53 Comments

1. heather:

So much of my world depends upon that man and his health. I wonder if he knows how much support he really has? And how much admiration and respect?

Dec 4, 2006 - 10:22 pm 2. heather:

I watched the clip at the Fox site and must say, in my opinion, Bush sounded OK to me.. I know he is looking much older than he did a few years ago, but then presidents age very rapidly.

Just a suggestion: do you have an HDTV set?? I understand that these show the warts and wrinkles much more clearly than do the regular TVs…

Dec 4, 2006 - 10:38 pm 3. mikem:

I didn’t see the speech, but I notice that for the last week or so almost all the MSM outlets and pundits are talking as if, “of course”, Bush’s administration has been one of the most spectacularly failed in history.
It would be hard to overstate the disgust that I feel toward the unashamedly politicized journalism of our era. When I compare Bush with many of our recent Presidents I place Bush well up there.
If a Democrat had accomplished what he has, with the economy, with the W.O.T, with “infecting” the once hopeless ME with democracy, then we would be talking about a GREAT VISIONARY.

Dec 5, 2006 - 3:53 am 4. Terrye:

I have not watched any news on TV for weeks so I was not even aware of the fact that he was on.

As for what the pundits are saying….I have discovered that if you unplug and ignore those people for a few people you realize how few people in the world give a rat’s behind what the pundits say about anything.

Dec 5, 2006 - 4:09 am 5. Terrye:

I just watched the clip and no I did not think Bush looked beaten. He looked tired.

People on the right wing blogs need to lighten up. Baker is not an evil man who has surrendered to the jihadis, losing a midterm is not the end of the world and not going to war with Iran this very minute is not a sign of defeat either.

As for these being terrible times, no they are not. In the history of the world with its famines and wars and pandemics and natural disasters these times are probably among the best the human race has ever seen.

Dec 5, 2006 - 4:50 am 6. MarkD:

I’m sure people in Euprope said that 1938 was the best of times as well…

Dec 5, 2006 - 6:03 am 7. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

Winston Churchill, 1938:

“For five years I have talked to the House on these matters–not with any great success. I have watched this famous island descending incontinently, fecklessly, the stairway which leads to a dark gulf. It is a fine broad stairway at the beginning, but after a bit the carpet ends. A little farther on there are only flagstones, and a little farther on these break beneath your feet.”

Dec 5, 2006 - 6:08 am 8. Charlie (Colorado):

Hmmm. I thought he looked tired and beaten down last week, but looked optimistic and engaged last night. (I especially liked the part where he said that he wasn’t worrying about polls, he was worrying about being able to look at himself in the mirror when he goes home to Texas.)

Does anyone know exactly where Dr Heisenberg is?

Dec 5, 2006 - 6:47 am 9. Ray:

History will remember Bush 43 as one of our greatest presidents. The main stream media will be remembered as the leaders of the enemy within. The current surrender monkey democratic leadership will be humiliated when they discover that surrendering simply encourages terrorist actions. The next republican president will have to fight a much larger war.

Dec 5, 2006 - 9:06 am 10. Joe Schmoe:

The press are indeed surrender monkeys and America-hating 60’s retreads, but we have to face the fact that we are indeed losing the war in Iraq.

The Iraqis cannot govern themselves. They are too primitive to live in a modern, democratic society, even when one is handed to them on a silver platter by our brave soldiers. It is time to write them off. No more of our wonderful young men should be sacrificed so that those people can continue to build car bombs and chop off one another’s heads.

The hard truth is that Jim Baker was right and the neocons were wrong. I was 100% in accord with the neocons’ policies, and this means that I was wrong.

Does this mean that we were wrong to go to war in Iraq? Absolutely not. We had to do something. The neocons had a good idea. We were right to give it a try. Unfortuantely, it didn’t work.

Was the war fought incompetently? Not at all, it was fought masterfully. Most of the criticisms of the media and the Democrats were the product of pure ignorance. 500,000 troops, the French Foreign Legion, and more soldiers who spoke Arabic wouldn’t have changed the outcome one iota. Our tacitcs have been more or less outstanding. We have made a few mistakes, sure, but nothing terribly consequential.

The purpose of this war was to bring the Iraqis — and through them, the entire Muslim world — into the modern age, to help them establish a a modern, free-market democracy. If we could do that, maybe the people of the region would stop building bombs and blowing themselves up once they had a taste of freedom, prosperity, and hope.

Well, now we know the answer. They’re not content to live in peace. They prefer to blow themselves up. These are violent people. The reason why the martyrdom videos and angry preachers get so much air time on Al Jazeera is becuase that’s what the Al Jazeera viewers like to see.

The saddest thing about this is that the Iraqis clearly WANT to live in peace. Average people over there risked their lives to vote in the elections. And a lot of Iraqis have sacrificed their lives, and are continuing to do so, by allying themselves with us. And some Iraqis are horrified by the violence and the chaos. They cannot beleive what is happenign, their attitudes are basically identical to our own. They could be our next-door neighbors.

Unfortuanately, desire does not equal results. The people of Iraq may want to live in peace, but they are not getting the job done. What does this mean? We’re going to have to write everyone off. We can bring some of our allies here to the US, but many will inevitably be left behind. But I don’t care. I have friends in the military and I do not want to see them risk their lives in a hopeless cause any longer. Screw the Iraqis. We’ve done everything we could for them, I am sorry that many will die but there is nothing else we can do.

What future options do we have? Unfortuantely, not many. Democritization hasn’t worked. The existing dictators can’t keep the terrorists in line, half the time they are part of the problem.

We’re going to have to nuke them. All of them. Worse yet, they’re going to have to attack us again before we will be able to do that. And that’s going to happen. Someday a nuke will go off in one of our cities or, perahps more likely, a biological weapon will be released and people will have to endure the horror of watching their friends and loved ones, many of them small children, get sick and die. And when that happens, we’re going to kill them all. We certainly won’t sit around and wait for it to happen a second time.

There is another option, but we won’t exercise it. We could go on a WWII-type footing and invade and occupy the entire Muslim world. Our objective would be pacification and subjugation rather than democritization. But people just aren’t willing to make that sacrifice and, in light of the countless American lives that would be lost in implementing this strategy, I cannot say I blame them. I would be willing to volunteer for such an effort, but I wouldn’t want to see my kids involved in it.

By contrast, I won’t shed too many tears for the Muslims if they are wiped off the face of the planet. It will certainly be wonderful not to have to worry about them any more. I will mourn the children and the innocents, but not for very long. I’d rather mourn someone else’s children than my own.

Does this bode well for the future of mankind? No. Is the modern technology of destruction incompatable with man’s warlike nature? Perhaps, but I don’t think so. Civilization really does succeed in curbing man’s baser instincts. Unfortuantely, it looks like some people just can’t be civilized.

Dec 5, 2006 - 10:34 am 11. Wolverine:

Joe,

Lighten up.

Dec 5, 2006 - 10:54 am 12. dclydew:

I find the times we live in to be interesting.

This project to bring democracy to Iraq doesn’t seem to have worked. It may have been a good idea, the methods we used may have had strong evidence to support it… but in the end, we appear to have failed in all of our major objectives except for the capture of a wacko mass-murdering dictator. That’s well and good, the world is better off without Saddam.

However, we must be willing to admit and examine our failures, rather than wrapping the flag around our eyes and running in circles. I think that this war has been very beneficial in teaching the US several things.

1. We no longer live in a time of 3rd generation warfare. It appears that the wars of the future will likely be insurgencies, terrorist attacks, gurellia warfare and oppurtunistic attacks. Our enemies may no longer be a actual nation, with defined borders and rules. Rather, we may be dealing with international groups held together by ideology, rather than patriotism (and funded by one or more nation states, rich bastards or enslaved nations). This means that the DoD will probably need to re-plan our military’s future. A great reference work for this is: “The Sling and the Stone” by USMC, Colonel Thomas X. Hammes.

2. Democracy, may not be a gift, but rather a reward for hard work. It was not easy for America, it was not easy for England, France, Germany or many other nations that now have democracy. Successful democracies, for the most part, have been driven from internal forces and the philosophical position of the citizens, not external parties.

3. It takes a lot of soldiers to occupy unfriendly territory.

4. It may be better to have a fluid strategy which can change on a dime, rather than the older style of fighting, which tended toward static goals with fixed plans. Those plans worked well when you knew your enemies position, their resources, where their troops, tanks, planes and missiles were etc. Those plans don’t seem to work so well now.

5. The President, more than any other politician in the country must understand Public Relations. He must be able to sell his ideas to the American people and to the opposition (or he needs to really sell it to the American people, to the point that the opposition doesn’t want to fight him). “With Us or Against Us” simply doesn’t have long term effectiveness, particularly not in the world that we live in today. A hundred years ago, we could have a successful President that couldn’t argue his way out of a paper bag. Today, he’ll be skewered on every news channel from here to Beijing. It may not be fair or right, but its true.

6. Honesty is the best policy, Honesty or total Black Ops. If you’re going to do something that the American people may not like, you had better tell them up front, or make damn sure they never find out. You may only be listening to conversations with terrorists… but thats probably not what the Average Joe will think, particularly when every journalist vying for $$ is willing to spin.

In short, I don’t think Bush will be considered Great, nor Terrible… he’s an average president that has made some mistakes, some good moves and overall he did his job. However, I think that this time period will provide lessons for the next century, ones that will be based on the things done right and wrong by this Administration.

In the end, we will survive as a democracy. The Muslims will not blow us all up, nor will they convert us all and take over the world.

Heck, if they do, then we didn’t really deserve this nation to begin with.

Dec 5, 2006 - 1:06 pm 13. Terrye:

Oh please, this is not 1938. I support the war in Iraq and I am not giving up on the GWOT, but this cry baby stuff about how all is lost and the end is near is just getting so ridiculous. That is why more and more people just want it all to go away. We need to think about long term policies that both parties can pursue, saying that the world is coming to an end or something like that just makes people think you are an hysteric.

Dec 5, 2006 - 1:28 pm 14. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

Terrye…of course, most people in 1938 didn’t think it was “1938″, either. Even if worst came to worst, they knew the French Army had stopped the Germans before, and expected them to be able to do it again. Indeed, even Churchill didn’t expect the debacle that in fact occurred/

What happens when Iran gets nuclear weapons and a ballistic-missile delivery system? What will be the impact on those European leaders already inclined to appeasement? What happens if Iran issues an ultimatum to Israel? What is the impact when Iran is able to acquire a submarine launch capability?

I don’t think it’s “hysterical” to raise these questions, and to point out that things become much more dangerous in a world with a nuclear Iran.

Dec 5, 2006 - 2:36 pm 15. Terrye:

photo:

I voted for Bush. I am a supporter of regime change in Iran. I still support the mission in Iraq. What happens if Iran gets the bomb? I don’t know and neither do you. But considering the fact that the US got the bomb 60 years ago it is amazing more countries like Iran do not already have the bomb today. It is not new technology after all.

I spent most of my childhood waiting to be nuked. I had nightmares about it. One of the reasons the baby boomers were so self centered was that we really did not think the world would still be here when we got old. Surprise..surprise.

No one is saying we should not be concerned, but for heavens sake people need to get some perspective.

60 million people died in WW2, when I was a child we were still being vacinated against diseases like small pox and polio. Natural disasters and plagues and famine claimed far more people than people today can even imagine..

Women in America did not get the right to vote until my grandmother was a young woman and if you told her then that we would be thinking about putting a base on the moon in less than a century she would not have believed it.

The kinds of tragedies that threatened mankind in the past, the black death, world wars, communist revolutions that left tens of millions dead simply do not happen today as a matter of course. Not so long ago, that was just the way the world was.

That is what I meant when I said these are in many ways the best of times. Never have so many had so much, and not just here in the United States, but in places known only for poverty not so long ago. Like India.

Bush is only going to be president for two more years and whether the Republicans won or lost the midterms people like Bolton were not going to be around forever in any event. We need a long term policy.

What I am saying is that conservatives need to stop whining so much. We need to be aware of the problems of nuclear proliferation and the dangers, but we do not need to act as if we might all just as well shoot ourselves and be done with it, because all is lost.

This is going to go on for awhile, it ain’t over yet. And after the back stabbing nonsense from much of the right who did nothing but complain about everything from Miers to Dubai to Immigration to Earmarks it is amazing we did not lose more. After all not so long ago luminaries like Noonan were saying the GOP needed to lose. So here it is, this is what losing looks like.

And still they bitch.

Dec 5, 2006 - 3:38 pm 16. Michael Smith:

“The hard truth is that Jim Baker was right and the neocons were wrong. I was 100% in accord with the neocons’ policies, and this means that I was wrong.”

This is a false alternative. Baker’s “realism” approach of negotiating with dictators and making deals with tyrants — and Bush’s approach of attempting to spread “democracy” by waging a partial, limited, civilian-friendly war that spares the infrastructures and then allows the citizens to form any sort of government they want, up to and including an Iranian-friendly theocracy — these are certainly not the only two alternatives.

The proper response to threats from foreign regimes is to do what we did to Japan and Germany in WWII. And that is what we should have done on September 12, 2001. Declare war, demand unconditional surrender, and apply overwhelming force to both regime and civilian populations until they realize that the alternative is surrender or extermination. That is the winning approach to waging war.

The partial, limited war approach didn’t work in Korea, it didn’t work in Vietnam and it will not work in Iraq.

Dec 5, 2006 - 3:40 pm 17. Wolverine:

Michael,

If you think the establishment of a permanent military base on a penninsula that has been at the heart of Eastern Asian power struggles for at least a thousand years, the establishment of favorable economic conditions which led to the development of the 11th largest economy in the world is a failure, and forging an alliance with a key trading partner is “failure” what the hell does success look like? Would it have been more successful to eliminate their civilian population?

Dec 5, 2006 - 3:51 pm 18. Terrye:

Michael:

I know what you mean but the American people are not going to tolerate firebombing Sadr City. Those days are over.

And as far as Baker is concerned, people are making a lot of assumptions. Baker represented the administrations he was part of and their policies. The same was true for Rumsfeld in those days. The kind of thinking that is so demonized today was not considered appeasement then, it was the lesser of evils. In the days of the Cold War that sort of thinking was necessary when dealing with the Soviet Union. But the truth is there is no reason to believe that Baker is a bad man who likes dictators. Back in the days of Reagan and Bush1 there was no support for taking out Saddam or confronting Iran. Not here in the US or in the international arena either. It is easy to say now that they should have done this or that, but the truth is the will of the people was not behind any other kind of policy but realism. In fact a great many rank and file Republicans out there today have respect for people like Baker, they always have.

Dec 5, 2006 - 3:57 pm 19. Joe Schmoe:

Michael:

Well, no one is saying that Baker’s “work with tyrants” is a particulary good strategy, or that it is likely to succeed. I very much doubt that Baker himself is an enthusiastic advocate of his own strategy. He knows the limitations of the Saudis, Syrians, Iranians, etc. full well.

It’s just the best of many bad options.

After 9/11 I thought we’d be crazy to keep working with the dictators of the Middle East. We’d been doing that for 50 years, and it led to 9/11. The Saudis, Iranians, and Syrians have given billions to the terrorists.

So when the neocons proposed that we democratize the region, I was an enthusiastic supporter. Baker’s strategy wasn’t working, so let’s give the democratiation thing a try.

Well, we’ve tried it, and it didn’t work. So now we have to go back to Baker’s strategy.

Is this ideal? No. Will it work? Probably not. But it’s the best strategy we’ve got.

I agree that a full-on invasion of the Middle East is theoroetically an option. But as a practical matter, it’s not. No one is going to tolerate a total mobiliization and draft, not when it means that our soldiers will just be picked off by snipers and car bombs in order to protect a bunch of bloodthirsty savages from one another. I’d much rather firebomb Sadr City than see some poor 18 year old American soldier get blown up by an IED while on patrol there.

Sadly, we’re going to have to drop the hammer over there — probably sooner rather than later. At least we gave them a chance. Too bad they blew it.

Dec 5, 2006 - 4:12 pm 20. ricpic:

Joe Schmoe’s post of 10:34 AM: one of the best, most comprehensive presentations of our war with Islam dilemma that I’ve read so far.
Thanks, Joe.

And it is a war with Islam, folks. The Islamofascists are mainstream muslims. It’s all there in their little book. Awful that it will take a nuke before we realize that there is no choice: we must kill the death cult.

Dec 5, 2006 - 4:54 pm 21. Ray:

Maybe we should change the rules.

An assassination attempt was made on Bush 41 during a visit to Kuwait following his presidency. The rules that we play by do not allow assassinations. Keeping in mind that wins may be incremental and not all encompassing (like nukes), perhaps we should change some of the rules that we have been playing by.

Removing Sadr would certainly make life easier for us in Baghdad. We have had ample opportunity to do so. We should have removed Castro forty seven years ago. Playing by rules that our enemies ignore makes it much more difficult to win. Should there be any rules in warfare?

I suspect that we would have enormous success if those of Sadr’s ilk knew that they would have a very short life if they opposed our objectives.

Lets take off our gloves.

Dec 5, 2006 - 5:38 pm 22. Demosophist:

I saw a clip of GW earlier today, and didn’t think he looked beaten. Anybody care to change places with the Democrats, or the Mainsteam Media? They just won a big batch of chocolate chip cookies. Boy, do I feel jealous!

Speaking of which, anybody wanna change places with the Sunni “Insurgency”? The media’s been saying for months those guys are winning, and the fools believed it! Now they don’t have a buffalo chip, let alone a cookie. And when people start calculating how wrong MSM was about that they’ll be to sick to eat.

Seriously, anybody wanna switch?

Dec 5, 2006 - 6:02 pm 23. Wolverine:

“And it is a war with Islam, folks. The Islamofascists are mainstream muslims.”

I just hope your leadership (or whatever’s left of it) has enough balls to say this in public because it would expose the character of your party.

You might as well get the white hood out of the closet, ricpic, and stop being a pussy.

Dec 5, 2006 - 6:03 pm 24. Luther McLeod:

Yeah, maybe a little over the top here and there Wolverine, maybe. But to extrapolate white sheets and the consequent effects thereof, which as of now, have essentially come to nothing, is balderdash. The islamodudes who wish our death are head and shoulders above anything the klan ever had to offer. To minimize the difference, or attempt to make them equivalent makes you the small pawn. In every sense of the word.

Dec 5, 2006 - 7:39 pm 25. ricpic:

O where O where are the voices of the fabled moderate muslims – Wolverine – denouncing their less “disciplined” brethren, after the latest atrocity has been committed in the name of Allah? Nowhere. Their silence is deafening.
Think about it, thoughtless one.

Dec 5, 2006 - 7:51 pm 26. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

Wolverine,
I’m sure there are plenty of moderate Muslim people out there. But the there are a heck of a lot who are not. Trends put the immoderates in ascendancy and the moderates in decline. Furthermore, the Islamofascists, like the Nazis, use intimidation to silence the moderates.

In many countries, the consequences of Wahhabi madrassas, internet and other media propaganda, and silencing of moderates by intimidation will lead to a takeover of Islam by the radicals.

Islam has a history of wild Jihads, but in the past, the excesses of the radical butchers eventually led to rejection by their fellow Muslims, who got tired of being slaughtered – just as Al Qaeda wore out its welcome in Iraq.

But today, with modern technology and travel, they can slaughter people outside the Muslim community and prevent their rejection by their less energetic brethren. Once things reach that point (and they already have in some Muslim countries and some European Muslim populations), only external force will tame them, if they can be tamed at all. Only collective punishment (which is against Geneva conventions, btw) will have a chance at calming these hot-heads.

George Bush may be tired or look beaten… it doesn’t matter at this point. The Islamofascists will eventually force a showdown (or a bunch of them on more local scales) and we will have to fight them, and kill them, including a lot of relative innocents.

The world is still a jungle.

Dec 5, 2006 - 8:31 pm 27. Godzilla:

Meanwhile, in Bizarro World politics, Charlie Rangels’s call for a draft is trumped by Pelosi’s pick for new Intel Chief wants more troops in Iraq

Dec 5, 2006 - 9:59 pm 28. Sandy P:

We’ve planted the seeds, it’s going to take at least 30 years.

Now, if we Logan’s Runned everyone over 30…..
we might be farther along.

– just hope your leadership (or whatever’s left of it) has enough balls to say this in public because it would expose the character of your party. –

Or pubbies would have won in a landslide for someone finally saying was a lot believe.

–

White hoods?

Islam’s a religion, not a race, Taliban Johnny looked awfully white to me, and so does David Hicks.

Dec 5, 2006 - 10:48 pm 29. Sandy P:

Do you happen to review Rantburg at all, wolverine?

I’m sure your insight would be enlightening to those there.

Dec 5, 2006 - 10:50 pm 30. Wolverine:

“Only collective punishment (which is against Geneva conventions, btw) will have a chance at calming these hot-heads.”

That worked so well for the British in Southeast Asia, I can only imagine what kind of success this will have when implemented by Americans with half of their mental capacity.

And if George W. Bush is any indication, that effort will be directed by mental midgets.

Dec 5, 2006 - 11:40 pm 31. Gary Rosen:

Wolverine:

“And if George W. Bush is any indication, that effort will be directed by mental midgets.”

Bet I’m not the only one who sees the irony here :^).

Dec 6, 2006 - 12:06 am 32. joe:

We have touched on this topic before but the question remains going forward is how many Americans will have to die before the gloves do come off.

Part of the frustration with the current action in Iraq is there is a feeling we are not winning. Add to the mix that many feel we are not at war at all. It is no wonder we fine ourselves where we are today.

Withdrawing from Iraq on less than our terms is going to make the world a lot more dangerous. For some it seems how dangerous it will become is beyond their ability to understand.

One needs to define what winning is, which really has not been done. Winning has been redifined to mean that Iraq should look something like Switzerland. That very much is the end game. People seem to have forgotten how often the POTUS said this is going to be a long war. It is going to be a very long war. We seem to be confused about whether or not we are going to fight it. I don’t think we are going to be given a choice. Well we could surrender, I guess.

We seem to have forgotten what has been accomplished. We focus on what we have not done.

From the fall of Saddam to the end game is going to take a lot longer than it seems Americans are ready for.

Dec 6, 2006 - 12:40 am 33. Captain Hate:

Gary,

“Bet I’m not the only one who sees the irony here :^).”

Not at all; but in case anybody is wondering what is motivating this latest fit of pique:

Ohio State 42
Meechigan 39

Dec 6, 2006 - 3:13 am 34. syn:

Two days ago I received a note from a soldier who is in Iraq, he wrote:

“We have seen and sone so much in the almost nine months we’ve been in country…once 2007 gets here, the end will be in sight, and we will all get to go back home sometime in March. Even after all this time though, and even after the friends we have lost, we still wish we could do more in this war. I think all of us would give up the safety and security of living on a base while prtecting convoys where the enemy targets us with roadside bombs every mission to live amongst the Iraqi people, protecting neighborhoods and families and rooting out the bad guys where they live. The American lives lost would be much higher, but our impact on the lives of these people would be immeasurable. That’s not to say we’re still not committed to our current mission, in fact C company will be on the road all day for Christmas and New Years, far from any friendly forces in Anbar province. IT’S THAT FOR ONCE, WE WISH THE POLITICS BACK HOME COULD DISAPPEAR AND AMERICANS COULD SEE WHAT REALLY HAPPENS DAY TO DAY HERE. THE HORRORS TO HUMANITY THAT THESE TERRORISTS COMMIT, MOSTLY TO OTHER IRAQIS, IS INEXCUSABLE NO MATTER WHAT RELIGION OR IDEOLOGY YOU BELIEVE IN. IT’S REALLY TOO BAD THAT PEOPLE BACK HOME REFUSE TO BELIEVE IT EXISTS, OR REFUSES TO BELEIVE WE CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.”

The media, the hollywood poet and the power-hungry politians are spoon-feeding defeat and many Americans are consuming that dreadful diet.

It isn’t that Iraq has failed, it is we who have failed.

Dec 6, 2006 - 4:03 am 35. Terrye:

I have known Muslims who were nothing like the jihadis, but there is no doubt this fascism has sprung from that religion. But we waste our resources and energy if we direct our malice toward a billion people, most of whom have done us no harm.

We need to go after the people who are trying to kill us. Not the entire religion. Talk of bombing Mecca, slaughtering masses of people in an effort to “take off the gloves” will not work here. In fact it feeds the paranoia and propaganda machine of the terrorists.

This will be a long slow process like the Cold War and while I most certainly do not support withdrawing from Iraq, I think we should remember that much of what we hear about Iraq comes from people who do want us to withdraw. So maybe we should keep that in mind.

And Wolverine, if Bill Clinton had spent as much time dealing with this issue and resolving the problem that was and is Saddam Hussein as he did with his pants around his ankles in the Oval Office the world might be a different place today. Talk about mental midgets. Tenet was a Clinton appointee you know.

Dec 6, 2006 - 4:12 am 36. Barry Dauphin:

Tenet was a Clinton appointee you know.

Not to mention Sandy “socks” Berger.

Dec 6, 2006 - 4:34 am 37. Joe Schmoe:

Syn,

Show me the money. If the Iraqis are so peaceful, why is there still an orgy of violence over there? Car bombs go off daily, our soldiers are under constant attack, and yet somehow these wonderful, peace-loving Iraqi people just can’t seem to put a stop to it.

Oh, I know, it’s just a few “bad apples,” right? Yeah, sure.

Look, most moderately informed people knew that when we invaded Iraq, there would be: (1) some local guerrilla resistance — all of our enemies have read the Vietnam playbook, and if you are a former regime member like “Chemical” Ali you are dead anyway, whether at our hands or those of your fellow Iraqis, so you might as well die fighting; (2) foreign jihadis streaming in from all over the Muslim world to attack us, just like they did in Soviet Afghanistan; and (3) agents of Iran, Syira, Saudi Arabia supporting (1) and (3) because those countries are threatened by the idea of peace and democracy.

But still, Iraq should have calmed down by now. We’ve been there for almost four years. I was patient for the first few, these things take time and it’s not going to be easy. No one thought that Iraq would look like Ohio in just three years, it’s a very underdeveloped and alien place. But by now, things should be quieting down, getting noticeably better. For example, by now, we should have been able to withdraw some troops. Even if Iraq had been a smashing success we’d need to station troops there for decades, but we shouldn’t need 100,000 in the country after three years.

It’s not working out. It’s time to pull out. I’d pull out TOMORROW if possible, not one additional American life is worth sacrificing over there.

Dec 6, 2006 - 5:16 am 38. Wolverine:

Not at all; but in case anybody is wondering what is motivating this latest fit of pique:

Ohio State 42
Meechigan 39

Oh no! I’m wounded by a football score. What will I do?

Grow up except that you’re probably already 50 and heading downhill.

Dec 6, 2006 - 8:25 am 39. syn:

Joe Schmoe

It’s about as ‘orgy of violence’ in Iraq as it is in Mexico or Sudan or Chad (where things are getting worse), it’s just that the media zeros in on Iraq in order to spoon-feed a specific reality.

Like the soldier stated: “It’s really too bad that people back home refuse to believe it or refuses to believe we can do anything about it”

Do you honestly believe that if we withdraw, isolate ourselves, simply focus on the impossible task of checking each cargo container at the ports we will avoid war and can return to pre-9/11 mentality?

Iraq is not The War, it is part of the bigger picture and was the best place for the West to begin fighting back.

Dec 6, 2006 - 8:51 am 40. Buddy Larsen:

Yo, wolverine–guess what, we’re *all* headed downhill, from conception. It’s the arc of life, and a hundred years from now, and from thence into and throughout eternity, your dot on it will be indistinguishable from the 50 yr-old’s dot just adjacent.

Dec 6, 2006 - 9:11 am 41. Steven Mitchell:

“I know what you mean but the American people are not going to tolerate firebombing Sadr City. Those days are over.”

I disagree. Those days are temporarily suspended, because things haven’t gotten bad enough yet. American has always had a mushy middle that is willing to buy the political pablum dished out by the small minded. (Lately, they are mostly concentrated in the Dems, media, and academia, but historically they have existed in a variety of groups.)

Let’s say Iran does manage to sneak a nuke into an American city, or we pin something equally nasty on them. Sure, 4-5 years later, the apologist will be out in full force, talking about how we shouldn’t have leveled Tehran. But by then, it will be done.

As Victor Davis Hanson has repeatedly shown, it’s very hard to get a democracy sufficiently riled that it will do what is necessary to completely handle a problem. There are too many opportunities for political mischief. On the other hand, once a democracy is so riled, it’s very hard to stop it.

Winning the cold war was only possible because we eked it out while the lessons of WWII were still undeniable to the majority of the leadership. Now, there are too many people that look at the cold war as the template, rather than the result. It will take a real threat for them to learn more about history.

Dec 6, 2006 - 11:23 am 42. Sandy P:

–I have known Muslims who were nothing like the jihadis, but there is no doubt this fascism has sprung from that religion. But we waste our resources and energy if we direct our malice toward a billion people, most of whom have done us no harm.–

They don’t have that kind of political power yet, Terrye.

We have the flying imans, this woman who can’t pray at the health club, demanding public pools follow islamic law…

They’re also not speaking up. They win either way.

Dec 6, 2006 - 11:52 am 43. Godzilla:

OT:

In more Bizarro World politics, Baker sees peace conference exluding Israel as an opportunity for the US to strike a deal without Jewish pressure.

Message to Bush: Tell these assholes to go to hell.

Dec 6, 2006 - 3:05 pm 44. Paul:

Steven Mitchell says:

“Winning the cold war was only possible because we eked it out while the lessons of WWII were still undeniable to the majority of the leadership. Now, there are too many people that look at the cold war as the template, rather than the result. It will take a real threat for them to learn more about history.”

This is further compounded by a large and very noisy contingent who look to Viet Nam as the template. Their effect is further amplified by their hold on the media, arts, and education

But it’s true. It’s almost inevitable now that an act of nuclear terrorism will take place. No one knows what will follow, but I think it’s safe to say that the the pacifists and pinkish types will fair poorly.

Dec 6, 2006 - 4:23 pm 45. Wolverine:

“It’s almost inevitable now that an act of nuclear terrorism will take place. No one knows what will follow, but I think it’s safe to say that the the pacifists and pinkish types will fair poorly.”

Well, fortune teller, until the “inevitable” happens, you’re going to look like an ass.

Dec 6, 2006 - 5:40 pm 46. Sandy P:

Then he’s in good company, Wolverine, some terrorism experts predict 5-10 years.

I also read after 9/11 that what brought those buildings down was the equivalent of a small nuke, so we’ve already been nuked in a sense.

Lesson from WWII, said by a Jew (was in the camps) around 1947 when asked what he learned, “When someone is trying to kill you, believe him.”

They’ve been telling us for decades. Why do you refuse to listen?

Dec 6, 2006 - 7:03 pm 47. Sandy P:

Hmmm, I think the quote is more like, “When someone tells you he is going to kill you, believe him.”

Dec 6, 2006 - 7:04 pm 48. Steven Mitchell:

“But it’s true. It’s almost inevitable now that an act of nuclear terrorism will take place. No one knows what will follow, but I think it’s safe to say that the the pacifists and pinkish types will fair poorly.”

Paul,

Or something equally nasty. Right now, I’d put my money on a bioterrorism attack. I’d say the nuclear power is mainly intended to deter the response to the bioterrorism.

Wolverine,

And when it happens, the the donkey appearance will go away. I can live with false perception. On the other hand, those that *are* asses will probably still be in that same state. A few like you manage to change, but I’m not holding my breathe.

Dec 6, 2006 - 8:16 pm 49. Paul:

“Well, fortune teller, until the “inevitable” happens, you’re going to look like an ass.”

Maybe so. People like you told me the same thing in the late 90s when I warned that Islamic fundamentalists would strike the USA within a few years. I was only surprised by the method, as I erroneously assumed that they had “suitcase” nukes.

It didn’t take a genius to see it coming. Only someone willing to take them at their word. However that was not, and amazingly still is not, a popular position.

Once Iran has proven that they can obtain nukes without America stopping them there will no longer be any constraints on any nation from developing them. And develop them they will.

I think reasonable people can extrapolate the odds of a rogue nuke eventually falling into the hands of terrorists, or even being deployed by the government of a nation engripped in an apocalyptic radical Islamic vision. Particularly one emboldedned by the seeming weakness and degeneracy of the West.

So, if we do sustain an act of nuclear terrorism (which, if we do not preempt Iran’s attempts to aquire nukes is almost certain) you will be rightly viewed as at the very least a useful idiot and enabler, and quite possibly as a traitor to your nation. Which may or may not even matter to you.

Dec 6, 2006 - 8:37 pm 50. Paul:

Steven,

The only reason I believe it will be nuclear is that I think the drama and spectacle of atomic destruction will be irresistible to apocalyptic Jihadists. People dying by illness, no matter how catastrophic the results, just doesn’t have the same impact to those who thirst for catharthis through extreme violence.

Look at Iran’s rhetoric vis a vis Israel. They could probably introduce a lethal pathogen into Israel tomorrow, but it’s always firestorm and whirlwind with these folks.

I would more likely suspect bioterrorism as the MO of radical earth-first types bent on the destruction of humanity while leaving the rest of the ecosystem intact.

Dec 6, 2006 - 8:50 pm 51. Ray:

Bio terrorism has already occurred. Chemicals have been inserted into American water supplies that create a majority of surrender monkey weenies. The chemicals were originally tested with success in Europe and found to undermine ethics and principles. The newest versions also undermine patriotism.

The solution? Drink distilled spirits until the surrender monkey democrats find themselves fighting Islamic terrorists in their own neighborhoods.

Dec 7, 2006 - 7:23 am 52. Steven Mitchell:

Paul,

Oh I think if they can do a nuke, and convince themselves they can get away with it, they would go for that first. I just happen to think they will be able to go the biological route sooner, and will overstep in the process, thus provoking the reaction.

American tendency to be slow to rile and hesitant to fix problems before they become awful is rightfully seen as a weakness by our enemies. However, they overestimate “slow to rile” as “cannot be riled”. It seems to be a characteristic analytic weakness of facist and communist dictators alike. They can’t resist the urge to invade Poland, when waiting five years and building up would be a more effective option (strategically). By the way, I think this is also true of Europe, yes, even “Old Europe”. It’s been hidden because of the USA underwriting of European defense, but it’s still there.

Dec 7, 2006 - 7:25 am 53. Buddy Larsen:

But, Ray, Wing Commander Lionel Mandrake drinks plenty of water. In fact, you might even say, he’s a “water man”.

Dec 7, 2006 - 11:59 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: