And Still More Obama: On Iraq

Joe

Glad to see that you now realize that Bush's war is and always have been foolish.

Welcome back from the dark side.

Speaking of McCain and Iraq, didn't he say something about the different factions there and their allegiances to Iran yesterday? Anybody at Time with the time/foreign policy background going to comment on it? Bueller?

Pretty clever of him; the always-murky Iraq dialogue came just right after the spotlight-hogging race speech. At least he had some valid points against McPinhead's facile arguments.

new poll suggests that most Americans believe the cost of the war is hurting the economy.

Perhaps the fact that we're on the verge of a major recession might have drawn more attention than what has been paid in the last five years.

Anyone with eyes could have seen this coming for years, but the desire on the part of media conglomerates to avoid rocking the boat, lest people decide they can't afford TGIFridays this week has kept the financial effect of the war carefully under wraps for quite a while now.

QH copy/paste in 3... 2.... 1....

WHoops! He did it again

He is so committed to whipping up this al qaeda thing that he can't stop doing it.

This is not gaffe. At this point, you have to consider these either deliberate lies of massive incompetence. Imagine him at a summit, unable to get basic facts of 5 year old conflict right.

Paul Dirks' post reminds me of something I always wanted to ask Joe:

Joe, do you believe the reason Big News Media such as CNN went to sleep on the Iraq War-run-up, at times outright hyping it, for ratings? As in, they turned a blind eye to the obvious in exchange for what was guaranteed to be a ratings bonanza 5 years running now?

I've heard lots of excuses from the MSM on this. Some old-school journos have called it a "journalistic failure". Others, like douchebag pundit James Poniewhatever said it was all the "citizens'" fault for being "too darn patriotic" after 9/11. I'm not in the MSN, but I personally believe that CNN et al. simply wanted billions instead of millions. What do you think?

Clearly, Iraq is now an economic as well as a security issue, but Obama chooses to place his emphasis on what he calls a "security gap"--

Perhaps because Obama was giving a security speech today and is giving an economic one tomorrow.

He's still not honestly addressing what might happen in we leave too soon and commit to a fixed timetable instead of gradual withdrawal with a period between each scheduled withdrawal to assess the damage.

I know HRC has basically said the same thing about time tables, but Obama has made his opposition to the war his main selling card on the war.

There is so little real analysis about how the surge actually works, as opposed to comments heralding the fact it apears to be working in the MSM. Will our "support" of certain militia groups harm us in the long run while it seems to be helping in the short term?

If the military is able to keep a lid on Iraq until after the election (and you have to wonder if deals are being cut left and right with different factions to just keep the peace for a while longer)then the only thing that will be of help to Obama (or Hillary) will be the cost of the war to the American taxpayer.

Of course I'm a Hillary supporter but I don't find Obama's speech better than HRC's.

I guess that Obama is now boiling the frog, specifically Clinton and McCain.

Neither one can approach him on the issue of race relations and his insight with any kind of authority. Neither one can spearhed this effort with any kind of credibility.

Neither one can compete with him on his Iraq assessment otherwise they would have done so. He alone is willing to explore the fact that this war in Iraq is playing into Al Quedas hands by using our own weight against us, a term I will use to describe it is Terror Judo. The goal is to suck us into a quagmire that ultimately hurts us financially as well as militarily and effectively undermines our security. It is hard to believe that Bin Laden didn't consider a economic startegy which might work to undermine our biggest strength the ecomony. The the metaphor I'd like to suggest is smashing fleas in a sand dune with a sledgehammer. Think of all the wasted energy expended for a few fleas.

What of the economy? I expect he will own this as well by arguing that a rapid pullout in Iraq under his leadership will help provide the break in the money stream to be diverted inwardly by enhancing the economic prospects and a new smarter, cheaper, faster, better war on terrorism.

How do you boil a frog, put it in cold water and slowly turn up the heat.

Jay, I completely agree with you.

I think McCain is totally obsessed with having a traditional "victory", with an actual day/hour/minute the other "side" surrendered on the official record. He's not a stupid man, but in his desire to refight the Viet Nam War he's completely refusing to face the facts of what this war is really about and how amorphous it is.

Joe:

You are flat wrong about ratings and war.

CNN beat the drums of war because they were promised "Shock and Awe." Everyone wanted to see the pretty night-vision fireworks, and the cable networks got 'em.

The martial music, the crawls, the flag-waving icons: yeah, that sure reflected disgust with the prospect of war.

Wake up, fool.

Obama also does a good job of painting Clinton into a corner for being McCain Light. But of course, she did most of the work for him by asserting that only she and McCain had passed the mythical e-Harmony C-in-C test.

Obama does need to continue to tie the war to the economy more explicitly, something he was doing well before the fake NAFTAgate flap.

in his desire to refight the Viet Nam War he's completely refusing to face the facts

Our host here (that would be Joe) is another one who's furiously trying to refight the Viet Nam war (at least insofar as he blames those drug-addled protesters for losing it for us) but he nevertheless is capable of keeping track of who our enemies are and can discuss the situation on the ground in a reasonable manner.

What's McCain's excuse?

So in five years, I guess, you'll decry the fact that we elected a President who doesn't even know AQ is Sunni?

It's getting very, very, very BLATANT now isn't it? Do you guys at least make Maverick take you to TGIF first? Or do you just hike up your skirts in the alley?

Although I am sympathetic to Obama's intellect and generally superior argumentation, I don't really see why pursuing a hopeless quest to root out Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan makes more sense than stealing oil in Iraq. Both appear to be very bad ideas.

Obama seems to think that he can win some kind of victory by plinking the right targets in Pakistan. This is nonsense. A deeply rooted political movement cannot be defeated by decapitation. Just watch "Battle of Algiers" for a short history lesson. The French completely wiped out the leadership of the Algerian resistance. But the French still left Algeria.

I'd also like to note that Joe's memory seems faulty on another point.

Even if we grant him credit for seeing the trouble brewing regarding nation building him and going wobbly taward the end, the media in general was 'and everyine was bragging about how the "embedding" would allow the viewers an unprecidented view of the "Action"

I still like to hold the Dixie Chick incident up as my primary example of just how irrational the environment was in '03 but it is just one piece of the puzzle. Anybody still remeber Judith Miller?

To deny that self interest had anything to do with the media cheerleading for the war is to once again, engage in putting self-interest before self-reflection.

But then again, we ARE talking about Joe....

Yikes.

I'd like to apologize for the utter scrambling of my previous post.

My point stated simply, is that Joe has forgotten just how crazy things were in March 2003 and that the media was indeed complicit in allowing the war to proceed.

the mythical e-Harmony C-in-C test.

That is superterrific.

I wonder which of the 29 areas of being totally wrong they matched in...

Thanks for the post, and the interaction with commenters, Joe.

Good link, jayackroyd.

That press release shows that it's a deliberate choice to deceive on McCain's part, rather than that he's lost touch with reality. It's an exact duplicate of the run-up to the Iraq invasion.

He is fundamentally unserious about national security.

Obama appears to evaluate national security questions based on reality, rather than fantasies about massive bad guy conspiracies or calculations about political viability. That's kind of nice.

Minnetonka changes (tentative) under a Senator Ali Frankless single terminal case...

>>> Paul Bunyan statue down. Saddam Hussein statue up.

>>> Call for state trooper withdrawal from Bemidji, since their tenured insurgent types and Pell Grant dependent Hey Ho Paul Headstone Eats Snow in-laws don't really want us there anyway.

>>> Minneapolis convention hookers required to meet 200-pound nude minimum before city certification.

>>> Political mail franking privileges doubled per linguistic proximity to last name.

>>> Stellar drug rehabs custom designed by still squealing family relations of deceased fellow Saturday Night Live chums.

>>> Babe The Blue Ox now referred to as Hot, Hot Babe The Very Blue Ox in 4-color state travel brochure.

>>> Updated I-35 bridge safety signs to read NO OVERSIZED LIMP LOADS beneath supersized Senate portrait.

>>> Chevy Chase promises to hilariously throw up on inaugural Birkenstocks of any DNC hack within ten thousand feet of his last lousy Vacation movie (now available on HD DVD).

>>> In the interest of safety, union local carpenter Dickies denim overalls to be replaced by day-glo Speedo wrestling thongs.

>>> Alec Baldwin designated as stunt double in the event of any unpleasant northern rural county sausage sucking contests.

>>> Change first name from Al to The Fat Azz Formerly Named Dork King.

>>> Riveting assassination jokes on Letterman will be supplemented with progressive stories about Communist cloning fairs and bisexual petting zoo stem cells.

>>> Chris Farley hot air balloon to replace VFW float during annual Veterans Day Parade in St. Paul.

>>> Broadway show tunes up the old Golden Gopher hole, if you know what I mean.

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies ... What happens there matters a great deal here ... for the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- MADDY HALFBLIGHT (D, CU) in 1999

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction ... Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein, because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- SENATOR JOHN Le KERRY (D, VN) in 2003

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- SENATOR TED KENNEDY (D, UI) in 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- GRANDMOTHER NANCY PELOSI (D, SY) in 1998

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- ASTRONUT AL GORE (D, F) in 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Queda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- SENATOR HILLARY RAMROD SHIKSA (D, CN) in 2002

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- SANFORD BERGLER (D, FX) in 1998

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: A rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
- BILL CLIXON (D, VD) in 1998

Oops, my bad.

Thought this was the Long Lost Howard Dean University Truth In Washington blog.

Oh well.

HILLARY HAPPENS.

...disco.

"The main reason why the media weren't more critical in the runup to the war was a failure to understand history. "

Ok, this didn't jump out at me at first but this is a total f@cking cop out. Failure to understand history? So, the media KNEW about the history of Western occupation of the ME post-Islam but didn't connect the dots?

"No, Vic. It's a common misconception that war sells. It doesn't. It's disastrous, in fact--advertisers simply don't want to be associated with it."

Ohhhhhh, I get it, the advertisers would have jumped at the chance to advertise on CNN or MSNBC if only they would've put some strong anti-war voices on the air prior to invasion. So really, if we're to believe you, cable news and the nets were showing incredible COURAGE by selling the war, their relationships w/ advertisers notwithstanding. No, those corporate sponsors were loathe to advertise on a station or newspaper that was engaging in 'rah rah' jingoistic flag waving right after 9/11...is this correct? You really believe that? Funny how they fired Phil Donahue over at MSNBC then isn't it? I'd be willing to entertain this idiotic statement if you and your colleagues had even made an attempt to following the money trail.

Reading you is a lot like watching HBO's 'In Treatment', you've made some progress here, but you've got a long way to go.

"Oh say can you see and hear me now, my fellow tenured Amnesians?

Anyhoo.

What I said, and have electoral college hope too, Pizza & Just Ice small mall franchise people, that one fine day I might carry a single NRA member state in the South or Midwest, and all that other buzzy buzz buzzword bogus news jazz from Old New York, as we are gathered here today in [name any empty AAFL arena] to dedicate our sadly non-union forces if not my own cute unemployable union constituents to the impending invasion of virtually tankless Canada.

Mind you, we can forgive Canuckistan their marginal comedy contributions to border security at Horseshoe Falls, that has kept Al Queda from rolling over the Martin Lawrence Seetheway into the bedrooms of Vermonters visiting mostly French relatives a tad north of Burlington's biggest political blowhard since OVM dropped their football program, but be ever mindful as the sun shines grayly through the massive winter snows of this awful Global Upstate Warmup season, that our men and gayer men in Clinton-era hot hot uniforms will do their Kerry duty fastest, just as so many future Kennedy kinsmen have done before, from the steamy shores of Paris to the steamy shorts of Hyannisport, but for the benefit of corn rows and corn stills alike, Allah Allah In Come Free Amen.

NAFTA is not a four-letter noun perhaps, but when splitting legal semantics and skipping floor votes I've learned through about a year of actual day job experience not federally EEOC funded for fans of Rezko Realty, that there's nothing like talking when action only seems to get in the way, and by my blessed Koran fed fealty of Farrakhan quiet rioting I will lead our shrill, strident shortly All Lesbian Armed Forces and their stunning Stirrup Pants Brigade, mightily helped by SecDef Dean and Ambassador to Rural America Oprah, in a media rousing, ever loud even foray for five minutes or so until we can relent to the sortie of metroshizzle feel good times that form the thin-skinned cornerstone of my borderline cowardly and certainly populist pinhead campaign.

Taking back Toronto from the Jews and Chinese may not make the world go away, but as Hillary so boldly showed us in Waco and Christina Airport, it does tend to keep poodle people from speculating on such sally matters as fiscal restitution, troop hemp readiness, blowout tax policy, freeish market growth, South Boston reparations, sustainable eco-families, and female facial hair.

I ask you all to partially pray for the remaining officers and senior NCO's that won't bolt from the Army and Marines the second I'm voted American Idle, and their bi-sexual next of California union dolt kin, as we move across the Manitoba wheat killing fields, into the rink dangers that are Winnipeg, and on to swishy Vancouver to once and for all trounce the many poor examples of late 70's architecture and gangling paved public parks, that have for too long been the bastion of undertaxed out of state freeloaders not on eBay skimming the profits from the vital public access medical channels that our Take A Number killer nurse mavens can't wait to replicate for total financial ruin, during my shining First 100 Days in incompetence and AARP collusion.

Faint not no more cold Wiscasset lager and cigarette crowds expecting a moral miracle, your selfish self-imposed hell of a whining suburban PTA period will soon be over, as the Grand Army of the Pelosi fords Hamilton Beach and Molson Wetlands, to unify the forces of mental goop, and rid ourselves of the Axis of Ice that empowers few but enshowers nuns when they get the new blue line rules, such rules being something we might soon assimilate whether we need to or not, for the goal being not just goals but excessive goals paper pusher burrocrat stockpiles speaking, so forever may it legal hack rain.

Give Me A "B", Give Me An "O", thanks for coming today and remember to vote for meesa and VEEP nom Cindy Shiite on November 14th against that old war hero Surge guy, singing off Stevie Wonder until free supper, Yours Truly Senator Q-Tip."

No, Vic.

Pretty funny. Looks like you guys are making progress on the snark front...

It's a common misconception that war sells. It doesn't.

As the Daily Show pointed out, seems like none of the cable news graphics departments got the memo on this...

WHAT COSTS MORE PER YEAR THAN THE IRAQ WAR?

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year. http://tinyurl.com/zob77

2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare and Social Services by the American taxpayers. http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two-and-a-half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the U.S. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border. Homeland Security Report. http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.' http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf

13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin. http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States'. http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

Total cost is a paltry... $338.3 BILLION A YEAR.

Admiral Obama and SecDef Dean will address these expenditures, as soon as they're back from cleaning up Kosovo and Waziristan on their magic flying hemp carpets.

Chuck Todd says, on NBC

[T]his was not a one-time slip and ... had Clinton or Obama done something like this, this would have been played on a loop, over and over.

Paging Howie Kurtz.

Chuck Todd says, on NBC

[T]his was not a one-time slip and ... had Clinton or Obama done something like this, this would have been played on a loop, over and over.

Paging Howie Kurtz.

Joe, I sort of have to disagree with you.

Nightline came into being due to the Iran Hostage situation.

CNN bot a big boost out of the first Gulf War.

I do think a long, protracted unpopular war hurts ratings in the long run.

Joe: "It's a common misconception that war sells. It doesn't. It's disastrous, in fact--advertisers simply don't want to be associated with it."

Ummm, BULLSH-T--a la SF Bear, show me the (lack of) money, that the theme music and jingoistic nonsense weren't top-sellers. Seriously, Joe, please pass along a study of this. I agree that 5 years in the media and more sadly yet Americans have gotten bored, but the above is quite a blanket statement.

Joe: "The main reason why the media weren't more critical in the runup to the war was a failure to understand history."

Ummm, BULLSH-T again. They weren't critical for the same reason politicians weren't--there was a collective bloodlust in the air compounded by a case of political/career expediency. Are you honestly telling me the educated media is dumber than the rest of us educated types in the blogosphere? Yeah, surely the "liberal" newspapers like the NYTs and WP have droves of staff who have never heard of Winston or seen Lawrence of Arabia. If it was a failure, it was a willful failure--an abdication in support of a rumbling monster of imperialism in a china shop.

Joe, you've been on the right side of many issues of late, but please spare us the b-s--particularly your closing riff about being partially right just prior to be royally f-ing wrong.

Whoops, sorry, wrong clip linked to above. This is the relevant one regarding cable news graphics departments:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=111539&title=media-blitz&byDate=true

"Unfortunately, yours truly got a little wobbly on the war as the invasion approached."

What was the impetus for your going wobbly then? The media's not understanding history? Or do you have some medical condition that makes you wobbly. One does not just go wobbly Joe, something MAKES you go wobbly.

These half measures won't do Joe...it's time to really come clean.

Obama and McCain would offer a decent choice, and a fair debate, far from the Clinton noise that has rudely and routinely fed the Matthews and Rather types but done little else to benefit our great nation (and the economic strengths of America don't excrete from DC, they come from the hard work of the free market in an educated and vital society that hopefully cares more about their neighbors and kids than they do whatever Paris or Heath swallowed last night).

Iraq and overall national security should dominate the discussion: Only the POTUS can send troops into battle and/or overseas, while domestic chores can be handled at much lower levels in the power structure -- and any conservative of merit will want exactly that, i.e. the feds worrying about national defense, and the states and localities doing most of the rest. As our population both grows and ages and diversifies, we need to come to grips with efficiencies that are best settled and funded by the states and regions, and not pork our way into political oblivion for the sake of votes alone (and Congressional term limits would help that, as they have at the state level).

The assumptions that Saddam was a danger (current or potential) crossed both party lines, and you've read those quotes here if you've spent any Time at lunch. Iraq has an opportunity that they've NEVER had, to establish a truly open society with freedoms guaranteed by law and not under the guns of slavery -- but that process will not be completed in short order, given their tribal history and unfriendly regional situation. For our sake, their sake, and the sake of ALL our children, we need to FINISH THE SUCCESS in Iraq and Afghanistan, and accept that sacrifices made to date are not in vain, but a difficult and NECESSARY part of our securing the world peace for generations beyond our own.

Nobody wants to send some Mom's kid into battle, or spouse, or Dad. I know exactly what those families feel like when a parent or sibling is far away in combat, as do many of you. Those personal feelings and the threats of harm do not diminish the need for collective action, in a host of theaters, including the use of force when and where applicable. Obama nor Hillary nor Webb nor Hagel nor any other retro-McGovernite has made the case that Iraq was not a valid place to employ our forces, if perhaps later than we should have given Saddam's track record, and given the weather vane Western political wavering at home and abroad that seems less and less able to hold their media-pandering pee when the going gets grisly. The people we have protecting us have enough to endure, without worrying about support levels back home.

Beyond Iraq, we have Pakistan (I really want to hear what Dean and Obama have to suggest about that, since they've both mouthed IRAQ IS THE WRONG PLACE TO BE as public policy), Indonesia, lower Arabia, Gaza (home of many of the terror bombers showing up in pieces in Iraq), and of course Iran.

If these places were subject to sheer diplomacy and ignoring the meddling of Russia and Red China, we'd all be in great shape. The harsh reality IS that doing deals behind closed doors won't fix the future, where people lack open choices in their leadership under reasonable systems of government that do not include a Soviet-style "election" feigning as progressive.

Lacking a Gandhi emerging (alive) from Islam, or even an engaged Tito or Marcos as an intermediate, we're going to see and have to accept some large costs -- human and financial -- as a nation.

Hemp, huts, and handshakes sound sweet, and may be integrated fully at some future point in our socio-economic structure, but anyone suggesting we eco-isolate ourselves from the battle against dedicated Islamofascist evil, anywhere, puts the world at greater peril than history can support.

I'm open to suggestions.

I have yet to hear any from the sniping, Bush bashing left that provide any light at the end of the terror tunnel (which began long before 43 took office), other than adding 1st Responder union jobs in Albany's hooker depot that don't serve a wit in keeping our shores any safer from those abroad that will attack our interests and true allies anywhere.

Now back to our regularly scheduled slapstick, already in progress...

Admiral Obama will most certainly lead us to victory in Pakistan and Long Island, based on his keen understanding of military science...

1. Thinks Pensacola probably tastes a lot like Pepsi, only with half the calories.

2. Overheard recent House armed services committee discussion about Fort Lewis, immediately started humming "Heart of Rock & Roll".

3. During first eight months of initial Senate term he kept referring to DOD HQ as the "Pentangle".

4. Still can't find Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, or Pakistan on John Kerry's waterproofed map of Greater Cambodia.

5. Thinks a flag officer is an elevated school crossing guard in select East Coast suburbs.

6. Saw war hero John McCain on CNN talking from the Fort Bragg O-Club, automatically assumed chat location had something to do with Oprah.

7. General Powell asked him to visit the Gitmo BX some time. He said "Great, I love those cool California dirt bikes."

8. Demands our troops withdraw now from Philadelphia, NOLA, and Compton, since the civil wars there are most certainly lost, and those people really don't want us there anyway.

9. Never visited Pearl Harbor while in Hawaii, since he already owned enough Miki Moto and Maui Wowee.

10. Thinks Hitler, Stalin, Ho, and Castro were just misunderstood, and a lot of sensitive smiling would have made things all better at Yalta, Hanoi, Buchenwald, and the Bay of Pigs.

11. Whenever he's scheduled to meet someone about the 1st Cav, brings a tooth brush and a tube of Crest.

12. Told in no uncertain terms by Joe Biden that "NTC" stands for Nightly Talent Club. Believed it. Later blamed the evil Reagan years.

13. Convinced the Apollo space mission was named after a theater in Harlem, and has half a moon walk to prove it.

14. Believes the venerable Old Guard is comprised of Robert Byrd, Nancy Pelosi, Hugo Chavez, and Jane Fonda, plus Ted Kennedy's liver.

15. Just another half-baked, half-imported also-ran at the 2008 Senate Democrat Party Spelin Bee.

Is it not a marvelous and extraordinary coincidence that our need for a lengthy stay in Iraq to control and exploit that nation's oil reserves coincides exactly with our need for a lengthy stay to bring freedom and democracy to that unfortunate country?

If the people of the Darfur region pray very hard, vast oil deposits may be found in their part of Sudan, and we will immediately send troops to bring them freedom and democracy. That's the way America works: oil lubricates the wheels of freedom all over the world.

I tell you sometimes you just can't win. So the problem is Barack Obama not only had the nerve to actually oppose the war but is still against it?

Also we're supposed to excorciate Obama because he WANTS to get the troops out in 16 months but has enough sense to realize this might be a best-case scenario and it might take slightly longer?

How long does Hillary Clinton think it will take and why is she allowed to skate, absent, from this entire debate? Is it because no one actually believes her timetable in the first place and therefore has no reason to question it? They just assume she's being disengenous and so don't question her?

And furthermore it's a problem that he, correctly, jumped on John McCain for thinking Iran supports Al-Qaida rather than Shi'ite extremists?

Does anyone honestly believe Joe and the rest of the so-called "foreign policy pundits" wouldn't have virtually kicked Obama out of the race and called him unfit for the presidency if he had made such a mistake?

Are we then basically mad at Barack Obama because he offers a real alternative to John McCain?

For once I seriously am confused.

It's a common misconception that war sells. It doesn't. It's disastrous, in fact--advertisers simply don't want to be associated with it.

What about the case of Phil Donahue?

Donahue presented a "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war......He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration's motives." The report went on to outline a possible nightmare scenario where the show becomes "a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity."

By the way, executives and others are on the record in this book, saying they were competing with Fox's sensationalism for the war coverage audience:

http://www.amazon.com/Feet-Fire-Media-After-Journalists/dp/1591023432/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product

"It is interesting that Obama mentions only in passing the $12 billion per month cost of the war."

Why? You do realize he's giving an entire speech on Iraq and the economy tomorrow, right?

Posted by Paul Daniel Ash:
"QH copy/paste in 3... 2.... 1...."

You called it.
Not a single new thing in all of his thousands of words. Not that there ever is, but sometimes he dresses them up pretty.

Southern Bell:
"He's still not honestly addressing what might happen..."

Our CIA (and, slightly less frequently, military) has been screwing around in the world for 60 years, ostensibly addressing "what might happen" if we don't do morally various morally deplorable things.

Perhaps as a result of those things, we defeated the Soviet Union.

Or perhaps the Soviet Union defeated itself and all we did was aid in the oppression and killing of a lot of people.

Anything "might happen".

One good copy/paste deserves another...

In psychiatry, thought disorder or formal thought disorder is a term used to describe a pattern of disordered language use that is presumed to reflect disordered thinking. It is usually considered a symptom of psychotic mental illness, although it occasionally appears in other conditions.

It describes a persistent underlying disturbance to conscious thought and is classified largely by its effects on speech and writing. Affected persons may show pressure of speech (speaking incessantly and quickly), derailment or flight of ideas (switching topic mid-sentence or inappropriately), thought blocking, rhyming, punning, or 'word salad' when individual words may be intact but speech is incoherent.

Mr. Klein's summary of Winston Churchill as some kind of a Twentieth Century "superhawk" is utterly ignorant of actual history just as his earlier description of Edmund Burke as a "conservative" was. Burke, of course, was a liberal Irish Whig, whose pro-colonial views during the American Revolution (both in long-time opposition and as PPS to Rockingham's brief PMship) only later morphed into anti-Fox authoritarianism when he viewed the ramifications of the far-less-republican French Revolution. That such a liberal a man as Burke is viewed as the "forerunner" of modern conservatism is ahistorically mind-boggling" - it is equally mind-boggling that Mr. Klein accepts this hook, line and sinker.

Churchill was also a Liberal. When he was Colonial Secretary whilst Britain had suzerainty over Mesopotamia, he was a prominent Liberal member of a Coalition goverment. Throughout his lengthy career, he often took non-hawkish positions (in addition, of course, to frequently taking hawkish positions). The point is that he was trying to exercise "judgment." He was more anti-Boer War than pro. His initial Dardanelles plan was for a naval expedition only. While he advocated for intervention against Lenin and the Bolsheviks, he also acquieseced to the inevitable withdrawal. The Iraq volcano example was correctly cited. Churchill's deft handling of the Amritsar Massacre was less-than-hawkish. Even in WWII, it was Churchill, with memories of the Somme, who hesitated to authorize Overlord. It was Churchill who was willing to abandon the Far East and Hong Kong. It was Churchill who opposed the Nuremburg Trials. It was Churchill who blanched over Dresden.

Why does Mr. Klein accept conservative memes??!! Why does Mr. Klein lecture others on not knowing history when he makes the very same exact mistakes??!!

The truth is the idiotic unprovoked invasion and occupation of mesopotamia by America was easily foreseeable as disastrous and one of the most boneheaded strategic blunders in U.S. history. Mr. Klein, an educated American liberal, should have known this. Unfortunately, he didn't and since then, he has constantly lectured us about a "precipitous withdrawal" when what we want is a well-thought-out and orderly withdrawal.

The war should be ended. ASAP. Until Mr. Klein says that - unequivocally - I remain unswayed by the reappearance of the Good Joe no matter how well one column reads.

Joe Klein sure likes to make withdrawal look more complicated than it is. Since he's been burned by his sources YET AGAIN, let's see what the people who will actually do it have said:

"Coming out of any theater of operations is tough," says retired Lt. Gen. Gus Pagonis. But packing to go home from that distant desert presents special problems, as simple as finding the water to wash down your grungy gear, says this man who oversaw the homecoming from the last desert war, in 1991. Air Force Col. Jeffrey Mintzlaff, who will be deeply involved in this one as what he calls a "synchronizer" of troop flights home, said "a lot of variables" complicate the picture... "Six months is what is talked about around here," Mintzlaff said from Scott Air Force Base, Ill. Others estimate as few as four or as many as 18 months would be needed. Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaks of withdrawing one combat brigade per month, pointing to a two-year plan. But Pagonis said that "once a withdrawal is decided on, they will want to do it expeditiously," whichever party is in charge in Washington.

But why listen to experts who have actually withdrawn troops from Iraq?

"It would be interesting to see how McCain would rebut it"

Lie. Whether John McCain can really tell "those scary Ay-Rabs"* apart or not, he's saying things over and over and over again that are not true. Why would he change his strategy now?

"It's a common misconception that war sells. It doesn't. It's disastrous, in fact--advertisers simply don't want to be associated with it."

Other commenters have provided evidence that war sells. Advertisers love to wrap themselves up in the flag. Is there any evidence that war doesn't sell?

"Unfortunately, yours truly got a little wobbly on the war as the invasion approached. A ridiculous weakness, in retrospect, given the fact that I was aware of the likely futility of the operation."

Given the fact that John McCain last stood against expanding war 25 years ago (Lebanon) during his first year in Congress, perhaps media types falling for his charisma had something to do with their assumption of his worldview?

* I keep thinking of John McCain's favorite racial slur for "those people," but I'm not going to use them even in quotes. Thanks to our favorite Republican troll for providing this alternative that accurately measures hatred while allowing me to mock it at the same time.

Joe, thanks for addressing the question of why the media pimped the war so much. But isn't there more to it? Isn't there an element of fear, fear of being called anti-American,etc.? And isn't that the real reason you went wobbly, as you put it?

If you make a clean breast of it here, I think you'd earn a lot of respect in a lot of quarters.

Picking up on TomT's comment:

. . . and wasn't that fear because you were afraid of being aligned with the imaginary anti-Vietnam hippies who still live in your head?

Was your televised support of the war an effort to show that you are "all grown up" now?

QH:
"For our sake, their sake, and the sake of ALL our children, we need to FINISH THE SUCCESS in Iraq and Afghanistan, and accept that sacrifices made to date are not in vain, but a difficult and NECESSARY part of our securing the world peace for generations beyond our own."

'FINISH THE SUCCESS' sounds very Orwellian. What is 'the success'?

http://comments.breitbart.com/upiupi-20080319-113404-3794/

One small step for Allah.

One giant dog poop for mankind.

Success, in Iraq, would be something much closer to Jordan (in tone and structure) than Iran.

We may end up with another Lebanon, in the near term -- which also deserves our attention.

Once Admiral Obama takes over, of course, we'll have to skip everything else, for his quiet riot naval blockade of Pakistan.

= DOOFUS ACCOMPLISHED =

Observer, you're right anything might happen. The producers of Lost might call me tomorrow and ask me to play Sawyer's love interest. Don't think so but you never know.

The best possible scenario is that we withdraw from Iraq and the people are able to forge some kind of unity, the way Lebanon did after Reagan removed the troops (after insisting he wouldn't).

But, I know both HRC and Obama must have plans for the worst possibilities and they should be open about what might occur if the country starts to really unravel in the midst of the withdrawal.

QH should really spend some time reading about the French in Algeria. Then he can come back and tell us why we need to occupy Iraq.

Who enabled and supported Saddam Hussein in Iraq, QH, who? Certainly not OBL and the bogeymen under your bed.

We created Saddam, and we supported him at the height of his murderous regime. It was only when he became uncooperative that the terror war was used as an excuse to depose him.

America's mischief in the Mideast is producing increasing blowback. The more bombs we drop and people we kill in Iraq, the deeper the hole out of which we will have to climb. Blowhards like QH would rather bankrupt our nation than accept sanity in our foreign policy.

BTW: I'm sure the troops at Fort Bragg were simply THRILLED to hear from Wright Admiral Obama today.

He being the standard bearer for the new & improved lefty loon socialist SURRENDER AT ALL COSTS sycophancy, which they covet so much between pawn shop runs and BBQ diners.

= PUTT PUTT GOLF & GAMES ACCOMPLISHED =

I'm with stringer on this one. I've been over the "we have to stay and fight for unclear reasons and no we can't tell you when we're leaving so stop asking" approach.
No, Obama's plan isn't perfect, but they are apparently acknowledging that it's not perfect. The selling point for me is that it's different, an honest to goodness change in course (I hope).
Of course, it helps that I am extremely pessimistic about Iraq's ability to get its act together.

"...Who enabled and supported Saddam Hussein in Iraq..."

Ahem.

THE SOVIET UNION and NORTH KOREA.

Or don't you read your French food labels?

You IS off your meds again, I see, QH.

"...Obama's plan isn't perfect..."

What PLAN are you talking about?

Where?

VAPOR WARE from Beijing holds greater promise, than his vapid GET PAKISTAN tunnel vision that does NADA to confront the terror in IRAN, SYRIA, GAZA, LEBANON, SOMALIA, SUDAN, and coming (again) soon to a legacy near you SERBIA.

Had Admiral Airhead of Illinois been UK PM in 1939?

We'd ALL be speaking German, and smelling French.

Appeasement ala Carter and Vance and Richardson IS not peace.

Get with the friggin program, for cripes sakes.

QH:

From wikipedia:

"Jordan has a well earned reputation for usually following a pragmatic and non-confrontational foreign policy, leading to fair relations with its neighbours."

Why is that correct for them but not for us? I would contend that we, like Jordan, should lead by example rather than by force.

I'll reiterate that 99.9% of ME terrorism would end within 1 (one) DAY, were we to issue Iran the ultimatum -- stand down or get attacked -- and then ACT upon it when they screw around again with the UN dweebs as handy political cover.

Remove their airfields, electrical grid, and nuke lab camels, er, carports via Auntie MOAB -- as we should have done the day we re-entered Baghdad -- and true Peace & Justice may indeed be seen by our children, for all to behold Amen.

QH, don't you have to go sacrifice a goat to Ronald Reagan or something?

QH:

How do they 'stand down'? That sounds very much like the ultimatum we issued to Saddam Hussein - turn over your weapons of mass destruction or get attacked - or for that matter, the same one we gave the Taliban - turn over Osama bin Laden or get attacked.

How deeply do they have to abase themselves before we'll let them off the hook? Or is it a foregone conclusion that this ultimatum, like those previous ones, is just so that we can justify what we were going to do anyway?

"Jordan has a well earned reputation for usually following a pragmatic and non-confrontational foreign policy, leading to fair relations with its neighbours."

Why is that correct for them but not for us? I would contend that we, like Jordan, should lead by example rather than by force.

... ... ...

You think Jordan's been immune to terrorism (before or after Iraq) -- or that they don't have an experienced POLICE FORCE in place for the pain?

What back issue of Mother Jones was that in?

Iraq was a Stalinist sh-thole for over 30 years.

Anyone that thinks they'll be smooth sailing in time for the next re-run of Will & Grace IS in for a poor decade.

The lesson of Iraq, then, IS not unlike the lesson of Vietnam: WIN THE WAR.

That doesn't mean hunkering down at base camp, or Paris peace talks with moral cheaters or murderers.

It means crossing the veritable DMZ's as they may now be, and taking the fight to the enemy (despite the best humus pantie shields our "reporters" can provide).

BTW: The U.S. feeds, literally, about HALF THE POPULATION ON PLANET EARTH.

Lacking the terror scum and their eco-shills in the United Nincompoops?

We'd feed the other half too.

But no good American deed (including the freeing of SLAVES in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Korea, and Old Europe) goes unpunished by CNN and PBS, of course.

Also, QH, does it ever bother you that your arguments are consistently swatted down with ease?
I know, this is a purely rhetorical question. Of course it doesn't bother you. But I just want to know if it ever even shows up on your radar.

As Hugo said, I smell sulfur in the air--stop feeding the neanderthal.

QH said:
"BTW: The U.S. feeds, literally, about HALF THE POPULATION ON PLANET EARTH.

Lacking the terror scum and their eco-shills in the United Nincompoops?

We'd feed the other half too."

But, QH, you're against that! You hate helping other people! You were just bitching and moaning about how much we spend on feeding illegal immigrants!
I like Yoshi because at least he's consistent. You, on the other hand, are a manic flip flopper.

QH:
"You think Jordan's been immune to terrorism (before or after Iraq) -- or that they don't have an experienced POLICE FORCE in place for the pain?"
and
"Iraq was a Stalinist sh-thole for over 30 years."

Yes, absolutely, those are both true statements: but Iraq also had a police force that blew it up. We have liberated them from the despot, but they now have no executive at all. Instead of living in fear of Saddam, they live in fear of suicide bombers and opposing ethnic groups.

So I would infer that rather than encourage a relatively stable country such as Iraq under Saddam to move toward a more democratic arrangement, such as Jordan's, you would sacrifice stability to remove tyrannical regimes in the hope that it could be restored under a better system of government?

"How do they 'stand down'? "

QH means to kill them all. Scratch an American exceptionalist and you find an eliminationist. Arabs are just so many brown people, and QH has an infinite capacity for killing them.

The "solution" for the Arab people is the same one that was imposed on the Native Americans: massacres, deportations, and reservations. It's not anybody's fault. It's just that our oil is under their land.

McCain is the candidate of murder. That is what "victory" in Iraq means: killing everyone who stands in the way of US imperial dominance.

Uh....Joe, thanks for the response, but:

The first Persian Gulf War in 1991 was a watershed event for CNN that catapulted the network past the "big three" American networks for the first time in its history, largely due to an unprecedented, historical scoop: CNN was the only news outlet with the ability to communicate outside Iraq during the initial hours of the American bombing campaign, with live reports from the al-Rashid Hotel in Baghdad by reporters Bernard Shaw, John Holliman, and Peter Arnett.

The Gulf War experience brought CNN some much sought-after legitimacy and made household names of previously obscure (and infamously low-paid) reporters. Many of these reporters now comprise CNN's "old guard." Bernard Shaw became CNN's chief anchor until his retirement in 2001. Others include then-Pentagon correspondent Wolf Blitzer (now host of The Situation Room and Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer) and international correspondent Christiane Amanpour. Amanpour's presence in Iraq was caricatured by actress Nora Dunn as the ruthless reporter "Adriana Cruz" in the film Three Kings (1999). Time Warner later produced a television movie, Live from Baghdad, about the network's coverage of the first Gulf War, which aired on HBO.

Fresh from Wikipedia, of all things. Let alone a slew of any other examples past and present one could use.

So then along comes the prospect of a Gulf War 2...and the world news media market's a lot more competitive...CNN's now got plenty of rivals, including one in bed with the Republican establishment and willing to tow the line(Faux News)....and new media/blogosphere was starting to cut into the pie of the media oligarchs...and jingoism, hate, and fear were really, really selling then...and the spin that we'd be in an' out like last time seemed conceivable at first glance...

You, uh, really don't see the correlation?

Yours truly (disbelieving),

Vic

Regarding Joe's latest counter-factual statement about war news not being popular:

You haven't grasped the essence of Chutzpah Joe's act. When Joe Klein says something, he does it with a bold assertiveness that magically evades the rational scrutiny of most listeners. This knack is really the only thing separating poor Joe from a janitor emptying wastebaskets at Time-Warner. People actually think that he knows what he is talking about because of his crazy assertiveness.

Time after time, Klein speaks aboslute rubbish, and the TV programs ask him back for more. It's all in his ferociously confident "street smart" delivery. The man is an idiot, but everyone listens to him attentively because of his plucky demeanor.

I also am worried about Obama's more or less unhedged pledge to remove all troops from Iraq in 16 months. But Joe, you might have noted Obama's strongest strategic imperative for doing this:

It is not too late to prevail in Afghanistan. But we cannot prevail until we reduce our commitment in Iraq, which will allow us to do what I called for last August – providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our efforts in Afghanistan.

More on the strategic breadth of the speech here

منتديات-شات--صور
قلوب-صور طبيعية-صور
متحركة-شات
الغلا-منتديات الغلا-تحميل
العاب-برامج-كتب
مجانية-برامج جوال-مقاطع
بلوتوث-مسجات-نغمات
نوكيا-ثيمات-العاب
جوال-دروس فوتوشوب-هكر-صور-صور
انمي-اخبار الفن-صور
فنانات-افلام-افلام
اجنبية-اناشيد
اسلامية-صور
سيارات-كاس امم اوروبا-تحميل
اهداف-محمد-سياحة
وسفر-منتديات
عامة-كاريكاتير-نكت-الغاز-خواطر-قصائد--حكايات-اساطير-روايات-حكم
وامثال-فساتين-منتديات
عروس-حلويات-اطفال-الطب
البديل-علم
النفس-مركز
تحميل الصور-دليل
المواقع العربية-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-برق-19-p1-p2-p3-p4-78-71-20-21-59-60-58-61-67-53-56-9-a9-a1-a8-a12--a15-a16-a18-ماسنجر-صور
بنات-51-26-a-b-c-d-e-e-f-g-h-j-l-29-43-47-13-6-dd-p18-f8-12-62-65-49l-f11-f86-مسجات
حب-مسجات عتاب-مسجات
شوق-صور ماسنجر-مسجات حلوة-صور
حب-صور بنات-شات
بنات-شات
الود-اغاني هيفاء وهبي-دردشة
بنت السعودية-عمرو خالد-ناصر
الفراعنة-صور نانسي عجرم-ياسر
القحطاني-دردشة
الشلة-نغمات-قصص-تامر حسني-العاب-طرب
توب-اوز-دردشة
اماراتية-شات اماراتي-دردشة
قطر-دردشة بحرينية-شات
قطر-شات البحرين-دردشة
لبنانية-شات
بنات-دردشة
اردنية-شات اردني-شات
عراقي-دردشة
عراقية-دردشة
سورية-شات سوري-شات
كويتي-دردشة كويتية
-ترافيان
-صور لميس-اناشيد
العفاسي
-صحيح البخاري-صحيح
مسلم-هيفاء وهبي-سنوات
الضياع-مسلسل نور-صور
اطفال-صور تامر حسني-صور
اليسا-