible approach"? I think it is deeply flawed. But considering that Bush drove this car off a cliff, completely destroyed it and then turned around and asked his backseat passengers to fix it, it is a much better option than the non-solution Bush has come up with.

monkeyboy said...

Feder:

That sounds like a downright positive view of government--that it is instituted to secure our most fundamental rights. But I guess the founders wouldn't buy into that kind of crap.


You should really read more about the founding fathers. I recommend Franklin's "Government is like fire" and Thomas Pain "Government is best when it governs least."

Heck, most of that "radical document" takls about how intrusive government can be.

it is a much better option than the non-solution Bush has come up with.

I refer you to Sloan's 0813 post, just because you don't beleive in it doesn't mean its non-existant.

hdhouse said...

ohoh...someone left the neo-con monkey cage open again....old sloan is dripping goo off his chin and its running on his keyboard, fouling the keys.

hey guys: remember the mobile labs, the mushroom clouds? remember? that was the bill of goods sold. this administration has sought to bring in dozens of other rationalizations but that was the one. you know that was all a lie and if you click through the rest you can find most of them were strawdogs as well.

the biggest problem the idiotic - and i mean that specifically - right wing suffers under is they don't know the difference between slogans, goals and plans.

war on terror is a SLOGAN
topple Saddam is a GOAL
how are we going to do that is the PLAN. There is NO PLAN.

THERE IS NO PLAN. It is all catch up at this point and as a majority of the people, congress, the military, the experts, and the world has figured out, THERE IS NO PLAN, THERE NEVER WAS A PLAN and this total fool can sit in Crawford Texas for months on end picking his nose and won't come up with anything other than the restatement of goals and slogans.

It is absolutely crazy that you all can't see it for what it is, that you are so confused and mentally bedridden, so full of jonestown koolaide sold as a cheap bill of goods by this lunatic that you are ready to roll over an let others die for your ignorance.

AND by the way, since no one on this board has heard Lincol speak, how in the hell do you know about his oratory? It is the same mistake you make with Bush. SOMEONE ELSE writes a speech for him..he stubbles through it not having a clue on god's green earth what it means or what the implications are and you go all nuts in support.

It is a pitiful example of the silliness of the right wing and we on the left side of center are just sick of listening to these meaningless words. Go listen to Faux Noise and reinforce your lack of thought.

Sloanasaurus said...

In previous wars Presidents talked to the nation *constantly* about how and what we were doing and why we were doing it.

This is not true. Lincoln did not travel and he rarely gave speeches during the Civil War. His only trip outside of the Wash DC area cam in November 1863 when he gave the Gettysburg address.

Pogo said...

Freder, the founders weren't government positivists, they didn't think government was instituted to secure our most fundamental rights, and yes their basic premise was that government is at best a necessary evil.

You cite the Declaration, but none of the concepts cited are in the Constitution, the actual road map to implement their true ideals, which was framed as a check on governmental abuse. Jefferson was merely nodding to the French, whose own proclivities for nonsense on stilts -sorry- idealism was refuted in their subsequent disaster of a Revolution.

Your lack of knowledge on this issue is a damning indictment of our school system.

Anonymous said...

I probably should have provided a link to what have been at least 21 publicly stated reasons for going to war--this like even gives the reasons in visual form:

Are you serious? Questions of fact? This article was a tongue-in-cheek look back.

What was the main reason Republicans got their ass handed to them last Nov? Because Americans knew they got fucked, that's why. Christ. Even Powell admitted his biggest regret was going to the U.N. and repeating bogus intel.

Sloanasaurus said...

That sounds like a downright positive view of government--that it is instituted to secure our most fundamental rights.

I am glad you agree Feder. Note that the list does not include thing like "universal health care" or "excellent public education." I think one would have a hard time arguig that health care or public education are rights granted to us by God, but you seem certainly willing to try...

PatCA said...

"...because socially liberal folk like Ann felt comfortable doing so."

You obviously don't read her very carefully. Most of the posters here, like Ann, voted for him with mixed emotions and despair at the Democrats lack of willingness to fight terrorism.

As for how much frigging time we should give Iraq, how about we give him the same amount of time it took to quell the insurgencies after our War of Independence and our Civil War, both eras replete with death squads and racial and sectarian violence, even with the benefit of a heritage of English common law and culture? Decades.

And Freder, we do have all the "rights" you have enumerated, but if kids choose not to attend school, they will not benefit from it. If Wal-Mart employees choose not to unionize, that's their right, too. And if people want to improve their infrastructure, they'll vote in new taxes.

RogerA said...

Naked Lunch--the journal "Foreign Policy" is not much given to the "tongue in cheek" format; I took exception to a prior post saying that THE REASON for going to war in Iraq was WMD; I further said, that although that reason was the one most often given, it was most definitely not the only reasons, and to support my position I provided a summary of evidence rather than provide links to all other official statements.

And most important I provided in a convenient picture format so it could be understood by those with marginal reading comprehension skills.

Sloanasaurus said...

THERE IS NO PLAN. It is all catch up at this point and as a majority of the people, congress, the military, the experts, and the world has figured out, THERE IS NO PLAN, THERE NEVER WAS A PLAN and this total fool can sit in Crawford Texas

There are all kinds of plans. Here is a link to one:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html

There are even more details at DOD.

Just because you don't like the plans does not mean there are no plans.

That you continue to argue there is no plan is a complete fallacy. You only argue that because you haven't read any of the plans. Do you expect GWB to come to your house and give you a personal presentation. Are you that dumb that you cant go and read them for yourself. How frustrating that our government has to educate people like you....

Sloanasaurus said...

AND by the way, since no one on this board has heard Lincol speak, how in the hell do you know about his oratory?

I made this statement based on what people said at the time about Lincolnc. Lincoln got a lot of criticism during his years for having a high pitcy voice and for not being the best speaker. Sure, Lincoln was a probably a fair orator, but he doesn't have the same reputation as a John Adams or a Cicero for that matter.

hdhouse said...

Sloanasaurus said...
This is not true. Lincoln did not travel and he rarely gave speeches during the Civil War. His only trip outside of the Wash DC area cam in November 1863 when he gave the Gettysburg address."

That kind of historical stupidity is just what got you neo-cons into the mess. I know that was a typo. Please god let that be a typo and not the utterations of an hysterical fool.

Tell ya what Sloan...if I can give you examples of Lincoln leaving the capital (about a zillion) will you go away?

Anonymous said...

RogerA,

I regret the snarkiness in my post, it wasn't intended.

Kirk Parker said...

Ann,

I think that kettle perhaps meant that Blogger has a very deficient model of how to do comment moderation:

1. It allows you to require people to log in before commenting (this is the part that's not broken.)

2. It should also, but as far as I can tell doesn't, allow you to flag whether individual users' comments require approval or not. That way, vbspurs, simon, downtownlad, and the great majority of commenters here could be on the preapproved list, and go at it without delay--heck, even feder belongs on that list, since despite the fact that almost everything he writes is quite preposterous, when was the last time you had to chew him out for violating the decorum of the place? I certainly can't remember any!

3. It should also let you choose whether first-time commentors are preapproved or held for moderation.

Sloanasaurus said...

I'm moderating comments because if I didn't one person would post, 100+ times a day and ruin the comments

I prefer the moderated comments. Althouse's blog got to the point where there would be 150 comments hours into the post. Such a large amount would make reading them in one sitting (during an office break) untenable. As such I had stopped reading them.

RogerA said...

Naked Lunch--thanks--and likewise me for the reading comprehension crack--cheers

hdhouse said...

Sloan never let the impracticality of actually reading get in his way before???

Sloanasaurus said...

Tell ya what Sloan...if I can give you examples of Lincoln leaving the capital (about a zillion) will you go away?

Yes. Good luck.

Kirk Parker said...

"I prefer the moderated comments"

Not me; or rather, I understand moderation is necessary, and wouldn't try to talk Ann out of it, but it's very much a necessary evil. The delay imposed by moderation substantially curtails the conversational aspect of the comments, and by "conversational" I don't mean off-topic stuff.

Take the pen vs mountain lion posting up thread: I made the first mention there of firearms, citing via a link to Westlaw the California statute that makes it illegal to carry a fiream in ready condition in state parks.

More than 20 minutes later, some other folks started making comments that the hikers should have been armed. It's likely that the subsequent discussion would have been different if those later commenters had been able to read my comment first (and so realized that state law made their suggestions inadvisable, legally if not self-defensively.)

With moderation, Althouse comments are more like a letters-to-the-editor section, and less like a discussion--and I don't view that as a good move.

YYMV. :-)

And sorry, Ann, for the off-topicness of this (sort of.)

hdhouse said...

sloan...oh sloan darling...got a kiss for daddy??

June 24, 1862 - President Abraham Lincoln meets with retired General Winfield Scott at West Point to discuss Union strategy in Virginia;

February 3, 1865 - President Abraham Lincoln and Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens held a peace conference aboard a ship off the Virginia coast.

There ya go Sloan. Never left washington. my ass.

Sloanasaurus said...

Good call on the visit with Scott. I had forgotten about that. I accept my historical stupidity and bow to your genius.

Nevertheless, your one or two examples is not the "zillion" you were hoping for...The point being that Lincoln did not travel around the country giving speeches urging Americans to support the cause as was implied in a prior post.

Contrast him with Jeff Davis who made several cross country trips in the south to give speeches.

hdhouse said...

sloan oh sloan darling....

you didn't keep your word. read Doris Goodwin's "Lincoln". There were dozens of trips and dozens of speeches.

don't be a bonehead. when you are wrong just bend over and say "can i have another sir" and be done with it. otherwise i'll continue to skewer you til the cows come home.

Sloanasaurus said...

There were dozens of trips and dozens of speeches.

Now its only dozens? What happened to zillions? List them and I will believe you.

It is commonly known that Lincoln did not take a vacation while he was in office unless you count his trip to Richmond after it fell in April, 1865; and he rarely gave public speeches.

Bush has probably given more speeches than most if not any president. Maybe he isn't always the most inspiring, but the info is there if you listen or want to learn.

hdhouse said...

ahhh right...bush speeches...you are of course talking about the ones only republican americans could attend? the ones with SS#s? the ones with loyalty oaths? those?

hey sloan..those don't count.

Anonymous said...

You Democrats don't have Social Security numbers?!?!?!?

Trey