Letters to the Editor
-
Also, PR
"It wasn't unpopular (check the elections). "
Check the election of 2004.
-
By 'PR,' I meant
...public relations, not Paul Rosenberg.
-
Neocons never make mistakes
Rcastanon
“The ride is over, they cannot try to fool the country by manufacturing support for the war. That battle is lost. Let's hope they will understand that the biggest mistake they can make is NOT facing reality and get the hell out of Iraq.”
It should be clear by now that the neocons and RWAs never make mistakes. You can count on the mantra changing to, we did all we could, but the generals found the winning tactics too late, the Iraqis couldn’t agree and fulfill their promises and the Dems gave the enemy too much courage by admitting defeat. Assigning any normal, humble character qualities to these arrogant sycophants is a futile exercise.
-
Truly amazing.
Pretending to be a war opponent notwithstanding one's support for the war seems to be a trend today (though not only today). And it is amazing, though it should not be, how easily manipulated the media is by this tactic.
You have no idea how prevalent this is. Ask around. No one voted for Bush in 2004. It's truly amazing.
-
'measurable metrics?'
Is there any other kind of metric?
-
How dare you insult Soupy Sales with this comparison!
(Or maybe, Soupy Sales.)
You will do the Soupy Shuffle for ten hours straight as penitence.
-
Settle down, anonymous!
I only meant he might be like Soupy, in that he might actually be a comedian, instead of a think tank war monger blowhard pseudointellectual pundit jerkoff.
But I'll do the shuffle, if it'll help. ;-)
-
Analyst Math
Oh please, please tell me an oft-quoted, respected (?) analyst didn't perform this calculation in all seriousness:
end of war = military est of # of insurgents/rate insurgents killed or arrested per day
done!
-
Meet the new boss..
It's almost like they're just taunting us now.
Watching Countdown on MSNBC, with Richard "fabulous job" Wolffe:
Olbermann: What happened at the Brookings Institution? Two analysts came back after a week [in Iraq] with glowing reviews of the impact of the Surge?
Wolffe: Well, it's curious. Michael O'Halloran is a, uh, a serious guy, a defense analyst.
It's almost like he's saying: "Dammit, I am going to keep using this word until you agree that it means the same thing that I say it does!"
-
The Plan DID Work...
Unfortunately, the Plan ended with the Fall of Baghdad. It's everything after that that's gone to shit, because Rumsfeld not only didn't plan for the postwar period, he threatened to fire any general who brought it up.
-
Surender monkeys in full retreat
Sorry you lefties, the surrender monkeys are now in full retreat.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.
Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.
Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.
Reference:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380.html
-
Are they being genuine?
The authors of the op-ed advocated for the illegal invasion of Iraq. They claimed they criticized the mishandling of the war but wrote rosy articles about the situation in Iraq anyway. The Dems are moving little by little to cut off funding for the occupation and withdrawing or redeploying of the troops. The authors then go to Iraq for several days and return to write the op-ed stating that there has been significant progress in Iraq. The authors then conclude the op-ed by saying that the Iraq occupation should be handed over to the next president. I think they’re looking for some sort of vindication as is everyone who advocated for the illegal invasion.
And if Iraq is doing so well, shouldn't the troops start redeploying now?
-
Third Cousins
lupercus slyly asks:
'measurable metrics?'
Is there any other kind of metric?
Well, there could be Heisenbergian ones, I suppose, whose wave functions just might could collapse where the sun don't shine.
Third cousins to Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns," I suppose.
-
Charge of the surrender monkeys?
Surender monkeys in full retreat
Sorry you lefties, the surrender monkeys are now in full retreat.
Is that a retreat to the front or an advance to the rear?
-
More Neo-Confederate Big Lies
John Wilkes Booth:
On the subject of expansive new executive powers, which part of the Constitution gave Lincoln the right to issue the Emancipation Proclamation?
Lincoln made this clear within the text of the Emancipation Proclamation itself:
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, in time of actual armed rebellion against authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:....
(You can always tell you've got yourself a hardcore racist neo-confederate when they try to portray the Emancipation Proclamation as unconstitutional!)
Or to jail press critics without trial?
That's a trick quesstion. In times of invasion or rebellion, the President as commander in chief has broad powers to preserve the union, which cannot be entirely specified in advance. Whether an arrest was preventing legitimate free speech, or preventing the instigation of immediate acts of war or rebellion are matters that the courts must ultimately decide. For a war of limited duration and prima facie immediacy, the law is much more likely to grant the President the benefit of the doubt. For war without end and enemies unseen, not so much.
And do you seriously not believe that a parliamentary democracy is not a feature of a more civilized way of life than a tribal dictatorship?
We didn't invade Iraq to bring them a parliamentary democracy. We invaded Iraq to gain control of their oil, expand our empire and install con-man Ahmed Chalabi. It was only after we invaded that our leaders started to realize the need for Plan "B"--which, of course, they didn't have.
"It wasn't unpopular (check the elections). "
Check the election of 2004.
Check the election of 2006. And you ain't seen nothin' yet.