Friday, November 10, 2006
This strikes me as very foolish both substantively and politically:
George McGovern, the former senator and Democratic presidential candidate, said Thursday that he will meet with more than 60 members of Congress next week to recommend a strategy to remove U.S. troops from Iraq by June.
Virtually every aspect of McGovern's "plan," at least as described in the linked article, is asinine. While they're at it, why don't the Democrats invite Jimmy Carter to craft a strategy for containing Iran?
"..the current threat of terrorism developed because _ not before _ the United States went into Iraq." McGovern
In a way, that's true - no further 9/11 attacks, attempts actually thwarted, Saddam removed, Lybia denuked, wot front located in Iraq not the U.S..
Otherwise, it's either a pretty confusing statement or flat-out delusional.
Because the current threat is "current", it could not have developed "before"?
The past threat cannot exist because it is not current?
Sorry, I'm just trying to understand the "higher truths" produced by an "audacious distortion of reality".
Pass me some weed.
Of course it's sustainable, it's just that the lights bulbs are expensive and you need a variety of spectrums to get the flavor correct.
They also chew up the electricity.
Factory production commences next week
Sorry to disappoint. I grew up Southern Baptist and, as such, am a tea-totaller and have a disinclination towards all but natural highs.
It's rather interesting to see a room full of "conservatives" mock the most Christian president that we've had in my lifetime - and the only one without a scandal attached to his name. What is it that's in YOUR cookies?
I'm a Democrat and of course was happy we won. I wanted my side to win as a statement against what I saw as ineptitude and ego from the Republican leadership. I don't however think it's in our interest to get out of Iraq immediately and I worry that's what the Dem leadership thinks we (me and other Democrat voters) want. They would be wrong. I personally want better oversight, checks and balances, and people who will listen, try a new strategy and, to fling a cliche, think outside the box. If all they push for is to withdraw immediatly then they've misinterpreted at least my vote and I believe many many people who voted Democrat. That being said, by 2008 if this war has not improved, I may be voting to get out of there.
Dan, Dan, Dan:
1. There were certainly any number of scandals during the Carter administration. Billy Carter carrying Col. Qaddafi's water comes to mind, as does "LanceGate." I'm sure that in a few minutes of meditation I could come up with several more.
2. Carter was particularly incompetent and, yes, immoral, in his dealings with Iran, and the Iranians thought him so perfidious that they were convinced, at least until 2002 or so, that Democrats were far more hostile to them than Republicans. First, there was the famous toast of the Shah and Iran as "an island of stability". Carter made it very tough for the moderate anti-royalists to gain the upper hand in the turmoil that was then gripping Iran. Second, and much worse, was the Carter administration's famous signal to the Shah that he should do anything necessary to beat back the revolution, regardless of its brutality. By then, though, the Shah had cancer and was worried about his own mortality. He decided not to slaughter the protestors, and instead fled the country. But Iranians all know that Jimmy Carter wanted the Shah to crack down brutally.
Well said, and exactly right, in my opinion. I also want those things, and agree with literally every word of your desires with regard to Iraq (including the accountability part, within reason). Where we differ is in our view of the leadership of the Democratic party. I think they will come to precisely the interpretation that you fear.
It's always a happy event when a bloviating moron like Tigerhawk (ooh - what a big, bad name) disses a U.S. Senator and war hero who received the Silver Star and the Distinguised Flying Cross for heroic service in protection of his country.
Now - if we could only find ONE accomplishment of Tigerhawk's . . .
I worry about that. But soemthing needed to change and I didn't trust that the Bush administration was going to do it. I think many Americans felt that way. I'm hoping the balance of having Bush in the White house measn we won't do something radical and that having Dems in control of the Senate and House will change how things are going in Washington. I know the Republicans smirk probably when reading that, but you've guys have had a total grip on the govornment and the American people have spoken on how they feel about the the job that's been done. All in all, something had to change.
How dare democrats seek strategic guidance from someone with no ties to the petrolueum industry or arms trade? Harrumph!!
-And Jimmy Carter? Please. His dealings with Iran lacked any effectiveness versus lets say, an ex-actor who offered Iran HAWK missiles, bibles and birthday cakes, only to forget about it later?
We should be fair to Jimmy Carter. He probably was too intoxicated from having his face way too close to the fumes of Yassir Arafat's ass for us to expect him to know what he's talking about.
I have to say, it is somewhat amusing for Democrats to rediscover their appreciation for people in the military... so long as those people want us to quit fighting.
Gotta love the civility here... our esteemed blogger is a "bloviating moron." Most "rethug" types are in jail. Clever stuff - good to see that the content-free insults have moved into 4-syllable territory.
Incidentally, one could still give advice from prison... I think this is something that got Lynne Stewart in trouble. Maybe she's one of those "rethugs" too. Oh, perhaps not.
It's good to know that all ex-military folks are off limits for criticism. Maybe when you guys are done carrying water for McGovern, you can erect a monument in honor of Ramsey Clark (US Marine Corps, 1945-1946).
President Carter has always appeared to me to be a Godly man, and I rejoice in his salvation.
Unfortunatetly, he was also a lousy president, by far the least competent in my lifetime (which is saying a lot, given our current president). And President Carter's actions over the last several years in particular have struck me as exceedingly unwise.
Grace and peace, bro.
One more thought, Dan. I hope you are not making the error that Francis Beckwith described in connection with the Harriet Miers nomination:
". . . how Evangelicals are lining up on the matter of Miers reveals a deep problem with the plausibility structures of certain segments of Evangelicalism: they confuse claims of personal piety with actual expertise or knowledge. So, for some Evangelicals, Miers' Evangelical conversion and promise to interpret the law correctly are good enough. But for other Evangelicals, Miers' personal piety and promise of constitutional fidelity are neither sufficient nor necessary conditions for being a good justice or having a well thought-out judicial philosophy. I suspect that Evangelicals of the former variety would not board an airliner whose company motto is "God is our co-pilot, that's why we hire pilots with little or no experience." But it seems to me that the trajectory of our nation's jurisprudential infrastructure is at least as important as one's airline safety.
When it comes to your eternal life, you are saved by grace through faith. But when it comes to your jurisprudence, you are saved by works."
And when your presidential legacy is evaluated, you are judged by results. Carter's results stank.
Catchy, I also worry that you have good aims but have completely misread the Democratic leadership. Let's hope I'm wrong.
As to the references here about control of of government and checks and balances, I have always thought that was overplayed by Democrats who felt no need to compromise. "Control" of both houses during the Bush presidency has meant an unreliable bare majority. One might say similar things about the Supreme Court. If anything, the checks and balances were working too well in the system, and conservatives were unable to push through several things they would very much have liked to. Virtually nothing got accomplished unless they could scratch up at least a few Democratic votes.
People have the impression that the Bush presidency was autocratic, not listening, tyrannical, etc. That impression was artfully created by his political opposition, who really know how to play power politics, having had years of practice. You will see it played out almost immediately, I fear. The comments here from the left are not that different in spirit than the Dem leadership. All attack, oversimplification, insult, no evidence.
Bush 43 made the same mistake as Bush 41: he believed that when he compromised with Democrats they were going to keep their word.
In my opinion, McGovern is right about one thing: Our presence is driving the chaos in Iraq.
Use your brains for a second here:
1. people join the militias to fight the invaders (because Iraqis don't think the way right-wing americans wish they do, and consider foreign troops in their country an insult, not a blessing - if you can't understand that, stop discussing Iraq, seriously.)
2. the militias don't really fight the troops as much as kill other iraqis. (which is not why people are joining)
3. by removing the reason they join in the first place, we force the militias to recruit on a basis of "kill your fellow iraqis"... not nearly as compelling.
4. Once we are gone, Iraqis will only have themselves and "foreign jihadists" to blame for continuing violence.
5. When we pulled out of western Iraq, the local tribal leaders got together and pushed out the remaining foreign fighters from the region (why, because they couldn't be dependent on our forces anymore - we were a crutch!)
Frankly, calling it "assinine" sounds laughable coming from someone who advocated invasion and now advocates staying indefinitely. You don't know what will happen when we leave (just as you couldn't see what would happen when we were to invade). You righties had your chance, you screwed it up. Now it's our turn to try our way, and if we're right I have no doubt that you will refuse to admit it.
Don't just call it assinine, tell us WHY. I'm not saying I know with 100% certainty that things will get better if we leave, and you certainly don't know with 100% certainty that things will get worse. Under these conditions, what mcgovern is advocating isn't "assinine", it's just one of two options. It would be irresponsible to not seriously consider ALL options, instead of just labelling it "Assinine" without any real consideration.
war hero who received the Silver Star and the Distinguised Flying Cross for heroic service in protection of his country.
Military service at the level of McGovern's is no sure indicator of political competence or even strategic military insight. [prime example -- Hitler. Decent WWI military record, politically tone deaf, and militarily incompetent.]
OTOH, one of the US presidents who dealt with Islamic terrorism effectively in the past had no military experience at all. Can you guess who he was? Hint: he drafted the declaration of independence.
I suppose part of being a "Free Thinker" is to freely think that "asinine" is spelled with a second "s."
I am, of course, stuck in my outmoded and conformist way of thinking whereby I'm stuck believe that there is only one "s" in "asinine" and that surrender will not lead inexorably to victory. Of course, I'll just ignore the obvious examples to the contrary, e.g., free and democratic Vietnam. Oh. Nevermind.
Carter would be terrible counsel on Iran! As any one knows, the way to deal with Iran is the Reagan way -- get the CIA to transport to sell massive shipments of cocaine from Central America (like the Contras?) on the streets of America and use that money to fund all efforts to give Iran weapons in exchange for what we want! Bring back Ollie!
McGovern was CLEARLY wrong on Viet Nam. Since we turned tail and stopped killing American kids in 'Nam to the tune of 58,000 casualties, the Evil Vietnamese have fulfilled the Domino Theory, invading Japan, South Korea, Laos and Thailaind, threatening the northern reaches of Australia and spreading communism far and wide around the Pacific Rim.
The last I heard, the bastard commie Viets were threatening to invade our most favored trading partner, the Peoples Republic of China!!!
It's only a matter of time before we're fighting the Vietnamese over HERE because we STOPPED fighting them over THERE!
In what cannot be a good sign, a Vietnamese restaurant opened here in Independence, Missouri last week - so it should only be a matter of time before insurgent Viets riding bicycles and wearing black pajamas will be swarming down I35 (fka the Nafta Hwy - now the Ho Chi Minh Trail II).
Be Afraid, America - be very, very afraid!!!!!
Free -- that has to be the most stunningly stupid statement about Iraq I've ever heard.
Iraqis have hated each other for centuries when they were cobbled together under the Ottomans. Now they are free to slaughter each other, Saddam having one side (the Sunni) with a total monopoly of power gone, gone gone.
The cleansing of Iraq of Sunnis who stupidly and suicidally want to keep fighting the Shia out of habit is inevitable. With the US in place it can be contained to the level of Kosovo and not reach Rwanda like proportions. Otherwise there will be blood to pay.
There are no "Patriotic Iraqis fighting the occupiers" because Iraq is not a nation but a collections of tribes.
Leave and bin Laden and Zawahari and Sheik Nashrallah are proved right: kill enough Americans and they will surrender, run away. No nation will stand up to them in the region but instead co-operate with them for survival. You'll see Saud and the Emirates all roll over for Al Qaeda and Iran even MORE; leading up the nuking of American Cities (did I mention Iran's cost-free nukes have Saudi, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan, UAE, and Turkey all wanting nukes now, either publicly announced or various unpublicized arrangements with Russia and China)?
McGovern and Curtis LeMay and Patton and Custer all served honorably amidst great personal danger. That doesn't mean I'd want them as policy makers. Citing biography instead of policy is a sure sign that the policy stinks.
Rob Lewis -- when did Ho Chi Minh arrange for jetliners to be flown into the WTC to kill thousands of Americans? It's not 1968, there are TEN nuclear powers now and soon to be 17. The Pope, Salman Rushdie, Danish Cartoonists, French Philosophy profs, are under Muslim sentence of death for things they said or drew. Theo was already murdered by a Muslim for saying things he didn't like. Just like Muslim Sirhan Sirhan killed RFK for supporting Israel.
"1. people join the militias to fight the invaders (because Iraqis don't think the way right-wing americans wish they do, and consider foreign troops in their country an insult, not a blessing - if you can't understand that, stop discussing Iraq, seriously.)
2. the militias don't really fight the troops as much as kill other iraqis. (which is not why people are joining)"
This is terribly oversimplified. Lots of people join the Iraqi Army and police forces too, who specifically DO NOT fight 'the invader.'