William Buckley- The American objective in Iraq has failed.

It's about time to invite Iran to come in as an ally. It would solidify the Shia sects and would focus the Sunni sects on thr Iranians. We could fall back to Baghdad and Kurdistan. It would shore up our relations with Iran and would drain their resources.

Yes I am giving up on a secular democratic Iraq, but Bill gave up first.

 

Not a word from the Defenders of All Things Bush? An assault from the august William F. Buckley on the President and his policies, and Buckley hasn't been ridiculed, attacked, and dismissed yet? I guess everyone is busy, busy, busy.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Buckley and Fukuyama have obviously been infected by liberal brain viruses

 

Remember, Bush is the paradigm flipper.
Adventurism, Internationalism and deficit spending are traditionally liberal tacts, but 9/11 changed everything.

He leaves the Democrats no choice but to run on a platform of isolationism, protectionism and a balanced budget.

Wierd huh?

 

Why is Buckley supporting the terrorists?

 

coz he's a fringe idiot libpig

 

all out civil war is great if your trying to make money (haliburton).
and dick's stock options keep rising and rising.

 

Prepare the noose for Bill Buckley, the Cowardly Traitor

An important and long-overlooked point about the depravity, corruption and truly un-American impulses which define so many Bush followers is revealed by a comparison of these two statements:

Howard Dean, December 5, 2005

Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years. . . .

"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."

William F. Buckley, Jr. in The National Review, yesterday

One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. . . .

Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. . . . .

[Bush] will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies. Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat. . . .

These statements, made within a little over two months of each other, are almost identical. If anything, Buckley's statements are a much more emphatic declaration of defeat.

When Dean stated two months ago that we were not winning in Iraq and could not win, Bush followers trotted out their common but literally deranged rhetoric of accusing anyone who opposes the war in Iraq (or Bush terrorism policies) of being a coward, of committing treason, and being a traitor to their country. Indeed, since 2002, Bush followers have been regularly accusing their political opponents who oppose that war of subversion and treason, even as a majority Americans have come to oppose the war in Iraq.

In light of Buckley’s comments, let’s review some of the reaction among Bush followers to Dean’s identical comments about Iraq just two short months ago:

Jim Geraghty, writing in Bill Buckley’s own National Review:

The unified message from the President and GOP surrogates is, "Victory! Elections! They stand up, we stand down!" The message from at least the Dean wing of the Democratic party is, "Withdraw! Defeat! Withdraw! Defeat!"

I think any statement from a national leader that sounds like, "we have been defeated in Iraq" is political nitroglycerin. Families of the troops will be livid at the suggestion that their sons and daughters have failed to achieve their mission.

Should families of the troops be "livid" at Bill Buckley?

Michelle Malkin, the day after Dean's comments:

"Howard the Coward"

The Jawa Report, the day after Dean's comments:

Howard Dean Traitor and Ally to Zaqueery

OK Mr. Traitor, Howie says Mr. Bush is not our enemy. Drop me a line when you wake up to who the actual enemy is. Once again the Left attacks America and gives terror a free pass.

Ben Shapiro, in an essay bearing the all-American title: "Should we prosecute sedition?" (h/t Hume's Ghost)

Much of the language of the "loyal opposition" has been anything but loyal. . .

Howard Dean, the head of the DNC, averred in December that the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

At some point, opposition must be considered disloyal. At some point, the American people must say "enough." At some point, Republicans in Congress must stop delicately tiptoeing with regard to sedition and must pass legislation to prosecute such sedition.

And then here was Michael Reagan-- who just happened to appear as guest host on Hannity & Colmes last night, appropriately sitting in for Sean Hannity -- issuing this death sentence for Howard Dean due to Dean's observation (now echoed by Bill Buckley) that we are not winning in Iraq:

Michael Reagan, son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is blasting Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean for declaring that the U.S. won't be able to win the war in Iraq, saying Dean ought to be "hung for treason."

"Howard Dean should be arrested and hung for treason or put in a hole until the end of the Iraq war!" Reagan told his Radio America audience on Monday. Reagan was reacting to Dean's comments earlier in the day, when the top Democrat said that the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

All of these declarations of treason and calls for criminal prosecution against Dean were based exclusively on his statement that we were not winning in Iraq -- exactly the same statement Buckley made yesterday.

This grotesque exploitation for domestic political gain of patriotism, loyalty and bravery is the single most frequently used rhetorical tactic of Bush followers over the last five years. During this same time, we have been hearing all sorts of complaints about the "Angry Left." Similarly, that the "lefty blogosphere" is composed of enraged, epithet-spewing cretins has become the newly unveiled conventional wisdom among the status-threatened establishment media. And yet, it has become so common as to be routine for Bush followers to stridently accuse their domestic political opponents of being cowards, subversives and traitors, and, increasingly, to call for their imprisonment and/or execution.

While Michael Reagan’s statement about Dean surely was -- in one sense -- one of the single most despicable comments from any political figure in the last decade (and was condemned by virtually nobody), in another sense his comment was not really all that notable. Bush followers have made it a regular staple of our political dialogue for critics of the war in Iraq and/or Bush’s terrorism policies to be accused of subversion and treason.

This is a real question: by the standards which have become commonplace among Bush followers, isn’t Bill Buckley clearly a traitor? We are (of course) in the middle of a war. That war (in Iraq) is the central front in another war we're fighting (the War on Terror, a/k/a the War of Civilizations, World War III, World War IV, the Long War). To surrender in Iraq is -- to use the White House's formulation -- to "surrender to the terrorists." Bill Buckley is clearly on the other side - the side of terrorists. And what a coward he is.

Worse, there are American troops in harm’s way and here is Bill Buckley declaring that Bush has lost the war and should acknowledge America's defeat. Doesn’t Buckley owe the troops an apology? He should be spat on by the families of those troops.

This really is the lowly point to which Bush followers have dragged this country. To oppose the American war in Iraq -- a war that is turning out to be the greatest and most disastrous strategic mistake this country has ever made – has long been sufficient for one to be branded a coward and a subversive. To question the President’s policies on terrorism has resulted in even more severe accusations.

Bill Buckley has now unmasked himself as a cowardly, anti-American ally of Al Qaeda. He wants to wave the white flag to terrorists, and has sabatoged the Commander-in-Chief’s war effort by declaring it a failure. Shouldn’t we bring criminal charges against Buckley, along with demands that he be hanged? On what ground can any of the Bush followers who have long equated opposition to the war with subversion and treason -- and who branded Howard Dean a traitor for a statement identical to the one Buckley made -- oppose those efforts?

The great patriot and American hero Ben Shapiro can prepare Buckley’s noose while that brave American warrior Michael Reagan places the hood over his head and those lovers of American values Michelle Malkin and John Hinderaker lead the throngs as they yell "traitor" and "coward" at Buckley while his neck snaps. That’s the horrendous image which has come to represent the sad, almost-psychotic state of political dialogue which Bush followers have imposed on our country. And that’s just one of the comparatively small harms which the Bush movement has inflicted on America which is going to take quite some time to repair.

posted by Glenn Greenwald | 10:14 AM *

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/02/prepare-noose-for-bill-buckley.html

 

The difference is that Buckley objectively assessed the situation and made a value judgment based on what he thought was happening. The libpigs on the other hand have done nothing but declare defeat before anything even materialized. They jumped to a premature conclusion (that was wrong, and continues to be wrong) because they hate Bush. They then selectively highlight tidbits of information that they think validates their wishful thinking -- that Iraq turns into a disaster. How sad and pathetic is that? What the libs want is for their whines and complaints (all politically motivated) to take on a life of their own, and to pollute the thoughts of decision makers. They figure that if enough Bush-haters shout loud enough, that they can convince the weak-minded, ill-informed political followers that things really are as bad as the libs are making them out to be. We are fortunate to have President Bush in office. He is strong enough to stand by his decisions and not let a loud, vocal faction with axes to grind influence his decision making. He stands by his beliefs, even in the face of the malicious lies and criticisms that are put forth by the politically disgruntled libs.

The liberals have treated the media and internet as an open sewer to dump their anti-military success message on America for years now. They have gleefully pounced on the mosque bombing story, in hopes that this partially validates their hypothesis that our troops will fail in Iraq. How sickening is this situation -- that anger drives them to such repulsive depths?

Whose cause does the liberals' complaining really serve? That right there is telling...

 

By the way, where were the liberals in Torino, disparaging the efforts of our athletes and highlighting every failure of Americans in the Olympics? Seems to me if they wanted to be consistent with their treatment of our military's efforts, they would be over there proclaiming failure in Italy, just like they are in Iraq.

Oh, I guess it didn't serve their political cause...

 

I am almost speechless. I am truly blown away that Jorge had the balls to post in this thread and even more that he still has the gall to stick to his old liberals hate America and love terrorists crap, damning us and defending Buckley for the exact same position.

The only difference between Buckley and the rest of us is that it took him a hell of a lot longer to see and/or admit what was going on over there.

Incredibly, Iraq war opponents here and elsewhere have been right on every single issue concerning this war, from the very beginning. Equally incredibly war proponents have somehow been wrong on every single issue. Do a search on the BBS here. You'll find hundreds, probably even thousands of pages of debate on this war each bearing this out. You will find zero refuting it. To Jorge, who has been flatly and repeatedly wrong on every angle of this story, this was somehow a series of lucky guesses fueled by blind partisan hate. Somehow, through nothing but animus towards Bush, we were right about everything. Pretty amazing coincidence. Even more amazing, we're still being scolded by the wrong guy for having been right.

Meanwhile, Buckley -- who is finally saying exactly what we've been saying since the beginning -- comes to opposition to the war honestly and we don't? Give me a freaking break. Buckley finally comes around to admitting we were right and he's "objectively assessed the situation and made a value judgment based on what he thought was happening." We warned you guys about virtually every single thing that's happened, but we've "done nothing but declare defeat before anything even materialized."

Note to Jorge: It's not hindsight when we warn you in advance.

 

You are a crazy person.

In Jorge's world if you don't insist the Rockets have been 82-0 for all of franchise history, you heart the Jazz.

 

Note to Batman: It's not foresight when every word out of your mouth directed to our military's mission is negative and you jump all over a low-point in the effort caused by terrorists bombing a mosque and declare it an intellectual victory for yourself. That type of "our military's loss is my personal gain" thinking is a sign of a deeply troubling *personal* issue that you have with this Administration. You are so weak minded that you declare defeat at the first sign of failure. This isn't failure. It's a set back, no doubt about it, but some of us choose to have confidence in our military that they can weather the storm and bring positive change to Iraq. Obviously it takes time and will have bumps in the road. The liberals foolishly expect it to happen instantly, and anything that occurs that delays positive change is seen as a victory in their eyes. It's simply wishful thinking on their part. It's also ill-informed thinking and unfair to the process of radically changing a country's system of government.

 

Exactly. I could just envision this in my head:

Batman: Mosque bombed!! Civil War!! I TOLD YOU SO
*batman retreats to Daily Kos for his next talking points*

 

ATTENTION ALL READERS:

The above is a a communication from the SMARTEST PERSON IN THE WORLD.

Don't believe me? Just ask him.

 

By the way, the "Prepare the Noose" provocation from Batman Jones was straight from DailyKos. What else is new. Zero cred.

 

whose cause does bush's "leadership" really serve, cause it aint amer'ca's?

 

So you and T-Jorge concede that months/years ago Batman accurately forecasted the horrendous waste of human life and resources in Iraq as a result of the policies you endorsed? And that you were wrong to insist otherwise?

Man, you have been admitting a lot of this stuff lately. Good for you!