Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditLast fall was a great time for official optimism when it came to Iraq. The military "metrics" looked ever better and, as had happened at crucial moments in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, Bush administration and military statements turned practically peachy with the blush of "success." Progress was announced (repeatedly). Corners were once again about to be turned. Tipping points were on the absolute verge of being reached. "I've never been more optimistic than I am right now with the progress we've made in Iraq," effused Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, late that October. Lt. Col. Val Keaveny, 3rd Batallion, 509th infantry, offered this over-the-top mixed metaphor: "[Iraqis] are fed up with fear. Once they hit that tipping point, they're fed up, they come to realize we truly do provide them better hope for the future. What we're seeing now is the beginning of a snowball." That same month, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen, citing a butcher in the suburbs of Baghdad who had seen his business rise from selling one sheep a week to one a day, said: "I don't want to overly state it... but it's starting to happen."
And then there was George W. Bush, the man who, in November 2005, more than two and a half years after he ordered the invasion of Iraq, launched his "strategy for victory in Iraq" with a speech, wielding the word "victory" 15 times and who, in January 2007, launched his "new way forward in Iraq" (aka his "surge" strategy) in an address to the nation in which he used "victory" a mere two times. On November 2, 2007, the President offered this bit of good cheer to a gathering of 1,300 soldiers graduating from basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and likely headed for Iraq (or Afghanistan): "Slowly but surely, the people of Iraq are reclaiming a normal society."
To celebrate that return to normalcy and, undoubtedly, all the corners so far turned and points tipped, the U.S. military has, in the last two months, fired at least 200 Hellfire missiles into the Iraqi capital, according to the Washington Post, most of them into Sadr City, the vast, heavily populated Shiite slum in east Baghdad. ("Just six" had been used in Baghdad in the previous three months.) Perhaps it was on the basis of such celebrations of normalcy that Senator John McCain recently promised Americans victory in Iraq in a mere four and a half years. He even offered a likely date: January 2013. Something to look forward to.
It takes an expert, of course, to make sense of these repeated demonstrations of Washingtonian and military expertise. Fortunately, Tomdispatch.com had two experts lurking in the wings, Christopher Cerf and former Nation editor and publisher Victor Navasky of the eminently respected and respectable Institute of Expertology. They have recently produced a rollicking ride through Bush administration expertise--a compendium of the quotes that launched a thousand ships and that you simply can't believe anyone actually said. Its title: Mission Accomplished! Or How We Won the War in Iraq: The Experts Speak. It seemed the right moment to let them loose on the McCain record on Iraq.
And so, in "McCain (Mis)Speaks," they offer us a range of classic statements from the Senator: "I believe… that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators." (2003); "This conflict is… going to be relatively short." (2003); "Only the most deluded of us could doubt the necessity of this war." (2004)--not to speak of all those times when McCain definitively predicted that "the next three to six months will be critical."
In fairness to the Senator, who, in his own estimation, has been "the greatest critic of the initial four years" of the war in Iraq, they contextualize his comments, surrounding them with such illuminating companions as Douglas Feith's "This month will be a political turning point for Iraq" (July 7, 2003) and President Bush's "A turning point will come two weeks from today" (June 16, 2004).
Share this article
News & Analysis »
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
RSS
It's like how many "# 2 man in Al Qaeda" we've captured....they're lines so hackneyed now that they engender laughter (sad laughter, true) in all but the 25% of the country that still believe this crap.
And they should be along shortly to tell us how "McCain and Bush were RIGHT...blah,blah,blah,blah"...
heheh (sad laughter)
Posted by Mask at 05/29/2008 @ 3:01pm
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/29/2008
Have I missed all the "good news out of Iraq" stories.....on Fox?
Posted by Mask at 05/29/2008 @ 3:17pm
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/29/2008
Did you miss the point of the article? That the talking heads and the government officials and the "experts" have been telling you since the start that the situation is better. That the streets are silent. That there is less violence. Except there is all out warfare in Sadr City for the last month. The situation isn't getting better the fight is just moving. So some places seem peaceful while others are hell.
They have been feeding you the things are getting better line since the day they declared victory and you have been eating it. We accomplished the mission 5 years ago. When are we going to win? Or was the mission not to win but to stick us waste deep in shit for 5 years?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/29/2008 @ 5:34pm
Posted by Euler at 05/29/2008
Euler, what is the PRECISE definition of "staying and helping Iraq"...
and "occupying and propping up a weak government in Iraq"?
Posted by Mask at 05/29/2008 @ 7:16pm
Decades seems about right, after all freedom's not free! N. Korea, Sudan and Burma are calling as well.
Posted by winyahn at 05/29/2008 @ 7:29pm
Which war has McCain been right about? He's like a compass that always points south.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_militarist
Posted by srjenkins at 05/29/2008 @ 9:04pm
Posted by Mask at 05/29/2008
Yeah, but WHY? Sometimes she can make very lucid and sensible points that shows she is well informed and capable. It makes no sense, even if you throw in Bipolar disorder.
Posted by Benchrest at 05/29/2008 @ 10:49pm
You missed the good news because the media doesn't report good news on anything. It is all alarmist all the time? Don't you watch the news?----Posted by abell12ct at 05/30/2008
So even FOX NEWS?!?!?!?! is "hushing up" all the "good news" about Iraq?!?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 05/30/2008 @ 09:06am
So even FOX NEWS?!?!?!?! is "hushing up" all the "good news" about Iraq?!?!??!?
Posted by Mask
I think you missed my point. Good news about anything doesn't get the same coverage as bad news. Take for instance how Al Qaeda is starting to be shunned by muslim clerics due to their indiscriminate killing of civilians. Or how we aren't in a recession.
Posted by abell12ct at 05/30/2008 @ 10:03am
You know ABEL, I have been hearing this crap about "We never hear the good news from Iraq"...
For 5 1/2 God damn years!!
I would think if there were 5 1/2 years of "good news" from Iraq, the f'ing war would be over.
Plus, you are full of bullpuckey about how we "NEVER" hear this "good news". did you miss all of the stories about the retired "independent" analysts used by the Pentagon Propaganda office? They were on "liberal media" daily telling us how swell things were going. Did you never read National Review lists of "good news from Iraq"? Did you miss how, 4 years ago, we were just around the corner from victory? How the Laura Bush Hospital was on time and on budget? How oil was flowing? How schools were being built?
why is it that after all of this "good news" the Green Zone still gets attacked DAILY!? Why is that after 4 years of "good news" suicide bombers are still killing police recruits?
If, as you say, there is so much good news coming from Iraq, why do we have to still be there? Why are you not over there driving a truck, working in a school, tracking down the billions of dollars that have gone missing? After all, it is safe, the economy is growing at 7% (good news right?, but 7% of next to nothing is next to nothing). Maybe you could get a job at the Laura Bush Hospital. (oops, it won't be finished due to cost overruns, corruption, and "the security situation").
Why is it that the government in Iraq is almost non-functional? Ministers are killed monthly. Is that due to the liberal media ignoring all of the good news?
This week the presidents own man came out and agreed with the president that they "catapulted the propaganda". But, you still claim nothing was done wrong.
You are a sheep, nothing more. Eating the propaganda spoon fed to you by the government. And here I thought that you cons distrusted the "gubment"? I guess you only distrust the gubment that does not succeed in making you afraid of non-existent wmd's, drone planes and tons of anthrax.
I cannot wait till Obama takes his oath of office and you HAVE TO come here and say, "He is the President, we should trust him. Any talk of not believing him is anti-American".
I really, really cannot wait.
What color is the sky in your world today? Purple?
Posted by crabwalk at 05/30/2008 @ 11:12am
I cannot wait till Obama takes his oath of office and you HAVE TO come here and say, "He is the President, we should trust him. Any talk of not believing him is anti-American".
I really, really cannot wait.
What color is the sky in your world today? Purple?
Posted by crabwalk
I LOVE this.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/30/2008 @ 11:26am
BTW, did the neo-cons have the same respect for Dee Dee Myers that they had for Fleischer and McClellean?
Posted by crabwalk at 05/30/2008 @ 11:38am
[a country we invaded for no good reason.
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/30/2008
au contrair mon freir.
We invaded Iraq to:
1:Remove Saddams nookyular programs
2: Remove the connections between Saddam and AQ
3: remove the biological weapons factories
4: Remove the chemical weapons factories.
5: Dismantle the drone planes capable of reaching the US
6: create a stable, liberal democracy capable of leading it's country.
7: create a domino effect of Islamic dictators falling and democracies flourishing in the ME.
8: remove a key supporter of Hamas and Fatah, causing them to lose power in Israel.
9: Send a message to Iran and N. Korea that building nukes would get them nowhere.
10: topple AQ's hold on radical Islam
See, the reasons were all sound, well founded and have been accomplished.
thats the good news.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/30/2008 @ 11:57am
BTW, I ignored ol' FRANKGRIT's advice and listened to some of Rush at lunch...
He's ALMOST ready to say "Let Obama win it, it'd be better for us if McCain doesn't get the White House!"
Wonder if it'll last until November?
Posted by Mask at 05/30/2008 @ 2:42pm
[We are both the same then. You follow your leaders blindly also. You were probably cheering when Billy boy dropped all those bombs on Iraqi civilians. And then you laughed as he dropped bombs on yugoslavia. You are pathetic. You were probably for the war in the beginning but when no WMD's were found you needed someone to blame. I usually (unlike you) refrain from personal attacks but you started it! you f*&king child.
Posted by abell12ct at 05/30/2008
Lets see, wrong, wrong, wrong.
so, where does that leave you ABEL? You are totally mistaken about my views on the subjects you listed? Which "leaders" do I "blindly follow"? I never voted for Bill Clinton. I opposed his nomination from the floor of delegate conferences.
Once again, you don't know who or what you are attempting to attack. You, like so many of the war mongers that show up here, create an idea in your own mind about who I am and what I believe. But it is just plain wrong, much like your ideas about the failed war you cheerlead for.
You are purely a propaganda eater. You spew talking points from the WH, repeat what you hear somewhere and take it as fact. When we point out where your "facts" are wrong, you launch into attacks on Bill Clinton. Classic neo-con behavior.
I am tired of being nice to quislings who refuse to open their minds, refuse to see what is right in front of them. People that call me every name in the book, threaten my life and the lives of my family. Cowards that slink around in the night and destroy my property in vain attempts to silence my speech. Cowards that will not go to Iraq and fight for what they claim is the most important cause of our era. Sheep that hide behind "independent analysts" who turn out to be nothing more than little Goerings in civilian suits. False patriots that stand around and giggle when a CIA agent has her career ruined and secret projects scrapped in order to silence her husband.
Why the hell should I be civil to people that declare war on whole peoples because of the actions of a tiny minority? Why should I play nice with you ABLELL when you stand and cheer about a 5 1/2 year war that has done squat to reduce terrorism in the world, but has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions? When you come here and try to spread more and more propaganda?
I still want to know, f*&king Old Man, why is that 5 1/2 years on we still cannot bring home the over 100,000 combat troops when things are going so damn swell? A child should be able to answer such a simple question.
Am I bitter? You bet your sweet bippy. I have been listening to this crap about how good things are going in Iraq for YEARS now, and it is all crappola. If everything was going so well in 2004,2005,2005,2006, 2007,2008 the troops would be home by now. You want to debate something in a civil manner, put away your slogans and jingles and bring me something that isn't based on a WH focus group/RNC talking points memo.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/30/2008 @ 3:43pm
The "Good News" will start in January 2009 when President Obama will tell the nation that its time for us to leave a country we invaded for no good reason.
Posted by leftofcenter
not so sure.......
better cross your toes, too.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/30/2008 @ 11:19pm
Posted by crabwalk at 05/30/2008
Whew, CRABBIE, hittin' the kool-aid a little hard, ain'tcha? What's the matter, did the vast right wing conspiracy raise the cost of propane for your trailer again? Gas too expensive for you to make it to your anti-domestic oil drilling rally?
Posted by pontificus at 05/31/2008 @ 08:40am
[Whew, CRABBIE, hittin' the kool-aid a little hard, ain'tcha? What's the matter, did the vast right wing conspiracy raise the cost of propane for your trailer again? Gas too expensive for you to make it to your anti-domestic oil drilling rally?
Posted by pontificus at 05/31/2008 |
too rich for words Ponti. Lets take a look at reality and see who is drinking Kool-aid, shall we?
Old news first: no wmd's found in Iraq.
No links between AQ and Saddam
Civil war in Iraq.
You bought the opposite of those things.
New News:
The Pentagon set up a propaganda office, using "independent analysts" who were given talking points to use on "librool media" outlets.
A republican press secretary says "propaganda was used", a "culture of deception" prevailed
Many republicans, not loony libs, say that Chimpy did not listen to facts that didn't correspond to his predetermined conclusions (see Whitman, Bartlet, Powell, O'Neal and now McClellen, etc).
I was right about wmd's
You were wrong.
I am not a financial planner, the US is not the only country that celebrates Thanksgiving, The republican attorney general says the propane company engaged in illegal activity, The CIA says Plame was covert, there were no democratic witchhunts, the war is not won yet, there were no links between Saddam and AQ, Iraqi agents never met with Atta in the Czech republic, there were no drone planes.
Who is drinking what, PONTI? How can you be wrong about all of these things and still be so pompous?
Posted by crabwalk at 05/31/2008 @ 10:39am
pontificus: ***The fact is, this country has not been attacked by terrorists since 9/11.
I love it when people trot this little "factoid" out, as if terrorist attacks were a daily occurence.
The fact that this country has not been attacked by Martians since 9/11 is just about as relevant.
Posted by Balrog at 05/31/2008 @ 11:21am
If he gets all the credit for no terrorist attacks since 9/11, then he gets all the blame for the terrorist attack that occurred on 9/11.
Spin away, Ponti, spin away...
Posted by Balrog at 05/31/2008 @ 12:30pm
On the other hand, the economic disaster that resulted from Carter's Presidency was just bad luck, so let's elect another guy, Obama, just like him.---Posted by pontificus at 05/31/2008
So you agree the bad economy we have now is Bush's fault???
or are YOU going to claim it "is just bad luck" and let's elect another guy just like him...like McCain?
Posted by Mask at 05/31/2008 @ 2:06pm
Posted by Balrog at 05/31/2008
So Balrog, Browning, Benelli, Parazzi, or dare I ask, Kriegoff?
Posted by Benchrest at 05/31/2008 @ 2:48pm
Ponti, you want to come around here with your claims of kool-aid drinking, then you totally change the subject to...Reagan winning the Cold War? Single handedly no doubt. No help from The Pope, no help from the Solidarity Movement in Poland. No help from the Soviets being a doomed to fail experiment. The West Germans just stood aside while Reagan swooped in with his big flag cape.
But, will you admit that Reagan got help in his Quest from Bin'Laden, Saddam Hussein and the Mujahideen? Not to mention getting help getting elected by promising arms to the Iranians?
And then you launch into "'Merica haters!!!. All 'Merica Haters!!"
But, alas, it is I that am a kool-aid drinker?
Yes, PONTI-FLOGIC at it's finest.
I think maybe you are missing some vital nutrients. As a child I was informed that I could get those nutrients via catsup. Maybe you need a visit to the Catsup Council website.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/31/2008 @ 3:15pm
Hey, i missed something!
When did "terrorism go away" under the Bush doctrine?
See, last the State Dept told me, terrorism was UP, not "gone away".
Down is right, green is black, illegal is supply/demand, energy crisis in California was the market at work, a lack of something is proof it exists.
Ponti-flogic 101, room 1489 in the hotel that has 10 floors.
why don't you tell me more about the "independent analysts" you got all this cool information about Iraq from? While your at it, tell me the Good News from Iraq that will allow our combat troops to come home next spring. ABELL seems unABLE to come up with it.
BOO! don't wet yourself.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/31/2008 @ 3:24pm
BAL, the model 12 is a classic. Everyone should have one, although I think most do, don't they? It was my second gun, still have it at my parents house.
Next to it is my brothers "Long Tom", an ancient 12Ga that was like a meter long barrel with the fore stock held on with a rubber band. The creep "let " me fire it when I was 10 and weighed about 50 lbs soaking wet. He caught the gun, but he let my ass hit the ground!
We still laugh. Well, he does.
I still regret selling my Anshutz 1410, my competition rifle I needed a car at the time and had no cash. The car is long ago junked, the .22 is still in competition.
I have only shot trap a couple of times, it is a lot of fun, not as easy as it can appear. To be good at it is the sign of a fine shooter. good for you! What's the most you ever broke straight?
Posted by crabwalk at 05/31/2008 @ 3:33pm
Posted by crabwalk at 05/31/2008
Hey, wait, CRAB....
I thought all liberals HATED guns and wanted to take them away from law-abiding citizens?!??!?
You mean the right-wingers ...were wrong or even....lying?!??!? How can that be????
Posted by Mask at 05/31/2008 @ 4:08pm
Mask:***You mean the right-wingers ...were wrong or even....lying?!??!? How can that be????
They weren't lying, they just had "faulty intelligence".
Posted by Balrog at 05/31/2008 @ 5:29pm
PONTI, no mention of Sandy Berger or slavery today?
You are slowing down.
Catsup deficiency.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/31/2008 @ 5:44pm
..and my first trip to nationals at Camp Perry.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/31/2008
Another real shooter. I am liking the company here better and better all the time.
Posted by Benchrest at 05/31/2008 @ 6:17pm
A question for you, crabwalk.
Above, you said "Cowards that will not go to Iraq and fight for what they claim is the most important cause of our era. "
It seems I have asked for an explanation of this one on previous blogs, and have never gotten one.
My interpretation of what you are saying is that you are telling someone who supports our efforts in Iraq to "Put up or shut up". As I see it, you imply that one has no business supporting the war in Iraq unless one can go and fight or help out over there themselves. It implies that because, since war results in death, unless you are willing to die yourself, you can not speak out supporting an effort of war.
You statement above is not the first one of this nature I have seen, nor will it be the last. I have seen it on the Internet and in newspapers and on bumper stickers of cars obviously being driven by a lib.
(And no, I am not going to provide an encyclopedia of links to all the times I have ever seen this on the Internet or in newspapers along with tag numbers of all the cars I have seen with bumper stickers about this) (I am being sarcastic here)
I believe a lot of other people besides me (you would call them kool - aid drinkers, Lillian would call them "cons", etc) would read and do read the same implication in the sentiments expressed by libs about people speaking in favor of the war but not fighting themselves.
Given that not everybody who might otherwise like to go into the military can do so, because of age or other factors, what then is the result, as I see it, of a statement such as yours is that you are seeking to disenfranchise someone from their right of public expression about the war, based on criteria established by you.
You essentially are setting conditions about who can speak about what.
So, I would like to know:
1. Do you disagree that what I see implied in your remarks is what you really mean, and, if so, what do you really mean, and why?
2. Or- If I am reading your belief correctly after all, I would like to know when you became the self professed arbiter of speech, and what makes you think you have the right to be that arbiter?
Thank you in advance for your reply.
Posted by sjchermak at 05/31/2008 @ 7:07pm
Posted by sjchermak
well,
you could always voluntarily pay double taxes in order to fund the fight for freedom.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/31/2008 @ 7:43pm
just like world war2:
i bet this is the situation in ponti's house:
http://www.ameshistoricalsociety.org/exhibits/events/ration_poster.jpg
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/31/2008 @ 9:35pm
We think that the Iraq War is a failure, because we were fooled in the first place into thinking that the purpose of the war, if not wmd's, was something like peace and freedom for ordinary Iraqis, and democracy throughout the region. We were wrong. That's not what "freedom" means at all, in neo-con-speak. It means free markets, free trade, or in other words, it means the nationalized oil of Iraq will be opened up to private corporations to make money off of. If kids in Iraq get their limbs blown off, if the women have to cover themselves head to toe in black, if the young men are out of work and out of hope, so what? The corporations are making money! Read Naomi Klein's book on Shock Doctrine. Bush isn't losing sleep, because Bush hasn't failed at what he intended to do. This was a business decision, and it's working out just fine. Look at ExxonMobil's bottom line. Free at last!
Posted by EvelynU at 06/01/2008 @ 12:59am
[i bet this is the situation in ponti's house:
http://www.ameshistoricalsociety.org/exhibits/events/ration_poster.jpg
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/31/2008 ]
TURN DOWN THE THERMOSTAT?
no f'ing way man! that is hippy talk! Reducing demand won't work!! Only increasing supply will reduce the cost over time. If ponti has to use less energy the terrorists win!! Just like in WWII.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/01/2008 @ 09:26am
Posted by Mask at 05/31/2008
"So you agree the bad economy we have now is Bush's fault???or are YOU going to claim it "is just bad luck" and let's elect another guy just like him...like McCain?"
You really need to abstain from all the kool-aid the media is feeding you about the economy. The economy is not nearly as bad as you think, or as the media portrays it to be. The tipoff for any rational person should be the frequent assertion on the left that 'the statistics don't matter, they are wrong, the economy is much worse than they indicate, in fact we're in a CRISIS THAT CAN ONLY BE SOLVED BY ELECTING OBAMA!!!"
The media uses manufactured crises to sell their product during a Presidential election year to dupes like you, who willingly lap it up to pay for that newspaper subscription or listen to that news broadcast that reinforces your prejudices. You're one of those suckers that gets born every minute.
Posted by pontificus at 06/01/2008 @ 09:37am
You're one of those suckers that gets born every minute.
ponti,
"First, we must overcome something the present administration has cooked up: a new and altogether indigestible economic stew........"
that was reagan i quoted on the other thread.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/01/2008 @ 11:25am
No one predicted (precisely) what would happen in Iraq, how could they?
Posted by Euler
i kinda had it right.
so did this guy:
Iraq is rugged; tribal forces are still important; and the majority population is Shiite, as is that of neighboring Iran. What will happen if US bombs damage the Shiite shrines, the holiest places for 100 million Shiite Muslims in Lebanon, Iran, Pakistan, India, Bahrain? What will happen if there is a riot in a shrine city like Karbala and US marines put it down by killing rioters?
Do we want 100 million Shiites angry at us again? (Lately they have calmed down and it is the radical Sunnis that have given us the problems). What happens if the Iraqi Sunni middle classes lose faith in secular Arab nationalism because the Baath is overthrown, and they turn to al-Qaeda-type Islam, in part out of resentment at American hegemony over their country? What will happen if we give the Turks too much authority to intervene in Kurdistan, and fighting breaks out between the Turks and the Iraqi Kurds, and if the Iraqi Kurds turn against the US?
I will be ecstatic to see Saddam go. But I have a bad feeling about this, as Han Solo once said prophetically.
posted by Juan @ 2/27/2003 08:28:45 AM
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/01/2008 @ 11:26pm
Happy
Are the "Libs and Environuts" hampering development of wind, solar, geothermal, etc.? I think not. If we reprocessed used fuel rods in the US, I personally wouldn't be against nukes .. but what, under our current scenario, can we do with the waste? Can we build anything that can store it for the requisite 100,000+ years? (FYI: If Yucca Mountain ever actually opens it will already be full with currently stored waste) And ANWAR is a drop in the bucket of energy demand.
As to domestic vehicles .. maybe if we would build ones that are worth a shit and aren't SUVs people would. Ford is curtailing US production of large trucks and SUVs as they have only now figured out how stupid it is. Did you know we have the absolute worst - bar none- fuel economy of any car-producing nation on the planet? Gimma a frickin break ... after all, the foreign are meeting a need that our own industry could meet if they'd get their head outta big oil's ass.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/02/2008 @ 10:52am
Today's high prices are finally producing some behaviour changes...this is what it takes, a fast and more or less permanent expectation of high(er) prices.
There isn't anyone on this board that knows more about energy than I do....----Posted by HAPPY3 at 06/2/
But you are saying oil prices are "trending down"?
So why are you now touting the "behavior changes"...if they won't last?!?!?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2008 @ 12:22pm
There isn't anyone on this board that knows more about energy than I do
sure thing, megatron.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/02/2008 @ 1:13pm
Did you know we have the absolute worst - bar none- fuel economy of any car-producing nation on the planet?
Posted by leftofcenter
well, we use yours so.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/02/2008 @ 1:19pm
Posted by LibsWarnedU at 06/2/2008
See, that wasn't so hard, now was it?
Posted by Benchrest at 06/02/2008 @ 8:15pm
I have just come across the article pasted below. It somewhat depresses me to read it. This article, in a clear and concise way, proves every leftist point made in these blogs about Iraq wrong.
It articulates why the war was justified and how we are on the path to success now.
Why does it depress me, then?
It does because in spite of the fact that the truth is out there - you the enlightened left have done a fantastic job of promoting your negative view of blame towards the wrong people along with a policy of appeasement, capitulation and surrender.
This article shows how you on the left are wrong, but despite being wrong you have been highly successful with your agenda. Congratulations and well done, libs. Maybe someday you might think about channeling your energies towards some more productive efforts that actually help and make life better for people, instead of doing what you do now and self-proclaiming that you are helping people and making life better. Your declarations that it is so do not make it so.
Crabwalk will post back that this article is propaganda, probably has a shortcut key on the computer to put the word in since that response is used so often.
Anyway, here is the article.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/was_the_iraq_war_worth_it.html
June 02, 2008 Was the Iraq War Worth It? By Jeff Lukens
They say if it bleeds, it leads on the nightly news. The recent silence from the mainstream news media on Iraq, however, is speaking volumes. While the war remains unpopular, our success there has been unmistakable. The Iraqi people, with the help of the U.S. led coalition, have succeeded in establishing the world's first Arab democracy. Their achievement is a milestone in the war on terror and for the cause of liberty.
Beyond the Iraqi Constitution and the elections, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has emerged as the true leader of the governing coalition. He has battled and won against fellow Shiite and problem child Muqtada al-Sadr and his militia. The Sunni, Shiite and Kurd people work together in a national Iraqi Army. Together, they are taking their county back from the foreign insurgents that have invaded their homeland. Iraqi troops took the lead in clearing Basra and Sadr City, and are now finishing off the insurgent remnants.
No one likes to go to war, but even an elective war is sometimes necessary. With all the consternation these past years, President Bush may finally be able to say "Mission Accomplished" to what he originally set out to do.
This we know, Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. He even gassed his own Kurd and Shiite populations in the 1980s. What happened to those chemical weapons? Who knows? Whether they buried them in the ground somewhere or trucked off to Syria, we had every reason to believe he had them.
In the months leading up to the war, Saddam acted as if he were hiding a nuclear program by obstructing UN inspectors visiting his installations. We have since concluded that his nuclear program was still in its infancy, but we could not have known that then. Saddam's power was in his bluff, but his bluff was called.
Following 9/11, we had to show we meant business in the fight on terror. Afghanistan fell quickly, but it was a sideshow. Look at any map of the Middle East and smack in the middle of it is Iraq. Think about it, if we could flip Iraq form a dictatorial state that sponsored terrorism to a democratic republic, there would be profound implications throughout the region. When most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, we needed to show Saudi Arabia, as much as anyone, our resolve. Regime change in Iraq was militarily and politically feasible, so Iraq was where Bush chose to make his move.
Saddam fell quickly too, but the subsequent insurgency dragged on for another five years. Though our casualties have been mercifully low, the political angst against Bush has grown virulent. Maybe Bush could have handled the occupation better, and the war should have been over more quickly, but our reason to go there was strategically sound. Bush made the proper decision with the urgency of 9/11 still fresh, and with the information available to him at that time.
In the early years of the Civil War, Lincoln lost battle after battle with a revolving door of generals who could not or would not fight Robert E. Lee. Lincoln finally found his general with Ulysses S. Grant who took after Lee's army and ground it down.
Bush had a similar problem with Donald Rumsfeld and generals who would not adapt to insurgents who did not wear uniforms and hid among the people. Bush finally replaced Rumsfeld and found his Generals in David Petraeus and Ray Odierno. The counterinsurgency strategy they employed made quick work of our enemies in Iraq.
Back in the U.S., however, liberal opposition to the war has at times reached hysterical levels and threatened to unravel all that we sought to achieve. Some things do not change. They have been acting this way since our days in Vietnam. And like our experience there, instead of finding ways to win they sought the worst possible outcome by unilateral surrender.
Liberals have never considered Bush a legitimate president. They have never gotten over the myth that the 2000 election was stolen. For them, Bush's decision to enter into an elective war that took longer than expected was just too much. His presidency is too emotional a subject for them, and reasoning with them about any aspect of it has become nearly impossible. But for anyone who still cares and is willing to listen, what we are seeing in Iraq today is exactly what we set out to accomplish from the beginning -- establish a beachhead for democracy in the Middle East.
Before the war, state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East were Iran, Syria, Libya and Iraq. Today, only Iran and Syria remain -- with a democratic Iraq located between them. And in the information age, don't believe for a moment that the infectious seeds of freedom are not being sown in those countries and throughout the region. The promise of freedom for the oppressed is America's greatest strategic weapon in this war. In due time, tyrants in those countries may come to fear their own people more than any army that may threaten them.
We must remember that the struggle in Iraq is only one campaign in the larger global war on terror. History will intimately judge, but yes, early indications are that President Bush's victory was a worthy step in that overall goal.
Radical Islam is at war with the civilized world because of our tolerant values toward women, different lifestyles and different religions. For Americans, understanding the threat posed by this enemy, finding ways to triumph over them, and mobilizing public opinion to support that effort remain as challenges for the years ahead.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/02/2008 @ 9:40pm
Bush had a similar problem with Donald Rumsfeld and generals who would not adapt to insurgents who did not wear uniforms and hid among the people. Bush finally replaced Rumsfeld and found his Generals in David Petraeus and Ray Odierno.-----Posted by sjchermak at 06/2/2008
First salvo of the Revisionist history.....where to begin.
How about FIRST....Bush didn't "finally replace Rumsfeld"...until the Novmeber 2006 midterms had occurred and the Republicans LOST and it was an indication to him that if he didn't do SOMETHING appearing "change-like", he might lose even his REPUBLICAN support in the Congress...
and they'd join the Democrats in overturning a de-funding measure.
There was NO move to remove Rumsfeld before that election result.
As for blaming "the generals"...he had TONS of generals telling him there were too few troops in Iraq BEFORE, and he didn't listen to them (Or was Bush somehow "over-ridden" by his own Secretary of Defense, sj?).
And as we go into the 2008 election, the final Bush Cultists will find HOPE...not in "the Surge working"...
but either McCain or Obama taking office on January 20, 2009 and them getting to try to pass the blame for this debacle onto Bush's successor.
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2008 @ 10:17pm
Posted by HAPPY3 at 06/2/2008 |
So let's get that straight...
McCain elected, and we get "victory" in Iraq....Bush gets the credit.
McCain elected, and Iraq falls apart....McCain gets the blame, Bush the credit for "what was done before McCain screwed it up"
Obama elected, and we get "victory" in Iraq....Bush gets the credit.
Obama elected, and Iraq falls apart...Obama gets the blame, Bush the credit for "what was done before Obama screwed it up"?
That about it?
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2008 @ 10:50pm
Hi Mask,
You are analyzing blame and credit. It actually boils down to two very simple equation, one that REALLY depresses me.
Anything wrong now = George W. Bush gets blamed
Anything wrong in the future = George W. Bush gets blamed.
I won't be alive to see it, but I swear that 50 years from now there will be people who when finding fault for a problem will cite something George W. Bush did as the start of the cause of whatever wrong they think happened!!
I have never seen in my entire lifetime a politician of either party crucified and condemned and pilloried as bad as George W. Bush, by his political enemies.
Let's go through the list (rather short) of politicians I have seen get a lot of flak in my lifetime:
Lyndon B. Johnson - The left disowns the architect of the Great Society because of Vietnam, and also I have seen people who proclaim his civil rights ideas were really because of JFK, and LBJ shouldn't get the credit. The poor man died in obscurity, and that is too bad because he wanted to cure poverty, but the flak he got still falls short of the level of crucification that George W. Bush gets every day.
Mayor Kevin White of Boston (1970s). He was a Democrat but the media and his opponents were on his rear end day after day. The day Queen Elizabeth came to town during the Bicentennial I saw them drive by in a parade, and I thought for once the mayor is having a good day. Probably the only good day he had. I don't know if he is even alive now or where he is or what he is doing, but if he is alive he must have decided to quit public life - that it wasn't worth it. But the harassment he got still falls short of crucification level.
Richard M. Nixon -- Because of Watergate and Vietnam he got big time flak and a bad place in history, but I still do not remember him ever being put on the cross and crucified every day. The flak he received still stopped short of that.
Ronald Reagan -- Libs falsely portrayed him sometimes as a dunce and other times as somebody who was going to cause the world to go into a nuclear armageddon. He was condemned as a racist (as California governor he opened up opportunities in state government to minorities way beyond what had been before). After it became obvious that his policies had brought about the defeat of the Soviet Union, libs switched on the fly from previous belief that the Soviet Union was inevitable and we had to peacefully coexist, to the proclamations that it was a failed experiment all along and Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with it's collapse. However, lib derision and scorn of President Reagan still never approached crucification level.
Slick Willie (aka William Jefferson Blythe Clinton) - Libs will say that the political Right went after Slick Willie tooth and nail, but they overlook that the effort against him was brought about because he lied in court while up for a charge of sexual harassment, which is not proper for any American other than Mr. Clinton to do. Thus some of the flak he received he brought upon himself. He was not impeached because of sex with interns - the Lewinsky mess only came about as a result of the investigation - and may never have surfaced if the subject under investigation was not lying and obstructing justice. Remove that from the equation, and libs can not make the case that the dislike of Slick Willie even began to approach the crucification level. Even to this day, the crucification victim's Dad, George H. W. Bush, has partnered with Slick on some humanitarian efforts. Libs also forget that Republicans did not oppose Slick on things to the degree comparable to the full throttle opposition President Bush was faced with from day one in office. Republicans pretty much rolled over and allowed the placement of Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the Supreme Court.
Anyway, there is the analysis - if Iraq turns out to have a successful outcome as it is hopefully headed towards now, in no way shape or form will George W. Bush get any credit at all, at least amongst the popular culture and media and in the history books in school. At least in the near term. Hopefully down the road future unbiased historians will look at things objectively and then Mr. Bush will be viewed more favorably. After all, Harry Truman is looked upon different now than when he was President.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/02/2008 @ 11:23pm
Iraq's evolution through to a functioning democracy!
you mean like the one hamas won?
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/03/2008 @ 01:32am
. the question we have to examine is: do they really believe what they are saying?, or are they trying to convince us they know what they are talking about? . ..EITHER WAY -<>- if it does nothing except help get out the vote -<>- and gets people to think. . ..Washington is a town of smoke and mirrors with "three seated senators" running for the presidency
Posted by bbednarz at 06/03/2008 @ 06:44am
After all, Harry Truman is looked upon different now than when he was President.----Posted by sjchermak at 06/2/2008 |
SJ, open up a CD with $1000 in it. In 20 years (enough time?), if Bush's reputation has been "redeemed" by historians or the general public...I'll pay you a matching sum for whatever is in it and the interest.
George Bush will go down with Warren Harding as one of the worst Presidents in history, surpassing Jimmy Carter.
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 09:02am
Posted by HAPPY3 at 06/2/2008
HAPP, aside from your "HAPPY talk" on #1 and #2....you essentially agree with my assessment.
Which is that, your partisanship would NEVER allow that either (A) Bush would ever be blamed for anything or (B) Obama would ever get CREDITED for anything.
BTW, you might need to explain to sjchermak how "Reagan dropped the ball" on terrorism....
"Maybe Mr. Reagan, Bush `41 and Clinton fought the War on the cheap and either ignored or cut out from trouble spots too soon?"----Posted by HAPPY 10/21/2007 @ 5:35pm
BLOG | Posted 10/18/2007 @ 3:21pm An Assault on Media Diversity and Democracy by John Nichols
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 09:09am
HAPPY Version: McCain elected, and we get "victory" in Iraq....Bush gets the credit while McCain gets the Best Supporting Award for having helped to secure the Surge strategy and seeing Iraq's evolution through to a functioning democracy!
Happy,
I'd just like to point out that Bush didn't fight in Iraq so he shouldn't get credit for anything. Any asshole can start a war and he should definitely get credit for starting a war with a country that never attacked us....that would be preemptive war.
Whether or not Iraq ends up in one piece when all is said and done will be after W's lying ass is out of office. So, the next president will get credit for what happens in Iraq either way.
For example, the Soviet Union imploded during Ronnie's eight years at the helm and all of you rethugs think he's responsible for the fall. Well, with the same logic applied, the next president will inherit the last president's failure or success in Iraq. W couldn't pull the trigger and mop it up....though he never intended to in the first place.
Here's another scenario, McCain wins two elections and we'll still be in Iraq and the rethugs will blame the democrats in congress for it, or Obama will win this election and we'll possibly get out of Iraq in two or three years but lose all of that black gold W and Company were after in the first place.
If Obama wins he'll be the scapegoat for all of the excesses of the executive branch and then the rethugs will be screaming bloody murder to reign in the powers of the executive branch. Obama will only win one term after the right wing smear machine hammers on him for 4 straight years.
I've been around long enough to know the deck is stacked and will always be stacked. How does the guy say it in Meet John Doe say it.... the world's been shaven by a drunken barber...
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/03/2008 @ 12:52pm
How does the guy say it in Meet John Doe say it.... the world's been shaven by a drunken barber...
Whoops, meant put an extra say it in there.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/03/2008 @ 12:55pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/3/2008
At this point, Wolf, I think the dying vestiges of the neo-cons and the 29% Club are looking for an escape hatch off the sinking sub....
1. Obama wins...and they blame what finally happens in Iraq on him and Democrats in general. Bush and THEM off the hook.
2. McCain wins...and they blame HIM and his "Maverick Republicans", and try to take back their Party in 2012 and again, Bush and them off the hook.
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 1:50pm
Posted by Mask at 06/3/2008
Mask, Both good points. Either way, nothing is their fault.
I want Obama to win, but I feel bad for the guy once he does. I don't see anything but misery for him as president.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/03/2008 @ 3:34pm
Miscellaneous comments,
Mask, I don't have $1,000 to put up to bet with you, and if any redemption were to occcur for President Bush, it would be a long time past 20 years and I would not be alive to collect anyway.
You mention how he is going to go down in history. But "going down" is not the same as what I would call "actually was". I do not know for sure how President Bush will go down in history, but I do know regardless of how he "goes down" he actually is one of the best Presidents we have ever had. And fortunately, the U.K. Prime Minister was Tony Blair (who is also another flak victim as well, above I only listed U.S. flak victims) during this time.
You mention someting about Ronald Reagan dropping the ball on terrorism. Ronald Reagan was president over 20 years ago, and the realization that we are at war against terror in no way had begun to fully manifest itself back then. Many libs now proclaim there is no threat, etc. and we were are not supposed to be afraid, have fear, and do something about it now - yet you make criticism of Ronald Reagan that he didn't do something 20 years ago. The two points clash - the classic dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.
Wolfgang points out that the Iraq war was pre-emptive war.
Yeah. I know that. It was pre-emptive war. That is why it was started. If we had pre-emptive war in the 1930s when Winston Churchill warned about the German threat, then the Holocaust could have been prevented. What is wrong with pre-emptive war?
Wolfgang says "I want Obama to win, but I feel bad for the guy once he does. I don't see anything but misery for him as president."
I don't understand, Wolfgang. Fair is fair. If Obama wins there will be misery for the country with him as president, after we surrender in Iraq and Obama implements as much socialism as he can. Wouldn't it be only fair for Obama to be miserable, too? Why should he be the only one in the country who is not miserable?
Posted by sjchermak at 06/03/2008 @ 5:19pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/3/2008
So HOW LONG will it take for Bush's "redemption"? 40 years? 60? 100?
Truman became fairly beloved by ATLEAST the early 60s (only 10 years after leaving office)...and he's the "model" you Bush Cultists seem to go by.
So why will it take half-a-lifetime or better to redeem Bush?!??!?!?
Posted by Mask at 06/03/2008 @ 8:14pm
Hi Mask,
I have no answers for you on this.
I was not yet alive when Truman was President, so I can only see the history describing his low approval at that time. I did not have the ability to experience it for myself, to be able to comment from personal observation on his low approval.
What ever I say in defense of President Bush will be disagreed with by those who hate him. Whatever people who condemn him say about him will be disagreed with by me. So it is a circular loop-de-loop with no exit.
The one unique thing in play regarding President Bush that was not a factor with Truman is the effect of the circumstances of the 2000 election.
It is contended by some he stole the election. There is no point in commenting about that, in terms of the fact that I and others say that is not true at all. Anybody that thinks he did steal the election will not agree with what I say, and I do not agree with what they say, and again we would be going in circles.
One thing independent of opinion about stealing or not stealing, that maybe could be agreed upon by you perhaps, is that the election kicked off a fury among those who were not his supporters to begin with, the intensity of which became greater than just the normal dislike for somebody they opposed.
Most people are not happy when their candidate does not get elected, but the circumstances of 2000 drove President Bushs' detractors beyond "not happy" to a much more intense level, and any action since then has been affected by that.
Obviously my opinion is that the rage about 2000 is not warranted, and the election was not stolen, but for somebody who believes it was they are not going to stop having rage on my say so. So my opinon is not a factor here.
So this is just a possible answer, a theory and I have no more theory beyond this. What could lend some credibilty to my theory is that some people would say it is just because of the war in Iraq and what I would say is what I originally opened with to begin with - that the flak President Bush receives is greater that what I have seen others recieve and so it includes Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon for whom opposition to Vietnam caused the flak (or for LBJ all of the flak he got, for Nixon only some because also the circumstance of Watergate). In other words I think the Bush hatred is driven by more than just the war in Iraq.
I am actually quite interested in what you may think about my comment because I have not quite figured you out. It seems from your posts that you play devil's advocate with just about everybody be they lib or conservative.
Maybe you are contrary by nature or maybe you are playing devil's advocate on purpose to get people to defend what they have said, either left or right, in which case you are acutally providing a valuable service by getting people to articulate their beliefs better.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/03/2008 @ 9:00pm
To those of you who support Senator John McCain, remember Bush's "Bring it on!" moment. Then consider McCain's, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran!" moment, referencing the Beach Boys. Consider what it morally means to support a person who would take the horrors of war in such a mocking, sarcastic way. Is this REALLY the man you want in charge of our weary troops? Or would you rather have someone who is arguing for a halt to designating our soldiers who are victims of post traumatic stress diagnosed as having "personality disorders" in order to same $$ for our government that lied them into the war in the first place.
I would argue that there is a MORAL element to this presidential election
Posted by PrairieDeb at 06/03/2008 @ 9:34pm
It was unbelievable to me the pathetic coverage of Obama's momentous win. And to consider the fact that both McCain and Clinton have been whining about how Obama has had biased coverage. PATHETIC! All I could see was a narcissistic Clinton making it all about her (probably to garner more donations to offset her 20 million dollar debt to her) and McCain who tried to convince Americans that HE was an agent of change. Again--Pathetic! This was an historical occurrence that America will never see again in the near future and the PATHETIC PUNDITS got it wrong as usual. Pathetic.
Oh yeah, hail to the tone-deaf former first lady and the bomb, bomb Iran guy is just what we want to talk about tonight. This would not be the case if it was Clinton whining--I mean--winning. The media has implicitly maligned Obama again and again. Pathetic!
In opposition to pernicious, pathetic pundits--PERIOD!
Posted by PrairieDeb at 06/04/2008 @ 12:08am
I don't understand, Wolfgang. Fair is fair. If Obama wins there will be misery for the country with him as president, after we surrender in Iraq and Obama implements as much socialism as he can. Wouldn't it be only fair for Obama to be miserable, too? Why should he be the only one in the country who is not miserable?
Posted by sjchermak at 06/3/2008
You are right. Fair is fair. He ran for president and if he becomes president, he's picking his own poison. The next president, whether that person be democrat or republican has one hell of a mess to clean up. That mess was caused by George W Bush, not the dems, not Bill or Hillary Clinton, or Reagan, but this Bush administration.
The econonmy is in the toilet, the oil companies now have a firm grip on the global economy and have proven they can pretty much do what the hell they feel like, and we have W at least partially to blame for this. Instead of encouraging other methods of transportation in the U.S. or the use of other types of fuel, Bush removed or relaxed fuel standards for vehicles as well as pollution controls. He deregulated whatever oversight we had over the energy companies and at the same time allowed businesses to run rampant with zero checks on their business practices such as the subprime mortgage mess as well as hedge funds which can still crash the economy.
So, yes, I feel somewhat sorry for the next president and especially a democrat president who is going to have an uphill fight to undo all of the damage done by this administration. If you can't see that George W Bush was a bad president, you haven't been living on this planet for the last 7 and counting years.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/04/2008 @ 07:22am
FZ -- Actually, most US company cars for export are mods for the international market. Almost no nation will import native US vehicles because of their poor fuel performance. Pretty good, huh?
Sjerkmak
two items: 1) GWB was not elected President in 2000, he was appointed by an improper action of the SCOTUS (as in, beyond their actual authority) so yeah, some folks kinda take exception to that. and 2) he has earned his place in infamy by showing blatant disregard for the laws of the land (illegal wiretaps, circumvention of habeus corpus, "signing statements" which claim absolution for HIM with respect to the parts of laws that don't apply to the POTUS) .. shall I go on? If anything the nation hasn't gone near far enough. He should at least have been censured, and most imprisoned. But then again, there's still time .. I don't believe their is a time limit on war crimes, nor treason.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/04/2008 @ 4:25pm
Hi Wolfgang,
I, of course, when I am talking about misery the country will experience if Obama were president, I am referring to the misery that will be of his creation. The effects of surrender in Iraq, push toward socialism that will ruin the economy, etc.
You, of course, know what I was getting at but you put your twist of the reason for misery under Obama.
And I, of course, know what you are getting at, and you know I do not agree with your "twist" and that you do not agree with mine.
So we are just using the subject of misery under Obama as props for saying the same things we have been saying all along anyway.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/04/2008 @ 4:42pm