December 7, 2009

"Obama's Afghan Surge Proves He's Trying to Lose, Say Rightbloggers."

Roy Edroso summarizes the "rightbloggers." Including me, of course.

42 comments:

MadisonMan said...

I'm be curious to read from "Rightbloggers" if anything Obama could do -- short of resigning -- could be a positive thing.

Paul Zrimsek said...

How about from a Rightcommenter? A surge unaccompanied by instructions to the Taliban about how long they have to wait it out would have been just swell.

Henry said...

Edroso is very good at transitional sentences. If it wasn't for that, this daisy-chain of random quotations (Tennessee mayor Russell Wiseman?) would be unreadable.

vbspurs said...

It is rare to find anyone so intellectually dishonest as this Ray Edroso person. He twists everything so much, it would give an inferiority complex to a nautical flag during a North Sea gale.

Ann Althouse wanted uplift, but was disappointed: "The words were meant to be inspirational," she divined, "but there was no lift... no lift of a driving dream. Is he tired of being Obama? Or was it the vibe in the room? I don't think those West Point folk liked him too much."

She'd better watch that kind of talk: It got Chris Matthews in a lot of trouble.


It got Chris Matthews in trouble, Mr. Edroso, because he characterised West Point as being the ENEMY CAMP to our President. The snide awfulness of the blurted out remark even made it seem that these young cadets were Matthews' (and all who think like him) enemies too -- something suspected, but like John Kerry's mangled joke (that you end up in Iraq if you don't have education), rarely heard out loud.

This is empirically different from people like Althouse saying that West Point cadets were inattentive due to fatigue at waiting for hours for the speech, as well as feeling unsupported by a President who makes no bones about his lack of ideological support for fighting wars (not this year, but during his whole political career).

It's not hard to distinguish between the two comments. There is a world of weariness in the latter, and a world of hate in the former.

Cheers,
Victoria

Balfegor said...

How about from a Rightcommenter? A surge unaccompanied by instructions to the Taliban about how long they have to wait it out would have been just swell.

Well, sure. But Obama's underlings have been hinting pretty broadly that, whatever the C-in-C may think, the likelihood of a real 2011 withdrawal is extremely low, and will be conditioned on the situation on the ground anyhow. I'm actually pretty pleased with how they brought him around.

vbspurs said...

MadisonMan wrote:

I'm be curious to read from "Rightbloggers" if anything Obama could do -- short of resigning -- could be a positive thing.

It's hard to know what to write after reading such a comment, because there is NOTHING that President Bush did that ever pleased "leftbloggers".

Cheers,
Victoria

ricpic said...

Nineteen months from now Obama says it's all yours, Taliban/Al Qaeda. How is that different from losing? And what's the magic of the number nineteen, other than a bow in the direction of Louis Farrakhan? It allows Obama to get Afghanistan out of the way before the 2012 election campaign gets into full swing. Embarrassingly obvious. But that's our boy king, to a T.

EDH said...

Um, sorry, I became distracted by the Voice's "Bathroom Portraits (NSFW)."

Well, curious until I saw this one.

Synova said...

"None of these commentators defined what victory in Afghanistan would look like,"

This in response to a litany of "rightblogger" complaints that Obama did not use the words "win" or "victory."

Now... I, me, Synova, can define what "victory" is in Afghanistan, but what would be the point? I'm not in charge. I'm not giving a speech in front of the men and women who will be asked to secure my vision for Afghanistan. I don't GET to define what is "victory" in Afghanistan. If someone wants to give me that job, I'd do it.

At what point is it even rational to pull the "you can't criticize Obama for not doing something as CiC that you didn't bother to do yourself" card?

Synova said...

Oh, and apparently we're supposed to be happy that Obama is probably lying about leaving.

So, happy about more soldiers. (Have they actually devised what an Afghan "surge" is supposed to look like? Is there an Afghan version of the COIN manual?) And happy about the fact that Obama is probably lying about when we're out of there.

The real question is... does the TALIBAN know he is lying?

traditionalguy said...

There is a good part in any strategy of Afghanistan withdrawal that also shows our resolve to fight the enemy in a better terrain. What Obama's compromise shows is a determination to withdraw about 1 year after the US Military sends in its best forces to fight and die for something "Necessary", UNLESS the Civil War among the Pashtouns and the other tribes has magically gone away by then. So the "necessay" war is only a staged contrast to the highly successful Iraq war in perceptions among Obama's independent voters. Therefore , all American efforts in the Afghan war for the next year are revealed to be a reality TV show only...with real deaths. No wonder the Cadets saw an enemy in their midst.

Balfegor said...

Oh, and apparently we're supposed to be happy that Obama is probably lying about leaving.

A lot of people who support him -- like really support him, not just support him on this or that issue -- seem to have supported him on a theory that he is lying through his teeth and he is very smart, so don't worry. Should it really be such a surprise that people who support him on this or that discrete issue (e.g. Afghanistan) do so on the same assumption? His talk is bargain basement cheap -- actions are what matter.

Chip Ahoy said...

Whenever I'm linked to a writer squarely on the Left like that I get the oddest sense of been transported back to junior high school where minds still forming try so hard but fail at acting all grown up.

Comments there too are very telling. That to a person they all find it impossible to say the word 'conservative' or 'on the Right,' and must, simply MUST, say the word 'wingnut' instead reveals to readers they are resolutely stuck on being idiotic absolutely, and no real discussion will ever be possible.

Truth told, I rather liked the summation, looking past the obvious contempt it's not altogether bad, if a bit childish. Then by the comments to it I'm reminded once again why I let so many precisely like those establish their orbit remote to my own and it makes me satisfied for having done that. I simply do not have the energy or patience it takes to to cope with that level of grade school contemptuous mean-spiritedness, and I can feel the IQ points slip just being exposed to it.

vbspurs said...

EDH wrote:

Well, curious until I saw this one.

My mother is a psychiatrist, EDH, so I grew up around a lot of shall we say, interesting books. At an early age I knew that what the serial killer in "Silence of the Lambs" suffered from (the desire to look like a female) is a form of paraphilia called Autogynephilia".

"A man's paraphilic tendency to be sexually aroused by the thought or image of himself as a woman."

It's probably one of the creepiest things a man can do.

Cheers,
Victoria

Beth said...


It's hard to know what to write after reading such a comment, because there is NOTHING that President Bush did that ever pleased "leftbloggers".


Y'all do need to make up your minds. When a liberal mentions the economy under Bush, or the wars under Bush, or what have you, the conservatives rush in to respond "Bush isn't president anymore! Stop blaming Bush!"

But Bush is just fine to call on when you want to make a point or, more accurately, deflect criticism.

I suppose I should just accept that political discussions are one long "I know you are but what am I?" exchange.

MadisonMan said...

Victoria, that was my point. Why listen to what a blogger of the opposite side has to say?

I didn't under Bush, and I don't under Obama.

Synova said...

Heh. I was reading your post, Balfegor, and was thinking... "No, a centralized government isn't necessary" but then I read the rest.

;-)

I think we *could* do better than that. I think that we (for a very broad understanding of "we") have blinkers on that occlude possibilities other than centralized government. Certainly we could be more imaginative than that? Certainly we can think more analytically about the possibilities of human organization than that? Trying to force a centralized solution in Afghanistan seems like maximum effort for minimum result to me. Certainly, as *Americans*, we can conceive of decentralized solutions, can't we? Don't we have a mental framework available to us that would make allowance for regional or even non-geographical political self-rule under minimal and simplified federal direction?

If it were up to me, Synova, myself, to define "win" or "victory" there, that would be the first thing combined with encouraging a national identity where none existed before in History. And I don't care if they end up liking us. I wouldn't expect them to, and in the end it is immaterial.

Balfegor said...

Trying to force a centralized solution in Afghanistan seems like maximum effort for minimum result to me. Certainly, as *Americans*, we can conceive of decentralized solutions, can't we? Don't we have a mental framework available to us that would make allowance for regional or even non-geographical political self-rule under minimal and simplified federal direction?


Yes . . . I myself would favour some sort of electoral monarchy, like the Holy Roman Empire, in which the leadership of each tribal or regional grouping is given pride of place, and then with subordinate secular and religious leaders exercising a voice in the Diet. The Loya Jirga provides some precedent for this kind of organization. Of course, just as with the Holy Roman Empire, this kind of organization would not prevent the development of warring factions within Afghanistan. But it would provide a more formal structure within which those disputes could occur, and a formal process (through the Electors) for establishing the legitimacy of the government.

I suspect that wasn't what you were getting at, though.

Synova said...

Not specifically, no, but in general terms, absolutely what I was getting at.

I was thinking of a lot of very different things as patterns for organized decentralization, including a nationwide Agricultural Co-op.

edutcher said...

Edroso may end up being the last of the Obamatrons. He makes it clear that the Lefties' aversion to the idea of America winning any war is systemic with them.

The thing that surprises me is that Ann would care what a rag colloquially known as, "The Lower Manhattan Belch", had to say. EDH makes the point well by noting the Bathroom Portraits feature.

MadisonMan said...

I'm be curious to read from "Rightbloggers" if anything Obama could do -- short of resigning -- could be a positive thing.

Actually a lot of "Rightbloggers" have given the move some limited praise, but I like the resignation idea.

WV "tancess" A little browner that beigecess.

Balfegor said...

Actually a lot of "Rightbloggers" have given the move some limited praise, but I like the resignation idea.

Really? You want Biden as president? I actually think he'd make a better job of it than Obama, but I'm fairly certain that I'm in the minority there, no matter how you slice the population. Certainly conservatives would criticise Obama for delivering us into the hands of Joseph Biden. And if Biden resigned, people would be burning themselves in the streets to protest the terrifying advent of President Pelosi.

vbspurs said...

Victoria, that was my point. Why listen to what a blogger of the opposite side has to say?

Because if you don't read the other side, nor engage them in dialogue, you are accused of living in a parochial echo chamber.

Clearly, there has to be some middle ground between avoidance and engagement. Curiously, the one blog where it happens most, where both left and right commenters meet to exchange opinions, is characterised by Edroso as a "right-blog".

We should be flattered, really.

edutcher said...

Balfegor said...

Actually a lot of "Rightbloggers" have given the move some limited praise, but I like the resignation idea.

Really? You want Biden as president? I actually think he'd make a better job of it than Obama, but I'm fairly certain that I'm in the minority there, no matter how you slice the population. Certainly conservatives would criticise Obama for delivering us into the hands of Joseph Biden. And if Biden resigned, people would be burning themselves in the streets to protest the terrifying advent of President Pelosi.


I agree the thought of Halo Joe is a little daunting as POTUS, but he's no ideologue and not in love with himself the way the Zero is. He might just listen to reason once in a while.

As to the idea of President Pelosi (Aaaarghhhh), keep in mind Joe would have to appoint a Veep (I think there's a law to that effect - Ann would know), but, yes, I do see your point.

WV "desub" What travels under de waves.

c3 said...

But Obama's underlings have been hinting pretty broadly that, whatever the C-in-C may think, the likelihood of a real 2011 withdrawal is extremely low, and will be conditioned on the situation on the ground anyhow.

Boy, I'm getting really confused here. Do words matter or are they just words

Balfegor said...

Boy, I'm getting really confused here. Do words matter or are they just words.

They're just words.

Duh.

Robert Cook said...

"The thing that surprises me is that Ann would care what a rag colloquially known as, 'The Lower Manhattan Belch', had to say."

Although I read the Voice only sporadically anymore, and only then because it's free and something to read on the subway, I first started reading it in 1973 in my college library down south, and for many years faithfully paid for it after I moved to NYC in 1981.

I have never heard it referred to by anyone as "The Lower Manhattan Belch." I have to assume, therefore, your colloquialism is known only to the author of the phrase...yourself.

edutcher said...

Robert Cook said...

"The thing that surprises me is that Ann would care what a rag colloquially known as, 'The Lower Manhattan Belch', had to say."

Although I read the Voice only sporadically anymore, and only then because it's free and something to read on the subway, I first started reading it in 1973 in my college library down south, and for many years faithfully paid for it after I moved to NYC in 1981.

I have never heard it referred to by anyone as "The Lower Manhattan Belch." I have to assume, therefore, your colloquialism is known only to the author of the phrase...yourself.


'Fraid not. I heard it from Les Kinsolving, Baltimore Sun columnist (at the time) when he was doing a weekend talk show on WWDB in Philadelphia. Apparently, it was the general attitude for those in the NY newspaper scene from the '50s through the '80s.

You need to get out more.

bagoh20 said...

What does victory in Korea, Taiwan, Japan, or Germany look like? I've been asking this question on this very blog for over 50 years now. If we don't have an exit strategy we should leave those places immediately and invade France. Nobody would be asking what victory looks like there.

Cedarford said...

ricpic - ricpic said...
Nineteen months from now Obama says it's all yours, Taliban/Al Qaeda. How is that different from losing?


19 months, added to Dubya's clueless post Nov 2001 flailing about in Afghanistan translates into 9 1/2 years.
Americans are not interested in fighting eternal war to promote neocon nation-building dreams. If at the 19-month point, the reality check inflicted on our puppet Karzai and his henchmen bear fruit and real power sharing is happening with the Pashtun tribes and corruption is abated down to acceptable Islamoid norms...then perhaps we can stay longer than 19 months.
But if it is 9 1/2 years of futility, why say a strategy to change to yet more open-ended commitment is sensible? Even Bush when he laid out the meme that some conservatives still cling to - that we must be the world's Policeman and invade and occupy any failed or unstable Muslim nation "Lest it become a Sanctuary for Evildoers!!" - believed the neocon spin of quick, easy wars of liberation, women shedding their Burquas and all that other nonsense.
Now we know the price. A decade of involvement or more per country, 800 billion to 1 trillion we don't have per country, 30,000+ casualties, and victory impossible under present rules of war and self-imposed ROE and legal rights Islamoids are given...

We also know that 9/11 was not done out of caves in Afghanistam, contrary to what Dubya thought. It was an extension of an ideology created in Egypt melded with Salafist movements in 6 other Islamoid nations. The plot itself was thought up in a Malaysian hotel, worked on in the Philippines..then given to operatives in Germany, Pakistan, Spain, and the United States to plan and get logistics for. It was mostly supported by small contributions from financiers in the UAE, once KSM got a green light from Binnie.
At last minute, KSM, who sold the plot to others as a way to put a nasty hurt on the US for it's kneejerk support of Zionism and Israel..had his Indonesian and Malaysian muscle (who did not know the 4 pilots trained in the USA were not doing a standard hijacking but were on a suicide mission) with equally unwitting Saudi muscle. The last minute Saudi swapout was at Binnie's insistence, who wanted to embarass the Saudis as well as fulfill KSM's original goal as having 9/11 as payback for US backing of Israel.

Afghanistan is of no geostrategic value to the US. It is to Iran, India, Pakistan, and Russia and it's loosely affiliated 'Stans. Let them fight over it.

Balfegor laid out what is likely to be the final "deal" we cut with Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan, Lebanon, etc:

I'll settle for a land divided between brutal tribal warlords, with a weak (perhaps only nominal) central government, in which all parties are terrified of forming alliances with powers and organisations hostile to the United States. Because we can and will kill them if they do.

In Afghanistan, that means cutting a deal with the Taliban. And more moderate Pashtuns - don't mess with us, and we will leave you alone. And as part of that, we will not ask you to go back on your word of honor to Binnie, but he has one year to get out of Pashtun lands and take his chances in a place that will take him in that we will then continue to pursue him in (Yemen or Somalia, most likely...where he and his followers will be a lot easier for us or our Arab allies to bag)

vbspurs said...

7 December 2009 -- Remembering the attack on US forces at Pearl Harbor 68 years after the fact.

Robert Cook said...

"I heard ('The Lower Manhattan Belch') from Les Kinsolving, Baltimore Sun columnist (at the time) when he was doing a weekend talk show on WWDB in Philadelphia. Apparently, it was the general attitude for those in the NY newspaper scene from the '50s through the '80s.

You need to get out more."


I think you need to learn what "known colloquially" means. An inside private slur by a few (or one) media professional(s) hardly translates to a "known" colloqualism, if by "known" we mean anybody has ever heard of it.

A real colloqualism by which the Village Voice is known is, simply, "the Voice."

AlphaLiberal said...

Rightbloggers slam Obama.

Real late breaking news there.

Althouse = Dittohead.

Jeremy said...

Ann - "Including me, of course."

But, Ann...you ARE a wing nut.

You constantly post headlines blasting away or ridiculing almost anything President Obama, Gore or any of the Democratic leaders have to say or do. ("Al Gore is trying real hard to be the shepherd"..."The climate doom master"), and of course there's that admiration you show for the likes of Matt Drudge and being just another dittohead.

Why you would possibly think otherwise is ridiculous. The ONLY people who go along for the ride is the regular sycophant crowd who worship you on a daily basis.

I find your inability to admit to something so obvious rather gutless and silly...and ONLY your loyal subjects believe a word of it.

John Lynch said...

Hey, if Obama is trying to win the war, good!

Let's hold him to that.

Jeremy said...

John Lynch said..."Hey, if Obama is trying to win the war, good! Let's hold him to that."

You actually think the situation we have now, and have had for going on 9 years plus, in Afghanistan is a "war?"

We're fighting a group of rag tag fanatical Muslims who reside in caves and have no affiliation or allegiance to any real government of country. There is no way to "win" thins thing...unless you actually believe we've "won" in Iraq? Do you believe that to be the case? (And if so...what have we "won?")

Hopefully, President Obama will try to get the Afghans to handle their own problems and get out soldiers back in one piece.

Alex said...

Jeremy:

But, Ann...you ARE a wing nut.

Jeremy really knows how to compliment a lady.

Alex said...

I find your inability to admit to something so obvious rather gutless and silly...and ONLY your loyal subjects believe a word of it.

Pot, meet kettle.

master cylinder said...

No idea how Althouse could be be called a 'rightblogger'......? Now that is just plain weird.
Yeah right.

Synova said...

I know exactly how Althouse is considered a right blogger.

People have essentially two reactions to being thrown off an ideological plantation. They either adjust their views in order to be let back on again, figuring that a few small compromises are little enough to pay to stay true to their larger philosophy... or else they brush the dirt off their bum and say eff-you.

Althouse seems to be the eff-you type.

Jeremy said...

Alex - I've never refused to admit that I'm a liberal.

You really need to bone up on your reading comprehension.

And be sure to keep sucking up to Ann.

Jeremy said...

Synova said..."I know exactly how Althouse is considered a right blogger."

That's the first time you've ever told the truth.

Adele Mundy said...

I do know that most people refer to Frank Rich as the Midtown popcorn fart.