Oh, my. There's a place in Munich that's just great for scenery like that, not to mention the great beer. Can't remember the name... how I wish I were there, right now. D&D. Go Have a Beer!
No. Because it was downright rude to sell this war, to get into this war, to fight the war like it's been fought, and to become so tied up in it that the personal becomes more important than the well-being of the country. All of this is perfectly illustrated by this exchange. (And neither can we go back to covering up for pedophiles.) And on the mc thing, eh, I'll accept that. After all, it is easy to make you dance... just have to throw a little truth out there.
why the rush to judgement Sam? one can only assume, since you've been pushing this line from the very beginning, that you want us to fail if you didn't, surely you would offer alternatives, along with your heartfelt criticisms. the lack of any such alternatives, other than those which dovetail so neatly with the goals of our enemies, again suggests that you are much more interested in making george bush look bad than defeating america's enemies. yes, i have supported this war from its inception, and continue to do so. there have certainly been mistakes, as there are in all wars. but mistakes are not a rationale for not fighting. and your definition of mistake differs greatly from mine. my biggest complaint tho, is the dem/left refusal to understand that this is america's fight, and not george bush's. Bush has been a poor salesman in that regard; he's got a "if we build it they will come mentality" which is ill-suited to the internet 24 hour carp-cycle. you may succeed in damaging bush's record, reputation and presidency. but the damage to this country will be far greater if we don't complete our victory. so sam, how would you get there from here?
Fairy tales can come true, it can happen to you If youre young at heart For its hard, you will find, to be narrow of mind If youre young at heart
Stop being such an asswipe for ten seconds. Can you go one post without accusing somebody of hating america? I did not want America to fail, that's why I thought this was the wrong war, fought in the wrong way, at the wrong time. I thought it was bad for america. Am I satisfied to have been validated? Sure, on a certain level I am - because at least it brings accountability and, in theory, a lesson to avoid future catastrophic mistakes and avoid future misery and suffering. However, I would have preferred that it not happen at all - that's what i said BEFORE the fact. I don't know what, if any, significance "feelings" play in terms of influencing events, really none. But since I answered, let me ask you this: Are you ashamed and embarrassed at having been so arrogant and stupid as to support a war that has turned out so badly? To have been SO very wrong about SO many things? It won't affect anything either way, but indulge me please The war itself was the mistake, you need to look up the difference between tactics and strategy. Jesus christ basso, this a FRIGGING BASKETBALL BBS, I can't do any damage to the President here, only note the damage that he has already done to himself, by means of denial and delusion like the kind you exhibit, to a bunch of internet geeks.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15990689/site/newsweek/ No Pandering Here Virginia Senator-elect Jim Webb is the rare Washington figure who doesn't suck up to power. WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY By Eleanor Clift Newsweek Updated: 2:42 p.m. CT Dec 1, 2006 Dec. 1, 2006 - Every so often a politician comes along who doesn’t pander to the president. Fresh off a nasty campaign that centered on the war in Iraq, Virginia Senator-elect Jim Webb had no interest in a picture of himself with President Bush, and he didn’t want to exchange small talk with the man whose war policies he opposes. So he skipped the receiving line at a White House reception for newly elected members of Congress, creating the first of what we should all hope will be many ripples in Washington. Webb’s* presumed snub of Bush is rare enough in a city where everybody who’s anybody has a glory wall, and social occasions are geared to a parade of picture taking. But what happened next is where the story really takes off. President Bush, spying Webb across the room, walked over to him and asked, “How’s your boy?” Webb’s son is a Marine in Iraq. A more seasoned politician might have been flattered that the president knew his son was in the line of fire and bothered to ask about him. That wouldn’t be Webb, a best-selling author who got into electoral* politics for primarily one reason, his opposition to the Iraq war. “I’d like to get them out of Iraq,” he replied, according to several published accounts. “That’s not what I asked you,” Bush said, repeating his question: “How’s your boy?” Webb’s reply: “That’s between me and my boy.” Afterward, a source told The Hill newspaper that Webb was so angered by the exchange he was tempted to slug the guy. That might have prompted the Secret Service to pull their weapons, which wouldn’t have been the first time Webb, a highly decorated Vietnam combat veteran, faced the barrel of a gun. A quirky individualist who wants no part of the phony collegiality of Washington, Webb was rightly insulted when Bush pressed him in that bullying way—“That’s not what I asked you”—trying to force the conversation back to Webb’s son. Webb could have asked how the Bush girls are doing, partying their way across Argentina. He could have told Bush he was worried about his son; the vehicle next to him was blown up recently, killing three Marines. Given the contrast between their respective offspring, Webb showed restraint. But that’s not how much of official Washington reacted. Columnist George F. Will was the most offended, declaring civility dead and Webb a boor and a “pompous poseur.” Were the etiquette police as exercised when Vice President Dick Cheney told Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy to perform an anatomically impossible act on the Senate floor? Or is that amusing by Washington’s odd standards? Webb told The Washington Post that his intention was not to offend Bush or the institution of the presidency but that “leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is.” By standing up to Bush, Webb became a hero to a lot of people who voted against this president and this war, and whose views have been sidelined for six years. Symbols matter. Bush certainly understands their importance, or he wouldn’t have jetted onto that carrier in a flight suit and stood in front of a banner that proclaimed MISSION ACCOMPLISHED more than a thousand days and thousands more deaths ago. A president snubbed by a junior senator-elect and then, more tellingly by the puppet prime minister in Iraq, should be wondering where he went wrong, not the other way around. It’s justice long overdue for a president who has so abused the symbols of war to get his comeuppance from a battlefield hero who personifies real toughness as opposed to fake toughness. Bush struts around with this bullying frat-boy attitude, and he gets away with it because nobody stands up to him. Bush could have left Webb’s initial response stand, but no, he had to jab back—“That’s not what I asked you.” Webb is not one to be bullied. He knows what real toughness is, and it’s not lording it over people who are weaker than you, and if you’re president, everybody by definition is weaker. The lords of Washington will say that Webb got off to a rocky start, but so did Paul Wellstone, another iconoclastic citizen turned politician who dared to violate social protocol. It was another Bush and another gulf war, but Wellstone’s initial impropriety set the stage for what turned out to be a distinguished and even inspirational career that was tragically cut short by a plane crash four years ago. A professor of political science at Minnesota’s Carleton College, Wellstone was antiwar even then and had run on a progressive platform. At a White House reception in 1991 for newly elected members, Wellstone used his time in the receiving line with President George H.W. Bush to press his opposition to the first gulf war that loomed on the horizon and to urge more attention to education and health care. After he moved through the line, Bush was overheard saying, “Who is this chickens--t?” It's a sentiment the son surely shares.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SlkPXClXBIE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SlkPXClXBIE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Oh, I think Jim Webb is personally safe, despite the lese majeste. He has (or will have) the shield of the Senate. But I would worry about his son, the one who is currently serving in Iraq: Bush as Commander in Chief has the power to send the kid on a suicide mission. In fact, that may have been the reason for asking about Webb's son. Bush loves to intimidate and mortify other people in public -- remember "Pootie Poot"? -- probably as compensation for his own massive inferiority complex. He also loves to set hooks into other people (see Colin Powell). By asking about Webb's son, Bush accomplishes both things by effectively saying to Webb, "If you kiss my *ss, your son will live." Yes, Bush is perfectly capable of being that hateful, that merciless, and that evil.
And yes, Jim Webb has huge cojones for not instantly crumbling under Bush's threat. (I doubt Bush himself was smart enough to come up with that subtle a threat. But Cheney is, and so is Karl Rove.)
Back when this thing started, Objective A was to defeat the Iraqi Army and remove Saddam from his position as a murderous dictator who threatened his neighbors and his own people. Although there was little doubt that the American led coalition would eventually win, there was a serious and sobering feeling that the war would be extremely costly and judging from the events of the Iran/Iraq war that weapons of mass destruction would be used against Americans. The relief of a quick and decisive move into Bahgdad felt like a victory, that that particular mission was accomplished. It's hard to remember now, it was so long ago and looks so insignificant in hindsight but yes, we were victorious over Saddam.
Am i correct then in assuming you feel defeat is an acceptable outcome since the it was a mistake (IYHO) to have fought at all?
Why do the semantics of it matter? Whether or not it was acceptable, due to a combination of many factors some beyond our control and some wholly within our control "defeat", or at least a lack of the accomplishment of the initial goals, is pretty much inevitable at this point, and that is not jsut the assessment of left wing fellow traveler b****es, that has been the assessment from across the spectrum - from Jim Baker to the Mossad, to the US Army to whoever, for a period of years now. If 'defeat' is so unacceptable then why do you not blame the President and the administration responsible for it, not just for the mistakes they made but for their utter failure in emphasizing how important it is to win? I am not jsut talking about words, such as claiming it's important, but actions. If winning this war is as important as WWII, why are we cutting taxes and running up debts and not buying body armor? Where is the food rationing and mass mobilization? Why was everythinhg done on the cheap? Why were political appointees and ideologues allowed to dominate the reconstruction process? You mock Charles Rangel whenever he brings up the idea of the draft - primarily for emphasizing shared sacrifice - I haven't really had to sacrifice anything for this war and I know very few people not in or connected with the military who have.
a question of semantics? hardly. a) we haven't lost, yet, which is why i find it so amazing that you would continue to act as if we had, and to advocate a course of action that would make defeat a reality. my supposition would have been that, as an american, you would find the defeat of the US to be unacceptable. i asked you to prove my assumption incorrect; you've merely reinforced it. and you list of requirements for "winning" assumes that total mobilization is that only path to victory. perhaps the administration thought there were lessons to be learned from previous foreign invasion of arab/middle eastern countries. the strategy worked in afghanistan- iraq has obviously been less successful, but there's much we could be doing that we haven't been. putting pressure on iran and syria, taking a harder line w/ al sadr, among others. and the armor thing is simply a red herring. if you've bothered to do any reading beyond the confines of the daily kos/times, you'd know that there really hasn't been an armor "shortage." but bush has done a notably poor job of using the tools at his disposal to rally domestic public opinion. i think he recognized at a certain point that there was a significant swath of the left that just wouldn't be persuaded, and he stopped trying. no excuse IMHO, but the perception is accurate.
Well, despite the fact that you don't want to admit it, the US Army and everybody else who has studied the situation closely has also lowered expectations as has the Bush Administration, so if you want to move the goal posts and then pretend like it didn't happen that four years ago the desired end result was much different (and now unattainable) - there's nothing I can say about it. I mean a few years ago you were crowing your ass off about the Bush Doctrine working and democracy in lebanon and freedom being on the march. Fast forward to a few months later you're jumping for joy as Israel sends Lebanon back to the future by blowing up all their roads and pretty much draining the anti-Syrian government of any credibility. You seem to have drastically recalibrated your expectations as well. Therefore you are a defeatist, according to your own logic. Yeah and if we rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic the leak might get plugged....btw I thought that with the elimination of Zarqawi we were going to break the back of the insurgency, now I guess Sadr is the one who will do it? Yeah I'm sure making him a martyr would really turn things around. And by the way the Afghanistan strategy several years later is not looking so hot there either. Uh, there is substantial documentation that proves otherwise. Not just body armor, but when troops are raiding junkyards to armor plate their vehicles, sometehing is not right. That' s just an example anyway. The fact is we were utterly unprepared to occupy the country from the bottom to the very top of the chain. Troops were not trained for it, and officers did not want or know how to do it, and the top officials did not think it would be necessary. That is a substantial failure, one of our own making. Thanks for answering my concern about sacrifice, in which you stated that the only sacrifice you think Americans should have to make is to pipe down blindly follow the President down with the ship.
