If I hear one more Democrat or Democratic talking head (as I am right now on Hardball) utter some variation of the following, I am going to blow my gasket:
The reason we support the non-binding resolution is because the voters sent a clear message…
Steve McMahon, some strategist for the Democrats, just said this a few times, and I almost threw my remote at the television. In short, Steve (and the rest of you), NO NO NO NO NO!
The reason to support the non-binding resolution is to do anything you can without cutting off funding to get this President to seriously confront the problem in Iraq. The reason to support the resolution is because this administration didn’t even listen to the people who came up with the idea and are now half-ass implementing it. The reason to support the resolution is to acknowledge that right now, with this President and this administration, we are probably doing little more than throwing more good lives down the drain.
Not because the voters sent a clear message. Hell, we are idiots. Some of us voted for Bush. Twice. We liked the Macarena and watch Tom Cruise movies and bought Pet Rocks and eat too much fatty foods and don’t work out enough and so on. We, collectively*, don’t know what the hell we are talking about or what is good for us.
You support the resolution because it is the right thing to do to try to get this administration to honestly change course in Iraq. Not because the morons (myself included), sent a clear message.
* I do, however, think individuals do, for the most part, know what is best for them.
jg
The reaon to support the non-binding resolution is because its in the country’s best interests.
dreggas
John I agree wholeheartedly with the entire post up until this part at which point I was laughing my ass off because it’s people like this I hear opposing this resolution on the house floor and realizing just how many people it took to send them there…
Oh and uh, I hate the Macarena and Tom Cruise.
Andrei
10 out of 10.
Fuck that.
20 out of 10.
Bubblegum Tate
There’s a dictum you should never forget, John:
“A person is not stupid; people are stupid”
numbskull
John,
I think you’re nitpicking a little here. Regardless, I don’t agree with your argument. I think that it is important that politicians listen to the electorate. To give up on that idea is to agree with Leo Strauss, to hold that only a few wise men should know the truth and that they should be allowed to do whatever they see fit to save us from ourselves. Of course, we elect people to lead, and sometimes that means doing unpopular things. It’s a balance, one that Cheney and puppet don’t acknowledge.
Also, on a pragmatic level, the message that is being astroturfed by the Democrats is one that will serve to further politically isolate Cheney and the puppet. If enough Republicans perceive that isolation, they hopefully will find the “courage” to finally curb the Administration.
So, while they may believe all the things you say they should be saying, they may be saying what they are saying to get us where we need to be: enough Rs crossing over to finally force the WH to deal with reality.
Hey, I guess they’re leading, and they’re doing it in a way that is unpopular with you! ;)
Zifnab
I think that’s what you were going for, Bubblegum.
numbskull
John’s last line is:
Hey, no fair! Did you put that last line up while I was nitpicking your nitpicking? Sorry if I missed it.
Bubblegum Tate
Probably. I was initially given that pearl of wisdom by a record store owner last year, and I’ve loved it ever since.
John Cole
Actually, looking at the timestamps, I was probably putting it up as you were commenting.
Jake
Bravo!
If we (as a people) take any lesson from the past six years it’s that we don’t want “just plain folks” running the show. I don’t care if Candidate X is a “down home type” or “stiff,” or what colours he wears. I expect him to be smarter than me (sorry to set the bar so high but there it is) and possess such traits as empathy, honesty and impulse control. But for some reason we’re now supposed to vote for people based on the fact we could imagine having a beer with them and equate outward displays of intelligence with elitism.
C.S. Lewis was right I tell ya!
The Other Steve
Most Democratic strategists are morons.
But then again, they’re still smarter than the Republican strategists who try to ignore reality.
RLaing
That bit about people knowing what’s best for them raises some interesting philosophical points.
Hitler said that about a third of the people were simply too stupid to know their own best interests, whilst speaking of those, indifferent to world affairs, who had to be goaded into war by their leaders. Hindsight shows that the real idiots may have been his followers instead, and perhaps the man himself, who after all died of suicide much earlier than would otherwise have been the case.
This is with hindsight. History could have taken other paths. Germany might have got themselves the A bomb first. Germany probably would have beaten the Russians, if the latter hadn’t received so much material support from the West. They could have wound up with this big badass empire built on Eastern slave labor and raw materials, in which case the doubters would have been the idiots.
I think any society maintains a certain quantity of the credulous (to use a charitable term) so as to act as the teeth and claws of the nation when the demand or opportunity for aggression pops up.
Also, if we’re going to be honest, I think we have to recognize that propaganda, or advertising if you like, has genuine power to alter the public ‘mind’, raising real doubts as to what, if anything, ‘most people’ would think if left to themselves.
Darrell
The resolution is pure political drama. Politicians posturing, safe in the knowledge that all their stern talk is “non-binding”.
grumpy realist
Your problem, John, is that you assumed, like any intelligent adult human, that competence was taken as a given prerequisite for filling Bush’s cabinet.
Bush has never had to be competent in his life, nor has he ever suffered anything from being incompetent. Therefore, he surrounded himself with people who told him what he wanted to hear, ignoring whether they were competent or not.
The result is the present mess.
I think I’ll add another aphorism to my list of Aphorisms to Live By: “Stupidity should hurt. So should incompetence.”
Darrell
John, why don’t you nonbindingly resolve to eat less fatty foods and to work out more often?
RLaing
The obvious ambition for the Democrat party here is take the place of the Repub party as the darlings of the corporate world, and pick up the cash now being doled out to the ‘other’ side. Hillary ‘Wal-Mart’ Clinton already got herself half a billion bucks to buy the presidency with, and a chimp bought the office for less, if I recall.
It’s not the politicians who are being ‘stupid’ or ‘incompentent’ here–take a look in the mirror if you want to see a real gang of chumps.
Darrell
Oh brother, nothing but recycled leftwingnut talking points. If Bush wanted to surround himself with yes-men, then why did he pick Colin Powell?
Bush has made some mistakes, but the real problem in Iraq is not with George Bush’s competency, but with too many Iraqis who would rather blow up women in markets and buses than to build a free democratic society. Petraeus says he thinks a surge will work and wants to give it a shot to root out bad guys and secure the streets. Given our committment in Iraq and Petraeus’ reputation, I think he should be given that opportunity.. and our elected CiC agrees. There’s no upside with the non-binding resolution.
Joathan
RLaing
Thanks for the recycled rightwingnut talking points Darrell.
Andrew
Because Colin Powell is a dishonorable yes-man.
This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
The Other Andrew
Darrell–if the surge doesn’t work, do you think Bush should be given any more chances? Just curious.
Darrell
First of all, he’s the elected Commander in Chief of our military, so he’s already been “given” that power by voters. By agreeing to move forward with this surge, he is asserting his constitutional powers as President.
If we don’t see any signs of improving stability in Iraq after Petraeus is given his chance, we probably ought to acknowledge that the Iraqis just aren’t able or willing to take the opportunity given to them. There may be too many Iraqis whose culture is too broken. Or not. We’ll see
Richard 23
Yeah, undercutting the troops in a time of war and emboldening the terrorist enemy is in the country’s best interests. What a great “reaon.” More deep thinking from the ‘reality-based’ community. By all means keep screaming “truth to power” so the country knows how far out the wackjob left really is.
That’s what constitutes ‘deep thinking’ on the left. But you already knew that.
No he hasn’t. Care to back that up?
Darrell
Richard23 = tBone. What do I win?
rachel
Stupidity does hurt; it just doesn’t necessarily hurt the stupid people. This is the sad story of the human race.
fabulinus
I like how the Dem’s BARELY win both houses (razor thin margins, really) then with a public approval rating of 30% on their handling of Iraq, the Democrats, who promised a plan to WIN in Iraq, have not offered a single counterplan except pull-out… and they have the gall to act like they have a mandate from the people.
The Dem’s “symbolic resolution” has a 51% approval rating compared to 46% disapproval rating. With the nation CLEARLY divided on this issue, the Dems talk as if this resolution is what Americans “clearly” want.
58% of Americans are opposed cutting off funds, but watch what Murtha and Pelosi have planned.
I feel your pain, but I have gotten over throwing remotes… I just change the channel.
Richard 23
A boot up the ass. You missed the space, dummy.
lard lad
And look what happened to Colin Powell during his term as Secretary of State… cut off at the knees and clotheslined in the windpipe again and again by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, not to mention unctuous little pricks like Doug Feith.
And Powell really was a yes-man! Well, he was more like 90% of one… not the pure hundred-percent undiluted Bush toady that our president feels comfortable working with. That’s why the White House treated him like the family retard for his four years at State.
tBone
Wrong again, whackjob. We are all DougJ.
(I’m really not Richard 23. He’s a filthy moonbat masquerading as a true patriotic American. Whereas I, as you well know, have a deep and abiding love for our Leader. And ponies. I loves me some ponies.)
Dreggas
GEORGE W. BUSH WAS ELECTED )or not) PRESIDENT WE DO NOT ELECT COMMANDER’S IN CHIEF WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU FUCKING MORONS NOT GET? ARE YOU THAT MUCH OF A MENTAL MIDGET OR JUST TOO FUCKING DRUNK JACKASS?
Remfin
“Razor thin margins” is a +7 million vote differential.
But a “mandate” is a +3 million vote differential.
This has been another episode of “The Republican Spin Machine”
Pb
Beat me to it, Remfin.
A clear mandate! Oh man, after they pass this, what will the Democrats do with all the rest of their political capital? It’s too much!
Darrell
Ok, the anti-war left has made their case above, and with such class and eloquance as always.
Look, Bush has done a goatf*ck on the PR, but he does have one hell of a case. With the noblest of motives, we toppled the most blood-soaked dictator in the middle east, giving Iraqis a legit fighting chance at democracy in order to help them, while undermining the numerous other despots in the region who have spawned so much terrorism. If the left had a shred of decency they would acknowledge that fact.. but they can’t, and that says it all about who they are.
They blame Bush ENTIRELY, and never acknowledge the broken Iraqi culture which suffered decaded of oppression with the murderous sectarian killers it spawned that are the real culprit. Read what the leftists write and listen to what they say to get the full truth on how depraved these lowlifes really are.
Truth is, the islamic radicals will certainly spin any pullout from Iraq through Al-Jazeera and their network of jihadi websites as a defeat for the infidel forces who were driven away by the brave Islamic jihad warriors of Allah… and Iraq will then endure even more violence and more will be driven to islamic extremism.. all Bush’s fault. Craven and despicable as hell on the part of the liberals? You bet it is.
And the Democrat plan? pathetic as hell, and John Cole knows it, but doesn’t give a rat’s ass (because he’s so principled). The Dem ‘solution’ offers what, a combination of increased cooperation with the UN (?), maybe targeted military strikes, weapons inspections until we’re kicked out (again), and more internal US security. John Cole and anyone with a brain who’s not a drooling moonbat knows damn well that none of that will work for long… it’s a Dem plan destined for disaster. And John cole KNOWS it, but out of “principle” he rails for non-binding crap resolutions. Yeah, principled my ass.
Perry Como
Listen up moonbats: just because Bush waged a preemptive war with too few troops; just because Bush removed all civil structure in Iraq; just because Bush disbanded the Iraqi army and order broke down; just because Bush reopened one of the most notorious prison under Saddam and US troops tortured Iraqis there; just because Bush turned Iraq into a free market free for all that destroyed local businesses that couldn’t compete with cheap goods from foreign countries; just because Bush had no plan for reconstruction; just because Bush didn’t have a plan for dealing with centuries old sectarian hatred; just because Bush let Iraq free fall into chaos; just because Bush sent 363 tons of cash to Iraq that disappeared; just because Bush allowed US contractors to make loads of money for substandard work with no oversight…
Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t listen to him now. Sure, a mistake or two may have been made. But give the guy a chance. Bush can’t help it that Iraqis decided to turn to tribal alliances in a country destroyed by war. Is anything ever good enough for you whackjobs?
Dave A
Darrell,
You say…
Your analysis of the administrations lack of culpability because of the ‘broken Iraqi culture’ doesn’t work for me. Blaming the Iraqis might have been a wee bit more reasonable had this administration given more than a passing thought and preparation, prior to invading Iraq, to what would have been required to stabilize, maintain security and give an Iraqi democracy a firm footing. Unfortunately, for us, and even more tragically for the Iraqis themselves, the Bush administration didn’t. This was a war of choice driven by ideological principles, with the messy details of what it would take to truly succeed simply dismissed and buried. Even though toppling Saddam was discussed in the first NSC meeting in the early weeks of the Bush administration, serious, substantive discussion and planning of post war efforts were ignored at best, ridiculed and worse.
So yes, I do blame the Bush administration for putting the US in this situation. To the extent that the Democratic majority and some Republicans can force some accountability, I’m all for it.
Don’t blame the Iraqi people when the decisions, or lack thereof, by the Executive branch and the US military hardly gave them a chance to succeed.
Richard 23
You still deserve a boot up your ass. Next time use a space in my name you worthless lying sack of crap.
dylan
Yeah… That message that they sent is that they want some serious resolutions and measures passed.
Perhaps some “binding” ones.
Or maybe there are some “clearer” ones.
Talking heads are just what they sound like.
They could be talking phones or talking cupcakes…. do we really listen to them?
Have we not yet discovered that the parties that illegitemately picked and implemented this war, have made no plans or concessions to ever finish it?
Is there any doubt that they don’t plan on peeking thier little snouts above ground before our own little constitutional term limits send them off to pasture?
Embarassed am I.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Cut the funding. Give the Administration 12 months to pull our troops out of the war.
Or, wait until a sane Administration comes along, then start the withdrawal.
Or, we can keep fighting it until your grandkids come home in coffins. It’s pretty much a choice between one of those three options at this point.
Richard 23
I don’t have any grandkids (that I know of) so let’s win this thing. Of course you’d probably rather have Saddam still in power. In fact, I think he’d poll better than Obama and Osama on the Democrat ticket.
And those that don’t come home in coffins (typical liberal goth imagery) will come home to tickertape parades. Except for far left moonbats like you who will be spitting on our returning troops again, you filthy hippie.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Not yet. That’s my point, you dunderhead.
Good point. Also, the many school murals adorning the walls of the new Iraqi public schools will forever attest to the glory of Halliburton.
Only if we send them home in time machines which bring some home in 1945, others home in 1969. The ones coming home in 2009 will only have to face a shattered economy and substantially diminished veterans’ benefits.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Actually, I’d like to be in America in 1945. Decent jobs would be plentiful. Also, I could obtain evidence of J. Edgar Hoover’s cross-dressing and Joe McCarthy’s morphine addiction, nipping those two fucksticks’ careers in the bud early.
Dreggas
Undermining other despots? Noble Intentions? My god how the hell can you believe this fluff. Bush didn’t undermine shit or did you forget about Iran now being emboldened since their chief concern (namely Hussein) has been removed from power. Syria doesn’t look too worried and the rest of them are still “Allies” even though they’re happy to send their weapons and jihadis against us. As for noble intentions the road to hell is paved with those too, and avenging some sense of personal honor or fighting for some personal vendetta is NOT noble.
Zifnab
I think that’s the plan everyone has in mind. Honestly, Democrats don’t really want this war to end, from a political standpoint. Every time a Republican says the word “tax-cut”, the Democrat can reply “war-debt”. Democrats can raise non-binding resolutions every day till Nov 7th 2008 and make Republicans vote again and again either against the President or against their constituency.
Of course, ’06 was a referendum on war and corruption. Both were issues Republicans couldn’t win. If the Democrats can’t or won’t do something more… binding, people will lose faith in them as well. Pelosi’s 100 hours was so strong because she got real important measures passed quickly and successfully. We’ll see if the Senate is equally successful in moving the ball down the field. Otherwise, Bush’s incompetence will only mirror by Democratic inaction.
Darrell
I agree that the amount of sectarian violence was underestimated.. by everyone, Dems and Republicans. When Dems were rattling the cages for war with Iraq I didn’t hear any of them predicting the extent of the sectarian violence. Closest came Bush himself who warned from the onset that it would be a long fight.
But after decades of oppression with Sunnis having their jackboot over the Shia and Kurds, you’re out to lunch if you believe ANY amount of planning could have prevented the sectarian violence. Yet that is precisely the dumbass assertion which you, and the rest of the leftists are making.
The big LIE once more
It’s not the fault of Iraqis blowing up buses and marketplaces, or foreign Al Queda fighters.. no it’s all the fault of George Bush… and Halliburton.
Darrell
My bad. I forgot that we went into Iraq to steal their oil.
Dreggas
No we went in, or so we were told, to find wmd which did not exist. Then the rationale changed again…and again…and again. Of course you conveniently forget that and only adhere to the latest rationale that the administration pulls out of it’s ass. Hell if the administration was honest we would be able to declare victory and go home after all Saddam is gone and the threat of wmd was proven non-existant. Given that WMD was the initial reason for this war it should be over with, and really it is over, they have a government, a constitution, there are no wmd and saddam is gone. Now we are just caught in the middle of their civil war.
Darrell
the sad truth is, leftists can’t go beyond these well-rehearsed talking points which they are all taught to repeat.
Bush disbanded the army because, well, because it was run by Baathist thugs. In hindsight, it could have have been done better, but that’s just second guessing with benefit of hindsight. The disbanding of the Iraqi army was a reasonable decision at the time. And I love the talking points claiming equivalence of torture chambers under Saddam with US actions.
Darrell
bullshit, there were over a dozen stated reasons given, including the fact that Saddam had flouted numerous UNSCR resolutions over a 12 year period violating his ’91 terms of surrender, and 12 years of ‘second’ chances was enough. Violation of terms of surrender = resumption of hostilities
As for WMDs, he had them, he used them, Iraq admitted to having tons of Vx and chem weapons when inspectors were blocked and forced to leave in 1998. After 9/11, would it really have been reasonable to just take Saddam’s word for it, especially given his disregard for sanctions and resolutions? The only time Saddam ever complied was with a gun to his head.
But please feel free to rewrite history to fit your leftist narrative. Just don’t whine like a little bitch when someone shows how full of sh*t you are.
jenniebee
Well, at least Darrell’s backed off of the “nuh-uh, we are too winning in Iraq” meme.
Darrell
What did I write which could be interpreted as “backing off” the idea that we are winning in Iraq. I’ve said it may be possible or not. Please cite my statement which you claim is a “back down”
Darrell
The wingnut case for invading Iraq
Steve
Wow, Darrell thinks finishing inspections is the same thing as invading Iraq. Different thread, same old idiocy, huh?
Disbanding the Iraqi army – regarded far and wide as one of the hugest mistakes of the whole debacle – was “a reasonable decision at the time.” Man, some people will defend anything.
dreggas
Darrell I am curious what will it take for you to finally admit you are wrong? How many more straw men must be knocked down before you relent or will you continue to be a sheep of this administration?
Darrell
dreggas, you have had your “arguments” shredded to pieces on this thread, yet you come back without responding to any of the points which have been made, pretending as if you have ‘won’ the debate. I expected as much coming from a leftard like you.
Darrell
Just because it turned out to be a mistake, doesn’t change the decision was not reasonable at the time.
First, there was no army left to “disband” as the Iraqi army had already largely vaporized, throwing out their uniforms and dispersed before we could do anything. Second, the Iraqi army was infiltrated with Baathist murderers. Third, the Shia conscripts would likely have been out for blood revenge on their Sunni officers if we had kept the army in place.. All ‘reasonable’ assumptions at the time, although in hindsight, probably not the best course of action.
From what I’ve read, most of the former Iraqi army who wanted to continue to serve, have now joined into the new Iraqi army, so they are not the cause of the insurgency now.. except perhaps for the bitter Sunnis who didn’t want to return to serve with the ‘dirty’ Shia.
dreggas
What’s there to respond to you keep promoting the same tired arguments that have been proven wrong time and again. You continue to see things that just don’t exist. There’s nothing more to be said and nothing to debate. Your one of Dick Cheney’s dead enders period.
Darrell
dreggas wrote:
Uh dreggas, the elected President of the US is the CiC. Please see Article II of the US constitution for more details. I hope this new information from a “dead ender” helps.
Dave A
Darrell, you said…
You missed my point. The administration actively discouraged and wanted no part of post war planning. There were more than a few groups and individuals in a variety of military and non-military government departments that developed (or tried to develop) comprehensive plans for “securing the peace”, only to be slapped down by the true believers who thought that we’d be greeted with flowers, that Iraqi oil revenues would pay for this good deed, that most of our troops would be out within months. The quotes are public and on the record – I’m not going to dig them out again.
Republicans are supposedly better at careful planning, thinking through the consequences and eventualities, considering unintended consequences, etc. The war with Iraq, well at least the postwar, was subject to none of this critical, honest thought and analysis. The ideological blinders wouldn’t allow for it. Neither would the public uproar that would have ensued if there had been any suggestion before the war that our involvement might last for years rather than months.
Don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say Al Qaeda. I didn’t say Halliburton. I said that the actions by the US “hardly gave them a chance to succeed”. The absolute refusal to seriously consider post war planning and hostility to those who had temerity to do so is inexcusable. To this extent, at very least, this administration is culpable and must be held to account.
dreggas
Darrell we do not elect a Commander in Chief, the president is not solely commander in chief and never was he’s a civie playing at being a military leader. He’s not and never was. If you’d read article II you’d also realize that the president is president commander in chief is not his job, it might be part of it but not the whole. You speak of it as if it is the whole. Keep living in cod-piece fantasy land if you want.
Dave A
Article II
Italics in the quote are mine.
Note that Bush is not my Commander in Chief – he is my President. A subtle (actually, not so subtle) but vital difference.
dreggas
and you exclude the following
when called into the actual Service of the United States;
You talk as if he is nothing more than CiC and should be deferred to regardless of whether or not he deserves it.
dreggas
Also notice Section 2 speaks of CIVILIAN CONTROL OVER THE MILITARY. Nowhere does it state that he should be deferred to and given the authority that he claims to have.
Darrell
As written, that is an entirely false statement. We can argue that not enough planning was done in some areas, or the planning was not thorough in other areas.. but to assert that the administration wanted “no part” of post war planning is absurd on its face
We were warned by Bush himself from outset that the war would be long and hard
Dave A wrote:
I didn’t. In fact I quoted you verbatim. I’ll do it again here
The Iraqi people who are causing the mayhem are precisely the ones to blame. They were most definitely given a chance to create a free and democratic society, but many chose to blow up bombs in marketplaces instead.
Darrell
My bad for not spelling out for you geniuses that “Commander in Chief” refers to CiC of our military.
Dave A
Darrell said:
As has been widely reported, the absurdity is precisely the opposite. I’ve got work I need to get done, so here are just a couple of links that back up my statement. Try googling “iraq post war plans discouraged” yourself.
Here’s one from that bastion of liberal media… The Christian Science Monitor
and USA Today USA Today
There are books you can read too. The Assassins Gate by George Packer (who agreed with the decision to invade Iraq) is just one.
Steve-o
Telling us you are an idiot was not necessary after writing in your first sentence that you were watching Hardball. The reason for passing the non-binding resolution is to attempt a buy-off of the Democratic base that wants to defund the war. It won’t work.
Dave A
Darrell,
Silly me. Even better links are right here on
Balloon Juice (see Norks, War And Open Thread)
and a post it references here
Steve
It’s just amazing that Bush allowed guys like Rumsfeld to go out there and tell everyone the war probably wouldn’t last six months, when he so desperately wanted everyone to know what a long, hard struggle it would be. I mean, these guys predicting a cakewalk were obviously way off the reservation. How odd that Bush never did anything to dissuade them, since it was so important to him that everyone know it would be a long war. But yeah, the people who think Bush was in a hurry to declare “Mission Accomplished” are obviously full of shit.
gringo
Neither the dem. strategists now you explain why this should be a non-binding resolution. Heck, cut the funding now, if you think this is what the American people want, or that this is what must be done.
DougJ
Thanks you, John. I absolutely could not agree with you more. This makes me furious and I’m glad I’m not the only one.
Perry Como
Darrell says:
Then there’s:
— Kenneth Adelman, far Left moonbat
tBone
Ooh, I had forgotten about that article. It’s a goldmine.
Drooling Leftard David Frum:
Rabid America-hater Frank Gaffney:
Far Left Whackjob Richard Perle:
So, these dishonest blame-America-firsters claim:
-We should be held responsible for not securing the country.
-That the Bush administration was too dysfunctional to properly plan for the post-invasion period.
-That we should have gotten the Iraqis much more involved in the reconstruction.
Darrell, you need to drop a truth-bomb on those dishonest to the core Leftists. Preach it!
tBone
Strike the strike-through above. What kind of Leftard came up with this tagging system, anyway?
Darrell
Dishonest to core is who you scumbags are
What the left is doing, is trying to twist words and outright lie their asses off in order to blame Bush, rather than the insurgents who are creating the havoc. It’s no different really, then blaming police for a rise in violent crime. Sure, the police made mistakes and could have done some things diffeently, but at the end of the day, it’s the fault of the criminals who commit the crime. This basic common sense, but leftists have a narrative to push, and facts and truth can’t get in the way.
tBone
Sure:
Darrell sez:
Yes, Darrell. It’s the Leftists (including several of the chief architects of the war) who are lying their asses off, not you. Bush must be held blameless for the chaos in Iraq. Those ungrateful Iraqis – why don’t they want to clean up after all of the ponies we gave them?? Ingrates.
Darrell
Nice strawman with the “held blameless” assertion, as no one has said Bush should be held blameless. But in case you haven’t noticed, Bush is not the one blowing up outdoor markets and crowded street corners.. it’s Iraqis and Al-Queda.
Darrell
What? Vanity Fair twisting words and adding their own to shill for Democrats on the eve of an election? And libs on BJ and elsewhere still pushing the lies? Whooda thunk
tBone
Fair enough. You’ve only strongly implied it.
tBone
OK. Let’s look at some of the quotes without any of the surrounding text, and you tell us how they should be interpreted:
Damn moonbats, twisting the words of these loyal Republicans!
Darrell
But we’ve been told over and over and over that Bush has surrounded himself with “yes men”. How are we ever to believe this contradictory evidence?
As for Adelman whom you quoted, he disagreed strongly with Rumsfeld, and he had a stick up his ass over what he believed was incompetency on Rumseld’s part.. but regarding Iraq, on Meet the Press just last Dec. (after the Vanity Fair article) he was still claming that Iraq was winnable and that it’s worth fighting for.
Darrell
I disagree that “it’s over”, and apparently so does Gaffney, whose out of context quotations in VF he explains
Rome Again
Thank you for pointing this out John, I wholeheartedly agree.
Perry Como
You’re missing something here. The complaints about the VF quotes were because they came out before the 2006 election. From your own link you can see the date: November 5, 2006 7:33 AM. The linked VF article that is cited was published in January of 2007.
What’s even funnier is that you obviously didn’t even read the article. Instead you relied on the months old cover job from NRO. The entire issue is covered in the link I gave:
Smart. Strong.