I keep trying to write a post about the orgy of praise being heaped on UPI reporter Pam Hess by the right wing blogosphere for her remarks on Reliable Sources, but I can not seem to come up witha fitting and appropriate level of sarcasm. Her remarks:
It’s so much easier for us to cover this as a political horse race. It’s on the cover of “The New York Times” today, what this means for the ‘08 election. But we’re not asking the central national security question, because it seems that if as a reporter you do ask the national security question, all of a sudden you’re carrying Bush’s water. There are national security questions at stake, and we’re ignoring them and the country is getting screwed.
In other words- all those other reporters- they are not doing their jobs. But Pam Hess is asking the brave questions.
In case you are wondering, this isn’t the first time Pam Hess has been the go-to girl for the right and has bravely asked questions the rest of the media won’t. Here is the Instapundit linking previously to Pam Hess (once again from Reliable Sources):
If there’s a criticism to be made of the American media…[it] is that we are quite vigilant about U.S. propaganda. We are less so about insurgent propaganda. The 24-hour news cycle feeds into that, but we don’t quite know what to do with the information that they send us, so it becomes he said-she said reporting.
Yawn. In other words, this is precisely what I have stated over and over and over again. It isn’t that the right hates the media. They just hate the media when they aren’t saying exactly what they want them to say. The insinuation that people are not looking at the long-term outcomes of the policies in Iraq (except for the noble stay the course crowd) is not only stupid, it is offensive. Pam Hess isn’t bravely uncovering a hidden secret about the way the media operates, she is doing little more than helping to prep the “Stab-in-the-back” crowd as soon as the Iraq disaster finally ends.
ThymeZone
Quite true. Some of us were warning against war in Iraq and basically predicting the situation we have now, four years ago before the war began. Where was Pam Hess then?
But, he-said-she-said is what the right always wanted, going back to Goldwater days. They wanted that kind of “balance.” Now they have it, so shut up about it.
Last but not least, Howard Kurtz and Reliable Sources are a joke. The notion that he is some kind of media watchdog is just laughable. He’s the embodiment of everything wrong with the media. His show basically pimps and celebrates he-said-she-said reporting. Without it and the phony controversy it creates, he’d have no show and nobody would pay any attention to him.
Zifnab
Hey, at least his Reliable Sources(tm) are Fair and Balanced(R).
But I’m amazed that Hess has time to take this daring stand on the central national security question, when you’ve got that big story about the death of both Ayatollah Ali Khamenei AND Michael Ledeen. Really, all this Iraq escalation talk is just obfuscating the real stories.
Zombie Santa Claus
This Pam is still the hottest woman on the Intertrons- except for Michelle Malkin. MAYBE.
You moonbats are just jealous.
Darrell
Just curious, how many articles, news reports and/or talking head shows have you seen which focus on the issue of what will happen if we lose and what can/should we do to mitigate the consequences of it? Almost none that I’ve seen.
Seems she was just pointing out the obvious. But “independent” thinkers like John Cole can see that what she’s really doing is licking Bush’s boots.
ThymeZone
By what stretch of the imagination do we concede the point that we have not already lost? By what criteria can you make that argument? American forces are pretty much irrelevant to the flow of events in Iraq now. The people who want to throw IEDs throw them, the people who want to drill holes in the heads of their ethnic demons drill them, and the Americans are basically trying to stay alive. This is the same situation that existed there a year ago, only worse.
Who the fuck are you to decide that “losing” or “winning” something are on the table? Winning or losing what? What would losing actually entail, according to you, and what is happening right now that would convince any reasonable person that that ship didn’t sail two years ago?
Shut up, man. You’re a joke.
Jay C
I’m really not sure WTF Pam Hess is referring to here: we know that the usual warhawk/wingnut definition of “insurgent propaganda” = “anything critical of the Iraq occupation” or “anything critical of George W. Bush” – but in terms of what the overwhelming number of Americans see and read about the war from mass media? Huh?
AFAICT, the exact opposite is true: the American public derives its input of data on the war/occupation virtually entirely from American-oriented sources and even more-or-less objective “outside” input (still less from Iraqi or even Arab sources) seldom makes it into the new: still less “insurgent propaganda”.
The (hosted in US-“ally” Egypt) al-Zawraa network is “insurgent propaganda” – and, despite what the war-addled fulminators on the Right might want to believe, hardly anything else is: it’s just another club for them
to bash their (mainly straw) opponents.
Darrell
What the media should really be focusing on is the fascism of the Bush administration and those {ewww, ick} Christians. At least one former NY Times reporter had the courage to speak truth to power.
ThymeZone
Darrell changes the subject.
Jay C
Sorry: bad linkmanship: reference to info on Al-Zawraa Network HERE
Jay C
Sorry: bad linkmanship: reference to info on Al-Zawraa Network HERE
ThymeZone
At least, on this thread. Thanks Santa!
Jon H
Seems to me the major problem with the “what if we lose” question, and why it isn’t addressed very often, is that THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION REFUSES TO CONSIDER IT and if anyone, say, brings it up with Tony Snow, it is taken as evidence that the reporter WANTS the US to lose…
Condi herself recently said they don’t do contingency plans. They don’t plan for (the inevitable) failure.
Steve
How do you define “losing” at this point?
ThymeZone
Exactly. IOW, they don’t plan for unexpected outcomes, or undesired outcomes.
In short, they couldn’t pass an audit of basic risk management in any corporation in the Western world.
demimondian
Oh, snap!
Darrell
That’s an excellent question. And I’ve heard very little examination of it in the media.
ThymeZone
Translation: I’m not going to give a real answer, because if I do, I can be nailed with it. Anything that defines losing in Iraq will easily be shown to have already happened.
Go ahead Darrell, prove me wrong. Really, take all the time you need to argue that we didn’t lose this war two years ago by any objective measure.
Hyperion
not many. but shouldn’t that case be made by the folks who propose the surge (presumably to avoid the HORROR that will follow a US defeat/withdrawal)?
i don’t see many details from the pro-surgers. instead they conflate loss of US prestige with deaths of thousands of innocent iraqis. for me the US losing face is an unfortunate consequence of very poor decision making. and i am sure that bad things for the US and others will flow from a US defeat in Iraq. but from a moral POV i am much more concerned about what happens to the citizens of iraq after the US withdraws. i fear that “loss of face” and “strength at the bargaining table” are driving the surgers.
what *i* see in the media is hand-wringing about all the fuckups and lost opportunities and then the punchline “but of course no matter how much we’d like to leave, we can’t” because of the bad stuff that no one wants to describe in detail.
everytime i see someone in iraq state that the iraqis want us to leave, i long for a substantive debate about what might happen to the country when we leave. and the iraqis must participate in that debate. after all, THEY seem to be able to imagine their country post US occupation. what do they think will happen?
Darrell
That’s not true, I was just keeping focus on the theme of the thread, which is, as Pam Hess pointed out, that the media is not focusing on the most important issues regarding Iraq, such as what will be the likely aftermath if we lose Iraq? And how do we define a “loss”? What more can/should we do? I see almost no media discussion/reporting on these important issues, and I believe John was skewering Hess and others because they dared to point out the obvious.
As for me, I would define “loss” as Iraq becoming a pawn of the Iranian mullahs.
John S.
Then we’ve lost.
Unless Iraqi clerics that show fealty to Iranian mullahs don’t count.
ThymeZone
Which Iraq? Sunni Iraq? Shia Iraq? Kurdish Iraq? What makes you think Iraq is even going to end up a country?
Every thoughtful analysis I’ve seen says that we are in the neighborhood of 150k troops short of being able to hold Iraq together, maybe 250k depending on who’s counting.
Your “loss” is outside the realm of plausibility because it depends on assumptions that can’t be supported.
Darrell
Sorry to rain on your “sky is falling!” assesment, but so far, Iraq’s most influential cleric, al-Sistani, seems to be leaning toward peaceful democracy and Iraqi independence.
Steve
I certainly don’t want that, either. Isn’t it worth thinking about how we got ourselves into this mess?
Iraq has a Shia majority. Any democratic government is going to be largely controlled by the Shiites. And it’s virtually automatic for any Shia government to ally itself with the only other group of Shiites in the neighborhood, that being Iran. And since Iraq is in bad shape right now, the pump is primed for Iran to offer all sorts of help with security and reconstruction, in exchange for influence and good will.
About the only way Iraq wouldn’t develop a close relationship with Iran, it seems to me, is if someone other than the Shiites were in charge. And that’s never going to happen under any kind of democratic system. I suppose you could look for a Sunni strongman that would oppose Iran and hold power in some anti-democratic sort of way… but I think you see where I’m going with this.
In all seriousness, what’s your endgame? What sort of Iraqi government do you envision that doesn’t have close ties with Iran? Even if we somehow find a way to restore peace and order to Iraq – which I really don’t see happening – I still don’t understand how we get to your preferred end state.
Eural
Darrell –
I’m not here to argue with the main point of this thread (I think there are valid arguments to be made by all sides on the media’s role in the Iraq situation) but I would like to point out the one unmistakable conclusion that the past 3 (heck, 6!) years have demonstrated:
Bush has allowed his presidency to become the single greatest obstacle to rallying the American people.
Which wasn’t anything much until after 9/11 and which has only grown worse since the Iraq invasion. When we needed a national government focused on unity and purpose we got the Rove spin machine employing partisan “wedging” to win domestic political and economic agendas. Now we as a nation suffer for it.
Bush was called to a great moment in history for our nation and he placed party and the interests of his base before his obligations to the American people. Until his administration is out we will see no constructive national unity on Iraq – even if he were to produce a plausible/successful gameplan. He has spent six years poisoning the water at the well and now asks for everybody to trust him and drink it up. Yeah, right.
Darrell
I agree. Just don’t confuse Iranian govt with the Iranian people. Furthermore, don’t underestimate al-Sistani’s influence with followers in Iran.
I believe it has a decent chance to play out with a semi-stable democracy in Iraq which has polite, but standoff-ish relations with Iran, unless Iran meddles too much, then Iraqis push back. I think Iraqis have the potential to influence Iranian opinion/behavior more than Iranian govt can influence Iraqi govt. Iranians will see in their own regional ‘neighborhood’ fellow Shia in Iraq with freedoms that they don’t have, and that reality has a decent possibility to undermine the (oppressive) influence of the mullahs.
Jon H
Darrell writes: “As for me, I would define “loss” as Iraq becoming a pawn of the Iranian mullahs.”
Then we lost in 2003, when we launched an invasion of Iraq based on false evidence and empty promises provided by Chalabi, who is a creature of the Iranian mullahs. We removed Iran’s balance in the region, and handed Iraq to their Shiite brethren.
Jon H
Darrell writes: ” Just don’t confuse Iranian govt with the Iranian people. ”
Yes, the people can be hostile to an invading force in their own special way, independent of that of the ruling regime.
That’s certainly what we’ve learned in Iraq, is it not?
Darrell
This isn’t what I’d like to discuss because it’s peripheral to Iraq, but to respond, I’d say the unhinged behavior of the left was more divisive than anything Bush has done, and if you’re on the left side, take a look at your own side’s behavior before laying all the blame on Bush. After all, which side came out en masse with “Bush Hitler”, “Chimp”, “War for oil” etc., followed by Bush “lied” us into war. Divisive as hell, and coming from the left.
Darrell
You didn’t read what I wrote. And if you did, you didn’t take the time to understand it or you wouldn’t have written that comment.
Zifnab
Iraq is, was, and always has been a neo-con stepping stone to invading Iran and Syria. The absolutely hysterical joke in all this is Bush’s invasion of Afganistan, which would have given him an even more valid, equally useful stepping stone into Iran. The US invaded Iraq so the neo-cons could conquer the Middle East. But they were such piss-poor military planners, so blood-bound to the PNAC script, so blinded to any other options than those proposed 20 years ago, that they couldn’t even take the absolute fairy-tale gift that was the Afganistanian invasion and use THAT to invade Iran.
This is why Republicans can’t win wars – Nixon in Vietnam, Reagen against Iran, and Bush in Iraq. They’re so head-first in their own bullshit, they don’t know how to think outside the box and take opportunity when it drops in their laps. They’re so obsessed with brute force that they don’t know how to fight smart. All they know how to do is beat their enemies to death with greater and greater expenditures of money. Never let a Republican fight your wars unless you just really want to lose and go broke.
Steve
I’m very interested to hear exactly how a Democrat would have won Vietnam!
Eural
That’s my point – its not at all peripheral to Iraq! Bush from day one ran a polarizing administration because the Rove strategy won elections. Barely. He then ran everything on a polarizing platform as if he had overwhelming mandates. When crisis struck he again polarized the nation by not forming a unity government of both parties and by repeatedly attacking anyone not 100% Bush as “pro-terrorist” and “anti-American” – hell, Cheney did it again yesterday!
Now he wants support for his plans in Iraq after at least three years of pissing on at least half of the American citizenry. It won’t happen regardless of the merits of any plan he puts forth.
You, Darrell are reaping what Bush has sown. Regardless of your arguments or evidence commentators here are going to ripe you a new one simply because its aligned with Bush.
That is why Bush has failed the test of true leadership when our nation needed it the most. Get over it and move on.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
I consider “winning” the war to be what it was from the beginning: the permanent ouster of Saddam and Sons and the discovery and dismantling of weapons (which were not there) and programs (which were there) designed to commit acts of terrorism and war against the US and its allies. We won the war on those criteria, so we can’t “lose” it.
That victory can be undermined by not taking care of the peace (which is much harder to do — look at WWII), by allowing a regime to take root in Iraq that will behave toward the United States and its allies as the Saddam regime did, or worse.
ThymeZone
Iraq had a semi-stable democracy. It’s called a democracy in name only, and typical of every attempt at Arab democracy so far. Democracy in which only one candidate runs for the top office and somehow wins every time.
Much, much better, say, than the nasty oligarchies in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, where the affairs of state are arranged so that only the ruling family and its close friends have access to the wealth of the country.
Oh wait, that was Iraq
ThymeZone
Iraq had a semi-stable democracy. It’s called a democracy in name only, and typical of every attempt at Arab democracy so far. Democracy in which only one candidate runs for the top office and somehow wins every time.
Much, much better, say, than the nasty oligarchies in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, where the affairs of state are arranged so that only the ruling family and its close friends have access to the wealth of the country.
Oh wait, that was Iraq too.
So anyway, your theory is that Iraq is going to become the only stable liberal democracy so far in the history of the Arab world? And you believe this is possible because …. history tells you that this is possible? Oops, no, history seems to say the opposite.
You believe it … why, Darrell? Something you read on the Christian Anti-Homo Conservative Website you get all your information from?
The Other Steve
Hess? Hess? Why does that name sound familiar.
She wouldn’t perchance be related to Rudolph Hess?
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Gotten an answer from this wellspring of wisdom yet?
Even one link?
No, I wouldn’t think so. It was only the entire point of this post, after all.
Look, the media and John (seriously, “those other reporters- they are not doing their jobs. But Pam Hess is asking the brave questions” is his best attempt at negation here? Underwhelming, and telling to her point) says we shouldn’t worry about it the consequences of “losing.” It will prolly lead to a 75% jump in Iraqi kite-flying, that’s all! Not important. Not as important as how this affects Obama v. Hillary v. GOP in ’08, at least!
ThymeZone
The point, spoof committee that you are, is that “losing” is a ship that already sailed. It’s a deception to talk as if we “might lose.”
No coherent argument can be made to the contrary. The closest thing the Darrell Bureau has is a fanciful, fictional story about a pony-led “democracy” that is US-friendly and, you know, starts a domino effect of Middle East stabilization. Not too many people are buying into that fairy tale now, spoofalicious multi-named phony that you are.
gus
UPI is owned by Sun Myung Moon. What do you expect?
Andrei
Darrell reminds me a fanatic football fan, who cheers endlessly for his team at the stadium no matter how crappy that team may be at that point in time. He faithfully argues the case for why his team is doing the right thing even when they are losing big games. He diligently shows up for every game even in the losing years because to not do so would mean loss of ticket sales and the team moving to some other city. He makes everyone who is not a fanatic of his team the bad guy, simply because that is what fanatics do. And the only reason he’s even a fanatic is because he was born in or very near the city which the football team represents.
Too bad football is ultimately meaningless… unlike politics.
We’ve lost if we become a pawn to Iranian mullahs? Are you fucking serious?
John Cole
Oh, bullshit. Everyone is aware of the consequences of failure in Iraq. Many people were aware of them prior to the conflict starting. This is nothing more than a pathetic fucking attempt to claim that anyone who thinks continued deployment and escalation is pointless isn’t “serious” about what is at stake.
We all know what is at stake. We have just decided that there is nothing more that can be done now, and it is time to cut our losses. Not double and triple down. Go sell your shit to the Powerline on Red State. They are still buying it.
I am really sick and tired of all you deep thinkers out there who have done nothing but excuse, minimize, and deny our disastrous missteps over there, all the while serving as fluffers for Bush and this administration, and who do nothing but claim the people who disagree with you don’t know what is at stake. You and your ilk have been wrong about virtually EVERYTHING regarding the conduct of this war, and now your only fallback is to “opponents of continuing this war just won;t deal with the reality of what is at stake.”
Pretty god damned entertaining considering the fantasy land you are coming from.
TenguPhule
Okay, I’ll bite.
Darrell, when the silly little people in charge of running this stupid war *refuse* to even contemplate what losing is (aside from soundbites about how it would be really bad so we can’t think about it and must follow their new new plan) and you dismiss everyone else who points out what losing looks like as dirty hippies, how are we supposed to have a discussion?
Teak111
Excuse me, but its a classic piece of propaganda that the dems are not good in NS. Dems have been in power for WWII, Vietnam, and for much of the old war. Thats a pretty good tract record. Where is the evidence that dems are not good in NS. Afterall 911 happened on the GOP watch, no?
TenguPhule
Shorter Lamb: I lie. I also can’t believe that we can ever lose, all evidence to the contrary aside.
ThymeZone
You’re not. You’re supposed to lie still so that you can be flayed by the rapier wit and wisdom of Darrell, who knows all to well what poopyheads all lefties are.
/ Darrell’s mother
TenguPhule
Which is why he’s *given* *up* on dealing with the Iraq Government and the USA and basically said “Fuck you all, I’m not going to interfere again, none of you assholes listen to me anyway.”
TenguPhule
Darrell’s Irony of the Day(tm)!
mrmobi
I accept your declaration of victory, Lambchop, but how does that help us get our troops out of this horribly mis-managed attempt to “take care of the peace?”
Perhaps if the neocons hadn’t been so determined to make Iraq an “ownership society” and had actually retained some of the people who ran the government before Saddam was toppled, as we did after WWII in Germany, this might not be the hopelessly FUBAR situation it is.
This “taking care of the peace” is done. There isn’t any peace to be had, or any democracy, not as Americans understand it.
In the past several days, I have been torn about how Democrats should deal with the Presidents escalation of the war. Part of me wants to have them say, “fine, Mr. President, here’s your surge, just tell us when we’ve won.” Then, in 2008, we could point to this fiasco and explain that Republicans cannot be trusted with anything. Bingo, President Obama.
But that won’t do, because unlike the majority in this iteration of the Republican Party, Democrats tend to have those pesky consciences. So now it’s up to patriotic Americans of all stripes to express their disgust with the incompetence, greed and graft and force their representatives in Congress to hold this Administration’s feet to the fire of oversight.
Congress-critters may not be willing to take the step of closing the purse-strings (Rove is waiting in the wings with new invective), but once Americans see how really craven this administration has been in its running of the war, you guys will be in the woodshed for decades.
And it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of authoritarians.
TenguPhule
Remember, Darrell said Iranians were for terrorism before he said they were against it.
Shorter Darrell: That’s some strong shit I’m smoking!
Shorter Darrell II: Sure, we made Iraq into the Seventh Circle of Hell. But the Iranians will still prefer that to the stability of their own country right now! Prepare my swinging codpiece for the attack!
TenguPhule
Shorter Darrell: Democrats are supposed to just bend over and take it. They’re all pussy pacifists anyway.
RSA
I think that the news media are to some extent hobbled by the fact that whenever anyone asks the Bush administration what happens if the current plan fails, they say either, “We cannot fail,” or “It would be irresponsible to speculate about alternative plans.” That is, what happens afterwards depends a great deal on decisions that are made now and in the very near future, and yet we have no control over these decisions and very little insight into how they’re being made. Consider that almost any discussion of the aftermath of the Iraq war, if that discussion had been held six months ago, is in the trashcan now. The escalation could make things a little better or, much more likely, a lot worse.
ThymeZone
Cliff Notes version: Terrorists, bad. Bush, worst ever. But the most awful thing that’s happened to America? Democrats.
mrmobi
Thank you, John. Chuck Hagel (a Republican with a conscience) said much the same thing, a little more diplomatically, to Joe Lieberman yesterday on Press the Meat.
Zifnab
He wouldn’t. But I’m also betting he wouldn’t have touted a “secret plan for victory” and then just kinda hung out for five more years.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
As astounding as your mindreading skills might be, it would be more convincing if you had a string of links from Krugman, Kurtz, Clift, or whoever to back up your assertion that the left media has thoroughly analyzed the national security implications of pulling out, wouldn’t it? Or even a couple? One?
Now, do you think I’ll have to look very hard to find 100 articles on how Iraq impacts the ’06 and ’08 elections? 1000 articles?
Do you get Hess’s point now?
So tell me — what are the US national security implications of, say, a phased six-month withdrawl?
Actually, me and my ilk (and my kine, for that matter) have been 100% right about virtually EVERYTHING about the conduct of this war, and I/we are also 100% right in recognizing the truth that Hess spoke yesterday. If it weren’t true, you’d win a link-athon, instead of getting beat 1000 to 1, which is what you know would happen.
ThymeZone
Probably not much different from those of a 12-month withdrawal. Or an 18-month one. The differences would probably be mostly humanitarian. Depending on who is in charge. I assume that Michael Brown will be brought back to oversee that part of the operation.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Shorter: The media is biased? Bush’s fault!!
John Cole
Ok. Spoof.
Eural
Ok…
1) We aren’t talking about the same war?
2) You don’t understand what the words “right” and “everything” mean?
TenguPhule
Shorter Lamb: Liberal Media Bias!
Steve
I think Bush is finally getting in touch with the American people, and understanding why so many of us want to end the war:
ThymeZone
Is that from the Sixty Minutes interview, Steve?
That will go down as one of the most bizarre … even for this guy …. appearances ever by an American president.
One malapropism and sociopathic ramble after another.
And the one you picked …. as good an example of why I say he’s fucking crazy as any I’ve seen or heard yet. The idea that Americans have disdain for this war because they don’t think the Iraqis are grateful enough?
I’d not be surprised if the fucker were drunk when that interview was taped. It was that horrendous.
RSA
National security implications? Hmm. . . I know, I’ll ask an economist, a newspaper columnist, and a newsmagazine editor what they think! Here’s a better idea: Any reasonable person would expect that the outcomes of alternative U.S. actions with respect to Iraq have been analyzed to death within the U.S. government. It would be insanity to continue in Iraq without that kind of analysis (but I’m being redundant here). The most qualified people to answer questions about national security under different assumptions are giving us no more than platitudes. But sure, let’s blame the media.
Steve
Oh, right. That’s a reasonable thing to believe.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Understanding that you have already won should make it easier to leave, not harder. It wouldn’t bother me a bit as an American to bring our troops home at this point (if I were Iraqi, it might bother me). If I were the President, and I only got my news from the US media, I’d have the troops packing up yesterday. I’m not privy to the conversations between the Iraqi government (who want us to stay), the Sunni leadership (who want us to stay) and the Kurdish leadership (who want us to stay), but again, if all I heard was what the media broadcasts, I’d be very tempted to make a HUGE deal about saying, “Hey, the Iraqi people are 70% or whatever for us leaving… this is their country now… if they don’t want us here even though we’re willing to stay at our expense and help fight the terrorists and death squads… teh Iraqi people have spoken, we’re outta here, if that’s what you want. But we want Iraq to succeed, and we’re not far away, if you know what I’m saying.”
Because I don’t give that much a crap whether some wastes of carbon on the Sunni and Shiite sides hate each other so much that they kill each other deader than Nicole Brown…I just care that when it comes to the US and our allies, they don’t fuck with us like Saddam did. If you make it crystal clear that you are leaving because they asked it, they can’t blame you for the situation getting worse afterwards (althought they probably will — it is the Middle East after all, and nothing is ever their fault).
Riiiiiiiight. Does that halo come in a 7 1/4?
Translation: It’s up to everyone who wants to get elected next time to square themselves with the media narrative and project themselves as Good overseers of the Evil of the administration. PS — use words like “graft” and “greed,” even if you can’t back them up, because Congress is never associated with such terms!
demimondian
Of course it’s spoof — it’s named after a freaking SOCK-PUPPET, for heaven’s sake.
But I’ll grant the eEEL is pretty good. Four to six coherent paragraphs of spoof without stumbling…welcome, brother, to the looney bin. You’re going to Fit Right In here. Perfectly.
demimondian
OH, and Ellensburg is a town on the eastern side of the cascades. They’ve got a really good martial arts studio in town there.
RSA
Well, I kind of assume that Republican purges have probably been undermined by Republican incompetence. Maybe not.
demimondian
Two words: Chuck Colson
Jon H
Zifnab writes: “The absolutely hysterical joke in all this is Bush’s invasion of Afganistan, which would have given him an even more valid, equally useful stepping stone into Iran.”
Not really. It was relatively inconvenient, being landlocked and requiring that we fly over Pakistan. Hardly ideal for moving in the amount of heavy hardware that would be required for a land invasion of Iran. Iraq is vastly more convenient.
Unfortunately, what makes a convenient staging point for us going into Iran also makes for a wonderful staging point for Al Qaeda going into Europe and the other Gulf states.
Though Al Qaeda may not have to, since it looks like Bush and Cheney are going to continue to do the dirty work for Al Qaeda.
Zifnab
I’ll admit, being landlocked would poss a problem. But we’ve already got military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar, don’t we? We could still bring our naval might to bare. We’d have to build up our forces through Pakistan, but we already needed to do that to invade Afganistan to begin with. Certainly, moving additional military hardware through Pakistan’s borders couldn’t be more difficult than invading a whole new country. Then we’d have Iran flanked on the south and the east. Even if, geographically, invasion through Afganistan would be more difficult – see: Greatest Military Superpower in the World. I think we could handle it.
It just seems easier to take Afganistan first, then pincer Iran from the Gulf, then move west at your leisure. That is, assuming you don’t really plan on holding anything and just busting up capitals. Which, honestly, is what the neo-cons should have been doing anyway. The real place America got bogged down was in this idea of nation building. If you really want to conquer the world, just be a Hun. Roll in, rape the land, then leave. None of this setting up puppet dictators crap that never seems to work no matter where you do it.
RSA
Like this? (Well, okay, it’s Air Force.)
Newport 9
At least, not since Jimjeff Gannonguckert went away.
Which raises the obvious question: how much is BushCo paying Pam to write this shit?
Darrell
What did she write or say that you find so “controversial” as to accuse her of being on Bushco’s payroll?
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Ballon Juice 101: When you can’t provide even one link to back up your lame assertions, call the other person a spoof.
Done and done. You’ve learned well from your sensei TZ.
Darrell
By ‘disaster’, you mean:
1. Removal of Saddam & sons from power
2. Iraqi chem, bio, and nuclear ambitions no longer a worry
3. Shiites and Kurds go from victims of oppression, including attempted genocide, to having their own shows, complete with the Shiite sticks-in-the eye to the Saudis
4. UN run Iraq oil-for-food fraud exposed and ended
5. Libya scared into giving up the goods exposing AQ Khan’s nuclear weapon technology operation
6. Lesson to hostile despots with WMDs that the US will act (if belatedly) when provoked
7. Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors in the region
But hey, if it makes you feel like you’re talking truth to power, then by all means keep on pretending that the “only” good news is new schools and hospitals being painted that those ‘wingnuts’ keep talking about, because all the enlightened people know it has been nothing but a disaster.
Darrell
Should have read: Lesson to hostile despots with WMD programs
Andrei
Good God… why am I responding to this…
Obviously worth the cost of 3,000 American soldiers and tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.
Because the intel we had before the war said they were a worry even though they really weren’t. A fact we discovered once we went in although a fact that had reasonable doubt by those in the know before we went in.
Gotta love “their own shows” part here, because that’s EXACTLY why we are now caught between a rock and hard place. These groups of people are killing each other now and all indicators are pointing to the fact they won’t get along on their own very easily. That’s why certain people are advocating a political solution to end this thing, not a military solution.
Obviously worth the cost of 3,000 American soldiers.
Ok, you got me… I suppose invading Iraq was the only way this was going to happen. Sure…
As if our complete bungling of post war Iraq and the fact we can barely get or enlist enough troops or volunteers (like yourself) for service is going to scare much of anyone now. Hello Dumbass! Our biggest weakness has just been exposed to these dictators!
Which is PRECISELY why we are fucked right now, because left weakened, Iraq has exploded into sectarian violence and left the perfect opening for influence from Syria and Iran.
Nimrod.
John S.
1. Removal of Saddam & sons from power
The power vacuum left has been a HUGE success.
2. Iraqi chem, bio, and nuclear ambitions no longer a worry
Glad we went to war over AMBITION rather than CAPABILITY.
3. Shiites and Kurds go from victims of oppression, including attempted genocide, to having their own shows, complete with the Shiite sticks-in-the eye to the Saudis
Now they can have reality shows, too. VICTORY!
4. UN run Iraq oil-for-food fraud exposed and ended
Ya, that’s why we went in there. To stop the UN.
5. Libya scared into giving up the goods exposing AQ Khan’s nuclear weapon technology operation
Wow. I have a bridge to sell you if you think this was in any way a major success.
6. Lesson to hostile despots with WMDs that the US will act (if belatedly) when provoked
Yes, Iran and N. Korea are tremnbling with fear.
7. Iraq is no longer a threat to its neighbors in the region
Right. An unstable Iraq in the midst of a civil war isn’t a problem for anyone in the region.
Thanks for creating a numbered list of how incredibly fucking out of touch with reality you are, Darrell.
dslak
Mmm. pie. That’s what this thread’s about now.
John Cole
It is pointless arguing with you. I have determined you are a blockhead.
The consequences for withdrawal are pretty bad- and have been widely discussed in numerous places. Most of all, the consequences for withdrawal are advanced by those in favor of “staying the couse.” Christ, just google “consequences+iraq+withdrawal” and see what you find.
Now here is what your addled mind can not grasp- the consequences for withdrawal are, at this point, the same as the consequences for staying. Except if we stay, we get more body bags, further deplete the military, and arefurther seen to be puppets of the Shia side of the sectarian struggle, as well as a host of other things. There is absolutely no upside to staying at this point, despite Joe Lieberman’s earnest desire to “win” at all costs.
Additionally, there is NO, and I repeat, NO evidence that this administration will be able to lead us to the miniscule chance of “success” (and the White House won’t even define what success is other than phrases like ‘a stable democratic Iraq’) that exists. Even now, the administration is half-assing the feeble surge that you think is going to save us all- look at the comments by the General who designed the plan.
So please, quit with the fucking games. We all know the consequences of withdrawal. It would be nice if you idiots would look at the consequences of staying.
And Darrell- you use the phrase truth to power to mock me again, and I am banning you. I have never used the pharse, I am no peacenik liberal, and I am sick of what fucktards like you have done to my party and this nation’s credibility. Seriously, if that is all you have, go to LFG or Red State.
Darrell
Boy, you really showed me with those responses..
dslak
Not to make suggestions that are beyond my station, but don’t statements like this just establish a game that nobody other than Darrell can win? Unless someone suspects that he’s actually here because he’s truly interested in give-and-take discussions or at least some kind of critical comraderie, why play this game?
ThymeZone
Breaking News: Howard Kurtz just called Bill O’Reilly a “Stone fucking lunatic.”
.
Heh. Okay, it was fun to think he did, for a second, wasn’t it?
Back to reality: Yes, O’Reilly is a stone fucking lunatic, but Howard Kurtz would never call him one. Fair. Balanced. The first name in news.
Darrell
Let’s sum it up, you get pissy at me using the phrase truth to power, although I never accused you of using the phrase, yet you see no intellectual dishonesty on your part to have repeatedly accused me of being a mindless “fucktard” defender of Bush, not because you can refute my arguments, but because I disagreed with your tripe and you lost your temper like a chile.. all the while patting yourself on the back as how extreme-cynical aholes like you are the only “real” “honest” Republicans. Got it.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
I believe that’s the point that Hess was making, for which you were feebly attempting to ridicule her. Advocates of the continuation of the Iraqi reconstruction are the only ones examining the consequences of failure. The media have decided it’s not important to examine what happens if we leave — instead they go to whatever Jamil Hussein they can find or invent to tell us whatever atrocities, real or imagined, will continue to befall us if we stay. And the complete inability for anyone to find an example of our brave, brave anti-war media talking about the aftermath of a withdrawl and how it affects our national security backs up her point, not yours.
If that’s what your crystal ball says (and that’s all it is, regardless of your absolute moral certainty that renders any objection “addle-minded”), fine. If that’s what the democrats think, fine — although I haven’t really heard them take such a defeatist tone, because it might cost them votes. If they do think we make no difference anymore, then they are despicable moral cowards for not cutting the funding for Iraq as soon as they can. They are willfully funding a venture that they think will only get our men and women killed. For shame.
HyperIon
well, i for one am not aware of these discussions. Yes, I have heard allegations of horribleness. but the actual nature of this horribleness? NO. this is what i stated in my January 15th, 2007 at 12:04 pm comment..which no one has addressed.
but much effort has been expended on yet another pie eating/throwing contest. *sigh*
so…Mr. Cole, how about a few links on a discussion of the consequences of withdrawal?
ThymeZone
Take the rest of the day off and come back tamale.
John Cole
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+withdrawal+iraq
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=consequence+iraq+withdrawal
Start there. That took 8 seconds. There are dozens of stories discussing withdrawal and the consequences. And the consequences are widely known. Not sure why this is such a debatable issue with you all.
If that is what you need to tell yourself, fine. But I have warned you.
Darrell
That’s not what I “need” to tell myself, it’s the truth. Just look at your exchange with Lambchop for further confirmation.
Now if you want me to go, just say the word. No need to “warn” me of anything.
Jon H
” Advocates of the continuation of the Iraqi reconstruction are the only ones examining the consequences of failure.”
These are the same people who told us before about the joyful consequences of invading, and the dire consequences of *not* invading.
So why listen to them now?
demimondian
A true statement indeed, in much the same sense that advocates of continued repeal of the law of gravity are the only ones examining the consequences of impact. For good reason: we’ll start continuing the Iraqi reconstruction about two days before we being coninuing the repeal of the law of gravity.
TenguPhule
I’ve heard that promise from Darrell before. He still poops here though.
ThymeZone
Just turn on the fan in the bathroom before you do, okay?
TenguPhule
Fixed to correct for the Darrellness.
ThymeZone
Heh.
Fine work, TP.
SPIIDERWEB™s
Guess she doesn’t read blogs which lay everything bare.
TenguPhule
Thank you, TZ. :P
HyperIon
that it took only 8 seconds means nothing.
i, too, can goggle but i am seeking a DISCUSSION.
(that why i asked Mr. Cole to post links….duh.)
i read a few of the articles. but i did not encounter any discussion. just allegations, mostly along the lines of: “if we leave, there will be a bloodbath.” easy to say but evidently hard to support with concrete evidence.
PS reading those articles was very discouraging, perhaps because the search terms guarantee an unfortunate over-representation of views of the right. thus, much bashing of the leftists “who want to cut and run”, blah, blah blah.
Zombie Santa Claus
I just wanted to weigh in here, and announce that I’m not responsible for this Lambchop guy. I don’t think DougJ is, either. Doesn’t exactly seem like his style. No, this is someone else. An up-and-comer in the world of online spoofing. Hats off to you, sir!
ThymeZone
That’s right, when you are predicting the future, concrete is the one thing you need.
How about “Weapons of mass destruction? It’s a slam dunk!”
Strong. Convincing. Sure. Strong.
craigie
I believe this is the conclusion that 70% of the country has come to. Funny to see who’s out of touch with the noble American electorate now…
Darrell
John knows what will happen you addle-minded wingnut cretin! That’s part of his evolution to enlightenment, is his absolute f*cking certainty of what will happen in the future and his opinions in general, in which anyone disagreeing with him is an idiot, a fucktard, or worse. No need for him to substantiate sh*t, and how dare you ask.
I think it’s because John is such a person of integrity.. according to him anyway. He’s the last ‘honest’ conservative ya know.
ThymeZone
Uh, where did he say that?
Darrell
Here
John “knows” what will happen. With absolute certainty. And how dare any addle-minded wingnut say different!
ThymeZone
Well, he is almost certainly correct, but what argument can you make to the contrary?
Reliable reports explained that American presence in Iraq had become largely irrelevant to the insrugency over a year ago. Those reports led to conclusions that we’d be in the situation we are in now, now. Time proved them out.
That being the case, what difference does it make whether we leave six months from now or 18 months from now? Are you going to argue that Iraq becomes a coherent country in the 12-month longer interval? Based on what?
Darrell
You know, one of the coolest aspects of the “old” John Cole, was his humility. It’s not just that his political views changed, it’s the arrogance. That’s new. No need for John to defend or explain a position… you’re just an “addle minded” Bushbot fucktard if you disagree, even when discussing predictions of the future! When you get to that stage, as John cole has done, that’s when you know you’re a serious ahole not to be taken seriously.
ThymeZone
That’s not exactly an answer to my query.
But the point is, your not-very-popular government is asking the country to continue supporting a war on the basis of ITS predictions of dire alternative outcomes …. and these guys have been objectively wrong at every step of the way for four years. Why should we start believing them now?
Give me one logical reason, I can’t find one.
Darrell
But that’s a fucking lie. A Dem lie trying to rewrite history as to what pretty much everyone in the know was saying and predicting at the time.
It’s that core dishonesty of the left which constantly reinforces my beliefs. I know that a group that f*cking dishonest as you liberals have been can’t be right about much else.
ThymeZone
Are you kidding me? Have you listened to any of these guys in the last week?
“Disaster for America.”
“Existential struggle.”
Blah blah blah. We must have “victory.” Or else the whole middle east falls apart.
What a load of crap. All sold by the same team that hasn’t been able to get one thing about this war right in four years.
That’s why nobody is listening to them any more.
Why you sit here pretending that everyone who disagrees with you is nuts, while charging that John says that everyone who disagrees with him is nuts, which he does not, is beyond me. You just don’t listen.
Why don’t you drop the attitude, Darrell? The world has run away from your position on this. In droves. If you have a viable argument why they should turn around, fine. But talking as if everyone else in the world but you is full of crap got old a long time ago.
I’m giving you friendly advice here. Don’t ask me why, I’m having a moment of weakness.
Darrell
Here is what you wrote TZ:
But it wasn’t just the prediction of the Bush administration, was it? Yet you dishonestly attempt to lay all the blame on “its” predictions, don’t you? Dishonest as hell on your part. You should just admit it.
demimondian
No, Darrell, it isn’t a Dem lie. it isn’t a lie at all, despite what you and your team of thugs want us to believe. The lies have been entirely on your side of the street, a string of lies, slanders, and misrepresentation of which any moral person would be ashamed.
It speaks very poorly of you as a person that you are not.
ThymeZone
Gotta tell ya, all kidding aside, you lost me here.
Are you telling me that Bush, Cheney, Rice and the Administration in general are NOT predicting dire consequences of an early withdrawal from Iraq?
Darrell
When Dems say Bush lied us into war, given their own statements, they are despicable moral vermin. Please, given the statements of the most prominent members of the Dem part at the time, let us know where I am “wrong”
demimondian
Hey, look, goys and birls, D-boy has a new and improved “It’s all Clinton’s fault” video. Of course, it’s as much a *lie* as everything else he posts, but, well, he’s *D-boy*.
Darrell, let me let you in on a little secret. Anyone who feels the need to call me a “kook” or “deranged”, when I’m hiding behind a self-deprecating handle like “demimondian”, is pathetic. A real loser. Sad. Sorry. Stupid.
Darrell
Yeah, that’s what I thought
ThymeZone
Uh, no, we are just making a reasonable judgement.
If he wasn’t lying, then he was incompetant. One way or the other, he let the country down, led the country into a war on the basis of threats that did not exist, and then presided over the mismanagement of the war so as to get us to the crummy position we are in now.
Any way you look at it, it’s about as bad as it gets. You might disagree, but that judgement isn’t just reasonable, it’s pretty much inescapable. That’s why most of the free world agrees with it.
Darrell
As others, even on your side of the political spectrum have alleged? Most people here, left and right, have called you a “kook” and similar adjectives because you really are a freak.. it’s not just me, is it?
ThymeZone
Sorry to burst your bubble Darrell, but most of the arguments between me and demi have been staged.
We lefties go at each other sometimes just because there is nothing on tv.
Don’t take it seriously.
demimondian
That’s a red herring, Darrell. Even if it’s, it wouldn’t change what I said, which is that your behavior shows you, yourself, to be a pathetic loser. If someone else is also a loser, that’s their problem, and it makes you no better, and no less desperately pathetic.
*You* are pathetic. So pathetic that you’re only hope is to try to find someone — anyone — to sneer at.
So, feel free to keep sneering at me. It doesn’t shrink my shadow, or make you bigger. You’re still a loser, Darrell, and, at this rate, you will always be a loser.
demimondian
It’s true — Herb and I have even scheduled arguments ahead of time, in fact.
It keeps us both off the street and out of trouble, and provides a bit of entertainment to the rest of the crowd.
ThymeZone
I don’t know about you, but I thrive on the constant derision.
It makes everything else in the day seem to go better. After a day of being crapped on through the Intertubes, working for my boss really doesn’t seem all that bad.
John Cole
I am tired of the bullshit, Darrell. That is why.
I am tired of this administration lying about everything, about half-assing everything, and sitting there watch you and others defend the indefensible. I am tired of bigots and thugs and hypocrites running the GOP. And tired of you excusing it. I am tired of every mess this administration and the GOP creates being blamed on bullshit like the media or the Democrats. I am tired of pointing it out and listening to your chorus that the Democrats are worse.
And I don’t defend my position to you because it is pointless. You have your mind made up. Facts don;t matter. I fully expect your one response to this comment by me about the administration lying about everything to be:
“So, do you think Bush lied about the war.”
Because distraction, evasion, and bullshit are all you have to offer.
demimondian
You know, John, I listen to Darrell for one reason only: to remind myself that my side of the spectrum has equally…pathetic…samples, too. Now, I know that my side of the spectrum is different from yours, but I’ll bet you can probably dredge up a few examples of people of whom you think “God, I wish he didn’t agree with me on this” — quite possibly including some of the commenters on your blog, now that I think about it.
Darrell keeps me humble, by reminding me that no ideal, no matter how lofty, cannot be brought into total disrepute by at least one person. He keeps me reminding myself of my promise that I’d never be that person again. Once was enough.
ThymeZone
Please don’t talk about me as if I were not in the room.
demimondian
Why not? I’m all alone here.
Really, Herb, you ought to talk to someone about these feelings of being singled out and of being omnipresent. I’m sure that some research psychologist would find you a great case study…I mean, be very willing to make you be less troubled by them.
ThymeZone
I don’t even know you any more.
grumpy realist
Well, now we know why Mr. Bush ended up running a series of companies into the ground….
No risk analysis? No Plan B? No trimming of one’s sails due to the actual situation?
Reality, when she bites, she bites HARD. It looks like another set of deranged idealists will have to learn that situation all over again.
Amazing to see this activity from someone who supposedly majored in History. Good historians, in my experience, are the most cynical set of bastards around.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Shorter John Cole: I’m arrogant? BUSH’S FAULT!!
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
What? Democrats lying to rewrite history? But they have those consciences they keep tellling us about!
And stop posting links to actual public statements. There’s no place for stuff like that at BJ anymore. Whatever you feel is right, and can back up with weak snark and by calling anyone who disagrees an addleminded fucktard, is the Absolute Truth.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
So, has anybody turned up one NYT or WaPo editorial, one Crazy Cafferty rant, or one Deep Thought by the Olberhack in which any of these elite media Defenders of the Realm discuss the national security implications of a pullout in Iraq? No? Not one?
So I guess what we’ve learned here is that Hess was 100% correct. Now we know why John couldn’t find the “appropriate level of sarcasm.” Apparently, the appropriate level was zero.
demimondian
Wow, eEEL, it’s awfully nice of you to try to set the debate back by changing the subject, but it’s really not relevant.
You see, there’s no point in discussing the “national security” implications of a pullout from Iraq any more. That argument would only have any substance if there were any realistic scenario in which we wouldn’t be pulling out. There is no such scenario.
So, the appropriate level of sarcasm wasn’t quite zero, but more like 1/0 — undefined, but not finite. Like most of this administration’s remaining backers, you got it kind of backwards.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Wow, it’s only the entire subject of this entire post. Yeah, right, I was changing the subject. You guys are never right — why should I believe anything any one of you says ever? (/lefty ad hominen logic)
Absolute retarded rubbish. Of course, there are “stay the course until the job is done” scenarios (you and John should synch your crystal balls), and there certainly were in the past year. So Hess’s thesis regarding the media coverage is perfectly valid…and factually undisputed.
demimondian
Priceless jackalope! First, a lie about the topic of the post (which is about the false praise lavished on Hess for claiming there should be a debate, when there’s no evidence to support that claim any more.) Then, and even more priceless elision. There are certainly scenarios for “stay the course until the job is finished”. The problem is that all of them depend on fairy dust and ponies.
There are no *realistic* scenario for “stay the course until the job is done,” and one of the points the left has been making, now for years, is that there never has been such a scenario.
TenguPhule
Aside from Darrell’s observation of evolution in action, it is perfect Irony for today.
TenguPhule
When you have actual evidence that Bush is basing his predictions on what Democrats say rather then what his bootlickers say, then try to make that claim.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
You’re a moron if you think that my bringing this back to John’s initial criticism of Hess, which is the topic of this entire post (maybe the title should smack you with a cluebat, but I’ve given up on most of you clowns) is “changing the subject.” Of course, I suspect that you’re a moron in any case…
What you think might be realistic or not is totally irrelevant to Hess’s point, of course, but I’m talking way above your head here.
demimondian
I’d be a moron if you were actually doing that, eEel, but, of course, you’re not. +1 for excellent spoofery and doublethink, though.
Hey, eEel, is it just that all right wingers still backing the Prez are just…stupid and deceitful? Is *that* your problem?
ThymeZone
Only because you are hanging from the ceiling fan.
Darrell
Yawn. Yeah, facts and argument don’t matter John. That’s why you have a blog, right? whatev.. “You Bushbots need to learn to be an independent thinker like me” signed, John Cole.. Fyi, my mind is never “made up”.
TenguPhule
Darrell’s Big Lie of the Day(tm).
demimondian
Not so, TP. Darrell’s mind *is* never made up.
However, he, himself, significantly reduces on the green face paint and purple lipstick stockpiles of our great nation.
TenguPhule
Untrue.
Darrell’s ‘mind’ follows the 1st rule of the laws of Republicanomics.
Everything you are for, I am against.