UPDATE: Obama apologizes:
"Well as I said, it is not at all what I intended to say, and I would absolutely apologize if any of them felt that in some ways it had diminished the enormous courage and sacrifice that they'd shown."I mean he would apologize... if you were to misinterpret what he meant to say.
Nowadays, every politician will be defeated by exactly one word. Kerry got "stuck." Biden had "clean." Obama gets "wasted."
The candidates must lie awake at night and wonder what will be my word. In amongst all the torrents of words that flow out of me, what will be the one word that will destroy me?
Posts
75 comments:
I look forward to seeing the video clip of an outraged mother or father of a soldier killed in Iraq getting in Obama's face. "If you'll just calm down for a second, ma'am, I'll explain to you why I firmly believe your son's life was wasted. He died in vain because...."
He and Edwards are both children--handsome and articulate--but still children who think they can play in the big leagues.
The Marcotte Syndrome attacks the Obama camp.
Here's what his Harvard lawyer wife had to say this weekend, according to the NY Post....
"Don't be fooled by people who claim that it is not his time. We are all too familiar with those baseless claims," she fumed.
"We've heard this spewed from the lips of rivals . . . every phase of our journey: He is not experienced enough, he should wait his turn. He is too young, he is not black enough, he is not white enough . . . he is too articulate, he can't raise the money. Don't be fooled by these claims, because they are mere distractions," she said.
"Distractions that keep us mired in fear so that we are unable to focus on the real issues that are dragging us down as a nation."
Only in the world of politics, Michelle Obama said, "would insiders dare to look at those accomplishments and dare to have the audacity to say he is not ready."
If she's this bitter and angry now, she'll be in a straight-jacket before the New Hampshire primary.
One of my co-bloggers suggested what might be a more appropriate logo for Obama. ;)
More sophomoric fun with photoshop. Cheap, but funny. :p
Directive No. 3042-A:
Every speech by anyone connected to Obama! must contain word "audacity".
One thing about Obama is his urge to run for president with no experience. Don't we want a person who is humble enough to recognize that they do not have the experience to be president. Wouldn't we want Obama more if he refused to run?
Where is the humble officer asking to resign his commission? It's not Obama...
I am enjoying this, I'm sure Hillary is as well. Senator Polarizing Cynicism along with his wife is self-destructing. The world he describes doesn't exist, and the solutions he proposes would hasten the creation of it.
Mr Obama has a lot in common with his French counterpart, Ms Royale. Both are on the far left, have made several foreign policy gaffes recently, are pretty faces and neither is ready for prime time.
Both use the diversity card to shore up short resumes
Damn I wish Bill Richardson was running.
Fen: If you lived in New Mexico, like me, you'd have no doubt that Bill Richardson is running. Unfortunately for him, and to the delight of most New Mexicans, most Americans don't know that New Mexico is a state
Damn I wish Bill Richardson was running.
He is! The NRA backed him on his governorship run a few years back, and I assume they would back him again especially if Guiliani makes it through the primary. Guiliani wouldn't stand a chance out west for this reason, in my opinion. To me his easily the best candidate on either side.
Slim: I think that if you care about them as human beings (in the sense that you don't want them to be hurt), but you don't value the work they are devoting themselves to, then you don't support them in the way that they deserve to be supported -- as the soldier in the beginning of the second video clip says very clearly.
Very well put, Ann. My husband - who comes from a very, very liberal family - used to feel that people could oppose the war while still supporting the troops. The constant criticism in the media has taken its toll, and I don't think he really believes that anymore.
I personally don't feel you can oppose a war and support the troops. You may care about them. You may feel you want the best for them. But you're infantilizing them. Wanting to bring back those poor babies "stuck" over in Iraq whose lives are "wasted" and who are tricked into enlistment by evil recruiters is hardly supporting the men and women that they truly are.
Now, the great thing about this country is you don't have to support the troops. Oppose the war. Don't support the troops. That's your right. Exercise it as you see fit.
Jennifer
You're saying that roughly 2/3 of this country, including conservatives and Republicans, current and ex-military people don't support our troops. It's ridiculous, as it's like saying you don't support someone from Iowa. If you're supporting a dreadful policy, doesn't that mean you *don't* support the troops?
Given the recent Gallup poll showing that the majority of Americans support phased withdrawal and think the decision to invade Iraq was a mistake, why should we think that Obama's "waste" will result in anything like what happened to Biden or Kerry?
How about someone who argued against the war and who is positively enraged that we went, but who also thinks that we bought Iraq when we broke it and so we now need to support it? Does that count as valuing the troops in the way they deserve?
I'm mystified by this. I thought Kerry's "stuck" statement was ridiculous, and clearly implied that he thought the troops were idiots and got "stuck" in Iraq because they had no better prospects.
But Obama's statement that the troops lives were "wasted"? That meant simply that Bush and the administration wasted their lives by carrying out this silly Iraq war. I'm not even sure why he apologized.
I sense in all of these anti-Obama comments a bit of fear, fear that the right doesn't have anyone of similar ability to offer. The only one on the right I've seen who I think compares is Jeb Bush, and he's not running. The rest are just pretenders.
you don't value the work they are devoting themselves to, then you don't support them in the way that they deserve to be supported
They "deserve" to be "supported" by mindless warmongers like yourself, huh? Has it occured to you that they may not want that kind of "support"? That maybe they're smart enough to know, firsthand, that there are no real military objectives to be achieved?
It's just nauseating to read you puff yourself up as a Patriotic Supporter of the Troops who are dying in droves for no good reason other than to keep your boyfriend from looking like a wimp.
Go to hell.
But Obama's statement that the troops lives were "wasted"? That meant simply that Bush and the administration wasted their lives by carrying out this silly Iraq war. I'm not even sure why he apologized.
Right. The context is quite different and the intent to mock or demean isn't there.
I was very upset over Kerry's comment.
Naked,
Please explain what is dreadful about the proliferation of transparent Liberty? Please don't provide me with empty platitudes. Keep in mind the words Colin Powell used talking to the old world at the UN Security Council. "While we may be a relatively young country, we are the oldest democracy assemble here around this table." Leftists and socialists don't have the moral authority that the United States has to criticize.
By the way, Ann, you twit, the Troops don't have any say over their mission. They go where the president and the generals tell them to go. It's not "their" mission, they are just the instruments of it. That's why I respect and appreciate the insanely dangerous work they do for less money than they deserve, while idiots like you are happy to watch them continue dying in an Iraqi civil war, and congratulate yourselves for it.
Naked Lunch - Yes, I suppose if there were a large and vocal group of people claiming Iowans were stuck in their pointless and jobs doing dirty work for an immoral and evil boss and needed to be picked up and put somewhere else for their own good, I'd have to argue that those people were not particularly supportive of Iowans.
And, I think there is a clear difference between thinking a mission can be better accomplished with a different strategy and thinking that the mission itself is a big, tragic pointless lie. So, if you're pointing to the recent Gallup poll, you're greatly exaggerating by lumping everybody but the "increase troops" folks into one basket.
And you're welcome to believe I don't support the troops.
Slim - I disagree. I don't think you need to support the troops or even war in general to be a patriot. There's more to a country than its military engagements.
Mortimer - I agree that Kerry's comment was snide and offensive. I don't think Obama's comment was offensive, actually. I disagree with him, but I'm not offended.
Please excuse a second consecutive post. I forgot my bottom line (I need that damn aricept prescription refilled): I would feel a lot better about Obama (and indeed any candidate, dem or rep) to come out and say: "I am for (or against) this war and will (continue funding it (or defund it). That way I know where they are on it. I prefer candidates with the integrity to state a clear position.
Slim - You're missing the point. Your Democratic politician[s and] citizen[s] who aren't foolish enough to embrace that false conclusion and announce their "non-support for the troops." aren't convincing any actual troops with their "support".
Doyle said...
"[T]he Troops don't have any say over their mission.
No, but the point of an all-volunteer army is that they do have some say over whether they're in the military in order to be sent on any mission. Explain the re-enlistment rate if the troops don't support their mission.
Gee, Simon, maybe they see themselves as soldiers and they're committed to doing whatever it is their government tells them to do.
It would be convenient if it meant they all thought the war was a great idea and doing a lot of good, but there's polling that suggests otherwise, available here.
As long as they're in the military, they are extremely unlikely to voice criticism of U.S. policy for obvious reasons. In spite of that, look at how low "support for the mission" is.
Why don't the troops support the troops?
you have to respond to the fact that the majority see value and real progress in Iraq
BZZZZZZ. Sorry, that's not a fact as much as it is a fiction. See the military times poll I helpfully linked to above.
Its easier to dismiss their opinions than to address them.
And its even easier still to make them up entirely, such that they dovetail nicely with your own, isn't it MonkeyBoy?
Doyle - Your link provides these nuggets of troop anti-war feelings:
Almost half of those responding think we need more troops in Iraq than we have there now.
While approval of Bush’s han dling of the war has plunged, ap proval for his overall performance as president remains high at 52 percent
Only about one in five service members said that large numbers of American troops can be replaced within the next two years. More than one-third think it will take more than five years. And more than half think the U.S. will have to stay in Iraq more than five years to achieve its goals.
And of course, the most important part of any Military Times poll...
The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole
Not sure how you draw that conclusion.
I suppose I'm mostly speaking on personal experience. But, I do have to admit that my husband serves under a command that tends to be more gung ho than the Army at large. So, I certainly can't speak for everybody. But over the years, my husband was always pretty much alone in his belief that people who were against the war could support the troops. And like I said above, he's not really believing that anymore.
The article says that about half of the respondents think there should be MORE troops there. So, dispproving of the handling of the war does not equate to disapproving of the war.
And more than half think the U.S. will have to stay in Iraq more than five years to achieve its goals.
Maybe that's because its stated goal of a free, stable, Democratic republic is a fairy tale, and they recognize it as such.
And you're really bragging about 52% approval overall? Do you realize how desperate that makes you look to claim that the troops agree with you?
RogerA said...
Before attributing too much importance to belief in mission, please consider the work of Morris Janowitz, considered by many to be the father of military sociology.
but his big finding was that lower ranking soldiers fought primarily on behalf of their comrades and small unit rather than in support of larger political-military goals.
Janos and Moskos were/are leaders in military psych, however, I think that the finding that you are referring to, soldiers fought primarily on behalf of their comrades and small unit was docuented in 1947 by SLA Marshall in "Men Against Fire"
http://www.amazon.com/Men-Against-Fire-Problem-Command/dp/0806132809
I would paraphrase it as: "Men don't fight for God Country or Apple Pie, they fight and die for the respect of their squadies".
a Roman Centurion could have told you that, and it's true today.
And Jennifer, of course they want more troops! They're called reinforcements! It's much better for the troops who are there to be part of a larger force. It speaks to how dangerous it is there.
We should be getting them out, and not putting responsibility for U.S. policy on their shoulders.
I'm not saying they're all America-hating liberals like me but its obvious they're losing faith in their leadership, and rightly so.
.... and what were the polls before the first Gulf War, 2/3rds against. Iraq is not settled. I can understand how our troops would be against this conflict with such little support at home. No matter, we are going to give our troops broader tactics, that they want, to succeed. OMG we have seated our 110th Congress, the first Iraqi Parliament and in less than a year we haven't found Utopia!
Fritz
First, there are like 50 "leftists" in America, unless of course your counting liberals as "leftists". Proliferation of liberty is a terrific idea, but you will not find that in any of our founding documents about "spreading" liberty to other lands as part of it. Did our founders envision a rogue president waging insane wars on foreign lands? You bet! Impeach is mentioned I believe 12 times in the constitution. And yet alot of reasonable people wake up every day wondering if we've nuked Iran the night before...
Doyle - so your own survey says that the troops think they can win, and want reinforcements. But the Democrats in Congress andd the nutroots at large don't want to send them reinforcements. How is it that you support the troops again?
Naked,
Our security interests demand it. I recall that President Jefferson took care of these same Islamo nuts in the early 19th century. If we look at Asia, why can't we help Arabs the same way? The Middle East has a great people wanting freedom that you and I enjoy. Democratic progress in the Middle East will not only benefit them and US, but Africa's progress would be substantial, above any type of aid we could offer. Dubai has transformed it's economy to only rely on oil for 10% of revenue, vs 93% for Saudi Arabia.
Impeachment is mentioned only 6 times in the Constitution. Only once referring to the Presidency. Article 2 Section 4
MonkeyBoy, a good explanation of why it's a fairy tale can be found in this op-ed, by a general and former Reagan NSA.
And I hate to break it to Slim Tyranny, but our representative government doesn't organize itself around the latest January CBS News poll. Imperfect as it is, we use a system of elections in which voters have to... vote.
Slim,
You are falling for MSM polling to write political stories. There is no denial that the public has soured on the Iraq theater of operations, but when asked if they want US to succeed in Iraq, overwhelmingly they respond yes, even more than 50% of Democrats.
UPDATE: Obama apologi[z]es:
"Well as I said, it is not at all what I intended to say, and I would absolutely apologize if any of them felt that in some ways it had diminished the enormous courage and sacrifice that they'd shown."
But I'm not exactly apologizing because when I said "wasted" I didn't mean it in a courage and sacrifice diminishing way. I meant it in a different way.
Besides, if I were to actually apologize, my apology would never be so inarticulate as to diminish the intention of my apology. That would be wasteful.
Yes Meade...the vote. And we voted. Deal's off. This isn't some banana republic with a colonel in charge (well maybe but I digress).
the people have spoken and they want a solution. more of the same is not a solution. it just isn't. yes given enough time (how long) and enough resources (how much) and enough priority (over everything else? but of course) and a perhaps near endless supply of enlistments to keep the levels at say 150,000 for 10-20 years we might win. but win what? what does victory look like to you?
If Iraq has 10% to do with the war on terror I'll eat my shirt. It has everything to do with civil war and a religious one at that..not our civil war type of war but a religious war...
and if memory serves me correctly one great reason that we are not a "religious nation" in the european sense of the word in the 18th century is precisely that a huge number of our founding fathers took one look at battles over religion and said NO NOT HERE.
what part of history don't you get?
hdhouse,
What is going on in Iraq at the moment might not be directly related to the WOT. But what was going on in Iraq before the war (or, if you prefer, what virtaully all the worldwide intelligence agencies, the U.N., the Democrats, etc. as well as the administration, thought was going on in Iraq before the war) and what will be going in Iraq if we leave too soon is most definitely part of the WOT.
Doyle,
Good thing Reagan listened to Wolfowitz. South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines are all burgeoning democracies.
Machos
Your only reading what you want to read. Forget everything up until today, where we are. Reasonable people disagree on what to do next, but there seems to be people under the illusion that indeed there is no such thing as a bad military order, or policy. Or that Bush's policy cannot simply be wrong. Under any circumstances. In reality Republicans opposed some, of Clinton's policies in Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia. I don't remember anyone calling Republicans troop haters back then.
Guilani says that abortion and gun control are states rights issues.
Which I think is a fair position for quite some time.
Richardson is looking for an exit strategy from Iraq. Mr. G. wants to win.
Do Americans want winners or fellers more comfortable with a white flag in their hands?
Short version - are we going French?
Isn't this just political correctness in reverse? Obama said what he meant, but the right-wing PC police have busted him, and now he's shifted into reverse. It's sad, really, that he feels compelled to backpedal rather than defend what is a perfectly reasonable, if controversial, position. Perhaps if he had a spine, he could move this debate to a place where it's actually constructive.
MAchos
I don't really care about past mistakes, just future ones. Honest.
The nutroots are silly and their opinions don't really matter, just like their cousins, the John Bircher types on the right.
Wherein Seven attempts to portray himself as the rational center.
Setting a fixed date for withdrawal is a majority opinion. And just to clarify for you, "disengagement" means getting the hell out of there.
Also, yeah, you are right: you are the center.
Closer'n you are.
I personally don't feel you can oppose a war and support the troops.
A reasonable sentiment, yet thoroughly untrue: I do and I do.
I also support the growing number of senior soldiers who are publicly furious that they were sent to war without proper equipment because it wasn't politically expedient to be seen to be preparing for war.
Deliberate policy decisions were taken in the UK not to ramp up the production and provision of battle armour, armoured vehicles or even basic ammunition in case the message got out that we were going to war come what may.
Soldiers have died because of that treachery. Shot and killed for lack of body armour, blown up for lack of armoured vehicles, gunned down in battle because their third-rate ammunition jammed in their guns.
Tell me, who was supporting the troops then? Jeff 'Sh*t-Myself Hoon, Tony Complete F*ckwit Lying B*stard Blair, or the millions who tried to get them to own up to their own hellish lies?
Ha. You guys want to read something funny? A "Dear Colleague" letter from Reps. Shadegg and Hoekstra.
I think they know that the "radical Islamic threat" is a separate issue from the problem of the Iraqi civil war. If you're not convinced of this, at least allow me to point out that there are parties we consider grave threats on both sides of the conflict which is responsible for most of the violence in Iraq. Al Qaeda is Sunni, and Iran is Shia.
I think they know this, but are hoping to confuse Americans to avoid accountability for Bush's disastrous war, which they clearly recognize is a disaster.
Sure, they blame the "liberal mainstream media" for paying so much attention to it, but they tacitly acknowledge that it is, in fact, a disaster.
Anyway it's just hilarious stuff. Enjoy.
via Daily Kos
Why can't the million dollar consultants teach their clients to use ONE TERM for the war? Fair? No. But you have to play ball to win.
It's Republican congressman stuff, put online by Steny Hoyer's office and linked to by Daily Kos.
And you haven't ascribed to me one political position which puts me out of the political mainstream (i.e. decidedly on the left side of the majority party).
I'm a free market capitalist. I don't think able-bodied people should collect welfare if they're not looking for a job. I don't think the government should limit CEO compensation, or impose "windfall profit" taxes on oil companies.
I maintain that the Bush movement is a radical, extremist administration that won the presidency by presenting a false image of modern, compassionate conservatism. And then maintaining it by exploiting our fear and grief over 9/11. That's how they won. It's not because George W. Bush is the soul of the American people.
It took some time, and many, many deaths for us to finally come to our senses a little bit. I still think we have a long way to go, but the 2006 elections were a good start. Also, if you split the difference between the Democratic candidates for 08 and the major Republican candidates, you get a fairly liberal political profile.
Anyway whatever. I'm a lefty, but it's ridiculous for those 30% still supporting this president and this war to make liberals out to be the lunatic fringe. We weren't even lunatics when we were in the minority. We were right.
slim tyranny:
"Simon, I had to break this to you, but the majority of Americans want this war to end. As reported in January, in the latest CBS News poll, 45 percent are in favor of the so-called troop surge, while 48 percent are opposed ... You can try to dismiss the political opposition as "nuts", but you're talking about most Americans."
43.8% of voting-age Americans didn't vote at the last Presidential election, so I'm not much impressed that 48% of people who deigned to respond to "a CBS News poll" are opposed to the surge. I don't believe in government by opinion poll; the polls that matter are the ones that held every two years for Congress and every four years for the Presidency.
Moreover, it appears that a scant handful of Congressional Democrats support the war: if they oppose it, why aren't they pulling funds for the war? As Seven noted above, "the idea that the anti-war party would control both Houses of Congress, and thus control 100 percent of the federal budget, yet allocate more troops and a record amount of money to a war effort that 66 percent of the electorate opposes," is absurd on its face.
Slim:
"Simon, I posted that polling information to refute your claim that it is Democratic congressmen and 'nutroots' who oppose escalation."
What I said was that "the Democrats in Congress and the nutroots at large don't want to send the[] [troops] reinforcements." I didn't say anything about what the wider population thinks about the surge (or "escalation" if you prefer, I'm not much interested in sparring over semantics when they have no practical import).
I agree that for right or wrong, "opinion polling DOES influence policy" - indeed, the last administration rarely made a decision without consulting one, although that was hardly the worst of its faults. This administration has been a little more willing to try an alternative strategy that I like to call "actually governing"; it's made a fairly piss-poor job of it, but they've got the right idea, and that's something.
"One think you cannot do, however, is marginalize the opposition to escalation as merely made up of Democratic congressmen and "nutroots." That is a lie and a dishonest characterization."
As I explained above, that isn't a characterization I made, however. Although I have to concede that, given their refusal to use the power that they have to stop the war (see my comment here), it might be "a lie and a dishonest characterization" on my part to characterize "Democrats in Congress" as being against the war in any meaningful sense. But I have no dog in that fight - that's a matter between the Congressional Democratic Party, the nutsroots, and the 48% of the electorate that putatively disagree with them over the surge.
MonkeyBoy - well, Al Sadr has fled the country. Take from that what you will.
Does anyone know how its going?
It's going really well. The added troops have all arrived and have been put to excellent use. Baghdad is secure, as is the rest of Iraq. It's Shangri-La over there, they'll be building some casino resorts soon.
It's going really well. The added troops have all arrived and have been put to excellent use. Baghdad is secure, as is the rest of Iraq. It's Shangri-La over there, they'll be building some casino resorts soon.
Sarcasm, contrary to the beliefs of most "anti-war" folks, doesn't substitute for an argument.
Moqtada al Sadr, commander of the so-called Mahdi Army reponsible for the bulk of the attacks on US forces, fled Iraq today out of fear that he'd be killed during the upcoming surge. But feel free to keep living in your little fantasy world where nothing the US ever does can help win the war. America doesn't rely on your kind.
ahhh Revenant...where did he go? did Drudge say?
revenant...i apologize....military sources. but of course. i feel ever so much better now.
HDhouse - I don't know about Drudge, but that right wing propaganda outfit ABC News says Iran.
Moqtada al Sadr, commander of the so-called Mahdi Army reponsible for the bulk of the attacks on US forces, fled Iraq today out of fear that he'd be killed during the upcoming surge.
Shows you how little you know. The bulk of the attacks on U.S. forces are from Sunni insurgents, not Shiites. And if you really think that targeted assassinations of major political figures in Iraq (which is apparently what Al Sadr fears) is a sign of progress, then you are truly delusional.
He has to apologize for telling the truth? That's pathetic.
Those lives are wasted. I mean, I don't really get concerned that soldiers are dying - it's only a few thousand - but it's not like they are contributing towards to the well-being of humanity. At least since Saddam was captured. They're really just contributing to George Bush's delusional fantasies of "victory" - whatever the hell "victory" is supposed to mean now.
And now with the surge we'll get even more deaths. Oh well. I don't have to serve - so who cares. As long as my taxes don't go up.
Bush isn't talking about anything. Congress is talking about nothing.
al-Zawahri is calling Bush a drunk, a liar, and a gambler. And the Australian PM is calling Obama and Democrats terrorists.
Who could write this stuff?
Yeah, as everyone knows, Sunnis and Shiites would never work together. Not ever.
You might want to let the Pentagon know if you have information about the Sunnis and Shiites working together. Because if they are, the Pentagon has it all wrong.
The military people on the ground understand that Saudi Arabia funds Shiites Sunnis and Iran funds Sunnis and Shiites.
What military people on the ground have you been talking to? Sounds like they have been hanging around with the journalists in the Green Zone. You find an article from a year and a half ago about one incident before the Civil War started in earnest and cite that as proof. You'll have to do better than that. And the Saudis funding Shiites? Are you serious? And the Iranians might finance Sunni terrorists in other countries, but they sure as hell ain't gonna do it in Iraq.
ahhh Revenant...where did he go? did Drudge say?
I've never read the Drudge report in my life. The linked article, which you didn't bother reading before you responded, pointed to that most notorious of right-wing enclaves: ABC News.
The bulk of the attacks on U.S. forces are from Sunni insurgents, not Shiites
That hasn't been true for quite a while now. Most of the attacks on US forces these days come from Iranian-backed Shiites. The Sunni/Al Qaeda forces have mainly been killing Sunni and Shiite civilians.
Revenant said...
"Moqtada al Sadr, commander of the so-called Mahdi Army reponsible for the bulk of the attacks on US forces, fled Iraq today out of fear that he'd be killed during the upcoming surge."
Now that we have had a day to find out a "little more"....
1. his supporters deny it.
2. he apparently left Iraq to visit city SOME WEEKS ago - prior to the announcement of the "surge"
This is so typical rightwing. Take a grain of truth and try and make a bowl of rice from it.
phoony
no monkeyboy...
the report, as originally cited was incorrect according to the original sources.
he left Iraq a long time ago for Iran...that he left Iraq is true. that he left for the reasons cited was not true..the timelines don't work out.
but i won't let facts get in your way.
he apparently left Iraq to visit city SOME WEEKS ago - prior to the announcement of the "surge"...he left Iraq a long time ago for Iran...that he left Iraq is true. that he left for the reasons cited was not true..the timelines don't work out
You're not comprehending the report [I'm looking at ABC's]. The info is weeks old, ie. Sadr fled "some weeks ago" into Iran b/c he feared the consequences of the surge. We're only hearing about it now.
oh yeah, I'm still wondering what a President hdhouse [or Obama] would do about Iran...
How many more days are you going to dodge that?
How many more days are you going to dodge that?
This gets my vote for the most tiresome rhetorical go-to move:
"Sure, Bush recklessly and deceitfully invaded Iraq, and it appears he's fixin' to do the same thing in Iran, but what would YOU do differently"
Well, uh. Not that. Iran doesn't have nukes and isn't going to get them in the near future. There's no evidence linking the government of Iran to the supply of weapons to insurgents in Iraq. It's just a bunch of hype to whip "24" fans into a lather, and hopefully deflect some attention from Iraq. No serious president would make the noises Bush is making. He'd be a joke if he weren't so dangerous.
Now that we have had a day to find out a "little more"....
I provided a link to the ABC News article in question. You, apparently, expect me to take your word for it about this "little more" that you've learned.
1. his supporters deny it.
And? You were perhaps expecting his supporters to say "yes, its true, Sadr's a big pussy"?
2. he apparently left Iraq to visit city SOME WEEKS ago - prior to the announcement of the "surge"
It has been public knowledge that a surge was planned since just after the first of the year, dipshit. The official announcement was only a few weeks ago, but anyone who reads a newspaper or turns on a television has known it was coming for over six weeks now.
You're correct that Sadr bailed a few weeks ago rather than yesterday, though -- that was my mistake, as the original article had also mentioned he's left some weeks ago to avoid the coming surge.
This is so typical rightwing. Take a grain of truth and try and make a bowl of rice from it
And it is typically left-wing to trust terrorists and distrust the US military -- which is, after all, what you're doing here by assuming that Sadr's flunkies are telling the truth.
Seriously -- that's your "proof"? The terrorists say it's not true, therefore it isn't true? Sheesh. If it warms your America-hating heart to think that Sadr just coincidentally skipped town just ahead of the posse, you go right on ahead and believe it.
The Left, in saying how they love the troops and would walk across burning coals in their bare feet to help them are conspicuously silent on offensive measures that would greatly enhance troop safety and chance of success. (a)Ending "catch and release" of Iraqis caught with IED material including vigorous interrogation, even summary execution - of insurgents caught in IED attacks or with materials.(b)Any discussion of waiving some Geneva Rules that the other side has failed to honor the treaty and validate it with reciprocity. (c)Any discussion of collective reprisals on tribes heavily involved in killing Americans.
When have such tactics ever worked in a guerrilla war unless you are willing to unleash wholesale genocide? Unless you are willing to tie these tactics with rounding up women, children, and old men and slaughtering in the thousands, and destroying their homes then you only inflame the resistance. And since you mention collective punishment, you apparently are. Perhaps we can find some of Saddam's old stockpiles of chemical weapons which I am sure you think still exist to help us with the executions.
You do realize that all these things will make us no better than the terrorists we are fighting, don't you? If we resort to these tactics how are we different from Saddam or the people who crashed the planes into the WTC?
Post a Comment