Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 8, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

LOSING THE WAR, REVISITED....Tom Friedman on failure of the Bush approach to fighting militant jihadism:

Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld told us we are in the fight of our lives against a new Islamic fascism, and lets have an unprecedented wartime tax cut and shrink our armed forces. They told us we are in the fight of our lives against a new Islamic fascism, but lets send just enough troops to topple Saddam and never control Iraqs borders, its ammo dumps or its looters. They told us we are in the fight of our lives against a new Islamic fascism, but rather than bring Democrats and Republicans together in a national unity war coalition, lets use the war as a wedge issue to embarrass Democrats, frighten voters and win elections. They told us we are in the fight of our lives against a new Islamic fascism which is financed by our own oil purchases but lets not do one serious thing about ending our oil addiction.

Jonathan Rauch on the same subject:

Bush has run the war against jihadism out of his back pocket, as a permanent state of emergency. He engages in legal ad-hockery and trickery, treats Congress as a nuisance rather than a partner, and circumvents outmoded laws and treaties when he should be creating new ones. Of all Bush's failings, his refusal to build durable underpinnings for what promises to be a long struggle is the most surprising, the most gratuitous, and potentially the most damaging, both to the sustainability of the antiterrorism effort and to the constitutional order.

Joe Galloway channeling the military brass on the same subject:

This week I asked more than a dozen top Army and Marine Corps generals active duty and retired, dissidents and administration loyalists to address what we should do now in Iraq.

All of them agreed that America's strategy and tactics in Iraq have failed....[Marine Lt. Gen. Paul] Van Riper said the United States lacks a global strategy for fighting a global war against a global Islamist insurgency. He contrasted what we've witnessed from today's war president with the way America and its leaders prepared and planned the campaigns in World War II, and how President Franklin D. Roosevelt explained the strategy and the campaigns to educate the public and ensure support for the war.

"Our current leadership has failed us in these most basic of obligations," he said.

George Bush doesn't have a clue how to fight the enemy he claims is so important. I think that even those who were initially inclined to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on this are finally figuring this out.

Kevin Drum 12:44 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (85)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Arm-chair generals, chickenshit cowards who have never seen action, theorists in Repukeliscum "think-tanks" (of course, in today's world where Repukeliscum are not allowed to think, this is a ridiculous idea), simple-minded airy-fairy blue-sky theorists who have never had a real job - it a miracle that this bunch of neo-clowns can wipe their own butt, much less run a war, make foreign policy or set America's place in the world.

Posted by: POed Lib on September 8, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of neo-clowns, there's Thomas1.

How can you type with all that shit on your breathe?

Posted by: POed Lib on September 8, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

Drum: George Bush doesn't have a clue how to fight the enemy he claims is so important.

George Bush has been highly effective in achieving the precise opposite of what he has intended.

Just as things turn to gold after the touch of Midas so do things turn to shit after the touch of Bush.

E.g.: Iraq, thanks to George Bush, is now a burgeoning Shiite fundamentalist republic. This is Bush's response to the horrific attacks of 9/11 which were conducted by Sunni fundamentalists.

Posted by: God on September 8, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

So, Thomas if we're attacked you'll call for Bush's resignation?

Posted by: Mark on September 8, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

At least Bush has the troll Al on his side.

Posted by: Ack Ack Ack Ack on September 8, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

George Bush doesn't have a clue how to fight the enemy he claims is so important.

I see Kevin is IGNORING the fact America has just handed over control of the Iraqi army to the new fledgling free and democratic government of Iraq.

Link

"The Iraqi authorities have begun taking control of their armed forces from the US-led coalition."
"US officials called it a milestone in Iraq's history, but the key test will be whether the Iraqi-led forces can control violence across the country."
"The accord was signed by Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri Maliki and coalition commander Gen George Casey at a ceremony in at the Defence Ministry in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone."
"Mr Maliki said it was a "great step and a great day in Iraqi history"."
""The new Iraqi army is being built by the courage of its sons who will dedicate their lives to protect their citizenry, and today the new Iraqi army has been rebuilt on values other than sectarianism," he added."
"Gen Casey said: "It marks a milestone in the relentless journey of Iraqi forces. It's a story of courage, perseverance and commitment to the values of Iraq.""

The new Iraqi army will be a great ally to destroying the Islamofascists attacking the Iraqi people. Of course, liberals are ignoring it because it refutes the bold face lie America is losing the War on Islamofascism.

Posted by: Al on September 8, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Thomas1: Bush knows exactly how to bring the fight to them

Question: How is forcing the reins of power into the hands of Shiite (Iraqi) fundamentalists aligned with Iran, Hezbollah, et al bringing the fight to Sunni fundamentalists that attacked the USA on 9/11?

(Keywords: Bush, Al Dawa, Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq, Hezbollah, Iran, Al Maliki, Al Hakim)

Posted by: Dog on September 8, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

"I think that even those who were initially inclined to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on this are finally figuring this out."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nah, there are millions clinging to Bush, holding on to the paternal protector. They've drank so much Kool-aid their minds are gone. Go ahead, stand up in a bar, on the softball diamond, in the factory parking lot, and announce you think Bush is a crazy, genocidal sociopath. For every person nodding in agreement there'll be two challenging you to a fight. Paranoid xenophobia rules the day.

Posted by: steve duncan on September 8, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

It seems like the general consensus that Bush has failed to make us safer except to the die-hard GOP base. I'm starting to think Bush focusing on national security will actually help Democrats more than the GOP. Hopefully Dems tie the Bush/GOP failures on Katrina and the budget into national security (e.g. there gross incompetence).

I won't bring out my champagne glass just yet, but I'm going be on the lookout for good bottle to start chilling. A government that works at least nominally. Wow, that's a nice concept to hope for.

Posted by: gq on September 8, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK

Exactly. Al, AH, T1 and the other jackbootlickers are somehow privy to magical data that the top brass, the media, and the majority of the American people know nothing about. Its a wonder that they hide their talents under the bridges of sites like these.

Posted by: Kenji on September 8, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Given that the invasion and subsequent invasion of Iraq was an exercise in war profiteering and not part of the fight against terrorist organizations, I'm still suprised that people think Dubya needed to actually have any defined strategy and tactics...

Where there's a crisis, there's a profit to be made, right?

Posted by: grape_crush on September 8, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

Everything Bush is doing makes perfect sense if one realizes that from day one his administration considered the political opposition, i.e. Democrats, to be the main object of their war efforts, not violent jihadism and the infrastructure of Al Qaeda. Just toppling the Taliban and going after bin Laden was too bipartisan. What Bush, Cheney, and especially Rove wanted was a conflict that would galvanize the American public and drive an enduring generational wedge between what they considered the decadent, unpatriotic Left and the Republican Right -- a pretty little war that would validate conservative rhetoric about American virtue and power. Well, it blew up in their faces because, as the generals say, the enemy always gets a vote. But to blame Bush for fighting the war badly and losing implicitly acknowledges that he gave a shit about Iraq as an actual war to begin with.

Posted by: jonas on September 8, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

It is increasingly clear, and documented in Hubris, that many leading Bush and Cheney around by the nose were actually agents of Iran.

Thus, by attacking Iraq, Bush and Cheney actually have done the bidding of the ayatollahs in Tehran.

Posted by: POed Lib on September 8, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

Al : The new Iraqi army will be a great ally to destroying the Islamofascists attacking the Iraqi people. Of course, liberals are ignoring it because it refutes the bold face lie America is losing the War on Islamofascism.

ROTFLAMAO!!

HINT: The Al Dawa party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq are SHIITE FUNDAMENTALISTS.

HINT: During the twenty plus years prior to the deposing of Saddam Hussein, the Al Dawa party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq tried violently to transform a secular Iraq into a Shiite fundamentalist republic.

HINT: The Al Dawa party and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution of Iraq are pro-Iran, pro-Hezbollah, etc.


Posted by: God on September 8, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

Kenji,
What are you talking about. Iraq is just a Friedman away from a perfect democracy. The insurgency was in the last throes months and months ago. Haven't you been paying attention?

Posted by: gq on September 8, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Keywords: Al Dawa, Islamic Fundamentalism, Sharia, Iran and Iraq, terrorism, US Embassy attack

The party in power (Al Dawa) in Iraq has a long history with Iran and with terrorism.

1) Large Turnout Reported For 1st Iraqi Vote Since '58 The Washington Post, June 21, 1980

In another development today, Al Dawa, a clandestine Iraqi fundamentalist Moslem organization, claimed responsibility for yesterday's grenade attack on the British Embassy here in which three gunmen reportedly were killed.

An Al Dawa spokesman told Agence France-Presse by phone that the attack was a "punitive operation against a center of British and American plotters."

2) Iraq Keeps a Tight Rein on Shiites While Bidding to Win Their Loyalty The Washington Post, November 30, 1982

Membership in Dawa, which means "the call," is punishable by execution. Dawa guerrillas were known for hurling grenades into crowds during religious ceremonies, and attacks claimed by the party were frequent until the middle of 1980.

3) U.S. HAS LIST OF BOMB SUSPECTS, LEBANESE SAYS Detroit Free Press, October 29, 1983

The source said the drivers of the two bomb-laden trucks were blessed before their mission by Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, leader of the Iranian-backed Dawa Party, a Lebanese Shiite Muslim splinter group.

4) SHULTZ SEES LINK BETWEEN BEIRUT, KUWAIT ATTACKS OFFICIALS IDENTIFY MAN WHO DROVE TRUCK BOMB, The Miami Herald, December 14, 1983

Secretary of State George Shultz said Tuesday that there "quite likely" was a link between the U.S. Embassy bombing in Kuwait and attacks on American facilities in Lebanon. He warned of possible retaliation.

(snip)

The sources said the investigators matched the prints on the fingers with those on file with Kuwaiti authorities and
tentatively identified the assailant as Raed Mukbil, an Iraqi automobile mechanic who lived in Kuwait and was a member of Hezb Al Dawa, a fundamentalist Iraqi Shiite Moslem group based in Iran.

5) KUWAIT NABS 10 SHIITES IN BOMBINGS 7 IRAQIS, 3 LEBANESE 'ADMIT' TERROR ATTACKS
The Miami Herald, December 19, 1983

Kuwait Sunday announced the arrests of 10 Shiite Moslems with ties to Iran in the terrorist bombings that killed four people and wounded 66 last week at the U.S. Embassy and other targets.

(snip)

Hussein said fingerprints from the driver who died in the blast at the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait identified him as Raad Akeel al Badran, an Iraqi mechanic who lived in Kuwait and belonged to the Dawa party.

6) 10 Pro-Iranian Shiites Held in Kuwait Bombings, The Washington Post December 19, 1983

Kuwait announced yesterday the arrest of 10 Shiite Moslems with ties to Iran in terrorist bombings that killed four people and wounded 66 last Monday at the U.S. Embassy and other targets.

"All 10 have admitted involvement in the incidents as well as participating in planning the blasts," Abdul Aziz Hussein, minister of state for Cabinet affairs, told reporters after a Cabinet session, United Press International reported.

Hussein said the seven Iraqis and three Lebanese were members of the Al Dawa party, a radical Iraqi Shiite Moslem group with close ties to Iran.

7) Beirut Bombers Seen Front for Iranian-Supported Shiite Faction, The Washington Post, January 4, 1984

The terrorist group that claimed responsibility for the bombing of the U.S. Marine compound and the French military headquarters here may be a front for an exiled Iraqi Shiite opposition party based in Iran, in the view of a number of Arab and western diplomatic sources.

Authorities in Kuwait say their questioning of suspects in the recent bombing there of the U.S. and French embassies indicates a clear link between Islamic Jihad, a shadowy group that says it carried out the Beirut attacks, and Al Dawa Islamiyah, the main source of resistance to the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Al Dawa (The Call) has been outlawed in Iraq, where it wants to establish a fundamentalist Islamic state to replace the secular Baath Socialist government of Saddam Hussein, who is a Sunni Moslem.

It draws its strength from the large Shiite population in southern Iraq. Thousands of its most militant members were expelled to Iran in 1980 before the outbreak of the Iranian-Iraqi war and joined Al Dawa there. But it also has a large following in Lebanon among Iraqi exiles and sympathetic Lebanese Shiites.

While Al Dawa operates out of Tehran, it is not clear whether its activities abroad are under direct Iranian control or merely have Iran's tacit acceptance.

8)Baalbek Seen As Staging Area For Terrorism, The Washington Post, January 9, 1984

Al Dawa, according to Arab and western sources, is believed to have had a role in the Oct. 23 suicide bomb attacks on the U.S. Marine and French military compounds in Beirut.

Posted by: Dog on September 8, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of neo-clowns, there's Thomas1.

Now, now, be nice to Thomas, or he'll put you on his "ignore" list. He is a Kerry voter, you know.

Posted by: Charlie on September 8, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

When Tom Friedman gets medieval on Bush's ass, you know it's over.

Too bad it took him seven or eight Friedmans to get to this point.

Posted by: RT on September 8, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

[Bush] engages in legal ad-hockery and trickery

Point of order: That'd be illegal ad-hockery and trickery.

Posted by: Gregory on September 8, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin quotes Friedman: "Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld told us we are in the fight of our lives against a new Islamic fascism ..."

Kevin wrote: "George Bush doesn't have a clue how to fight the enemy he claims is so important."

Dick Cheney and his sock puppet George W. Bush are not worried about "how to fight the enemy that they claim is so important" because they know very well that their claim that "we are in the fight of our lives against a new Islamic fascism" is a Big Lie.

There is no "new Islamic fascism". There is no "war against Islamofascism." There is no "war on terror." It is all a hoax.

The real "war" is the war being conducted by America's tiny, ultra-rich, hereditary, insatiably greedy, neo-fascist, corporate-feudalist ruling class against everyone else. The fake, phony "war on terror" is nothing more or less than the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people, in order to terrify the public into supporting wars of neo-imperialist corporate aggression to seize control of the natural resources of other countries -- first and foremost, of course, the war to seize control of Iraq's oil.

The way to respond to Cheney's cynical and sickening lies about "being in the fight of our lives against Islamo-fascism" is not to pretend that they are true and then criticize Cheney for failing to fight hard enough. The way to respond to Cheney's lies is to simply point out that they are lies -- over and over and over again, as often as he or his brain-dead sock puppet George W. Bush repeat them.

And within the confines of this blog, to respond to Cheney's lies by pointing out that they are lies, over and over and over again, as often as the Marching Morons, the neo-brownshirt mental slaves of the right-wing extremist Republican Fascist Party, robotically regurgitate them on this site.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 8, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

And how many times have you served your country mhr?

Pig.

Posted by: ckelly on September 8, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

president Lyndon Johnson showed the world how not to fight a war

Seems more like he showed Republican president Richard Nixon how not to fight a war. and, of course, Nixon really showed the world how not to fight a war.

Posted by: Gregory on September 8, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

mhr on September 8, 2006 at 1:07 PM:

John Kerry fought the ideal...

Even if what you wrote was true, at least he showed up for duty, unlike the current Sockpuppet-In-Chief.

How stupid or venal do you have to be to support the Bush Administration or their enablers in Congress?

Posted by: grape_crush on September 8, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

Fight Of Our Lives --FOOL. The Republican motto.

Posted by: afigbee on September 8, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

The idea of liberals scolding Bush on the grounds he doesn't know how to fight a war is irrisory

irrisory : Addicted to laughing or sneezing.

Posted by: cleek on September 8, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

If they really thought it was that important, that urgent, there would be national calls for sacrifice (including a draft)

Becaues there is not, they do not.

Posted by: Karmakin on September 8, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Fight Of Our Lives --FOOL. The Republican motto.

Love it

Posted by: bellumregio on September 8, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

Arm-chair generals, chickenshit cowards who have never seen action, theorists in Repukeliscum "think-tanks" (of course, in today's world where Repukeliscum are not allowed to think, this is a ridiculous idea), simple-minded airy-fairy blue-sky theorists who have never had a real job - it a miracle that this bunch of neo-clowns can wipe their own butt, much less run a war, make foreign policy or set America's place in the world.

Posted by: POed Lib on September 8, 2006 at 12:50 PM |

Can't the said thing be said about your side? Simply change "neo-clowns" to "liberal pussies" and that pretty much describes how the American people see the Left. lol

Posted by: Chicounsel on September 8, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Ezra Klein,

"bin Laden seems perfectly content to release a new tape moments before each election. It's understood truth that the tighter terrorism's grip on the national agenda, the brighter the fortunes of the Republican Party. And yet bin Laden, whom the RNC would like you to believe blanches at the mere mention of their name, routinely plays deus ex machina each time their electoral outlook dims. To believe that bin Laden, whose network is largely online and reportedly sophisticated, cannot call up the New York Times and comprehend this electoral dynamic is the height of foolishness. So, for whatever reason, he appears intent on doing his enthusiastic best to improve the Republicans' prospects. Strange, given their belief that he fears them so."

Posted by: cld on September 8, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

This is simply (and obviously) not the Party of FDR, or JFK, or even Lyndon Johnson.

Perhaps I'm the only one old enough to remember but this is the Party that seriously embraced unilateral nuclear disarmament (the only thing they ever wanted to do unilaterally) moments before Ronald Regan won the cold war.

This is the Party that voted in large margins (much larger than Iraq II) to NOT use force in the original Gulf War. Even though the U.N. and Arab regimes supported that war. This same party ran to look strong after 9/11 and gave Bush a free pass for Gulf War II.

For all the faults of the Republicans - they are at least philosophically capable of defending the country. We NEED a noble opposition. Instead we have the new left - that since Vietnam has come to intellectual eminence in our universal drives the lefts/democrats thinking. They are incapable of doing anything except self emasculation, blame America first, empire, colonialism, racism, oil, and all dynamics are power dynamics.

They are not serious intellectually or morally - and because of this the conservatives lack the kind of opposition that can effectively act as a responsible check on their worst impulses.

Posted by: Fitz on September 8, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

"When Tom Friedman gets medieval on Bush's ass, you know it's over.

Too bad it took him seven or eight Friedmans to get to this point."

LOL

Posted by: Tim on September 8, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

The American Way of War: Cultural Barriers to Successful Counterinsurgency by Jeffrey Record:

The U.S. defeat in Vietnam, embarrassing setbacks in Lebanon and Somalia, and continuing political and military difficulties in Afghanistan and especially Iraq underscore the limits of America's hard-won conventional military supremacy. That supremacy has not delivered decisive success against nonstate enemies practicing protracted irregular warfare; on the contrary, America's conventional supremacy and approach to warespecially its paramount reliance on firepower and technologyare often counterproductive.

The problem is rooted in American political and military culture. Americans are frustrated with limited wars, particularly counterinsurgent wars, which are highly political in nature. And Americans are averse to risking American lives when vital national interests are not at stake. Expecting that America's conventional military superiority can deliver quick, cheap, and decisive success, Americans are surprised and politically demoralized when confronted by Vietnam- and Iraq-like quagmires.

The Pentagon's aversion (the Marine Corps excepted) to counterinsurgency is deeply rooted in the American way of warfare. Since the early 1940s, the Army has trained, equipped, and organized for large-scale conventional operations against like adversaries, and it has traditionally employed conventional military operations even against irregular enemies.

Barring profound change in America's political and military culture, the United States runs a significant risk of failure when it enters small wars of choice, and great power intervention in small wars is almost always a matter of choice. Most such wars, moreover, do not engage core U.S. security interests other than placing the limits of American military power on embarrassing display. Indeed, the very act of intervention in small wars risks gratuitous damage to America's military reputation.

The United States should abstain from intervention in such wars, except in those rare cases when military intervention is essential to protecting or advancing U.S. national security.

Posted by: Thinker on September 8, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Can't the said thing be said about your side? Simply change "neo-clowns" to "liberal pussies" and that pretty much describes how the American people see the Left. lol

No. You sure are ignorant. Almost every Dem has actually served. No repukeliscum have, except McCain, and he is crazy, according to Bush.

In today's Repukeliscum Party, you cannot have served to be taken seriously as a military theorist.

Posted by: POed Lib on September 8, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

John Robb on RATIONALIZATIONS AND WARFARE

Rationalization is something we all do (often daily) when confronted with events that go against our plans and desires. The process is simple. We take a complex event, replete with unknowns, and put it into a framework where everything makes sense to us. The usual output of this process is "if only we had (or not) done this or that..." or "if we had taken this approach (substitute your pet theory here) things would have turned out grand."

We are now at the start of a long process of rationalization over the US defeat in Iraq. The most common of these rationalizations include: if only we had "...not disbanded the Baathist army," "...sent in more troops," or "...become better at nation-building." However, in each case the approach is one dimensional, since we tend to view ourselves as the only actors on the stage. The actions and reactions of the opposition are discounted and explained away as fluff and background noise (those pesky terrorists...).

A better, and more sane approach, is to embrace the concept that war is a conflict of minds. There are two sides. For every change in approach there will be counters mounted by the opposition. In the case of Iraq, that opposition was extremely difficult to beat since it was organized along the lines of open source warfare. This organizational structure gave it a level of innovation, resilience, and flexibility that made it a very effective opponent. Given this, the simplest explanation for the outcome in Iraq is that we were just beaten by a better opponent (the Israeli's seem to be getting this, why can't we?).

The real question we should be asking ourselves is whether or not our maximalist goals in Iraq could ever have been achieved given the capabilities of the opposition and the limited levels of commitment we were able to bring to to bear on the problem. I suspect the answer is no. The goals didn't match our capabilities and there weren't any simple tweaks to our strategy that would have changed the outcome. This was a difficult way to learn this lesson, but given our tendency towards rationalization, I doubt that it will be learned at all.
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

Posted by: Thinker on September 8, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

Fitz wrote: "Perhaps I'm the only one old enough to remember but this is the Party that seriously embraced unilateral nuclear disarmament (the only thing they ever wanted to do unilaterally) moments before Ronald Regan won the cold war."

I am old enough to know that you are a liar.

I was involved in the Nuclear Freeze movement of the 1980s. The Democratic Party never embraced the nuclear freeze proposal (which called for freezing nuclear weapons stockpiles at their then-current levels and not producing any more nuclear weapons), let alone "unilateral nuclear disarmament". And the Nuclear Freeze movement itself did not call for nuclear disarmament, only for a halt to the building of additional nuclear weapons.

That assertion of yours is a blatant lie, and if you are indeed able to remember what actually occurred at that time, then it is a deliberate lie.

And the claim that Ronald Reagan "won the cold war" is complete rubbish that only the most shameless and cynical deliberate liars and the most abjectly stupid and ignorant Republican mental slaves ever say. It has absolutely no relationship to reality, but is part of the right-wing neo-fascist extremist myth of Ronald Reagan as the "great hero". Frank Zappa had more to do with ending the Soviet Union than Ronald Reagan did.

And this refrain of yours that the Democratic Party was once great, in the days of old, but has since turned into a bunch of peacenik hippie surrender-monkey appeasers, is likewise a load of fake, phony crap that is evidently the latest script sent out from the RNC to their mental slaves to be regurgitated, since you and every other dumbass Bush-bootlicking troll is now reciting it, verbatim, in virtually the identical wording and phrasing, in every comment.

You are completely full of shit and nothing more than a pathetic clown.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 8, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

Its nice to know that the Left is so civil. What a pleasant conversation.

Posted by: Fitz on September 8, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

Its nice to know that the Left is so civil. What a pleasant conversation.

When all else fails, talk about civility. Good tactic. It fools a lot of Dems and leftists too.

Posted by: gregor on September 8, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone fool enough to think that "a" plan will win a war is not likely to know about anything else, either.
Throughout history, until the democrats started blindfolding the United States, information on enemy plans was vital to allow you to CHANGE YOUR PLAN ACCORDINGLY!!! Surprisingly, as soon as the enemy knows your plan he changes his.

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis on September 8, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, I love how people like Fitz (and mhr, yesterday, IIRC) say that, yes, the Democratic Party was once great, once had real leaders like Truman and JFK - as if to say they'd actually have voted for such titans.

But even the most cursory examination of history will show you what wingnuts of the time thought about such men: they loathed them. Joe McCarthy called the Democrats "the party of treason." Right-wingers sputtered that Truman had "lost" China, betrayed his country by firing MacArthur, and appeased the enemy all over the globe. Texas wingnuts bought a full-page ad ("Welcome, Mr. Kennedy, to Dallas") that appeared in Dallas newspapers on the day of the assassination that included a litany of "charges" against JFK - and many of them literally applauded when they learned he had been shot. Other wingnuts believed JFK was going to be taking all his orders from the Vatican.

And Vietnam? Today's wingnuts love to hang it around the necks of "liberals" when it suits their purposes, but it sure as hell wasn't the Right that recognized the folly of that war. They supported it wholeheartedly - in fact, it was precisely the kind of head-on confrontation with Communism (as opposed to the "treasonous" containment policies favored by the Democrats) they'd been wanting since the late 1940s.

So fuck you, Fitz, you sorry-ass two-bit illiterate lawyer. And you too, mhr. Your intellectually dishonest, morally vacuous right wing has been consistently, disastrously wrong for decades. (I didn't even discuss your side's love affair with isolationism that lasted right up until the bombs were dropping on Pearl Harbor.)

Posted by: Alek Hidell on September 8, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

End it? Exit strategy? Are you all nuts? the Carlyle group is making a killing selling bullets.

Posted by: vampire77666 on September 8, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Read a little old news

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4897786.stm

Posted by: vampire77666 on September 8, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

These bastards are total and complete liars. And this link proves it:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 8, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

Im afraid Secular Animal is the one misrepresenting the facts.

During this time, the freeze issue was being pressed in the United States by left-leaning peace groups. It almost became a litmus test issue, conservatives almost invariably opposed to the idea and liberals in favor of it.


"In the United States, the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign, the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, and Physicians for Social Responsibility mushroomed into mass movements. In June 1982, nearly a million Americans turned out for a rally in New York City against the nuclear arms race, the largest political demonstration up to that point in U.S. history. The Nuclear Freeze campaign drew the backing of major religious bodies, professional organizations, and labor unions. Supported by 70 percent or more of the population, the Freeze was endorsed by 275 city governments, 12 state legislatures, and the voters of nine out of ten states where it was placed on the ballot in the fall of 1982.

This antinuclear uprising had a substantial impact upon mainstream politics, especially the Democratic Party. After the movement's successes in 1982, the leading candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination met with peace movement leaders, pledging their support for a Nuclear Freeze and other nuclear arms control measures. The Democrats pushed a Freeze resolution through the House of Representatives in the spring of 1983, and made the Freeze a part of the party's campaign platform in 1984.

Meanwhile, comparable movements, backed by public opinion and mainstream political parties, emerged around the world."

This all happened moments before Ronald Regans (or Frank Zappas) military buildup forced the Soviet into corner. Faced with an economy that could not produce both guns for its continued arms race with America, and Butter for its people at home, Ronald Regan (refusing to negotiate with Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chern) Finally excepted the terms of surrender from Mikhail Gorbachev on on July 31, 1991, five months before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Believe me people. These are NOT the folks you want doing your strategic thinking in the war on terror!

(Go Lieberman!)


Posted by: Fitz on September 8, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

Liberals are not verri sory about scolding Bush. They gave up the grounds because it stains diapers, even in the cradle. Rocking was part of the liberals music scene, they saw it as the way to stop ghetto children from being called goats, who would compare them to a ginzu knife in the back that Kerry put in his comrades, announcing his public service in an ideal liberal riot that some have now disavowed. They are right, but it is a funny way to say it. Giving up ideas, like a gardner who trims the sucker branches off a fruit tree, is not what a McGuckert would do, no, he would keep on trimming then bring out the blower to clean up the rioting flora in order to force the bugs out, maybe 56,000 just on one branch. Khan made the bomb for Pakistan, but who would want to be compared to him? Not the French and not LBJ. Maybe Kerry, who likes medals and thought service was the way to win our hearts, but they were already stained with the snot of sneezing, or was it laughter, but, no matter, the announcement was made and the balls were crushed at midnight.

Posted by: Will on September 8, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

Liberals are not verri sory about scolding Bush. They gave up the grounds because it stains diapers, even in the cradle. Rocking was part of the liberals music scene, they saw it as the way to stop ghetto children from being called goats, who would compare them to a ginzu knife in the back that Kerry put in his comrades, announcing his public service in an ideal liberal riot that some have now disavowed. They are right, but it is a funny way to say it. Giving up ideas, like a gardner who trims the sucker branches off a fruit tree, is not what a McGuckert would do, no, he would keep on trimming then bring out the blower to clean up the rioting flora in order to force the bugs out, maybe 56,000 just on one branch. Khan made the bomb for Pakistan, but who would want to be compared to him? Not the French and not LBJ. Maybe Kerry, who likes medals and thought service was the way to win our hearts, but they were already stained with the snot of sneezing, or was it laughter, but, no matter, the announcement was made and the balls were crushed at midnight.

WTF???

Must be some sort of code.

Posted by: question mark on September 8, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

Its nice to know that the Left is so civil.

News flash, brainwave: Lying, distorting your opponent's positions, throwing out endless straw man arguments -- and long-debunked ones, at that! -- and engaging in the host of fallacies and assorted intellectual dishoensty that characterizes many GOP apologists is uncivil, and does not deserve a civil response.

Posted by: Gregory on September 8, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

Fitz on September 8, 2006 at 2:29 PM:

Its nice to know that the Left is so civil.

You can take that ersatz sentiment and your Ann Coulter bargain book collection and jam it straight up your dishonest ass.

Sideways.

Posted by: grape_crush on September 8, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

Fitz says when a drunken husband beats his wife it is her fault because she shoulda hid the bottle.

Hey Fitz, tell the Republicans to handle their own 'worst impulses.'

Posted by: Tripp on September 8, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

The lying sack of shit who posts as "Fitz" wrote: "I'm afraid Secular Animal is the one misrepresenting the facts."

You are as stupid as you are dishonest.

In your original post you wrote about the Democratic Party: "... this is the Party that seriously embraced unilateral nuclear disarmament ..."

The account of the Nuclear Freeze movement that you cut and pasted (without citing your source) completely supports my completely accurate description, and nothing whatsoever in the account that you posted supports your deliberate, blatant lie that the Democratic Party "embraced unilateral nuclear disarmament".

You are a shameless, deliberate liar, and you are also so stupid that to support your shameless, deliberate lies, you post quotes that prove you are a shameless, deliberate liar.

You deserve no "civility". You deserve the same contempt that all neo-brownshirt bootlicking mental slave liars deserve.

You are the perfect representative of the Republican Party of today: a stupid, ignorant, lying asshole.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 8, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

I'm addressing this the rightwing posters: Are you saying that the U.S. should attack, vis-a-vis nuke Iran or any country we deem "Islamo-fascist"? Is this the question; "Kill them before they kill us"?

How do you propose we pay for this?

Will you sell war-bonds on the street corner? If there's a draft, will you or your son or daughter enlist or go when their number is called?

Will you give up your SUV? Start riding a bike, carpool, or hitch-hike to work? Because if we nuke Iran, gas is sure to go up to $10/gal. or more. Maybe the economy will crash so won't have to worry about getting to work.

I have yet to see any right-winger get beyond the "kill the Islamo-fascist" comments to anything about how are we supposed to make a living, unless you work for the military industrial complex, various police forces or the prison complex, because sure as shit, the economy will crash if there's an oil shortage.

Before you call me a "liberal pussy", I served in the U.S. Marine Corps from the Carter Administration to the end of St.Ronnie's first term. I witnessed the doomed Iranian hostage rescue effort in 1980 and my squadron was involved in the Beruit pullout in 1983.

You right-wingers are craven cowards, brain-washed idiots, racists and willfully ignorant about other human beings. I have yet to see any of you goopers put your money where your mouth is.

So from this "leftist pussy" you get a hearty "fuck you" and "bite my pimply, hairy old Marine Corps" ass.

Posted by: for the common good on September 8, 2006 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

Fitz, go hide under the bed, scared little boy, before the brown nasties get you. And when you piss yourself, don't get it on the rug.

Posted by: CN on September 8, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK


ANOTHER VICTORY FOR BUSH IN IRAQ.....


"The White House reveals that the U.S. embassy in Baghdad now houses a formal 'Office of Hostage Affairs'.

- http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/waronterror/2006/sectionIV.html

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on September 8, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

Thomnas L has had his panties in a bunch ever since he found out the GWOT wasn't going to lead to his beloved tax increases or his big government energy plan. For whatever reason he actually believed GWB would take the opportunity to implement the wacky liberal left platform and remains in a state of shock it hasn't happened. It ain't going to happen for at least another two years either Tom. Your party is actually going to have to wn an election.

Crude dropped to $66 today for a drop of around $12 or 16% from it's July high. Unleaded gas is down almost $.75 and NJ residents can expect to pay about $2.35. The good news for the week was a huge discovery in the Gulf as well as a smaller one by Conoco in the North Sea. Aslo the Russians, Greeks and Romanians agreed to start construction on a pipeline that will deliver 1M a day to the Med from new supplies. Not huge but it's more convenient than the Middle East and much safer.

Tom, lke all liberal elites, does not trust markets. GWB does. GWB has it right.

Posted by: rdw on September 8, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

rdw wrote: "Tom, lke all liberal elites, does not trust markets. GWB does. GWB has it right."

You really are one dumbass, gullible sucker.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 8, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK


Friedman was a big war supporter, and now he wants to blame Bush for not going with enough troops. Well, while it is true that several generals said that far more troops would be required, the fact is that the required number of troops simply was not available.

Posted by: Joe Buck on September 8, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

SA,

You should hope not. Because one thing we know is Thomas L. Freidman will not be getting his way. You are stuck with markets managing our energy supplies through January 2009. And allow me to suggest even if Princess Hilliary pulls off the unlikely she won't get anything significant passed.

It will however be the next Presidents good fortune that the so-called energy crises will have long passed due to market driven conservation and market driven increases in supply. By 2009 the Nuclear power industry will be booming, many recent oil/gas discoveries will be coming online, supply from Alberta will have doubled as will ethanol production.

Markets work. You'll still be encouraged about solar which will still be 'just around the corner' just like it was 30 years ago and will be in 2040.

Posted by: rdw on September 8, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

Trust is learned in childhood. Every child trusts their parents to change their panties, even if they are not beloved. When placed on the platform it was good news, and children hope the discovery of a big one, although it might have been a shock to discover such a huge elimination, the price of gas is falling. Mistrust the market and spoil the child increases the chance the gulf between us will not be found. But Bush does it right.

Posted by: Will on September 8, 2006 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

for the common good.

I have two SUVs and a Van and I'm not giving any of them up. This is America. If you don't like it jarhead too bad!

You can listen to liberal dicks like Thomas L Freidman as he lectures the great unwashed on energy conservation from his luxury car or from his 11,000 Sq Ft house or from his private plane but I already know he's ignorant. He can help his party actully win an election or STFU.

Posted by: rdw on September 8, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

You should hope markets boom, not for anyone to get their way, not for any child, but for good fortune, so-called. Managing markets is a lot like raising children. Let them grow and allow me to suggest let your daughter be a princess, like an energy company's boss, whose incomes have doulbled, but that is OK, we all love our children and want them to significantly increase on-line activity. When a child can see discoveries, like walking on the moon, it is encouraging and makes me proud to live in America. In thirty years time we will have grown up, that is one thing to know, and then we will have all the energy an old man needs.

Posted by: Will on September 8, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

Presumably all of our elected representatives should be concerned with winning the war on militant jihadism. Perhaps Bush's ideas aren't fully right. But, the leading Dems have no ideas at all. They are totally out to lunch on this issue. They merely sit on the sidelines and throw stones at Bush, Rumsfeld, etc., like irresponsible children

Kevin's post shows why it would be a disaster to put the Dems in charge.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 8, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

rdw wrote: You are stuck with markets managing our energy supplies through January 2009.

If you think "markets are managing our energy supplies" then you are even more of a stupid, dumbass gullible sucker than I imagined.

By 2009 the Nuclear power industry will be booming ...

The only way that will happen is if the nuclear industry gets the massive, multi-billion dollar subsidies from the Federal government that they've been begging for, and which the Bush administration has agreed to give them.

The "free market" has rejected nuclear power because it is an economic failure. No nuclear power plant has ever been built anywhere in the world, nor does any nuclear power plant operate anywhere in the world today, nor will any nuclear power plant anywhere in the world ever be built or operated, without massive government subsidies.

Private investors will not go anywhere near nuclear power unless the Federal government forces the taxpayers to pay all the costs and underwrite all the risks.

There is no more perfect example of a Soviet Stalinist-era, centralized, government-run industry than nuclear power.

rdw: Markets work.

A good example of markets working well is their complete rejection of nuclear power, since it is an economic failure. A good example of Big Government intervention to destroy the working of markets is the nuclear power industry.

If you believe that "markets work" you should be demanding that the Federal government repeal the Price-Anderson act and end all financial support for nuclear power. Let nuclear power succeed or fail in the market on its own merits. Of course, it has already failed and has been completely rejected by the free market, and only exists due to massive government intervention in the market, so that question has already been answered.

rdw: You'll still be encouraged about solar which will still be 'just around the corner' just like it was 30 years ago and will be in 2040.

It's not surprising that you are completely ignorant of the fact that another great example of "markets working" is the rapid worldwide growth of photovoltaic electricity production, and the fact that it is attracting enormous private investment, with only very minimal government support. In fact solar photovoltaics is already the fastest-growing form of energy production in the world, and is attracting more private investment than any other form of energy production in the world.

And the new ultra-cheap thin-film photovoltaics that several US corporations are now putting into production are going to revolutionize energy production, similar to the way that personal computers revolutionized information systems by replacing giant mainframes with networks of small PCs, or the way cell phones have revolutionized personal communication, pushing landline phones towards obsolescence.

Indeed, some energy industry analysts -- not Greens, but hard-headed businessmen -- are saying that no utility should invest in any more centralized power plants, whether fueled by coal, natural gas or uranium, because the revolution in distributed photovoltaic energy production will make all such plants obsolete within a generation.

You really are an ignorant person, and one who is never reluctant to embarrass himself by trumpeting his ignorance to the world.

If you'd get your head out of Rush Limbaugh's asshole and take a look around at the real world, maybe you'd have some chance of getting a clue.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 8, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

gregory wrote:

"(Quoting someone)'president Lyndon Johnson showed the world how not to fight a war'

Seems more like he showed Republican president Richard Nixon how not to fight a war. and, of course, Nixon really showed the world how not to fight a war."
________________

Actually, though, while both made some rather gross errors, neither actually lost their war. So, the lesson isn't as great as it might have been.

Posted by: Trashhauler on September 8, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal wrote: "the leading Dems have no ideas at all."

The "leading Dems" have plenty of ideas which have been widely publicized. Whether you like their ideas or not, your statement is a lie.

ex-liberal wrote: "Kevin's post shows why it would be a disaster to put the Dems in charge. "

Your post shows that you are a brain-dead mental slave who is incapable of doing anything but robotically regurgitating scripted Republican propaganda.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 8, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist, here are some Dem plans I noticed:

Murtha: Re-deploy the troop in Iraq to Okinawa, which is over 5000 miles away, where they can somehow support the Iraqi army.

Reid: Fire Rumsfeld

Peolosi: Free face-lifts for veterans (just kidding)

Seriously, the Dems have proposed a plan consisting mostly of what Bush is actually doing, such as training the Iraqi military. The Dems also want a regional conference, which sounds like a bad idea to me.

SA, would you please tell us what other Dems plans there are and why they are better than Bush's approach?

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 8, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

I bet Bush wishes he had known the difference between Sunney and Shiite.

Posted by: darby1936 on September 8, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, the flaming hypocrite and fake, phony, pseudo-libertarian poseur who writes "markets work" and then calls for trillion-dollar Federal subsidies to expand the nuclear power industry, ignorantly proclaimed: "You'll still be encouraged about solar which will still be 'just around the corner' just like it was 30 years ago and will be in 2040."

rdw is an ignorant idiot and a phony. He pretends to be a libertarian who believes in "markets", but he supports massive federal subsidies for building, operating and insuring nuclear power plants that will be owned by huge corporations with political ties to the Bush administration, and will sell extremely expensive electricity to consumers while enriching the corporate-welfare queen Bush cronies who run those corporations.

And he sneers at solar power, which is the fastest growing form of electricity generation in the world, and which is attracting more private investment than any other form of electricity generation in the world, and which puts electricity generation into the hands of individuals, businesses and communities, freeing them from dependence on giant, costly, environmentally destructive, terrorism-vulnerable corporate-owned power plants.

The fact is that the "free market" has completely rejected the Soviet-Stalinist dinosaur of nuclear power, and is enthusiastically embracing solar photovoltaic and wind turbine generation of electricity, with only minimal government support, which is most often not even in the form of subsidies, but of tax cuts.

rdw says he's for markets and that "liberal elites" are against them. But where the rubber hits the road, it's rdw who sneers at the market's answer to electricity generation -- solar and wind -- and clamors for massive government intervention to override the market and force the taxpayers to underwrite an expansion of nuclear power.

rdw is a snivelling hypocrite.

Two Billion Homes Could Be Free from Escalating Electricity Costs
September 6, 2006
Greenpeace
European Photovoltaic Industry Association

Two billion households worldwide could realistically be powered by solar energy by 2025, according to a joint report launched today by the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA) and Greenpeace. The report concludes that thanks to advances in technology, increasing competition and investment in production facilities, solar power has now become a serious contender in the electricity market; able to provide low-cost, clean, CO2 emission free energy.

The report also concludes that the global photovoltaic (PV) industry could potentially create more than 2 million jobs by 2040 plus a cut in annual CO2 emissions of 350 million tonnes - equivalent to 140 coal power plants by 2025, and become the energy of choice for consumers.

"In the past consumers have had little or no choice about their source of energy. They have had to stand on the sidelines, watching their energy bills escalate as their utility companies invest profits into the very fuels that are causing energy prices to rise in the first place," said Sven Teske, Greenpeace International Climate & Energy Campaigner. "This report proves that solar power is a real option for consumers, offering freedom from rising energy costs and most importantly, electricity generated without the CO2 emissions. The day you install a solar generator on your roof, is independence day from your energy bill."

Competition amongst the major manufacturers has become increasingly intense, with new players entering the market as the potential for photovoltaics (PV) opens up. The worldwide PV industry, particularly in Europe and Japan, is investing heavily in new production facilities and technologies. At the same time, political support for the development of solar electricity has led to far-reaching promotion frameworks being put in place in a number of countries, notably Germany, Japan, the United States and China. However, more investment is needed if solar is to fulfil its potential of providing 16% of the worlds energy demand by 2040.

"In 2006 the solar industry will invest well over 1 billion Euros along the whole value chain in new solar factories and R&D in order to increase the economy of scale and to lower the costs for solar photovoltaic systems," said Dr. Winfried Hoffmann, President of the European Photovoltaic Industry Association and member of the managing committee of SCHOTT Solar. "The global PV industry is ready to invest even more for years to come, but there must be a stable political framework for the next ten years to enable this investment to pay off."

"Solar energy is on the brink of leading the highly competitive consumer energy market, therefore the industry must invest now in mass production to bring the costs down," concluded Sven Teske. "The next two years are crucial for solar electricity to move out of the niche market and into mainstream energy production where it belongs. For the expansion of solar power to be successful, commitment from not only the industry but also Governments must play their part in the energy revolution. The industry is ready where are the Governments?"

In 2005 the total installed capacity of solar PV systems around the world passed the landmark figure of 5000MW (= 10 average size coal power plants). Global shipments of PV cells and modules have been growing at an average annual rate of more than 40% for the past few years. Such has been the growth in the solar electricity industry that business only of the European PV industry in 2005 was worth more than 5 billion; on a global scale the industrys turnover was approximately 10 billion.


Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 8, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

Social conservatives, Republican or Muslim, have little to distinguish between them,

Review of Dinesh D'Souza's The Enemy at Home,


http://www.michaelberube.com/index.php/weblog/abf_friday_blame_america_first_edition/


The Enemy at Home --so aptly titled.

Posted by: cld on September 8, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

Irresponsible children throw stones, during lunch recess usually, it's better than just sitting on the sidelines, which can be a disaster for the teacher, who is presumably concerned with teaching them what is fully right. They should not teach that Bush is totally a disaster, but an elected representative in charge. When they grow up they can stop drinking Sunni Deshiite and know that winning the war against militant jihadism was always the presumed idea. It might be inappropriate to bring up Benedict Arnold, he was an ex-patriot, too, but he wanted to do the right thing when he built those boats and defeated the English. Disappointment makes men change their minds, for the worse, sometimes, but children shouldn't have to be concerned, they do not need to take the lead for another decade or two.

Posted by: Will on September 8, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

So from this "leftist pussy" you get a hearty "fuck you" and "bite my pimply, hairy old Marine Corps" ass. says for the common good

I don`t have the pimples but I do have to join in with the "hairy old Marine Corps ass" part

bite it big you wingnut fascist whimps

Semper Fi - 1965-1969

Posted by: non pimpled on September 8, 2006 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

Bush does not have a clue about how to fight terrorism because he does not care at all about terrorism. To his administration terrorism is something to be used for political gain by keeping the american public scared into acting irrationaly. The day terrorism went away would be the worst day imaginable for Bush as people would begin to wake from their fear stupidity and see clearly what Bush realy is. A fascist.

Posted by: Pablo on September 8, 2006 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

But where the rubber hits the road, it's rdw who sneers at the market's answer to electricity generation -- solar and wind -- and clamors for massive government intervention to override the market and force the taxpayers to underwrite an expansion of nuclear power.

I gotta say, you totally nailed rdw on this one, Doug. He's all for market solutions until they don't line up with his reactionary agitprop and Mark Steyn talking points.

And then like a good little reactionary he reacts, showing where his true colors lie. It's not about market solutions anymore, it's simply about trying to squelch political and cultural views he has a distaste for -- pragmatism and effectiveness be damned.

If the whole world switched to alternative energy sources, I can guarantee nobody'd be wasting their time using them to listen to Pumpkinhead's right-wing ramblings talk radio anymore. He'd have long been outed as the puffed up charlatan gasbag that he is.

The loons simply can't afford to lose face like that.

Posted by: Windhorse on September 8, 2006 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

This administration is so incompetent it defies the imagination.

We were absolutely in our right to go in to Afghanistan to eliminate the Taliban and Bin Laden, in fact, even most Arab countries acknowledged the fact. We should have gone in to Afghanistan with about 250K troops, exterminated all Taliban and should not have left until we had Bin Laden's parts in a hefty bag. Instead, we went in with a small amount of troops and used duplicitous 'Northern Alliance" forces to ferret out Bin Laden. Afghanistan is still a mess with Taliban still a force and Bin Laden living somewhere in Pakistan.

Instead, "The Decider" and the rest of his incompetent admin. invades Iraq, when all middle east (people who actually have made this their life's work) experts advised against it, even members of his fathers former admin. said "Big Mistake" "Don't Do It". But of course, the ignorant fool from Crawford, who never traveled anywhere before becoming president, who couldn't point out Iraq on a map (hopefully now he can) knew better. We've all seen how well it's gone.

In the words of "fair and balanced" Bill O'Reilly, tell me where I'm wrong?

Posted by: mmp1123 on September 8, 2006 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINK

mmp1123 - here's where you're wrong:

1. Dspite the renewed Taliban attacks, overall Afghanistan is a great success. There is a democratic goverment friendly to the west and opposed to the Taliban and al Qaeda. Women and minority religions have gained rights dramatically, as compared with the Taliban rule. There are no al Qaeda training camps.

2. Even if we had put more troops into Afghanistan, the Taliban dead-enders and drug lords would likely still be fighting.

3. These Taliban are being defeated each time they mount and attack.

4. The war in Iraq has done good in a number of ways: Saddam overthrown, Democracy established, large Iraqi army allied with the west and opposed to al Qaeda.

5. Obviously the Iraqi security situation must be solved or everything will fall apart. I am optiminstic that the security situation will eventualy be solved. However, time will tell.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 8, 2006 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINK

Women and minority religions have gained rights dramatically, as compared with the Taliban rule.

Vacuous fact-free rhetoric as usual:

Author of the book With All Our Strength, which chronicles the experiences of Afghan women, Brodsky said today: "Nearly five years after the Bush administration's self-proclaimed 'liberation' of Afghanistan, one would expect a world of improvement in a country touted as the model for Iraq. Unfortunately, last month, during my fifth trip to Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban, one sees instead a country in which luxury hotels, armor-plated Landrovers of international organizations, and Pakistan-inspired private palaces built to launder drug money substitute for the necessary peace, security, rule of law, and economic development that would benefit the populace. Where girls and women continue to be forced and sold into marriage, and where a recent UNIFEM report finds that violence against women is widespread and continues with impunity.

"The window of opportunity for freedom and democracy, opened nearly five years ago, has instead been filled with continued violence, graft, and the largest opium crop in Afghanistan's history, equal to 50 percent of the country's legal GDP. This drug trade feeds, among others, the coffers of the warlords who grabbed 60 percent of the seats in parliament and the ever-strengthening Taliban resurgence. The result is a country where the people, who have never stopped struggling to build a better life after the Taliban, are losing hope as they find themselves more and more mired in poverty, suicide bombings, rising fear, school burnings that keep children, particularly girls, from education, fundamentalist backlash, and a growing resentment and lack of faith in Western intervention and in the very values that the West claimed to espouse during the routing of the Taliban." Brodsky is director of gender and women's studies at the University of Maryland in Baltimore County.

http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1347

and this:

Women's groups in Afghanistan want an urgent meeting with Afghan ministers and MPs to protest against a plan to reintroduce the Department for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice which was first set up by the Taliban.

The Taliban's brutal 'vice and virtue police' enforced a strict interpretation of Islamic law and beat women for 'offences' such as showing their wrists or ankles, wearing nail varnish or going outside their home without a male relative.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/fromthefield/218275/11577328691.htm

Posted by: Windhorse on September 8, 2006 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK

fitz writes:

This all happened moments before Ronald Regans (or Frank Zappas) military buildup forced the Soviet into corner.

This is a popular misconception perpetrated by some in the media. The truth is, Communism, as a economic system, simply does not work. Starting in the 60's, many Communist economies started to crumble under its own weight(as in the former Czechoslovakia). The USSR already started to have food shortages in 1979, and had to import grain. Their misadventure in Afghanistan caused further strain on their economy. Reagan's military buildup was a minor factor at the end of the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it was definitely not a significant factor.

Posted by: Andy on September 8, 2006 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

There are no al Qaeda training camps.

A senior provincial official in Pakistan has said there are hundreds of al-Qaeda-linked foreign militants in the tribal area of North Waziristan.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5328696.stm

You might wanna look at a map and see where this is.

Posted by: Windhorse on September 8, 2006 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINK
ex-liberal :1. Dspite the renewed Taliban attacks, overall Afghanistan is a great success.
Most Afghans disagree according to an interview on the News Hour on 9-8-06. People are being robbed by the Afghan Army, opium production is at an all-time high, and violence is increasing.
ex-liberal :...the Taliban dead-enders and drug lords would likely still be fighting.
How does one claim "victory" when the enemy is still fighting?
ex-liberal :3. These Taliban are being defeated each time they mount and attack.
The VC lost every battle and won the war.
ex-liberal :4. The war in Iraq has done good in a number of ways:...
At a cost of tens of thousands of American casualties, hundreds of billions of dollars and a complete loss of American credibility in the region. The victor in Iraq is Iran and that does not bode well for American interests
ex-liberal :... I am optiminstic that the security situation will eventualy be solved....
We're all impressed that you are optimistic because the latest assessment from the American military is not. Posted by: Mike on September 8, 2006 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

I would like to join the fight against these surrender monkey pacifist Democracks but I am dead.
two years ago roadside bomb unamored HUMVEE and faulty vest

Posted by: dead soldier on September 9, 2006 at 3:52 AM | PERMALINK

Thank you!
[url=http://syprxhli.com/kvop/afcf.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://zwkavllj.com/ziqc/jutu.html]Cool site[/url]

Posted by: Sally on September 9, 2006 at 6:21 AM | PERMALINK

Nice site!
My homepage | Please visit

Posted by: Adam on September 9, 2006 at 6:21 AM | PERMALINK

Good design!
http://syprxhli.com/kvop/afcf.html | http://gorbwdvo.com/xlyb/qicu.html

Posted by: David on September 9, 2006 at 6:22 AM | PERMALINK

MIke wrote: We're all impressed that you are optimistic because the latest assessment from the American military is not.

This is a quibble over wording. I said I was optimistic that the democratic government of Iraq would eventually prevail over the insurgents. It is true that the American military recently put out a report that may be called "pessimistic", in that it points out very serious problems in Iraq. However, this report did not disagree with my prediction of eventual success by the good guys. AFAIK the military still believes that the good guys can ultimately prevail.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 9, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

Damn Salami Fascists.

Posted by: Matt on September 9, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly