November 30, 2008
NY Times Scurrying To Give Obama Victory Credit For Their Shared Defeat In Iraq
Barack Obama and his Democratic allies have famously done everything in their power to try to lose the Iraqi War while President Bush is in office, but now that everyone with any understanding of the conflict knows that the war is effectively won, Democrats are trying to steal credit for the victory they fought so hard against:
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
In the last year, though, the U.S. troop surge and the backlash from moderate Iraqi Sunnis against Al Qaeda and Iraqi Shiites against pro-Iranian extremists have brought a new measure of stability to Iraq. There is now, for the first time, a chance — still only a chance — that a reasonably stable democratizing government, though no doubt corrupt in places, can take root in the Iraqi political space.That is the Iraq that Obama is inheriting. It is an Iraq where we have to begin drawing down our troops — because the occupation has gone on too long and because we have now committed to do so by treaty — but it is also an Iraq that has the potential to eventually tilt the Arab-Muslim world in a different direction.
I’m sure that Obama, whatever he said during the campaign, will play this smart. He has to avoid giving Iraqi leaders the feeling that Bush did — that he’ll wait forever for them to sort out their politics — while also not suggesting that he is leaving tomorrow, so they all start stockpiling weapons.
If he can pull this off, and help that decent Iraq take root, Obama and the Democrats could not only end the Iraq war but salvage something positive from it. Nothing would do more to enhance the Democratic PartyÂ’s national security credentials than that.
If he can pull this of?
Let's be very clear, so that even a historical revisionist like Friedman can understand it.
House and Senate Democrats, including President Elect Barack Obama, did everything in their power to lose the Iraq War, and deserve no credit for any success.
How many times in the past two years have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and their cohorts attempted to defund our troops and force them into defeat? Forty times? Fifty? Frankly, I lost count somewhere in the mid-forties.
Now Friedman and his fellow defeatists on the left who long derided those of us who wanted to secure victory as "28-percenters," "warmongers" and "murderers" want to try to rewrite history. The Times and their fellow travelers long to rewrite their moral cowardice as a virtue, and give themselves a victory by declaration.
That will not be their legacy.
This will.
Friedman should remember this. His newspaper attempted to subsidize defeat, cutting MoveOn.Org a 61% discount to attack our top general during the surge.
A Times photographer took this picture of a Madhi Army militiaman sniping at U.S. soldiers in July of 2006. Impartially, of course.
Democrats including Barack Obama can salvage nothing from Iraq. They were clearly and proudly on the other side, and the resulting allied victory was a defeat for them as it was for al Qaeda, the insurgency, and Iran.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:53 PM
| Comments (83)
| Add Comment
Post contains 543 words, total size 4 kb.
1
While I agree the Dems deserve no credit (except, perhaps, for not screwing up what is handed them) I'm afraid you're wrong that they won't be able to pull off the revisionism. The country will fall for it hook, line & sinker.
Posted by: Deuce Geary at November 30, 2008 01:38 PM (Q285d)
2
what's the nyt readership, right now?
less than a million?
I figure 90% of those readers already believe Iraq is going in the loss column, which may provide for 'convincing' less than 100k that Obama won in Iraq.
money quote?
"He has to avoid giving Iraqi leaders the feeling that Bush did — that he’ll wait forever for them to sort out their politics"
hasn't a three year deal for withdrawal already been reached? I guess friedman is just one of the 299 million americans who doesn't read the nyt.
Posted by: mark l. at November 30, 2008 02:23 PM (YQWyY)
3
I hereby vow to bitch-slap the first person that tells me to my face that Obama or any Democrat did anything positive for Iraq, and I invite others to do the same.
Posted by: sherlock at November 30, 2008 02:33 PM (8V5Ut)
4
"There is now, for the first time, a chance — still only a chance — that a reasonably stable democratizing government, though no doubt corrupt in places, can take root in the Iraqi political space."
heads-obama wins, tails-bush loses.
Posted by: mark l. at November 30, 2008 02:36 PM (YQWyY)
5
"Hook, slime, and stinker," you mean, Deuce Geary?
--
http://booksinq.blogspot.com
Posted by: Judith Fitzgerald at November 30, 2008 02:42 PM (5KdgY)
6
I wish the Bush Administration would use the Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement recently passed by their legislature to declare the war a US-Iraqi victory.
Sherlock:
Senator Joe Lieberman was the only one, but I guess he's now an independent.
Posted by: arch at November 30, 2008 02:48 PM (gPMC3)
7
It is too early for anyone in either party to take credit for "winning the Iraq War".
I do not believe that this war has been won or lost or can ever be won or lost in the definition of a "military victory". This is not the gauge that can be used. It is political and cultural peace that will come or fail to come to Iraq.
I still say we made a mistake going in. Saddam kept order and it is not our calling in the world to get involved militarily to decide on who runs a country. That's what revolutions and change from within are about. Many countries have done just fine without our military intervention, including most of the entire former Soviet eastern block!
The real definition of success or failure of the Iraq war will be when we finally withdraw and the Iraqis come to an internal peace within all the factions. I do not believe that this will happen anytime in the near term!
We will also not "win" a military victory in Afghanistan.
I will tell you one thing: You and I will not live long enough to see a president of this country launch a pre-emptive war again! They will continue to strike hostiles, but you will not see an Iraq again!
Posted by: Ernest Salomon at November 30, 2008 02:56 PM (4gHqM)
8
Ernest --
"Saddam kept order and it is not our calling in the world to get involved militarily to decide on who runs a country."
Absolute horse crap. He did not keep order, that's a direct lie. He was an evil murderer. We're not talking about screwing with an election. We're talking about feeding people feet first into chipper-shredders, having movies made of people's tongues being cut out, gassing entire villages of men, women and children and much more.
You side with that?
Posted by: Oligonicella at November 30, 2008 03:07 PM (Sm8K5)
9
Not be able to pull it off ? Ha ! They're still taking credit for a couple of balanced budgets in the '90's under Clinton. Back then, House Republicans dragged Bill kicking and screaming through 7 budget attempts resulting in the federal government shutting down. Remember, America ? The one Republicans got blamed for ? Remember ? Newt Gingrich ? Book Deal ? To this day, polls show Americans trusting Democrats more than Republicans on economic policies. Sorry to the author, but Democrats will end up taking credit for all good that happens in this country and Republicans will always take the blame for all that is bad. It's just sad that Republicans aren't bright enough to point these facts out during critical elections.....
Posted by: DaveinPhoenix at November 30, 2008 03:21 PM (r2rWp)
10
Bush won the war. Can Obama win the peace?
Posted by: Loyola at November 30, 2008 03:22 PM (PxQsG)
11
I don't read it that way, perhaps because Thomas Friedman was a hawk on Iraq from the outset. He thought that the execution of the occupation was terrible, but lots of people thought that including McCain. But Friedman was down with the whole regime change, establish-a-democratic-Arab-center thing. He defended Bush in the NY Times, which took balls.
What I read here is a plea to the DEMOCRATS (the people who read the &%$# paper) to not turn the victory into defeat just because it was Bush's idea.
As far as the Democrats claiming a win in Iraq, they tried much the same thing with the Cold War (Reagan had left office, just happened, etc) and it didn't work. This is just internal Democrat argument, and the rest of us should ignore it.
Posted by: Kevin at November 30, 2008 03:25 PM (roJck)
12
I agree with Deuce. After all most of the idiots in the country voted for someone they didn't know and still don't know anything about. They will believe anything, especially if it reflects badly on Bush. Incidentally, I won't live to see it, but decades from now, legitiment historians will catagorize Bush as one of the great presidents.
Posted by: PABill at November 30, 2008 03:57 PM (emgKi)
13
Obama doesn't need to "pull off" anything. He needs to DO NOTHING and allow the plans in place to execute as planned.
The public may be stupid, and have a relatively short memory, but they're not going to swallow revisionism over this one. Returning vets won't allow that to happen.
Posted by: PA at November 30, 2008 03:59 PM (CwzFE)
14
Sadly, revisionism WILL work.
It was worked in VietNam. Even though I am a conservative, there are things about VietNam that I did not know until 2006 (age 32), which I found out by going pretty far out of my way to research :
1) Most US casualties in VietNam occurred by 1968. From 1969 onwards, US casualties were very low.
2) The US withdrew from VietNam in 1973. So while Saigon fell in 1975, that was 2 years AFTER the US left. So the South Viets lost VietNam, not the Americans.
3) China invaded VietNam in 1979, and LOST about 40,000 troops in 2 months. Very few people even remember this short and bloody war.
4) Of course, no one mentions that VietNam today is a peaceful country with a booming, capitalist economy (though still not a democracy). So in the long run, didn't we 'win' in our goal of having free markets replace Communism?
So even the most pro-US people think we 'lost' in VietNam. We didn't. The South Vietnamese lost it 2 years after we withdrew, and 7 years after the most intense fighting by US troops finished.
This is extremely effective revisionism, and will be done again.
Posted by: GK at November 30, 2008 04:03 PM (QRBhQ)
15
Barry is despicable human trash
Posted by: whosebone at November 30, 2008 04:05 PM (4gHqM)
16
Much like the dem politicians in the sixties didn't turn against the Vietnam war until Nixon won.
Kerry anyone?
Posted by: Jay Golan at November 30, 2008 04:05 PM (2OwGa)
17
"..but decades from now, legitiment historians will catagorize Bush as one of the great presidents."
It won't take that long. 10 years from now, he will ge considered 'good'. But not great. He was not as great as Reagan, but he WAS the second-best President of the last 45 years.
Posted by: GK at November 30, 2008 04:08 PM (QRBhQ)
18
I suspect that Confederate Yankee is being unreasonable:
If Obama screws up the follow-up, you'll blame him.
If Obama doesn't screw up the follow-up, you'll say he doesn't deserve any credit.
Do I guess correctly, CY?
I don't believe you can have it both ways: If he can't earn any credit, in your eyes, for good follow-through, then he can't accrue any blame for bad follow-through.
So does that you're prepared to accept any negative consequences as being due solely to GWB's "excellent planning"?
Somehow, I doubt it.
Posted by: Neal J. King at November 30, 2008 04:25 PM (WPnYQ)
19
You are incorrect Neal. The only way Obummer can get any credit is if he doesn't screw it up. And then he only gets credit for not screwing it up. If the deal goes south, he gets all the credit for that, since that is what he wanted and campaigned for all along anyway. So you see Obummer doesn't get to have it both ways.
Posted by: Phil at November 30, 2008 04:42 PM (A0Xk3)
20
Neal, what, specifically, does Obama deserve any credit for?
He's fought tooth and nail against the very victory we have successfully brought to Iraq, so why does that entitle him to even the smallest sliver of credit?
Please seek professional help for your Obama Worship Syndrome immediately, before you put up an altar to The One in your living room.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 30, 2008 04:46 PM (Banpw)
21
Revisionism will be the easy part. After all, they control a vast majority of the media and education systems. Within a generation, young adults will be lauding Barack Obama for his gallant victory in Iraq. The rest of us will be saying, "wait a second..." and will then be branded as a bunch of racist good 'ole boys.
He's already being written into history books and that's just the first step.
Posted by: Mike Gray at November 30, 2008 04:48 PM (fBnZs)
22
Neil J. King you are correct: if Obama screws up the path laid out for him, he will deserve every bit of scorn that historians will pile upon him for incompetence, and every bit of fire in Hell for American and Iraqi lives unnecessarily lost because of his ineptitude. Likewise, Obama will deserve no credit if he managed not to screw up the hard gains won despite his fevered opposition.
Barack Obama deserves no credit for any success in Iraq and can never claim victory, as he was a strident enemy of success. That is what happens when you choose to back your foreign enemies against your allies and your own nation. Even though his has yet to be sworn in, he is a failed President by virtue of his opposition to the success of the United States.
As for Bush, yes; he bought and paid for the success or failure of the war when he decided to engage in an invasion, and like in every war this nation has ever fought, the political and military leadership had made some horrible decisions along the way.
The fact remains that after a modern blitzkrieg that overthrew one of the world's largest militaries in weeks, a vicious insurgency, rampant terrorism in a conflict that al Qaeda declared their central front, a near civil war, and years of occupation before a made-from-scratch military and police took over security for the bulk of the country and the first Arab democracy in history, and we still have suffered fewer casualties in this war, insurgency, occupation, and nation-building than we suffered in individual battles in past wars.
Tell me, Mr. King: Are you ready to give our political and military leadership credit for that stunning bit of success? Somehow, I think not.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 30, 2008 05:12 PM (HcgFD)
23
Actually, Mike, revisionism might not be that easy. The MoveOnMedia are smack dab in the middle of shredding what was left of their credibility by coming out with their "oh, by the way, we forgot to tell you this about Obama during the election" stories.
Even the average voter--excepting the brainless dolts who really drunk the kool-aid--can figure out that the media was completely in the tank for Obama from that coverage. What the MoveOnMedia are probably trying to do now is prove that they're no longer in the tank, but what they're really doing is highlighting how far they'd been in before.
Therefore, any credit coming from the MoveOnMedia for Obama's "victory" in a war he really wanted us to lose is gonna be seen by your average voter as one more attempt to glorify The One--which it is--and thus won't really be believed. The MoveOnMedia will have completed their transformation into Baghdad Bob. "I triple guarantee you, there are no American soldiers in Baghdad." They've already got the "Bush is a war criminal" part of the Baghdad Bob spiel down pat, after all.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 30, 2008 05:15 PM (Banpw)
24
GK, as you say it was in 1975 when the North Vietnamese Army won the war. However, the U.S. democratic congress, cutting off their supplies, forced the South Vietnamese to fail. They were doing very well indeed until then.
Posted by: tjbbpgob at November 30, 2008 05:25 PM (I4yBD)
25
Obama is like the guy who puts up a layup after someone else brings the ball downcourt, then passes off to him under the basket. Obama gets the credit but Bush did most of the work. And it will be played that way - i.e., that Bush managed to keep from losing the ball but Obama put the points up & deserves the credit. Which is nonsense, of course, but there it is.
There's no way that Bush is a great or even very good president. He's pretty average, but got the one big decision he had to make right. He's like Truman dropping the bomb. Years from now, a lot of people will believe that invading Iraq was the wrong decision, more will believe otherwise, but there will always be an argument about it.
Posted by: punditius at November 30, 2008 05:34 PM (dwYT1)
26
Since someone up-thread mentioned the withdrawal agreement, let me point out one important part...
The deal could still be rejected by the Iraqi people in a referendum scheduled for July 30, a key Sunni demand to get their agreement, but by then U.S. troops will no longer be a visible presence in urban areas.
Query for lefties (like, I suspect, Mr. King): if the Iraqi people do indeed request that US troops remain, will you lefties continue to demand their withdrawal, thus advocating that we break our agreement with the sovereign government and people of Iraq?
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 30, 2008 05:34 PM (Banpw)
27
The accelerating irrelevance of the NYT makes this a moot point; as they say, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it really make a sound? God bless our troops, and the citizens of this nation that had the backbone to stand up and support them and their mission!
Posted by: James at November 30, 2008 06:00 PM (rsyWa)
28
So the NYSlimes tries to play the CYA game as the doors close. If not for the Slimes and the worse Slimes in the democrat party the war would not have been a war. It would have been over when Hussein was killed and the troops would have been home long ago. The TS data leaked to the slimes from congress and other assistance the democrats provided to the terrorists are responsible for 90%+ of the American deaths in Iraq. Even the terrorists will admit they kept hanging on in hope the democrats could force the American military to abandon the fight. It didn't happen so I classify the entire democrat party right up there with the worst traitors in American history. Maybe a few attacks like the one in India will wake up the American citizens to the lies of the democrats, and how they set the U.S. up for destruction. All to satisfy their ego and gain 'political' power which will disappear with the likes of Hussein O in power. He's not going to trust the traitors long.
Posted by: Scrapiron at November 30, 2008 06:16 PM (GAf+S)
29
well, look at the bright side. If the Democrats and the MSM (but I repeat myself) really believe that the credit will go to Bush and Republicans for winning the wars (2 or three, depending on how you count) of Iraq, then they will sabotage Iraq. That way, the ultimate failure can be blamed on Republicans. It worked in Vietnam.
Never misunderstand that, to a Democrat, a Republican is more of an enemy than any communist/dictator/jihadi. The spiritual descendants of Tories and Copperheads, Democrats actively work against our country for political power and personal gain.
Posted by: iconoclast at November 30, 2008 06:58 PM (2s01C)
30
It was worked in VietNam.
Iraq != Vietnam.
Media circa 1973 != media circa 2009. The public today perceives Iraq as having turned. The media in 1973 never acknowledged the win in Vietnam, nor did the public perceive one which paved the way for congressional betrayal of South Vietnam a couple of years later.
These situations are completely different. The attitude of the veterans involved is different.
Posted by: PA at November 30, 2008 07:35 PM (CwzFE)
31
Regarding death tolls i think that the Chicago soundbite originated during the campaign from one of those Republican shills posing as journalists or pundits. To repeat such a statement as some sort of refutation/justification or accusation is strange. The invasion of Iraq based on false pretense has resulted in the deaths of innocents and American soldiers but that is somehow OK bc in one recent month there were more killing in Chicago than Iraq and obama is from Chicago therefore Bush was right and Iraq is OK so shut up??
Why would anyone be so flippant about murder anywhere, no less using it to justify same?
Posted by: jeff at November 30, 2008 11:33 PM (zIQWN)
32
Keil is correct in broad terms. Since we invaded Iraq the estimates of non-combatant deaths run from over 100,000 to over 1,000,000. Hardly something to be swept under the rug.
Posted by: jeff at November 30, 2008 11:37 PM (zIQWN)
33
Jeff...
I think they all stopped listening.
Posted by: Keil at November 30, 2008 11:40 PM (uIOO4)
34
Jeff...
I think they stopped listening. And I have been spammed.
Posted by: keil at November 30, 2008 11:42 PM (uIOO4)
35
"The name calling is a classic technique used by the right wing wackozoids. It's called "The Straw Man Argument". When they are unable to engage in reasoned discourse, they simply call you names."
I think you are confusing us with one of your Kollege Leftist pals: those whose political ideology is gleaned from a bumper sticker, and whose substance is limited to trite phrases: "Bush Lied..." "No Blood for Oil" "Change that we can...". Etc.
Hey little college boy, run along back to class now . When you have some life experience under your belt, when you actually stop referring to yourself as "dude" and no longer use the phrase "peace out") and have something substantive and factual to contribute, feel free to return. Until then, aren't you late for a bong hit, or a kegger or something?
Posted by: Keith Robertson at November 30, 2008 11:42 PM (IkfIN)
36
Wow Keith...
Pretty substantive.
Posted by: Keil at November 30, 2008 11:44 PM (uIOO4)
37
Ya know Mary or Kell, or Mary-Kell Hope and Change,
Just because you repeat a figure like a mantra (e.g., Hope and Change, Change we can believe in, etc) doesn't make it fact. What is the source of these "hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties" that WE <===stress that===>WE caused? Moveon? DU? Kos?
Fact: The cause of the overwhelming majority of civilian casualties are bombs set off by insurgents.
Pesky things, facts.
Posted by: Keith at November 30, 2008 11:47 PM (IkfIN)
38
As for the NYT, every morning I awake in the hopes to read that its HQ has vanished in a small mushroom cloud...
Posted by: Keith at November 30, 2008 11:48 PM (IkfIN)
39
Washington Post:
In response to a question about how the White House settled on a troop surge of five brigades after the military leadership in Washington had reluctantly said it could provide two, Bush said: "Okay, I don't know this. I'm not in these meetings, you'll be happy to hear, because I got other things to do."
Posted by: Luke at November 30, 2008 11:50 PM (+mMw0)
40
"Thinking back to the election of 2000, your statement is kinda like the pot calling the kettle black! In this recent election, however, the president wasn't appointed"
Hey Dude, I hate to tell ya, but Bush won the 2000 election. I'm sure you don't remember it--you were what---10? After all the recounts, including those by the seditious NYT---hardly conservative hacks, it was shown BY ALL that Bush won Florida. Sorry.
Pesky things, facts.
Posted by: keith at November 30, 2008 11:52 PM (IkfIN)
41
"Straw Man Argument" LOLOL. I just re-read your post. You don't even know what the term means, LOL
Posted by: Keith at November 30, 2008 11:54 PM (IkfIN)
42
Just came back ( I do have a life and work to do ) to remind you that you are not smarter than National Review or Fox and as usual you morons are clueless.
Sorry "dudes" but your facts on how many civilians killed are as ridiculous as the rest of your statements.
Run along to your communist websites and tell them all with pride how you "told" us conservatives.
You sad pathetic bunch of pussies.
Posted by: mary at November 30, 2008 11:56 PM (rTzLX)
43
Keith...
You mean a mantra like: smoke 'em out, stay the course, country first, ongoing investigation? Mantra's of that nature? The ironies of your argument kid of back mine.
The insurgents were an entity of our own making. Can you honestly argue that we have made Iraq a better place than we found it?
Do you think NY deserves another mushroom cloud? You should explain yourself.
Posted by: Keil at November 30, 2008 11:57 PM (uIOO4)
44
Hey Mary...
What are the civilian casulaty figures then???
Hip us commy pussies to your breadth of knowledge.
PS: I am smarter than Fox. I don't read the Review. Then again I don't read Guns and Ammo either.
Posted by: Keil at December 01, 2008 12:00 AM (uIOO4)
45
Keith...
In 2000 the Fla recount was inconclusive. The Supreme Court decided the presidency (see Bush V. Gore). I don't want to tell you guys anything, and there is nothing wrong with an honest dialogue.
Posted by: Keil at December 01, 2008 12:05 AM (uIOO4)
46
Sad pathetic bunch of pussies? How do you characterize yourself? A happy, dignified bunch of dicks?
Posted by: jeff at December 01, 2008 12:08 AM (zIQWN)
47
It's pretty sad about the kind of public discourse we have on these sites. I liken it to driving a car. You would flip me off in traffic as long as there's some space between us, but if we were in line somewhere together that wouldn't be the case.
We all live in this country together, and while we all want what's best we resort to pettiness. Why is that? I may be your next-door neighbor, how do you know?
My point is that we need to stop all the name calling and have an honest argument about the truths and what we face now and in the future, lest we be deemed to repeat our bloody history.
Posted by: Keil at December 01, 2008 12:12 AM (uIOO4)
48
I will tell you one thing: You and I will not live long enough to see a president of this country launch a pre-emptive war again! They will continue to strike hostiles, but you will not see an Iraq again!
Posted by Ernest Salomon at November 30, 2008 02:56 PM
Odd are we'll see it in the next four years. Eight years, max.
Posted by: George Bruce at December 01, 2008 12:12 AM (xkWCH)
49
"Can you honestly argue that we have made Iraq a better place than we found it?"
>>>In the long-term? Yes
"Do you think NY deserves another mushroom cloud? You should explain yourself."
>>I didn't know it had a first one. And yes, given the lengths to which the NYT undermines this country, I WOULD like to see it vanish in a puff of smoke & flame.
"What are the civilian casulaty figures then???"
>>>Dunno, what does Daily Kos/DU/Moveon say? That's scripture, after all, right?
"Hip us commy pussies to your breadth of knowledge."
>>>You said it not me.
"PS: I am smarter than Fox.."
>>>Ah yes, the unbridled arrogance: a signature trait of The Left (aka The Enlightened Ones)
"In 2000 the Fla recount was inconclusive."
>>>B.S. You apparently don't remember your history either. Innumerable recounts were conducted by many entities, including many "news" entities (all desperately hoping to find an Algore victory), and ALL concluded the same thing: Bush Won. Sorry.
" The Supreme Court decided the presidency (see Bush V. Gore)."
>>>B.S. It stopped a SELECTIVE recount of democrat-rich counties.
"A lie told often enough becomes truth” ---Vladimir Lenin
Posted by: keith at December 01, 2008 12:18 AM (IkfIN)
50
I think that the more accurate statement about Fox news and it's related politainment is not that one is smarter than Fox but that one is smarter than those who watch Fox believing that it is a credible source of objective journalism and presents things in a fair and balanced manner. the very fact that the phrase is used at all by anyone claiming to be a journalist raises questions. Why should any serious journalist or journalistic enterprise be at all concerned with being fair and balanced? They are supposed to be objective and dispassionate, which is very often unfair and unbalanced.
Posted by: jeff at December 01, 2008 12:19 AM (zIQWN)
51
"Sad pathetic bunch of pussies? How do you characterize yourself? A happy, dignified bunch of dicks?"
Way to go Jeff, keeping it above board there. Very constructive, thanks!
Are you late for your class too?
Posted by: Keith at December 01, 2008 12:20 AM (IkfIN)
52
Kell,
I DO agree with your last post.
Posted by: keith at December 01, 2008 12:21 AM (IkfIN)
53
If ya'll on The Left would only examine other news outlets with the same level of body-cavity-search and mountain-top standards to which you hold Fox News, alas....
The reason you hate it is because it DARE challenge the paradigm, the stranglehold that The Left has on most of the media. It's the same reason ya'll hate talk radio.
Further, if Fox News and talk radio were ineffective, you would be ignoring it...
Posted by: keith at December 01, 2008 12:27 AM (IkfIN)
54
"Many countries have done just fine without our military intervention, including most of the entire former Soviet eastern block!"
Wow. Just WOW. Soviet pols, generals, admirals and others all have come out and trumpeted in the 90s how our military spent theirs into the ground. They willingly point out that their military was a hollow shell of what they were presenting to the world, and our guys knew it, and their guys knew that our guys knew it. It's been gone over with a fine-toothed comb already by historians.
The threat of our military, and the perceived willingness to use it by Reagan and then Bush, simply took down the Soviet Empire, including allowing its east-European satellites to go their way. Period.
Ask someone from eastern Europe. I don't know that many such people...a grand total of three. One Romanian and two Poles. All three, when speaking of politics and history, take for granted that the US military took down the Soviets AND that this was a wonderful thing that should be celebrated by the entire world.
I don't know if it should be celebrated by the entire world, but I certainly celebrate it, and apparently so do a lot of people in eastern Europe.
And if you look in places other than the alphabet networks, you see story after story of Iraqis who are close to worshipful of American soldiers and culture.
All that said, I think maybe it's time for the US to retire the world stage a bit and work on our own problems for a bit. Not isolationism really, but just a recognition that our efforts aren't appreciated much by a lot of people, including some incredibly ungrateful Americans. It won't take long before someone starts begging us to help them again.
And then, if it's anybody but France, maybe we could consider helping. But I think we should get the request in writing and have it triple-notarized before consideration.
Posted by: Agoraphobic Plumber at December 01, 2008 12:31 AM (x3vvv)
55
Do you think NY deserves another mushroom cloud? You should explain yourself.
You have to love the appeasers, hiding away hoping and praying that their submission will preserve their miserable little lives.
Maybe you should explain how our conversion of Iraq into a early democracy threatens NY. Will Iraq attack us? No? Then who will attack us for displacing Saddam and, through many years of struggle, instituting a reasonable republic in Iraq. Who would that enrage?
Yeah, I know. Better to shake in fear than actually do something.
Posted by: iconoclast at December 01, 2008 12:43 AM (T+mOB)
56
"Can you honestly argue that we have made Iraq a better place than we found it?"
>>>In the long-term? Yes
Read my palm, then. The fact is that there is still more death in that country than there was before we occupied it.
"Do you think NY deserves another mushroom cloud? You should explain yourself."
>>I didn't know it had a first one. And yes, given the lengths to which the NYT undermines this country, I WOULD like to see it vanish in a puff of smoke & flame.
A bomb is a bomb regardless of the shape of cloud it makes. I guess nuance is lost on you.
"What are the civilian casulaty figures then???"
>>>Dunno, what does Daily Kos/DU/Moveon say? That's scripture, after all, right?
Most reputable news orgs. say that the civilian casualty count exceeds 100,000. AP, Reuters, BBC. Sorry, I don't read Kos.
"Hip us commy pussies to your breadth of knowledge."
>>>You said it not me.
Response to another poster. Apparently you feel the same.
"PS: I am smarter than Fox.."
>>>Ah yes, the unbridled arrogance: a signature trait of The Left (aka The Enlightened Ones)
I am above the BS Fox spouts. Also above the BS MSNBC spouts, but I prefer it.
"In 2000 the Fla recount was inconclusive."
>>>B.S. You apparently don't remember your history either. Innumerable recounts were conducted by many entities, including many "news" entities (all desperately hoping to find an Algore victory), and ALL concluded the same thing: Bush Won. Sorry.
Innumerable recounts were stopped by Supreme Court, heavy with conservative loyalists.
" The Supreme Court decided the presidency (see Bush V. Gore)."
>>>B.S. It stopped a SELECTIVE recount of democrat-rich counties.
Stopped LEGAL recount efforts at the behest of Katherine Harris and Tom DeLay.
"A lie told often enough becomes truth” ---Vladimir Lenin
Nice Lennin Quote. Are you trying to use communism against me???
In the end it's all sour grapes. Enjoy your servitude to the prolatariate.
Keil
Posted by: keith at December 1, 2008 12:18 AM
Posted by: Keil at December 01, 2008 12:47 AM (uIOO4)
57
Wow, you people are truly frightening!
First of all, Obama can’t be blamed for ANYTHING that happens in Iraq because it is not his mess. Bush got us here, and he’ll get all the blame, and deservedly so. There will be no praise for victory, because this is not the kind of battle that can actually be “won.” But just for the fun of it, let’s look at the reasons for the war and see if Bush has “won” any of them.
1) WMDs: This was reason number one for the invasion, but there werenÂ’t any. WeÂ’ve been there over 5 years and havenÂ’t found ANYTHING. Reason number one: LOST.
2) Ties to 9/11: How much money or support has been proven to have come from Iraq for the 9/11 hijackings? How much support has ever been proven for Hussein even supporting bin Laden? The real evidence has always suggested Hussein to have NO affiliation with al-Qaeda. How many hijackers came from Iraq? 0. How many came from Saudi Arabia, and yet theyÂ’ve never been the enemy. How much sense does that make? Reason number two: LOST.
3) To secure freedom for the Iraqi people: Well, they are calling it Operation: Iraqi Freedom now, but only after reasons number one and two were declared busts. The people certainly had a lot to fear in Iraq under Hussein, but the number of people who have died as a result of the war is astronomical compared to the number killed by Hussein. And how are the living conditions there now? We had the oil infrastructure back up and running within DAYS of the initial invasion, but there are still many parts of Iraq that are still without electricity or water as a result of the war and now every citizen has to fear for their lives just going to the grocery store. Reason number three: LOST.
4) The war on terror: LetÂ’s face it people, there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq before the war. NONE WHAT-SO-EVER! But somehow now this is the central front on the war on terror? Only because we invited them in! So where reasons one through three were just crap lies, number four has actually backfired. It has caused the very thing it was supposedly meant to stop. Reason number four: LOST.
Posted by: I can see Russia from here at December 01, 2008 12:48 AM (QiWa2)
58
In explaining my "mushroom cloud" comment: given the lengths to which the seditious, traitorous NYT will go to undermine the security and people of this country, why yes, I DO believe that I would like to see it go up in a puff of smoke & flame.
Posted by: Keith at December 01, 2008 12:51 AM (IkfIN)
59
Now, to refute some of your pin-headed ideas:
Sherlock: I vow to bitch-slap anyone who has so fervently supported the war but did not volunteer to fight (if of age and ability) and anyone (regardless of age and ability) who didnÂ’t at least volunteer to help pay for the war. To me these people (IÂ’m guessing you) are much bigger cowards than anyone that advocates peace.
DaveinPhoenix: Maybe thereÂ’s a reason people trust Democrats on the economy over Republicans. As for your assertion that Republicans always take the blame, they NEVER freely TAKE the blame, and if all they ever did was get blamed, do you think they would EVER win an election?
Loyola: Bush lost the war. Starting the war meant it was lost. Peace may not even be possible.
Kevin: There were a lot of reasons the cold war ended, probably first among them was people grew tired of communism. I will give Reagan credit for the biggest cause of the fall of the Soviet Union though. But it was actually an accident. His pea-brained star wars program scared the Soviets to bankrupt the country in an effort to compete with something that was never even a possibility.
GK: Yes most U.S. casualties had occurred by 1968, but you fail to realize why. The U.S. response to the Tet Offensive caused massive damage to the North Vietnamese. They even admitted as much after the war. Had Nixon initiated a “surge” when he took office he may have defeated them altogether. Instead, he initiated the Nixon Doctrine of training South Vietnamese troops to take over for U.S. soldiers and signed a Peace Treaty on the way out the door in Vietnam despite the fact that fighting still continued. Yes we left in 1973 and Saigon fell in 1975, but how are you going to blame the South Vietnamese for that? They only ever had a chance because we were there. Do you really think they had a chance against the north, which were backed by China and the Soviet Union, without our support? They only lost because we left. We didn’t lose the Vietnam War because it wasn’t our war to lose. But the South lost it because we left. You suggest we won in our objective to end communism, but Vietnam is one of only five communist countries left on earth. Not sure how that is a victory. Communism declined everywhere else, and yet one of the bloodiest wars in our history couldn’t eliminate it in Vietnam. If they are trending towards democracy now, it is not as a direct result of the war but a result of communism’s decline globally. Even North Vietnam’s biggest supporters during the war, China and the Soviet Union, have given up (at least mostly given up in China’s case; it is still technically a one party state) on communism.
Jay Golan: Most people turned against the war after the Tet Offensive and the My Lai Massacre, which both happened to take place right before NixonÂ’s election. Public support was way down before the election, which is the main reason Johnson declined to run again probably why Nixon won. Kerry became a critic of the war after his voluntary service there ended. You arenÂ’t allowed to be a critic while serving. And he became a politician AFTER his service.
GK again: Bush will most likely be seen as one of the 5 worst presidents in our nationÂ’s history. Not many presidents could look good going from a 90% approval rating to 22% before leaving office. And somebody PLEASE tell me what the fascination with Reagan is? What made him so great?
Conservative Wanderer: You people worship Reagan more than Jesus and probably have a shrine to him in your home.
Mike Gray: No one will be lauding Obama for victory in Iraq. Do you laud Nixon for victory in Vietnam?
Scrapiron: WowÂ…Â…..
iconoclast: To you and your far-right friends, a Democrat is worse than Satan.
Nine-of-Diamonds: See above explanation of the war. And wow how racist are you? Unbelievable! Why is the media focused on Sarah Palin? Because you people worship her! Why is the media not focused on ObamaÂ’s actions as president? Gotta wait til January 20th for that one buddy! I know your guy is AWOL but he is STILL president.
mary: Are you the crazy lady from the McCain Rally? Do you people not realize Obama actually has more political experience than Bush did when he was first elected president? And National Review is a “turd” republican magazine. Pussies? go fight in Iraq or shut up.
Posted by: I can see Russia from here at December 01, 2008 12:52 AM (QiWa2)
60
Iconoclast...
Iraq never threatened us. Saddam was a US tool. F--- appeasment. I want those 911 folks to pay too. The truth is that 19 of those 20+ highjackers were Saudi. Why don't we go after Saudi Arabia? Maybe it's because of the political and financial ties that the Bush's have to those people. Use your brain, man.
Posted by: keil at December 01, 2008 12:55 AM (uIOO4)
61
Sheesh, another one...
Great job of regurgitating the talking points comrade. Did you copy & paste them straight from Kos? I like all the
I am not going to dignify responding to the others, but incase you had not heard, here is some Iraqi yellowcake:
Google: "Iraqi yellowcake and Canada"
As for the rest, it is suggested by many that some of it escaped to Iran & Syria.
Let's assume for a minute, however, that there wasn't any. Well, 1) The UN, the UK, Israel, the IAEA and everyone else believed he had it too. So it ain't just Bush, and he didn't lie. If you wish to state that we were all misled, you MAY have a point.
2) If Saddam didn't have any WMDs, why did he keep acting like he did? Hmmm??? He was acting guilty. Hence #1 above.
But you know these things already, you just deny them because it doesn't fit the template.
Posted by: keith at December 01, 2008 12:59 AM (IkfIN)
62
Confederate:
You scare me.
So you're saying that because Saddam Hussein was a murderous dictator, the United States was justified in invading his country on false pretenses, killing thousands and indirectly leading to the deaths of many more thousands by unleashing sectarian violence (which had been suppressed under Saddam)?
Then explain to me why the United States, under Reagan, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others, supported Saddam for decades? I guess they didn't know he was killing thousands of his countrymen each year. More likely they didn't care.
If the standard for invasion is going to be that we will dispatch our military to take out any brutal dictator, then we can pretty much brace ourselves for constant wars of aggression across the globe for the next half-century. There's your solution, if you want it.
What you war lovers fail to grasp is that there's more than one way to deal with a suspected criminal than lynching. In our country we call it justice, due process. If the United States were to back the International Criminal Court, we could move toward a global society that solves problems -- especially military aggression -- through cooperative legal means instead of weapons. I'll take the force of law over the law of force anytime.
Ask anyone who's fought in one -- war is a bad thing. If we had a general military draft, by which a much wider slice of society was put at risk of fighting in numbskull adventures like this one -- then more people would complain.
Posted by: egcn at December 01, 2008 12:59 AM (hnIi6)
63
Mod,
Can we toss this russia bum? Another Kos infiltrator.
Posted by: Keith at December 01, 2008 01:02 AM (IkfIN)
64
Keith: I made a yellow cake the other day and covered it with chocolate frosting. It was quite delicious. But while we’re googling stuff, try “Downing Street Memo.”
Posted by: I can see Russia from here at December 01, 2008 01:05 AM (QiWa2)
65
Hey "Dude" where do you get 52%? There are over 350 million of "us" the last time I checked. I realize you weren't scared into voting for politics as usual. You were celebrating it with gusto! With those gilded hog rings in your noses, you proudly walked up the shoot to the feeding floor. And like all other domesticated animals, you will enjoy the fattening process "provided" by your "benefactors" oblivious to your upcoming demise. It's to bad that the rest of us have to pay for your feeding frenzy and be slaughtered along with you. Your ignorance is bliss - bless your willfully ignorant hearts!
Posted by: Dave at December 01, 2008 01:06 AM (8JHLb)
66
If this article alone wasn't amusing enough, the "patriotic" cries from those American loving republicans to ban all the lefties from posting on this blog just takes the cake.
Pro-Democracy, Pro-America, Pro-RepublicanFreeSpeechButGodHelpYouIfYouDareQuestionMyBeliefsBecauseThenIllBanYou!!
Where do we begin? I guess we could quickly squash this claim that the Dems voted against funding our troops, however many times you'd like to say it was, by also pointing out that SO DID REPUBLICANS. I realize its difficult to point out the flaws in your own argument, but at the very least post ALL the facts and let us simple minded "turds" point them out for you.
Both sides voted against funding for two different reasons. Democrats wanted a time frame to bring our troops home out of harms way(not defeated but you know not being shot at?) and Republicans wanted to leave them there until
Secondly, the men and women in charge in Iraq and Afghanistan, in LIVE interviews are quoted as saying that it is unlikely they will ever be able to claim victory in either region. But you republicans CLEARLY know better than the people actually on the ground LEADING in the war.(Hurts when your silly arguments are used against you yes?) Then again I suppose that was just the evil biased media not reporting on facts, but you know wasting our time with stories about Sarah Palin and puppies and such. It's amazing how I manage to keep up on everything else going on in the world, what the pro-Obama network running 24/7.
Third, the logic that because Obama and most other Democrats were against the war, means they were pro-AlQaeda is so beyond comprehension that I can't imagine how one could proudly post such drivel and think themselves intelligent. ItÂ’s like saying that because you all voted against Obama that you all are actually Sadam Hussein supporters. Confusing considering how you were all FOR this war because of what a horrible guy he was. But letÂ’s follow in the logic shall we?
- You voted against/are against Obama.
- White Supremacists voted against/are against Obama.*
- White Supremacists for Hitler.
- Hitler for wiping out mass groups of people.
- Sadam Hussein for wiping out mass groups of people.
- Hitler/Sadam share ideology *
- You share ideology with Neo-Nazis, who share ideology with Hitler, who shares ideology with Sadam(semantics shows Hitler came first of course)
Silly yes? Clearly there are quite a few steps missing, but I simply wanted to point out the idiocy of your ways.
Finally, and ironically enough, the ONLY people I've seen put Obama up on such a high pedestal and give him names like Messiah and Jesus are the republicans!(Aren't alot of you guys religious? So in turn wouldn't that be blasphemy? I'm just curious) Most of my like minded friends and I know there will be no miracles, no parting of the Red Sea, no magic reset button to fix our economy. We don't expect results within the first month, three months, or even a year. We simply expect results and even Bush-ite Karl Rove says Obama is picking the right people to help him achieve these results.
Yes people got excited for Obama, and I'm sorry you republicans had nobody in the past 8 years to feel as passionate about...but that's not anybody else's fault but the Republican Party's.
Thank you for your time, I apologize if my expression of free speech offends or upsets you in any way.
*These two points are merely assumptions of course.
Posted by: Rich at December 01, 2008 01:07 AM (0IFk+)
67
Keith, can you argue any of my points? I know your type's reaction to a valid argument is to kill the messenger. BTW, never been over to Kos, but thanks for that assumption
Posted by: I can see Russia from here at December 01, 2008 01:07 AM (QiWa2)
68
Keith...
My favorite of yours is the talking points, over and over again, while you directly spout talking points. Yellow cake???
Even folks in the Bush admin vehemently deny any Iraq/yellowcake connection. You live in the past, hoss.
You do, however, have a point with intelligence. I mean, you would if it weren't a lock that intelligence was fixed around an agenda. Condi Rice knows this, so does Colin Powell. Ask them for Christ's sake. What about the Downing Street Memo? Oh yeah, ongoing investigation.
Talking Point: Saddam sent his WMD's to Syria. Ha HA HA HA. Are you Sean Hannity?
Posted by: Keil at December 01, 2008 01:09 AM (uIOO4)
69
There were only about a billion people around the world who opposed the Iraq invasion. Probably only a few hundred million didn't find the WMD evidence compelling. We call these people "rational."
There's a very good reason Saddam occasionally acted like he had WMDs: to frighten his enemies! He might have been a brutal dictator, but he wasn't an idiot. What's better than having a nuclear arsenal? Pretending you have one and having your enemies believe it! Much cheaper.
The IAEA did not believe Saddam had WMDs. They were part of the inspections. The sensible policy espoused by MoveOn before the invasion was "Let the inspections work." If that had been allowed to happen, none of this would have been necessary. As I said at the time, if you think the inspectors are being fooled, demand that 10,000 more be added. It would be a lot cheaper than a war and occupation. I was right. Millions of us were. Bush was wrong. As the Downing Street memo confirmed, the intelligence was was being fixed to the pre-determined conclusion Bush wanted to justify his cowboy diplomacy.
"As for the rest, it is suggested by many that some of it escaped to Iran & Syria."
I love this one. Suggested by whom? And where is it? How many more years should we wait for you to find it? In the meantime, you'll simply choose to believe it's there somewhere, right?
Posted by: egcn at December 01, 2008 01:11 AM (hnIi6)
70
Oh and Keith, you all WERE mislead. But I'll forgive that as America was still angry/confused/bitter because of 9/11. I saw right through the crap but some good people fell for it.
Posted by: I can see Russia from here at December 01, 2008 01:12 AM (QiWa2)
71
To Confederate Yankee,
Sir/Madam,
Are you claiming that Iraq was and is about body count? Did we invade Iraq to save Iraqis from their murderous dictator? He killed more than we might have killed so it is all good?
i should not have let myself get engaged in such a frivolous debate about numbers but the comments on the subject were so sophomoric and inflammatory that i couldn't help but speak up.
that being said, the fact of the matter is this, we invaded Iraq on false pretense. call it lies, manipulation, withholding key intelligence or whatever, but it is incontrovertible that bush and his team manipulated congress and the public into invading. The cost in life and money and respect cannot be justified in anyway, no less saying we are responsible for fewer deaths than Saddam.
Posted by: jeff at December 01, 2008 01:12 AM (zIQWN)
72
"From another perspective, can anyone name a military leader who says a military victory is a possibility?"
General Petraeus. In fact, as he notes in his letter to the troops this past September, he was saying that way back in February 2007. Shocking, right?
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/09/15/world/20080915petraeus-letter.pdf
I don't know whether what he's talking about fits your definition of "military victory", but I'll take it.
Keil:
Are you seriously equating "an insurgency in a country the US invaded kills 100,000" with "the US kills 100,000 in the country it invaded"? And you're using this as a reason to, what, get out of Iraq? But of course, for someone willing to blame Bush for "Katrina, the economy, the justice dept, 911, Valerie Plame, etc etc. I could go on forever," I can see why it makes sense to you that America should bear the brunt of the blame for deaths caused by insurgents.
Al Qaeda and the insurgents aren't going to magically decide to give up on Iraq if we leave. Iraq is not going to magically accelerate its progression towards stability if we tell its government we're getting out.
You also bring up the question of whether or not Iraq is a better place now than it was before the war. I see that as a diversionary question. With perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilians killed by insurgents, Iraq is not better off than it was before. But what country is better off during, or after, a war than before it? Maybe relatively minor police actions like the intervention in Bosnia in the '90s resulted in an improved situation, but that simply doesn't hold up for anything bigger, and it has no bearing on whether or not a war should have been fought, or should continue to be fought. Why even ask the question?
Posted by: Math_Mage at December 01, 2008 01:15 AM (NHJeJ)
73
"You scare me."
>>I don't doubt he does, girly man.
"...violence (which had been suppressed under Saddam)?"
>>But which was replaced with another kind of violence. Don't make him out to be Gandhi, ok?
"Then explain to me why the United States, under Reagan, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others, supported Saddam for decades?"
>>Funny, you forgot one in there. His was the embarassment of 1992 to 2000
"What you war lovers fail to grasp is that there's more than one way to deal with a suspected criminal than lynching. In our country we call it justice, due process. If the United States were to back the International Criminal Court, we could move toward a global society that solves problems -- especially military aggression -- through cooperative legal means instead of weapons. I'll take the force of law over the law of force anytime."
1) having the historical perspective, grasp of human nature and testicular fortitude to recognize that not everyone wants to "play nice", and that some require a good a**-kicking does not make one a war-lover, you peacenik.
2) As for the rest of your drivel, exactly WHO is going to enforce that international law, hmm? Sans enforcement it is a paper tigers. Grow up, will ya?! A justice system without the method to ENFORCE the laws results in....well, the UN.
"Ask anyone who's fought in one -- war is a bad thing."
>>Who argues that? BUt sometimes bad things are necessary. That's life.
"If we had a general military draft, by which a much wider slice of society was put at risk of fighting in numbskull adventures like this one -- then more people would complain."
>>>That is perhaps the most ignorant statement I've ever read. Congratulations. You are obviously ignorant and oblivious to who exactly constitutes our military. LIke Kerry, Obama, and the other elites, you view the military servicefolks as uneducated chattle. Having taught science on military bases for years, I can state with absolute certainty that that is an inconvenient lie.
Thank you for revealing your ignorance to all. You represent your cause well.
Yet another college kid?
Posted by: keith at December 01, 2008 01:16 AM (IkfIN)
74
"Oh and Keith, you all WERE mislead. But I'll forgive that as America was still angry/confused/bitter because of 9/11. I saw right through the crap but some good people fell for it."
Oh wow! I didn't realize we were in the midst of such a towering intellect!!
Posted by: Keith at December 01, 2008 01:18 AM (IkfIN)
75
"Oh and Keith, you all WERE mislead. But I'll forgive that as America was still angry/confused/bitter because of 9/11. I saw right through the crap but some good people fell for it."
Oh wow! I didn't realize we were in the midst of such a towering intellect!!
Posted by: keith at December 01, 2008 01:19 AM (IkfIN)
76
I'm going to turn it back on you, Comrade Russia. Instead of refuting your points, I'm going to ask you to provide references. Give me proof of your talking points, please.
eg, as for your "billion people around the globe" quote, are you serious? Since when does a poll equte to fact or truth? Maria Carey sells millions of CDs, but that doesn't make her talented.
Posted by: keith Robertson at December 01, 2008 01:29 AM (IkfIN)
77
reading all of ur notes, did u know that the v
Vietnam war was started on a lie as was the Iraq war. are both of those presidential policies or us policies. dont take my word for it read.if ur old enough to understand the Iraq war .u will know it was illegal... Russia attacked Georgia... why would a country attack another country without cause...without their leader threatening them ?? i cant understand that , can you? folks .. any irony in that,,,, ??
elections are over , support our president instead of calling him names.. let him get into office and see what he does then vote him out if u don't like him. get over the election. get out of grade school stop calling names.
Posted by: ed at December 01, 2008 01:31 AM (vFAWo)
78
Math...
I tell Ya what (Palin Lovers)
There is no insurgency without an Occupation. When you argue that the insurgency killed people and not the US invasion, as much as you want to call it a "coalition" invation you are absolutely off your nut. Maybe Bush wanted to create a vacuum into which extremists were drawn, but that was not the argument put forth by Bush.
The fact that al Qaeda is in Iraq is a testament to the bungling nature of Bush.
We were LIED into that war. It was a war of choice. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 911. There was no Yellow cake. There were no WMD. When you say that there were you are worse than liars, you are ignorant, and that is why Obama won.
Obama is a great speaker, but he won not only because of what he had to say, but because of the utter and incontrivertable failures of George W. Bush's foriegn policy and Reagan's economic policy. Tell me where it is that I am mistaken.
Posted by: Keil at December 01, 2008 01:34 AM (uIOO4)
79
It may surprise many of you, but in retrospect I am not the biggest fan of the Iraq invasion. I am of Afghanistan, however.
Whether or not it was well-founded or not, the reasons for the Iraq invasion are "in the past". Since ya'll on The Left love to dismiss anything that occurred more than 10 minutes ago as "the past" with statements such as "how can we move forward?" and "let's not dwell..." etc, then you should appreciate that.
So, whether you like it or not, we're there. How do we make the best of a hairy situation? Or aren't you interested in that? Do you just wish to dwell on "the past"? If you on The Left weren't so hell-bend on us LOSING the Iraq conflict, you could just offer a few constructive solutions.
Posted by: keith Robertson at December 01, 2008 01:35 AM (IkfIN)
80
So the answer is, "War, war and more war! War when a country attacks us (which has never happened on actual U.S. soil; Hawaii wasn't a state at the time of the Pearl Harbor attacks, and 9/11 was not an attack by a country)! War when a country might possibly attack us! Support our troops, no matter what they're sent to do!" Hey, no one wants a war, but bad things are necessary.
The problem with that non-reasoning is this war (an unprovoked invasion and occupation in this case) was, by no means, by no one's account and in no conceivable way necessary. It was popular among people with short attention spans and a tendency to think there's an easy answer to solve a problem of violence, and that is, "Apply more violence!"
Calling me names is not exactly refuting my points, good sir. Sleep well.
Posted by: egcn at December 01, 2008 01:36 AM (hnIi6)
81
Keith...
"Say it ain';t so Joe! There ya go again talkin about the past. John McCain and I want to take us into the future..."
-Sarah Palin
Posted by: Keil at December 01, 2008 01:40 AM (uIOO4)
82
You want a solution? When Bush raises the victory banner on the deck of that aircraft carier, we withdraw troops and get the blank out of there. Declare victory. The media wouldv'e bought it, no?
Posted by: Keil at December 01, 2008 01:43 AM (uIOO4)
83
While hearing more from the Saddam wasn't so bad/Bush lied, people died/war for oil/Downing Street Memo/fire can't melt steel crowd is always entertaining, I'm off to bed, and closing comments as a result.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 01, 2008 01:43 AM (HcgFD)
90kb generated in CPU 0.0205, elapsed 0.0987 seconds.
54 queries taking 0.0843 seconds, 234 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
54 queries taking 0.0843 seconds, 234 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
