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

June 23, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

STAB IN THE BACK WATCH....Here's the latest from Instapundit, in its entirety:

IN THE MAIL: Col. Buzz Patterson's War Crimes: The Left's Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror.

I don't think that the left wants to lose the war on terror, exactly — they just want Bush to lose the war on terror. I suspect, however, that Patterson's theme is one that we'll hear more in the future, especially if things go badly in Iraq.

Oh yes indeedy, I too expect we'll be hearing more of this in the future, especially if things go badly in Iraq. Lots more.

You can almost smell the stink of desperation from the pro-war crowd. The next couple of years is going to be a nonstop frenzy of books, articles, TV shows, op-eds, radio segments, blog posts, and white papers about how everyone except George Bush and his enablers were responsible for our catastrophe in the Middle East. Anyone will do, as long as it's not them.

Kevin Drum 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (168)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

there is really so little to say about this kind of blithering idiocy, but at least one might ask professor instanitwit exactly what "winning" the war on terror might look like (not to mention what "losing" it looks like).

and he's proud of his stupidity.

Posted by: howard on June 23, 2007 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK
You can almost smell the stink of desperation from the pro-war crowd. The next couple of years is going to be a nonstop frenzy of books, articles, TV shows, op-eds, radio segments, blog posts, and white papers about how everyone except George Bush and his enablers were responsible for our catastrophe in the Middle East. Anyone will do, as long as it's not them.

While your general point is correct, Kevin, your specific one - that anyone will do, is not.

Much of the impetus behind the Iraq War and the so-called "War on Terror" has not been to respond to any perceived or real foreign threat. Rather, it has been to settle domestic scores dating from the '60's.

The reason why they blame the "liberals" is precisely because the liberals are the real or perceived villains of the '60's.

All of which is rather odd, when we consider that the '60's are as distant from today's world as the Civil War was from the Progressive Era.

Which suggests that one of our basic problems is that we have been unable to move on.

Posted by: Duncan Kinder on June 23, 2007 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Duncan: Point taken. Liberals are certainly the preferred scapegoats. However, I suspect that they'll manage to lay the blame for Iraq on practically everyone eventually. Everyone except themselves, that is.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on June 23, 2007 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

The Dolchstosslegende (German: Dolchstoßlegende, literally "Dagger stab legend" often translated into English as "stab-in-the-back myth") refers to a social myth and persecution-propaganda theory popular in Germany in the period after World War I through World War II. It attributed Germany's defeat to a number of domestic factors instead of failed militarist geostrategy. Most notably, the theory proclaimed that the public had failed to respond to its "patriotic calling" at the most crucial of times and some had even intentionally "sabotaged the war effort."

The legend echoed the epic poem Nibelungenlied in which the dragon-slaying hero Siegfried is stabbed in the back by Hagen von Tronje. Der Dolchstoss is cited as an important factor in Adolf Hitler's later rise to power, as the Nazi Party grew its original political base largely from embittered WWI veterans, and those who were sympathetic to the Dolchstoss interpretation of Germany's then-recent history.

mORE;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchsto%C3%9Flegende

Posted by: someotherdude on June 23, 2007 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

everyone except George Bush and his enablers were responsible for our catastrophe in the Middle East

Since the Surge is working anyway, why would conservatives say that? I think it's more likely conservatives will be be talking about how the Surge was the decisive moment when American troops were able to turn the tide on Al-Qaedas presence in Iraq and destroy Al-Qaeda and its allies in Iraq.

Link

"The military surge in Iraq has had a positive influence by shifting violence away from Anbar and Baghdad, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said"
"Crocker, speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," said success in Anbar is "quite striking as the Iraqi tribes out there have basically turned against al-Qaida, and the level of violence in Anbar is dramatically down"
"A new offensive is under way in the Baghdad area, Crocker said, "now that the full strength of the surge has been reached"

Posted by: Al on June 23, 2007 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

It never ceases to amaze me how substantive the pro-war crowd percieves cheerleading. Just because war critics look at war-related policy as dispassionately as possible and concludes "this ain't going to work," war-critics are somehow unpatriotic or subversive or whatever. How does this reasoning resonate with so many people?

But then, if this reasoning didn't catch on with a large demographic, Glenn Greenwald would be out of a job. Is Greenwald's public service a fair sacrifice in exchange for the marginalization of these thinkers ("thinkers")?

Posted by: A different Matt on June 23, 2007 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

Liberals are too wishy-washy to have that kind of serious impact, surely everyone knows this.

The real culprits are the creeping menace of atheistic homo-ism, which has ruined our marriages and made us not tough enuff.

Posted by: cld on June 23, 2007 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Wasn't Hillary boo-ed at TBA, for using the canned talking points that implicitly blame the Iraqis for "not taking responsibility for their own security".

If Democrats don't lose their reticence about correctly charging those who have lost the war on terror and destroyed American's prestige along with her Army, in Iraq, who is going to do it?

Granted that Instapundit is a failed Turing test, even on a good day, how can he even mechanically write, " . . . if things go badly in Iraq." IF?

Posted by: Bruce Wilder on June 23, 2007 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

Al-bot: "Since the Surge is working anyway, why would conservatives say that?"

Hey, shit-for-brains, what is it about the word "enablers" that you don't get, exactly?

Posted by: Kenji on June 23, 2007 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

Well, "desperation" is the operative word here. Everyone in this cuontry who's marginally sentient accepts as an accomplished fact that George W. Bush is a hopeless fuckup who couldn't organize a two-car funeral if you spotted him a dead guy and two cars.

I think the desperation will manifest itself more in assertions like: "the war was really a pretty decent idea; the only problem was that half-wit Bush being in charge."

Posted by: giant rabbit on June 23, 2007 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

especially if things go badly in Iraq.

did you just awaken from a very long nap....

Posted by: linda on June 23, 2007 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

We need to "take to the mattresses!"
This is going to be a real war in this country, and it won't be civil.
They'll pull out ALL stops to demonize anyone but themselves. And anyone who gets rational and breaks away from them will instantly be branded a "Liberal."

Duncan Kinder, you have a great point. But it goes even further. It goes back to the "Populist" movement in the late 19th Century. Women's sufferage. Then the flapper era freedoms. FDR and the New Deal. Civil and women's rights.
The powers-that-be can't have us eroding their power. The "dirty fucking hippie's" (DFH) is just an icon that has worked for them for over 40 years.
The whole point of the past 40 years for the right wing has been to destroy the middle class. DFH and immigrant's are useful card trick feint's to distract us from the creation of a new Gilded Era.

Posted by: c u n d gulag on June 23, 2007 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

When I think about the petty deceit in Glenn Reynold's writing I think of Chalmers Johnson's
as a counterpoint and smile because in the final analysis CJ's will win I believe.

Posted by: The Dukester on June 23, 2007 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

Do the remaining idiots who still support Bush and his war READ BOOKS?

CAN they?

Posted by: Terry C - End Bush's War Now! on June 23, 2007 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

al: "The military surge in Iraq has had a positive influence by shifting violence away from Anbar and Baghdad, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker said"

"They are in the last throes of the insurgency." - Dick Cheney June 2005

"We've turned the corner." - V.P. Dick Cheney in Iraq Dec. 2005

Posted by: mr. irony on June 23, 2007 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

I see trolls like Al are still placing their faith in U.S. spokespersons and willingly swilling all the Kool-Aid the administration can serve up. Yeah, dickwad, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq is surely an unimpeachable source of truth and wisdom regarding the war. Why don't you just tell us that Tony Snow thinks the surge is working - that would be every bit as impressive as your reliance on the word of Ryan Crock-o-shit. Remember, Al, chocolate rations are up!

Posted by: jjcomet on June 23, 2007 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

I would have loved to read a blog like this during the 100 Years War.

Posted by: X on June 23, 2007 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

They'll expand the blame to include Bush and Co. once they're out of office, and of course Bush and Co. will have no connection to the rightwing or conservatives or the GOP at all.

Posted by: QrazyQat on June 23, 2007 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK

Those "Libruls" made us lose the mission in Somalia (Black Hawk Down) by forcing President Clinton to withdraw the troops.
Oh wait, that was the Repubs in Congress that did that.
Then the "Libruls" didn't support our military's mission in Kosovo, but we prevailed anyway even with so much rank anti-Americanism and disloyalty.
Oops! Wrong again, it was those Repubs in Congress who didn't support our military while we were at war in Kosovo.
As you can see, the "Libruls", er...I mean the Repubs have a long history of wanting our military to fail for political gain, just like quite a few of them are wishing for another 9-11 attack for their benefit.

Posted by: OxyCon on June 23, 2007 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

are you all still referring to this as "Bush's war" - in full view that the war was approved by Democrats, and now continues to be funded, with no strings attached, by a Democrat House and Senate?

Talk about trying to punt away responsibility... Pot. Kettle. Black. Well, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You people are sick! Progressives my ass. You people are nothing but a bunch of non- thinking hypocrites! You're a shame and a disgrace to the Republic!

Posted by: x on June 23, 2007 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

The Left's Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror..

This book so much reminds me of the 60’s when such books explained how the evil was the Left for being pro civil rights and anti-Viet Nam war. The Left supposedly wanted to destroy America.

And who was “the Left”? Anyone who didn’t fully appreciate how dangerous were the Vietnamese and those aliens of African descent.

I can summarize the book for you:

Parent: “Little Johnny, quit smacking your sister.”
Little Johnny whines: “You always take her side.”
Little Johnny’s evil friend: “Why do your parents hate you? You gotta keep smacking her. She’s the enemy.”

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on June 23, 2007 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

You can almost smell the stink of desperation from the pro-war crowd. The next couple of years is going to be a nonstop frenzy of books, articles, TV shows, op-eds, radio segments, blog posts, and white papers about how everyone except George Bush and his enablers were responsible for our catastrophe in the Middle East.

This is unusually volatile writing for Kevin. He is typically much more dispassionate in his writing.

It's as if you can sense how the truth of these statements makes him and other leftists feel nervous.

Posted by: sportsfan79 on June 23, 2007 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

Kenji at 1:40:

Hey, shit-for-brains, ...

jjcomet at 2:02:

Yeah, dickwad, ...

Again, more examples of how liberals react when they feel frightened by a point.

Posted by: sportsfan79 on June 23, 2007 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

All of which is rather odd, when we consider that the '60's are as distant from today's world as the Civil War was from the Progressive Era.

I hate to break it to ya, but there are plenty of people still fighting the Civil War. In fact, they make up the core of the GOP.

Posted by: Disputo on June 23, 2007 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

sportiespice, your mom asked me to tell you to clean your room.

Posted by: Disputo on June 23, 2007 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

Sportsfan, please return to watching sports; you're clearly out of your depth when discussing anything that requires even a scintilla of intelligent thought. What makes Drum and other "leftists" nervous is the fact that idiots like you and the enabling lapdogs of the SCLM seem eager to buy into this nonsense. What is it about accepting responsibility that conservatives simply can't seem to handle?

Posted by: jjcomet on June 23, 2007 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

giant rabbit at 1:44:

Everyone in this [sic] cuontry who's marginally sentient accepts as an accomplished fact that George W. Bush is a hopeless fuckup who couldn't organize a two-car funeral if you spotted him a dead guy and two cars.

Really? So the roughly 70% of people who are dissatisfied with Bush - are they the same roughly 70% who are dissatisfied with the Democratic congress?

The fact is, it is much easier to bitch than it is to do something constructive.

Posted by: sportsfan79 on June 23, 2007 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

cld: That was supposed to be a joke, wasn't it?

Posted by: homo atheist on June 23, 2007 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

From Al's link:

A recent Pentagon report showed overall levels of violence in Iraq haven't fallen, only shifted away from Baghdad and Anbar to other provinces. Crocker acknowledged "it is not good that we're seeing violence in other areas."

So, in other words, the insurgents are playing their usual game of rope-a-dope, and as soon as the surge has played out, they will return to their regularly scheduled insurgency.

That's an expensive amount that we're paying to re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Posted by: AnotherBruce on June 23, 2007 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

"Again, more examples of how liberals react when they feel frightened by a point."

Speaking of points, what's yours?

"The fact is, it is much easier to bitch than it is to do something constructive."

So right you are. Now go enlist & fight in the war you've been championing tirelessly.

Posted by: chaunceyatrest on June 23, 2007 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

The fact is, it is much easier to bitch than it is to do something constructive.

As you demonstrate with every post.

Posted by: Disputo on June 23, 2007 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Now go enlist & fight in the war you've been championing tirelessly.

His mom won't let him enlist until he cleans his room.

Posted by: Disputo on June 23, 2007 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

If we're at the point where the right-wing loonies are playing the blame game, does that mean we can stop clapping and Tinkerbell is dead?

Posted by: Deadeye Dick Cheney on June 23, 2007 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Hardly frightened, dear, but I am dismayed, disappointed, and frustrated that such idiocy even merits serious discussion. I'm glad to engage in debate on who is responsible for the current situation in Iraq, as well as the prospects that things are likely to change. Let's start with a few basic questions. Do you contend that someone other than the administration has been in control of planning and executing U.S. policy in Iraq? If so, who, and in what respect? Name an instance in which a domestic constituency has forced the administration to adopt alternative policies, or prevented the administration from implementing its own policies. And if the administration is not responsible for the situation in Iraq, to whom do you assess credit or blame?

Posted by: jjcomet on June 23, 2007 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

So, in other words, the insurgents are playing their usual game of rope-a-dope, and as soon as the surge has played out, they will return to their regularly scheduled insurgency.

In the Trib today there was an article about how all the insurgents had gotten wind of the recent US offensive (primarily because the US military kept talking about it) and left the field of battle before it began, and some frustrated US officer was quoted as referring to them as cowards.

Reminds me how the Brits kept calling the Minutemen cowards for not standing up and getting shot like real men. Some people just don't learn from history.

Posted by: Disputo on June 23, 2007 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

FACT: 9-11 happened on George Bush's watch.

FACT: Bush was warned about a terrorist attack using airplanes and did nothing to stop it. NOTHING.

FACT: When 9-11 happened, Bush sat and stared into space, dumbfounded, for over seven minutes. He then flew off and hid in a cornfield in Nebraska, while America waited for some leadership.

FACT: Bush knew Saddam Hussein had no WMDs and attacked Iraq anyway, killing thousands of innocent Iraqi people for no reason, other than his own ego (refer to Downing St. memo for evidence).

FACT: Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. NOTHING.

FACT: Terrorism world-wide has gotten worse under George W. Bush, not better.

Since conservatives don't have the facts on their side, they have to resort to idiotic attacks like this drivel from a guy named "Buzz".

'Nuff said.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on June 23, 2007 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

I think that even the liberals will understand that they will be the only ones responsible in the event that their actions result in the loss of the Iraq War.

That's why the Democrats are refusing to defund the war.

Posted by: Vigilant Freedom on June 23, 2007 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

The recurring themes of the Arbusto Junta and their enablers:

The buck stops elsewhere.

They lie about everything.

No need to prepare.

Posted by: ogmb on June 23, 2007 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

The brand killer for the GOP in this war is that it has been fought, every step of the way, exactly the way in which they claimed it has been fought, using their strategy and their tactics. Bush has so far been denied not one soldier, not one bullet, not one penny that he has asked for, and, in fact, when his critics have tried to give him more resources in the form of more and better armed men he has resisted, claiming they were not necessary and that this war was better fought on the cheap. From the very first day this has been Bush's War.

The end result is that the country has now gotten a good look at what a war looks like when you let the Republicans run it with a free hand. If you let them do what they want to do, let them organize it as they see fit, this is the result you get -- massive failure, corruption, anarchy, death, and, in the end, defeat.

For years Republicans were able to build up a lie that they were the party of competence, of serious, hardbitten grown-ups, unlike those airy-fairy Democrats. The only reason they were able to get away with this myth, however, is that they never had to back it up in practice. Well, now they have, and the resulting fuck-up is evident for all to see. That's why there're so desperately spinning and ducking, desperate that the blame for the disaster they conceived and engineered not to put on them, where it rightfully belongs.

Posted by: Stefan on June 23, 2007 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

killing thousands of innocent Iraqi people for no reason

Hundreds of thousands; almost one million by now. Which puts GWB close to Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Kissinger territory. That will be his legacy.

Posted by: Disputo on June 23, 2007 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

The brand killer for the GOP in this war is that it has been fought, every step of the way, exactly the way in which they claimed it has been fought, using their strategy and their tactics.

Sorry, that should read "The brand killer for the GOP in this war is that it has been fought, every step of the way, exactly the way in which they claimed it should have been fought, using their strategy and their tactics."

Posted by: Stefan on June 23, 2007 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

This is all so simple -- the Left doesn't *want* Bush to lose the War on Terror. No, we realize that he is losing and/or has lost the War on Terror, and that, furthermore, it's not really a conflict that can be conclusively "won."

Our desires have absolutely nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

Posted by: Joseph Shabadoo on June 23, 2007 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin.

Colnel Pattersen has it exactly right, Kevin. The left, and its allies: the secularists, the multiculturalists, the athiests, the Hollywoodoids, etc, all these elements want our military destroyed. They hate its allegiance to the flag, there disciplined hierarchy, there comraderie, there willingness to lay down there lives for a cause greater than gay marriages.

Im glad someone's taken a stand finally and shed light on something I've been screaming about for the last few years.

Posted by: egbert on June 23, 2007 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Im glad someone's taken a stand finally and shed light on something I've been screaming about for the last few years.

Funny, all I have heard you scream the last few years is: "I'm am too much of a coward to fight in Iraq!"

Posted by: Disputo on June 23, 2007 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, sportsfan, notice that the congress' ratings are falling because they haven't tossed the liar-in-chief and his puppet out on their asses, and because they haven't ended the war. This is because the repigs are using everything they have in their "we hate Americans" playbook to prevent the Dems from doing what the People voted for in '06. If the Dems filed for impeachment and stood their ground against the war, their ratings would top 70%, but the scum that occupies the minority would rather lose the wars and the economy over protecting their imagined turf. republicans don't know how to govern, they know how to lie and steal only.

Posted by: ronjazz on June 23, 2007 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sure your screaming sounds better in the original German, egbert.

Posted by: AnotherBruce on June 23, 2007 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

Egbert, the republicans and the Right have already destroyed the military, we on the left didn't have to do a thing. We on the left don't like to see our children die in far-off lands as much as you on the right do. We on the left follow the Rule Of Law and the Geneva Conventions, put in place to protect our soldiers, while 8you on the right ignore those rules, thus endangering every American. The Right has done far more damage to the USA than Bin laden could have dreamed of, and you are responsible for our weakness and inability to win against camel-jockeys, and you are responsible for our very low standing in the world. Colonel Patterson is a jackass, and you are there to clean up behind him.

Posted by: ronjazz on June 23, 2007 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

"--the war on terror"

Which of course was the war in Afghanistan, AND not the war in Iraq.

I heard some woman call in on C-Span last Sunday, which is incidentally, an interesting listen in on the pulse of our nation (even if sometimes it's very retarded to listen to those that often call in) and she lamented that this war is about oil.

The war in Iraq is about our "interest in the region" our "ecomonic security" or whatever else the media wants to label the reasons behind the war in Iraq, without the obvious word "oil control". More callers should insist upon the truth - this war is about oil, and never been about anything else.

The war in Iraq just shows foreign countries that saying NO to the US is something the rest of world has right to do too, not just the Midest, particularly if it is not in their own countries best interest. Giving ExxonMobil 70% of the profits isn't in any countries best interest.

And for this reason, NATO will never work for Hillary Clinton anymore than they would help Bush. Because both Clinton and Bush are simply one and same kind of voice for corporate control.

Posted by: itsabouttheoil on June 23, 2007 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

To x who posted at 2:09: "Pot. Kettle. Black." wasn't witty the first time Lileks or some other rube posted it in 2002, and it's not witty now.

Posted by: Charles Giacometti on June 23, 2007 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

The hell of it is, these creeps could've pulled off this "stab in the back" nonsense if they had planned ahead a little, but they were too stupid to even entertain the notion that their war might not go 100% swimmingly.

Good job, morons. Not only will conservatism be sporting this bloody albatross for years to come, the admittedly vile mainstream Dems won't even have to take the blame they deserve.

Posted by: solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short on June 23, 2007 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, sportsfan, notice that the congress' ratings are falling because they haven't tossed the liar-in-chief and his puppet out on their asses, and because they haven't ended the war.

That is part of it; the other part which sportiespice elides is that the congressional approval rating is made up of the approval of the Dems in congress and the approval of the GOP in congress, and the later is about 20% lower than the former. Even with congressional Dem approval taking a huge hit recently from pissed-off progressives, they still enjoy about 45% approval.

Posted by: Disputo on June 23, 2007 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

cld: That was supposed to be a joke, wasn't it?

No!

Not tuff enuff, that's the core of the rot in the guts of this country. If we could just suck it up and collectively bang some chick, and get tuff with stuff, we could get stuff done and get it over with and get done with this kind of nonsense, all this nonsense they talk about all the time, like losing the war.

If you had the guts to just look at yourself in the filthy gleam of your lavender scented soapdish and get over that we might actually develop some sort of instinctual fortitude and get serious with stuff, and so forth.

That primitive gleam our ancestors had while they butchered their neighbor over a misplaced fence post, which is what made this country great.

Our motto: Apocalypse Now!

Posted by: cld on June 23, 2007 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

"I think that even the liberals will understand that they will be the only ones responsible in the event that their actions result in the loss of the Iraq War."

This is a hilarious bit of sentence construction: "... in the event that their actions result in the loss of the Iraq war," indeed. Granting you the hallucinatory events you seem to be manifesting -- Ted Kennedy jumping in a fighter jet & strafing the White House at the precise moment that someone finally comes up with a winning strategy for the war -- you still have the task of answering jjcomet's 2:38 p.m. questions:

"Do you contend that someone other than the administration has been in control of planning and executing U.S. policy in Iraq? If so, who, and in what respect? Name an instance in which a domestic constituency has forced the administration to adopt alternative policies, or prevented the administration from implementing its own policies. And if the administration is not responsible for the situation in Iraq, to whom do you assess credit or blame?"

So which of jj's questions do you want to answer first?

Posted by: chaunceyatrest on June 23, 2007 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

Man, ain't he the textbook example of passive agressive. Think he's even aware of it?

Posted by: Daphne Chyprious on June 23, 2007 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

Earth to Vigilant Freedom: Dude, the Iraq bed's already been shit. You can hope that the 'surge' will un-shit the bed, but that seems unlikely. There's only one group of people responsible for what happens (and has happened) in Iraq. Republicans.

This has been a public service, reality-based, announcement.

Posted by: Deadeye Dick Cheney on June 23, 2007 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

It's as if you can sense how the truth of these statements makes him and other leftists feel nervous.

There is no truth to these statements at all. None.

George Bush prosecuted an ill-advised war and has been supplied with every tool he has asked for along the way. Neither Democrats, nor Republicans, nor the military have tied his hands in the slightest.

He blew it, he lost it, the blame is all his.

Next.

Posted by: tRex on June 23, 2007 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

Buzz Patterson is an embarrassment to the Officer Corps. Small wonder scrambled egbert has such a man-crush on the jingoistic jackass.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 23, 2007 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

The "Libruls" want us to fail in Iraq.
They're the ones who didn't listen to, then fired General Shinseki when he called for several thousand troops for the initial invasion of Iraq.
Oops, that was Bush and his enablers.
Then the “Libruls” thought Iraq was spiraling out of control at the end of 2004 and they wanted to surge more troops to help stabilize the worsening sectarian violence. But as we all know, we were merely “turning a corner” as the “dead enders” were in their “last throes”. If we had listened to Kerry and the “Libruls” back in 2004 and surged the troops then, Bush wouldn’t have been able to ignore the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations and surge them now.
Darn “Libruls”!
Let’s not forget it was the “Libruls” who fired most of our Arab linguists in Iraq because they were Gay, which is something that is severely hampering our fighting ability, in effect forcing us to fight with one arm tied behind our backs.
Oops, it wasn’t the “Libruls” it was the right wing ideologues who did that.
Then those darn “Libruls” only hired young, inexperienced, politically loyal partisan personnel to staff the thousands of important jobs in Iraq under the Coalition Provisional Authority, almost guaranteeing failure.
What? It was Katie O’Beirne’s partisan Repub husband who did that? Say it ain’t so!
As you can see, “Libruls” have been sabotaging our military in Iraq because they want us to fail for political gain!

Posted by: OxyCon on June 23, 2007 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

He blew it, he lost it, the blame is all his.

Actually I should say that his supporters share some of the blame, for allowing him to embark on such a disastrous endeavor in the first place and then not stepping up to try and make it work by enlisting if they thought it was such a great idea.

Posted by: tRex on June 23, 2007 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

mhr: why do you trolls bridle bridle at a statement of fact -- that your posts grow increasingly desperate & pathetic? Your continued support for a war you're not willing to fight betrays an intellectual dishonesty that's exceeded only by your moral cowardice. When are you going to put some skin in the game?

Posted by: chaunceyatrest on June 23, 2007 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

Love the idea of a "Stab In The Back Watch;" I hope you will consider making it a regular feature, Kevin, since you are undoubtedly right, this is only the beginning of a torrent of ugly accusations.

Buzz Patterson is a one-man cottage industry of stab-in-the-back literature:

Retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert "Buzz" Patterson, author of Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security (Regnery Publishing, 2003) and the newly released Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undermine Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our National Security (Regnery Publishing, 2004)
This new one may be his magnum opus, considering he spent a whole two years on it.

Posted by: Leah on June 23, 2007 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

On Thursday I glimpsed some people in Washington, D.C. in the Verizon Center area (corner of 7th and H) handing out "Tips for Pro-War Advocates" sheets. I was in a hurry and didn't pick one up, also not wanting contact with the pro-war advocates any more than with LaRoucheists or other cultists. Has anyone else seen this?

Posted by: sara on June 23, 2007 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

Patterson - who it must be remembered failed to move up so he was moved out - in spite of his high-profile billet in the presidential detail.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 23, 2007 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

Surely not from the party of personal responsibility. I mean, if they do not accept that they are responsible, then this must mean they are irresponsible.

Posted by: Oilfieldguy on June 23, 2007 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

Imagine Siegfried and his friends lying their way into a war, sending their countrymen to die in the war and profiteering from the war while their countrymen sacrifice life and limbs. The legend is reversed. Republicans have stabbed the country in its back.

Posted by: blog on June 23, 2007 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

I knew I had given the fucker a proper fisking in the past. [/blogwhoring]

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 23, 2007 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

This is a war of narrow, oligarchic interests within this country. It is not an american war, although our troops are being made to fight it. It weakens this nation and makes us less safe. Yet, it is still be sold like snake oil by those interests.

The cover storys are not intended simply to save political face, they are mostly about avoiding legal prosecution.

Posted by: Fausticuffs on June 23, 2007 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

A primer for sportsfan and others who are a little out of the loop about who's responsible for the massive failure that is Iraq and even the neocons who admit it:

Die-hard Republican publicist William Kristol admits of Bush, "He did drive us into a ditch." The neocon fantasist and sometime Republican speechwriter Mark Helprin complains on the Wall Street Journal editorial page--the movement's Pravda--of "the inescapable fact that the war has been run incompetently,th an apparently deliberate contempt for history, strategy, and thought, and with too little regard for the American soldier, whose mounting casualties seem to have no effect on the boastfulness of the civilian leadership."

Also, you may want to revisit Kevin's earlier post about the Vanity Fair interview with the neocons here , wherein there were real gems like Richard Perle saying:

According to Perle, who left the Defense Policy Board in 2004, this unfolding catastrophe has a central cause: devastating dysfunction within the administration of President George W. Bush. Perle says, "The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly.… At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible.… I don't think he realized the extent of the opposition within his own administration, and the disloyalty."

And this:

Kenneth Adelman, a lifelong neocon activist and Pentagon insider who served on the Defense Policy Board until 2005, wrote a famous op-ed article in The Washington Post in February 2002, arguing: "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk." Now he says, "I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."

There's a lot more but you get the picture -- even the conservetard architects and cheerleaders of this war have admitted that Bush is the one responsible for its failure, not liberals or progressives or Democrats.

The real desperation is coming from wingnuts like you who supported the war, see it is a disaster, and are desperate for someone else to blame to try and cover your abject stupidity and cowardice.

Are we clear?

Posted by: tRex on June 23, 2007 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Can hardly wait for that new Regnery book "Failure to soar with Eagles" or "The Oak Leaf which failed to hatch".

Guess the boy just laid a dead egg.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on June 23, 2007 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

We didn’t choose to go to war in Iraq, Saddam Hussein did because he kicked out the UN weapons inspectors.
What’s that? Bush is the one who kicked out the weapons inspectors? Oops, sorry!
Well, we had to invade Iraq because they were buying Yellowcake Uranium from Niger and if we didn’t invade, we’d all get vaporized by “Mushroom Clouds”
Huh? You mean they weren’t buying Uranium from Niger and it was all just lies? And that the Bush Administration had no plans to secure the Yellowcake Uranium that was already in Iraq, safely sealed by the IAEA, so most of it went missing after the invasion? Some of it found as far away from Iraq as Rotterdam, Netherlands?
Damned “Libruls” must be responsible!
I bet the “Libruls” never had a post invasion plan to secure Saddam’s ammo dumps either, allowing them to be looted by “al Queda in Iraq” which is currently using the ammo to kill our troops. Damn “Libruls” hate the troops I tell ya!
What do you mean it was Bush who did that? It ain’t his fault! He’s blameless.
Thanks to Bush’s great foresight, the only thing secured in Iraq after the invasion was the Iraqi Ministry of Oil building. Just think of how high gasoline prices would be if that building was destroyed!
“Libruls”! It’s all their fault!

Posted by: OxyCon on June 23, 2007 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and a side note to Eggy - The Pershing system was introduced in Europe under Kennedy and Johnson. They arrived at my old kaserne just months after I had left for the states. Replaced an eight inch self propelled outfit.

The Pershing II was sent to Germany under Reagan in 83, and yes, it was more effective and sophisticated. But, it was in the process of being upgraded long before that.

And, due to a treaty with the Soviets, it was eliminated and destroyed in 91.

Posted by: stupid git on June 23, 2007 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

Blameless, shameless, what's in a couple of consonants, anyway?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 23, 2007 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Does the right really think that we Dems want the war to be lost, or do they just want to shift the blame-anywhere but Bush? I have to think that it's a mix. Some really believe that we want to lose the war; others are engaged in shifting the blame.

It's a clever gambit, but there have been too many screw-ups from the neo-con crowd. They can't play dumb or innocent any more. This is our(collective our) mess, but they made it,all right.

Posted by: Susan on June 23, 2007 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

well put kevin. spot on.

Posted by: mestizo on June 23, 2007 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

I assume Buzz Madhatterson is leading the charge from his summer bunker in the Poconos.

Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08! on June 23, 2007 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK
...... You're a shame and a disgrace to the Republic! x at 2:09 PM
Anytime you want to be a hero to the republican you have only to put your skin where your mouth is: Iraq. There's a flight, every night. Show no fright: it's a delight.
....The fact is, it is much easier to bitch than it is to do something constructive. sportsfan79 at 2:25 PM
We realize that you were Born to Bitch, there is some overlap on the Bush/congressional polling. However, it's based on different reasoning: Republicans are still swooning over Bush's incompetence, Dems are angry their representatives aren't carrying out their will. Posted by: Mike on June 23, 2007 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

And who are they going to blame once they realize that this this administration has spent the past five years scrambling around on their knees kissing the royal asses of those who truly are responsible for 9/11:

www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com

These people are dumber than a bag of hammers!

Posted by: Bill in Chicago on June 23, 2007 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

even the conservetard architects and cheerleaders of this war have admitted that Bush is the one responsible for its failure, not liberals or progressives or Democrats.

I was at a conference last week in the heart of the financial district in NYC, and while the vast majority of the people there were lifelong GOPers, not one had a good word to say about GWB.

One grey-hair, a friend of Fred Fielding, described a conversation he had with FF when he had decided to take over from Miers as WH counsel. The grey-hair said he couldn't believe that FF was taking the job, saying "there is nobody home there [in the White House]." FF responded that that was exactly why he was taking the job -- they needed him.

Posted by: Disputo on June 23, 2007 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

You mean the book by this guy?

Posted by: Kevin Hayden on June 23, 2007 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

Once again--pace Godwin--I must share a favorite quotation:

"It all happened bc nobody trusted me, nobody believed in me, and the generals let me down."
-A Hitler, Fuhrerbunker, Late April 1945

Posted by: DrBB on June 23, 2007 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

All together, now. Practice shouting "Fck U nd yr Sht! Shut up! Fck U. Yr Fault. All Yrs!"

We'll be saying it for a long time to come.

Posted by: Scorpio on June 23, 2007 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

Conservatives love to flog liberals for arrogantly ignoring their naturally superior arguments that they forever offer up to explain to us how the world really works.

But what conservatives mistake for liberal arrogance is really a weary assertiveness we are forced to practice day in and day out as we shoulder the burden of always being wrong about the constitution, individual and human rights, foreign intelligence gathering, wars, the environment, family values and domestic programs.

We accept the fact that we can't disagree with conservatives without seeming arrogant. It just comes with the territory.

It's hard being liberal, but someone has to do it.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on June 23, 2007 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

With a landslide majority margin against the war, I don't think the remaining Bushite fanatics will come close to persuading the people of this drivel -- IF the Democrats actually try to reply to it (unlike that dimwit John Kerry) by pointing out WHY it's drivel. However, the response of all three Dem frontrunners to Giuliani's earlier accusation -- which was simply to whine about him "trying to divide the country", instead of explaining WHY what he said was false -- is not encouraging.

(And, once again, remind me of how this halfwit got his law degree?)

Posted by: BruceMoomaw on June 23, 2007 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

God damnit.
I wish Michael Moore would just get to work on his next project:
_I didn't do it: The GOP's ceaseless quest to blame everyone but themselves for their many many failures_.

Posted by: Maynard Handley on June 23, 2007 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

The next couple of years is going to be a nonstop frenzy of books, articles, TV shows, op-eds, radio segments, blog posts, and white papers about how everyone except George Bush and his enablers were responsible for our catastrophe in the Middle East. Anyone will do, as long as it's not them.

And every once in a while I just need to stay "you disgusting pieces of shit. fuck you you cowardly bottom-feeding vermin."

There, I feel better. Now on back to reasonable discourse.

Posted by: Del Capslock on June 23, 2007 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

***NEWS FLASH***

Buzz Patterson is full of shit!

Terrorism is worse under Republican Administrations!

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on June 23, 2007 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

but whats funny is they WILL blame bush and his enablers for failing conservatism instead of conservatism failing. this has already begun as well.

Posted by: ron on June 23, 2007 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

but whats funny is they WILL blame bush and his enablers for failing conservatism instead of conservatism failing. this has already begun as well.

If only Cheney were in charge none of this would have ever happened!

Posted by: edub on June 23, 2007 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

X:"...in full view that the war was approved by Democrats, and now continues to be funded, with no strings attached, by a Democrat House and Senate?"

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but the first assertion is one that drives me crazy. In an incredibly pro-war environment fed by cherry-picked intelligence and some flat-out lies, 57% of Democratic representatives and senators voted against the AUMF. Less than 3% of Republicans voted against it.

Now, whose war is it?


(and BTW, the only reason there aren't "strings attached" to Iraq funding is that Bush vetoed them. Reasonable benchmarks that could have pushed the Iraqis and gotten our military home sooner, benchmarks that were essentially voluntary, and Bush vetoed it.

That's how he supports the troops.

Posted by: pdq on June 23, 2007 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

"about how everyone except George Bush and his enablers were responsible for our catastrophe in the Middle East"

Is this substantively different than the dominant narrative in the "leftish" media (which largely supported the war)? The narrative that harps on the incompetence of Bush's prosecution of the war?

As, if only they had enough troops, or secured the infrastructure, or used a heavier/lighter touch with the civilians, or Abu-Ghraib-type abominations hadn't happened, etc., etc., then maybe your "liberal" idealized war to "clean up the middle east" and start the dominoes of democracy falling might've worked?

Just sounds funny to keep hearing, years later, the Mr. Drums, Yglesias, Klein's, Chaits, Friedmans, the NYTs, TNRs, and WashPosts of the world complain about "Bush's enablers"!?

Look in a mirror guys.

Posted by: luci on June 23, 2007 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

"I alone am responsible for our failure in Iraq."

Posted by: slanted tom on June 23, 2007 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

I like seeing Kevin fired up...a little righteous indignation is the appropriate response.

In fact, Kevin's post has forced me to think how I'm going to meet this head on...because, Kevin is right, there's going to be a Sh*t storm of blame laid on our backs.

And I ain't going to take it.

Forewarned is forearmed.

Best Wishes, Traveller

Posted by: Traveller on June 23, 2007 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK
So the roughly 70% of people who are dissatisfied with Bush - are they the same roughly 70% who are dissatisfied with the Democratic congress?

There is significant overlap, since the failure to effectively change the direction Bush has set is a substantial source of dissatisfaction with the Congress.

OTOH, because any voter eligible to vote in Presidential elections has a voice in choosng at most 0.5% and as little as 0% of the members of Congress, while any voter eligible to vote for Congress has a voice in choosing the President, its normal for the President to have a substantially higher approval rating than Congress as a whole.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 23, 2007 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin: Who is going to buy those books you are talking about? When we are out (or on the way out) of Iraq, the last thing people will want to do is relive the G Bush's Iraq glory days.

Posted by: Big Red on June 23, 2007 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know of a single neocon or war supporter that doesn't concede that Bush deserves the lions share of blame for this fiasco...What we would like is an opposition like General Zinni, someone honest enough to admit that the conditions today are different than they were in 2002, even if it confirms your original position. I know this war has been bungled. I know Bush should have never been elected. But if we bug out now the result will be worse than the alternative, and we dastardly rightwingers will hold you accountable.

Posted by: minion on June 23, 2007 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

Minion, that is abusive husband "you made me hit you" logic. Ain't gonna fly in the court of public opinion any farther than it does in domestic violence court.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 23, 2007 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

Why are all you reasonably intelligent people talking so seriously about an aging, batshit-crazy former Army officer who still insists on being called "Buzz"? Col. Lightyear is obviously part of that dwindling 25% of Americans who still make up "The Proud. The Few. The Morons."

Someone like that is clearly their own best parody, and therefore it's not worth getting one's panties in a bunch over what he says. Arguing about his nonsense just gives him street-cred amongst the ill-informed, who may gain the mistaken impression that the guy knows what he's talking about.

Dismiss him publicly for the malevolent but still two-dimensional Looney Tunes character that he is, and move on. We've got far more important things to do than respond to the right-wing's bait.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on June 23, 2007 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

But if we bug out now the result will be worse than the alternative, and we dastardly neocons (fixed it for you there, minion) will hold you accountable.

But not volunteer, of course.

Posted by: Gregory on June 23, 2007 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

"Is this substantively different than the dominant narrative in the "leftish" media (which largely supported the war)? The narrative that harps on the incompetence of Bush's prosecution of the war?"

To which "leftish" media are you referring, luci? You sure as hell don't hear this narrative on any of the major broadcast networks, nor do you see it in the editorial pages of the Washington Post or WSJ. And only recently did the NY Times stop shilling for the war and apologizing for its failure to accurately report what Drum and the rest of the left blogosphere had nailed from the beginning. If the "leftish" media are picking up on it now, it's because the "rightish" media (Fox, conservative talk radio, and the right blogosphere) are trying to flog it for all it's worth, hoping that people like you are gullible enough to swallow it.

If you intend to argue that the mainstream media opposed or ever seriously questioned the conduct of this war, I'm going to call bullshit right now. They have been cheerleaders and apologists from the beginning, with only Knight-Ridder (now McClatchey) daring to try to get the real story behind the "slam-dunk" intelligence and baseless hubris that led us into this conflict. Please show me all the editorials prior to GOP collapse last November blasting Bush for his conduct of the war or calling for withdrawal, despite the fact that those attitudes were held by two-thirds of the public.

"As, if only they had enough troops, or secured the infrastructure, or used a heavier/lighter touch with the civilians, or Abu-Ghraib-type abominations hadn't happened, etc., etc., then maybe your "liberal" idealized war to "clean up the middle east" and start the dominoes of democracy falling might've worked?"

Wow, talk about projection - so the liberals are the ones who started this war to '"clean up the middle east" and start the dominoes of democracy falling?"' Are you kidding me? Talk about "Look in the mirror!" You just perfectly articulated the purest of neocon dogma, espoused by the acolytes of PNAC since the end of the first Gulf War, and ascribed it to the "liberals." You're a real piece of work, luci, and obviously a neoncon yourself, since you seem to be congenitally incapable of marshaling an honest argument. Is this what happens when cognitive dissonance goes critical?

Posted by: jjcomet on June 23, 2007 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

But if we bug out now the result will be worse than the alternative

Prove it.

Iraq is screwed because of you and yours either way, but chances are pulling out is what it needs to get serious about getting its act together.

and we dastardly rightwingers will hold you accountable.

Under what theory? The theory that once you've shit the bed you can unshit it? That once you've split the baby in two it can just be bandaged back together and somehow progressives are standing in your way of that?

Iraq is broken beyond repair our ability to repair it because YOU couldn't be bothered to pay enough attention to know that there were no WMD's, that Saddam was not a threat, and that he was no working with Al Qaeda (and no, this was never a war of "liberation"). So that's a moral and strategic disaster on top of the bungling that followed.

Now that you broke it and it remains not only unfixable but getting worse with each new troop we put in theater, you're going to blame someone else for anything that happens???

Screw off, you loon.

Posted by: tRex on June 23, 2007 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

jjcomet, talk about totally missing the point. luci is rightfully criticizing the liberal war hawks who bought into GWB's war of aggression 5 years ago. Perhaps you haven't been around these parts very long, but that group includes Kevin Drum.

Posted by: Disputo on June 23, 2007 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

Greg - If the Air Force called me back I'd be willing to serve.

BG - How was my argument comprable to a wifebeaters? Even Kevin Drum has conceded during one of his lucid intervals that a more competent execution of this war could have produced a more humane outcome, the fact that we've come so close with the incompetent crew we've had supports that premise. Is General Zinni a wifebeater too? He says a commitment for five to seven more years to train troops [especially an officer and NCO corps] is feasible and our moral obligation. I realize that's an uncomfortable thought, but what is illogical about it.

Posted by: minion the neocon on June 23, 2007 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

If the Air Force called me back I'd be willing to serve.

What's stopping you from volunteering?

How was my argument comprable to a wifebeaters?

You refuse to take responsibility for your fuck up -- you said you'd blame it on the Dems, as is SOP for you wingnuts.

Posted by: Disputo on June 23, 2007 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

The articles about Saudi Arabia linked to above are instructive and point to this inescapable conclusion: the US is allied to the fount of terrorism because it is addicted to oil. The fount of oil is at the same time the fount of terrorism. It's kind of a metaphor: our prosperity is killing us. The Bush adminstration and its cronies especially, profit immensely from the "Islamofacists." Bush is a worthy succesor to Prescott, who invested heavily in the Nazis. If the Bush administration is looking the other way now with regards to Saudi terrorism, it is a great possibility that it was looking the other way, and indeed may have been actively complicit on 9/11.

Posted by: blog on June 23, 2007 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINK

If the Air Force called me back I'd be willing to serve.

Oh, that's impressive, given that the Army and Marines are ones that are nearly broken by Bush's fuckup -- don't even get me started on the National Guard.

Not good enoug, "minion". Sure, you're going to blame someone other than the neocons -- I and others here have been predicting you toads would polish up the Dolchstosslegende, and you're here admitting to it.

But if pulling out now in the wake of Bush's colossal fuckup is bed, then before you get to blame anyone else in some desperate attempt to preserve the GOP's decades-long branding effort, you and your fellow "minions" need to put your own asses on the line. I know your dear leaders like Cheney had "other priorities," but that doesn't fly anymore.

Our military is collapsing. You assholes have been demanding that other people die for your jackass policies long enough. It's time for you to take some responsibility -- and make amends for supporting this fuckup in the first place. Otherwise you'll have no credibility whatsoever -- well, okay, your support of the GOP and the neocons means you don't now, but anyway -- but the American public simply isn't going to buy the Dolchstosslegende knowing that cretins like you wouldn't fight this so-called existential clash of civilizations.

Americans recognize cowards as well as charlatans, minion, and they've got your side pegged.

Posted by: Gregory on June 23, 2007 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINK

What was your AFSC Minion?

And your question about ducking responsibility and blaming anyone but your own corrupt, mendacious leaders has been adequately addressed.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 23, 2007 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

You've talked me into it - I'm going down to the recruiter's office Monday. Hope you're happy, you won't have the minion to kick around anymore. Does General Zinni have to go back on active duty to have the right to speak on this issue? How about Bob Kerrey? I'm not sure of the requirements demanded by the anti-chickenhawk movement these days.

Posted by: minion on June 23, 2007 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

Minion, you have a right to speak on this issue and we have the right to call you out as a coward for your stance on this issue.

Posted by: blolg on June 23, 2007 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK

You know Minion, I take personal offense at that last comment by you.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 23, 2007 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK

Blue Girl,

I was in the Security Police many years back. I'm not sure if Castle AFB is still active in Merced, CA, but I spent a lot of boring days there. And how do you say I'm ducking responsibility? I said Bush deserves the lion's share of blame. If you ever read neocon agitprop you would know we've been more exasperated with this administration than you folks have.

Posted by: minion on June 23, 2007 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

Going all the way back to the first comment:

"one might ask professor instanitwit exactly what "winning" the war on terror might look like (not to mention what "losing" it looks like)."

I do, actually, routinely, via e-mail. He never answers. I have also taken it as a personal duty to ask him, every time he calls for the overthrow of the Iranian government, what he thinks would happen after that and why he's so sure it would be in America's interest. Again, he has never answered.

Ted

Posted by: Ted on June 23, 2007 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

I know this war has been bungled. I know Bush should have never been elected. But if we bug out now the result will be worse than the alternative, and we dastardly rightwingers will hold you accountable. (emphasis added)

You make an assertion not in evidence, then you - whose criminal leaders have ducked accountability at every turn - make the proclamation that you will hold us accountable.

Also, I find it odd that your AFSC isn't immediate recall. I mean, 20 years hence I can spit out my MFA and AOC reflexively.

But anyone who has been in the Air Force knows the SP's are not the sharpest - *ahem* - tools in the shed.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 23, 2007 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

The next couple of years is going to be a nonstop frenzy of books, articles, TV shows, op-eds, radio segments, blog posts, and white papers about how everyone except George Bush and his enablers were responsible for our catastrophe in the Middle East.

That's definitely half true. We will have the complementary frenzy blaming everything wrong (and some things that aren't) on bush and his team members. Grist for every mill.

Posted by: MatthewRmarler on June 23, 2007 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

Now, if you will excuse me, I am attending a retirement party for an O-6 tonight.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 23, 2007 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINK

I guess your right, Blue Girl, I'm just too dumb to be a liberal. Have a great party with some swell O-6 person. I'll sit here and cry on my keyboard.

Posted by: minion on June 23, 2007 at 8:18 PM | PERMALINK

Do you know the difference between blaming Bush and blaming others Marler? Bush started the war. He told lies that you still occasionally repeat about how Iraq was a threat to our national security and without provocation started bombing civilians in Baghdad (during the "Shock and Awe" phase, how many military targets were hit and how many of the targets were merely places where Saddam Hussein "might" have been - but obviously wasn't?).

In other words, Kevin is complaining about people who will be telling lies with their books, articles, and blog posts. He's talking about people exactly like you.

Posted by: heavy on June 23, 2007 at 8:38 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know of a single neocon or war supporter that doesn't concede that Bush deserves the lions share of blame for this fiasco...What we would like is an opposition like General Zinni, someone honest enough to admit that the conditions today are different than they were in 2002, even if it confirms your original position.

"We."

Who the fuck is "we?"

What makes you think Republicans, conservatives, or those who supported Bush in his conduct of the war deserve anything except the contempt of their fellow citizens?

Contempt is all you are entitled to. Because now the adults have to clean up the mess in Iraq. The adults have to come in and clean up after this shitty party you threw. The adults have to extract our military from Iraq, maintain enough troops in the region to ensure US interests are protected, maintain the secure flow of oil through the Persian Gulf with a greatly diminished reputation in the entire Middle East region, retrain, rebuild, reorganize and reequip a million-person military almost from scratch with no hope of ever recruiting the kind of technically qualified people we were getting six years ago, care for over ten thousand seriously injured amputees, care for tens of thousands of Veterans suffering from PTSD, and figure out how to pay for the nearly trillion dollars that this war cost us.

Republicans--who fucking HATE government--aren't capable of doing any of those things. The adults have to do that now. The small government, cut spending, keep us out of foreign entanglement Republicans have no seat at the table anymore--they were run out of your party. There are no responsible conservatives anymore--they spent years rubber stamping this administration.

So sit back and relax. Your time is done. In the next election cycle, your way of thinking will be permanently stamped out of existence in this government and in this political arena. Being a neocon who supported Bush is going to be akin to being a Republican who stood behind Nixon as late as August, 1974. Enjoy your obscurity. Twenty years from now, we will still scorn you and you will still wonder why you can't be heard without having people laugh at you and roll their eyes. That's how fucking ridiculous you people are, especially today.

I know this war has been bungled. I know Bush should have never been elected. But if we bug out now the result will be worse than the alternative, and we dastardly rightwingers will hold you accountable.

Bullshit. We could leave tomorrow and you know what would happen? The Iraqis would continue killing each other. We can't stop that now, with over 150,000 troops on the ground. We are merely feeding men and women into a meatgrinder.

You will never, ever have the moral authority to hold ANYONE accountable ever again. Your time is up. Your seat at the table is gone, motherfucker. You loved this war, you cheered the deaths and you sneered at anyone who had a different opinion. You sneered at your fellow Americans who spoke up in 2003, in 2004, in 2006 and this year. You sneered and supported Bush with all the venom in your vicious little soul. You aligned yourself with Bush and looked with disdain at anyone who had a different take on the situation. You shouted down anyone who protested. You think you can hold someone "accountable?"

What a crock of shit. You're not even accountable for the lies you told today. You are a pathetic, whining, sniveling little insect, not worth a further word.

Posted by: Some Perspective For You on June 23, 2007 at 9:06 PM | PERMALINK

The stab in the back theme is predictable. What is puzzling to me is why liberals get so upset about it. Big deal. There's a self-selecting reactionary group in this country that will believe anything, that will commit any hypocrisy, cheerlead any lie, as long as it is racist, warmongering and their taxes don't go up because of it. We know what they watch - fox - we know what they read - the right blogsphere, and the ones with glasses actually read the National Review - and we know they will listen to Rush until the end of time. Conclusion? Unfortunately, whenever this trope is trundled out, the conclusion is usually something about carefully avoiding that accusation - as if the people making it are going to pause. The whole point of the hotbreathing is intellectual blackmail. If one looks around at comment sections that are ideologically neutral - say the Washington Post - it is interesting that the percentage of warmongers has gone down considerably, and their rhetoric has turned into non-stop invective - in effect, they've built a wall around their position. They can't grow any bigger, and they have become addicted to a cholesterol rich diet that is parasitic on being paid attention to and responded to in kind by liberals and independents. But it is a game of bad mojo, because Liberals and independents commence the same invective laden stuff, or the long boring arguments stuff, or the defensive stuff. These people aren't important. Let them do their worst - they can only shrink.

Posted by: roger on June 23, 2007 at 9:10 PM | PERMALINK

Do you think the Saudis consider the Bushes, Cheney, the CEOs of the multinationals and the Carlyle crowd their personal dhimmi-wits?

Posted by: blog on June 23, 2007 at 9:20 PM | PERMALINK

Poor Roger.

Your outdated way of thinking just lets them off the hook.

These people need to be scorned and humiliated. They need to be held accountable for their bullshit and their lies.

You say:

They can't grow any bigger, and they have become addicted to a cholesterol rich diet that is parasitic on being paid attention to and responded to in kind by liberals and independents.

How do they grow in stature by being put in their place? If anything, responding to the empty threat of minion to "hold us accountable" is exactly the reason why we cannot ignore these people--they have to be responded to and told to go fuck themselves for having the audacity to think they have any moral authority anymore.

Then you say:

But it is a game of bad mojo, because Liberals and independents commence the same invective laden stuff, or the long boring arguments stuff, or the defensive stuff. These people aren't important. Let them do their worst - they can only shrink.

Uh, they're still in power, at least in the executive branch. They still control 90% of talk radio. They still have Fox news. They still show up on Meet the Press every goddamned week. If anything, now is not the time to declare this to be a zero-sum game.

Now is the time to ride these bastards into the dirt and let the horse shit on them, repeatedly. They never let up with their invective. They're never going to play nice. They're never going to stop using the techniques of questioning people's patriotism, are they? You remember that, don't you? Anyone who stood up and criticized the conduct of the Iraq war was unpatriotic and hated the troops and wanted us to lose. Do you remember Lynne Cheney asking Wolf Blitzer if he wanted our troops to lose in Iraq? And we're supposed to respond in what manner to this kind of baldfaced bullshit? With kind, soothing words?

They deserve nothing but scorn for even trying to speak to the people who opposed this war from the start with any kind of superior tone. These fuckers get the back of my hand, wherever I can find them.

Sorry, chump. You wanna fold up like a cheap tent and surrender to them because "responding in kind" is not what you would do? Fuck you and your tender sensibilities. Now is the time to let these people have it, lest they think they can rise up again and shout down people who advocate peace, diplomacy and the rule of law.

You do remember the rule of law, don't you? And you think letting people who have zero respect for the rule of law and the US Constitution off the hook is a good thing?

You're as pathetic as they are.

I, for one, have a clear conscience and I'll give these people all the hell they have coming to them. Thank you very much.

Posted by: Some Persepective For You on June 23, 2007 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

Don't forget as well, that Bush, by not confronting the Saudis directly, is allowing terrorists in Iraq to massacre soldiers and civilians in Iraq. He is deliberately turning a blind eye to these Saudi terrorists. Perhaps it is more of a wink and a nod.

Posted by: blog on June 23, 2007 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINK

This points to the real reasons behind the invasion. Did the establishent react with fury to the true terrorists in Saudi Arabia? Obviously not. They reacted with a fury and vengeance to those who would presume to disrupt smooth business and the flow of capital and profits. Mammon is their true god.

Posted by: blog on June 23, 2007 at 11:04 PM | PERMALINK

Bush... is allowing terrorists in Iraq to massacre soldiers and civilians in Iraq.

And he's funding AQ terrorists in Iran to massacre soldiers and civilians in Iran.

Bush's hands are awash in blood.

Posted by: Disputo on June 23, 2007 at 11:12 PM | PERMALINK

Another conclusion that can de drawn from the articles is that the Bush administration has no interest in eliminating Saudi terrorism. On the contrary, their main interest seems to be to nurture it and manipulate it to their own ends.

Posted by: blog on June 24, 2007 at 12:51 AM | PERMALINK

Just to let you know about Buzz Patterson's relationship to reality, here's a quote from July 6, 2005:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161463,00.html


"The war is being won, if not already won, I think," Patterson, who is retired from the U.S. Air Force, said. "[Iraq] is stabilized and we want the soldiers themselves to tell the story."


(And yes, I did beat Atrios to this! http://radamisto.blogspot.com/2007/04/wingnut-world.html)

Posted by: Steve J. on June 24, 2007 at 1:03 AM | PERMALINK

I think that was a threat from Instapundit. Threats though are meaninglessness now. The neo-cons have already 'robbed the bank and killed hostages'. Threats of mayhem to garner compliance are besides the point now.

Posted by: Apollo on June 24, 2007 at 1:04 AM | PERMALINK

"this war is about oil, and never been about anything else."

Over half of the world's oil reserves are in Alberta, Canada. A ten hour tank ride north of Montana would thus allow the USA to control over half of the world's oil supply. And guess what? The natives there speak English, and are so right wing they make Texas look like France.

Head. Ass. Remove.

Posted by: Ed Minchau on June 24, 2007 at 1:29 AM | PERMALINK

LMAO at Ed.

If you're going to argue that tar sands and oil are fungible, why not go all the way and argue that coal and oil are fungible -- and guess who has the most coal? Problem solved.

Posted by: Disputo on June 24, 2007 at 1:54 AM | PERMALINK

The US already controls the reserves in Albnerta, which have poor EROEI and do not amount to nearly one-half of the world oil reserves. The insane greedy bastards wanted to control it all and dominate the world, for goodness sake.

Posted by: blog on June 24, 2007 at 2:11 AM | PERMALINK

NYT: "Eight American servicemen and one British soldier were reported today to have been killed in Iraq, bringing the four-day death toll to at least 25 as insurgents continue to use huge roadside bombs to rip through combat vehicles."

So the surge is working, eh Al? Guess you mean that you actually WANT Americans dead now, to prove some point or other. Can't see what else you could possibly mean by "working"--unless you are holding your breath for an all-out nuclear conflagration, and figure this will do the trick. And you really are that stupid and cruel, aren't you? You're just not very brave, that much is clear.

Posted by: Kenji on June 24, 2007 at 4:02 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin

The fact you call this a catastrophe is perfect evidence of your desire to see us lose.

We lost an average of 6,000 soldiers a month during WWII. At this rate, we would have to be in iraq until 2070 to equal the casualties we had in Vietnam. Those numbers cannot be ignored. You folks are determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

You ARE stabbing us in the back.

Posted by: A.W. on June 24, 2007 at 4:30 AM | PERMALINK

A single death is a tragedy, three thousand deaths are a statistic. Odd how the Party of Reagan has come around to my way of thinking.

Posted by: Josef Stalin on June 24, 2007 at 5:14 AM | PERMALINK

Democrats have been "in power" in Congress for a mere six months and are expected to fix everything this administration has had years to ruin, destroy, complicate....

Posted by: consider wisely always on June 24, 2007 at 5:18 AM | PERMALINK

A.W., why aren't you in Iraq to suffer death, maiming, blinding, traumatic head injuries, genital injuries, DU poisoning and PTSD?

Posted by: blog on June 24, 2007 at 5:29 AM | PERMALINK

This was the first made for TV war and it is obvious that that is the way the psychopathic republicans treat it. It is nothing but an holographic simulacrum to these nuts. TV has totally divorced them from reality so that they have no real feelings anymore. It is all a stage set where they play out their made for TV script.

Posted by: blog on June 24, 2007 at 5:37 AM | PERMALINK

Reading through these comments, I'm wondering who else realizes that the, "war on terror," is in fact a fiction, an invention. How can you win or lose a made-up thing?

Posted by: Me on June 24, 2007 at 6:36 AM | PERMALINK

Gotta side with A.W. here. We're spending a fraction of what it took to help the Soviets crush Nazi Germany and to put an end to Japanese imperialism in our own quest to establish an Iranian-backed Islamic theocracy with a program of oppressing Sunni Arabs and a Kurdish province that will bolt into open war with Bagdhad if Iraq tries to integrate it into the polity. Sure, every American soldier is more highly trained, more professional than any GI in 'nam or WWII, and this is the culture of life, you know, where every one is unique and precious, but how is that not a bargain?

So "The Left" wants America to lose "The War on Terror"? Not unless "The Left" voted for Bush, because there's no one more responsible for our dimming prospect to snuff out political Islam than George W. And, his enablers like A.W.

Posted by: Brian C.B. on June 24, 2007 at 8:55 AM | PERMALINK

Let's change the framing of this stuff; they aren't "the pro-war crowd" they are "anti-peace activists."

Posted by: A Hermit on June 24, 2007 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, "some perspective for you" -- those were some kickass posts.

I couldn't agree more. And since I can't say it with quite your passion, I'm going to steal yours.

Keep it up.

Posted by: Auto on June 24, 2007 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

They hate its allegiance to the flag, there disciplined hierarchy, there comraderie, there willingness to lay down there lives for a cause greater than gay marriages.

I hate to be a grammar hag, but it's spelled 'their'...that was like four times in one sentence. On a more substantive note, 86 the straw men...they grow tiresome.

Posted by: EpicureanQuaker on June 24, 2007 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

The fact you call this a catastrophe is perfect evidence of your desire to see us lose.

Bullshit, you water-carrying apologist. Having a clear perception of reality does not equate to a desire to see anyone lose anything. And don't give me those straw man stats from other wars. It's crap and you either know it or you are so god-damned stupid you shouldn't even get out of bed without a fucking helmet, you idiot child. Don't bring weak-assed straw-man arguments here, because we all have a Zippo.

Perspective is right - all you mendacious pricks and war-mongering cowards get is the back of my hand, or possibly a boot to the head. Look at reality and can the magical thinking. The Army is broke, and aWol is the vandal who broke it. You fuckers need to be hounded from public life and held up to mockery and ridicule the rest of your days, you loathsome fools.

And by the way - don't go throwing around "us" if you have no skin in the game.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 24, 2007 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

In fact - You "American Exceptionalism" people make me sick. Especially since our only claim to that thin reed of a concept to begin with was our Constitution and the fact that we put the Rule of Law above all else. This administration has thrown both overboard, and they were enabled by idiots like A.W.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 24, 2007 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, Blue Girl, it's sounding like you've really been drinking the Kool-Aid. Is Hillary Clinton one of the mendacious pricks and war-mongering cowards? The only magical thinking I see going on is by those that think we can bug out of Iraq and not leave a killing field that makes Rwanda, Kossovo, and Darfur combined look like a teddy bear's picnic. I think I've been up front about the failures of my team, why can't you acknowledge that the other side might be sincere as well?
BTW, I think one of the unstated reasons Fred Thompson is doing so well in the Republican polls is that he's one of the very few establishment figures that refused to join Bush's team back in 2000. If he gives us some continuity next year, and lays down the law with the Iraqis before their next election in 2009, I still think this thing has a chance to be salvaged.

Posted by: minion on June 24, 2007 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

You think any woman over 35 is going to vote for Thompson in the primary? Nope. Not when he looks like a letch every time he appears in public with a wife that looks more like a late-in-life daughter.

And that kool-aid swilling is the providence of those who still believe Iraq can be salvaged. You have sons, no? Are they volunteering to surge and salvage?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 24, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Oh - and I am not backing Hillary in the primary, and have a couple of issues with her war stance. I will, however, back whoever the Democratic nominee is because you neocons must be banished forever, for the sake of our Republic. But in the primary, I have committed to another candidate.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 24, 2007 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

If this were June of 1864 you'd be saying anyone who thought our aggression against the poor misunderstood slaveholders could be salvaged was drinking the sasparilla.

I agree Obama's family and appearance are more photogenic than Thompson's. Hillary too often looks like a rabid chipmunk for Dems to be throwing stones at our guys, though. And Thompson's wife should be able to keep him off the fat interns.

I'm a single parent raising four sons. My nineteen year old has a disability that precludes service. My fifteen year old looks forward to applying to the Naval Academy. The younger ones haven't considered career options. The idea of losing them in a war is the most powerful and unfair argument you could deploy, but they've been raised with my values and would be willing to serve if needed.

I have guests on the way now, not any bigshot O-6 but I still luv'em, so this will be my last contribution for the day.

Posted by: minion on June 24, 2007 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

Who, pray tell, am I supposed to know? Who is supposed to be in my circle? Neocon chickenhawks?

And as to what you think is fair, I could not possibly, even if I applied myself to the effort, care less what you - or any other self-professed neocon - perceive as "fair." Especially after you made the claim you would hold us - US! - accountable for the Iraq fiasco.

Please, pucker up and kiss my firm white ass.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 24, 2007 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

If the hold-you-accountable phrase was too pugnacious I withdraw it. I think Kevin started the flamboyant language with his Daffy Duck impression complaining about stinkin' desperation on the part of we abused neocons. I'll decline your quasi-sexual offer, because I believe you're a married woman and that violates my old fashioned values. I hope your party went well last night.

Posted by: minion on June 24, 2007 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

Some responses:

Blog (and Blue Girl),

> A.W., why aren't you in Iraq to suffer death, maiming, blinding, traumatic head injuries, genital injuries, DU poisoning and PTSD?

Two responses:

1) How do you know I am not there now?

[because your IP says you are not]

Posted by: A.W. on June 25, 2007 at 1:17 AM | PERMALINK

So,

Kevin and the assembled leftist masses here...

1) What would you define as victory in Iraq? You are convinced we are not winning or cannot win, so you must have some definition of what victory would look like to know so well what it is not. What is victory in Iraq look like?

2) What would you do to achieve that conception of victory you envision?

3) If you had to work with Bush and the "pro-war" crowd to achieve victory, would you do it?


Weary G

Posted by: Weary_G on June 25, 2007 at 6:34 AM | PERMALINK

The inevitable "concern troll" shows up and asks a lot of leading, stupid questions.

First and foremost, fuck off. You don't have the "moral authority" to try to make the case that those of us who want our troops out of Iraq are rooting for defeat. Defeat is what is handed to an Army that cannot sustain operations. Defeat is handed to people who refuse to change their tactics. Defeat is what you get when you refuse to acknowledge how the fight is going.

The US military destroyed Iraq's Army in a few weeks. Mission Accomplished. The military did the job we designed for it. They won.

The Bush administration failed to secure Iraq, failed to put people in the Coalition Provisional Authority who were competent, failed to secure Iraq's ammo dumps, failed to anticipate a Ba'ath party insurgency, failed to anticipate the Shia-Sunni conflict, failed to deal effectively with the tribal shiekhs who have enormous influence, failed to train and equip a competent Iraqi security apparatus, failed to prepare for the rise of the Shia militias, failed to realize that several million disenfranchised Sunni men wouldn't take kindly to be disenfranchised, failed to engage Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia in a serious discussion about supplying the insurgents that agreed with their political premise whether they were Sunni or Shia and failed to identify a clear strategy for handing over control of Iraq to the Iraqi government.

The military did not fail. The politicians failed.

1) What would you define as victory in Iraq? You are convinced we are not winning or cannot win, so you must have some definition of what victory would look like to know so well what it is not. What is victory in Iraq look like?

How about--no US troops getting killed? The Iraqis able to govern themselves? Too complicated for you? As I said, we already won the Iraq war when we dismantled the Iraqi Army. Winning is your simplistic, World-War-II mentality speaking. Welcome to the 21st century--your outdated views don't apply. The Iraqi government is illegitimate and does not have the support of its people. It can't govern. It can't protect people. It is rife with corruption. We put them there. How can you preach "victory" when you don't even understand what the situation in Iraq really is?

2) What would you do to achieve that conception of victory you envision?

A false premise. There is no battle that needs to be fought--in fact, every battle increases support to the irregular insurgency. There are 20 separate insurgency groups. There are at least 20 different and competing political philosophies battling it out for control in a broad civil war. There is no battle that can be fought to destroy them--they are intertwined with the Iraqi people.

3) If you had to work with Bush and the "pro-war" crowd to achieve victory, would you do it?

The same people who questioned my patriotism because I was right four years ago? The same people who have demonized every opposing viewpoint?

If a crackhead moves into your house, stabs you in the throat, takes your money, blows up your car and burns down your house, do you then go to your bank the next day and secure a $35,000 loan so that the crackhead can start his own auto detailing business? I mean, if the crackhead does get a second chance and a sweet loan to start that auto detailing business, chances are pretty good that he'll pay you back and not attack you again. So why don't you go get him that loan? Don't you want the crackhead to win? Don't you want to see the crackhead get a second chance to turn his life around? Are you rooting for defeat for this crackhead? All you have to do is turn the other cheek and hand over a big sum of money so that the crackhead can change his ways. Come on--have faith that the crackhead will change his ways.

The Bush administration and the apologists who support it are the crackhead that did just that to the US military. Their seat at the table is going to be removed. No, we're not going to work with the fools who perpetrated the wholesale dismantling and destruction of our military and who have left us defenseless.

Now, fuck off with your false concern.

Posted by: Some Perspective For You on June 25, 2007 at 8:18 AM | PERMALINK

A wingnut says:

How do you know I am not there now?

And the moderator says:

[because your IP says you are not]

Classic. A wingnut/republican/prowar troll has the audacity to try to gain some kind of moral authority over the posters on this blog by falsely claiming, or trying to claim, that they might be serving in Iraq.

This should explain the tenor of my comments and their confrontational style. This should explain why these people deserve no quarter and should be mocked, humiliated, shouted down, and treated like sewage in public. No amount of niceties, no amount of debating and no amount of reasoning is going to get through to these people.

They are desperate, they are wrong, they are dangerous and they have no qualms about using any and every tactic they can come up with to remain relevant in the debate on the Iraq war.

They are irrelevant. They will lie at the drop of the hat. And these are the people we're supposed to show compassion and respect for? Someone who would lie about being in Iraq?

No fucking way.

Posted by: Some Perspective For You on June 25, 2007 at 8:28 AM | PERMALINK

"First and foremost, fuck off."

Well, okay, I did, and thus did not bother to read the rest of your post. That was a lot of typing for nothing then, wasn't it?

WG

Posted by: Weary_G on June 25, 2007 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINK

Well, okay, I did, and thus did not bother to read the rest of your post. That was a lot of typing for nothing then, wasn't it?

Hear hear!

I believe that post was directed at me, as well.

There's no call for such language. Must we bicker about who was cut in half and who killed who and which party slaughtered whoever? Yes, it is true. The war is going badly. But General Petraeus has a plan and if you nattering liberals would just get out of his way and give him the six months he needs to make it work, everything will turn out all right. There are indications that the latest offensive into Baquba has been a huge success--why don't you naysayers admit that the surge is a huge success as well?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 25, 2007 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

One wonders if Col. Buzz Patterson could withstand a Nuremberg-like investigation of his military activities.

Posted by: Brojo on June 25, 2007 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

Weary G, click on the sitemeter some time. Smacking you up side the head, while entertaining and fun and all that - ain't about you - it's for the hundreds of lurkers out there.

You fuckers get the back of my hand, as Pesrspective so rightly put it - for their benefit.

At either end of the curve are about 28% who are unreachable ideologues. I have no time to preach to a brick wall nor a choir. They aren't going to change. I pummel concern trolls for the benefit of the 44% who are reachable.

That said, Buh-Bye.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 25, 2007 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

"You fuckers get the back of my hand..."

Hmmm, again with the vitriolic cursing. It almost seems like you people don't really have an argument or something.

Which is of course the problem, and my original point in posting those questions, which were quite reasonable.

Too many of you are full of bluster and rage and vitriol, but you just don't have any IDEAS. You are so animated with your hatred and self-righteous attitudes, you believe that's all you need to win the argument. You can't answer basic questions which your bitter criticism suggests you already have.

Glenn Reynolds' original comment was:

"I don't think that the left wants to lose the war on terror, exactly — they just want Bush to lose the war on terror."

HIS point being is that what seems to animate the left is not a desire to defeat the terrorists but to prove Bush wrong, no matter the cost. To some of you, victory is defined as defeating Bush, period. Nothing else matters and you will pay any other cost to see that done. You helped prove that point with your hateful non-responses.

Kevin can make his snarky comments, and you can sputter pornographically in frustrated rage all you want, but when queried about some basic points, you have nothing. Nothing. You are an empty vessel. People notice that, and deem the lot of you unworthy of serious consideration.

Ahh, but at least you have that hatred to keep you warm at night, right? That and the flames of car bombs and funeral pyres.

WG

Posted by: Weary G on June 25, 2007 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

WG, you are being an idiot. (Hope springs eternal that it can be cured....) It's not a matter of "defeating" Bush anyway, especially after 2004. Bush defeated his own war by bungling it, and the manner of that has been well detailed all over and in this thread (ignoring and sidelining Shinseki, firing translators for being, the idiocy of the Provisional Authority - staffed with political hacks instead of competent administrators, Chalabi, the corruption and graft, turning the populace against us with Abu Ghraib etc., the indulgence of the sectarian Shia-dominated "government" in Iraq, on and on... Can you get that through your addled, hate-baiting head? (People who sincerely complain about hatred don't indulge it with political pornography - indeed, "snark" of the lowest sort - about pretensions that your enemies enjoy things like the car bombs and funeral pyres that had at least a chance of being prevented by a competent war effort. You know, the worry of the sane people in the country, including Kevin (who even thought the war might be worthwhile in the beginning and caught heat for saying so, and I admit that I did too at the start...) about both the mess of the war and the grotesque irresponsibility of those responsible and their dead-ender supporters is not "snark" but depressing worry about the mess that has been made.

As for your complaints about not being engaged, you got some detailed answers from "Some Perspective For You", like them or not. BTW, I would define "victory" in Iraq as most would: a competent, non-sectarian unity government wins the cooperation of the populace, things start to work, and the militants and fanatics are marginalized. I think that had a chance to happen, but now it is so messy that success looks dim. But there has been plenty of good advice about what we could do in Iraq, from the ISG, Fareed Zakaria, et al, and yes Kevin Drum who has sometimes sounded quaintly optimistic even recently. The Bush administration could have tried listening to them. But they don't like advice from anyone except sycophants or those with favors to trade. They certainly don't like taking well-deserved blame ("the politics of personal responsibility"), and their followers are even worse.

Posted by: Neil B. on June 25, 2007 at 8:17 PM | PERMALINK

HIS point being is that what seems to animate the left is not a desire to defeat the terrorists but to prove Bush wrong, no matter the cost. To some of you, victory is defined as defeating Bush, period. Nothing else matters and you will pay any other cost to see that done. You helped prove that point with your hateful non-responses.

His point is calculated to mitigate the Right's responsibility for demonizing the Left's opposition to the war.

It is quite Machiavellian--if you screw up a war against 20,000 insurgents in a desert nation and break a modern military machine doing so, what else is there to do but seize on the fact that over half the country is angry about seeing their friends and family die in George Bush's war? These insurgents had nothing--no helicopters, no airplanes, barely any vehicles. And this is what you expect us to be impressed with? The fact that you had four years, a million man-military at your disposal, with the most modern weapons in history and the best people ever? It's like the adage of how someone was so inept they screwed up a one car parade. In this case, it was a lot more than a one car parade, and you couldn't even find the right cars and give the troops a chance to win it. It's not the fault of any of those troops--it's the fault of the politicians who failed to lead them and give them the mission to accomplish after the Mission was Accomplished.

Iraq had NOTHING to do with terrorism. But because Instapundit and enablers like yourself are staring down the barrel of the gun pointed at you--which is the responsibility for not only supporting the war but for demonizing all opposition to the war by allowing an environment to flourish where questioning the patriotism of anyone who raises a legitimate question as to whether this was the right war, whether the war was being fought in a manner that made sense, and whether the lack of diplomacy was really wise.

Really--am I not allowed to question the conduct of this war? Can anyone question this war? Republicans questioned every single instance where the military was deployed on Bill Clinton's orders. Isn't it hypocritical to say that we can't question George W Bush? I submit to you that it's okay to question Clinton or Bush, regardless of political party. I submit to you that asking questions is perfectly American.

Is it the role of an informed citizenry to:

1. Question authority?
2. Question their government?
3. Ask what their tax dollars are being spent on?
4. Raise questions when the justification for the war turns out to be false?
5. Voice dissent when they are not heard in the media?
6. March in protest when they feel they are not being heard?
7. Question politicians of both parties for their votes to begin the war and continue to fund the war?
8. Inquire as to why troops aren't armed with modern weapons and vehicles?
9. Ask why troops are coming home with head injuries that could have been prevented with better ballistic helmets?
10. Ask why the strategy hasn't changed in four years?
11. Ask why we have a shortage of up-armored, IED resistant vehicles over 4 years into the war?
12. Ask why there is no Middle East Peace Envoy?

And why, praytell, is there no accountability for the fact that George W Bush had to go out and find a War Czar? He's supposed to be the Commander in Chief. He has a Secretary of Defense. He has a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He has dozens of generals running everything from CENTCOM to NATO to TRADOC to the Chiefs of Staff for each branch of the service. He has a commander on the ground in Iraq. He has these men and these men have chiefs of staff themselves, and assistants and all manner of support structure.

And because this war is so out of control and so badly managed--he has to go find a war czar?

So, what do you expect? Kisses and hugs? You'll note that I did all of that without one profane word and one personal attack. It's so much more fun to do it the other way, but we can do this any which way you like. You choose the weapons, I'll still kick your fourth point of contact.

Posted by: Some Perspective For You on June 25, 2007 at 8:24 PM | PERMALINK

A.W., with that non-Iraq theater IP:

The situation is worse than death casualty figures make it seem, because of the huge number of non-fatal casualties (due to improved body armor and medical science.) That is a massive burden on the injured and society. Also, this is *four freakin' years* after we toppled the government our forces were sent in to overthrow - now they are fighting each other by reprising centuries old squabbles about the Hidden Imam and such stuff none of us cares about. Do you get that?

Posted by: Neil B. on June 25, 2007 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm, again with the vitriolic cursing. It almost seems like you people don't really have an argument or something.

I think a simple "fuck you" will suffice here, in the wake of Neil and Perspective confiscating your gonads and your ass.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 25, 2007 at 8:30 PM | PERMALINK

"WG, you are being an idiot."

I read this far, remembered you told me to f*** off, and skipped the rest of your long post which I am sure was chock full of such cogent arguments. Again, a lot of typing and ranting wasted by you, no?

So, who is the idiot?

WG

Posted by: weary G on June 26, 2007 at 5:46 AM | PERMALINK

"WG, you are being an idiot."

Oh, terribly sorry, it appears ANOTHER person here was starting off with an insult, and since he posted directly ahead of my good pal "Perspective", and people here like to communicate in massive chunks of block text, I missed that. My bad.

STILL a waste of time on your part "Perspective", as I did not bother to read you. Neil says you had some detailed answers for me, but again, since you first told me to "F*** **f", I did not feel terribly motivated to read them.

Neil, even though you start of insulting me, I'll get to you in a separate post, because it seems at least you have semblance of a discussion there.

Blue Girl,

"I think a simple "fuck you" will suffice here"

Considering you apparently have no real ability to debate, or even state, a point, I guess it would have to suffice for you, right?

I think Neil and myself can handle things without your input.

WG

Posted by: Weary G on June 26, 2007 at 6:01 AM | PERMALINK

Neil,

I am not sure how asking some rather reasonable questions is "being an idiot", but let's let that pass for now.

Let us assume that you are in large part right. The war in Iraq has had a number of mistakes committed during its course, and lets even assume that the Bush administration is responsible for most of them.

The question I posed to you did not question that perspective at all. What I asked (in a nutshell) was how would you define victory, how would you achieve it, and if you had to work with Bush to achieve it (this assumes he would "listen to you"), would you do it?

My point is, and what the original post was about, was whether the left had become so obsessed with proving Bush wrong, of proving themselves right, that they were ignoring the larger issue which was the war itself.

Take for example the first part of your answer to me. You give me a long laundry list of things the Bush administration has supposedly screwed up with the war. But, where do we go from HERE? Here, Neil.

You at least did address my questions, but look at some of the other responses here. I ask people, very civilly I thought, "Okay, how do you define victory so we know what to strive for and to be able to recognize it" and I get "F*** **f" and "F*** Y**". Forgive me, and others, for the impression that what motivates many people on the left is not a desire to get it right, but an animus to prove Bush wrong, the right wrong, or the whole war wrong, even if it costs losing the war to do it.

Let me ask you, Neil, how much do you know of the American Civil War? I assume probably a good deal, but I'll ask you.

WG

Posted by: Weary G on June 26, 2007 at 6:25 AM | PERMALINK

A hint to you, Weary G--

When you must respond three times, you have simply lost the debate. The word is "fuck" sir, and you may type it out. Using asterisks while you feverishly clutch your offended breast in shame is really unbecoming.

And asking about the Civil War, sir? Are you desperate for approval? Did Daddy whip your bare ass and call you a girl?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 26, 2007 at 7:43 AM | PERMALINK

"When you must respond three times, you have simply lost the debate."

Really? Where is that rule listed? Can I Google it? Because I thought the rule was when your first response to a civil post is "Fuck Off" (happy?), you've lost the argument.

"And asking about the Civil War, sir? Are you desperate for approval? Did Daddy whip your bare ass and call you a girl?"

You obviously have some issues to, er, work out, Norman. Perhaps discussing them with your therapist might be a better way to deal with them? Just a hint.

WG

Posted by: Weary G on June 26, 2007 at 8:17 AM | PERMALINK

Perhaps discussing them with your therapist might be a better way to deal with them? Just a hint.

Daddy used a leather belt with a big buckle on it, eh?

Another kind hint to you, sir--"projection" is unbecoming in a man who cannot deal with the fact that a pack of loonybin liberals bested you in a debate you clearly should have won.

It comes down to one simple fact--the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in it. Everything that led up to his fateful dangle at the end of a cheap piece of rope is just crying over sour milk.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on June 26, 2007 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINK

So, who is the idiot?

WG

Considering you apparently have no real ability to debate, or even state, a point, I guess it would have to suffice for you, right?

What the fuck are you, new here?

Forgive me, and others, for the impression that what motivates many people on the left is not a desire to get it right, but an animus to prove Bush wrong, the right wrong, or the whole war wrong, even if it costs losing the war to do it.

You are a watercarrying apologist for a war criminal.

And it isn't about disgracing your boy, Fluffer. He did that himself. The right is and has been wrong all by themselves. And your smarmy attempts at shifting responsibility for losing the war to us from the fucking idiot prince and his feckless, drooling, fellating fluffers like you are offensive in the extreme and worthy only of scorn, derision and ridicule. Like you fuckers who have enabled a war criminal and now you apologize for him.

Tells me all I need to know about you, Bub.

I almost forgot. Fuck You.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on June 26, 2007 at 10:24 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