Plenty Of Fingers To Go Around

It strikes me that the president’s determination to throw more troops into Iraq or as I call it, break the army requires giving the finger to a remarkable number of different groups of people. Start with the new Democratic majority, who the president has maneuvered to shut out entirely from Iraq decisionmaking. That might mean more if anybody could come up with an instance when the President has not given Democrats the finger. It’s just who he is. More interesting to me is the number of folks who are unaccustomed to getting flipped off by the C-in-C.

* The Joint Chiefs.
* The American people. Only 11-12% support the troop buildup that the president is proposing. Mark Foley polled better than that.
* The ISG. Considering poppy’s influence on this group via Baker, we should take this as the President reiterating his position that dad can pound salt.
* Think that the president’s own party wants to re-fight 2008 on the same strategic ground as ’06? I don’t.

Josh Marshall asked a while back, “who’s for this exactly?” John McCain and Joe Lieberman should count for something. The rightwingosphere will hang on for awhile if only because libruls want the opposite. Laura and Barney, and Barney is open to debate.

Eventually true statesmen recognize that their historical moment has passed and subsume their ego to the good of the country. LBJ did it. Sadly, I think that we can all acknowledge that Bush is not LBJ. Recognizing failure is not in his lexicon. The idea of Bush subsuming his ego to anything is laughable. The fighting will go on, the army will break and the political ground will continue getting worse for Republicans until they find some way to pull the plug.

Particularly note that last bit – when it comes to personal gratification versus the good of his own party the President has no qualms about choosing the former over the latter. Ask any ex-Congressman whether he or she would have preferred to see Rumsfeld gone sooner.

I have no doubt that Bush was dead serious when he said that he would go on with nobody but Laura and Barney at his back. So what does his party plan to do about it? There is really only one option at their disposal and it ends with president Pelosi. Stipulated that things that can’t go on generally don’t, nonetheless my money says that America can limp through at least two more years of a Potemkin occupation, broken army and all. Then a massive Democratic majority can define Pyrrhic victory while cleaning up what Bush broke.






229 replies
  1. 1
    blackfrancis says:

    everyone knows it’s the democrats’ fault for not having a plan for iraq in the first place.

  2. 2
    Huxley says:

    …while cleaning up what Bush broke.

    I wish it could be that simple, Tim. However, our nation has been damaged heavily by this awful little war. Future generations will be dealing with the burdens of diminished American stature in the world, care of our veterans and rebuilding our military. The ramifications will felt like shock waves throughout the land, affecting socio-economic policies and practices, education, immigration, and race relations.

  3. 3
    Pb says:

    Josh Marshall asked a while back, “who’s for this exactly?”

    Bush’s legacy. He wants to be remembered for something, he wants to be #1 at something, and apparently that something is “Worst President Ever”. Either that, or Barney’s quite the warmonger?

  4. 4

    The fighting will go on, the army will break and the political ground will continue getting worse for Republicans until they find some way to pull the plug.

    Scientists have shown that PVS patients can often recover, often getting up and walking about mere days after having been pejoratively labeled “vegetative.”

    Iraq is like Terri Schiavo. Moonbats want to kill the country for lack of patience, siding with the estranged husband (the Democratic Party, which largely voted to support the war in 2002) over the concerns of the parents (Bush and Condoleeza Rice, who orchestrated the intervention and subsequent “victory vigil” involving over 200,000 soldiers, Marines, contractors, and various bureaucratic personnel working in rotation for the following 4+ years). Will an activist judge allow the Democrats to pull the plug on this PVS patient, the Iraq war? Sane people everywhere pray that this does not occur, but when in doubt, look to the wrong side of the issue to find out where the moonbats stand on it.

    Ho ho ho, bitches!

  5. 5
    matt says:

    This is way random and entirely off topic, but I’m curious whether John shares his politics with his students (I don’t know what kind of class he teaches, hey, what kind of class does he teach?) and if so, I would really enjoy reading about their reactions (both positive and negative) to his transformation over the last couple of years. So, just throwing a topic idea out there.

  6. 6

    Either that, or Barney’s quite the warmonger?

    At least he supports the troops, moonbat.

  7. 7
    zmulls says:

    I think it will be a very, very long time before we see another President from Texas……there’s something in the water there….

  8. 8
    ThymeZone says:

    Mark Foley polled better than that.

    Aside from the misspelling of “poled,” best straight line of the day.

  9. 9
    Mike says:

    The only good thing about it I can see is that Bush will destroy the Republican party for a generation or longer since he will not go down alone but will drag them down kicking and screaming.

  10. 10
    Zifnab says:

    Mark Foley polled better than that.

    Is it legal to give Cole the POTD award?

  11. 11
    Zifnab says:

    Damnit, I mean Tim.

  12. 12
    Mike says:

    I am sure Bush could issue a signing statement making it legal.

  13. 13
    Krista says:

    Then a massive Democratic majority party can define Pyrrhic victory while cleaning up what Bush broke.

    The depressing thing is that there is no way in hell that the Dems will be able to clean up this clusterfuck quickly or cleanly enough to avoid having the Repubs and the right-wing pundits and blogosphere crowing accusations of incompetence.

  14. 14
    srv says:

    Either that, or Barney’s quite the warmonger?

    People have always assumed it was Dick on the intercom playing god, but what if it’s Barney? He’s got to be hearing voices from somewhere.

  15. 15
    Zifnab says:

    The depressing thing is that there is no way in hell that the Dems will be able to clean up this clusterfuck quickly or cleanly enough to avoid having the Repubs and the right-wing pundits and blogosphere crowing accusations of incompetence.

    Two days after the election they were already in a huffing fit bitching at Pelosi over why she hadn’t fixed America yet.

    Make no mistake, in the eyes of the Rightwing’o’sphere, the Defeatocrats will go down in history as the Party That Lost The War and San Fransisco Valued Our Nation. And no amount of sane logical reasoning will change that.

  16. 16
    Pb says:

    People have always assumed it was Dick on the intercom playing god, but what if it’s Barney?

    “Kent? This is Jesus, Kent.”

  17. 17
    ThymeZone says:

    there is no way in hell that the Dems will be able to clean up this clusterfuck quickly or cleanly enough to avoid having the Repubs and the right-wing pundits and blogosphere crowing accusations of incompetence.

    Won’t work this time. The people are smarter, and paying more attention. Bush and his circle have no credibility any more outside of their base. In some cases, even inside the base.

  18. 18
    Ron says:

    Impeachment wouldn’t have to result in President Pelosi if Cheney resigned in time for another Republican such as Joe Lieberman to be sworn in prior to Bush being remove from office. It’s all a moot point of course since the Republicans in Congress would never do anything as responsible as hold this administration accountable for anything.

  19. 19
    Mike says:

    Won’t work this time. The people are smarter, and paying more attention. Bush and his circle have no credibility any more outside of their base. In some cases, even inside the base.

    I am not so sure about that. Have you read John Dean’s “Conservatives without Conscience”? There are more people now than ever before who simply will not question the “Dear Leader”.

  20. 20
    Davebo says:

    I think it will be a very, very long time before we see another President from Texas

    It’s already been a long time since we’ve had a president from Texas. LBJ was the last.

  21. 21
    Zifnab says:

    It’s already been a long time since we’ve had a president from Texas. LBJ was the last.

    (*cough*Bush 41*cough*)

  22. 22
    Davebo says:

    (*cough*Bush 41*cough*)

    You’re joking right?

    George Bush is the son of Prescott Bush and Dorothy Walker Bush. He was born in Milton, Massachusetts, and raised in Greenwich, Connecticut.

  23. 23
    Steve says:

    I am not so sure about that. Have you read John Dean’s “Conservatives without Conscience”? There are more people now than ever before who simply will not question the “Dear Leader”.

    The number of people who approve of Bush’s handling of the war is around 25%.

    Of course, we know there are plenty of wingnuts who disapprove because they feel Bush hasn’t been aggressive enough. However, the number of people who actually support Bush’s plan to send more troops is in the neighborhood of 11-12%. That’s a ridiculously small number.

    I’m still looking for a sign that the Democrats understand how huge of a mandate they’ve been handed to change the course in Iraq. There’s still all this talk of finding consensus, going along with a surge in troops if it’s only temporary, etc. At some point they need to realize that Bush actually means what he says.

  24. 24
    VidaLoca says:

    nonetheless my money says that America can limp through at least two more years of a Potemkin occupation, broken army and all.

    I hope you’re right because this seems to me like the best-case scenario.

    However, it looks like Bush is going to ignore the life preserver that Baker tried to toss him and grab for the anchor chain instead: ramp up the forces and go after Muqtada Sadr and the Madhi Army. Here’s a tactical conundrum for you: do you start the house-to-house fighting in Sadr city before or after the air strikes? Legions of basement Napoleons will be wetting their pants over this one.

    The range of possible negative consequences of this — for the troops and their families, for other countries in the region, for our own country and most of all for the Iraqi people — are mind-boggling to contemplate.

    MAYBE we could limp through two more years of this Potemkin government with its Potemkin concept of administration IF we could count on things more or less falling apart in an orderly and linear manner, if we could confidently extrapolate the phucked-uppedness of the past 3-1/2 years forward onto the remaining two. But we can’t do that: things go to hell in very unpredictable, non-linear ways. As bad as the whole thing is now, it can get orders of magnitude worse.

    There is really only one option at their disposal and it ends with president Pelosi.

    To generalize, most people here have so far written that idea off, and I think for several good reasons. Let’s understand, though, that there can be real opportunity costs in doing so. If Bush ends up doing what it looks like he so badly wants to do, and the wheels do come off, it will be horrendous.

    It will also be too late to do anything about it.

  25. 25

    Did we declare war as required by the War Powers Act, ever? Even if we did, wouldn’t “Mission Accomplished” or the election of a new government have qualified as the “end” of war hostilities? Given either a “no” answer to the first question or a “yes” answer to the second, why doesn’t the Democratic Congress give a big ol’ “fuck you” right back and invoke the War Powers Act, giving the President 90 days to get his act together or lose all moneys for the Boondoggle in the Desert.

  26. 26
    Davebo says:

    This is a must read.

    Joseph Galloway

    This president has made it painfully obvious that he has no intention of listening to anyone who doesn’t believe that he’s going to win in Iraq. He’ll march stubbornly onward without any real change of course until high noon Jan. 20, 2009, when his successor will inherit both the hard decision to pull out of Iraq and the back bills for Bush’s reckless, feckless misadventure.

    The midterm election that handed control of Congress to the Democrats can be ignored. Bush’s own approval rating in the polls, now at an all-time low of 27 percent, likewise means little or nothing.

    Only Bush’s definition of reality carries any weight with him, and therein lies the tragedy — both his and ours.

  27. 27
    Jake says:

    America can limp through at least two more years of a Potemkin occupation, broken army and all.

    Well, we’ve heard the mantra: “We must fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.”

    Perhaps the cheerleaders meant “We must fight them over there so we can’t fight them over here.”

    Mission…er…something.

  28. 28
    AkaDad says:

    “Kent? This is Jesus, Kent.”

    Props for the Real Genius reference.

    The best part of that scene

    God: And from now on, stop touching yourself

    Kent: It is God

  29. 29

    “Sadly, I think that we can all acknowledge that Bush is not LBJ.”

    Unfortunately, he’s more like Wilson without the debilitating stroke.

    “Impeachment wouldn’t have to result in President Pelosi if Cheney resigned in time for another Republican such as Joe Lieberman to be sworn in prior to Bush being remove from office.”

    Except that new Vice Presidents require Senate confirmation. That’s no out.

    “The number of people who approve of Bush’s handling of the war is around 25%.”

    Unfortunately, that logic is flawed on several levels. Only about 30% of the voting public actually get off their lazy asses and vote. If that proportion stays true, then this is fine. However, I expect that that 25% of the overall populace makes up a far larger percentage of those that actually goddamn participate in this democratic republic.

  30. 30

    […] Plenty Of Fingers To Go Around […]

  31. 31

    We’ll survive. I am thorougly enjoying the destruction of the Republican party. My only regret is that it’s costing the lives of 10 soldiers a day.

    But, maybe their sacrifice is worth averting the theocratic fascist state we might have become had the conservative realignment actually stuck.

    Think of it as Hitler destroying the Nazi party before the Reichstag fire and Crystal Nacht. The Right has lost the culture war and they are about to be relegated to minority party status for the next decade or two.

    We should actually think George Bush for being the arrogant jerk he is and for people like Josh who were suckered by the Republicans into voting for him.

    Their disallusionment is a wonder to behold and quite enjoyable, partisan that I am.

    Personally I feel for him, politically I say, suffer.

    Pass the popcorn please. I am getting ready to watch two divorced adulterers (Gulliani & McCain) run for the nomination of the Christian nut party.

  32. 32
    Tsulagi says:

    That what the Joint Chiefs are saying and some others in the active military that runs counter to the WH is getting public early, it means they don’t have much confidence in the admin and their “vision.”

    But you just know which way the retard is going to go. He’s heard terms like go big, go long, double-down. Those sound cool, not shit like phased withdrawal. Plus they enable the Supreme Brat to extend his Mother of All Fuckups to achieve his overall strategeric goal: hand it off to the next guy to tag him with the loss.

    I think most already know which way we’re going. Schoomaker, the Army chief, last week said the army is at the breaking point and they needed more control and use of the Guard and Reserve. Essentially, burn through the temps instead of the full-time employees. Plus, never forget Poland! They’ve now announced they will extend their Iraq mission for another year. Thank God for Poland. Now victory is assured.

  33. 33
    Steve says:

    Unfortunately, that logic is flawed on several levels. Only about 30% of the voting public actually get off their lazy asses and vote. If that proportion stays true, then this is fine. However, I expect that that 25% of the overall populace makes up a far larger percentage of those that actually goddamn participate in this democratic republic.

    Take a look at the exit polls from the midterm elections.

    People who saw Iraq as an “extremely important” issue (35% of voters) voted 60-39% to send a Democrat to Congress.

    The combined group of people who saw Iraq as “extremely important” or “very important” (a whopping 67% of voters) voted for Democrats by a clear margin as well.

    We can’t correlate these numbers precisely to the numbers for Bush’s approval rating on the war. But the bottom line is, although pro-war extremists may be more motivated to vote than your average Joe, there simply aren’t that many of them. Democrats need to stop letting a tiny, vocal minority control the terms of the debate; they will win a ton of support if they simply do what they were elected to do and oppose Bush’s plan.

  34. 34
    ThymeZone says:

    However, the number of people who actually support Bush’s plan to send more troops is in the neighborhood of 11-12%. That’s a ridiculously small number.

    Well, we’ll have to wait for more poling. I mean, uh, polling. But anyway, I’d wager the rent money that what people are not approving of here is not the plan, it’s the Implementer. The Decider. I don’t think many people now believe that anything Bush does can turn out well.

    I think he has the Reverse Midas touch at this point: We know now, from observation over and over again, that anything he touches will turn to shit.

  35. 35
    zak822 says:

    Galloway is right, as far as he goes. President Bush is a zealot who believes deeply in his own rightness. Zealots do not change.

    And, this is his chance to prove it to all the people who ever doubted that George W. Bush is a superior man.

    It’s easy to be snarky about how things are going for Bush. But if the Democratic Party is not very careful, they will end up being labeled as the the ones who lost Iraq. The chattering classes mostly believe President Bush, and any admission from them that there is a problem is an admission of their own failure. We have seen that that ain’t happening.

    Being a pundit means never having to say you were wrong. See Thom Friedman, David Broder, et al.

    I believe that President Bush will do anything to prove his doubters wrong. I fully expect a surge in ground forces in Iraq (a study in futility), and an invasion of Iran wouldn’t surprise me a bit. The troops surged into Iraq would be well positioned to move directly into Iran following another dose of the famous “shock and awe”.

    America’s name would incur extreme damage, but the “go it alone” guys have made it very clear that they are not interested in the nations reputation.

  36. 36
    nongeophysical Dennis says:

    I think he has the Reverse Midas touch at this point his entire life: We know now, from observation over and over again, that anything he touches will turn to shit.

    It’s what you were saying anyway, I just wanted to add a little emphasis. :)

  37. 37
    chopper says:

    The American people. Only 11-12% support the troop buildup that the president is proposing.

    uh, you’re not ragging on Time’s Person of the Year, are you?

  38. 38
    VidaLoca says:

    Democrats need to stop letting a tiny, vocal minority control the terms of the debate; they will win a ton of support if they simply do what they were elected to do and oppose Bush’s plan.

    The problem is that the Democrats are just as much on-board with the idea of “protecting our interests” in the mideast as the Republicans are. Those interests are, simply, maintaining the geopolitical status quo among the regional powers there, and our access to oil around which it revolves. A lot of Democrats voted for Bush’s Excellent Adventure, they’re very slow to get to the point of realizing that there is no pony underneath that manure pile because they don’t want to admit their stupidity in believing that there was a pony there in the first place.
    The big difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats might indeed do what they were elected to do — after every other choice has been exhausted. Which probably will take another Friedman Unit or two.

  39. 39
    Steve says:

    uh, you’re not ragging on Time’s Person of the Year, are you?

    You mean Soledad O’Brien, right?

  40. 40
    ThymeZone says:

    I’m afraid you are right, Vida. It’s why I am a card-carrying Netroots fan and why I despise the likes of Joe Fucking Lieberman.

    By the way, your name reminds me of Vida Blue.

    I lived in the Bay Area so I followed him with both the A’s and the Giants.

  41. 41
    JWeidner says:

    The problem is that the Democrats are just as much on-board with the idea of “protecting our interests” in the mideast as the Republicans are. Those interests are, simply, maintaining the geopolitical status quo among the regional powers there, and our access to oil around which it revolves.

    It’s the realist worldview – there are no permanent friends and no permanent enemies, only permanent interests.

    That’s as opposed to the moralist view in which there are definitely permanent friends and enemies (Hello, “Axis of Evil”!) and the nation’s interests have to be sandwiched somewhere in there where they can fit.

  42. 42
    Pooh says:

    or as I call it, break the army

    I have a very real fear that the country is broken in a very real way. I’m generally a magnanimous sort, but my level of disgust, disdain and, at times, hatred for that 1/3 of my countrymen and women won’t be healed in January 2009, and may never be. The number of times per week I’m left thinking “who the fuck thinks like that?” and wondering how I can coexist with that mindset shows no signs of slowing down.

    And this isn’t Bush’s fault, at least not totally, as he is more the messenger than then the architect. But he is certainly the symbol and the embodiment of the sports fandom school of politics that is killing the country. Ably abetted by the almost unbelievably cynical punditocracy who are too fat, comfortable and lazy to do more than fire off missives on Pelosi’s bitchiness, Obama’s ears and Romney’s underpants. Sure, policy might be boring, but suck it up and earn your keep, Mr. Klein, Mr. Broder, Ms. Dowd. At least David Brooks knows he’s spewing bullshit – Tom Friedman is worse because he doesn’t know, and doesn’t care, because hey, he’s not in charge.

    Basically, my fear is that within the next decade, our system will collapse under its own bloated weight. One doesn’t need to look at history very hard to see what happens next.

  43. 43
    Pooh says:

    mmmm, coffee. I feel much better now….

  44. 44
    3reddogs says:

    Somehow I’m having a hard time imagining that the Repubicans could live with a “President Pelosi”. What I CAN imagine is a small group of Republican higher-ups paying a little visit to the White House, maybe call it an “intervention”. They inform him, gently but firmly, that effective immediately he is officially president IN NAME ONLY. And they then proceed to explain to him in no uncertain terms what they will do to him if he doesn’t go along. (And, let’s face it, we all know what a ball-less coward our president is.) Bush’s inner circle will be supplanted by a powerful but virtually invisible inner circle that will begin calling the shots.

    The alternative is for the GOP to stand back and watch Bush drive this country and our armed forces right off a cliff ahd that’s just as hard for me to imagine as it is to imagine the GOP getting behind a move to impeach Bush/Cheney. Only time will tell but I think Bush has a lot less time than he might imagine.

  45. 45

    Joint Chiefs of Staff vs. Bush

    Please read Shaun’s post from today:…

  46. 46
    mrmobi says:

    MAYBE we could limp through two more years of this Potemkin government with its Potemkin concept of administration IF we could count on things more or less falling apart in an orderly and linear manner, if we could confidently extrapolate the phucked-uppedness of the past 3-1/2 years forward onto the remaining two. But we can’t do that: things go to hell in very unpredictable, non-linear ways. As bad as the whole thing is now, it can get orders of magnitude worse.

    Well said, Vida. Count me among the folks who think our mission in Iraq is in deeply serious trouble, and that’s not even taking into account another, what, half a trillion in additional spending to try to reconstitute forces and equipment after this clusterfuck is over.

    This policy is an irresponsible, dangerous, impeachable offense. I’m no longer sure it isn’t a good idea to get rid of this spoiled frat boy. Two years may be too long to wait.

    Let me once again recommend the Tom Ricks book “Fiasco.” It is a compelling account of a long series of very ill-advised decisions. All the more maddening when you consider that the decision-makers had at their disposal war plans, tactics and personnel who might have made it possible to actually succeed. But they rejected all of it, because they knew if would be a cakewalk.

  47. 47
    Darrell says:

    This policy is an irresponsible, dangerous, impeachable offense.

    The moonbats are barking now

    Look, it’s pure speculation to assume that the JCS are unified against this idea.. the WP article only alludes to unnamed Pentagon sources. On the surface, it doesn’t sound like such a good idea sending more troops, but then again, we simply don’t know enough about what they are looking to accomplish to have an informed opinion either way.

  48. 48
    VidaLoca says:

    Two years may be too long to wait.

    Well, that’s my point about opportunity cost. And, to repeat, it’s recognizing the validity of the points others have made here previously, which is that the Democrats were elected to bring back good government and oversight not engage in more endless partisanism, that the set of problems we face are too serious to devote time to removing a failure of a President who will be gone in two years anyhow. Those are all valid arguments. They may also be wrong if they’re based on an assumption that we will muddle through going forward the way we’ve muddled through up to now.

    What really worries me is that the whole discussion is completely academic because it’s already too late.

  49. 49
    ThymeZone says:

    but then again, we simply don’t know enough about what they are looking to accomplish to have an informed opinion either way.

    Oh, yeah, the possibilities are so …. endless.

    It would take a supercomputer to figure this one out.

    What bullshit thing are you imagining, some complex or subtle Middle East policy intertwined with some elegant Iraq strategy that ….. works?

    Call when you have something to actually say. Idiot.

    If there was something we could understand about what “they are looking to accomplish” which was not already a horse that long ago left the barn, don’t you think we’d know it by now? How stupid do they think the people are?

    Never mind, I think we already know the answer to that one.

  50. 50
    Darrell says:

    I have a very real fear that the country is broken in a very real way. I’m generally a magnanimous sort, but my level of disgust, disdain and, at times, hatred for that 1/3 of my countrymen and women won’t be healed in January 2009, and may never be.

    You and your side are so blinded by your own partisan hatred and BDS, that all you can see is the fault of the ‘other side’, without recognizing your own contributions to divisiveness in the country.

  51. 51
    TenguPhule says:

    Bush understands only one finger. And only when it’s extended at him.

  52. 52
    Darrell says:

    Oh, yeah, the possibilities are so …. endless.

    It would take a supercomputer to figure this one out.

    What bullshit thing are you imagining, some complex or subtle Middle East policy intertwined with some elegant Iraq strategy that ….. works?

    Securing hot spot areas which are unsecured? Training more Iraqi troops? Better securing Iraqi borders?

    Each one of those could be a reasonable justification for additional troops. I don’t know. What do know, however, is that you and virtually every other liberal are such extreme partisan hacks, that you don’t even hold open the POSSIBILITY that more troops may be a good thing.

  53. 53
    Zifnab says:

    Bush’s inner circle will be supplanted by a powerful but virtually invisible new inner circle that will begin calling the shots.

    This inner circle will be just as blind, ignorant, and bull-headed as the last Team Neo-Con that occupied said space, and will egg on the country to even more spectacular failures while blaming it all on the Democrats.

  54. 54
    ThymeZone says:

    I don’t know.

    No shit.

    There’s a “secret plan to win the war,” right?

    Of the things you mentioned, if they had merit, which of them would not have been agressively pursued a long time ago and have been shown to be a success by now?

    Get the fuck outta here, man. You’re pathetic.

    Go away and take your useless “you and every other liberal” rightwing radio talking points with you. If I want to listen to Rush Limbaugh I can get my own radio.

  55. 55
    TenguPhule says:

    Darrell says: You and your side are so blinded by your own partisan hatred and *BS*, that all you can see is the fault of the ‘other side’, without recognizing your own contributions to divisiveness in the country.

    Darrell’s Fixed Irony of the Day.

  56. 56
    ThymeZone says:

    You and your side are so blinded by your own partisan hatred and BDS, that all you can see is the fault of the ‘other side’, without recognizing your own contributions to divisiveness in the country.

    Unless John Cole is writing this crap, I say again that there can be no possible rational motive for letting you post here. WTF, seriously? WTF?

  57. 57
    Zifnab says:

    You and your side are so blinded by your own partisan hatred and BDS, that all you can see is the fault of the ‘other side’, without recognizing your own contributions to divisiveness in the country. Why do you hate America!

  58. 58
    Steve says:

    Yet another thread laid to waste. Snore.

  59. 59
    Darrell says:

    Steve Says:

    Yet another thread laid to waste. Snore

    I’m sorry Steve, did I disturb your echo chamber? My bad..

  60. 60
    TenguPhule says:

    Securing hot spot areas which are unsecured?

    With only 20,000 more troops? Are you trying to be silly?

    Training more Iraqi troops?

    200,000+ militia and death squad trainees aren’t enough for you?

    Better securing Iraqi borders?

    Again, what do you expect only 20,000 to do with borders that long and that open?

    What do know, however, is that you and virtually every other liberal are such extreme partisan hacks, that you don’t even hold open the POSSIBILITY that more troops may be a good thing.

    You know nothing. More troops from *where*? What do you expect 20,000 (of which only 6-10,000 will be available at a time since they need to sleep and eat and a good chunk of them will probably be support rather then active combat roles) to do when the situation is so deep in the crapper already?

    At some point you have to stop throwing good lives away after what’s already been pissed away when there’s nothing more that can be done. Unfortunately, it’s too easy for the armchair generals to keep feeding other people into the meat grinder.

  61. 61
    Zifnab says:

    Again, what do you expect only 20,000 to do with borders that long and that open?

    What they need is a really, really, really big fence. Unfortunately, they have no illegals to build it. So they’re shit out of luck.

  62. 62
    Ted says:

    I’m sorry Steve, did I disturb your echo chamber? My bad..

    You didn’t disturb anyone’s echo chamber. What you did is confirm this thread will be 284 comments long, 40% of which will be yours. As William Shatner would say, get a life!

    You honestly don’t seem to grasp why regular commenters here deem a thread doomed after your first post to it. It’s because your first comment is usually the beginning of about 68 comments that will inevitably end up spewing profanity and spittle at everyone.

    Didn’t ThymeZone or TenguPhule say that Darrell was banned the other day?

  63. 63
    Darrell says:

    You know nothing. More troops from where?

    Germany has 70,000 US troops deployed there. Asia and/or US bases have plenty too. And I’m supposed to be the one who “knows nothing”?

  64. 64
    Zifnab says:

    Didn’t ThymeZone or TenguPhule say that Darrell was banned the other day?

    No, that was nichovich or something. And he was pulling Freeper-style “You’re a stupid Joo” style nonsense. Completely off the deep end. He got banned for about a day or two. I don’t know if he’s still around.

  65. 65
    Jake says:

    At this point anyone who appears to seriously support the idea of more soldiers is either engaging in some serious spoof or too insane to merit a response.

    Unless you’re talking about waiting a couple of years until they are trained and ready to go (we’ll just stick Iraq and Afghanistan in a time warp shall we?), there are no more soldiers. Just as importantly, there is no damn equipment for them. Anyone who says just send more soliders are the solution is saying “We can fight and win a war with non-existent people who use imaginary gear.”
    Spooftacular!

  66. 66
    Krista says:

    Didn’t ThymeZone or TenguPhule say that Darrell was banned the other day?

    That was just because Tim left us alone while he went to the store, and told us to mind ourselves. It wasn’t true authority (I cannot type that word without wanting to turn it into the Cartman-esque “authoritah!”), but it was fun to pretend for awhile…

  67. 67
    TenguPhule says:

    Germany has 70,000 US troops deployed there. Asia and/or US bases have plenty too.

    Many of whom have already served several tours in Iraq.

    Do you propose to cut down on the length of time to recover between deployments then?

  68. 68
    Darrell says:

    You didn’t disturb anyone’s echo chamber. What you did is confirm this thread will be 284 comments long, 40% of which will be yours. As William Shatner would say, get a life!

    Interesting factoid about Ted, is that if you check him out, 95%+ of all his posts are nothing but personal attacks, railing against other posters with whom he disagrees. I’ve never seen another poster with anything approaching such a record here at BJ. Ted never weighs in with any substance.. likely because he has nothing to offer intellectually, so he lurks and lurks (although he has a life!) and drops in just to attack. Typical stupid ass leftist.

  69. 69
    Darrell says:

    No, that was nichovich or something. And he was pulling Freeper-style “You’re a stupid Joo” style nonsense

    Actually, nicovich, or however you spell his name, is a Jew himself. Or at least claims to be. Just so you know.

  70. 70
    Ted says:

    That was just because Tim left us alone while he went to the store, and told us to mind ourselves.

    Shame. It would be nice to be rid of the Bush advocate who, if he’s not being paid for his vigilant thread spamming, is a very sad individual.

  71. 71
    TenguPhule says:

    if you check him out, 95%+ of all his posts are nothing but personal attacks, railing against other posters with whom he disagrees. I’ve never seen another poster with anything approaching such a record here at BJ.

    Sweet Irony of the Day Deus.

  72. 72
    TenguPhule says:

    Darrell says: And I’m supposed to be the one who “knows nothing”?

    Yes.

    This has been another edition of obvious answers to simple questions.

  73. 73
    Ted says:

    Ted never weighs in with any substance..

    Indeed I am a lurker. I enjoy reading the comments here, and occasionally commenting myself. Unfortunately, rabid idiots like yourself compel me to ask you to stop shitting all over the threads and making them four times as long as with your frantic back-to-back posting. The other day I counted 58 posts of yours on a comment thread less than 300. You need some Valium or something.

    You’re a contrarian. You only post here to incite argument. I’ve never once seen your lifeless self chime in on a topic you and everyone else here agrees on. It’s always, always to disagree (which is fine) and then label those with whom you disagree with things like “stupid ass leftist”. If you can’t stand the regulars here, why continue to read the comments?? Like I said, if you’re not getting paid for what you’re doing, it’s really very sad.

  74. 74
    Darrell says:

    Unless you’re talking about waiting a couple of years until they are trained and ready to go (we’ll just stick Iraq and Afghanistan in a time warp shall we?), there are no more soldiers. Just as importantly, there is no damn equipment for them.

    There are plenty of trained soldiers and equipment which could be redeployed to Iraq. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do so… but to argue that there are no trained soldiers or equipment to be redeployed there, demonstrates what a bubble of ignorance so many of you live inside.

  75. 75
    jh says:

    What do you expect 20,000 (of which only 6-10,000 will be available at a time since they need to sleep and eat and a good chunk of them will probably be support rather then active combat roles)

    Exactly. The common metric ’round these parts (here in the bowels of DOD) is that for every soldier you have in the field, you need at least three bodies in support roles.

    20,000 boots on the ground in Iraq means at least 60,000 people in total once you figure in the manpower needed for support.

    Given the public perception of the war, the marginal recruiting abilities of the armed forces, and the incoming Democratic majority (total force increases require congressional approval) the idea of getting 60,000 people enlisted, trained and in theater anytime in the next 12-24 months is about as likely as…….well, just think of something that is VERY unlikely to happen anytime soon.

    Then multiply it times 10.

    And this is being optimistic about whether or not 20,000 troops will do any good.

    It won’t.

    The number is insufficient to do anything other than possibly train Iraqi forces (but only if the idea of green troops training even greener Arab speaking troops makes sense to you), but from what I’m hearing the more Iraqis we train, the more skilled operatives the Shiite militias and death squads have at their disposal.

    As for using additional troops to secure Iraq’s borders – This a non starter. You would need hundreds of thousands of troops to do that effectively, not 20,000.

    In short – we are fucked. What’s worse, the current administration wants to send even more people into this unsalvagable cauldron of failure and violence.

    I suggest Darrell put his money where his mouth is and request a transfer from the 101st Keyboarders to an Iraq-bound Army infantry unit so he could show ’em how simple it is to bring security to an inherently anarchic situation.

    I’d really like to see that.

  76. 76
    Jake says:

    There are plenty of trained soldiers and equipment which could be redeployed to Iraq.

    Isn’t he great folks? And don’t miss The Great Darrellini’s evening show. You’ll be amazed what he does with a pack of party ballons and some ping pong balls.

  77. 77
    TenguPhule says:

    There are plenty of trained soldiers and equipment which could be redeployed to Iraq.

    Maybe Darrell could tell the Joint Chiefs of Staff that, since they seem to think that they’re running *out* of viable equipment and people for Iraq deployments.

  78. 78
  79. 79
    Darrell says:

    It’s always, always to disagree (which is fine) and then label those with whom you disagree with things like “stupid ass leftist”.

    Let me elaborate. Anyone in which 95% of their posts are nothing but personal attacks on conservatives with whom they disagree.. really and truly is a stupid ass leftist. And anyone who argues that there are “no troops” or equipment available to be redeployed to Iraq.. really and truly is a stupid ass leftist. It’s not merely a “disagreement”. It is a statement of fact.

  80. 80
    Steve says:

    I’m sorry Steve, did I disturb your echo chamber? My bad..

    Yeah, you really broke up the echo chamber with your rantings about “partisan hatred! BDS! ignorant leftists! BDS!” Keep on telling yourself you make an intelligent contribution here, putting us stupid libs in our place. Keep on telling yourself you offer more than name-calling. What a noble thing you’ve done, disrupting the seditious echo chamber.

  81. 81
    TenguPhule says:

    Shorter Darrell: Look, an obvious evasion!

  82. 82
    TenguPhule says:

    And anyone who argues that there are “no troops” or equipment available to be redeployed to Iraq

    Darrell, you still haven’t even explained where the troops would come from.

    Are you proposing shorter recovery periods between deployment? Or is this another one of your magical pony fantasies again?

  83. 83
    Krista says:

    If you can’t stand the regulars here, why continue to read the comments??

    Actually, that’s something I’ve often wondered myself. I can see why one would want to go to a site where they’d find a spirited debate and disagreement. But Darrell, you’ve built up such an antipathy from most of the posters here (and it’s mutual — you seem to despise them just as much as they despise you), that most of the posts in which you participate turn into a 300-comment post consisting of you bashing the “leftists”, and them bashing you right back. I can’t imagine wanting to keep coming back, almost every day, to people who I obviously detest and who detest me, for the sole purpose of getting into brawls with them. I’m asking, in all sincerity and curiousity, what is it that keeps you coming back?

  84. 84
    jh says:

    Germany has 70,000 US troops deployed there. Asia and/or US bases have plenty too. And I’m supposed to be the one who “knows nothing”?

    And redeploying these people, many of whom have already been to Iraq, is supposed to be a fait accompli?

    Any soldiers pulled out of other activities are going to need to be relieved or replaced and doing so had not just a cost associated with it, but a time component as well.

    We can’t just pull 20,000 guys off the DMZ in South Korea without potentially adverse consequences.

    That’s why the forces are so desperate to recruit new blood.

  85. 85
    Ted says:

    Anyone in which 95% of their posts are nothing but personal attacks on conservatives with whom they disagree..

    Since I don’t usually care to contribute, I figure I can, now and again, ask Bush worshippers like yourself to stop flooding the threads. I don’t think I’m alone here with that.

    You’re really being a whiny baby. No one is attacking you personally, anymore than “stupid ass leftist” is “personal”.

    Again, if you’re not getting paid for what appears to be, at minimum, a part time job for you in terms of work hours, it’s really very sad.

  86. 86
    Jake says:

    Darrell, you still haven’t even explained where the troops would come from.

    He did suggest pulling them from places like Germany and other bases. He even provides a link to an article. (It dates from 2004 but for TGD, any link is a vast improvement.) I guess the majik pony will click it’s hooves and whooosh! these troops will be ready to fight in Iraq.

  87. 87
    TenguPhule says:

    He did suggest pulling them from places like Germany and other bases.

    We could only do that if Darrell is willing to 2) compromise the ability of those bases to function and/or 2)cut down the recovery time between deployments.

  88. 88
    ThymeZone says:

    That was just because Tim left us alone while he went to the store, and told us to mind ourselves. It wasn’t true authority

    True. Hey, I gave it a shot. For a few wonderful moments there, we could pretend that Darrell was banned.

    But no, here he is, doing today’s installement of “All liberals are poopyheads.”

    How fucking wonderful.

  89. 89
    Ted says:

    But no, here he is, doing today’s installement of “All liberals are poopyheads.”

    Maybe he’s got some vacation time coming up. We can hope.

  90. 90
    TenguPhule says:

    Bush’s inner circle will be supplanted by a powerful but virtually invisible new inner circle *voice* that will begin calling the shots.

    And how I wish that was just a bad joke.

  91. 91
    TenguPhule says:

    Bush’s inner circle will be supplanted by a powerful but virtually invisible new inner circle *voice* that will begin calling the shots.

    Fixed.

    And how I wish that was just a bad joke.

  92. 92
    Steve says:

    It’s irrelevant what the troops are up to in Germany. No one is proposing closing up shop there so we can send the boys to Iraq. What’s on the table is quite simple: when the next batch of troops gets rotated back into Iraq, we simply extend the tours of some folks who are already there, and voila, we have 20,000 more troops in Iraq than we planned on.

    The fact is that the dead-enders like Darrell have been sold a bill of goods, where they actually believe the laughable notion that the fate of the world depends upon “victory in Iraq.” If we fail to form a stable society in Iraq, Bush and friends tell us, the terrorists will win a huge victory, there will be new attacks right and left, the credibility of the U.S. will be forever destroyed. Yet their actions simply don’t match their words. There’s no draft, no call to service, and certainly no closing of bases elsewhere so that every last man can be sent to Iraq. They talk like we have to win or Hitler will rule the world, but they obviously don’t believe it, or they’d be conducting themselves much differently.

    “Why don’t they SEE the threat like we all do?” the wingnuts say. “Why can’t everybody understand that unless we win in Iraq, we’ll be only a breath away from sharia law throughout the West, and our children will all live as dhimmi?” It’s a sad commentary on our generation that these people aren’t simply reduced to passing out pamphlets and waving signs on the streetcorner.

  93. 93
    Darrell says:

    Yet their actions simply don’t match their words. There’s no draft, no call to service, and certainly no closing of bases elsewhere so that every last man can be sent to Iraq

    That would assume that the “solution” to Iraq is to send massive increases in troops.. no one, most especially the left is advocating that.

    Nice strawman though, from Steve, the self proclaimed “big fan of the truth”.

  94. 94
    Ted says:

    It’s a sad commentary on our generation that these people aren’t simply reduced to passing out pamphlets and waving signs on the streetcorner.

    Well, that’s pretty much the virtual version Darrell is practicing here…

  95. 95
    Jake says:

    We could only do that if Darrell is willing to 2) compromise the ability of those bases to function and/or 2)cut down the recovery time between deployments.

    At least you acknowledge that the only will that matters is the will of The Great Darrellini. I guess the soldiers (after the majikal pony treatment) can just hang up a sign on the bases: “Out spreading democracy, please call again later.”
    Perhaps the majikal pony can also do something about the soldiers who might feel a little frazzled after being in Iraq and would really like a few months in a place where things don’t go boom all the time and there are wonderful things like beer.

  96. 96
    TenguPhule says:

    That would assume that the “solution” to Iraq is to send massive increases in troops.. no one, most especially the left is advocating that.

    But the solution according to Darrell is to send moderate increases of troops because everyone loves ‘moderates’.

  97. 97
    TenguPhule says:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....raq_police

    “2007 will be a year in which we help our Iraqi counterparts make that which we built more capable,” Dempsey said.

    “The progress you’ll see among the legitimate Iraqi security forces here in the next six months will be dramatic,” he said.

    It’s always another Friedman in Iraq.

  98. 98
    Steve says:

    That would assume that the “solution” to Iraq is to send massive increases in troops.. no one, most especially the left is advocating that.

    What’s the solution, then? Oh right, you have no idea. All you know is that everyone except the 12% of Americans who support Bush’s proposal for more troops are dishonest partisan hacks, refusing to even consider the idea that 20,000 more troops in Baghdad would magically win us the war. What anti-american traitors they all must be.

    This war used to be a pretty popular thing. Over the years, reality has caused one supporter after another to come crashing down to earth, and it hasn’t been pretty. By all appearances, Darrell, you intend to be one of the last. That day is going to be interesting.

  99. 99
    Ted says:

    At least you acknowledge that the only will that matters is the will of The Great Darrellini.

    Darrellini is indeed the Red Baron of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders.

  100. 100
    jh says:

    No one is proposing closing up shop there so we can send the boys to Iraq.

    I blame Darrell for this. It was his suggestion that we pull troops from Germany or South Korea and plunk them down in Iraq. Sheer stupidity.

    That would assume that the “solution” to Iraq is to send massive increases in troops.. no one, most especially the left is advocating that.

    What is the solution then Darell? 20,000 troops? That’s not enough and only the unserious

    200,000? Might do the trick (whatever that is) but is an impossiblity without reinstating a draft and reorienting domestic resources, industrial production and social policy to support that number.

    And then there’s the question of exactly what Bush and the Pentagon would do with all these new troops.

    So far the planning has been disastrous. Why should we trust them with even more young lives?

  101. 101
    Faux News says:

    Darrell: there is always an Elephant Circle Jerk going on at RedState.com

    Feel free to join them every now and then. You’ll feel much better I promise.

  102. 102
    Pb says:

    Darrellini is indeed the Red Baron of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders.

    No, I think you’re thinking of the 101st Chairborne Division, aka the “flamin’ cheetos“.

  103. 103
    Steve says:

    200,000? Might do the trick (whatever that is) but is an impossiblity without reinstating a draft and reorienting domestic resources, industrial production and social policy to support that number.

    Of course no one (that I know of) thinks we ought to send 200,000 more troops to Iraq, so we’re in agreement here.

    My point was simply that if you honestly believe the fate of the world is on the line in Iraq, if you believe Bush when he says that we cannot allow ourselves to lose in Iraq no matter what, then there’s no reason you wouldn’t be in favor of doing “whatever it takes.”

    If it takes a draft, okay. If it takes a fundamental reordering of society, okay. If it takes a new policy where we actually allow gay Arabic translators in the military, then heck, we’d probably even go that far.

    But no one proposes a fundamental reordering of society – not even the people who go on and on about how Islamofascism is the biggest threat of all time and we’re all dead unless we win the war in Iraq. Which proves, simply, that talk is cheap. Anyone can write impassioned prose about how high the stakes are, but when your actions don’t match the alleged stakes, when all you can do is propose incremental little tweaks in policy, it’s obvious you don’t believe your own rhetoric.

    It’s easy to call Iraq a must-win situation, but no one who takes that position is willing to put their money where their mouth is.

  104. 104
    TenguPhule says:

    But no one proposes a fundamental reordering of society – not even the people who go on and on about how Islamofascism is the biggest threat of all time and we’re all dead unless we win the war in Iraq.

    Not true. The Right has indeed proposed a fundamental reordering of American society. One where the Constitution belongs in the fundament and privacy exists only for the government. Where accusation is proof of guilt and the only law is to not be caught in the act.

    It’s just that ‘little’ things like war and other people dying are incidental to their plans.

  105. 105
    jh says:

    Steve wins POTD.

  106. 106
    jg says:

    For all Bush’s talk of victory it seems victory isn’t really an option. Victory means the war ends. That is most certainly not a goal of this administration. They want more war not less.

  107. 107
    Pooh says:

    Steve wins POTD.

    Feh, I was there a year ago. (Of course, so was Steve…)

  108. 108

    Sadly, I think that we can all acknowledge that Bush is not LBJ.

    And its safe to acknowledge Bush is no statesman in any sense of the word.

  109. 109
    ThymeZone says:

    Feh, I was there a year ago. (Of course, so was Steve…)

    We all were pretty much. The idea that this phony baloney bullshit War on Terror thing hinges on Iraq, and that this is the best we can do …. is and always has been nuts.

    Of course it’s not the best and most we can do, because Iraq simply has never been worth it. If it were worth it we souldn’t be in this mess.

  110. 110
    Darrell says:

    What’s the solution, then? Oh right, you have no idea

    You’re right, I don’t have the “solution”. But most military commanders and officers that I’ve seen interviewed seem to think Iraq is winnable. Winnable in that we leave behind a reasonably democratic multi-ethnic govt in Iraq that does not serve as a haven for terrorists.

    I’ve read several leftists on this site actually write that they believe we would have been better off leaving Saddam in power. And since that is no longer possible, the left now tells us there is no hope whatsoever for Iraq, directly contradicting the troops serving there.

    What’s your solution lefties?.. that is, besides impeach Bush.

  111. 111
    Darrell says:

    My point was simply that if you honestly believe the fate of the world is on the line in Iraq, if you believe Bush when he says that we cannot allow ourselves to lose in Iraq no matter what, then there’s no reason you wouldn’t be in favor of doing “whatever it takes.”

    Yet you discount the most obvious component of “whatever it takes”, which is the element of time, sticking it out. Just ask Lech Walesa about how long a struggle it took the Poles.

  112. 112
    Darrell says:

    What is the solution then Darell? 20,000 troops? That’s not enough and only the unserious

    I’m sure with your extensive military experience and what, two tours of Iraq? you’re in a solid position to make claims as to what’s serious and unserious regarding military troop levels. Me? I’m waiting to hear what the military has to say about it. So far, all we have are leaks from ‘unnamed’ Pentagon sources.

  113. 113
    TenguPhule says:

    But most military commanders and officers that I’ve seen interviewed *ON* *FOX* NEWS* seem to think Iraq is winnable. Winnable in that we leave behind a reasonably democratic multi-ethnic govt in Iraq that does not serve as a haven for terrorists. problem for the incoming Democrats to solve and then blame them for it.

    Fixed.

    And translated from Darrell Speak: My Little Pony is standing tall and doing his little pony dance.

  114. 114
    sglover says:

    Yet you discount the most obvious component of “whatever it takes”, which is the element of time, sticking it out. Just ask Lech Walesa about how long a struggle it took the Poles.

    Lemme see…. From ’45 to ’89 — not quite half a century, anyway. Sounds like a real crowd pleaser, this “we’ve got a few more decades to go” scheme of yours. Thing is that we all know that as soon as the GOP gets its ass handed to it in ’08, it’ll take lying fuckwits like you about 20 minutes to start pissing about all our foreign entanglements. You and your kind are not speaking from a position of good faith, and we all know it. So how’s about you cut the act, and shut the fuck up?

  115. 115
    TenguPhule says:

    That was the Russian plan in Afghanistan too, didn’t work out so good for them now did it?

    Time works *AGAINST* the occupying military with a guerilla war. Any competent student of military history could tell you that.

    I’m sure with your extensive military experience and what, two tours of Iraq? you’re in a solid position to make claims as to what’s serious and unserious regarding military troop levels.

    Shorter Darrell: I failed basic math, repeatedly.

    Adding 20,000 more troops would barely put us 10,000 soldiers over the starting US troop numbers in the initial invasion of Iraq. Subtract the foreign allies who have left or are leaving and the killed and crippled and you wind up with a net effect very close to zero.

    It’s only hard if you’re an idiot, Darrell.

  116. 116
    bago says:

    The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.

    Unanimous.

  117. 117
    bago says:

    General Peter Pace Chairman United States Marine Corps

    Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr. Vice Chairman United States Navy

    General Peter J. Schoomaker Chief of Staff of the United States Army

    Admiral Michael G. Mullen Chief of Naval Operations United States Navy

    General T. Michael Moseley Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force

    General James T. Conway Commandant of the Marine Corps

    These are their names for the too stupid to read crowd. Every one of them thinks it is a bad idea.

  118. 118
    Zifnab says:

    I’ve read several leftists on this site actually write that they believe we would have been better off leaving Saddam in power. And since that is no longer possible, the left now tells us there is no hope whatsoever for Iraq, directly contradicting the troops serving there.

    What’s your solution lefties?.. that is, besides impeach Bush. If you love Saddam so much, why don’t you marry him? Why do you hate our troops? If you can’t come up with a solution right now you should shut up, you stupid Bush hater.

  119. 119
    Darrell says:

    These are their names for the too stupid to read crowd. Every one of them thinks it is a bad idea.

    It would be nice if you would have offered at least one or two sourced quotes to back it up.

  120. 120
    Darrell says:

    Unanimous.

    Unanimous = according to unnamed Pentagon sources. Brilliant

  121. 121
    Darrell says:

    it’ll take lying fuckwits like you

    You and your kind are not speaking from a position of good faith, and we all know it. So how’s about you cut the act, and shut the fuck up?

    Stupid, angry, and bitter is no way to go through life lefties.

  122. 122
    TenguPhule says:

    It would be nice if you would have offered at least one or two sourced quotes to back it up.

    Shorter Darrell: Look! An obvious evasion!

  123. 123
    Darrell says:

    Shorter Darrell: Look! An obvious evasion!

    Nope, I actually googled from General T. Michael Moseley which might support the assertion made by “bago” that he opposed increased troop levels in Iraq.. and I couldn’t fine anything.

    Unlike leftists who think what Kos tells you to think, I prefer to read up and think for myself, which is why I asked for citations.

  124. 124
    TenguPhule says:

    Stupid, angry, and bitter is no way to go through life *Darrell*.

    Corrected.

  125. 125
    Steve says:

    Unlike leftists who think what Kos tells you to think, I prefer to read up and think for myself, which is why I asked for citations.

    Here’s a classic example of Darrell thinking for himself.

  126. 126
    TenguPhule says:

    Unlike leftists who think what Kos tells you to think, I prefer to read up and think for myself, which is why I asked for citations.

    Shorter Darrell: Look! A distraction!

    Adding 20,000 more troops would barely put us 10,000 soldiers over the starting US troop numbers in the initial invasion of Iraq. Subtract the foreign allies who have left or are leaving and the killed and crippled and you wind up with a net effect very close to zero.

    So do you support cutting the recovery time between troop deployments to Iraq to make make your ‘moderate’ surge, Darrell? Or will you finally admit you’re being very silly defending the argument that 20,000 troops can make any real difference in the mess Bush made?

  127. 127
    ThymeZone says:

    Yet you discount the most obvious component of “whatever it takes”, which is the element of time

    The most obvious component, in a democratic society, is the will of the people. That has now expired. The people no longer support the thing, because they have seen that it was ill conceived, ill managed, and useless.

    At what point did you and your asshole friends decide that you were above the people and willing to keep pursuing the thing despite their judgement?

    Who the fuck are you to stand in the way of the American people and the Iraqi people having what they want, which is an end to this clusterfuck?

    Nearly 66 per cent of respondents to the Iraqi survey thought violence would decrease if US forces were to leave.

    Friday, December 15 2006 @ 03:21 PM PST
    Contributed by: Collin Sick
    Views: 125
    More than 90 per cent of Iraqis believe the country is worse off now than before the war in 2003, according to new research obtained by Al Jazeera. A survey of 2,000 people by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies found that 95 per cent of respondents believe the security situation has deteriorated since the arrival of US forces. The findings follow a poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal that found that less than one in four Americans approves of George Bush’s administration’s handling of the conflict in Iraq.

    More than 90 per cent of Iraqis believe the country is worse off now than before the war in 2003, according to new research obtained by Al Jazeera.

    A survey of 2,000 people by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies found that 95 per cent of respondents believe the security situation has deteriorated since the arrival of US forces.

    The findings follow a poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal that found that less than one in four Americans approves of George Bush’s administration’s handling of the conflict in Iraq.

    It also comes as armed men attacked the convoy of Iraq’s vice-president and as up to 30 Iraqis were kidnapped in Baghdad on Thursday.

    NBC reported that only 23 per cent of respondents backed the president’s strategy, representing an 11-point drop since the last NBC poll in October

    What is your fucking problem, Darrell?

  128. 128
    Darrell says:

    Here’s a classic example of Darrell thinking for himself.

    Steve, I respond with the immortal words of your fellow leftist

    it’ll take lying fuckwits like you about 20 minutes to start pissing about all our foreign entanglements…So how’s about you cut the act, and shut the fuck up?

  129. 129
    TenguPhule says:

    Steve, I respond with the immortal words of your fellow leftist

    Shorter Darrell: Look! Another obvious distraction!

  130. 130
    Steve says:

    I quite agree with that quote, Darrell. If you want to claim that you’re an “independent thinker” who argues in good faith, you’re going to have to do something other than google up links that support your preconceived beliefs. (Of course, it would help if you actually credited the links you google up, but as I just illustrated, you can’t even manage that.)

    The Joint Chiefs supposedly disagree unanimously with the plan for a surge? Sorry, that disagrees with Darrell’s worldview, ergo it’s just an anonymous quote that can be utterly disregarded. No need to spend even a second pondering gee, what if it’s an accurate quote, what does that imply. Such is the power of being an “independent thinker.”

  131. 131
    TenguPhule says:

    Darrell “independent thinker.”

    One of those words does not belong there.

  132. 132
    bago says:

    Unanimous = according to unnamed Pentagon sources. Brilliant

    Front page of the Washington Post brilliant.

    Seriously.

    How do you click “Submit Comment” when you have both index fingers jammed into your ear canals?

  133. 133
    bago says:

    Traitorous deserting closing tag scum!

  134. 134
    TenguPhule says:

    Traitorous deserting closing tag scum!

    Friend Computer has detected dissent. Redacting Dissenter for National Security Reasons. Please report to your designated disintegration pad immediately, mutant-commie-traitor. And have a nice day.

  135. 135
    jake says:

    Just ask Lech Walesa about how long a struggle it took the Poles.

    Ta-da! The Great Darrellini sure is amazing, isn’t he folks? Citizens fighting for their own freedom = Occupying force fighting for…something. Spoof doesn’t get any better than this.

    Stick around, the party ballon and ping-pong ball trick is coming up in a couple of hours.

  136. 136
    Pooh says:

    Just ask Lech Walesa about how long a struggle it took the Poles.

    Belushi. Germans. Pearl Harbor.

  137. 137
    VidaLoca says:

    Just ask Lech Walesa about how long a struggle it took the Poles.

    In all fairness to Darrell, he’s got a point there. Maybe it’s not the point he thinks he’s got, but it’s a point nevertheless.

    If the Iraqi resistance shows the kind of patience and creativity the Polish resistance did we’re in even deeper shit that we realized.

  138. 138
    ThymeZone says:

    Unfortunately for the country, the preznit is about as stupid as Darrell is.

    The dumsumbitch is going to be in a corner where his military people are advising … publicly …. against adding troops. Is Bush suddenly going to go against the military advice that he has claimed is at the basis for his most basic decisions the last four years?

    The generals aren’t stupid, they know that the “surge” tactic is aimed at political cover for Bush and his band of fuckheads, not at any military objective that can be gained, or real abatement of the Iraq killing machine.

    Most generals aren’t going to appreciate having their men and women in uniform used as pawns in a series of political maneuvers whose purpose is to protect the “legacy” of the worst fucking president in history.

  139. 139
    TenguPhule says:

    Is Bush suddenly going to go against the military advice that he has claimed is at the basis for his most basic decisions the last four years?

    Yes.

    This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.

  140. 140
    VidaLoca says:

    Most generals aren’t going to appreciate having their men and women in uniform used as pawns in a series of political maneuvers whose purpose is to protect the “legacy” of the worst fucking president in history.

    While this may be true in the abstract, I’ll start taking it more seriously when I see some of those generals start resigning out of principle rather than continuing to take responsibility for implementing this course of action.

    Is Bush suddenly going to go against the military advice that he has claimed is at the basis for his most basic decisions the last four years?

    Up to now, the advice he’s gotten is the advice he’s wanted to hear. Now that that’s no longer the case it will go down the memory hole.

  141. 141
    Newport 9 says:

    Krista wonders:

    I’m asking, in all sincerity and curiousity, what is it that keeps you coming back?

    Well, since you ask, the secret to Darrell is that he desparately desparately desparately craves attention, and for reasons I’d rather not go into, the more hostile the audience, the better.

    If you ignore him, he really will go away.

  142. 142
    Darrell says:

    The Joint Chiefs supposedly disagree unanimously with the plan for a surge? Sorry, that disagrees with Darrell’s worldview, ergo it’s just an anonymous quote that can be utterly disregarded. No need to spend even a second pondering gee, what if it’s an accurate quote, what does that imply. Such is the power of being an “independent thinker.”

    Key word “supposedly” Steve. As in ‘unconfirmed’ sources. You and your echo chamber have already assumed that these sources are valid with nothing more than ‘anonymous’ soource. You know why that is? Because you want so very badly for those attributed quotes to be true.. and whether or not they are is besides the point, because they fit your narrative. That Steve, is why you are truly a closed minded hack, versus an independent thinker. Others can draw their own conclusions..

  143. 143
    Darrell says:

    Well, since you ask, the secret to Darrell is that he desparately desparately desparately craves attention

    Ya know, when you’ve got nothin’.. no argument, no substance.. all thats left are personal insults.

    I know you think of yourself as ‘normal’ Newport. You pretend that you’re not really a freak. Keep telling yourself that. Have you ever contributed a post which was not a 100% personal attack? I’m just curious as to how extreme a whackjob you truly are…

  144. 144
    ThymeZone says:

    If you ignore him, he really will go away.

    Well, your advice is well intentioned, but I doubt that it’s true, and I am certain that it can’t be proven to be true because you can’t get enough people to ignore the intrusion.

    The real question here is why the blog proprietor leaves his commenters to deal with this kind of thing. He can make Darrell go away with a keystroke. He’s done it before, to me, so I am pretty familiar with the effect.

    Therefore, Darrell is here because, and only because, the blog owner wants him here. That is the only reason. And our struggle with it? Also, apparently, what the blog owner wants.

    Go figure. Maybe John Cole enjoys this the way some people might enjoy putting a lit match to ants on an anthill. I’ve been asking for a reasonable explanation for going on two years and haven’t seen one yet. I don’t expect to ever see one. The only response I have ever seen was something to the effect that “open comments are a good thing” but that is nonsensical. Darrell is not about open comments, he’s about disruption, and harangues. He’s not about argument, which is something I personally relish (the sweet relish, as opposed to the dill) … you can’t really argue with Darrell, it’s like trying to pick up mercury with a tweezers. He just squirts away or hides in a shadow when challenged.

    We have a mailing list offline and we talk about the Darrell thing on a regular basis. Nobody really understands it, although a lot of theories have been floated. The way I see it, there are really only a few possible explanations:

    1) Cole doesn’t care
    2) Cole writes Darrell
    3) Cole likes the churn
    4) Cole wants the page views

    More than one oddity here has been explained away with “It’s my blog and I can do what I want,” which is certainly true enough. To my mind, that’s why Darrell is here and those of us who don’t like can go fuck ourselves.

    Suffice it to say, I like the blog enough to stick around despite that. It’s called taking the bad with the good, and since it’s just a blog, it’s not important enough to take more seriously. If John Cole doesn’t care enough to spare us from Darrell, then I don’t care enough to do anything about it any more either. I gave it my best shot and crashed and burned. I have offered more than once to surrender my ticket here in return for Darrell being banned, and the offer still stands. If getting rid of me isn’t enough to get Cole to ban the bastard, then I don’t know what would be. I regret that I have but one posting handle to give for my country. Etc.

  145. 145
    Steve says:

    The dumsumbitch is going to be in a corner where his military people are advising … publicly …. against adding troops. Is Bush suddenly going to go against the military advice that he has claimed is at the basis for his most basic decisions the last four years?

    We have this expectation in America of a civil deliberative process, the idea that if we don’t rock the boat everything will work itself out in due time without drastic measures.

    It’s been interesting (unless you got killed along the way, in which case it’s less interesting) how we’ve gradually moved towards this point of open dissent. In other countries, they have military coups for less than this. Here, we have anonymous leaks to the press. We have military brass bending the ears of friendly legislators like Murtha. Clearly, these folks expected to restore sanity without instigating some massive blowup. And all along, most people, even many of us nutty libs, believed there’d be a big drawdown of troops just before the election or just after the election or at some other suitable political moment. Wrong-o. Bush was a man of his word, even though his word was stupid.

    And then we had the ultimate sanity-restoring effort, the ISG. Those guys really were convinced that once they came up with a suitably bipartisan plan, Bush would jump at the opportunity and we’d all have a happy ending. Didn’t really work out that way, huh? And now we’re going to see things get progressively drastic. When the President is pushing a war plan that has the support of 12% of the American people, something’s got to give.

    By the way, it’s nice to be home with the pie filter. What a wonderful world…

  146. 146
    Darrell says:

    We have a mailing list offline and we talk about the Darrell thing on a regular basis.

    I love that you vermin obsess over me like that. Your post confirms that you loons can’t get me out of your head. You think about me, and discuss me all the time. Regulary, as you say. You probably have nightmares about me before peeing your beds.. all the while pretening that you’re normal human beings. Pathetic really..

  147. 147
    ThymeZone says:

    I love that you vermin obsess over me like that. Your post confirms that you loons can’t get me out of your head. You think about me, and discuss me all the time. Regulary, as you say. You probably have nightmares about me before peeing your beds.. all the while pretening that you’re normal human beings. Pathetic really..

    You sound like fucking Charles Manson.

  148. 148
    Darrell says:

    We have military brass bending the ears of friendly legislators like Murtha. Clearly, these folks expected to restore sanity without instigating some massive blowup.

    Yes, of course Steve, “clearly” these ‘unnamed’ sources are only the most honorable sort, merely looking out for the best interest of our country trying to avoid the dreaded “massive blowup”, whatever the f#ck that is.

    I think it’s so wonderful that you libs accept at face value every rumor and unsourced quote as absolute truth. You need for it to be true.. so you ignore the “unnamed sources” aspect and assert rumor to be truth. Because that is exactly the kind of people you are.

  149. 149
    rachel says:

    Is it a personal attack to call someone an idiot (and similar) when he has demonstrated over and over, time and again, that he *is* an idiot? I wonder about that.

  150. 150
    Darrell says:

    ThymeZone Says:

    You sound like fucking Charles Manson.

    Ah yes, when you have no game, accuse the other side of sounding like a mass murderer.

    Poorly played ppgaz..

  151. 151
    Darrell says:

    rachel Says:
    Is it a personal attack to call someone an idiot

    rachel, how much do you weigh?

  152. 152
    jake says:

    You probably have nightmares about me before peeing your beds

    Darrell en anglais: I like golden showers.

    How can “Darrell” be anything but a spoof? A particularly fine example because all of his posts have the droning tone of a constipated wanker who takes himself waaay too seriously, always ending with an outbreak of childish insults. I think “Darrell” is J.C.

    You notice you never see them in the same room…

  153. 153
    ThymeZone says:

    Poorly played ppgaz..

    I think it’s so wonderful that you libs accept at face value every rumor and unsourced quote as absolute truth. You need for it to be true.. so you ignore the “unnamed sources” aspect and assert rumor to be truth. Because that is exactly the kind of people you are.

    I rest my case.

  154. 154
    rachel says:

    rachel, how much do you weigh?

    Darrell’s shoes fit very nicely.

  155. 155
    Zifnab says:

    It’s been interesting (unless you got killed along the way, in which case it’s less interesting) how we’ve gradually moved towards this point of open dissent. In other countries, they have military coups for less than this. Here, we have anonymous leaks to the press. We have military brass bending the ears of friendly legislators like Murtha. Clearly, these folks expected to restore sanity without instigating some massive blowup. And all along, most people, even many of us nutty libs, believed there’d be a big drawdown of troops just before the election or just after the election or at some other suitable political moment. Wrong-o. Bush was a man of his word, even though his word was stupid.

    You can’t lay this all on Bush (as much as I’m sure we all wish we could). The President has a wide assortment of enablers – war profiteers, political diehards, neocon wingnuts, and run-of-the-mill cronies – who enable and encourage this sort of behavior. If you don’t think Dick Cheney believes all the words coming out of George Bush’s mouth, you don’t know who put them there.

    These are the guys running the executive branch like a bully running the milk money line that is the American Taxpayer. (My analogies are AWESOME!)

    Maybe this is all wishful thinking, but I suspect on of Harry Reid’s big plays on the Iraq issue is to crack down on the Halliburton money-whores and starve off support from the roots. That’s why he’s ok with a “surge” on This Week, but included this little cavet:

    Reid: George, what we are considering is what we always have considered. We’ll give the military anything they want. We’re going to make sure that they get every dollar they need. But, what we’re not going to go along with, and we’ll take a close look at this huge supplemental we’re going to get. We’re going to take a close look at all these corporations that are over there. All these contractors. It’s estimated that there’s 100,000 of them now. 100,000 of them. And we’re going to take a close look at that. I think Halliburton’s made enough money in Iraq.

    Reid’s going for the money. And when the money dries up, any lingering support for the war – that mind boggling 33% that just won’t say die – will evaporate with it.

    That’s my prediction at least.

  156. 156
    Jimitha says:

    I think it’s so wonderful that you libs accept at face value every rumor and unsourced quote as absolute truth. You need for it to be true.. so you ignore the “unnamed sources” aspect and assert rumor to be truth. Because that is exactly the kind of people you are.

    And you, and your ilk, so desperately need for it not to be true… so you focus exclusively on the “unnamed sources” aspect and equate rumor with falsity. You plug your ears and ignore the “what if”, because you have no defense against it. What if the Joint Chiefs do, in fact, unanimously disagree with a surge? Such thinking is heresy, to you. You have no contingency plan: not on this, not on Iraq. The day you and others like you begin to navigate the realm of the hypothetical is the day America starts to win.

  157. 157
    Steve says:

    You can’t lay this all on Bush (as much as I’m sure we all wish we could). The President has a wide assortment of enablers – war profiteers, political diehards, neocon wingnuts, and run-of-the-mill cronies – who enable and encourage this sort of behavior. If you don’t think Dick Cheney believes all the words coming out of George Bush’s mouth, you don’t know who put them there.

    Of course you can’t. Personally, I’m not sure I view Bush any different today than I did on day one – as an empty suit, period. The thing is, all these people you mentioned filled up the empty vessel with all kinds of crazy talk about spreading democracy and how winning in Iraq is the most important thing ever and he flat-out bought it. And now he’s fanatically devoted to the cause, because he has no critical reasoning abilities that might lead him to rethink it. They created a monster.

  158. 158
    Pb says:

    I’m not sure I view Bush any different today than I did on day one – as an empty suit, period.

    I’m in the middle here–yes, Bush delegates a lot, and relies heavily on his inner circle of advisors, that is his management style (or lack thereof). However, I do think that he has goals of his own, and that the people who do surround him reflect that. Remember, Bush wanted to invade Iraq back in ’99 — and Cheney was the go-to guy for wanting to invade Iraq, (he wanted to invade in ’90 if not before, and did…) so of course he was a great choice for Bush’s VP, from Bush’s perspective. I think Bush’s administration very much reflects the man, and it shows in just about everything they do, and–perhaps more importantly–all the things they don’t do, won’t do, or even can’t do.

  159. 159
    Ted says:

    Darrell Says:

    I like pie!
    December 19th, 2006 at 6:54 pm

    Darrell Says:

    I like pie!
    December 19th, 2006 at 6:55 pm

    Darrell Says:

    I like pie!
    December 19th, 2006 at 6:57 pm

    Here we go again.

  160. 160
    jake says:

    You can’t lay this all on Bush (as much as I’m sure we all wish we could).

    Why not? The Decider expects his lackeys to fall on their swords for his bad decisions. “Well he told me this, and she said that and I relied on him to…”

    See for example his comments about Rove on Nov. 8th. Yep, Bush started a war without end, crapped on the Constitution, sat on his thumb during Katrina etc, and ended up so unpopular that candidates started blowing him off. But it is Rove’s fault the Republicans got spanked during the elections. (And apparently Rumsfeld’s) Bush doesn’t take responsibility for his actions. That’s what the hired help is for (or dad).

    Not that I feel an ounce of sympathy for any of these ass hats. They made their choices and took their chances.

  161. 161
    Newport 9 says:

    ThymeZone states:

    Well, your advice is well intentioned, but I doubt that it’s true, and I am certain that it can’t be proven to be true because you can’t get enough people to ignore the intrusion.

    Okay, I didn’t want to bring this up, but the reason Darrell comes here and starts these slanging matches is because he becomes sexually aroused by trading insults with strangers. Every comment he leaves here was typed one-handed.

    Are you guys sure you want to keep arguing with him?

  162. 162
    Darrell says:

    Steve Says:

    It’s irrelevant what the troops are up to in Germany. No one is proposing closing up shop there so we can send the boys to Iraq. What’s on the table is quite simple: when the next batch of troops gets rotated back into Iraq, we simply extend the tours of some folks who are already there, and voila, we have 20,000 more troops in Iraq than we planned on.

    Why would sending 20,000 troops (out of 70,000 in Germany) = “closing up shop”? Not to mention the fact that we have 60,000 troops in Asia, many of which are protecting wealthy countries like Japan and S. Korea who can well afford to defend themselves. Then there are those troops based here in the US.

    Why the need to create such exaggerated scenarios? What I’m seeing is that leftists, through exaggeration and through bald faced lies, are attempting to shut down the possibility of debate here.

    As for me, I’d like to hear what the justification is for sending additional troops, and whether the realities on the ground warrant these additional troops. I think the problem all along is that we’ve pussyfooted around too much with the insurgency and sectarian violence, letting radicals like al-Sadr run free to create havoc. Maybe this troop increase signals a change in strategy in which we get serious.

  163. 163
    Darrell says:

    Okay, I didn’t want to bring this up, but the reason Darrell comes here and starts these slanging matches is because he becomes sexually aroused by trading insults with strangers. Every comment he leaves here was typed one-handed

    Oh goody, masturbation jokes! I think you liberals are such intellectual titans.

  164. 164
    ThymeZone says:

    Every comment he leaves here was typed one-handed

    This is all my fault. I told him to get a grip on himself …. and now this.

    I think you are right, though, and it explains his obsession with his fear of teh gay and his fierce opposition to the homo war on the Boy Scouts.

  165. 165
    Darrell says:

    Newport 9 Says:

    I was right, you really are an extremist kook posing as a normal human being:

    Thomas Kalinowski says:
    March 19th, 2006 at 1:59 am
    I think that taking felons’ right to vote away is a typically fascist idea

    Truth to power man!

  166. 166
    ThymeZone says:

    Truth to power man!

    Go away, you stupid boring moron.

  167. 167
    Darrell says:

    I think you are right, though, and it explains his obsession with his fear of teh gay

    If teh gays can’t marry, the terrorists have won!

  168. 168
    ThymeZone says:

    If teh gays can’t marry, the terrorists stupid lying bigots like you have won!

    Adjusted.

  169. 169
    DougJ says:

    Rich Lowry is stealing my material

    The U.N.’s High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that more than 1.6 million Iraqis have fled the country, about 7 percent of the population. But that means that an overwhelming 93 percent haven’t left. Why doesn’t the liberal media ever report that? About 120 Iraqis are killed per day, nearly 4,000 a month. But most are still living. Couldn’t one of the morning shows do a soft feature on this heartwarming fact? . . .

  170. 170
    Ted says:

    I think you liberals are such intellectual titans.

    Well, we’ve seen what an “intellectual titan” you are. Got any other intellectual insights into “the situation on the ground” in Iraq when you’ve probably never even left this country, you cultural idiot?

    If teh gays can’t marry, the terrorists have won!

    You couldn’t give half a shit about gays.

  171. 171
    rachel says:

    You couldn’t give half a shit about gays.

    But he has such spiffy shoes! …or at least he decided they fit him well enough when he decided my post must have been referring to him.

  172. 172
    ThymeZone says:

    You couldn’t give half a shit about gays.

    Darrell is a guy who wants to protect kids from gays, but at the same time wants to drop bombs on kids in Lebanon as long as it accomplishes a political purpose.

    He’s ….. complicated. Deep.

  173. 173
    Darrell says:

    Got any other intellectual insights into “the situation on the ground” in Iraq when you’ve probably never even left this country, you cultural idiot?

    Halfwit, have you every made one post on this site which was something other than a 100% personal attack?

    And despite your repeated claims of “having a life”, I see that you posted here at 4:52am.. no doubt because the voices in your head wouldn’t let you sleep.

  174. 174
    Darrell says:

    into “the situation on the ground” in Iraq when you’ve probably never even left this country, you cultural idiot?

    This is gold. First, make up an assumption out of whole cloth (that I’ve never travelled out of the country), then insult me as a ‘cultural idiot’ based on that assumption. I think that is so brilliant.

    And you kooks call yourselves the ‘reality based’ community?

  175. 175
    DougJ says:

    when you’ve probably never even left this country, you cultural idiot

    In all fairness, that’s really his parole officer’s fault.

  176. 176
    Zifnab says:

    Why not? The Decider expects his lackeys to fall on their swords for his bad decisions. “Well he told me this, and she said that and I relied on him to…”

    The lackeys are the only guys who actually take hits. It’s not the President’s fault that he’s just too darn loveable to impeach. He had the entire 109th Congress to thank for that. And guys like Rummy and Ashcroft get to dive for the cover of retirement without ever actually feeling the sting of responsibility for their actions. I’d hardly call Rummy’s discharge “falling on his sword”. They would have been hard pressed to give him a grander send-off.

    Everyone around the President is very, very well insulated.

  177. 177
    Jake says:

    I’d hardly call Rummy’s discharge “falling on his sword”. They would have been hard pressed to give him a grander send-off.

    His reward for being a good and faithful servant. But he was booted because of the Nov. 8th elections. Bush screws up, Rumsfeld willingly aids and abets said screw up, Rumsfeld gets the push.

    Everyone around the President is very, very well insulated.

    Right, because they know if he goes down, he’ll be taking them with him. Conversely, if they get in trouble, he won’t know them. Conspiracy of thieves, anyone?

  178. 178
    jh says:

    many of which are protecting wealthy countries like Japan and S. Korea who can well afford to defend themselves.

    You see Darrell,

    Saying stupid stuff like this is what marks you as a blithering idiot.

    In terms of our security arrangments with Japan and South Korea, the only thing the two nations have in common is that they are both in Asia and yes, they are fairly well off.

    It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not either country (or Germany for that matter) can now afford to defend itself.

    Moron.

  179. 179
    ThymeZone says:

    And you kooks call yourselves the ‘reality based’ community?

    What do you call the community you belong to, Darrell?

  180. 180
    Pb says:

    Cue the extremist kooks:

    This report includes the first fifty-state survey of the impact of U.S. criminal disenfranchisement laws. Among the key statistical findings:

    * An estimated 3.9 million Americans, or one in fifty adults, have currently or permanently lost the ability to vote because of a felony conviction.
    * 1.4 million persons disenfranchised for a felony conviction are ex-offenders who have completed their criminal sentence. Another 1.4 million of the disenfranchised are on probation or parole.
    * 1.4 million African American men, or 13 percent of the black adult male population, are disenfranchised, reflecting a rate of disenfranchisement that is seven times the national average. More than one-third (36 percent) of the total disenfranchised population are black men.
    * Ten states disenfranchise more than one in five adult black men; in seven of these states, one in four black men is permanently disenfranchised.
    * Given current rates of incarceration, three in ten of the next generation of black men will be disenfranchised at some point in their lifetime. In states with the most restrictive voting laws, 40 percent of African American men are likely to be permanently disenfranchised.

    If you aren’t doing your part to keep the black man down… you might be an extremist kook!

  181. 181
    Darrell says:

    In all fairness, that’s really his parole officer’s fault.

    Hah! Which is also the reason why I can’t come within 300 yards of an elementary school.

  182. 182
    Darrell says:

    If you aren’t doing your part to keep the black man down

    Because laws preventing felons from voting are targetted to ‘keep the black man down’, right? Yep, you’re definitely out there… although not at this level yet

    I think that taking felons’ right to vote away is a typically fascist idea

    Fascists!

  183. 183
    Darrell says:

    In terms of our security arrangments with Japan and South

    Korea, the only thing the two nations have in common is that they are both in Asia and yes, they are fairly well off.

    It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not either country (or Germany for that matter) can now afford to defend itself.

    Moron.

    Why shouldn’t N. Korea and Japan take greater responsibility in their own national defense? What the hell is so “moronic” about that? When S. Koreans were protesting a couple years back, Rumsfeld said we could move out large numbers of our troops no problem.. then the S. Korean govt. straightened up and kissed up to our red, white and blue ass in order to keep troops there. Doesn’t change the fact that S. Korea is wealthy enough to pay a larger share of their national defense. Same goes for Japan.

  184. 184
    Darrell says:

    What do you call the community you belong to, Darrell?

    My peeps

  185. 185
    ThymeZone says:

    My peeps cellmates.

    Aligned with the facts.

    You don’t even have enough guts to stand up as a member of any demographic, do you, you sorry assed weasel?

  186. 186
    Darrell says:

    You don’t even have enough guts to stand up as a member of any demographic, do you, you sorry assed weasel?

    Sometimes your stupidity makes me laugh. This is one of those times.

    “I stand proudly as a member of the vast right wing conspiracy demographic!”

  187. 187
    Zifnab says:

    Holy crap, Darrell. Take a breath.

  188. 188

    Darrell “independent thinker.”

    One of those words does not belong there.

    I count two. “Independent” and “thinker” do not belong in the same sentence with “Darrell.”

  189. 189
    Zifnab says:

    Because laws preventing felons from voting are targetted to ‘keep the black man down’, right?

    This study uses data on Pennsylvania sentencing practices to compare the sentence outcomes of white, black, and Hispanic defendants. Besides the overall more lenient treatment of white defendants, our main finding is that Hispanic defendants are the defendant subgroup most at risk to receive the harshest penalty. This pattern is held across all comparisons—i.e., for both the in/out and term-length decisions and for both drug and nondrug cases. These findings are consistent with the “focal concerns” framework on sentencing and with hypotheses drawn from the writings on prejudice and inter group hostility suggesting that the specific social and historical context facing Hispanic Americans will exacerbate perceptions of their cultural dissimilarity and the “threat” they pose.

    ~link

    When two guys convicted of the same crime – say, possession of weed – get different sentences, one resulting in disenfranchisement and one not, then you have a system with a net effect of disenfranchising the black/hispanic man, yes. You have a system that in effect says, “If you’re black, you’re more likely to be convicted of a felony. If you are convicted, you can’t vote.” Ergo, “If you’re black, you’re more likely to be unable to vote.”

  190. 190
    DougJ says:

    Hah! Which is also the reason why I can’t come within 300 yards of an elementary school.

    I can’t dislike anyone who’s willing to laugh at themselves.

  191. 191
    Pb says:

    Because laws preventing felons from voting are targetted to ‘keep the black man down’, right?

    If you say so, Darrell. But even if you’re wrong about that, you know what they say about good intentions. No, it’s the consequences of these laws that are really at issue here.

  192. 192
    Darrell says:

    When two guys convicted of the same crime – say, possession of weed – get different sentences, one resulting in disenfranchisement and one not, then you have a system with a net effect of disenfranchising the black/hispanic man, yes

    That assumes that your study’s conclusions and methodology are valid. I doubt they are. For example, 51% of murders are committed by blacks, yet only 34% of those executed for murder are black. Seems clear that whites are getting diproportionately harsher punishment for their crimes..

  193. 193
    ThymeZone says:

    51% of murders are committed by blacks, yet only 34% of those executed for murder are black.

    That would only be true if all murders were the same.

    Capital punishment cases are a small subset of all homicides.

    Your figures are meaningless. Are 34% of crimes which fit the eligibility standards for capital punishment committed by blacks?

    As usual, you are talking out of your ass, because you have no idea the answer to that question.

  194. 194
    Pb says:

    Wow. If I didn’t know better, I’d find it amazing that Darrell dared even whisper a mention of capital punishment in this context.

    Whichever measures the researchers employed, the statistics pointed to the same conclusion: black defendants on average face a distinctly higher risk of receiving a death sentence than all other similarly situated defendants. The various independent tests were so thoroughly consistent that they pointed to race discrimination as the underlying cause. The researchers stated: “In the face of these results, we consider it implausible that the estimated disparities are a product of chance or reflect a failure to control for important omitted case characteristics. . . . In short, we believe it would be extremely unlikely to observe disparities of this magnitude and consistency if there were substantial equality in the treatment of defendants in this system.”

    It’d be pretty embarrassing for anyone who could feel shame.

    A particularly egregious example of race of victim discrimination was revealed in a recent review of the cases from Kentucky’s death row. Researchers at the University of Louisville had found in 1995 that, as in other states, blacks who killed whites were more likely to receive the death penalty than any other offender-victim combination.24 In fact, looking at the makeup of Kentucky’s death row in 1996 revealed that 100% of the inmates were there for murdering a white victim, and none were there for the murder of a black victim, despite the fact that there have been over 1,000 African-Americans murdered in Kentucky since the death penalty was reinstated.

    etc., etc.

  195. 195
    Darrell says:

    That would only be true if all murders were the same

    True enough, just as not all drug possession crimes are the same either. It seems unlikely that capital murder rates by race would not vary significantly from non-capital murders.. Also note that the FBI statistics cited do not differentiate between hispanic and white, as hispanics are lumped in with white. The death row excution stats do break down executions by race, including hispanic.

  196. 196
    Darrell says:

    Whichever measures the researchers employed, the statistics pointed to the same conclusion: black defendants on average face a distinctly higher risk of receiving a death sentence than all other similarly situated defendants

    Pb, how do you square that statment with the FBI statistics I already cited. 51% of all murders in this country are committe by blacks. yet only 34% of those executed are black. That directly refutes your assertion that blacks have a “higher risk” of receiving the death penalty, does it not?

  197. 197

    51% of murders are committed by blacks, yet only 34% of those executed for murder are black.

    That’s because white people have a tendency to kill dozens of people at once, so only one person is executed. Personally I think it’s genetic. There’s something in white boy DNA that turns them into homicidal maniacs.

  198. 198
    Fred Fnord says:

    You have a system that in effect says, “If you’re black, you’re more likely to be convicted of a felony. If you are convicted, you can’t vote.” Ergo, “If you’re black, you’re more likely to be unable to vote.”

    No, you have to look at it their way. Since Black people (and Hispanic people) are much more likely to vote Democratic, it’s really ‘If you’re a Democrat, you’re more unlikely to be unable to vote.’

    Really, for most prominent Republicans, the bigotry is stale news. (Though of course there are exceptions.) The word of the day these days is pragmatism. As in, ‘I don’t care what color you are: if kissing you will make me more likely to be elected, I’ll kiss you. If kicking you will make me more likely to be elected, I’ll kick you.’ Of course, I won’t actually do anything for you once I’m elected, unless you’re rich and white like me.

    -fred

  199. 199
    Darrell says:

    That’s because white people have a tendency to kill dozens of people at once, so only one person is executed

    You have any stats supporting that assertion? Serial killers do seem to be disprortionately white, but I would guess that gang bangers killing multiple people would offset that number.. Are stats kept on this kind of thing?

  200. 200
    ThymeZone says:

    True enough

    Huh? Great, now I have to POKE MY EYES OUT.’

  201. 201
    Darrell says:

    Of course, I won’t actually do anything for you once I’m elected, unless you’re rich and white like me.

    I find it interesting that such a disproportionate percentage of leftists tend to deal in such extreme caricatured stereotypes. I think Michael Savage had a point about liberalism being a mental illness.

  202. 202
    Pb says:

    Darrell,

    Pb, how do you square that statment with the FBI statistics I already cited.

    Easily.

    51% of all murders in this country are committe by blacks.

    You have no proof of that–learn to read.

    That directly refutes your assertion that blacks have a “higher risk” of receiving the death penalty, does it not?

    No.

    From the FBI page:

    Data from single victim/single offender incidents showed that 92.2 percent of black victims were murdered by black offenders, and 84.8 percent of white victims were murdered by white offenders. (Based on Table 2.7.)

    From the DPIC page:

    “In 82% of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks.”
    – United States General Accounting Office, Death Penalty Sentencing, February 1990

    More white people were executed because more white people were killed, because white people are more likely to kill white people, and because you’re more likely to get the death penalty for killing a white person. Got it?

  203. 203
    TenguPhule says:

    Why shouldn’t N. Korea and Japan take greater responsibility in their own national defense? What the hell is so “moronic” about that?

    Well I think North Korea has enough defense already, for starters.

    And the entire Asia region does *not* want to see a remilitarized Japan. On the Scale of Stupid Ideas ™, your idea ranks right up there at the top with the invasion of Iraq. We have enough enemies in the world and idiots like you still insist on trying to make more.

    The whole reason we support Japan and *South* Korea is that we need them to counter China’s influence in the region. Our diplomatic currency is at an all time low as it is, we don’t need to endanger yet *another* strategic alliance that worked very well for us so far just because your GOP masters can’t balance a checkbook.

  204. 204
    WisePiper says:

    O.K., I’ve read every post here and have come up with what I hope is an elegant solution to the Darrell thing.

    Some have suggested that Darrell simply be ignored. However, it’s almost impossible to let his wingnut posts stand unchallenged. What to do?

    How about adopting an acronym that signifies:
    “I’ve read Darrell’s latest post, and I choose to move on without being sucked into his idiotic provocations.”

    The acronym: DPNAR (Darrell’s post noted and rejected)

  205. 205
    Darrell says:

    From the FBI page:

    Pb, you are mistaken. Page down on the FBI reports to the murder “offenders” totals by race. 5,339 murders committed by whites and hispanics, 5,608 murders committed by blacks. That’s 51%.

  206. 206
    Pb says:

    Darrell,

    Pb, you are mistaken.

    No, you are mistaken.

    Page down on the FBI reports to the murder “offenders” totals by race. 5,339 murders committed by whites and hispanics, 5,608 murders committed by blacks. That’s 51%.

    That’d only be 51% if the total were, say, 10,947–it isn’t. Like I said the first time, learn to read.

  207. 207
    Darrell says:

    That’d only be 51% if the total were, say, 10,947—it isn’t. Like I said the first time, learn to read.

    The rest of the murder offenders save a tiny number, are race “unknown” (ie. race not listed).

  208. 208

    Here’s a power point demonstration from a professor at Radford University who claims 80.1% of serial killers are white. Other interesting date to be had in there as well (the youngest serial killer burned down a circus, killing hundreds, at the tender young age of 9, for instance).The problem here, aside from the fact that I was just making a bad joke, is that my joke doesn’t even make sense. If my assertion were true, than an even higher percentage of blacks would be executed, since they are dying on a ratio of closer to 1:1 than the serial killing whites.

  209. 209
    TenguPhule says:

    I think the problem all along is that we’ve pussyfooted around too much with the insurgency and sectarian violence, letting radicals like al-Sadr run free to create havoc. Maybe this troop increase signals a change in strategy in which we get serious.

    Right, because bombing cities into rubble and killing thousands of civilians wasn’t serious enough.

    Obviously the Darrell Solution is to go after one of the most powerful Shiite clerics in Iraq today who not only enjoys popular support but is also one of the crucial backers of the weak Iraqi ‘government’ that is the only thing still giving ‘legitimacy’ to the US occupation.

    After all, what’s a few thousand more casualties and the potential collapse of US supply lines into Iraq more or less, according to the Will of the great armchair General Darrell?

  210. 210
    Darrell says:

    If my assertion were true, than an even higher percentage of blacks would be executed, since they are dying on a ratio of closer to 1:1 than the serial killing whites.

    Blacks make up approx 13% of the population, yet commit over 1/2 the murders.

  211. 211
    Pb says:

    Darrell,

    The rest of the murder offenders save a tiny number, are race “unknown” (ie. race not listed).

    Precisely. Congratulations, you found your mistake. Of course, you could have just quoted the FBI’s correct statement further down:

    In homicides where the race of the offender was known, 50.0 percent were black, 47.6 percent were white, and 2.4 percent were other races. (Based on Table 2.5.)

    Which also explicitly notes that they’re only talking about the “known” portion of the data, and not speculating on the “unknown” portion. Or, you could look for an analysis regarding that unknown portion–that’d still be speculation, but at least it’d be informed statistical speculation.

  212. 212
    TenguPhule says:

    Blacks make up approx 13% of the population, yet commit over 1/2 the murders.

    Shorter Darrell: When all else fails, pretend I know how to do statistics.

  213. 213
    Darrell says:

    In homicides where the race of the offender was known, 50.0 percent were black, 47.6 percent were white, and 2.4 percent were other races

    Given that blacks make up only 34% of those executed while committing half of all murders, that would seem to fly in the face of your assertion that blacks are more harshly punished, would it not?

  214. 214
    Jake says:

    Given that blacks make up only 34% of those executed while committing half of all murders.

    That’s where we’ll get the extra soldiers! Just grab African-Americans at random, give them a gun and drop them off in Iraq. They’ll take it from there.

    The Great Darrellinnii strikes again!

  215. 215
    TenguPhule says:

    Shorter Darrell: I really can’t do statistics.

  216. 216
    Pb says:

    Darrell,

    See above:

    More white people were executed because more white people were killed, because white people are more likely to kill white people, and because you’re more likely to get the death penalty for killing a white person. Got it?

  217. 217
    Darrell says:

    Pb, you are drawing a cause and effect relationship where I believe none exists. White people face disproportionately higher execution rates. Since white people typically commit murders against other white people, no surprise that killers of whites are disproportionately executed, given that whites are more likely to face execution relative to murders committed.

    Fact is, blacks murder at higher rates than whites, yet face less likelihood of being executed for these crimes compared to white murderers. That runs contrary to what you have been asserting.

  218. 218
    Pb says:

    Pb, you are drawing a cause and effect relationship where I believe none exists.

    Ah, a he-said, she-said. Who are you going to believe, Darrell’s belief, or the GAO’s lying eyes. Not to mention your blurring of the distinction between murder cases and capital murder cases. I’m done here, enjoy.

  219. 219
    TenguPhule says:

    Shorter Darrell: Stop flaunting that I can’t do statistics!

    Pb, you’re going to need to use smaller words to explain the basic concepts of statistics to Darrell, because he truly has no idea of how it works.

  220. 220
    ThymeZone says:

    Shortest Darrell: Only you dishonest leftists would drag this debate down into a quagmire of statistics. Most people would agree that gays can’t be trusted to take kids camping, and that blacks commit more than their share of murders, because they’re …. well, black, apparently.

    No wonder you kooks can’t be trusted with security and law enforcement.

  221. 221
    Darrell says:

    Who are you going to believe, Darrell’s belief, or the GAO’s lying eyes

    That GAO link is based on subjective factors. FBI stats are cold, hard facts. Blacks commit more murders than whites, yet more whites are executed by a significant percentage.

  222. 222
    Shell says:

    Blacks make up approx 13% of the population, yet commit over 1/2 the murders.

    No, no…there’s no way to know what percentage of murders are committed by blacks, because so many many murders go unsolved (if I’m not mistaken, it looks like pretty close to half go unsolved). Blacks might comprise half of those *charged* with murder; why that number might differ considerably from the percentage that actually commit murder is left as an exercise etc.

  223. 223
    Steve says:

    Obviously the Darrell Solution is to go after one of the most powerful Shiite clerics in Iraq today who not only enjoys popular support but is also one of the crucial backers of the weak Iraqi ‘government’ that is the only thing still giving ‘legitimacy’ to the US occupation.

    I think I missed something (not to take away from the awesome death penalty discussion where, once again, people are going to waste 50 posts trying to repeat the same basic fact that Darrell refuses to acknowledge). Since when is al-Sadr a “crucial backer” of the Iraqi government? That doesn’t seem in line with current events.

  224. 224
    ThymeZone says:

    Blacks commit more murders than whites, yet more whites are executed by a significant percentage.

    Thus proving the liberal reverse-racist bias of the courts.

  225. 225
    Darrell says:

    Blacks might comprise half of those charged with murder;

    No, they comprise half of those convicted of murder.

  226. 226
    TenguPhule says:

    Since when is al-Sadr a “crucial backer” of the Iraqi government? That doesn’t seem in line with current events.

    His movement and followers are one of the linchpins, take away that and the Iraqi government is looking to change hands really quick. For all the talk about ‘neutralizing’ his power, they wouldn’t even have the current joke if not for his cooperation.

  227. 227
    TenguPhule says:

    That GAO link is based on subjective factors. FBI stats are cold, hard facts. Blacks commit more murders than whites, yet more whites are executed by a significant percentage.

    Shorter Darrell: They’re just numbers! Stop being mean and pointing out I know nothing about statistics!!

  228. 228
    Mike says:

    Rather than arguing about numbers of murders, why don’t you argue about why there are so many murders in the U.S.A. Compared to the rest of the western world , your murder numbers are way higher than the ours.

  229. 229
    jake says:

    Plenty of fingers to go around.

    There’s one!

    Am I the only one who thinks Bush looks a little horny?

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Joint Chiefs of Staff vs. Bush

    Please read Shaun’s post from today:…

  2. […] Plenty Of Fingers To Go Around […]

Comments are closed.