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 16, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

WHY THE WAR CZAR BALKED....General John Sheehan, who was recruited recently for the post of "war czar," explains today why he turned it down. The problem, he says, is that the Bush administration needs not only a short-term battle plan, but also a long-term plan for dealing with the entire Middle East. Unfortunately, after asking around, he discovered that all it has are platitudes:

We cannot "shorthand" this issue with concepts such as the "democratization of the region" or the constant refrain by a small but powerful group that we are going to "win," even as "victory" is not defined or is frequently redefined.

....We got it right during the early days of Afghanistan — and then lost focus. We have never gotten it right in Iraq. For these reasons, I asked not to be considered for this important White House position. These huge shortcomings are not going to be resolved by the assignment of an additional individual to the White House staff. They need to be addressed before an implementation manager is brought on board.

Smart man.

Kevin Drum 12:57 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (200)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

He met a bunch of dolts who know PR but don't know the difference between strategy and tactics -- or even that there is a distinction.

Figures.

He was at least smart enough to catch that, and good for him.

Posted by: blatherskite on April 16, 2007 at 1:11 AM | PERMALINK

Whaddya expect from our first MBA president...

Posted by: Friend of Labor on April 16, 2007 at 1:14 AM | PERMALINK

Will this embolden the Democrats to stand firm on the funding issue?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 1:17 AM | PERMALINK

Clearly, the War Czar should be a graduate of Pat Roberson University. Nobody else would be qualified.

Posted by: craigie on April 16, 2007 at 1:20 AM | PERMALINK

Craigie,
Don't forget HoJo, since he's Smirk new BFF.

Posted by: This Machine Kills Fascists on April 16, 2007 at 1:34 AM | PERMALINK

Don't we already have a "war czar"? If not, then what are all these generals and admirals doing?

"War czar", my ass -- as Gen. Sheehan described the current situation, it's quite clear that the Bus administration is merely interested in finding an official patsy to scapegoat when the public concludes that the so-called "surge" isn't working.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 16, 2007 at 1:37 AM | PERMALINK

How many pallets of cash will be at the war czar's disposal?

Posted by: skeg on April 16, 2007 at 1:37 AM | PERMALINK

Dana Perino is about to have a terrible horrible no-good very bad day.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 1:39 AM | PERMALINK

Bushco's collective heads are about to explode; they have truly crossed over to the sublimely insane. War Czar? You have got to be fucking kidding me. Even contemplating this thought is a direct admission that Bush is not fit to perform his Constitutional duties of being the commander in chief, which prior to now, is the only duty he even talked about actually working on. Like it or not, and for a lot of reasons i don't, we have reached the point where it is derelict not to remove these clowns.

Posted by: bmaz on April 16, 2007 at 1:50 AM | PERMALINK

Our current situation really highlights the disadvantages of our defined-term executive system vs. a parliamentary one. A Prime Minister Bush would have lost a vote of no confidence and been replaced long ago. It's costing us a lot to have to wait through another year and three quarters of this boob.

This "czar" proposal is of a piece with the rest of the useless flailing we've seen and will continue to see until the guys at the top are replaced.

Posted by: jimBOB on April 16, 2007 at 1:51 AM | PERMALINK

Failing companies always bring in a *whiz kid* don't they?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 1:54 AM | PERMALINK

The US gummint seems to need a lot of Czars. I propose a Czar Czar, who would be in charge of finding all the Czars.

Posted by: craigie on April 16, 2007 at 1:57 AM | PERMALINK

Now I owe Craigie a package of Zingers.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 1:58 AM | PERMALINK

A Prime Minister Bush would have lost a vote of no confidence and been replaced long ago.

I'm not sure. In Canada, a PM with a majority can pretty well ride anything out, for up to five years. Most elections there are called when the governing party has the likeliest advantage.

Posted by: skeg on April 16, 2007 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK

Perhaps Czar Czar Binks is available. Craving zingers; will settle for Ho-Hos.

Posted by: bmaz on April 16, 2007 at 2:05 AM | PERMALINK

They should hire Czar Czar Gabor to do this job.

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week.

Posted by: craigie on April 16, 2007 at 2:05 AM | PERMALINK

Ho-Hos? Isn't that Imus's favorite snack?

Posted by: craigie on April 16, 2007 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, they GWB admin is unlikely to be interested in hiring Czar Czar Galli.

Posted by: Disputo on April 16, 2007 at 2:11 AM | PERMALINK

Does this make Cheney the Incompetence Czar?

Posted by: skeg on April 16, 2007 at 2:15 AM | PERMALINK

Disputo - That butroses my argument completely.

Posted by: bmaz on April 16, 2007 at 2:17 AM | PERMALINK

So, the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces is desperately trying to hire a Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

This does not sound good...

Posted by: idlemind on April 16, 2007 at 2:19 AM | PERMALINK

So, the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces is desperately trying to hire a Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.

If Saddam could use doubles why can't Bush?

Posted by: Disputo on April 16, 2007 at 2:27 AM | PERMALINK

You guys are bustin me up over here. Keep it up. I have another 30 minutes at least before I can log out of Blackboard.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 2:30 AM | PERMALINK

In Canada, a PM with a majority can pretty well ride anything out, for up to five years.

Which would have taken BushCo up to about 2005. By that time he was hitting the low 40's in popularity and probably would have seen his party lose control.

Two other points. First, it's unlikely that a parliamentary system would replicate the pro-small-rural-state gerrymandering built into the Senate and electoral college, which would further cripple the R's. Also, without the built-in presidential lameduckery of the second term, a ruling parliamentary Republican party would know that their Prime Minister Bush would be leading them to electoral armageddon, and they'd dump him well before he was polling in the low 30's.

Posted by: jimBOB on April 16, 2007 at 2:33 AM | PERMALINK

Imus come up with better material; I haven't gotten any Zingers yet.

Posted by: bmaz on April 16, 2007 at 2:37 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry - bmaz, you get Zingers for Czar Czar Binks. That made me snort.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 2:42 AM | PERMALINK

Disputo may have a point with the doubles thought. Maybe, like in the movie "Dave", the stooge double would turn out to be a genius; of course the Sigourney Weaver part of the motivation is going to be a wee bit difficult with Laura...

Posted by: bmaz on April 16, 2007 at 2:42 AM | PERMALINK

Okay - brace yourself - creep-out alert: Anyone else get a Little Orphan Annie vibe when they look in Laura's eyes? It isn't that her *soul* (for want of a better word) is evil...it's more like it's absent.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 2:46 AM | PERMALINK

Yep. Got that hollow Stepford Wife look all over her. Gotta feel sorry for her in a way; the petulent boy king has got to be a mean spirited prick when thing aren't going well, which is pretty much all the time.

Posted by: bmaz on April 16, 2007 at 2:51 AM | PERMALINK

I'll bet he was a mean drunk, too.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 2:55 AM | PERMALINK

Laura's soul fled her after she killed her HS boyfriend.

Posted by: Disputo on April 16, 2007 at 3:16 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah - that would be really tough to live with. Jesus, can you imagine? I have a cousin who was driving - racing - and crashed. He was driving his older brother's Chevelle, and it was too much car for a 16 year old kid. The wreck killed a passenger, a neighbor that he had grown up with. Totally fucked him up. Lots of therapy, and he never started drinking. Poor guy - thirty years he's been on a tightrope and never had a sound nights sleep. I feel pity for anyone who has to live with something like that. Anyone.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 3:23 AM | PERMALINK

You know, she really does seem like a decent person other than the vacuous attempts to buck up her idiot husband's policies and actions. The fact that she was a librarian and was known to partake in that interesting part time recreation/job in college also speaks well of her.

Posted by: bmaz on April 16, 2007 at 3:34 AM | PERMALINK

it was too much car for a 16 year old kid.

Similar story - as do too many in NA. Six of us used to always hang out when we were 16. It's L's 17th b-day. S is with L as passenger to meet the other four of us. Never arrived as they first had an appointment with a telephone pole and L never made it to 17 yrs. and 1 day. S survived but he took years to learn to live with himself. Maybe we need declare a war on cars? Actually, if the US had the same incidence of traffic fatalities per 1,000 as the UK (I don't know the stats for miles driven; obviously a better base for comparison), that would be something like 20,000 lives a year saved right there.

Posted by: snicker-snack on April 16, 2007 at 4:09 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe we need declare a war on cars?

OK.

Posted by: Disputo on April 16, 2007 at 4:17 AM | PERMALINK

Ok, Kevin, I hope you don't mind this comment:

(also see this post)

Ever since the months prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there have been a few reports in the newspapers that the Central Intelligence Agency was casting aspersions on the intelligence the White House was relying on to justify the war. The CIA has never given a position on whether the war is needed or justified or said that Bush is wrong to go to war. But doesn't it seem much more likely that the CIA is an extremely right wing organization than a left wing one? After all, even if the people working for them and at least a lot of the leadership really wanted a war for their own reasons, there are a lot of reasons for them to not want to tie their credibility to what they know is faulty information. They and their personnel, present and former, could use other means of promoting the Iraq war, and still be motivated to make the statements in the media. If the CIA got behind faulty information, they would have to make a choice between whether they would be involved in scamming the American people and the world once the military had invaded Iraq and no weapons were found- so: 1) Imagine the incredible difficulties involved in pulling off a hoax that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Imagine all the people you would have to be able to show the weapons to- the inspectors from the UN / the international community, the American press, statesmen, etc. Then imagine the difficulties of substantiating that story to people who would examine it- the lack of witnesses to a production plant that made the weapons or to transportation operations or storage of the weapons during Hussein's regime of them. 2) If the story fell apart upon inspection or the CIA tried not to hoax it at all, imagine the loss of credibility they would suffer. The CIA, it is safe to bet, does not want to be known to the American people as a group that lies to them to send them to war. Even within the CIA there could be disagreement among people about how involved they should be in promoting the war or the neo-con agenda more broadly, so the CIA would have to worry about lying to and managing its own people after trying so hard to get them to trust their superiors in the agency, and perhaps there simply might be too many people in the agency who knew enough about what was going on in Iraq to know if someone was deceiving people to promote this war.

So there is a lot of reason to be cautious against being seen as endorsing what they knew was false intelligence even if they were very strong supporters of going to war.

Granted, it’s certainly possible the CIA could have changed their minds about the war, as a lot of people have, and could now be trying to move the nation closer to withdrawal.

Posted by: Dolabella on April 16, 2007 at 5:30 AM | PERMALINK

So "democratization of the region" isn't a good enough objective for Sheehan? Then we're better off without him. We need leaders who share a bold vision, not cowards like Sheehan.

Personally I wish Wolfowits had resigned from the World Bank in protest over his shabby treatment there. Then he would be free to take on this important job.

Posted by: Al on April 16, 2007 at 7:18 AM | PERMALINK

Tip of the hat to General Sheehan for his insightful, plain-spoken and respectful analysis of the Administration's current strategy(ies).

Now, sadly, he needs to watch his back. This Administration wont say "thanks for sharing". Just ask others what happens to those who speak truth to power.

Posted by: JerseyMissouri on April 16, 2007 at 7:51 AM | PERMALINK

So who's on the B-Czar list?

Posted by: Apollo 13 on April 16, 2007 at 8:03 AM | PERMALINK

The Mayberry Machiavellis sure are a long way from home.

Posted by: The Fool on April 16, 2007 at 8:25 AM | PERMALINK

Al,
You never disappoint. I am certain the objective is well understood by Sheehan and I am certain he is in agreement. Everybody is in agreeement that it is a fine objective. Problem is that THE PLAN is the missing element without which "democratization of the region" becomes an empty platitude.

Be careful, you are likely to get your pay docked if you can't do better than that.

Posted by: CK Dexter Haven on April 16, 2007 at 9:18 AM | PERMALINK

I think the Left has to come to terms with what the General is saying & General Zinni as well. This knee jerk "pull the troops out" meme on the Left is pie in the sky. Bush & Co have created a mess to which there are no easy answers. A mess that may take fifty years to overcome. But a mess which is going to require us to have some presence in Iraq for the long term.

We may pull out to the borders and let them settle this civil war, but we can not pull out all together and allow the region to sink into chaos. Hillary, Obama and Edwards know this. And activists pushing them to adopt a "pull out now" strategy are going to be disappointed when one of them wins the WH and it becomes clear that they can not do this.

THe left needs to focus its criticism of Bush on the same grounds as the General -- that they have no coherent middle east strategy at all.

That may not be a great "sound bite" for a campaign commercial, but it is the truth. And a place for them to start to put together a team that does have some realistic ideas for how to begin to address the problems in the region.

Posted by: Teresa on April 16, 2007 at 9:19 AM | PERMALINK

I agree that the US needs an overall middle east plan. Not only does Bush not have such a plan, neither did Clinton, nor did Papa Bush.

Note that a long-term plan should apply beyond the current Administration, so it should be a US plan not just a Bush plan. It would be nice if the Dems had people with the ability and desire to contribute to such a plan. Sadly, the Dems mostly want to shovel pork to their supporters and throw brickbats at Bush.

The Dems have many capable people. E.g., Chuck Schumer is very smart. His high ability makes attacks on Republicans quite effective. If we could only get him focused on preparing a long term middle east plan, I think he could be very helpful.

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 16, 2007 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin.

I think this was a brilliant move on Bush's part.

Most people don't follow the news that close. To most people, they will again hear the name "Sheehan" and "anti-war" conflated together in the news again, and so to most people this will simply reinforce there notions of the loony left and how their like hippie moms who protest in front of the President's house.

Politically, another slam dunk for Bush.

Posted by: egbert on April 16, 2007 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

Bing, Bam, Boom!

Concern troll, concern troll with fake label, true nut-job. A three-fer!

Posted by: peejay on April 16, 2007 at 9:34 AM | PERMALINK

Poor Egbert.

Comedy just isn't easy, is it?

As a piece of satire, your pathetic little "sheehan" joke falls flat.

The fact of the matter is this, liberals--General Sheehan did not have the fire in the belly necessary for this fight. And the fact that he went to the Op-Ed page to air his dirty laundry on the subject renders him as just another disloyal General from the Clinton era who is waiting for a Democratic administration to consider him for a plum job, nothing more.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

egfart: "I think this was a brilliant move on Bush's part."

Wow, those are words we don't, and won't, often see strung together. "Slam-dunk", as any (other) idiot would know, has long since moved into the ironic column of American discourse.

So, have you suited up yet? Heading to your Iraqi paradise soon?

Posted by: Kenji on April 16, 2007 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

Failing companies always bring in a *whiz kid* don't they?
Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State

Not really. What they generally bring in are hatchetmen or fall guys.

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 16, 2007 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

It's great reading posts that prefer a coherent strategy to repositioning our troops.

Here's a summary of the coherent strategy: We should spend $100 billion per year to not accomplish much.

Thanks, all you coherent strategists! You get the David Broder Gold Star.

Now that you've solved Iraq, please tell us how to fix Darfur, Iran, Somalia, Palestine, Colombia, Algeria, Russia, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh. Maybe if we spend $100 billion each year on each one of them in a coherent fashion, then everybody will live happily ever after.

Posted by: reino on April 16, 2007 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

Hello, God. It's me, Dana Perino. Please, take me now.

Posted by: cowalker on April 16, 2007 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK

bmaz: of course the Sigourney Weaver part of the motivation is going to be a wee bit difficult with Laura...

Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.): Anyone else get a Little Orphan Annie vibe when they look in Laura's eyes? It isn't that her *soul* (for want of a better word) is evil...it's more like it's absent.

I once saw Laura Bush described as "hot, in a real-estate seminar sort of way."

Posted by: anandine on April 16, 2007 at 9:51 AM | PERMALINK

I once saw Laura Bush described as "hot, in a real-estate seminar sort of way."

Ouch! Talk about damning praise...

Posted by: Tyro on April 16, 2007 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

I once saw Laura Bush described as "hot, in a real-estate seminar sort of way."
Posted by: anandine

It's hard to be married to the Mob, don't ya know?

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 16, 2007 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

With a commander of Central Command, a commander of Multi-National Forces-Iraq, a commander of Multi-National Forces-Afghanistan, and assorted other three and four stars, we don't need a war czar. What we need is honesty about our definition of success being too high. The best we can hope for is that Iraq become a chaotic, corrupt, divided state with a mediocre military and police force. So we've already won, we just keep hoping for more.

Posted by: Left-Handed Elephant on April 16, 2007 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

Norman -

You think too much, old man.

YOur also alittle nieve. Politics is 9/10's politics. In other words, politics is everything. Policy is nothing, so long as you have the fundamentals right.

Posted by: egbert on April 16, 2007 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

I believe it was Woody Allen who once observed that after decades of simmering unrest, Russia tipped into revolution in 1917 when the peasants finally figured out that the Czar and the Tsar were the same person.

Posted by: Rand Careaga on April 16, 2007 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

You think too much, old man.

I think quite well, thank you. Aside from having you denigrate my age and experience, please remember one thing--I'm a Republican and you are not. You are spewing little missives for the liberals to titter at. This "old man" is calling you on it and now you're upset. Boo hoo, little sob sister.

YOur also alittle nieve.

I am not "naive" in any sense of the word. I am tapped into the zeitgeist and I see where things are heading. The Republican Party is positioning itself, rightly so, to show this country that liberal Democrats have been hijacked by their base and are going to lose this war for us.

Politics is 9/10's politics. In other words, politics is everything. Policy is nothing, so long as you have the fundamentals right.

Was there a point or a joke in there? Do you want a mulligan, sir? Nothing you say makes sense to anyone with the capability of thinking clearly.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

Note that the position offered to General Sheehan was one step in the direction he recommended, although it didn't go far enough in his opinion (and in mine). He might have accepted the assignment and then used his power to develop an overall middle east plan (or at least attempted to do so.) His failure to do so supports Norman Rogers contention that Sheehan doesn't have the fire in his belly.

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 16, 2007 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

Believe me, I am not a "concern troll," but a deep, died in the wool liberal who has never voted for a single Republican. But being a liberal doesn't mean being stupid. Bush made a mess of Iraq. A terrible, horrible, mess. He deserves to be impeached as far as I am concerned for misleading us into this war.

However, when you drive your car into someone's house, you don't just get out and say, "Wow, that sucked. Good luck cleaning that mess up." You have to take some responsibility for cleaning up the mess.

I'd love to say that the slate will be wiped clean when Bush leaves office, but he has left the United States (all of us) holding the bag. He may have been the drunk driver, but we are the insurance company who has to make good for the mess he created and figure out how to clean it up.

It goes back to Colin Powell's Pottery Barn rule: "Bush broke it, now we have to pay for it."
We can not allow all those Iraqis who have tried to help the US to simply get slaughtered by their political enemies because we pull out and leave them behind. We have a responsibility to them and their families.

Posted by: Teresa on April 16, 2007 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

It goes back to Colin Powell's Pottery Barn rule: "Bush broke it, now we have to pay for it."

Guess again, Batgirl. There is no "pottery barn" rule. I have broken items in the Pottery Barn at the mall several times. I once smashed a fifty dollar serving platter. Guess what? The clerks merely asked me to leave the store. I DID NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR THE SERVING TRAY. Therefore, your point is refuted because of my personal experience.

We can not allow all those Iraqis who have tried to help the US to simply get slaughtered by their political enemies because we pull out and leave them behind. We have a responsibility to them and their families.

No we don't. They should have tried harder. We went to Iraq and we tried our damndest to kill all of the Iraqis who opposed our efforts and we gave it the best we had. Now the liberal Congress wants to cut off funding and withdraw the troops--let them. The problem is, not enough Iraqis got off their duffs and fought al Qaeda. Too many of them turned a blind eye to the killing of US troops, who were there to help them build a democracy.

The fact that the Iraqis didn't try hard enough and the fact that the liberal Congress is yanking the rug out from under our troops is proof you can't hang this war on George W Bush.

And you can take that to the bank.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

We can not allow all those Iraqis who have tried to help the US to simply get slaughtered by their political enemies because we pull out and leave them behind. We have a responsibility to them and their families.
Posted by: Teresa

As in Vietnam the people (mostly the French speaking Catholic minority) working for the US government had other motivations - they already had political and sectarian enemies and the US presence just loosened the civil order so that these simmering sectarian issues could be unleashed.

And working for the US does present some wonderful opportunities to siphon off aid, too.

You guys are so naive.

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 16, 2007 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

Ok, Norman & Misanthrope, since you apparently feel like saying "Screw you" to the Iraqis, how do you feel about making Iran even more powerful? If the US pulls out of Iraq, Iran will swoop in and controll even more of the world's oil than it already does. And, while I hope that one day we will wean ourselves off fossil fuels, we are not there right now. If you think paying $3 a gallon for gas is bad now, think how the world economy will grind to a halt if we are paying $10 or $15 a gallon.

Wait, why am I trying to convince y'all to stay, I thought you Rethugs were the ones who wanted to be there forever?

Posted by: Teresa on April 16, 2007 at 10:33 AM | PERMALINK

However, when you drive your car into someone's house, you don't just get out and say, "Wow, that sucked. Good luck cleaning that mess up." You have to take some responsibility for cleaning up the mess.

If some drunken idiot drives his car into my house, I'm not hiring him for the repairs. If he wants to write me a check, fine, but he's not getting anywhere near the cleanup or the rebuilding.

I'll assume you aren't a concern troll. Listen Atrios has often remarked on your point of view in his pithy way. It comes down to the bare, ugly fact that a "third way" (or, as Atrios puts it, a magical pony plan) isn't one of the actual options. The actual options are 1. Backing Bush's Stay Forever And Keep Pissing Away Lives And Money plan, or 2. Forcing Bush To Get Out. Bush is neither able not willing to execute anything other than his massively incompetent strategy of staying in till the end of his term and then leaving the mess to somebody else. So take your pick.

Posted by: jimBOB on April 16, 2007 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

Batgirl Teresa:

You're lumping me in with MSNThorpe the Moonbat?

how do you feel about making Iran even more powerful? If the US pulls out of Iraq, Iran will swoop in and controll even more of the world's oil than it already does.

No, that won't happen. Iran is suffering from the fact that the Revolution has ended, the population wants freedom, and the kleptocratic Mullahs have bought second-rate armaments while ignoring their oil industry infrastructure. The Saudis will swoop in and join their Sunni brothers and wipe out the Shia--that's far more likely to happen than your silly fantasy.

And, while I hope that one day we will wean ourselves off fossil fuels, we are not there right now. If you think paying $3 a gallon for gas is bad now, think how the world economy will grind to a halt if we are paying $10 or $15 a gallon.

My life won't grind to a halt--I can pay $20 a gallon for gas and I won't blink an eyelash. If this is what it takes to get teenagers with limited disposable income and crazy people to stop driving, so be it. I'll be the fellow in the Lexus SUV who drives past you while you stand in line at the soup kitchen. It'll be like 1930 all over again--I've prepared for the rainy day and you haven't. Deal with it.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

Is it just me, or has there been a big shift in the winds of change. Bush is suddenly seen as the liar he's always so obviously been to most of us.

THIS general just comes right out and says - the Bush administration is nothing but chaos, doesn't have any clue - but no suprises there, because we've all known since day one of Dubya's 5 partisan Supreme Court coronation - so WHAT the HELL took the press so long to figure it out?

It so F---ing obvious.

And this in WP from Dan Eggen and Paul Kane.

Ex-Justice Official's Statements Contradict Gonzales on Firings

......But Gonzales will also hold firm to his contentions that any missteps were "honest mistakes," that "nothing improper" took place, and that most of the details were handled by his then-chief of staff, D. Kyle Sampson, according to the testimony.

And a few paragraphs down there is this:

Seven U.S. attorneys were fired on Dec. 7, and another was dismissed earlier, as part of a plan that originated in the White House to replace some prosecutors based in part on their perceived disloyalty to President Bush and his policies.

So it has become the status quo, Bush indeed FIRED these attorneys for nothing more than political reasons. And Gonzales did a piss poor job of spinning/lying about it for Dubya.

I remember when the press told it's readers about those WMD with same contentions that they now use over how Bush fired those attorneys for purely political reasons.

Bush won't fire Gonzales but Cheney and Rove will, cause those two guys are the ones mostly like to suffer the lose of power if Gonzales can't be blamed for this fiasco. Bush won't mind retiring to the ranch, cause that old boy never understood work anyway. Dubya was never more than a presidential face to Dick and Rove. And, since we now see Cheney having to go on FACE THE NATION - taking matters into his own hands since Dubya can't stop the bleed, Cheney must now fancy's himself a one-man poll changing machine, forgetting the very reason this administration need a presidental face to begin with.

Quick, somebody Call Broder of WP and tell him that the Republican Party is indeed quite dead, at least for now. It's so entertaining to watch that armchair pundit squeal in dismay.


Posted by: Cheryl on April 16, 2007 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

This article should clearly define the depth of the criminal incompetence of the Bush administation. NO PLAN YET-JUST SLOGANS!!!

Posted by: Neal on April 16, 2007 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

I thought you Rethugs were the ones who wanted to be there forever?
Posted by: Teresa

Who the fuck are you presuming to call a Rethug?

I was working for Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern when you were probably mastering melba toast.

If anything I'm a trending back toward being a borderline Democratic Socialist...whereas you're merely clueless.

Not sharing your hopelessly romanticized version of events doesn't make me anything of the kind. It makes me a realist.


'There’s nothing particularly new about this and Bush and Greenspan have done nothing to conceal what they are doing. The massive expansion of the Federal government, the unfunded tax cuts, the low interest rates and the steep increases in the money supply have all been carried out in full-view of the American people. Nothing has been hidden. Neither the administration nor the Fed seem to care whether or not we know that we’re getting screwed --it’s just our tough luck. What they care about is the $3 trillion in wealth that has been transferred from wage slaves and pensioners to brandy-drooling plutocrats like Greenspan and his n’er-do-well friend, Bush.' - Mike Whitney

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 16, 2007 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

It seems that the GOP's mania for outsourcing has extended to running wars. If they can't find a qualified American to take over the post, perhaps they should consider finding a qualified candidate in Bangalore, say?

Posted by: Stefan on April 16, 2007 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

"If some drunken idiot drives his car into my house, I'm not hiring him for the repairs. If he wants to write me a check, fine, but he's not getting anywhere near the cleanup or the rebuilding."
Posted by: jimBOB on April 16, 2007 at 10:35 AM

Exactly. There's another minor thing: 80% of the Iraqis want us out within a year. I think they are aware that the longer we stay the more "pottery" that is going to get broken. Somehow this reminds me of the part in "Slingblade" where they are throwing beer bottles at Doyle Hargrave (Dwight Yoakam) trying to get him out of the house: "LEAVE!!"

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on April 16, 2007 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

Donald in Hawaii: Don't we already have a "war czar"?

Actually the Constitution already provides for a "war czar." He is known as the Commander-in-Chief. I believe, however, that that post is currently vacant....

Posted by: Stefan on April 16, 2007 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal": I agree that the US needs the neocon middle east plan.

Fixed it for you.

It's so cute the way "ex-liberal" pretends his/her/its opinion has any value other than mockery, isn't it?

Posted by: Gregory on April 16, 2007 at 11:06 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe we need declare a war on cars?

Then we need a war on cars czar!

Posted by: thersites on April 16, 2007 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

He is known as the Commander-in-Chief. I believe, however, that that post is currently vacant....
Posted by: Stefan

I'm firmly of the opinion that it's currently held by Howdy Doody. Then there's Clarabelle at the World Bank.


'"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka replied.'

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 16, 2007 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe we need declare a war on cars?

Then we need a war on cars czar!
Posted by: thersites

We had one. He just died. And so it goes.

Kilgore Trout: "We are healthy only to the extent that our ideas are humane."

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 16, 2007 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

However, when you drive your car into someone's house, you don't just get out and say, "Wow, that sucked. Good luck cleaning that mess up." You have to take some responsibility for cleaning up the mess.

We've been trying, but they keep heaping more garbage into the mess. If we can't get it heading the right way in 4 years, it ain't going to happen.

It seems that the GOP's mania for outsourcing has extended to running wars. If they can't find a qualified American to take over the post, perhaps they should consider finding a qualified candidate in Bangalore, say?

Bobby Jindal for President.

Posted by: CzarinaOfTheBayou on April 16, 2007 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

Bobby Jindal for President.

Well, gee, because electing ever more far to right & detached from reality moonbats has been working out just so well for us, right?

I wouldn't vote for Bobby Jindal to clean my storm gutters.

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 16, 2007 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

However, when you drive your car into someone's house, you don't just get out and say, "Wow, that sucked. Good luck cleaning that mess up." You have to take some responsibility for cleaning up the mess.

We haven't just driven our car into someone's house. We've driven the car into the house and then spent four years roaring around inside the house, with our foot on the gas, breaking down every single wall, destroying the furniture, and running over lots of the family members, all the while laughing hysterically and claiming that everything's going according to plan. The driver of that car shouldn't be responsible for cleaning up the mess -- he should be in jail.

Posted by: Stefan on April 16, 2007 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

There's another minor thing: 80% of the Iraqis want us out within a year. I think they are aware that the longer we stay the more "pottery" that is going to get broken. Somehow this reminds me of the part in "Slingblade" where they are throwing beer bottles at Doyle Hargrave (Dwight Yoakam) trying to get him out of the house: "LEAVE!!"

I can't speak for the drunken hillbillies who listen to Dwight Yoakum and shoot guns in the air, but I can speak for those of us who know what's going on in the world--those same Iraqis who want us to leave are not telling the whole truth. They want the US and the liberal media to leave Iraq. They're tired of the lies being told about our troops, to put it bluntly.

And, no, we don't need a war czar. We need a man who help the President manage a definite crisis in a more effective way. Liberals have been screaming for change, for improvement--for a new direction in the management of the war on terror.

As soon as this President tries to do that, they ambush him and screech and become unhinged.

How is anyone supposed to do anything when liberals act like this? Hmmm?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

In fatalities per mile, the US death rate has dropped logarithmically over the last 90 years. Historically, it usually decreases 30 or 40 percent from the preceding 10 years. Currently, it's less than 2 per 100M miles, and the principle of diminishing returns suggests that safety increases are approaching the probably unbreakable limit of "unsurvivable" crashes (eg, impaired driving at high speed w/o seatbelts, small vehicle crushed by truck).

The US probably doesn't have adequate concern for pedestrian safety, either in road design or vehicle design. The EU is imposing front-impact standards for pedestrian impacts.

Posted by: Scott Roberts on April 16, 2007 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

If the US pulls out of Iraq, Iran will swoop in and controll even more of the world's oil than it already does. And, while I hope that one day we will wean ourselves off fossil fuels, we are not there right now. If you think paying $3 a gallon for gas is bad now, think how the world economy will grind to a halt if we are paying $10 or $15 a gallon.

I'm afraid I don't follow your thought process here. How would grinding the world economy to a halt benefit Iran? After all, they need to sell their oil to make money, and if the world economy crashes no one is going to be able to afford their oil. I'm afraid the scenario you sketch out above has no basis in reality.

Posted by: Stefan on April 16, 2007 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

It's a fantasy that Bush has "broken" our middle east policy. What middle east policy Did Clinton have an overall plan? Nothing like it.

Our middle east policy has been non-existent for a long time. Bush has tried to create one. He hasn't been as successful as I'd like, but we're closer to an overall policy now than we were when Clinton left office.

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 16, 2007 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

Teresa: However, when you drive your car into someone's house, you don't just get out and say, "Wow, that sucked. Good luck cleaning that mess up." You have to take some responsibility for cleaning up the mess.

And to amplify further, we didn't drive our car into their house by accident. We did it on purpose, aiming straight at it and full speed ahead, with the express intent of fucking up their house. That's not an accident -- it's a crime.

Posted by: Stefan on April 16, 2007 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

The US probably doesn't have adequate concern for pedestrian safety, either in road design or vehicle design. The EU is imposing front-impact standards for pedestrian impacts.

Thank you for bringing this up--it causes me to revisit the issue of the supposedly "illegal" push bumper that I had installed on my Lexus SUV.

I was cited for having an illegal modification to my vehicle and was required to have it removed. Now, I don't know what experience level the rest of you are at, but I am an expert driver. I know how to use a push bumper. I do not use it to hit people in the rear quarterpanel of the passenger side of another vehicle anymore--too many unfortunate episodes to recount.

No, I use it for driving at night. I need a push bumper because of the high number of deer that roam the highways at night. I need that push bumper to slice the deer in half and throw it clear of the windshield so I can continue driving and not have the front of my vehicle smashed in. Who needs that?

So when the US Government can either manage the deer herd or allow good citizens to have vehicles that can deal with the issue, give me a call. Til then, I'll just have to drive 35mph with my brights on and hope for the best.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, we didn't break down the walls of someone's house. We broke down the walls of someone's prison. Opened the gates of hell. Every bad kind of whack job Baathist nationalist, Al Qaeda bomb wearing freak, Iranian Israel destroying nuke threatening revolutionary guard, Sadr sycophant, etc. was either unleashed or invited in to the party. That there are innocent people who live there and just want peace is unfortunate, because enough dont to make peace unlikely.

I wouldn't vote for Bobby Jindal to clean my storm gutters.

Funny phrase. Bobby Jindal did great work for Louisiana post Katrina, while Brownie was deciding whether to roll up his sleeves or not to look busy. He'll be our next governor if the racists can be suppressed.

Posted by: CzarinaOfTheBayou on April 16, 2007 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

If you think paying $3 a gallon for gas is bad now, think how the world economy will grind to a halt if we are paying $10 or $15 a gallon.

There's fuzzy thinking involved alright, Stefan, but it hinges on the continuing deterioration of the dollar. Oil is only becoming more expensive to us because our currency is sinking like a stone. The pound of all things just hit a new high against the dollar. And the UK just had to raise interest rates again.

Currencies which are appreciating are actually paying LESS. The dollar has lost 35% of its value over the last 5 years. Ergo, imports are becoming more costly.


'Within the international economy, Bill Clinton and other conservatives use the concept of free trade as a proxy for economic growth; the theory of free trade is basically an extension of the short-term model of a competitive market. Every time you hear a policy justified by the term “economic growth”, remember that there is no there there.' - Economic Growth: Technological progress or stealing from the bank? By Jon Rynn
http://sandersresearch.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=
view&id=1180&Itemid=101

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 16, 2007 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

Oil is only becoming more expensive to us because our currency is sinking like a stone. The pound of all things just hit a new high against the dollar. And the UK just had to raise interest rates again. Currencies which are appreciating are actually paying LESS. The dollar has lost 35% of its value over the last 5 years.

That's why I'm switching a lot of my holdings to non-dollar denominated accounts. Can't have enough hedging.

Posted by: Stefan on April 16, 2007 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

He'll be our next governor if the racists can be suppressed.
Posted by: CzarinaOfTheBayou

Bobby Jindal is a Caucasian. An Indo-European.

He's a rigidly ideological right wing moonbat who rose to prominence under the one of the worst governors Louisiana's endured since reconstruction: Foster.

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 16, 2007 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, and it's not coincidence that his district is also the one which gave a national stage to David Duke.

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 16, 2007 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

Bobby Jindal is the son of immigrants from India. You dont have to be black to experience racism.

He's also a policy wonk.

Oh, and it's not coincidence that his district is also the one which gave a national stage to David Duke.

That's stupid.

Posted by: CzarinaOfTheBayou on April 16, 2007 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

Norman: "The fact that the Iraqis didn't try hard enough and the fact that the liberal Congress is yanking the rug out from under our troops is proof you can't hang this war on George W Bush."

Wow, the substance of the adventure is obscured by the peripherals! That's quite a feat of logic, even for you. The French behaved badly, so we can't say the Holocaust was Hitler's fault?

Posted by: Kenji on April 16, 2007 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

Self-styled Czarina: You can't seem to grasp that ethnicity or nationality is not race - a largely artificial social construct in any case.

He represents Metairie. One of the most virulently racist districts extant. David Duke's constituency.

He moved in a mere 2 days ahead of the residency deadline.

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 16, 2007 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, and eggy, how's the kevlar search going. We're all so proud of your brave service to our great country, in which one of the two major parties never, ever makes a mistake. More democracy like that, please!

Posted by: Kenji on April 16, 2007 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

I've lived in Metairie.

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 16, 2007 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

He represents Metairie. One of the most virulently racist districts extant. David Duke's constituency.

Good. Let them vote for a man who's name is Piyush Darbash Jindal.

Posted by: CzarinaOfTheBayou on April 16, 2007 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal on April 16, 2007 at 10:12 AM:

...He might have accepted the assignment and then used his power to develop...

The 'war czar' position would only have as much power as Cheney and Rove allowed it to have...Enough to travel around and make speeches, and to take the fall if everything continues to turn to shit. And that's the good outcome...If he disagrees or takes issue with the policy coming out of the White House, then he'll be marginalized and thrust out of the position..and probably smeared, to boot...'Used his power', riiiight. The only power allowed outside of Bush's inner circle is the power to serve to pleasure the President. Or something like that...

...Sheehan doesn't have the fire in his belly.

That's because he appears to have a brain in his head, unlike some.

Posted by: grape_crush on April 16, 2007 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

What middle east policy Did Clinton have an overall plan?

I think the Clinton policy was to not pour gasoline all over the region and then strike a match. Whoops. Bush's bad.

Posted by: ckelly on April 16, 2007 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

Clinton had a Middle East Policy. He had a Secretary of State who understood the situation, he continually brought Israelis to the bargaining table, and he contained the Iraq problem within Iraq.

So much for History. Now for Current Events: Bush is incompetent, and the reason that Conservatives keep mentioning Democrats is that there is no defense of Conservatism. The Republican Party, from top to bottom, is bad for America.

Posted by: reino on April 16, 2007 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

ex-lib: What middle east policy Did Clinton have an overall plan?

That's not an actual sentence, but we'll let it go. Can't speak to Clinton's overall plan, but don't f*ck things up entirely by acting out of total f*cking ignorance seemed like a good working policy.

Posted by: thersites on April 16, 2007 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

I once smashed a fifty dollar serving platter. Guess what? The clerks merely asked me to leave the store.

I would've kicked your gooper ass, and then thrown you out of the store.

But that's just me.

Posted by: Brautigan on April 16, 2007 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton had a Middle East Policy.

The policy was "status quo" which worked fine. Dont fix what aint broke.

Posted by: CzarinaOfTheBayou on April 16, 2007 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know anything about this Jindal guy but I just wnated to point out that while race is certainly an artificial construct, it's also true that there are places where an (east) Indian qualifies as a n***er.

Posted by: thersites on April 16, 2007 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

Good. Let them vote for a man who's name is Piyush Darbash Jindal.
Posted by: CzarinaOfTheBayou

No, you do that. Me, I'd rather face a firing squad.

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 16, 2007 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

Iraq?
You need a take charge guy?

Wake me up...
I'm your man.

Posted by: Al Haig on April 16, 2007 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

b. 1924 - Al Haig's still alive?

Who knew?

A veritable stripling of 84.

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 16, 2007 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan -- I agree with you. Bush does belong in jail. And I don't think he is going to find some "magical" third way out. What I am trying to say is that in 18 months, unless Bush declares martial law, a Democrat will be president. And that Democrat will have to find a third way because pulling out altogether is NOT a sane option. And Hillary, Obama, and Edwards know that. And if the anti-war left keeps pushing the candidates that way they are going to look like liars and fools when they get in office and DON'T pull out.

I'd love for the war to be over and our troops out. I'd also love to win the lottery. I need to PLAN on neither of those things happening.

Posted by: Teresa on April 16, 2007 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

And I'm clearly not saying the drunk driver is going to be the one to clean up the mess. But the Dems will have to do it after the next election. Do you think the world opinion of the US will improve if we just pull out and let the region go to hell? Our strategic interests both there and elsewhere will depend on us doing the hard work of counter-insurgency and nation building.

And I know Bush has neither the interest or skill in doing either. But it doesn't mean it doesn't have to be done.

Posted by: Teresa on April 16, 2007 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK
And that Democrat will have to find a third way because pulling out altogether is NOT a sane option.

Pulling out altogether is not only a sane option, it is the only sane option.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 16, 2007 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

Pulling out altogether is not only a sane option, it is the only sane option.

Forget about finding the "sane" option. How about finding the option that best serves the interests of the American people? And pulling out of Iraq is that option?

Wrong! Pulling out of Iraq means we've lost another war, kids. And that's insane.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

Americans are prisoners of platitudes.

Posted by: Brojo on April 16, 2007 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Pulling out is playing with fire. Abstinence is the only policy.

Posted by: The Right Reverand on April 16, 2007 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 12:29 PM:

Pulling out of Iraq means we've lost another war, kids.

Pulling out, staying in...either way, we've probably just been screwed.

...And so what if we 'lose', however you choose to define that? You think we're gonna miss the war playoffs?

Posted by: grape_crush on April 16, 2007 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK
... Pulling out of Iraq means we've lost another war, kids Norman Rogers at 12:29 PM
Someone seems to have donned his chickensuit inside out today. There's a feather duster where all gerbils fear to tread.

Of course, since the invasion was insane and counter to America's best interests, Bushistas claim that the contrary policy is un-American. Dazzling leaps and bounds of illogic. Those unable to predict the current imbroglio now want to predict the future based on the same faulty premises. Sacrificing more lives and treasure for a failed policy and lost war is the essesence of insanity and typical of Bush's littlest lickspittle.

Posted by: Mike on April 16, 2007 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

You think we're gonna miss the war playoffs?

War is not a game, sir. War is a tough, grim fight and we are marching to the sound of the guns in Iraq. We are beating back the terrorists no matter where we find them and those of us who support the President and his troops realize this. You, on the other hand, just want to make jokes, roll your eyes, and hate America.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

Mister Rogers: War is a tough, grim fight

Tell that grinning ape you call Commander in Chief. I think he forgot. Or maybe he never knew. Now why would that be?

And don't fucking tell me I hate America.

Posted by: thersites on April 16, 2007 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK
Pulling out of Iraq means we've lost another war, kids.

Pulling out of Iraq because our continued presence advances no national interest of the United States, when the stated goals for which we went to war have been largely acheived, except for those that were revealed to be nullities based on false assumptions, means we've won the war, and Saddam Hussein's regime lost it.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 16, 2007 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

These huge shortcomings are not going to be resolved by the assignment of an additional individual to the White House staff.

That's correct. We have a SecDef, and commanding general in Iraq; we have a SecStat and an ambassador to Iraq; we have a president and a White House staff. What's needed is for them to talk to one another.

jimBOB: A Prime Minister Bush would have lost a vote of no confidence and been replaced long ago.

maybe not. Blair is still PM of GB.

brojo: Americans are prisoners of platitudes.

you say platitudes, I say general principles. getting the action plans to match the general principles is always the hard part.

I look forward to reading the Congressional resolutions. I expect: pork in, binding withdrawal timetables out. The California spinach farmers lost a lot of money due to e. coli last year.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on April 16, 2007 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK
....Bush has tried to create one... ex-lax at 11:22 AM
That is complete nonsense. Bush did nothing of the sort and his policy has been ad hoc based on being pro-Israel and pro-oil. No one since Carter had worked so hard on attempting an Israeli-Palestinian peace and to strengthen moderate elements in Iran. His Iraq policy was containment which was working, whereas Bush's name-calling and braggadocio have only served to legitimize radical elements. Bush did absolutely nothing to continue Middle East peace policy, one of his moral and political failures. Bush has set American interests in the region back decades.
War is not a game,... Norman Rogers at 12:37 PM
Indeed it is not. That is why having a good strategy is essential: The goals, the means, the end. Bush had none of these and has none to this day. That's way his wars are failures. No other American president has launched two wars and lost both. All he has accomplished is encouraging anti-Americanism, empowering America's enemies, destroying America's army, and increasing the incidences of terrorism throughout the world. Bush is the most spectacular failure in recent American history. Posted by: Mike on April 16, 2007 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

And don't [redacted] tell me I hate America.

You're overflowing with love. Too bad you're on a bad trip with your hippie friends and you fail to see the reality of all of this.

The reality is this--if we stop fighting the terrorists in Iraq, they'll have a victory all their own. While only a tiny fraction of the terrorists in Iraq will be motivated to attack us here, you can count on the fact that they will continue to attack us.

What are you going to do, then? Invade another country and try to defeat them? Too bad. They already know how to defeat us if we try to do that. They know they can just wait us out and our media will tell us lies and our feckless liberal politicians will scheme to undermine everything we try to do.

You're merely handing them the answerkey to the final exam. And you're not making them pay for it. How is that a good way to do business?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

"Pulling out of Iraq means we've lost another war, kids. And that's insane."

Whadda ya mean "we," White Man? This war is "your" mistake.

Posted by: Scott Roberts on April 16, 2007 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

thersites: don't f*ck things up entirely by acting out of total f*cking ignorance seemed like a good working policy.

Sometimes it's better to do nothing than to do something badly. But, I think the last 20 years were the wrong time to do nothing with regard to the middle east. During Clinton's inactive period:

1. Saddam threw the UN inspectors out of Iraq. The world had no control over his building of nukes and other WMDs.

2. Saddam used improper Oil-for-food money to strengthen his control over Iraq and to build enormous weapons stockpiles. His activities corrupted the UN (even beyond their usual level of corruption.)

3. A. Q. Khan sold nuclear expertise to several bad countries.

4. Iran, Libya and North Korea worked on nuclear programs.

5. The Taliban and al Qaeda formed an alliance in Afghanistan, allowing al Qaeda to use it as a training area and staging ground.

6. Several terrorist attacks were made against the US, including the USS Cole the first WTC attack and various embassies.

7. The 9/11 plot was hatched and most of the details were worked out.

Bush's actions have been far from perfect, but he has succeeded in

1. Ending Saddam's rule
2. Ending the Oil-for Food scam.
3. Throwing al Qaeda out of Afghanistan
4. Ending Libya's nuclear weapons program.
5. Establishing (flimsy) democratic, anti al-Qaeda governments in Afghanistan and Iraq.
6. Breaking the back of the top level of al Qaeda
7. Preventing any terrorist attacks on the US since 9/11 (or since the Washington DC snipers, if you count them as an Islamic terror attack.)

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 16, 2007 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

maybe not. Blair is still PM of GB.

Special case. Thatcher/Major so destroyed the credibility of the tories that even as weak as Blair is they can't get rid of him.

Posted by: jimBOB on April 16, 2007 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

And here's a question for liberal academia out there (and not just the unhinged dozen of you who hit post again and again):

How does losing the war in Iraq help the American psyche? How does walking away from a pitched battle with terrorists give us credibility in a fight for survival against Islamic radicals who want to destroy America? How does defeat mean good things for America when victory would mean that we'd have an ally in the region, a base from which to attack other terror-sponsoring states, and a guaranteed supply of affordable oil for the next fifty years?
Answer me that, liberals.
Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK
The reality is this–... Norman Rogers at 12:50 PM
The first bit of reality to recognize is who we are fighting in Iraq: The Iraqi people. It is they fighting an occupier which is the stubborn irreducible fact that negates your war-mongerer's rationales. If you want to win wars, do not invade a nation without real justication and international support. Do not cause chaos by allowing the looting of a country. Co-opt the military and the bureaucracy, not remove them. Do not torture and kill the inhabitants, instead show your competence and desire to aid. Do not be guided by the desire to steal their natural resources. Put in enough troops to discourage resistance and insurgency, not so few as to encourage it. Lastly but most importantly, once the war is lost, claim victory and get out. Posted by: Mike on April 16, 2007 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK
... (paraphrasing: Bush 0, Terrorist Bigtime)... ex-laxat 12:56 PM

The failure to understand events only leads or more errors:
Saddam's continued rule was irrelevant to American interests. He held the country together which was beneficial to American interests. The oil-for-food scam was trivial and actually benefitted some corrupt American oil businesses. Throwing al Qaeda out of Afghanistan moved them to Pakistan where they are not untouchable. The failure to capture bin Laden at Tora Bora made them look strong and the US weak. Lybia's nuclear program was ended by diplomacy once they got John Bolton out of the picture. Bush did not 'break the back' of al Qaida, he's strengthened it. As for the lack of attacks in the US, past experience has shown longer periods between attacks and that Bush ignored all warning about 9-11 while using it for political gain.

... How does losing the war in Iraq help the American psyche...
Norman Rogers at 12:57 PM

It's as meaningless as losing in Vietnam. Truly, those unable to read and learn from history are those fools bound to repeat it like Bush, Cheney, neo-cons and their crackpot supporters.

Posted by: Mike on April 16, 2007 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

I surrender. Mister Rogers and ex-lax are the voice of God. I'm just a [redacted] moron who lost a few of my bad-tripping hippie friends in a faraway place, and read a few books about history trying to understand why.

I, thersites of argos, do hereby resolve to not let these people raise my blood pressure.

Posted by: thersites on April 16, 2007 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Deliberate liar "ex-liberal" repeats a deliberate lie that he's been called on repeatedly before:

During Clinton's inactive period ... Saddam threw the UN inspectors out of Iraq

That is a flat out lie. Saddam never "threw the UN inspectors out of Iraq." The inspectors were withdrawn by the UN when the Clinton administration -- during what deliberate liar ex-liberal calls "Clinton's inactive period" -- informed the UN that the US was about to begin bombing Iraq and that the safety of the UN inspectors could not be ensured.

ex-liberal is a lying sack of shit who does nothing but pollute these comment threads with his stupid, idiotic, deliberate lies. He is representative of the lying, lunatic fringe right-wing extremist scum who are Bush's only remaining base of support in this country.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 16, 2007 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

Lybia's nuclear program was ended by diplomacy once they got John Bolton out of the picture. - MIke

Had more to do with being sold a buncha obsolete crap that didn't work anyway...what was Qadaffi losing? Nada.

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 16, 2007 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

Norman, the war in Iraq was lost long ago; you can argue about when that exact point occurred (for me, it was the CPA disbanding of the Iraqi army and de'Baathification), but the fact is it is done. the only remaining issue is coming to terms with that fact and calling it a day. CM Dicely is right, why delay the inevitable.

Posted by: bmaz on April 16, 2007 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Whadda ya mean "we," White Man? This war is "your" mistake.

Oh, so you're a racist, eh? Well, a thousand pardons for my transgression, sir. I did not mean to include you in my discussion of civil society. If you want to remain on the fringes and not participate, you go right ahead. Meanwhile, civilization marches on without you.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 12:37 PM:

War is not a game, sir.

Card game, yes, but that's not important right now...What's important is that we get the best possible outcome for everyone involved, not just the US. The current administration hasn't been able to articulate what the best possible outcomes are, much less how to achieve them.

War is a tough, grim fight and we are marching to the sound of the guns in Iraq.

Sorry, that's a little too Deutschla..er.. Amerika uber alles for my taste.

..and those of us who support the President and his troops realize this.

Not 'his' troops. Our troops...Just like this is our country, not Dubya's.

You, on the other hand, just want to make jokes, roll your eyes, and hate America.

What can I say? I learned not taking things seriously from the best!

Your serve, Mr. Norman sir...

Posted by: grape_crush on April 16, 2007 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

(for me, it was the CPA disbanding of the Iraqi army and de'Baathification) - bmaz

Damn straight. An all time Greatest Hits of Unalloyed Stupidity in Service to Cupidity (Chalabi).

But I opposed this debacle long BEFORE this.

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 16, 2007 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Norman, the war in Iraq was lost long ago

Really? This is what you learn from watching CNN, huh?

Last time I checked, we were killing terrorists, chasing bad guys out of their holes and keeping the Iraqi government from toppling. If that's "defeat" then I'd hate to see what a liberal victory would look like. Oh, let me guess...it would involve Michael Moore and Alec Baldwin giving the leader of the Iraqi version of al Qaeda a Medal of Honor for bravely opposing the war criminal George W Bush, wouldn't it?

Moonbats...

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

BTW

Czarina = Red State Mike

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 16, 2007 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist - I will not question your quibble about whether Saddam "threw out" the UN inspectors out in 1998. The fact is that they left. Ending the UN inspection program was a disaster for the UN and for the civilized world

Even more importantly, after Clinton's brief bombing ended, the inspectors did not return. Clinton did not prevent the inspectors from leaving, nor did he force their return. As a result, from 1998 onward the world had no knowledge or control over Saddam's development of WMDs.

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 16, 2007 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

The war-cheerleaders are in the unenviable position of attempting to claim that we won ("so why can't we leave?") while at the same time trying to claim that if we leave, we'll lose.

It's a bit hard to "declare victory and go home" when the president and his sycophantic followers have convinced themselves that "leaving = losing."

Posted by: Tyro on April 16, 2007 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Czarina = Red State Mike

If the dress fits, wear it, sir.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

You have a point there Norman; but if you were to wear a hat, you could cover it up.

Posted by: bmaz on April 16, 2007 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Last time I checked, we were in the midst of a sectarian war that has nothing to do with US national security, unclear who our enemy truly is, chasing bad guys from hole to hole and propping up an Iraqi "government" with strong theocratic and Iranian ties. If that's "victory" I have to ask...for whom?

Posted by: ckelly on April 16, 2007 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

Deliberate liar ex-liberal wrote: "I will not question your quibble about whether Saddam 'threw out' the UN inspectors out in 1998."

It is not a "quibble". It is a deliberate lie on your part -- one of many. You are a deliberate liar. Every time you comment here, you post deliberate lies. Every single reader of these pages knows that you are a deliberate liar and that all you ever bring to any discussion is lies. Moreover, your lies are blatant, clumsy and stupid.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 16, 2007 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

How does losing the war in Iraq help the American psyche? How does walking away from a pitched battle with terrorists give us credibility in a fight for survival against Islamic radicals who want to destroy America? How does defeat mean good things for America when victory would mean that we'd have an ally in the region, a base from which to attack other terror-sponsoring states, and a guaranteed supply of affordable oil for the next fifty years?

Fine. Points worth addressing.

How does it harm the American psyche to lose the war? How are you feeling today? You know what? A lot of people will shrug and move on because they don't know anyone who has gone, the only sacrifice they have made is carrying a monthly balance because Americans were told to support the war effort by...shopping.

This is McCain-type magical thinking.

How does walking away from a pitched battle with terrorists give us credibility in a fight for survival against Islamic radicals who want to destroy America?

This question was answered when we began neglecting Afghanistan and the real terror organizations. You know that the Soldiers and Marines are sitting ducks in the middle of a civil war, where the only consensus that can be reached is killing Americans is a grand notion...As to destroying us? Please. Read a white paper or two. The problems follow us home, but not the terrorists. There will be violence ahead, unfortunately. But it will be relatively localized. Except for Europe...They get screwed before this is over. (Sorry, Mates. Some of us tried to tell 'em.) The U.S. is a distant fourth in order of priority.

How does defeat mean good things for America when victory would mean that we'd have an ally in the region, a base from which to attack other terror-sponsoring states, and a guaranteed supply of affordable oil for the next fifty years?

Some of us are thinking longer term than just our own sorry-assed existence. 50 years? My grandkids will still be cleaning up this mess. And for fucks sake, accept the fats: "Victory" is not only unachievable, it has never been defined! I never hear anything besides mealy-mouthed platitudes about how we gotta win, there's no other option. Give me specifics. I can get my mind around it. But Norman, presuming as you are that you are more knowledgeable than General Sheehan - who is widely respected throughout all branches of the service as a smart, tough, and realistic.

Wait for the aftershock on this one.

Well, if the wind hadn't just been sucked out of the sails.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

Well, if the wind hadn't just been sucked out of the sails.

Huff and puff, but you forgot one thing:

These Colours Don't Run.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

'Colours'?

Uncle Normie's gone Anglophile.

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 16, 2007 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

Pardon me for knowing how to spell properly.

And, yes, I am smarter than this so-called General Sheehan. If my President asked me to serve, I would serve. I would not air my dirty laundry and humiliate the Commander in Chief during a time of war.

I would not run like a coward. I would seize the initiative and take the fight to the enemy.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

These Colours don't run.

No, they merely get the Anzacs to die for them. Ah, the days of Gallipoli of yore.

Norman, they'll furnish you with your own Dacha on the Tigris and your own special body guards with Garands.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on April 16, 2007 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

As a result, from 1998 onward the world had no knowledge or control over Saddam's development of WMDs.

And thus a pack of rightwingers with overactive imaginations and no scruples were able to gin up a disastrous invasion to rid the world of imaginary WMD's.

Posted by: jimBOB on April 16, 2007 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Well Norm, when your understanding of foreign policy comes from Le Carre and Clancy, I'm not surprised that you have that opinion. Fortunately, General Sheehan was asked and not you.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

If my President asked me to serve, I would serve.

Poor Norman's just waiting for an invitation, which alas, has yet to come. Meantime he does battle with us heathen lefties.

Posted by: jimBOB on April 16, 2007 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Well, if the wind hadn't just been sucked out of the sails.

Huff and puff my ass. A shooting at Virginia Tech killed 22.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Pains me to say this, and it is indicative of how badly this country has been screwed, but Norman may actually be better than many of the point people Bush has given us....

Posted by: bmaz on April 16, 2007 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

Well Norm, when your understanding of foreign policy comes from Le Carre and Clancy, I'm not surprised that you have that opinion. Fortunately, General Sheehan was asked and not you.
Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State

Babe, I you know I love ya. But putting John LeCarré into the same sentence as that pathetic poseur Tom Clancy is a grave injustice to Mr. LeCarré.

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 16, 2007 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

Teresa: And I'm clearly not saying the drunk driver is going to be the one to clean up the mess. But the Dems will have to do it after the next election. Do you think the world opinion of the US will improve if we just pull out and let the region go to hell? Our strategic interests both there and elsewhere will depend on us doing the hard work of counter-insurgency and nation building.

Unfortunately it's now like Americans are radioactive and still hanging around to clean up the results of the radiation spill. Our very presence continues to poison the area and causes violence.

But even if our presence weren't toxic, we can't build their nation. We just can't do it, anymore than you can earn a Phd for your husband, or achieve a trim, muscled physique for him. You can pay his tuition, you can threaten to leave him if he doesn't keep working on it, but only he can incorporate the necessary knowledge into his brain. You can buy him a gym membership and tell him to lose fifty pounds or you'll divorce him, but only he can perform 12 reps on all the machines every other day.

We can't create a democratic Iraq. We can't make compromises for them. We can't decide for them who the insurgents are.

Posted by: cowalker on April 16, 2007 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK
Ending the UN inspection program was a disaster....ex-laxat 1:30 PM
What nonsense. It was not a disaster when Clinton got him to end his WMD programs; it was a disaster when Bush, having managed to get them re-introduced, ignored all their reports in his insane desire for war.
...we were killing terrorists...Norman Rogers at 1:24 PM
The people you are killing are Iraqis who are now killing Americans in even greater numbers. You're just as insane as rightist dim wit. By the way, do you remember when Saddam was America's biggest ally against the evil Iran? It was nice of Bush to remove Iran's greatest enemy. Not smart, but, if you're an Ayatollah, damned nice of him. Posted by: Mike on April 16, 2007 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

If asked to serve.

Remember Norm, serve from the left - Bus from the right.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on April 16, 2007 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

Poor Norman's just waiting for an invitation, which alas, has yet to come.

Well, to be fair, I have turned down two things from the Bush Administration:

1. US Attorney for New Hampshire. I turned it down because I'm NOT an attorney and because I have not yet received my pardon. I will not accept any position or gratuity from the administration until my pardon is delivered, which could happen sometime this year, according to my attorneys.

2. Ambassador to Uruguay. It's not my time. I wanted Switzerland or Austria and those went to people who raised a whole lot more money than I did. And then some flunky called and asked if I would be willing to take the ambassadorship in Gabon. I had that flunky fired.

Now, if the ambassadorship to Norway, Italy, Spain or Denmark comes available, I would consider those. But for right now, if I was called to serve, I would. I have raised a lot of money for these people so I would expect something decent.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

Now, now give credit where it is due.

Clancy did sell a lot more life insurance in his day than LeCarre.

Posted by: stupid git on April 16, 2007 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Global, I got to throw in with MsNThrope on that one.

Posted by: bmaz on April 16, 2007 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

I am duly chastened. Apologies all around to Mr. LeCarré and to his fans.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

And my people, as well, concur.

Posted by: Smiley on April 16, 2007 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, who thinks they know literature here? I am a Graham Greene man, not a LeCarre/Clancy/Grisham want-to-be and you clowns better scrub off the makeup and learn something before you attempt to make casual intellectual or academic references around me. I will use my classical education to my advantage, and I'm not afraid to throw a little Ivy League brain power around.

but Norman may actually be better than many of the point people Bush has given us....

You are correct. I now know one important thing--never co-locate your company with your company servers and ALWAYS have a way to remotely destroy those servers if it looks like the Feds are sniffing around.

I know how to manage people and I know how to get things done. I sit on top of a decent amount of wealth, I own my home outright, and I lease my vehicles. This is what smart people do and this is how smart people live. I have a lot to offer and I can make deals with people and speak their language. If someone shows me disloyalty, they are gone in a heartbeat. If that same someone turns me in or tries to get a prosecutor to go after me, I have lawyers who can impeach anyone's credibility in a heartbeat. I can play hardball and I can soft-sell soft-serve ice cream to Eskimos. I'm the complete package. I have some baggage, and that's why I continue doing investment bank oriented consulting.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK
I have raised a lot of money for these people Norman Rogers at 2:02 PM
Strange, that doesn't seem to show up here or here [fill in surname and state to search] Posted by: Mike on April 16, 2007 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, the Ugly American has reappeared.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on April 16, 2007 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

For example, on a day when some maniac goes on a shooting rampage at a University, I would advise the President to be concerned, to offer to visit with the victims and their families, maybe even send help from the Justice Departmet.

I would NOT advise him to remind people that he supports the NRA, that the Republican Party receives millions in support from that organization, that he supports lifting the ban on assault weapons, and I would also advise him to keep the Vice President hidden and out of view.

That's how I would roll.

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

"to visit with their victims and families"

Have they not suffered enough.

And is this really the proper forum to attempt to turn a tragedy into a political statement?

Posted by: stupid git on April 16, 2007 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

Graham Greene should have won a Nobel in Literature if there were but a shred of justice...

His unfortunate late in life conversion to a particularly intolerant strain of Catholicism is probably at the bottom of it.

'The Comedians' alone...although I'm particularly fond of 'Our Man in Havana' and 'Travels with my Aunt'.

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 16, 2007 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

Babe, I you know I love ya. But putting John LeCarré into the same sentence as that pathetic poseur Tom Clancy is a grave injustice to Mr. LeCarré.

Indeed. John LeCarré is dead against the Iraq War. Here from his "America Has Gone Mad" column published in the Sydney Herald before the outbreak of the war:

America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this is the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse than the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War. The reaction to 9/11 is beyond anything Osama bin Laden could have hoped for in his nastiest dreams. As in McCarthy times, the freedoms that have made America the envy of the world are being systematically eroded. The combination of compliant US media and vested corporate interests is once more ensuring that a debate that should be ringing out in every town square is confined to the loftier columns of the East Coast press.

....Baghdad represents no clear and present danger to its neighbours, and none to the US or Britain. Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, if he's still got them, will be peanuts by comparison with the stuff Israel or America could hurl at him at five minutes' notice. What is at stake is not an imminent military or terrorist threat, but the economic imperative of US growth. What is at stake is America's need to demonstrate its military power to all of us - to Europe and Russia and China, and poor mad little North Korea, as well as the Middle East; to show who rules America at home, and who is to be ruled by America abroad.

Posted by: Stefan on April 16, 2007 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

This is why we question the 60 milion votes for Bush ,There just can't be 60 million brain dead trogs in the United States.

Posted by: john john on April 16, 2007 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sorry! I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry. I will never do it again.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK
....that's how I would roll. Norman Rogers at 2:16 PM
At least 30 dead...Roll, indeed. Posted by: Mike on April 16, 2007 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

By the way Imus got robbed.He was watching C-Span scan the Red side of the house when he said Nappy headed ho's.Not a basketball game.

Posted by: john john on April 16, 2007 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sorry! I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry. I will never do it again.

For what? This is a blog thread, and for those of you out there who are weak-kneed sob sisters, please remember that there is no one putting a gun to your head and forcing you to read these comment threads. If your stomach is weak and if you do not have the fire in the belly that the rest of us have, be on your merry way.

As for me, I will tell you this--we're about to have a gun control debate in this country, the likes of which we haven't seen since Columbine, and regardless of where you come down on the issue, there will be a shift in the political winds this time. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I am certainly glad I have never been a member of the National Rifle Association. (I don't hang out with commoners and gun nuts, you see.)

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal," I hate to break it to you, but repeating lies don't make them true.

Sometimes it's better to do nothing than to do something badly.

Oh, I agree -- for example, it'd be better if you didn't post lies here than posts such obvious, discredited, unconvincing neocon bullshit. And yet you persist. Why do you bother?

Posted by: Gregory on April 16, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Thank you, Stefan, for quoting LeCarre's comments about Irag.

However, your earlier comments about the constitution appear to be sooooo very 9/10ish. Tut-tuting over such mundane details as to the abrogation of our beloved Constitution by the Shrubites.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on April 16, 2007 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

The comment was not aimed at BGRS, Norman.

Now, go back and clean your Garand - Use those special instructions that Walter E sent you.

BGRS, continue onward at full speed.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on April 16, 2007 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sorry! I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry. I will never do it again.
Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State

Go thou and sin no more.

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 16, 2007 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

Damn. I was hoping that my suggestion that he don a chapeau might curb the Norman wars; no such luck I see....

Posted by: bmaz on April 16, 2007 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

Co-Worker, Believe me that it is painful to have anywhere near the same ideas that numnuts Norman Rogers has on anything.

I realize that the Al Quaeda thing is the most over-hyped element in the whole mess. They constitute probably less than 10% of the "insurgency" in Iraq and would probably be wiped out by Iraqis if we left.

However, there are legitimate risks to US security in letting Iran take over Iraq. We have created a Shiate crescent and now we have to figure out some way of putting the geni back in the bottle. I don't know how we will do it -- probably some sort of arrangement like we have in Korea where we pull back to a DMZ, allow some sort of internal genocide go on, but keep the Saudis, Syria and Iran from coming over the borders.

This is a horrible, horrible situation. THe worst of it is that it will fall on a Dem administration to make the hard choices because Bush is going to run the clock out. Then idiots like Norman will blame the Dems for whatever happens. There are no easy answers.

Posted by: Teresa on April 16, 2007 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

egbert, you chickenshit dipstick, come out of hiding. We want to know when you are following Dear Leader out to the glory of Democracy At Gunpoint!

Posted by: Kenji on April 16, 2007 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

Helps Teresa buy a 'b'.

numbnuts

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 16, 2007 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

However, there are legitimate risks to US security in letting Iran take over Iraq. We have created a Shiate crescent and now we have to figure out some way of putting the geni back in the bottle.

News for you, Christina Aguilera:

There is no Shia dominance. The Shia are divided into their own factions and into their own sects, some of whom are at war with each other as we speak. There are pro-Iranian Shia and violently anti-Iranian Shia. There are Shia that don't want anything to do with either the pro or the anti Iranian blocs and there are SECULAR Shia who don't want anything to do with anyone.

Of greater importance is this notion that the Saudis will align with their SUNNI brothers and sisters in Iraq and form a massive anti-Shia force and destabilize the region. You can wiggle and you can hit that high "C" but you can't dance this intellectual dance, so calm down, toots.

I don't know how we will do it -- probably some sort of arrangement like we have in Korea where we pull back to a DMZ, allow some sort of internal genocide go on, but keep the Saudis, Syria and Iran from coming over the borders.

What the deuce are you babbling about? How do you compare the DMZ in Korea--which cuts through mountainous terrain--and a line in the desert you have to have a GPS device and a map to even find?

Then idiots like Norman will blame the Dems for whatever happens. There are no easy answers.

I'm the idiot? You should see above where I hand your nonsense back to you.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

Helps Teresa buy a 'b'.
numbnuts

You mean, "Help Teresa buy a 'b'???

Sorry, dingbats. I actually have full feeling in my testicles AND I happen to own "nunchucks," which you can see here. I can swing them around fast enough to take the heads off three mannequins in under two seconds.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

Do click Norman's link! you will find this little pearl of sanity:

This item cannot be shipped outside the United States or to NY, CA, MA. You are responsible for checking your state and local laws and regulations concerning the purchase of this item.

Nunchucks are illegal? And we can't even get background checks at gunshows? WTF?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

I can swing them around fast enough to take the heads off three mannequins in under two seconds.
Posted by: Norman Rogers

Uncle Normie would be a true hero in Saks...

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 16, 2007 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Do click Norman's link!

What? No! Don't click the link! Don't click the link!

Moderator! Remove the HTML link from my post at 3:34PM! Remove it!

Don't click the link! Damn you! Damn you all to hell!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Norm, I told you to put a lid on it earlier. Now look what you are screaming....

Posted by: bmaz on April 16, 2007 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds:

THIS IS AWFUL: "At least 20 people were killed this morning at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and University after a shooting spree at two buildings on the campus." Nobody seems to know much yet on what happened. These things do seem to take place in locations where it's not legal for people with carry permits to carry guns, though, and I believe that's the case where the Virginia Tech campus is concerned. I certainly wish that someone had been in a position to shoot this guy at the outset.

Another moron bites the dust. No, it is not okay for college students to carry guns everywhere. This is where I have to point out that, once in a great while, my fellow conservatives are wrong on substantive matters. Having some kid jump up with his own, personal Midnight Special and start shooting would just get him or herself killed by the trained law enforcement officials who would be responding to the shooting. So Mr. Instapundit is wrong, children. Yes, there is a guarantee that we may all bear arms. No, having drunken college kids take their guns to class is not the way to go. Too many professors would be shot through the aorta by noon if that were the case.

This has been another example of me telling you how the world really works. And, remember, DO NOT CLICK THAT LINK!

DAMMIT! Moderator! I demand that HTML be deleted forthwith!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah - just what we need...150 Barney Fife's with their bullets out of their pockets. GMAFB.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

I don't want students armed out of a sense of self-preservation. Last thing I need are armed students when I return exams and papers.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, those are "ball bearing" nunchuks! No mention of numbness, or lack thereof.

Posted by: thersites on April 16, 2007 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

Appears that Norman's epididymitis has spread to his brain - Of course, as in the usually lower locale, local area can be surgically removed.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on April 16, 2007 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK
DAMMIT! Moderator! I demand that HTML be deleted forthwith! Norman Rogers at 4:12 PM
I thought someone forgot his Ritalin this morning.

Fun fact: Selling ignorance : who's well informed?

Notsofun fact: Comparing VA to occupied Iraq

Posted by: Mike on April 16, 2007 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

so. Is tom Engelhardt nuts for remembering the projections of the wargamers about what would happen if the U.S. invaded Iraq ? Go ahead. I've posted the links on my Blogroll under 'Intel'. That last TomGram pissed me off completely because he had the guts to say what I was thinking but didn't come out with. PNAC's membership rolls and policies are not incompatible with what GWB has done : in fact - it's an effing blueprint with "DesertCrossing" not merely being followed but improved on !
You'd better hope we're off our rockers. That projection would mean the name of the game was
"It's All About the Oil !" ( by Texas oilmen - how silly ! ) and 'decapitate the heads of government'
in several Middle East nations.
4 million Iraqi refugees 'at risk' today according to the aid agencies. Closing on 1 million dead as a result of the occupation. Saudi Arabia p.o.'d totally, the professional class in Iraq runaway or killed, The 'insurgents' targeting civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan sending 2 million Afghan refugees home. All this while Africa starts to belch fire.
Holding a lighter to the tinder for over four years is doing what was projected. About the time Turkey rolls over the Iraq border will you start to figure it out ?
http://opit.wordpress.com/ under 'Intel'

Posted by: opit on April 16, 2007 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINK

He didn't say anything different from everyone with an intelligent read on the situation or this administration.

The war can't be won without a more intelligent approach than this administration has applied. And it gets more difficult with each passing day. To a vanishing point of possibility.

Posted by: notthere on April 16, 2007 at 11:29 PM | PERMALINK

War is not a game, sir. War is a tough, grim fight and we are marching to the sound of the guns in Iraq. We are beating back the terrorists no matter where we find them and those of us who support the President and his troops realize this.

Um, Norm? Thing is, only guys in comic books talk like this. It's not how people with any actual experience in the military talk; it's how guys who fantasize about the military talk. "Marching to the sound of the guns." Jeebus. You do know that you declare your utter fraudulence out of your own mouth every time you deliver yourself of something like that, don't you?

Posted by: DrBB on April 16, 2007 at 11:38 PM | PERMALINK

DrBB,

Well, keep rooting for defeat if that's what you really want.

Meanwhile, I'll celebrate victory and support the mission that our troops are carrying out. If you don't support the mission, you can't very well support the troops, you know.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 11:56 PM | PERMALINK

That's great. Anyone have any pie?
Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 11:56 PM


I don't think this is any time to talk about something so trivial as pie.
(yes, i'm enjoying this.)

Posted by: absent observer on April 17, 2007 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK

You don't give enough credit for subtlety. Paraphrasing Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake" into "pie" - reminiscent of "apple pie" - and you get punnery.
Trivial ? Yep.

Posted by: opit on April 17, 2007 at 1:46 AM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers: If my President asked me to serve, I would serve.

A few months ago, didn't you tell us that you had successfully lied about your age and enlisted? Did something subsequently go wrong? It might have been someone else, but you are generally the one with the tall tales.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on April 17, 2007 at 3:01 AM | PERMALINK

A few months ago, didn't you tell us that you had successfully lied about your age and enlisted? Did something subsequently go wrong? It might have been someone else, but you are generally the one with the tall tales.

As often as I have been spoofed or parodied on this blog, it's impossible to say. I will tell you, categorically, that I did not do any such thing, nor would I have the inclination to do so. I am far too intelligent to join the military.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 17, 2007 at 8:29 AM | PERMALINK

That's great. Anyone have any pie?
Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 16, 2007 at 11:56 PM

Classical liberal lies.

My entire, original post at 11:56PM:

DrBB,
Well, keep rooting for defeat if that's what you really want.
Meanwhile, I'll celebrate victory and support the mission that our troops are carrying out. If you don't support the mission, you can't very well support the troops, you know.

I did not use the word "pie" and I did not write what you are attributing to me, sir.

Silly liberals. All you have are lies and bullcrap.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 17, 2007 at 8:30 AM | PERMALINK

Irony alert: Matthew Marler wrote you are generally the one with the tall tales

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 11:07 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