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

April 1, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

JOHN McCAIN'S SUNDAY PROMENDADE....So John McCain, in order to prove his point that there are neighborhoods in Baghdad that an American can stroll through safely, tells reporters at a press conference that he just got back from a 1-hour walk around the city. Safe and sound! Though, oddly for a guy running for president, without any TV cameras around. Later it turns out that he visited....

Wait for it....

A market three minutes from the Green Zone. Wearing a bulletproof vest. Accompanied by over a hundred well-armed soldiers. Covered by three Blackhawk helicopters. And two Apache gunships. ThinkProgress has the details.

Seriously, just how stupid does McCain think we are? Doesn't he realize that this kind of thing just draws attention to exactly how dangerous Baghdad still is? He's accomplished the exact opposite of what he set out to do.

Kevin Drum 10:34 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (197)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

"We" - at least those of us who are sentient - are not McCain's target audience.

McCain believes, perhaps rightly so, that if he tells the base what it wants to hear on Iraq, he will get the nomination. In the race for the nod from the GOP, it's not an entirely irrational strategy when it comes to Iraq.

Posted by: mkultra on April 1, 2007 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINK

I really think McCain may be getting a little "touched" as we used to say politely about the older people in my family.

Posted by: exhuming mccarthy on April 1, 2007 at 11:55 PM | PERMALINK

this is comical, can't wait for Colbert's take on this.

Posted by: haha on April 1, 2007 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINK

I refuse to believe that McCain is so stupid and/or cynical.

I think he is making a subtle point about the idiocy of all the cheerling by the warmongers. He is indirectly trying to ask the Americans at home to see how funcked up the whole occupation is. So much so that a US senator has to be practically guarded by his own personal army so he could safely visit the place, as if he was some tribal warlord.

Posted by: gregor on April 2, 2007 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

So how many soldiers' lives did McCain put at risk with this little stunt?

Posted by: Clark Williams-Derry on April 2, 2007 at 12:04 AM | PERMALINK

I understand the wingnuts are in full lather over some remarks made by Martin Ware about McCain's assertion earlier this week about how safe Baghdad is. Here's what Ware should do: make this challenge to McCain - "Senator, I'll write a check for $1,000 to your campaign if you will walk from point A to point B in Baghdad unprotected. I'll drop you off on a corner of your choosing - you walk to a corner of my choosing a mile away. No soldiers, no bodyguards, no gunships or armored vehicles. We'll have someone follow you with a hidden camera. If you make it, I'll write that check and make a commercial endorsing you. How about it?" Let's see if McCain accepts.

Posted by: Jersey Tomato on April 2, 2007 at 12:04 AM | PERMALINK

More details from the Drudge Report about the Mccain and Lindsay Graham visit.

Link

"During a live press conference in Baghdad, Senators McCain and Graham were heckled by CNN reporter Michael Ware. An official at the press conference called Ware's conduct "outrageous," saying, "here you have two United States Senators in Bagdad giving first-hand reports while Ware is laughing and mocking their comments. I've never witnessed such disrespect. This guy is an activist not a reporter.""

I think, journalists and their Iraq reporting would be treated with more respect if they started acting like reporters instead of Cindy Sheehan inspired anti-war activists.

Posted by: Al on April 2, 2007 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINK

John McCain suffers from SCAMD.

(Huge hat tip to Consider Wisely - she had the professional expertise to help me format it properly - and came up with most of the diagnostic hallmarks.)

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on April 2, 2007 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINK

Al: "I think, journalists and their Iraq reporting would be treated with more respect if they started acting like reporters instead of Cindy Sheehan inspired anti-war activists."

That is some idiotic sentence--especially the first clause, hanging out there so assertively.

Posted by: Kenji on April 2, 2007 at 12:11 AM | PERMALINK

Al, I think we don't give a flying fuck what you think. In fact, most of us are convinced that is a capacity you fail to possess.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on April 2, 2007 at 12:14 AM | PERMALINK

He's accomplished the exact opposite of what he set out to do.

And he has done it more effectively than the Democrats have done.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on April 2, 2007 at 12:20 AM | PERMALINK

The media reported the number of troops surrounding McCain's stroll. To be fair they should also ask McCain how many troops were shepherding him through Baghdad. If he says one or two then report that on an equal footing.

Posted by: Carl on April 2, 2007 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK

Seriously, just how stupid does McCain think we are

Considering the monkey that managed to get into the Oval Office twice, and the fact that Joe Lieberman, Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell are three of the most influential members of "The World's Greatest Deliberative Body", I can't really blame McCave for treating the American electorate with the soft bigotry of low expectations. He's still a joke and a fraud and a disgrace, but that's largely because he's tripping over a bar set so low.

I'm sure Lindsey Graham, who is apparently determined to play Smithers to McCave's Mr Burns, will throw himself down to break the fall.

Posted by: Jim on April 2, 2007 at 12:24 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, something else. Earlier McCain thought we were not sending enough troops. Earlier than that he thought 20K troops were enough. Has he now flipped? If something big blows up again will he bring back the insufficient troop levels? We should get some world-class physicists to investigate this new quantum property.

Posted by: Carl on April 2, 2007 at 12:32 AM | PERMALINK

Hmmm. Six died about a mile from where McCain did his star turn. Wonder if any of the dead perished because they were undermanned as a result of his security detail?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on April 2, 2007 at 12:33 AM | PERMALINK

McCain seems to be working hard to end his campaign. He's making himself a laughingstock, and the media love nothing more than someone they can poke fun at and feel superior to. He had seven years of some of the most favorable press coverage imaginable, and he's completely wasted it.

What I wonder is where John Weaver is in all this. I thought Weaver was a pretty sharp guy, but either he has no control over McCain, he's lost a couple of mental steps, or these guys know something the rest of us don't. This campaign is falling apart as far as I can tell.

Posted by: Steppen on April 2, 2007 at 12:35 AM | PERMALINK

We should get some world-class physicists to investigate this new quantum property.

If we can harness this, fuck the ME - our energy woes are over!

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on April 2, 2007 at 12:35 AM | PERMALINK

Al: "More details from the Drudge Report about ..."

... self-loathing gay homophobic right-wing bloggers and the bitchy trolls who love them anyway?

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 2, 2007 at 12:39 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum buries the lede again!

Today, a candidate for the Republican nomination for President put the lives of US servicemen and women at risk to save his reputation and his faltering campaign. Had there been an attack of any kind, if just one person had been injured, this so-called "maverick" would have been responsible--and he did it all because he was afraid of "looking bad." Form over substance will not do the job. I am ashamed to admit it--McCain put himself above all other considerations in a craven attempt to win the Presidency.

This is something that Rudy Giuliani would NEVER do...

Draw your own conclusions from that statement.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 12:39 AM | PERMALINK

Norman, see my post timestamped 12:33 am...

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on April 2, 2007 at 12:44 AM | PERMALINK

I'm sorry, Hormonal Citizen--I only pay attention to the things which support my premise that Rudy is a better candidate than McCain.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 12:46 AM | PERMALINK

What mkultra says: This isn't about convincing America that Iraq is OK. It's about convincing the wingnut base that McCain is OK.

Posted by: dj moonbat on April 2, 2007 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK

Hail Il Duce!

Posted by: Normanio Rogersio on April 2, 2007 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK

This is something that Rudy Giuliani would NEVER do...
Draw your own conclusions from that statement.

well, given Giuliani's real record on 9/11, and his support for an administration that continues to block medical treatment first responders affected that day, and to block proper communications equipment for current first responders, and given that Giuliani thought the only thing wrong with Brownie at FEMA was that Bernie Kerik wasn't his boss, I took you're ALL CAPS to be saracasm.

Posted by: Jim on April 2, 2007 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINK

Crane said that he had asked Giuliani the same question [does he believe the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review] a few weeks ago. The mayor said that he would want to use this authority infrequently.

Hail Il Duce!

Posted by: Normanio Rogersio on April 2, 2007 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINK

Jim,

You'll know when I'm sarcastic. And the last time I checked, Rudy wasn't diverting US forces to support his campaign for the Presidency. You can throw around a lot of accusations about 9/11, but the fact of the matter is, he was on site and leading and doing what needed to be done. What liberal can say they were doing anything on 9/11 except for hiding under their desk or waiting for the President to tell them what they could or couldn't do?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 12:53 AM | PERMALINK

Isn't it time to remind one and all that Donald's Drag Queen Bee-otch tinkered with the notion of canceling the NYC elections after the events of September 11?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on April 2, 2007 at 12:55 AM | PERMALINK

Isn't it time to remind one and all that Donald's Drag Queen Bee-otch tinkered with the notion of canceling the NYC elections after the events of September 11?

And that's a bad thing? There's no time for democracy when the safety of the state is at stake! Hail Il Duce!

Posted by: Normanio Rogersio on April 2, 2007 at 12:57 AM | PERMALINK

Um... Norm.... He was "on site" because, against the advice of terrorism experts and his own police force, he put the NYC emergency response center in The World Trade Center, just a few years after the first attempt to bring it down.

I don't know what "liberals" you think were hiding under a desk while Chimpy stared off into space waiting for someone to tell him to go hide in a rabbit hole in Nebraska, but I do know the Firefighters' Union wasn't real thrilled to see Rudi.

PS You'll know when I'm sarcastic.
I'm not sure I'll care enough to notice. You might want to put some kind of tag on your sarcasm.

Posted by: Jim on April 2, 2007 at 12:58 AM | PERMALINK

[yawn]

Enthusiastic Hillary Clinton voters, one and all.

Tell me again how America's favorite First Lady is going to win anything other than the booby prize. Tell me she's not going to collapse into an hysterical heap if she doesn't have her cue cards prepared for her. Tell me how America is going to vote for someone named Clinton after being, umm, just a tad bit sick and tired of everyone and everything to do with the last 16 years.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINK

Thinking is hard. Believing that opinions may differ is hard. So I run on blind faith and putting my trust in authoritarianism!

Posted by: Normanio Rogersio on April 2, 2007 at 1:03 AM | PERMALINK

Oh-a lecture on authoritarianism from a liberal!

Hilarious.

And I think the verdict on Giuliani is that he led on 9/11. I think the verdict is that he was strong, that he gave a calm and measured response and spoke directly to the people of New York on that day.

Too bad there weren't any liberals in charge of anything that day, except for maybe leading the charge for tax hikes and more welfare for people who won't work for it.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 1:06 AM | PERMALINK

"This is something that Rudy Giuliani would NEVER do..."

Well, in all fairness, McCain probably wouldn't marry his own cousin. So we'll call it a draw ...?

Posted by: BobT on April 2, 2007 at 1:09 AM | PERMALINK

Oh-a lecture on authoritarianism from a liberal!

Yes, why listen to a liberal lecture on authoritarianism when you get it from an expert like Il Duce and Norman Rogers?

And listen to me mindlessly mock liberals again! It makes me feel all warm and superior inside!

Posted by: Normanio Rogersio on April 2, 2007 at 1:10 AM | PERMALINK

A lecture on authoritarianism from a liberal--well, no doubt we won't hear about how Hillary Clinton voted twice to renew the Patriot Act. Or about how Osama Obama Hussein Barack something-or-other voted for it as well in his rather abbreviated Senatorial career.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen!

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 1:11 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, but did he shake the hands of any purple fingered Iraqis?

Posted by: floopmeister on April 2, 2007 at 1:11 AM | PERMALINK

in a sense, this one little story is really the perfect demonstration of the clinical level of insanity the war supporters have achieved. the only thing that can top it is joe lieberman's inevitable declaration in the next few days that "senator mccain has bravely demonsrated just how much progress we are making in iraq."

Posted by: howard on April 2, 2007 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, how the mighty have fallen!

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

Is someone channelling The Count from Sesame Street again?

Posted by: floopmeister on April 2, 2007 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINK

Look! Democrats did vaguely authoritarian things! Please be ignoring the jackboots and black shirts in my closet, thank you.

Posted by: Normanio Rogersio on April 2, 2007 at 1:14 AM | PERMALINK

1) ...What liberal can say they were doing anything on 9/11 except for hiding under their desk or waiting for the President to tell them what they could or couldn't do?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 12:53 AM | PERMALINK

2) ...just a tad bit sick and tired of everyone and everything to do with the last 16 years.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINK

1) You really prove yourself to be an ass. The preznut had no idea what to do when informed of the attack on the WTC, went missing for a day, and Cheney went AWOL too, for days. Now there's a suprise. It's not like this wasn't repeated when Katrina came around. And I have to say, even though the press doesn't, the attention to Iraq and Afghanistan is pretty low too, but expected after their attention to the rest of the world. And it's the Republicans as a whole who have been the hysterical girlies over "world terra".

2) Not nearly as tired as most are after the last 6 years of manipulation and lies. Re-read the polls.

You really can be a most superficial, dishonest, and pernicious ass.

Posted by: notthere on April 2, 2007 at 1:16 AM | PERMALINK

...Osama Obama Hussein Barack....

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 1:11 AM | PERMALINK

And how exactly racial, prejudiced and stupid are you?

Posted by: notthere on April 2, 2007 at 1:19 AM | PERMALINK

The Norman Rogers Ministry of Truth notes that Norman never ever supported President Bush the past six years, and that any mention of such is a dirty liberal lie.

Posted by: Normanio Rogersio on April 2, 2007 at 1:20 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, how the mighty have fallen!

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

Or are they channelling Ozymandias?

"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Seriously, NR, I wouldn't go crowing too much about 'the mighty having fallen' while discussing Iraq. It doesn't make quite the impression you think it does...

The poem apparently even mentions the mythical statue of Bush in the town square somewhere in Baghdad:

Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.

Thanks for some lovely, piquant imagery there, Norman.

Posted by: floopmeister on April 2, 2007 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINK

And... I'm done. This is fun, but the novelty's worn off. Norman's making too much of a fool of himself in his own right. Hail Il Duce!

Posted by: Normanio Rogersio on April 2, 2007 at 1:22 AM | PERMALINK

Finally--a tacit admission that Rudy Giuliani was not "missing" on 9/11 but was front and center and was in charge of taking care of people. Finally, an admission that accusing anyone of being "authoritarian" sort of falls on its face when we see Democrats voting to give the administration the tools it needs to fight terrorism.

As for all of you being free to make these comments without reprisal and free to go to work tomorrow in a free country protected from its enemies by people you all look down upon, well, you're quite welcome.

We don't expect you to be gracious.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 1:23 AM | PERMALINK

As for all of you being free to make these comments without reprisal and free to go to work tomorrow in a free country protected from its enemies by people you all look down upon, well, you're quite welcome.

We don't expect you to be gracious.

And now he channelling Boromir!

Beautiful.

Posted by: floopmeister on April 2, 2007 at 1:25 AM | PERMALINK

See? I can't top that!

Remember, only Il Duce, Il Partito, and Capo Rogers will keep you safe citizens!

Posted by: Normanio Rogersio on April 2, 2007 at 1:28 AM | PERMALINK

Finally--a tacit admission that Rudy Giuliani was not "missing" on 9/11 but was front and center and was in charge of taking care of people.

Don't know which comment you're referring to, and I suspect you're not terribly clear on that yourself, but I never said he was "missing", I was saying he was present at the WTC site because of his lack of foresight in placing the command center in a building we knew was a terrorist target, against the advice of experts and to the detriment of the response to the attack. I guess if you consider photo ops more important than results, you may have a point (did you get a stiffy when Chimpy dressed up as a pilot-man, too? just curious).
My point was more that Giuliani's real record, not the TeeVee images that made old ladies of all ages and both sexes think he's a hero, suggests that he wouldn't be that good a president. Not much better than the one who went for a bike ride when, less than a month before the attacks, the CIA sent a live briefer to his "ranch" to inform him that the 06/08/01 PDB he and Condi had ignored was actually some serious shit.

Posted by: Jim on April 2, 2007 at 1:32 AM | PERMALINK

And... I'm done. This is fun, but the novelty's worn off.

See? I can't top that!

How talented! Your mommy must read both of your blogs!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 1:32 AM | PERMALINK

...Rudy Giuliani was not "missing" on 9/11 but was front and center and was in charge of taking care of people....

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 1:23 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, no, he wasn't, didn't and hasn't.

Talk to the the actual emergency services.

Posted by: notthere on April 2, 2007 at 1:33 AM | PERMALINK

We will have to see how McCain polls with Republicans, but his 'hero' walk will hopefully be repudiated for supporting the occupation and increasing the military solution.

Posted by: Brojo on April 2, 2007 at 1:34 AM | PERMALINK

...Osama Obama Hussein Barack....

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 1:11 AM | PERMALINK

And how exactly racial, prejudiced and stupid are you?


Posted by: notthere on April 2, 2007 at 1:19 AM | PERMALINK


Glad you came back.

Still looking for an answer.

Posted by: notthere on April 2, 2007 at 1:34 AM | PERMALINK

What liberal can say they were doing anything on 9/11 except for hiding under their desk or waiting for the President to tell them what they could or couldn't do?

Norman,

Maybe they were waiting to finish reading a book to their photo op tiny tots?

Or did you really want someone pulling an Alexander Haig on 9/12? (Hmm. Authoritarian, unConstitutional, never been done before. I guess that answers that.)

Posted by: ThresherK on April 2, 2007 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK

So, a point of discussion:

Was McCain's trip to try to bolster his cred among the base or to emphasize just how badly things really are over there?

Posted by: Doug H. on April 2, 2007 at 1:36 AM | PERMALINK

What liberal can say they were doing anything on 9/11 except for hiding under their desk or waiting for the President to tell them what they could or couldn't do?

Me? I was in a restaurant having dinner.

Does that make me a traitor?

Posted by: floopmeister on April 2, 2007 at 1:38 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, no, he wasn't, didn't and hasn't.

Please. You are as ignorant as the day is long.

Brookhiser, in 2004 wrote:

Giuliani’s big-time career started when he was U.S. Attorney for the southern District of New York in the mid-Eighties. He went after drug dealers, mobsters, and the crooked outer-borough Democratic machines. He put Stanley Friedman, boss of the Bronx, behind bars, and drove Donald Manes, boss of Queens, to suicide. He counted on a 1989 run against Ed Koch, the fading Democratic mayor and jester, and he had the support of all the political malcontents in New York City, from the Village Voice to the tiny GOP. But then Koch lost the primary to Manhattan borough president David Dinkins, who, if he won, would be the city’s first black mayor. In the Dinkins/Giuliani matchup, Giuliani was suddenly running against History.

The Dinkins years were a disaster, a feral carnival only dimly foreseen by Tom Wolfe’s Bonfire of the Vanities. Now Giuliani had an issue straight up his strike zone as a prosecutor: crime. Enough terrorized white liberals switched their votes to put him in office in the 1993 rematch, and Rudy went to work.

Giuliani’s victory in the war on crime was partly the triumph of an idea. Conservatives always had a simple approach to crime: Get tough. Two academics, George Kelling and James Q. Wilson, told them they also had to get smart. Their theory, called “broken windows,” held that the key to murder, robbery and rape, was moving against the little offenses: drunkenness, turnstile jumping, panhandling. The flecks of small scale disorder, like unrepaired broken windows, created the perception that no one was in charge, and that no one cared. Fix the irritations, and good people would be heartened, bad guys would be put on notice. A cadre of cops — William Bratton, Jack Maple, John Timoney — bought the broken-windows model, and Giuliani, when he won, gave them their head.

But Giuliani’s victory was also a matter of temperament: his own. He defined crime as a problem; he set his face against distractions; and he shrugged off attacks. For years politicians and intellectuals had wrung their hands over crime and its root causes. Giuliani was determined to do something about it. The Italian writer, Luigi Barzini, said that, among his countrymen, there was always a handful of incorruptible men, who defied the go-along, get-along atmosphere of Italian culture. Other Italians called them fessi, or damn fools. But they did their jobs (often they were carabineri). Giuliani was clearly such a person. Perhaps the example of Giuliani’s father was crucial here. The senior Giuliani, it turns out, engaged in petty crime. All this son could think to do was to be better. That is no bad response.

People who have moved to New York City in the last ten years have no idea how bad it was before Giuliani came along. Large tracts were given over to filth and danger. A block from the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, the fusillades of the drug dealers were like a nightly rifle range. Going into the subways was like entering a mugger’s unconscious. Sophisticates complain about the Disneyfication of Times Square. They miss their crack hos.

And what you saw on television after 9/11? I'm sure liberals want to forget just how strong and decisive his leadership was. They have nothing to show for themselves--unless Tom Daschle bear-hugging George Bush gives them a woody.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINK

the only thing that can top it is joe lieberman's inevitable declaration in the next few days that "senator mccain has bravely demonsrated just how much progress we are making in iraq."

What's the over/under on this?

Posted by: Doug H. on April 2, 2007 at 1:42 AM | PERMALINK

What liberal can say they were doing anything on 9/11 except for hiding under their desk or waiting for the President to tell them what they could or couldn't do?

First responders.

Posted by: AkaDad on April 2, 2007 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINK

...And what you saw on television after 9/11? I'm sure liberals want to forget just how strong and decisive his leadership was....

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINK

You know, noodle, give us a link or write something original. Don't fill your space by re-quoting stooges.

Sorry. Not what I saw. What did he exactly lead or do? Pray tell.

Brookhiser? Conservative Marijuana smoker. No contradiction there, of course.

You are so wet.


Posted by: notthere on April 2, 2007 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINK

First responders.

Thank you. I'm glad someone knows that the first responders were receiving their orders from Mayor Guiliani that day. Thank you for making my point for me--someone has to tell the little worker bees where to go and what to do and Thank the Creator we had a man in charge that day who could do so. Meanwhile, Senator Clinton was eating brie and drinking Tab and was wondering which pantsuit she could wear so that her pear-shaped ass wouldn't explode into the lap of the person next to her.

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 1:55 AM | PERMALINK

...Osama Obama Hussein Barack....

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 1:11 AM | PERMALINK

And how exactly racial, prejudiced and stupid are you?

Posted by: notthere on April 2, 2007 at 1:19 AM | PERMALINK

Glad you came back, again. Getting a little behind the curve. Better run faster to keep up.

Still looking for an answer.

Posted by: notthere on April 2, 2007 at 1:34 AM | PERMALINK

Posted by: notthere on April 2, 2007 at 2:00 AM | PERMALINK

NR:

This is the North Pole (just pretend).

You're trying to tell us why we should buy Maytag (Giuliani) instead of Frigidaire (McCain).

And we're humoring you, because you try so hard.

But the fact is: this is the North Pole (Democrat zone).

WE DON'T WANT YOUR REFRIGERATORS!

Posted by: lampwick on April 2, 2007 at 2:01 AM | PERMALINK

What liberal can say they were doing anything on 9/11 except for hiding under their desk or waiting for the President to tell them what they could or couldn't do?

First Responders

Thank you. And far too many died because their radios weren't compatible, and the coops and firefighters couldn't communicate with one another.

Opening up the comm systems to "competitive bidding" ultimately cost a lot of lives that day. The mayor - at the end of his tenure as mayor - should have NOT located the response center in a target (Duh!) and HE was ultimately responsible for the fact that the radios aren't compatible. What the hell?

By the way: This Liberal (and first responder) had a house full of college freshmen all needing a parent, and I was the closest one.

I was also waiting for the phone to ring, since the government spent a lot of fucking money training me to respond to such things. When the planes started flying again, I covered six shifts a week for five weeks while emergency personnel with their own military obligations (I was a GS-13) were mobilized.

What were you doing, Norm?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on April 2, 2007 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

Still looking for an answer.

Keep looking. Can you even post? How much money did Barecrack Obamawamalanadingdong raise today? Did someone tell Mama that you're for Obama?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK

Thank you for making my point for me--someone has to tell the little worker bees where to go and what to do and Thank the Creator we had a man in charge that day who could do so.

I think your latent authoritarianism is showing, friend.

A textbook description of the fuhrerprinzip in action. I'm glad I don't know too many cowards like you, Norman. You're the little weedy guy from school who stood just behind the bully, nodding with every word while rubbing your hands together nervously.

Damn, but you're really hoping a Big Daddy will come and tuck you in at night and protect you from the Bad World outside, aren't you?

What a little coward you are.

You're a danger to my democracy.

Posted by: floopmeister on April 2, 2007 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK

...someone knows that the first responders were receiving their orders from Mayor Guiliani that day....

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 1:55 AM | PERMALINK

You've probably fogotten, given the confines of your intelligence, but the responders couldn't even communicate among themselves, let alone take overall direction, which is one of the main criticisms os the 9/11 report. Remember?

You are such a piece of right wing empty rhetoric.

Posted by: notthere on April 2, 2007 at 2:04 AM | PERMALINK

Any orders Rudy did give out couldn't be heard anyway, because of faulty communication equipment, thanks to Rudy's no-bid contract to a campaign contributor.

Posted by: AkaDad on April 2, 2007 at 2:05 AM | PERMALINK

Oh man! I'm not shouting down the well on the comm equipment issue this time!

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on April 2, 2007 at 2:07 AM | PERMALINK

What were you doing, Norm?

I closed a deal that put a medical manufacturing company under the aegis of General Electic, trimmed 11 million off their expenses and made myself an extra hundred thousand dollars for doing it in under three weeks.

It's called "capitalism" and that's what they attacked on 9/11--they attacked "me." They didn't attack some latte-sipping sensitive dude who was waiting for Dave Matthews to put out a double live album. They attacked ME. And I responded by increasing the overall capitalized wealth in this country.

That's what good Americans do. In the face of adversity, they get down to brass tacks and make things happen. As opposed to whining about it and waiting for Tom Daschle to give someone a hug.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 2:08 AM | PERMALINK

Yo! HEY! If you ignore Norman, he can't hijack the thread. It's not like he's going to make any sense, or listen to you anyway...

Posted by: URK on April 2, 2007 at 2:09 AM | PERMALINK

...Barecrack Obamawamalanadingdong....

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK

Are you naturally racist and stupid or only when you are drinking?

Posted by: notthere on April 2, 2007 at 2:09 AM | PERMALINK

Yo! HEY! If you ignore Norman, he can't hijack the thread. It's not like he's going to make any sense, or listen to you anyway

Oh, please. How can someone who is routinely accused of being a parody do anything to the thousand or so liberals who whine and beat their chest here every day in a futile attempt to look well-informed and capable of independent thought and analysis? It's not like anyone here can post, okay? If you think I'm hijacking the thread, write a sensitive poem that includes some pithy missive about the death of your pal the Unicorn and send it to the moderators.

Waaaaaah! Waaaaaah! There's a Republican and he's being mean to me! Waaaaah! Waaaaah!

Do you liberals get over anything? Ever? Do you need Ex-Senator Tom to give you that bear hug, too?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 2:14 AM | PERMALINK

...I responded by increasing the overall capitalized wealth in this country....

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 2:08 AM | PERMALINK

Nothing you say has any basis of fact offered. Ever. Just claims mixed with lies. Good job.

We're all convinced. NOT!

True or not, you've proved yourself a complete ass.

As URK suggests, Goodnight!

Posted by: notthere on April 2, 2007 at 2:15 AM | PERMALINK

Waaah! Waaaah! This pant suit makes me look like I have a Pear Shaped ass! Waaaah! Give me a hug, Tom Daschle! Waaaah! Waaaaaah!

Pathetic losers.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 2:16 AM | PERMALINK

Unless it was somehow taken out of context, the McCain comment was pretty stupid. It makes the whole Iraqi campaign sound like a police function, which it definitely is not.

Keeping the civilian population safe is a long range goal, but it is not a direct metric of military progress. We can be kicking the snot out of the enemy without any exact correlation to how many car bombs go off in markets, or whether it is safe for an American to walk unguarded somewhere in Bagdad. We could station the entire Army in Iraq and it would be insufficient to guard everyone.

Improving security for the population is a good thing in itself, but its primary purpose is to allow us to deny the enemy safe haven and any well-developed infrastructure. The less freedom of movement they have, the easier it is for us to detect and kill them. But Al Qaeda is going to continue to build bombs right up until their last cell is eliminated. And the last Sunni insurgents and criminal element are going to make Bagdad streets unsafe for Westerners long after we are gone.

Posted by: trashhauler on April 2, 2007 at 2:17 AM | PERMALINK

It's called "capitalism" and that's what they attacked on 9/11--they attacked "me." They didn't attack some latte-sipping sensitive dude who was waiting for Dave Matthews to put out a double live album. They attacked ME.

Oh, so that's why you are scared? They attacked YOU? (In CAPITALS, no less!) And did you wet your pants as you watched it on TV?

And I responded by increasing the overall capitalized wealth in this country.

No, you were an example of what Adam Smith called unproductive labour. You oughta read The Wealth of Nations one day.

That's what good Americans do. In the face of adversity, they get down to brass tacks and make things happen.

Yep, when the going gets tough, the tough close a business deal. Did you go to Walmart as well? The President did ask you to go shopping as well, you know.

It's the same thing as going on patrol in Tal Afar, isn't it?

As opposed to whining about it and waiting for Tom Daschle to give someone a hug.

You know, I bet what really gets up your goat is that people like me really do laugh at you, Norman. And not even behind your backs. I love your little pep talk speeches and empty rhetorical patrotic guff.

I laughed at you in high school and I'm still laughing at you now.

Posted by: floopmeister on April 2, 2007 at 2:19 AM | PERMALINK

trashhauler, it's a sort of chicken/egg scenario. Yes, you wan't to get rid of the insurgents/terrorists but you also want the populace to be able to lead a normal life so there is no popular support for the insurgents.

Bottom line, the populace have not only to live an improving life, but to have hope that one small improvement will follow another with the goal of a "normal" society. Then there is no reason to suport the insurgency, or ethnic "defence" forces.

If you fight it as a war against the insurgency, you perpetuate the problem, not only with the resistance but with the populace also. That's exactly what the US did from 2003 until now.

I don't hold out much hope now, especially given that the US has not been able to make either the police or security forcs neutral within the nation. That is crucial.

Posted by: notthere on April 2, 2007 at 2:31 AM | PERMALINK

I'd love to know what that stunt cost us taxpayers. I'm sure it wasn't cheap.

So sick of this phony war.

Posted by: chuck on April 2, 2007 at 2:38 AM | PERMALINK

I can't help but think that if the American forces were withdrawn, the people of Iraq would quickly cease seeing the insurgents as justified. I believe that they would instead rapidly reclassify them as what they really are: Violent criminals. And lets face it - Arab societies have always excelled at dealing with criminals.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on April 2, 2007 at 2:38 AM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers, please take your meds.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 2, 2007 at 2:38 AM | PERMALINK

I'd love to know what that stunt cost us taxpayers. I'm sure it wasn't cheap.

I'm going with six American lives.

But Lindsey Graham got a killer deal on some rugs...

(pun intended)

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on April 2, 2007 at 2:41 AM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers. Wasn't he the crazy in Pshcho.

Posted by: Monty Anderson on April 2, 2007 at 2:54 AM | PERMALINK

BSRS--

"I'm going with six American lives." I think you are right with that.

I'm not sure that you are right about the withdrawal of forces. Not that it might not be the best of bad options, but ethnically, Arabs (or S.eastern Europeans, or anyone?) will fight among themselves. But I don't believe there is any base for al-Qaeda there; that's a complete Bush canard.

But I agree that the majority of the populace would see them as criminals, and probably do now. That was certainly true in N.Ireland in the early 70s. They reckoned 5% active civilian support was all that was needed to sustain either the IRA or Protestant terrorist forces. That's not much.

Posted by: notthere on April 2, 2007 at 2:55 AM | PERMALINK

BSRS = BGRS. I've done this before. Apologies.

Posted by: notthere on April 2, 2007 at 2:56 AM | PERMALINK

As long as we are there, they will have well over that 5% support, and as long as we are there, they will continue to fight and blow shit up. We aren't stanching any bloodflow, we are picking scabs.

It's laughable to anyone who knows anything at all about the middle east that anyone even tries to peddle that "Iraq will fall to al Qa'eda if we leave!!!" bullshit. Where to even start with those morons?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on April 2, 2007 at 3:01 AM | PERMALINK

No problem - didn't even notice until you pointed it out!

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on April 2, 2007 at 3:02 AM | PERMALINK

...This pant suit makes me look like I have a Pear Shaped ass!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 2:16 AM | PERMALINK

Not directed to NR.

I've been trying but I can't resist because this is totally true. I never thought of Norman Rogers as anything other than pear-shaped. Honestly!

But him in a pant suit? I'm seeing one of those dark green velour jobbies. Spectacular!

NR -- if you can't resist, I insist on an answer to you racist name-calling of Sen. Obama.

Posted by: notthere on April 2, 2007 at 3:04 AM | PERMALINK

See, now I'm picturing Big Pussy with a fabulous head of white locks...And I have to try to get some sleep with this image taunting me now!

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on April 2, 2007 at 3:08 AM | PERMALINK

BGRS -- I think I contradicted myself. I mean: I think that most probably see them as criminals even now, but if we withdraw now the violence will continue, most likely at an increased level in the near term. The guess is whether this is better than staying.

You are probably right, but it's a damn hard decision coming on top of what we have inflicted on them indirecly and directly.

Posted by: notthere on April 2, 2007 at 3:11 AM | PERMALINK

Oh I agree. But to set things right we need to get on that time travel thing - I'll steal my neighbors DeLorean, and you get the bugs worked out of the Flux Capacitor. It's our only recourse at this point.

And sadly, it's about as likely to work as anything else we can try...

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on April 2, 2007 at 3:15 AM | PERMALINK

I think that most probably see them as criminals even now, but if we withdraw now the violence will continue, most likely at an increased level in the near term. The guess is whether this is better than staying.

There's one other option here - should we assume that the US military has the intiative to extent of being able to make this choice?

What is the situation becomes so untenable that they are forced to withdraw?

Just because an outcome is not one that can be chosen or discarded is should not be overlooked.

I think the initiative lies with the insurgents now - we are simply reacting to their moves.

And that does not fill me with confience that we will even be given the chance to choose between these two options. The longer we wait, the less the chance of choosing to withdraw...

Posted by: floopmeister on April 2, 2007 at 3:24 AM | PERMALINK

floopmeister, that completes the loop for me, because we have never been willing or able to applly the force necessary in the manner needed.

The stategy and the tactics have been wrong. So, on that basis I'll go with BGRS and say we have to leave.

But that is like the police (mililtary) walking into somebody's home, wrecking it completely and pulling the roof off, then walking out saying "Oops. Sorry. Wrong house."

We need to have a method of leaving and that is where the ISG was right (and I believe I predated them here) in a) involving all realted parties, and b) aggressively approaching the Palestinian problem. Without b), no a).

Not going to happen. We are one sick power throwing nation.

Posted by: notthere on April 2, 2007 at 3:34 AM | PERMALINK

And on that depressing note - I'm going to bed. It's already Monday. Damn.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C) on April 2, 2007 at 3:37 AM | PERMALINK

Blue Girl, Red State: "I can't help but think that if the American forces were withdrawn, the people of Iraq would quickly cease seeing the insurgents as justified."

I think that if the American miltary presence in Iraq is withdrawn, the Iraqi government's survival is limited to 18-30 months, tops. When that government implodes, I predict the following to occur;

(1) Turkey invades and quickly occupies most of Kurdistan to prevent that region from declaring its independence, driving hundreds of thousands of Kurdish refugees south into a region inhabited by very unhappy Sunni Arabs;

(2) Iran's Revolutionary Guard occupies Basra in the Shia-dominated southern provinces, where they are welcomed as liberators, as Shia voters overwhelmingly ratify their provinces' declaration of independence, which is initially recognized only by Iran;

(3) The Greek majority on the large eastern Mediterranean island of Cyprus, availing themselves of Turkey's distraction in northern Iraq, declare their intent to renew their pursuit of their country's political union with Athens, which had been on hold since Turkey's 1974 military invasion of northern Cyprus to protect the Turkish minority;

(4) Lebanon's rump unity government falls, and is replaced by a Hezbollah-dominated regime supported by Syria, and the Lebanese civil war between the majority Shi'ite Muslims and minority Maronite Christians quickly re-ignites after a long hiatus;

(5) Israel quickly makes peace with the Palestinian Authority on terms surprisingly favorable to the Palestinians, thus freeing substantial military forces to move north at the very moment that Israel announces its intent to protect Lebanon's Maronite Christian community from a newly-emboldened Hezbollah by force of arms; and

(6) The National Review's Bill Kristol tells FOX News Sunday host Chris Wallace that all this political and ethnic re-alignmwnt in the Middle East is in fact a good thing, and is about to urge U.S. military intervention in Lebanon when he's suddenly and viciously bitch-slapped into utter incoherence by enraged fellow commentator Juan williams, while FOX News analyst Brit Hume calmly observes the entire incident with a queer but revealing look of both horror and fascination.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 2, 2007 at 3:46 AM | PERMALINK

I closed a deal that put a medical manufacturing company under the aegis of General Electic, trimmed 11 million off their expenses and made myself an extra hundred thousand dollars for doing it in under three weeks.

In other words, while other people were responding to the emergency at the WTC and cleaning up after the disaster, you were putting money in your own pocket.

And you're proud of it.

Republicanism in a nutshell. "I've got mine -- let the servants do the cleaning up!"

Posted by: Mnemosyne on April 2, 2007 at 3:46 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, Blue Girl, I almost forgot to ask -- since when did Rudy Giuliani become Donald's Drag Queen Bee-otch? Not that there's anything wrong with it ...

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 2, 2007 at 3:56 AM | PERMALINK

McClain is slipping...into senility.

Posted by: Jimm on April 2, 2007 at 4:17 AM | PERMALINK

For all those who may not have seen it yet-

There is a great post on The Carpetbagger Report from a couple of days ago about the mainstream media's (specifically Time magazine's) ignoring the prosecutor purge scandal.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10367.html


What explains the failure of the mainstream media to cover the purge scandal for so long, and so many other scandals? Do you think somebody just set up newspaper editors to cheat on their wives, and threatened to tell if the editors wouldn’t play ball when they come back some day and ask for something?

It wouldn’t be that hard to do, when you think about it. People wouldn’t talk about it.

Posted by: Swan on April 2, 2007 at 5:11 AM | PERMALINK

Dear Swan,

You're assuming:

a. we are men
b. if we are men, we like women

We're assuming:

a. you're wet behind the ears
b. you're wet behind the ears

And don't you think it's just a little tiresome your cutting and reposting this same comment on unrelated thread after unrelated thread?

Posted by: Newspaper Editors of America on April 2, 2007 at 6:24 AM | PERMALINK

I don't think McCain really wants to be president.

Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on April 2, 2007 at 7:11 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, we've got a series here: Strolls Around Baghdad to be followed by Strolls in Mogadishu and then Astroll in the Hindu Kush. Given 3 Blackhawks and a 100 armed soldiers, it's amazing where you can go for a stroll.

I don't think McCain really wants to be president.

If so, he's got my agreement there - and to think I actually used to think semi-approvingly of the guy.

In any case, the next presidency is going to be an interesting one. The great problem of having a heck of a mess to clean up. The great advantages of a country (a world)that is full of relief that Cheney and company are out and a right wing sound machine that is increasingly being seen for what it is. It could be one of those points in US history where action is possible.

Posted by: snicker-snack on April 2, 2007 at 7:34 AM | PERMALINK

Think Progress also has the military’s reaction to McCain’s comments here. Military personnel who have been in Baghdad recently reacted with “laughter down the line”.

John McCain, once an honorable man, has become a craven, idiotic buffoon.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on April 2, 2007 at 7:49 AM | PERMALINK

Isn't the party line about the oversight hearings on DOJ etc that they are a waste of taxpayers' money? So how does the party line justify this outrageous expense for the dying candidacy of John McCain. Those five $1 carpets Lindsay Graham picked up were probably the most expensive carpets in the history of textiles.

Posted by: jussumbody on April 2, 2007 at 8:28 AM | PERMALINK

John McCain, once an honorable man, has become a craven, idiotic buffoon.

That's not a very nice thing to say. ... Can you cut me some slack, I just want to be President!

Posted by: John McCain on April 2, 2007 at 8:38 AM | PERMALINK

Do you think somebody just set up newspaper editors to cheat on their wives, and threatened to tell if the editors wouldn’t play ball when they come back some day and ask for something? It wouldn’t be that hard to do, when you think about it.

Doggonnit, I like your theory and I agree it wouldn't be that hard to do. It would be a snap, in fact! Gosh, I'm sure you've nailed this one Mr. Sherlock Holmes. Elementary!!

Posted by: Alfred E. Newman on April 2, 2007 at 8:44 AM | PERMALINK

Any US Senator would need protection if he were walking around Lagos or Bogota or any other third world hellhole. A couple of years ago McCain said he wouldn't say there had been progress until he could drive from the airport to the Green Zone, today you can. McCain has been alot less tendentious than Political Animal on this issue.

Posted by: minion on April 2, 2007 at 9:04 AM | PERMALINK

This is something that Rudy Giuliani would NEVER do...

How 'bout them fire department radios?

Posted by: Constantine on April 2, 2007 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

I only pay attention to the things which support my premise that Rudy is a better candidate than McCain.
Posted by: Norman Rogers

I put this roughly on a par with arguing that death by drowning is 'better' than death from starvation.


'The administration apparently finds a war to sustain our oil dependence preferable to the exercise of leadership to reduce that dependence. It can muster the political will to go to war, but it can't muster the courage to tell the American people the truth about what is required of each of us to break our oil addiction. So it is enabling that addiction.' - Bill Bradley

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 2, 2007 at 9:26 AM | PERMALINK

What galls me is that all those troops and hardware were put in harm's way, for nothing more than a piece of political theater. A decent Commander in Chief would forbid any such nonsense, for any visiting politico, of any party.

Posted by: David on April 2, 2007 at 9:29 AM | PERMALINK

Any US Senator would need protection if he were walking around Lagos or Bogota or any other third world hellhole.

No US Senator would put US lives on the line to try to salvage a vanity run for the Presidency that will ultimate become Rudy's for the taking.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

Any US Senator would need protection Okay an excuse for a couple of 20 year old anecdotes (courtesy of my brother).

a. Skiing the backside of Lake Louise. Canadian PM Trudeau is there with his son way outskiing the two hapless security agents (they're kinda at the top of the hill while Trudeau's already at the bottom). The only thing that marks him out from any other skier is he cuts to the patrol line. The guy behind my brother yells out "Hey Trudeau, get to the back of the line like the rest of us." Trudeau turns round, smiles at my brother (who he thinks has yelled at him), flashes him the finger and gets on the lift.

b. A couple of weeks later, VP Bush (it's Reagan time) is up in Victoria, B.C heading up the coast on a fishing trip. Brother up all night, parks the car, goes with some friends to have breakfast at Smitty's, a local diner. Comes out, streets blocked off, US security agents (with guns) everywhere. Two guys in front of my brother and one friend. Bush comes out of his hotel, brother doesn't even get to see him as security guys arms go up and my brother and friend are blocked off by two US security guys operating in Canada.
It's a whole different level with you guys.

Posted by: snicker-snack on April 2, 2007 at 9:36 AM | PERMALINK

Snicker

I agree these "security" ego massages are irritating -- I used to get stuck for an hour to cross the intercoastal bridges in Ft. Lauderdale every time Dapper Dan Quayle came to town... it was almost enough to make me vote for Dukakis. What the hell did Bush's people think would happen in Canada anyway, he's not a harp seal.

Posted by: minion on April 2, 2007 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, if you guys ever elect a harp seal for VP, we'll have our clubs ready (well, down East at least).

Posted by: snicker-snack on April 2, 2007 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

DNA analysis of a tissue sample provided by US Vice President Dick Cheney seem to indicate over 99% genetic overlap with the species phoca groenlandica, commonly known as the harp seal. Indeed they may not constitute distinct species at all.

Posted by: News Flash! on April 2, 2007 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK


"Seriously, just how stupid does McCain think we are?" - Drum

Just how classless are the left? I guess the left can preach tolerance, but are unable to demonstrate it.


"During a live press conference in Baghdad, Senators McCain and Graham were heckled by CNN reporter Michael Ware. An official at the press conference called Wares conduct outrageous, saying, here you have two United States Senators in Bagdad giving first-hand reports while Ware is laughing and mocking their comments. Ive never witnessed such disrespect. This guy is an activist not a reporter.

Posted by: Jay on April 2, 2007 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

"No US Senator would put US lives on the line to try to salvage a vanity run for the Presidency that will ultimate become Rudy's for the taking." - Norman

Not if Fred Thompson gets in the race.

Posted by: Jay on April 2, 2007 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

Wow. Pelosi "buys" votes to undermine US Administration policy and then flys off to Syria. And this ISN'T being investigated?


On Meet the Press today:

MR. RUSSERT: The House voted for funding for the war with a date certain, March of '08, to begin a withdrawal of U.S. troops. But in that bill was $20 billion of so-called pork, money for cricket infestation, tours of the Capitol, security at the National Convention, peanut crops. Why would the Democrats put that kind of money in such a serious bill?

REP. CHARLES B. RANGEL (D-NY): Because they needed the votes. That bill, we lost so many Democrats, one, because people thought we went too far and others because we didn't go far enough. And so a lot of things had to go into a bill that certainly those of us who respect great legislation did not want in there.

Posted by: Jay on April 2, 2007 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

James Wolcott's been doing an admirable job taking down Fred Thompson - don't neglect to click on the link about the Teamsters and Saint Ronnie.

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."-H.L. Mencken

Seems the GOP aim is to make it a perfect 4 for 4, with each successive iteration more moronic and more criminal than the last.

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 2, 2007 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

Jay, at some point you're going to have to explain why people who place themselves in a position to be mocked should not be publicly mocked.

Posted by: Tyro on April 2, 2007 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin: "Seriously, just how stupid does McCain think we are?"

Wrong question. Right question: "Just how stupid does McCain think the Republican primary electorate is?"

Answer: Pretty fucking stupid.

And he's right.

Posted by: Peter Principle on April 2, 2007 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK
I can't help but think that if the American forces were withdrawn, the people of Iraq would quickly cease seeing the insurgents as justified.

That's probably because you are paying attention. And you may not be all that unique in doing so; there is a reason that popular support in the US for continuing US military presence in Iraq is cratering.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 2, 2007 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

"Jay, at some point you're going to have to explain why people who place themselves in a position to be mocked should not be publicly mocked." - Tyro


It's called class, tyro. I don't expect you to understand that. But I, and many other conservatives, could mock Reid, Pelosi, etc. all day, every day at the insane comments they make everytime they open their pie holes, but we refrain.

Posted by: Jay on April 2, 2007 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

I, and many other conservatives, could mock Reid, Pelosi, etc. all day, ... but we refrain.

First of all, you are so lacking in self-awareness that it's difficult to believe you're actually sentient.

Next, anyone who spits in the face of people doing hard work in Iraq, like McCain has, deserves all the mockery he receives. Respect it earned.

Posted by: Tyro on April 2, 2007 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: Wow. Pelosi "buys" votes to undermine US Administration policy and then flys off to Syria. And this ISN'T being investigated?

The administration's failed policy is exactly what she should be undermining.

So no, she shouldn't be investigated, but even if she should, the Democrats control Congress so you get to stick it, just like liberals had to do when the GOP ran Congress and refused to investigate the administration, abdictating their constitutional role as a check on the executive, and even more pointedly refused to investigate their own members, e.g. Foley.

Posted by: anonymous on April 2, 2007 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: But I, and many other conservatives, could mock Reid, Pelosi, etc. all day, every day at the insane comments they make everytime they open their pie holes, but we refrain.

No, you don't refrain, but that aside mocking of Democrats by idiots like you is like Mother Teresa being mocked for her sins by Al Capone.

Posted by: anonymous on April 2, 2007 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

Dear blue girl, the reason the Sunni and al Queda factions continue to "blow shit up" as you indelicately phrase it, is because they are the kind of people who have no qualms at all about blowing up a market or a bus to kill the maximum number of women and children, or putting children in a car bomb to get it through a check point and then sacrificing them.

All the U.S. did to provoke this was to dispossess the minority Sunnis from total power. They deserved that, in spades. If we leave tomorrow the bombings will not stop, of course, because the Kurds and Shia well know that the Sunnis will kill remorselessly and wholesale style in order to put their new Saddam back in Baghdad. This leaves 80% of the people of Iraq with no real option but to shoot every Sunni or suspicious Arab foreigner on sight.

Right now we are not "picking at a scab" to use your elegant medical terminology. We are holding a lid on. How we got to this point is history. If you truly have a conscience, blue girl, consider all the consequences of the course of action you espouse. . .

Posted by: mike cook on April 2, 2007 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: I guess the left can preach tolerance, but are unable to demonstrate it.

I guess Jay can rant about "tolerance," but is unable to demonstrate a knowledge of its meaning.

Posted by: anonymous on April 2, 2007 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK

Also, there is no evidence that Ware heckled McCain, howeever much he served it.

Ware did effectively mock mCCain's claims about how Baghdad was perfectly safe, but McCain totally set himself up and spit in the face of everyone who was actually there.

Posted by: Tyro on April 2, 2007 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: "During a live press conference in Baghdad, Senators McCain and Graham were heckled by CNN reporter Michael Ware. An official at the press conference called Ware?s conduct ?outrageous,? saying, ?here you have two United States Senators in Bagdad giving first-hand reports while Ware is laughing and mocking their comments. I?ve never witnessed such disrespect. This guy is an activist not a reporter.?

Where's your link, Jay?

Or did you make this one up too?

Posted by: anonymous on April 2, 2007 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

mike cook: All the U.S. did to provoke this was to dispossess the minority Sunnis from total power.

You gotta love the denial and self-deception it takes to write this kind of nonsense.

Posted by: anonymous on April 2, 2007 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

mike cook: We are holding a lid on.

Still living the 1960s and 1970s conservative fantasies about Vietnam.

Keep those dominos from falling or you'll be sorry!

NOT.

Posted by: anonymous on April 2, 2007 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK
Dear blue girl, the reason the Sunni and al Queda factions continue to "blow shit up" as you indelicately phrase it, is because they are the kind of people who have no qualms at all about blowing up a market or a bus to kill the maximum number of women and children, or putting children in a car bomb to get it through a check point and then sacrificing them.

The Sunni Arab (including "al-Qaeda in Iraq", which didn't exist before the US invasion) groups aren't the only non- or anti-government factions blowing shit up. Their are Shi'ite Arab groups doing that, too.

All the U.S. did to provoke this was to dispossess the minority Sunnis from total power.

No, actually, that's not all the US has done, which is why people in Iraq were a lot more generally supportive of the US earlier in the occupation than they are now. Other things the US has done include, for instance, abuses such as those at Abu Ghraib.

Right now we are not "picking at a scab" to use your elegant medical terminology. We are holding a lid on.

Strange that one of the few things that Iraqis across sectarian and ethnic lines seem to broadly agree on when polled is that the US presence is causing the present violence, not containing it. But I'm sure the Iraqis don't understand why it is they keep blowing shit up.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 2, 2007 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

This is something that Rudy Giuliani would NEVER do...

How true. Giuliani would have been hunkered down in the Green Zone with his latest mistress.

Posted by: ckelly on April 2, 2007 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely
Right now we are not "picking at a scab" to use your elegant medical terminology. We are holding a lid on.

Strange that one of the few things that Iraqis across sectarian and ethnic lines seem to broadly agree on when polled is that the US presence is causing the present violence, not containing it. But I'm sure the Iraqis don't understand why it is they keep blowing shit up.

Do you believe that? What's your opinion on it?

I think the idea that the US current presence is causing the violence seems kind of dumb on the face of it, since most violence is Sunni-Shia or just Iraqi-Iraqi. But since it is, we might as well get out of the way and let them have at each other and finish it, one way or another. If in fact peace follows our departure, all the better. But I seriously doubt, at least until one side is crushed.

Posted by: Ali Blahblah on April 2, 2007 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks Jay but you can shove those Drudge Report quotes up your ass.

Posted by: ckelly on April 2, 2007 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

How we got to this point is history.

Yes, by all means, let's not talk about that

Posted by: W on April 2, 2007 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks Jay but you can shove those Drudge Report quotes up your ass.

Or we can go into my closet and you can shove them up my ass.

Posted by: Matt Drudge on April 2, 2007 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, by all means, let's not talk about that
Posted by: W

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, yes. But it is also a whole lot easier to do Monday Morning Quarterbacking than it is to develop a plan going forward. I'm curious to figure out what people think is going to happen when we depart Iraq, and what our policies should be at that point. I think when we leave things are going to go downhill fast, and we better steel ourselves to it and not let emotion cause us to intervene again. It's their fight.

Posted by: Ali Blahblah on April 2, 2007 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

I'm curious to figure out what people think is going to happen when we depart Iraq, and what our policies should be at that point.

I'm kind of curious to figure out what George Bush's policy is for right now when we're in Iraq, and what Bush thinks our policy should be going forward, because frankly I haven't been able to figure it out from all the frantic flailing around he does.

I'm not so curious about the imaginary hypothetical policies of people who aren't actually, you know, in charge of the executive branch of the United States government, but then again, trying to deflect blame from the president's fiasco in the present by asking ridiculous hypothetical questions about the future is sort of the last line of defense of Bush regime dead-enders.

Posted by: Stefan on April 2, 2007 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK
I think the idea that the US current presence is causing the violence seems kind of dumb on the face of it, since most violence is Sunni-Shia or just Iraqi-Iraqi.

So? Do you really believe the US presence can't increase Iraqi-Iraqi violence of any sort? Certainly it can; for one thing, the US presence and influence on the Iraqi government can negatively affect the governments perceived legitimacy (which can increase both anti-government violence and non-government violence by groups generally ideologically aligned with those in government and not particularly opposed to the government) and can constrain its substantive policies and, particularly, its ability to adapt those policies so as to reduce domestic unrest and conflict.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 2, 2007 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

the last line of defense of Bush regime dead-enders.
Posted by: Stefan

Actually it seems to be that 'God' is gonna magic them up a Faster Than Light drive so they sleep comfortably on their way to a brave new Neo-con world in Andromeda with a hold crammed with Cadillac Escalades.

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 2, 2007 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

Yup, there was Rudy, declaring the WTC site safe along with Whitman's EPA. People are still dying from those lies from our government officials. Viva, il douche, Rudy!

... its primary purpose is to allow us to deny the enemy safe haven...trashhauler at 2:17 AM

Since the 'enemy' are the people of Iraq, the only way you are going to provide a safe haven would be to make refugees out of the entire population. What a loser proposition for a lost war.

... I ve never witnessed such disrespect... Jay at 11:00 AM
Give me a shot at it and I'll double the disrespect.
...but we refrain.... Jay at 11:28 AM
While that is a flat out lie because your media minions are constantly attempting to do just that, only their remarks are themselves so ridiculous they become self-inflicted wounds.
....We are holding a lid on.....mike cook on April 2, 2007 at 11:36 AM
You are? Well that is another example of your miserable failure because the lid is off. The entire mess is the biggest fiasco in American history and entirely the fault of George W. Bush and his followers. Posted by: Mike on April 2, 2007 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan
I'm kind of curious to figure out what George Bush's policy is for right now when we're in Iraq, and what Bush thinks our policy should be going forward, because frankly I haven't been able to figure it out from all the frantic flailing around he does.

I can't either, and I think we're in a holding pattern until he's gone. Can't happen soon enough.

I'm not so curious about the imaginary hypothetical policies of people who aren't actually, you know, in charge of the executive branch of the United States government...

There is, you know, a Presidential race already going on, and the legislative branch, you know, seems to think it has some role to play in this based on current news stories. I think, you know, you're just being the critic because being the critic is easy.

Posted by: Ali Blahblah on April 2, 2007 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

Michael Ware: I did not heckle the Senator. I didn't even ask a question."

heckle: "To try to embarrass and annoy (someone speaking or performing in public) by questions, gibes, or objections; badger."

Well, Jay, apparently you and Drudge lied.

Not shocking on either count.

Posted by: anonymous on April 2, 2007 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, Jay, where is your evidence that Michael Ware is from the "left" or represents the "left."

Posted by: anonymous on April 2, 2007 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

Yup, there was Rudy, declaring the WTC site safe along with Whitman's EPA. People are still dying from those lies from our government officials. Viva, il douche, Rudy!

This is a particular bete noire for me because I was volunteering down there for weeks after the attack, sans face mask, and still work down in the neighborhood. God knows what it's done to my lungs over the last six years.

Posted by: Stefan on April 2, 2007 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely
So? Do you really believe the US presence can't increase Iraqi-Iraqi violence of any sort?

Not saying it can't, but I am saying that in the big picture of things, the aspects that increase violence are outweighed by the damping effects. Do you think the government of Iraq will survive long beyond our departure? I don't. At best Iraq will either be balkanized into little separate states or it will remain one state under some sort of brutal suppression. Best possible outcome for us is for Iran to get sucked into their own little Vietnam in Iraq.

Posted by: Ali Blahblah on April 2, 2007 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

A suicide truck bombing in the northern city of Tal Afar is the deadliest single attack since the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003, a high-ranking Iraqi Interior Ministry official said as a new death toll for the blast surfaced. An Interior Ministry official today said the death toll in the Wednesday attack was 152.

Yes, straight-talk McCain (what a joke!) is right. Things are getting better in Iraq . . . for the insurgents and terrorists, that is.

McCain is complicit in the ongoing violence and the deaths from that violence as a result of not simply his support for continuation of the illegal American occupation of Iraq, but his mendacious attempts to mislead the American public and Congress about the actual situation in that country.

An absolutely shameful display of political cowardice and abdication of personal and professional responsibility from a once former war hero who has reached new lows in partisan hackery.

Posted by: anonymous on April 2, 2007 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, I walked for hours -- day and night -- through the streets of Baghdad without any armed troops protecting me. No problem.


Oh, right, that was when Saddam Hussein was in power.

Posted by: mcdruid on April 2, 2007 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, right, that was when Saddam Hussein was in power.
Posted by: mcdruid

Was it a protest march in support of human rights?

Posted by: Ali Blahblah on April 2, 2007 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

49%+ Americans voted for the boy king twice so he knows how stupid we are.

Posted by: klyde on April 2, 2007 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

Ali Blahblah: Was it a protest march in support of human rights?

Was McCain's?

Posted by: anonymous on April 2, 2007 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

klyde: 49%+ Americans voted for the boy king twice so he knows how stupid we are.

Don't give Princess Bush any more credit than he deserves: 49%+ of American voters voted for the boy king twice so he knows how stupid the voters are and how lazy the rest of Americans are.

Posted by: anonymous on April 2, 2007 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

But McCain *does* know just how stupid the Republican hard base is - that's the whole point. He's counting on them not to notice the phoniness of it all, or to care.

Posted by: Neil B. on April 2, 2007 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK
Not saying it can't, but I am saying that in the big picture of things, the aspects that increase violence are outweighed by the damping effects.

And what, exactly, supports this conclusion?


Do you think the government of Iraq will survive long beyond our departure?

Maybe, maybe not. It will either change in ways that we have prevented it from changing which address the problems in Iraq, or it will fall. Then again, the latter outcome is not necessarily a bad one, depending on what replaces it. The present government isn't working, in any case.


At best Iraq will either be balkanized into little separate states or it will remain one state under some sort of brutal suppression.

Perhaps, so, though I wouldn't say "at best". There is little evidence that the presence of US forces changes that much; with them there, the present Iraqi regime is failing to exert much control on the violence even with US assistance, so either a failed state, balkanization, or a brutally repressive state seems the likely outcome of continued US presence, too.

Best possible outcome for us is for Iran to get sucked into their own little Vietnam in Iraq.

That made sense with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, perhaps, but Iran is not the kind of major, global geopolitical rival of the US that would create a real US interest in that happening.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 2, 2007 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Ali Blahblah: Was it a protest march in support of human rights?

Was McCain's?
Posted by: anonymous

It was a statement, however feeble and ineffective. But I am sure mcdruid, based on his hate of our current CIC for incompetence, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, phone tapping etc., must have really, really, REALLY despised Saddam Hussein, and I can't imagine how he kept himself from voicing that dissatisfaction while there. I guess fear has a way of shifting one's priorities. I am sure if Saddam had trains they would have ran on time.

Posted by: Ali Blahblah on April 2, 2007 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

McCain's campaign has become a series of SNL skits.

Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08! on April 2, 2007 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely
And what, exactly, supports this conclusion?

I draw this conclusion based on the the impotence of the Iraqi police and army, and their tendency to act in a sectarian manner (Shiite police death squads killing Sunnis) when they do act. Saddam's hanging was a fine example where they relaxed their facade and let their true colors show. When we go the moderating influences go. Wherever we aren't in Iraq, violence increases. You'd think Tal Afar would have been sleepy hollow after we greatly reduced our presence.

Really, I see no evidence to support the conclusion that our departure would lessen violence, other than the polling data you presented. And while the poll may reflect the majority opinion, it is the minority who are doing the killing that matter. If we could poll just the ones doing the current killing, what would their response be? That'd be the poll that mattered.

Posted by: Ali Blahblah on April 2, 2007 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Ali Blahblah: . . . based on his hate of our current CIC for incompetence, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, phone tapping etc.

Love the man, but hate the sins?

Well, that might make sense if the sins weren't born of deliberate arrogance and a love of deceit and dishonesty as standard methods of operation, but instead merely represented human failing.

But Princess Bush is more than just a human being with manifest failings; he is a person who craves and loves the profane methods by which he asserts his power.

Sorta like Saddam.

Posted by: anonymous on April 2, 2007 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

Love the man, but hate the sins?

Uh, no. But as I'm sure Rumsfeld could tell you, "I've met Saddam and Bush is no Saddam."

But Princess Bush is more than just a human being with manifest failings; he is a person who craves and loves the profane methods by which he asserts his power.

Sorta like Saddam.
Posted by: anonymous

Whatever. But I refuse to draw parallels between life in the US and life in Saddam era Iraq. We'd be hanging by our fingernails in Abu Ghraib if we were caught chatting like this in Baghdad in 2002.

Posted by: Ali Blahblah on April 2, 2007 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Ali Blahblah: If we could poll just the ones doing the current killing, what would their response be?

Shouldn't the majority opinion of the Iraqis about their own country and what is best for it prevail?

Isn't that democracy?

Or are you admitting that Bush's plans for Iraq have nothing to do with democracy?

Posted by: anonymous on April 2, 2007 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

The only suspense over possible U.S. withdrawal dates is a matter of four months. Anyone who is paying any attention at all--including death squads infiltrating the Iraqi police and army, foreign fighters in Iraq, al Sadr and his followers, and Iran--knows that if U.S. troops are still in combat in Iraq in October of 2008, then a Democrat will be inaugurated president in January of 2009.

And if American troops are still in combat in Iraq in October 2008, Americans will be even more supportive of a precipitate withdrawal than they are now. And it will commence.

So who are we trying to kid that there is any uncertainty among the bad guys that Americans are out of Iraq in less than two years, no matter what? What does Bush accomplish by insisting on war money with no strings attached except for a symbolic victory over the Democratic Congress? He could conceivably inflict four more months of waiting by the fighters in Iraq, one and all, until they had a date they could absolutely count on, when American troops would withdraw.

This war was over when the majority of Americans lost confidence in Bush's ability to win it. Now we're just sacrificing soldiers to Bush's ego.

Posted by: cowalker on April 2, 2007 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

anonymous
Ali Blahblah: If we could poll just the ones doing the current killing, what would their response be?

Shouldn't the majority opinion of the Iraqis about their own country and what is best for it prevail?

Duh, Master of the Obvious. Would it be that the minority doing the killing followed the majority opinion.

Or are you admitting that Bush's plans for Iraq have nothing to do with democracy?

No, since I never thought it in the first place. Are you?

Posted by: Ali Blahblah on April 2, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Ali Blahblah: Whatever.

The comment wasn't about methodology, but motivation.

Is any evil less than Saddam-evil not evil?

Is any evil less than Hitler-evil not evil?

But I refuse to draw parallels between life in the US and life in Saddam era Iraq.

No such comparison was made.

In any event, under Saddam one did not have freedom, but you could keep your life if you complied with his laws.

After Saddam, it really doesn't matter what you do or don't do, you still get killed at the sidewalk cafe when the truck bomb goes off.

Conservatives constantly opine that life is more important than freedom when it comes to defending torture, invasion of privacy, spying on American citizens, and denying individuals their civil rights.

So why wouldn't conservatives think Iraq was better under Saddam than now?

They certainly didn't care about the Kurds when Saddam was gassing them with Bush 41's implicit consent.

Posted by: anonymous on April 2, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK
... I see no evidence to support the conclusion that our departure would lessen violence...Ali Blahblah at 2:21 PM
Evidence clear for even you to see: Was Iraq as violent before the US invaded, yes or no? Posted by: Mike on April 2, 2007 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

Ali Blahblah: Would it be that the minority doing the killing followed the majority opinion.

Yes, I've noticed how the minority actor always follows the majority opinion.

I guess that's why Eric Rudolph did what he did, because the majority of abortion opponents really did approve of his methods.

Posted by: anonymous on April 2, 2007 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

It's called "capitalism" and that's what they attacked on 9/11--they attacked "me."
That's what good Americans do. In the face of adversity, they get down to brass tacks and make things happen. As opposed to whining about it and waiting for Tom Daschle to give someone a hug.
Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 2:08 AM | PERMALINK

You are the most insecure pathetic loser I have ever read in a comments section on the internet.
Only someone who was deeply insecure about his own self worth would belittle others and brag about himself like this.
I pity you Norman, for all you've done in life it's not enough for you to approve of yourself.
You sad sad little man.

Posted by: Nemesis on April 2, 2007 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

It's called class, tyro. I don't expect you to understand that. But I, and many other conservatives, could mock Reid, Pelosi, etc. all day, every day at the insane comments they make everytime they open their pie holes, but we refrain.
Posted by: Jay on April 2, 2007 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

It's hard to mock when you have to twist and lie to make dirt.
Is easier for liberals to mock the GOP right now because you are so damn filthy.

Posted by: Nemesis on April 2, 2007 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

We'd be hanging by our fingernails in Abu Ghraib if we were caught chatting like this in Baghdad in 2002.

Shorter Ali B.: "we're still better than Saddam!"

Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations....

And ignoring, of course, the many innocent Iraqis that American soldiers have forced to hang by their fingernails at Abu Ghraib.

Posted by: Stefan on April 2, 2007 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Evidence clear for even you to see: Was Iraq as violent before the US invaded, yes or no?
Posted by: Mike

So you're saying all we have to do is depart and Iraq will naturally snap back to pre-invasion Saddam days, Sunnis returning to their jobs, Shia heading back to their slums, no retributions, easy return to status quo? Geez, Mike, some seriously AFU logic there.

Posted by: Ali Blahblah on April 2, 2007 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

As far as Europeans are concerned, this is how all Americans go out shopping. So his lesson that life is completely normal is being received loud and clear!

Posted by: craigie on April 2, 2007 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Ali Blahblah: I see no evidence to support the conclusion that the china shop would be less violent without the bull rampaging through it.

Mike: Evidence clear for even you to see: Was the china shop being broken up before the bull invaded it, yes or no?

Ali Blahblah: So you're saying all we have to do is get the bull out of the china shop and the broken china pieces will naturally snap back into place, the shelves will be mended, the frightened customers come back in? Geez, Mike, some seriously AFU logic there.

This word "logic" that Ali uses, I do not think it means what he thinks it means. But then again Ali prefers sophistry and misdirection since that's the only way he can defend Bush.

Of course we can't get Iraq back into the shape it was before we attacked and destroyed it without provocation. But what we can do, at minimum, is stop fucking it up even further.

Posted by: Stefan on April 2, 2007 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Ali Blahblah: So you're saying all we have to do is depart and Iraq will naturally snap back to pre-invasion Saddam days, Sunnis returning to their jobs, Shia heading back to their slums, no retributions, easy return to status quo?

So you are saying if we stay it is guaranteed that the violence will recede, the Iraqis will throw parades in our honor, and the flow of oil will make the US national debt disappear?

Posted by: anonymous on April 2, 2007 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter Ali B.: "we're still better than Saddam!"

Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations...

Not low expectations. Just pointing out the obvious, which seems to be escaping any number of people here.

Shorter Mcdruid and Stefan: "I wish I could move to North Korea, its safe streets reminds me of Baghdad in the good old days."

Posted by: Ali Blahblah on April 2, 2007 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

So you are saying if we stay it is guaranteed that the violence will recede, the Iraqis will throw parades in our honor, and the flow of oil will make the US national debt disappear?
Posted by: anonymous

No. If we stay violence will ebb and flow but generally trend upwards as it has been. When we go it will exponentially increase until either one side cries uncle or is crushed.

Posted by: Ali Blahblah on April 2, 2007 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

I pity you Norman, for all you've done in life it's not enough for you to approve of yourself.
You sad sad little man.

Whatever, Buzz Lightyear.

The fact of the matter is, I'm probably the happiest person who ever posted on this blog--I am confident, wealthy, secure and prepared for anything that life throws at me. I've been disinherited, richer than God, chased through alleyways in Buenos Aires, three small plane crashes, a dozen car crashes, a train wreck and a bus accident in Switzerland. I've been in prison and I've been in the White House seven times and I've been in the Friendly Confines of Paula Zahn's thighs.

So...oh, wait. Was I gloating? What was your point?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan
This word "logic" that Ali uses, I do not think it means what he thinks it means. But then again Ali prefers sophistry and misdirection since that's the only way he can defend Bush.

So what exactly must one believe here in order to not be defending Bush? He sucks, he should go, we should not have invaded Iraq, we made it worse than it was, etc. I think those are things we agree on, no?

Where it appears we diverge is in that I think Iraq is going to be orders of magnitude worse once we go. I think we are in fact keeping the same lid on that Saddam did (but did a better job of). I am not using that as an argument for staying, so unbunch yor panties. I'm just calling it like I see it. We tried, it didn't work and was probably doomed from the beginning, and now we have to go. And the Iraqi people are going to pay even worse.

If you think being a Bush hater means you have to think things will get better when we leave Iraq, well that is a non sequitor.

Posted by: Ali Blahblah on April 2, 2007 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

I think we are in fact keeping the same lid on that Saddam did (but did a better job of).

We are not the band-aid. We are the splinter.

Posted by: craigie on April 2, 2007 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

We are not the band-aid. We are the splinter.
Posted by: craigie

We're going to find out soon enough which of us is right. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not wearing rose-colored glasses, and I won't let the possibility of an increase in violence get in the way of a call for withdrawal.

Posted by: Ali Blahblah on April 2, 2007 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

Considering the poor first quarter fund raising by the Straight Talk Putzer, he must have been taking his Star Wars Entourage to Baghdad Pay Day Loans. Keep up the lack of funds and there won't be any tires left on that Express.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on April 2, 2007 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

Dear little Normy wrote: "The fact of the matter is, I'm probably the happiest person who ever posted on this blog"

No, dear, you're not, because if you were everything you said you were, you wouldn't be trolling so pathetically here. Those who do engage in such behavior are (futilely) trying to make up for the lack in their own pathetic little lives.

Posted by: PaulB on April 2, 2007 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

Ali BlahBlah:We tried, it didn't work and was probably doomed from the beginning, and now we have to go.

That last part is what I don't think many people are absorbing. We WILL go no later than January 2009. The longer we put off the going, the faster we will be gone when the withdrawal starts, because the American people will be angrier and more fed up due to the delay. The longer we put off going, the more American troops will be killed and wounded in total.

As for the Iraqis, who can tell? We don't control that. We can devise theories, we can tell ourselves stories about it, but we will have little if any control over what happens after we leave. And we ARE leaving, if not by October 2008, then quickly after January 2009. It's ridiculous to ignore this reality.

There is no way the American public is going to vote for a Republican president in November 2008 if American troops are still fighting in Iraq at that time. And the reason they will vote for a Democrat is to get the troops out of Iraq.

And Bush does not care, because he's got his. The rest of Republicans can go hang. His daddy will never disinherit Junior, so Bush is set for life, even if Democrats control the country for the next thirty years. Odd, isn't it, when you think how Bush's PR machine is always going on about his loyalty.

Posted by: cowalker on April 2, 2007 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK
So you're saying all we have to do is depart and Iraq will naturally snap back to pre-invasion Saddam days... Ali Blahblah at 3:51 PM
Logic? No, it's da fact, jack and none of your pathetic sophistry and specious claims will change it. Iraq wasn't pleasant before, but it was better than Bush's Fiasco. When the American occupation ends, another strong man will emerge and the country will slip into what passes for stability there.
...Just pointing out the obvious... Ali Blahblah at 4:01 PM
Ask Iraqis. The number of refugees from Iraq, 1.9 million internally and 2 million externally. That's almost 20% of the population who have voted with their feet, and they didn't vote for incompetent occupation. Talk about missing the obvious, chum, you refuse to see the facts before your eyes. Taking thousands of casualties and spending hundreds of billions for ever isn't going to change that one bit. It's their country; it's their home; eventually, the US will leave, and probably without controlling whatever is left of our oil that remains under their desert.
I'm probably the happiest person who ever posted on this blog....Norman Rogers at 4:07 PM
That is after the meds kick in, right? Posted by: Mike on April 2, 2007 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

Drat, I forgot this little factoid:
Another little thing they forgot to mention was the pre-visit security sweep
...U.S. soldiers entered the neighborhood before the delegation arrived for its stroll. They searched for explosives, sent informants into the crowd, set up a perimeter, and secured the area before the Senators showed up with their 100 armed guards. And for what? To keep McCain, Graham and others safe. ...
Big brave John. What a petunia.
Here is an interesting story on Rudy's puppy-killing spouse for Rudy sycophants.
Judith Giuliani once demonstrated surgical products for a controversial medical-supply company that used dogs - which were later killed - in operations whose only purpose was to sell equipment to doctors, The Post has learned.
"It was a horribly cruel, outrageous program," Friends of Animals President Priscilla Feral said about the demonstrations of medical staplers on dogs conducted by U.S. Surgical Corp. employees during Giuliani's tenure there in the late 1970s.
Feral said U.S. Surgical's demonstrations on hundreds of dogs each year through the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s were done to boost sales, not for medical re search or testing.
The dogs were "either put to death following the sales demonstrations because they can't re cover from them, or they die during them," Feral said....


Posted by: Mike on April 2, 2007 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Mike
ABB: So you're saying all we have to do is depart and Iraq will naturally snap back to pre-invasion Saddam days... Ali Blahblah at 3:51 PM

Logic? No, it's da fact, jack

I look forward to watching the genie willingly climb back into the bottle.

Posted by: Ali Blahblah on April 2, 2007 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

My last comment. I worry that we are rationalizing the withdrawal by arguing that things will get better after we leave, and that this is setting up another "WMD moment". In the same way Bush rationalized the invasion on WMDs, we could be rationalizing the departure by saying things will improve. They may, but it is no slam dunk, and if they don't there will be endless new round of "told you so" but in the other direction. Most importantly, we don't need that rationalization. It is just plain time to go, leaving is in our country's best interest. Period.

Posted by: Ali Blahblah on April 2, 2007 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

Those who do engage in such behavior are (futilely) trying to make up for the lack in their own pathetic little lives.

Have you ever read the things that I write here? I'm hilarious and I have a fabulous time.

And the only ones on meds are you medical pot liberals and your imagined glaucoma problems.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK
If we stay violence will ebb and flow but generally trend upwards as it has been. When we go it will exponentially increase until either one side cries uncle or is crushed.

Which, even if true, certainly would mean that our presence is doing no good, simply spending US lives to make the inevitable catastrophe play out in slow motion, building pressure and increasing the hostility that will manifest in the ultimate carnage, until the cost in American lives and treasure becomes intolerable and we pull out and allow the inevitable death-spasm of the misbegotten regime that we installed.

Now, tell me why its worth continuing to spend US lives and treasure for that?

Posted by: cmdicely on April 2, 2007 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

Blah,
Of all the countries that I've visited (and that is more than a few) the Iraqis were the least friendly and most paranoid, so I am no supporter of the Saddam era. On the other hand, I would not consider walkding there now; whatever else we have brought to that country, it is not peace, prosperity or promenades.

There are supposed to be 50 ways to leave your lover, and probably 100 to leave Iraq. Some of those are worse than others. Given Bush's track record, he'd pick one of the absolute worst.

Posted by: mcdruid on April 2, 2007 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely
Now, tell me why its worth continuing to spend US lives and treasure for that?

(Insert soud of head banging against the wall) It is not worth spending lives there. We should leave yesterday. Let the Iraqis sort things out themselves.

Posted by: Ali BlabBlah on April 2, 2007 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK

Norman posts '...your imagined glaucoma problems.'
bwahahahhahhaha

But really, folks--don't you think the rhetoric about all holy hell will break loose if we don't stay in Iraq forever---------is part of the effort to promote fear, to spray it on us like bad perfume?
This is a tactical maneuver because it is taking them so long to get the oil. To spend their political capital. This administration isn't ready to give it up. The guy who left the administration's religious sector already said the administration wasn't religious at all--in fact they made fun of evangelicals--so it isn't about The Rapture.
So what is it about?
And what are you so afraid of?

Posted by: consider wisely on April 2, 2007 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK

Ok, Ali, this is your position as I understand it: while we all agree the occupation is, was, and will continue to be fucked up, you think that if we leave it must get worse.


But on the subject of our presence as an irritant, you said this:

Not saying it can't, but I am saying that in the big picture of things, the aspects that increase violence are outweighed by the damping effects. Do you think the government of Iraq will survive long beyond our departure? I don't.

Ali, if the current Iraqi government can't survive without our presence, then that government is illegitimate. It should not survive.

As long as an illegitimate government is in power, there will always be far, far more support among the population for insurgents of all kinds.

Also, that illegit gov't will itself be divided into factions who will fight for control of it, rendering the illegit gov't incapable of governing at all, even badly.

In the absense of government, you have anarchy. Gangs and militias rule, because they can. There is no legitimate government to stop them.

I presume that your support for keeping our troops there rests on the idea that we can stop this? That we are stopping this? We're not. We can't.

Not that they can't be stopped- a legit, unified, and competent government could, as could a true multinational force/relief effort. The US military can't do it by themselves, as evidenced by the fact that they have not.

One might argue that they might have, had there been 3 times as many of them in the first place. Well, there weren't. And there aren't. And there aren't going to be unless there's a draft, which ain't gonna happen.

My point is that the root problem is that the gov't is not legit. Our continued presence prolongs the situation and exacerbates every other conflict there.

At best Iraq will either be balkanized into little separate states or it will remain one state under some sort of brutal suppression.

Well, I think that there are a lot more possibilities than that. But assuming you're correct, either situation would be preferable to the current one, right? If the "brutal one state" scenario is the most likely outcome, what does our presence now do to prevent that?

How are we preventing balkanization? We are enforcing Kurdish autonomy, as we've done for some time now. It looks like a selective balkanization, where we allow a de-facto Kurdistan, but enforce an artificially unified Arab state for the rest of "Iraq"? Is this best for Iraq? How? More importantly, wtf gives us the right to do it? Our addiction to oil?

Perhaps we are protecting Iraq's soveriegnty by preventing invasion by Iraq's neighbors? Ok, that's fine, but we don't have to be there to do that. The "over the horizon" force in Kuwait or UAE, and our air/naval power, is plenty of disincentive. Isn't that what Murtha was talking about in 2005? (Right around the time we were being told Democrats had no plan, I'm guessing.) Responding to a foriegn invasion would get a lot more world support than occupying to prevent the possibility. If that matters to us.

Of course, that wouldn't necessarily prevent a balkanized Iraq, but so what? Maybe Iraq, a product of colonialism, shouldn't be unified. If no legit gov't can unify it without brutal suppression, then maybe it should divide. And if Turkey, Syria, and Iran don't like the way things go afterward, than we, they, and the locals will deal with that then.

But the current situation HAS to change. As long as we are there propping up an illegit gov't, they will be in a state of unending civil war. If we leave now, then they can get on with settling it. Maybe even, dare one hope, peacefully. But if violently, at least it will be over with, and sooner rather than later. How much longer do we plan to keep dragging it out?

The worst case would be a genocidal bloodbath, and it's a real possibility. So we leave. And we watch. If it happens, we come back in WITH a true multinational peacekeeping force with full international support and a large contingent, in particular, of troops from Arab countries who at least speak the language. Or we come back in alone; if an honest-to-Allah genocide is going on, it won't matter if we go alone. Does anyone today condemn France for stepping in to stop the bloodshed in Rwanda?

Which reminds me: if we weren't so busy with this useless, counterproductive, and illegal occupation, maybe we could have done something about Sudan some time ago? I mean, it's not like it's a hotbed of international islam-fundie terrorists with an actual genocide going on, or anything like that.

Best possible outcome for us is for Iran to get sucked into their own little Vietnam in Iraq.

I don't buy that zero-sum-game. For Iran to be in the position we're now in, and for Iraq to still be fighting a combined civil war/anti-foriegn-invader insurgency is hardly the best possible outcome. The best possible outcome is nobody's fighting anybody, including us. Why do both Iran and Iraq have to suffer for us to gain?

Posted by: RobW on April 2, 2007 at 8:24 PM | PERMALINK

It is just plain time to go, leaving is in our country's best interest. Period.
Posted by: Ali Blahblah on April 2, 2007 at 6:10 PM

Oops. Guess I misunderstood your position after all.

Posted by: RobW on April 2, 2007 at 8:30 PM | PERMALINK

Here's what one of you famous defeatist liberals said once:

This is that pathetic asshole Pale Rider and this comment sums up what liberals should be saying right now. Amazing that he actually said it in November, 2005.

You are all defeatists! You are ready to give up before the surge has had a chance to work. Morons.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 2, 2007 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK
...You are ready to give up before the surge has had a chance to work..... Norman Rogers at 9:21 PM
As more and more American men and women are slaughtered in Iraq, Republican petunias like you may feel a vicarious manhood, but in actual fact, the level of violence is rising, not falling. Your 'surge,' Viagra-effect not withstanding, is already drooping. Posted by: Mike on April 2, 2007 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK
This is that pathetic asshole Pale Rider

You see, we've not seen hide nor hair of the real Norman Rogers for many moons. Thanks for giving the game away, Pale.

Posted by: obscure on April 2, 2007 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

You see, we've not seen hide nor hair of the real Norman Rogers for many moons. Thanks for giving the game away, Pale.

Oh, run with that. Tell all of your little friends.

Two weeks ago I was cmdicely; Saturday I was Kevin Drum; now I'm Pale Rider?

Hilarious.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 3, 2007 at 1:33 AM | 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