January 10, 2007

Too agreeable.

Matthew Yglesias -- after reading what Marty Lederman had to say -- is sorry he agreed with me so much about the Democrats and Iraq.

20 comments:

Henry said...

Given actual post '73 history in Southeast Asia, Lederman seems disturbingly unaware of the historical irony of his model for Congress:

...Congress could simply vote for a law requiring withdrawals or redeployments on a particular timetable. (In 1973, for instance, Congress enacted a law effectively requiring withdrawal from Cambodia and Vietnam by a date certain (August 15, 1973). See Pub. L. No. 93-52, 87 Stat. 134 ("Notwithstanding any other provision of law, on or after August 15, 1973, no funds herein or heretofore appropriated may be obligated or expended to finance directly or indirectly combat activities by United States military forces in or over or from off the shores of North Vietnam, South Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia.")

Oh yeah, that sure worked out well for the South Vietnamese and Cambodians.

If anything is ghoulish, it's Josh Marshall's enthusiasm for such a prospect.

buffpilot said...

Yep, keep the eye on the ball - 2008 elections. Just write off the next two years. Is that what the Democratic sweep was for???

And Iraq and Afghanistan are very much linked. Withdrawing from Iraq will not end the war in any sense, except that fighting in Iraq (after a bloody three-way civil war) would end. Or do you really believe that if we leave Iraq everything will become all flowers and candy? I would much rather fight them in Iraq than in Afghanistan (much better terrain & logistics if nothing else).

If we leave Iraq I can almost 100% guarantee that Afghanistan will ratchet up even more with the sudden availability of funds and fighters for that front. I bet that our NATO Allies (noticing we have no true staying power after almost negligible casualties from an historical perspective) will pull out once they start taking losses. Then we will be run out of there. Two big victories for the jihadists, proving that the west is weak and has no stomach for a fight. And killing Osama (or him dieing of old age) will not change these facts one bit.

So what's the plan in 2008 for the Democrats’ to lead the US to victory? Or is this just all about “saving” SSI, increasing taxes, and universal healthcare?

Anonymous said...

You misrepresent Yglesias's post. He's not especially concerned with having agreed with you or having been "too agreeable." The latter phrase doesn't appear at all, btw. it's that he's changed his mind based on new information. You should try it sometime.

buffpilot said...

Ann, My comment was directed at Matt's post. The Democrates worrying about elections and not what they can do to 'solve' the war (whatever version is called solve) now that they have the power is a stand of immense cowardice. Where are the Rosevelts and Trumans of yore?

hdhouse said...

NO TRUE STAYING POWER????

How utterly stupid can anyone be. 4 years in the desert doing noting and spending billions, killing our military off both in troops and in materials, screwing up to the point that Bush is 1 step from impeachment and should be 1 step into a prison and we have no Staying Power???

The idiocy of such a statement defies common sense, intelligence and above all a grip on reality.

Anonymous said...

Irony from above.

Anonymous said...

How utterly stupid can anyone be. 4 years in the desert doing noting and spending billions, killing our military off both in troops and in materials, screwing up to the point that Bush is 1 step from impeachment and should be 1 step into a prison and we have no Staying Power??? The idiocy of such a statement defies common sense, intelligence and above all a grip on reality.

hdhouse stretches the boundries of irony.

Osama was right about a few things. The most critical: Americans do not have the will to win this war. When we run from Iraq, they will follow us home. Hopefully hd's home and not mine.

I may even provide directions. Afterall, they deserve whats comming.

Anonymous said...

The Democrats would replace the American eagle with a "paper tiger".

buffpilot said...

OK hdhouse,

What happens after you impeach Bush & Cheney? Pelosi is Pres. What the Democrats plan to win the war?

From what I read, its 1) Surrender in Iraq and let it go into chaos (Victory for Al Queda) 2) Redeploy US forces into Afghanistan for a counter-insurgent war at 15,000 ft on the Afghani-Paki border (but can't go into Pakistan!). How long will you stay in Afghanistan? Once the terrorists redeploy their after their huge victory in Iraq how long will you stay and fight? 1 year? 3? Until we get to 5,000 dead? 10,000?

Do you think ANY of our Allies will stay once the body bags start going up? We can't, RIGHT NOW, get them into the hot zones. Do you expect them to stay once the start taking real losses? How many French or Germans will be killed to get them out? I bet they would bail long before they get to 200 let alone thousands.

I voted for Bush, not because I liked his policies, but all I saw on the Democrats side was surrender. Kerry was not a JFK, or Truman or Roosevelt. Nor due I see that ruthlessness against our enemies anywhere in your party.

monkeyboy said...

Doing nothing?
Doing nothing?
Doing nothing?
Doing nothing?


Really?

Anonymous said...

Osama was right about a few things. The most critical: Americans do not have the will to win this war. When we run from Iraq, they will follow us home. Hopefully hd's home and not mine.

Hook.Line.Sinker.

Congratulations!

The Sunni and Shiia insurgents will follow us home like puppy dogs. Brilliant.

By plane? Boat? Walk? How so?

AJ Lynch said...

What a weak-kneed turd Yglesias is. He has to get a talking point memo from John Podesta's Center for Some Dimocrat Line of Bull and then Yglesias remembers what he truly thinks.

Ann - you should start your own think tank- it would be fun watching you maniacally twist their wee little minds into soft pretzels.

The Drill SGT said...

War is all about destroying the enemy's will to fight. It seems to me, that we're losing this war and that the Islamists get lots of help in that fight from the MSM and the Democrats (knowingly or inadvertently). I'm not sure how to win, but I'm sure how to lose it. and if we lose, they'll surely follow us home.

Peace is about trust and having two sides willing to sit down and compromise. You can have a war even if one side wants it and the other doesn't. From what I have seen, we're never going to have peace with the Islamists. They are acting literally on "orders from Allah" as documented in his final word on the subject, the Koran. Until and unless Islam produces a Martin Luther, there will be a portion of them, call them Islamists that will be at war with Western Civilization. Democrat run focus groups can't change that fact.

Appeasement in the absence of a peace process (2 parties, willing to sit down, etc.. above) is seen as a sign of weakness, which it is and will just encourage more attacks by Islamists and more appeasement by our weaker allies, who will try to cut deals on their own to avoid being targets. We can't avoid being the target, no matter what we give up. It will never be enough to buy our safety.

dklittl said...

The Democrats would replace the American eagle with a "paper tiger".

Jeff, the new millennium's answer to Yakov Smirnoff.

The Jerk said...

The Democrats would replace the American eagle with a "paper tiger".

Too late. Bush and his enablers have already replaced it with an elephant struggling in quicksand.

David said...

2007 will not be a pleasant year for MOOKIE SADR and most al qaeda types wherever they skulk.

I believe a giant can of "whup-ass" is about to be opened and served to the terrorists and those who support them.

Left wing democrats and appeasers, apologists, America haters, and anti-military types are advised to avert their eyes.

Classic anvil/hammer as the gloves come off. Note to bad guys and wusses: new rules of engagement and screw the MSM, ACLU, U.N. Murtha, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid, et al.

When the dust settles, count on the Dems to take credit for forcing the President to change to tactics that they previously did their best to subvert.

BOMBS AWAY!

The Jerk said...

2007 will not be a pleasant year for MOOKIE SADR and most al qaeda types wherever they skulk.

What nonsense. Sadr's thugs are part of the Iraqi government. The invasion was the best thing to ever happen to him.

hdhouse said...

does someone think we are shooting blanks in Iraq? Are the rules of engagement to only partially kill?

buffpilot said "Do you think ANY of our Allies will stay once the body bags start going up?"

earth to buffpilot - they are already going and they aren't coming back. most have gone and one of the issues they face is that under the US leadership, the ship of fools is taking water.

What if the congress passed laws that Mr. Bush didn't like? What is to stop him from his 800th+ signing statement - an option not covered in the post. If the courts decline to intervene then what do we have besides a monarch?

I'm willing to follow democracy just about anywhere. I'm not willing to follow a fool two feet let alone off the cliff.

ASX said...

What I find most amusing is how people who have been wrong about absolutely everything in a continuous, unbroken steam of incompetence four years running are still so sure of themselves.

It's really kind of weird.

There is, I guess, a certain kind of imperviousness to reality that takes hold of that 30% of the population....

Pity.

hdhouse said...

ASX

On any given night 30% of the population sees the Virgin Mary in a cabbage and 10% or so pray to her.