Warning To All Democrat Surrender Monkeys!

Email Print posted by KenTX 07/30/2007 02:36:07 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
You’re starting to look and sound like complete imbeciles. When leading experts from America’s foremost liberal thinktank start warning that the Petraeus plan is working, you better fire up those helicopters on the roof of DNC headquarters and prepare for evacuation.

Your smartest liberals are trying to sound the warning that the Petraeus hearing before Congress in September is likely to bring back memories of the Ollie North appearance, where Democrat lawmakers were made to look like complete fools.

I’m about ready to make the call. “Ladies and Gentlemen, WE GOT HIM!”
mr surrender

“Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.”

Hey, by the way, where are my buddies SeattleJoe and bfaul? They've been awfully quiet lately?

< Jung Jurks Enough! Protest Video and Episode 3 | CNN YouTube Debate - Blacks and Whites only Race in U.S.???????? >
 Display:
Warning To All Democrat Surrender Monkeys! | 47 comments (47 topical, 0 hidden)
Measuring a spot for GWB! (none / 0)
deal with this!

by KenTX on 07/30/2007 02:55:17 AM EST

Field Goal! (none / 0)
Ken, cheering the "victories" from the surge is like a team down 28-0 celebrating a field goal.  Yeah, ok you've got 3 points, but you're still a long way from winning the game and the clock is ticking. 

There is still a chance, I'll give you that.  Especially with Petraeus in at QB since he seems to at least know how to play the game, but the odds are clearly stacked against him and the head coach is still an imbecile.

by alphasigmookie on 07/30/2007 02:06:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Todays mantra "We're making progress!" (none / 0)
For example todaysnews reports

At least 93 people were killed or found dead across Iraq over the last two days.

In political developments, the largest Sunni Arab bloc said the government's response to its demands and threat to pull out of the Cabinet this week slammed the door to reforms.

I've said it before, and I know it's true because Rush the Limprod told me so, and his loyal Dittohead Kenny keeps repeating it over and over and over again and they both heard it from the "Decider" and he heard it from his "Heavenly Father" confirmed by the "Deci ders"  brother the "Baby Jesus", so what's the argument about?  How many times do these wise and brave people have to tell you

WE ARE MAKING PROGRESS!!!!

Now just shut up and drink the damn Koolaid like good sheaple and let the "Thinkers" who got us into this glorious cluster fuck, "decide" what's best to get us out.


"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 07/30/2007 02:31:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Measure him for this!! (none / 0)
prisoner

by bluefella on 07/30/2007 03:03:14 AM EST

Bite = bark (none / 0)
What is the point of this thread?  Does a little sound bite somehow undo the 3600+ deaths that have resulted from a lack of management in this war?  Nirvana summed it up rather well:  "Oh, denial."

by OneHitKill on 07/30/2007 05:27:55 AM EST

Ollie (none / 0)
I seem to remember that without the help of the ACLU, Ollie would have gone to prison.  He lied to Congress, destroyed documents and facilitated the secret sale of weapons to Iran. 

by TurksTom on 07/30/2007 07:03:27 AM EST

You're very, very weird (none / 0)

The last time I got involved in a thread with you it was to point out that everything you were saying was factually incorrect.  You're even bizarrely wrong about little things: I haven't been particularly quiet, certainly no more quiet than you.

When you're not simply wrong you do stupid things.  One thing you constantly do is quote a single article or editorial as if it were definitive proof or otherwise earth-shaking.

As for W belonging on Mt. Rushmore, the fact is that no matter what happens in September, the Iraq invasion will still have been the greatest, and stupidest, military and foreign policy disaster in American history, and history will not be kind to its authors. Aside from the at least half a million Iraqi dead, the two million refugees, the fact that the ciivil war was completely predictable and widely predicted, the fact that the invasion completely sabotaged the war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and the fact that it inspired and trained untold numbers of new jihadis, there is the simple fact that Saddam Hussein was one of the most deadly and effective enemies against Islamic extremism.  It's almost impossible to list all the ways in which it was stupid and disatrous.

I doubt General Petraeus would be flattered by the comparison to Ollie North.  Everyone expects him to say positive things in September.  Even if the Brookings Institute guys are right, it's going to be an almost impossible task for Petraeus to fight against the administration's complete lack of credibility.  It has constantly lied about almost everything for seven years. I doubt that the General will persuade even the Republicans in Congress, who are desperate to dissaciate themseoves from Bush's war, let alone the Democrats, or the American people, for that matter.

There's not a chance in the world that the Democrats won't win the Presidency and bigger majorities in both houses of Congress.

Sorry to disappoint you. 

 

 

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 07/30/2007 07:24:33 AM EST

I agree. No Republican in the White House (none / 0)
to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."
Is a sustainable stability (meaning Iraqis aren't blowing each other up every single day, just occasionally) worth thousands of lives and half a trillion dollars? Will a sustainable stability be enough to pull the Republicans out of the hole they are in? I doubt it.

by Mr Pibb on 07/30/2007 04:40:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Starbucks (none / 0)
...the fact is that no matter what happens in September, the Iraq invasion will still have been the greatest, and stupidest, military and foreign policy disaster in American history...

The greatest and stupidest? Surely it doesn't compare to the missed opportunity of confronting Nazi Germany in 1936? Does it outrank the Vietnam War and its 55,000 dead Americans? Does it outrank the Battle of Gettysburg in which more Americans died in three days than have died in the entire span of the Iraq War and occupation? Considering the long list of great and stupid military and foreign policy disasters in American history, it is a bold move to label this one as the worst of all time before it's even run its course.

...the invasion completely sabotaged the war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan...

You mean the war that killed many of the high ranking members of al Qaeda and drove the survivors into hiding in the most backward part of the backward nation of Pakistan long before Iraq was invaded? Al Qaeda was decimated and the only reason we didn't finish it off was out of fear that large numbers of US Marines crossing into Pakistan would trigger the overthrow of Musharraf.

...Saddam Hussein was one of the most deadly and effective enemies against Islamic extremism.

How many al Qaeda kills did Saddam notch in his gun belt? By what measure do you judge Saddam to be an effective enemy of jihadists?

Everyone expects [General Petraeus] to say positive things in September.

I expect him to answer questions truthfully and report both positive and negative things.

Even if the Brookings Institute guys are right, it's going to be an almost impossible task for Petraeus to fight against the administration's complete lack of credibility.

His impossible task is to get a fair hearing from politicians who don't want to acknowledge any statements that contradict their preconceived notions.

I doubt that the General will persuade even the Republicans in Congress, who are desperate to dissaciate themseoves from Bush's war, let alone the Democrats, or the American people, for that matter.

There are a great number of Americans who wanted to see a serious change in strategy in Iraq. They will react positively to good news about Petraeus's surge.

There's not a chance in the world that the Democrats won't win the Presidency...

Stranger things have happened. It certainly looks bad for the Republicans now, but a lot can change in a year.

Sorry to disappoint you.

I am disappointed. Put a little effort into slapping KenTX around.

by Twba on 07/30/2007 05:34:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Cheney said the war would be over in 6 weeks too (none / 0)
The civil war in Iraq diverts Pentagon resources from Afghanistan, where the military had a real chance to hunt down Al Qaeda's leaders and now the Taliban and Al Quaeda enjoy a new found strength. The invasion of Iraq alienated essential allies in the war against terrorism. It drained the strength and readiness of U.S troops.  Iraqis don't have enough clean water, food and shelter. 90%  of the hospitals don't have access to basic medical supplies, millions have become refugees living in abject poverty. A few people from the Bookings institute that where in Iraq all of 5 days and where shown only what the military wanted them to see. Reporting that there will be no victory , only a reduction in levels of violence is not going to be anything more than a tiny blip on the news cycle radar.

by Mr Pibb on 07/30/2007 07:15:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Actual facts! Actual arguments! (none / 0)

The greatest and stupidest?

Anyone with any sympathy for the war argues with me about this for the reasons you do, but I'm not the only one who believes it.  The best counter-example for your side of the argument is Vietnam.   But Iraq, beyond doubt, was much more stupid than Vietnam.

Surely it doesn't compare to the missed opportunity of confronting Nazi Germany in 1936?

I don't know what you mean here.  What was the opportunity the US had ot confront the Nazis in 1936?  (I'm perfectly willing to have my ignorance pointed out. It's a lot more fun to argue with someone who has some idea what he's talking about.)

Does it outrank the Vietnam War and its 55,000 dead Americans?

Yes.  There were more deaths of Americans and Vietnamese, but, first, it certainly wasn't as stupid (the sheer stupidity of invading Iraq can't be overstated); second, it happened in a corner of Southeast Asia and not the most important and unstable region on the planet, and third it was part of an ongoing conflict that lasted thirty years.  In 2003, aside from the invasion of Afghanistan (which had almost universal international support, including from, for instance, Iran) there was no military conflict going on between any Western power and any Middle Eastern Country, and the United States had the backing and sympathy of the world in its war against Al Qaeda.

All we had to do was not do anything insanely stupid.  So, of course, that is what the Bush administration did.

Does it outrank the Battle of Gettysburg in which more Americans died in three days than have died in the entire span of the Iraq War and occupation?

You and I aren't using "disaster" in quite the same way. The Battle of Gettysburg, along with the surrender of Vicksburg, were the turning points in the war.  They were bloody victories.  (Meade's failure to advance against the retreating Lee was more of a disaster than the battle itself, with bloodier consequences.) Stalingrad was a disaster for the Germans and a victory for the Russians.  What makes Iraq the worst disaster isn't the number of people who died.

Considering the long list of great and stupid military and foreign policy disasters in American history, it is a bold move to label this one as the worst of all time before it's even run its course.

Not particularly.  It was obvious before it started how it was going to work out, and it's just as obvious now.

Saddam Hussein was one of the most deadly and effective enemies against Islamic extremism.

How many al Qaeda kills did Saddam notch in his gun belt? By what measure do you judge Saddam to be an effective enemy of jihadists?

This is uncontroversial.  Saddam Hussein and islamic militants were, without doubt, deadly enemies.  His effectiveness is demonstrated by the fact that once he was removed Iraq became a battleground between competing Islamic groups.  His dictatorship was the cork in the bottle.  I'll see if I can find some references, but really, what I said is just historic fact.  ("Most deadly and effective.." is hyperbole.)

...His impossible task is to get a fair hearing from politicians who don't want to acknowledge any statements that contradict their preconceived notions.

I was arguing with Ken's idea that Petraus' testimony would be a politial disaster for the Democrats.  I.e., I was arguing that he has an "impossible task."  You may be right that the fact that the task is impossible is the fault of the politicians, but we agree on the essential point (in terms of the discussion.)

There are a great number of Americans who wanted to see a serious change in strategy in Iraq. They will react positively to good news about Petraeus's surge.

There's not a chance in the world that the Democrats won't win the Presidency...

Stranger things have happened. It certainly looks bad for the Republicans now, but a lot can change in a year.

These are both perfectly reasonable comments.

I am disappointed. Put a little effort into slapping KenTX around.

It's easy to get lazy.  And rarely worth the effort, frankly. 

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 07/30/2007 07:36:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My favorite speed bag (none / 0)
is SeattleJoe.
Joe
“But Iraq, beyond doubt, was much more stupid than Vietnam. Yes. There were more deaths of Americans and Vietnamese, but, first, it certainly wasn't as stupid (the sheer stupidity of invading Iraq can't be overstated); second, it happened in a corner of Southeast Asia and not the most important and unstable region on the planet, and third it was part of an ongoing conflict that lasted thirty years.” 
America lost more than 50,000 lives fighting people who never attacked us over worthless jungle in Southeast Asia, and you are trying to diminish the stupidity of the Vietnam War?

If Saddam Hussein were still in power today, what would he be doing in response to efforts by his sworn enemy, Iran, to build a nuclear weapons program? With billions of petrodollars available, do you think he might have the resources and the incentive to finance a nuclear program?

Why should we abandon Iraq to al Qaeda, just when the battle is turning in our favor, and the Iraqis are joining us in the fight against Islamic Jihad? Why should we surrender our Iraqi allies to al Qaeda and yet keep fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

“Even if the Brookings Institute guys are right, it's going to be an almost impossible task for Petraeus to fight against the administration's complete lack of credibility.” 
Throughout 2007, the Democrats and their accomplices in the mainstream media have been demanding that we leave Iraq. But take a look at this exchange on Hardball last night between David Ignatius of the Washington Post, Kelly O'Donnell of NBC, Mike Duffy of Time Magazine, and Gloria Borger of CBS, and Chris Matthews. They are admitting there is no way to logically withdrawal from Iraq.

O'DONNELL:  People are beginning to learn that exiting is not easy.  There are enormous costs.

MATTHEWS: (interrupting) Okay. Batter if we stay there two --

O'DONNELL: Mechanically you can't do it.

DUFFY:  We have a thousand Iraqis dying a month at the current rate. That could explode, maybe ten times as many if the US leaves.

BORGER:  This is such a problem right now for the Democrats.  Privately, many of them will say -- and Joe Biden has even said it publicly -- that you can't withdraw overnight.

MATTHEWS:  We put it to the Matthews Meter, twelve of our regular panelists.  Can Bush keep a hundred thousand troops or more in Iraq until he leaves office?  It looks like he can.  Eight of our group says, yes, he can.

MATTHEWS: What good does this Iraq war do to reduce the threat of terrorism here?

IGNATIUS:  These struggles are different fronts of the same war.  The notion that, you know, a defeat to the United States and its allies in Iraq is costless in terms of the larger war against Al-Qaeda, is just wrong.  I mean, you know, bin Laden said again and again, the Americans are weak; if you hit 'em hard, they'll run away.  They were hit hard in Beirut; they ran away.  They were hit hard in Somalia; they ran away.

“I doubt that the General will persuade even the Republicans in Congress, who are desperate to disassociate themselves from Bush's war.”
Republicans in the Senate will certainly hold. When you hear reports like this of progress in Iraq, there is no way they will cave to the Defeatist Democrats.

In September, Democrats will offer another funding bill with timetables attached. Bush will veto it again, just like he did last time. And then Democrats will be handed another giant Shiite sandwich to bite down on. They can either defund the war, or continue to fund the war. There will be no middle option.

“There's not a chance in the world that the Democrats won't win the Presidency and bigger majorities in both houses of Congress.”
Yeah, in fact there are a couple of chances named Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I looked into some facts, and I learned that George W Bush is unable to run for a third term. That means the GOP nominee might be a pro-choice New York liberal.

When Democrats are unable to impeach George Bush or force the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, the Democrat Kook Base will explode! The 2008 Denver Convention will make the 1968 Chicago Convention look like a tea party. Democrats will either nominate some fringe-kook liberal, or there will be a viable liberal third party.

by KenTX on 07/30/2007 10:23:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sunnis are our good buddies! (none / 0)
More good news from Iraq.

The Kurds already love us.

The Sunnis are starting to love us.

The Shi'ites just want peace.

by KenTX on 07/30/2007 10:35:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
"Keep killing al Qaeda in Iraq!" (none / 0)
I just remembered that a few weeks ago, leading liberal journalist Jonathan Alter was interviewed by the Young Turks, and he insisted that U.S. forces must remain in Iraq and keep killing al Qaeda.

It was an interesting interview, and I hope that Dave can post a link.

by KenTX on 07/30/2007 10:47:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Details and facts can be so annoying (none / 0)

 I just remembered that a few weeks ago, leading liberal journalist Jonathan Alter was interviewed by the Young Turks, and he insisted that U.S. forces must remain in Iraq and keep killing al Qaeda.

I hate to repeat myself, but you really, really must read the stuff you link to. 

Here's what Alter said: 

When liberals try to make the argument that we need to get our forces out of Iraq, it’s important for them to remember that al Qaeda is still there, inside of Iraq, and we need to continue to kill them, but we don’t need to do it from inside of Iraq

"Redeploying" troops out of Iraq into Kurdistan or other places "over the horizon" is a form of "getting out of Iraq" that many liberals, like Alter, believe in.

But he is absolutely saying "get out of Iraq." 

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 08/02/2007 03:19:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
the dogs bark, the caravan moves on (none / 0)

Christ, you're a fool.

America lost more than 50,000 lives fighting people who never attacked us over worthless jungle in Southeast Asia, and you are trying to diminish the stupidity of the Vietnam War?

Obviously not.

If Saddam Hussein were still in power today, what would he be doing in response to efforts by his sworn enemy, Iran, to build a nuclear weapons program? With billions of petrodollars available, do you think he might have the resources and the incentive to finance a nuclear program?

Saddam Hussein had been essentially powerless since the end of the Gulf War, and had no nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.  What you are saying simply shows a complete ignorance about the history of Iraq.

Why should we abandon Iraq to al Qaeda, just when the battle is turning in our favor, and the Iraqis are joining us in the fight against Islamic Jihad? Why should we surrender our Iraqi allies to al Qaeda and yet keep fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan?

God you really are an ignorant jackass.  Absolutely nothing in that paragraph makes the slightest bit of sense.

And the rest is just you foaming at the mouth as usual.

I may have said this before, but you are an entirely uninteresting, ignorant, hysterical, self-important, pathetic, fool. 

 

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 07/31/2007 03:45:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Iraq and roll (none / 0)
I brought up the 1936 missed opportunity because of the possibility that a preemptive attack against Germany after it occupied the Rhineland could have avoided the worst of WWII.

...most important and unstable region on the planet...

If Iraq is so important, why should we quit the fight? Are we not better off in the long run by remaining and influencing the outcome? Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have risked their lives by working with Americans. Let's not abandon them to face the throat slitters alone. We owe them better than that.

...the United States had the backing and sympathy of the world in its war against Al Qaeda.

Let's try to keep ourselves confined to reality based discussions. America has never been universally loved. Sure, there were some nice shows of sympathy but when the going got tough we found out just how few friends we really have.

It was obvious before it started how it was going to work out, and it's just as obvious now.

You don't know what Iraq is going to look like in five years. I could map out some likely but radically different possibilities but I don't know which will be closest to the truth. The situation is too chaotic to accurately predict.

Saddam Hussein and islamic militants were, without doubt, deadly enemies.

Saddam was the deadly enemy of pretty much everyone in Iraq. Saddam is now dead and al Qaeda is in Iraq. What should we do about that now? Doesn't it make sense to stay and fight al Qaeda? And while we're there we can fight proxies of Iran, which has been at war with us since 1979 and is now funding and equipping militias killing Americans almost daily in Iraq.

His dictatorship was the cork in the bottle.

That cork was holding back more than just brain-washed Wahhabi suicide car bombers. That cork prevented basic freedom of expression and speech. The fact that too many Iraqis prefer to fight over the rightful successor to an illiterate tyrant who claimed to speak with an invisible superman in the sky over a thousand years ago rather than work together to recover from the decades spent being beaten down by Saddam does not mean that the world would be better if Saddam had been left to hand the reins of power over to his insane children.

I was arguing with Ken's idea that Petraus' testimony would be a politial disaster for the Democrats.

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us." [LINK]

House Majority Whip James Clyburn seems to agree with KenTX that American success in Iraq would be a real big problem for the Democratic Party.

by Twba on 08/01/2007 05:05:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Truth and Consequences (none / 0)
I brought up the 1936 missed opportunity because of the possibility that a preemptive attack against Germany after it occupied the Rhineland could have avoided the worst of WWII.

I thought you meant that, and of course failing to stand up to Hitler was a mistake with horrendous consequences.  But, in terms of the comparison to Iraq: first, it was really up to the French (so not really a US disaster) and second, while it wasn't foresighted, it wasn't particularly "stupid." After WWI, military action was very unpopular, understandably, and a lot of very intelligent, reasonable people didn't see the danger posed by Hitler.

...most important and unstable region on the planet...

If Iraq is so important, why should we quit the fight?

The question is "why did we invade?"

Are we not better off in the long run by remaining and influencing the outcome? Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have risked their lives by working with Americans. Let's not abandon them to face the throat slitters alone. We owe them better than that.

What we should do now is a different question than the one we were arguing.  And what is certain is that what we have to deal with now is the aftermath of a horrendous disaster.

(but, one of the rather shameful ways we have abandoned tham is that we don't  help the one's who actually worked with us.  We don't help them get out, we don't let them come to the US.  Denmark left recently, and evacuated all the Iraqis who had helped them.)

...the United States had the backing and sympathy of the world in its war against Al Qaeda.

Let's try to keep ourselves confined to reality based discussions. America has never been universally loved. Sure, there were some nice shows of sympathy but when the going got tough we found out just how few friends we really have.

I really disagree with that.  After 9/11 America actually was close to being "universally loved," certainly more than any other time in history. It is hard to overestimate how much good will and sympathy the United States had after 9/11 and before the invasion of Iraq. Even Iran,which had a growing moderate political movement led by the President, and whose people are actually very pro-American, was helping us in Afghanistan. The "going got tough" when we invaded Iraq, which which everyone in the world (except Tony Blair and the Australian PM) warned us not to do.

So, I stick by what I said.  That is definitely part of the stupidity.

It was obvious before it started how it was going to work out, and it's just as obvious now.

You don't know what Iraq is going to look like in five years. I could map out some likely but radically different possibilities but I don't know which will be closest to the truth. The situation is too chaotic to accurately predict.

I predict more chaos.  Of course you're right, but there is also no doubt that if we hadn't invaded Iraq and put all our resources in Afghanists, there'd be a whole lot less chaos going on.  And a whole lot less dead people.

Me: Saddam Hussein and islamic militants were, without doubt, deadly enemies.

(I did a little research, and I was exaggerating more than I realized. Saddam and the Ba'athists are inherently secular, and when he was fighting Iran he was definitely fightig Shia fundamentalism in allliance with the west.  But after the Kuwait war he was very willing to pretend to be devout and make alliances with any Mujahadeen who were willing.  Not many were, and he was definitely the cork in the bottle when it comes to the spread of Islamic terrorism in his neck of the woods.)

Saddam was the deadly enemy of pretty much everyone in Iraq. Saddam is now dead and al Qaeda is in Iraq. What should we do about that now? Doesn't it make sense to stay and fight al Qaeda?

Well, I have ideas about that, but what we're talking about is whether or not the invasion was stupid and a disaster.  So, you're sort of making my point.  Saddam is dead because we invaded, and al Qaeda in Iraq is in Iraq because we invaded.  And "What should we do now?" is the sort of question you really only ask after a disaster. 

And while we're there we can fight proxies of Iran, which has been at war with us since 1979 and is now funding and equipping militias killing Americans almost daily in Iraq.

I think you're fundamentally mistaken here in several ways, but, in any case, the idea was to have a stable iraq as an ally against Iran, not have bloody chaos tying down 90% of our army so we can fight proxies.  

His dictatorship was the cork in the bottle.

That cork was holding back more than just brain-washed Wahhabi suicide car bombers. That cork prevented basic freedom of expression and speech...

Yes, of course. But the same can be said of Saudi Arabia.  Dick Cheney talked about "the dark side."  One of the most effective use of "the dark side" is to ally youself with brutal tyrants who will help you deal with your enemies.  It's the American Way. That's what we did with Saddam in the eighties.  Remember the war on terror?  He would have been useful, taking him out was a stupid move, and frankly we didn't do the Iraqis any favors.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn seems to agree with KenTX that American success in Iraq would be a real big problem for the Democratic Party.

You're right.

Well, not exactly.   Clyburn doesn't say it will be a "real big problem", and Ken said it will be a really, really, really big problem.  So there is some daylight between their positions.

(I thought you were going to give me a hard time about the comparison with Vietnam!  I always think that's my weakest spot.)

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 08/02/2007 04:33:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It just gets worse and worse (none / 0)
for Democrats!

“Clyburn doesn't say it will be a "real big problem", and Ken said it will be a really, really, really big problem.”

Washington insiders report that Democrats are between a rock and a hard place on Iraq, and they’re getting squeezed to death.

Bush will veto any spending bill that involves congressional-imposed restrictions on his ability to maneuver on the war. Democrats don’t have 67 votes in the Senate to over-ride a veto. Tim Johnson is in bed in SD, and Joe Lieberman loooves the war. That leaves them about 20 votes short.

Democrats’ only other option is to block additional funding and force an end to the war. Their kook base is screaming for an end to the war in Iraq, but Democrat lawmakers don’t have the nerve to do it because they would be offering surrender to al Qaeda, just when the surge is working great.

Now for a recap of prognostications:

SeattleJoe: “I doubt that the General will persuade even the Republicans in Congress, who are desperate to disassociate themselves from Bush's war, let alone the Democrats, or the American people, for that matter.”

Hubble: “Let's see what happens in September, after more and more of the Republican Senators have become part of the traitorous cut and run, surrender to the terrorist, group. It's going to be interesting.”

Z1p101: “All I keep saying is come September the Republicans are not going to take orders from the White House any more. They are going to force Bush to change to a strategy that looks like what the Dems have been asking for since last year giving them the “I told you so” line. And that idiot Bush is going to look like the failure he is.”

KenTX: "It will be a really, really, really big problem." (OK, I never said this, but I'll agree with it.)

by KenTX on 08/02/2007 05:55:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
correction (none / 0)
its getting really really bad for the soldiers that are dying in Iraq .

by Mr Pibb on 08/02/2007 04:16:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wishing for better days (none / 0)
Ranking past foreign policy disasters is just an intellectual exercise. It doesn't really help to compare Iraq now to past disasters, since it's still in progress. We won't know until years later just how bad it is, but I doubt it will be judged to be as bad as you think it is.

Clyburn doesn't say it will be a "real big problem"...

I cut and pasted the quote from the Washington Post. The paper claims that he did say it will be a "real big problem."

...most important and unstable region on the planet...

If Iraq is so important, why should we quit the fight?

The question is "why did we invade?"

Why should the reason for the invasion matter now when the question going forward is whether or not we quit the fight? Will a better explanation of the reason for invading change your mind about what to do in Iraq now?

Saddam is dead because we invaded, and al Qaeda in Iraq is in Iraq because we invaded.

Yes. Saddam is dead and that is a good thing, as Martha Stewart might say. Al Qaeda is in Iraq. We are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. Why should we quit the fight? Saying that President Bush was mistaken in his belief that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction prior to the invasion is not a good reason to quit the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq.

Of course you're right, but there is also no doubt that if we hadn't invaded Iraq and put all our resources in Afghanists, there'd be a whole lot less chaos going on.

But there is doubt as to whether or not Saddam would have bribed his way out of the sanctions and reconstituted his WMD programs by now.

We didn't need to put any more resources into Afghanistan. We successfully drove al Qaeda out of Afghanistan into Pakistan and Iran years ago. The Taleban are just illiterate, incestuous Pashtun hillbillies. We don't need more troops to keep them at bay. The biggest mistakes made in Afghanistan are not lack of American troops but lack of imagination. We should have legalized the biggest cash crop, opium poppies. We should have assumed control of the Afghan army and paid them from our petty cash. That would have kept the farmers on our side instead of allying with the Taleban for protection, and it would have avoided having many Afghan soldiers abandoning their posts when their paychecks didn't arrive from Kabul.

...the idea was to have a stable iraq as an ally against Iran...

But you're arguing that Iraq was stable and opposed to Iran before the invasion. Saddam wasn't about to switch sides. So you don't really know why we invaded?

One of the most effective use of "the dark side" is to ally youself with brutal tyrants who will help you deal with your enemies.  It's the American Way.

The American Way created a lot of blowback. President Bush figured that out in the days after 9/11. He invaded Iraq to break that cycle and undermine the brutal tyrants in the Middle East. He is in over his head and is counting on General Petraeus to rescue him.

Petraeus's surge can't last forever. Some of the troops in Iraq will have to be rotated back to base and there are not enough troops ready to replace them. There will be a drawdown taking place in Iraq whether the surge is successful or not.

I'm hoping that the surge succeeds because I'm unwilling to cheer for defeat of America.

by Twba on 08/03/2007 01:15:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ill cheer when the troops are home (none / 0)
People who couch Iraq in terms of victory and defeat usually have no idea what victory is and how to achieve it like the president and the people who support him.

by Mr Pibb on 08/03/2007 06:59:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Here's an idea! (none / 0)
"I'm hoping that the surge succeeds because I'm unwilling to cheer for defeat of America."
 
We could offer unconditional surrender to al Qaeda in Iraq. Then we could invade Pakistan.

I'll bet we could even get an overwhelming majority of Democrats to support the invasion of Pakistan, like they supported the Iraq War Resolution.

Then when American troops start getting killed, they can blame everything on Bush.  

Osama Obama

by KenTX on 08/04/2007 12:37:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Here is a better idea (none / 0)
We could also withdraw from a Civil War in Iraq and concentrate on fighting the global war on terrorism.

by Mr Pibb on 08/04/2007 02:03:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Theater of War (none / 0)

We can't stop what we're doing in Iraq.  We're pretending to fight them over there so that we don't have to pretend to fight them all over the world.  Nobody has the budget for that kind of big production number.  Even if you are able to cover the pyrotechnics, you end up with no money left for stunts.

by OneHitKill on 08/05/2007 08:19:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
*yawn* (none / 0)
More of the same.

"Leading experts" from an opinion column.  Uh huh.

When you can cite me more than one credible source -- and I'm not at all convinced these guys are credible -- then maybe we're having a conversation.

by jarett on 07/30/2007 01:15:38 PM EST

John Burns is on board! (none / 0)
John Burns is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who writes for the New York Times. His primary address is Iraq, so he knows more about the country than you.

Listen to what Burns said about Iraq on the Charlie Rose Show back in January.

Read what he says now about how the surge is working to change Iraq.

by KenTX on 07/31/2007 03:03:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A question occurred to me. (none / 0)
If the surge worked, and al Qaeda was vanquished in Iraq, and the region was successfully divided into three autonomous regions co-existing in peace, would you be happy with the outcome?

Or is defeat and surrender your ultimate objective?

by KenTX on 07/31/2007 03:31:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
An answer (none / 0)
If the surge worked, and al Qaeda was vanquished in Iraq, and the region was successfully divided into three autonomous regions co-existing in peace, would you be happy with the outcome?

I absolutely would.

Sadly, such is not to be.

by jarett on 08/03/2007 06:00:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh, and you're a sucker, too (none / 0)

Surprise, surprise.  Turns out the the leading experts from America's foremost liberal think tank who wrote the article that Ken, the master debater, is so impressed by, have been supporters of the war and the surge all along!

Who could possibly have imagined such dishonesty from supporters of the war?  Tsk, tsk.

Well,they're liberals, what can you expect. 

From the Atlantic Online: 

"I'm shocked, shocked to discover that Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack think the surge is great and should be extended "at least into 2008" (another Freidman unit!) -- who could have guessed? As Greg Sargent notes, the twosome actually tries to present this as a counterintuitive statement by administration critics, though O'Hanlon's been way out in front as a surge booster since it first started (I'm told he's good friends, personally, with General Petraeus, from back in grad school or something) and Pollack, obviously, has been synonymous with the war for years."

And with that, I hereby declare this topic dead and buried. 

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 07/31/2007 04:06:29 AM EST

I declare you a weakling. (none / 0)
“And with that, I hereby declare this topic dead and buried.” 

You find a single paragraph from an undistinguished blogger in a biased, left-wing website, and you think you’ve achieved some level of conclusive evidence? And note that your own blogger even admits that O’Hanlon is Democrat Party loyalist.

But you failed to investigate the previous writings of O’Hanlon.

And you failed to discover that he is a long time critic of the Bush Administration’s efforts in Iraq.

And you failed to discover that his research associate, Pollack, is also a long time critic of the Bush Administration’s efforts in Iraq.

You want more articles? These two are prolific writers.

You should have seen this coming because O’Hanlon and Pollack work for the Brookings Institute, which is America’s foremost liberal thinktank. Brookings does not pay good money for the work of conservative hacks.

Your personal failings indicate that you’re lazy, weak, and undisciplined when it comes to mental challenge, and my guess is that you’re probably even weaker when it comes to physical challenge. I’ve been dominating liberals like you my entire life, and I like doing it. You need to be humbled on a daily basis.

We used to have a high school history teacher who participated in this forum, and his personality was very similar to yours. He fancied himself a smart guy, because he was trying to compensate for significant inadequacy in other areas of his life.

He ran away after being humiliated one too many times.

by KenTX on 07/31/2007 06:01:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Secret to My Success (none / 0)

"You need to be humbled on a daily basis."

But remember, Ken can't humble you if you just refuse to feel humble as a result.  That's how I've defended my perfect record against him all this time.

by OneHitKill on 07/31/2007 11:50:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Just remember your safe word. (none / 0)

I'm not into that S&M stuff.  I've never had any attraction to humiliating people or being humiliated.

But jerks like Ken are just would-be bullies who find a vent for their pathetic emotional needs on the internet.  He'll never feel humiliated, because, of course, he's always right. He'll always be king of of the message board hill. 

He's pretty pathetic, but it's fun to confuse him with the facts.

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 07/31/2007 12:15:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Reading. It's Fun-damental (none / 0)

I know that you have never felt it necessary to actually read the things you link to, but if you're going to accuse people of intellectual lazines it might be a good idea.

1) The first article begins:

Administration officials have been right in recent weeks to argue that there is no large-scale civil war underway in Iraq. As long as the Iraqi political leadership remains generally united in trying to calm the situation, and as long as sectarian violence remains more sporadic than strategic (with no systematic ethnic cleansing, for example), true civil war remains a threat rather than a reality

2006: Administration officials are right to argue that there is no "large-scale civil war".

Who are they arguing with? Apparently there were enough people who believed it was a civil war that Bush and company had to address them.  I remember, I was there, and no one who was a "critic of the war" would have had any reason to participate in the administarion's self-delusion that what was happening was anything but a civil war.

Anyone who thinks this guy is a "critic of the war" is participating in another self-delusion.

2) The second article states what even pro-war Republicans had to finally admit, that the occupation was a disater.  But whose fault is that?

The standard explanation for this lack of preparedness among most defense and foreign policy specialists, and the U.S. military as well, is that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and much of the rest of the Bush administration insisted on fighting the war with too few troops and too Pollyannaish a view of what would happen inside Iraq once Saddam was overthrown. This explanation is largely right. Taken to an extreme, however, it is dangerously wrong. It blames the mistakes of one civilian leader of the Department of Defense, and one particular administration, for a debacle that was foreseeable and indeed foreseen by most experts in the field. Under these circumstances, planners and high-ranking officers of the U.S. armed forces were not fulfilling their responsibilities to the Constitution

Rumsfeld bears some responsibility, but if we are too extreme in our judgement, we are "dangerously wrong."  We mustn't blame "one civilian leader" or "one particular administration." (Are we supposed to blame it on the Coolidge administration?)

No!  Who is to blame?  The U.S. Armed Forces!!!  They failed to fulfill their consitutional duties!!!

It's nonsensical crap from a Bush apologist.

3) You linked to a short review of the Brookings Institute's 2006 report, "A Switch In Time". but you clearly didn't bother to look at the actual report.

"A Switch in Time” is intended to provide an alternative,comprehensive approach for American strategy inIraq. It begins with the assumption (not necessarily shared by all members of the Iraq Working Group) that although the current U.S. approach is encountering considerable difficulties and appears unlikely to produce a stable Iraq within the next two to five years While many thoughtful experts and policymakers have attempted to offer a realistic third course of action, none have so far succeeded in doing so. This report proposes such a strategy... a realistic assessment of what “staying, but doing it right” requires.

Pollock and the Saban Center for Mideast Policy at the oh-so liberal Brookings Institute are against withdrawal, but are for "staying, but doing it right." 

They are not critics, they are apologists and loyal policy advisers.

There are plenty of other examples, andall the many, many people e (including cenk and ben) who have noted that Pollock and O'Hanlon are lying shills are completely correct.

And, by the way, Matthew Yglesias is quite a distinguished blogger and a staff writer at The American Prospect, and the Atlantic is a venerable and respectable periodical.

You really should find some other way of coming up with "supporting evidence" besides pulling it out of your ass.

 

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 07/31/2007 12:16:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
More reading for you (none / 0)

I know actually reading things is difficult for you, but if you can manage it, you might try to see if you can handle this extremely well-researched article in Salon.

(I know it's not NRO online or FreeRepublic, but research is research) 

Here's a follow-up on the media coverage. 

Has it ever occured to you that the high school teacher just got tired of your endless stream of counterfactual assertions, obsessive repetitiveness, inabilty to understand anything that hasn't been prechewed for you by Fox, and your pathetic delusion that you are a master debater?

You are always wrong and you obviously have some kind of particularly unpleasant personality disorder.

But it's still fun confusing you with the facts. 

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 07/31/2007 06:44:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Turk House Rules (none / 0)
Perhaps it’s only a coincidence, but I just noticed your nic appeared around the same time his nic disappeared.

I always assumed Rich finally got busted for posting rude, unsavory and inflammatory remarks from his school computer while at work. Pflugerville, TX is a very conservative community, and the local school board, which resembles the German Reichstag, would probably have difficulty appreciating his hilarious sense of humor.

I always enjoy a lively, friendly, and spirited political debate. The most important adjective is friendly. If the dialogue ever takes an unpleasant turn, there are several proven methods for reestablishing a convivial atmosphere.

The best approach is to agree to disagree in an agreeable manner. I don’t have to accept your position, nor do you have to accept mine, but we can always strive to maintain a degree of conciliatory mutual respect. In the three years I’ve been posting on this board, I have found that this approach works best with all of our forum buddies.

Over time, we have established the “Irish Pub Rule” in the Young Turks Forum, and it goes something like this. Pour yourself a pint, kick back, and join in the political discourse. Your opinion is as valid as the next guy’s. However, if you start behaving in a rude manner, the other patrons in the pub are well versed in the art of pugilism. So try to be nice.

by KenTX on 07/31/2007 09:07:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
At least you're consistent (none / 0)

1) As usual, you've lost an argument, so you change the subject.

2) Your response to my first post was to insult me.  You are belligerent, obnoxious, ignorant, and incapable of following a rational argument.  What you are good at is regurgitating talking points, telling the world what a genius you are, and ineffectually ridiculing people.  You wouldn't know a friendly argument if it bit you in the ass,  and you are consistently disagreeable.

3) It's fun, light exercise to confuse you with the facts and watch you go through your usual moves in your usual bombastic way.  And of course you will always think that you've won every argument.  So it does no harm.


 

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 07/31/2007 09:59:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Rude? Me? (none / 0)
I always offer the peace pipe first, because politeness is always preferable, at least with most people. But bookmark this thread, and let the record show that Joe rejected the peace offering, and he’s determined to pursue belligerence. I’m willing to accommodate his needs.

“As usual, you've lost an argument, so you change the subject.”
I’ve never lost an argument to you. That’s why I enjoy having you around. I even offer polite invitations for your participation.

“Your response to my first post was to insult me.  You are belligerent, obnoxious, ignorant, and incapable of following a rational argument.” 
Are you referring to your first post in this forum, or your first post in this thread? If you mean the former, you have a great capacity for memory and a short capacity for forgiveness. If you mean the latter, I invite you to go back and re-read the exchange between the two of us in this thread and consider who has been insulting who of late. (This would be a good time for Judge Jarett to make another of his famous rulings.)

“It's fun, light exercise to confuse you with the facts and watch you go through your usual moves in your usual bombastic way.” 
Bombastic? Again, please re-read this thread. Then tell me who initiated the rudeness. (Unless you’re upset at my insult of Rich.) If that jab bothered you, then I guess we’ve solved another mystery.

There is a proven method of sending guys like you over the edge. All it takes is patient, consistent, wearing, long-term debunking of your false assertions with proven facts. After a while, you will crumble.

Man, if that’s the way you want to play it.

by KenTX on 07/31/2007 10:42:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Authoritarian Style (none / 0)

I don't care in the slightest that you insulted me in my first post on this board. I was pointing out that you have been consistently obnoxious and unpleasant since I started posting. It's just your style.  Thus, when you talk about the need for "friendly debate" you are either being hypocritical or revealing a complete lack of self-knowledge.

I’ve never lost an argument to you. That’s why I enjoy having you around. I even offer polite invitations for your participation.

I'm entirely aware that you believe that.  Yet if we were to go back in this thread, or any thread, we'd find that your facts are almost always wrong and your arguments nothing but second-hand rhetoric.  When I point this out, you change the subject. 

I invite you to go back and re-read the exchange between the two of us in this thread and consider who has been insulting who of late.

It is certainly the case that I have been insulting you of late.  The result is amusing.  You're doing the Eddie Haskell routine, and calling for mommy.

 Bombastic? Again, please re-read this thread. Then tell me who initiated the rudeness. (Unless you’re upset at my insult of Rich.) If that jab bothered you, then I guess we’ve solved another mystery.

Get a dictionary.  "Bombastic" and "rude" are unrelated concepts.  You are bombastic, I am rude. 

Have I mentioned that you are quite ignorant, and almost always wrong?

(Actually I'm pretty bombastic sometimes.  Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.)

There is a proven method of sending guys like you over the edge. All it takes is patient, consistent, wearing, long-term debunking of your false assertions with proven facts. After a while, you will crumble.

Well you are certainly consistent and wearing. 

Have you ever considered that all those people you think you sent over the edge or caused to crumble may have simply gotten bored with you and looked for other things to do and other places to hang out?  You are a legend in your own mind, but you are really just an irritating person who makes the young turks message board quite a bit more unpleasant than it has to be.

And you must point out some of the places where you "debunked my false assertions with proven facts".  It must have happened at least once.

I must retreat from your daunting presence for a while.  I'll try to work up some courage later and come back to see if I am man enough to face your brilliance, your erudition, and your Eddiei Haskell impression. 

Be nice to Mrs. Cleaver while I'm gone, Eddie.

 

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 07/31/2007 11:43:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Obnoxious? Me? (none / 0)
"I was pointing out that you have been consistently obnoxious and unpleasant since I started posting. It's just your style.  Thus, when you talk about the need for "friendly debate" you are either being hypocritical or revealing a complete lack of self-knowledge."

Well then, maybe I need to work on refining my style. I will count on you and Jesse to remind me whenever I get out of line.


Maybe if I make an effort to be polite to you, you will respond in kind? Then maybe we can set an example for the politicians in Washington? OK. I guess that's going a bit too far.

But we can still disagree on basic concepts, OK?


by KenTX on 08/01/2007 01:03:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
"Authoritarian and Bombastic" (none / 0)
I think this is a polite way to describe a "loud mouth know-it-all". Do you agree?

In this forum, that might be an apt description of my "virtual personality".

However, in real life, if we were engaged in political debate at a small dinner party in a trendy restaurant, you would find me to be a quiet and well-mannered know-it-all.

Jesse has heard my calls to Cenk, and I typically start with a polite "how's-mom-and-them&qu ot;. Then I pose a reasonable question to get the other guy thinking.

by KenTX on 08/01/2007 01:15:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Missing friendly post. (none / 0)

I thought I had replied to this, and in a way that was supposed to tone things down between you and me, at least.  I thought I had checked to make sure it was there after I posted it, but it seems to be missing, so I guess I hit "preview" and never hit "post".  Or there was some random glitch.

One thing I remember of what I wrote was a reply to this:

However, in real life, if we were engaged in political debate at a small dinner party in a trendy restaurant, you would find me to be a quiet and well-mannered know-it-all.

My response was something like:

I'm like that too.  Only I'm more of a picnic guy.  Trendy restaurants intimidate me.

It was supposed to be funny, say we are the same kind of person in many ways, tone things down.

So of course that is the one that didn't get posted. 

Like flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport. 

 

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 08/03/2007 01:15:48 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Perfect Example (none / 0)
Like flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport.

Now that's bombastic!

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 08/03/2007 01:37:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Keep on returning fire. (none / 0)
But just remember that the debate is a pillow fight.

So please don't use RPGs.

by KenTX on 08/03/2007 11:22:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I forgot about this thread (none / 0)

So I thought I'd acknowledge the attempt at reasonableness on all sides.

But even personal insults on the net are just slightly bigger pillows with no armor piercing or anti-personnel properties.

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 08/09/2007 09:51:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
PS (none / 0)
Also, I'm not any of the guys you think I might be.  I never posted here until recently.

*************************

Nancy Pelosi for President in 2007

*************************

by SeattleJoe on 08/09/2007 09:56:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I call... (none / 0)
Bullshit

by oddball6996 on 08/04/2007 12:22:27 PM EST

Warning To All Democrat Surrender Monkeys! | 47 comments (47 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: