Not our first rodeo
I caught the second half of Bush’s post-election press conference today.
Say what you like about politicians, but one thing they almost always display is an uncommon ability to pick themselves up and dust themselves off, and to do it on what must be almost no sleep at all. Oh, and to at least mouth words, post-election, that make it sound as though working together will be possible, no matter what foul mud has been slung beforehand.
In addition to that, Bush seemed especially–and I know some of you might find this word odd in relationship to that particular person–but especially articulate and focused. His speech pattern, for example, was much more rapid than usual. Virtually gone was the strange hesitation that often ties and muddles his tongue. He spoke rapidly and forcefully, somewhat impatiently, mostly very graciously, and decisively. I heard more off-the-cuff humor than I usually do when he speaks.
Sometimes when bad blows finally come after a period of trying to avoid them, there’s a calm that sets in. It’s over; now move on. And this election must have been a pretty bad blow, although not a totally unexpected one (in a phrase that is sure to be trumpeted by the MSM, he called it a “thumping” despite the closeness of many of the races).
As most of you know, the focus of my support for Bush is his general approach to the war on Islamic jihadi totalitarianism. I have some quarrels with his domestic agenda, and some disagreements with details of how the aforementioned war has been handled. So I was heartened by two things: one was the resignation (and the acceptance thereof) of Secretary Rumsfeld, who’s become a lightning rod for criticism. The other is that Bush is determined not to become a Gerald Ford.
Why the reference to Ford? He presided over the pulling of the plug in funding Vietnam, although “presided” is hardly what he did in terms of leadership. He abdicated, barely making any effort to stop Congress from cutting off all support from the South Vietnamese when a little (relatively speaking) might have gone a long way.
That’s the only Vietnam analogy I tried to make here. I’m aware of vast differences between Vietnam and Iraq, and the bottom line is that Iraq is far more strategically important. I don’t have quotes from Bush’s press conference, but he made it clear that he is dedicated to staying the course in Iraq with a different approach. What a different approach means remains to be seen, and what Congress will do about it is unclear, but there’s no question a course correction is needed.
Bush indicated we’ve been correcting our course right along. That’s true, but we need more visible success. It’s also true that the milblogs have been trumpeting our successes there right along, but most of America doesn’t read milblogs (or blogs at all, for that matter). The nature of the beast is that people need something more visible to counter the body daily count, some measure of success that they can perceive and understand.
My biggest fear with this election has been that the Democrats in the “cut and run” camp will dominate. I’m hoping much of that was just campaign rhetoric, and that more sober minds will prevail now that the Democrats have won. After all, as Bush himself said when asked whether he could work with people like Pelosi who’ve dissed him previously in such vicious terms: that’s politics; this isn’t “my first rodeo.”
A rodeo’s a tough game. But it’s a game. Politics may appear to be a game, and it’s a rather nasty one at that. But it influences affairs of state and global events, which are more than a game. And after the rough and wild rodeo of a political campaign, the cowboys who have been thrown by the bucking broncos, as well as the ones who haven’t, have to get up and get to work.
[ADDENDUM: Austin Bay makes some interesting points about what the change at Defense might signify. And I agree with this that Rumsfeld’s “resignation” would have been more strategicially sound had it been accomplished before the election rather than after. It’s been a while since much of anyone has been a Rumsfeld supporter–except for Bush, it seems, and the latter’s loyalty to him in the face of bipartisan opposition has caused bipartisan resentment.]
We’ve killed thousands of people in a country that possessed no ability to harm the USA. Saddam was a monster, but we’ve been buddy-buddy with monsters for decades, including with Saddam.
“Strategically important?” Tell it to Henry Kissinger.
It’s a long,long way from the Marshall Plan to the Halliburton Horror.
And how about those neo-cons pointing the fingers at W in Vanity Fair? “It’s not my fault,” they say, “we only developed the plan. W executed it—badly.”
Remind you of the Wernher Von Braun song?
You have so many excellent posts that it is really tough to know when to come out of the woodwork and comment. But this was an exceptionally good post, one that I really needed to read when I read it. Thank you.
i haven’t visited this blog in awhile and you have a new photo. the old photo had the apple covering so much of you we couldn’t really see what you looked like. you’re quite hot-looking!
Really good news is Joe Lieberman success as independent. It shows that real problem for voters was not so much “war or no war”, but morality of Republicans. And they seem left to wish much better. Joe is strongly pro-war, but his personal honesty and integrity is evident. This was decisive factor.
and look what being buddy-buddy with monsters for decades has gotten us. the cold war is over. it is time to stand up to the monsters and support freedom. we must not lose our nerve or the future is lost.
A very soviet way of dealing with a question Neo, just make it go away.
Again, if the democrates are a party of “cut and run”, who are these democrates.
It’s a rodeo remember, rodeo’s are not for the faint or delicate of heart.
Quotes, names, evidence please.
“And how about those neo-cons pointing the fingers at W in Vanity Fair? “It’s not my fault,” they say, “we only developed the plan. W executed it—badly.””
All the people quoted in that article repudiated the way VF twisted their words around. They were honestly assessing mistakes and successes, and VF made it look like they had turned against the war. I guess it worked with you.
” Saddam was a monster, but we’ve been buddy-buddy with monsters for decades, including with Saddam. ”
One monster down, 4-5 to go. That’s not okay with you? Tell it to the Iraqis.
The question’s fine, Donkey. I was in the middle of some troll-dropping cleaning, and I had a heavy finger on the edit button. I no longer have your comment, so I can’t quote it, but my recollection was that I edited for rudeness, not the question itself.
In fact, as far as the question goes, Yehudit has already answered it. I did, as well, on this week’s podcast (recorded Monday evening), the second half of which is devoted to that exact Vanity Fair article that has been mostly repudiated by the neocons “quoted” in it. But due, I believe to election overload, it hasn’t yet been posted at PJ yet.
In addition to that, Bush seemed especially–and I know some of you might find this word odd in relationship to that particular person–but especially articulate and focused.
Bush operates best under pressure. Just remember right after 9/11. That was pressure from our enemies and his anger. Now it is pressure from the Democrats. Let us hope and pray, if you are the religious type, that God will see Bush’s last two years through with the same fire, ruthlessness, and plain old willpower Bush showed in his first 2 years.
What a different approach means remains to be seen, and what Congress will do about it is unclear, but there’s no question a course correction is needed.
It better not be something similar to what he cooked up “bipartisanly” with Ted Kennedy in the No Child Left Behind thing.
That’s true, but we need more visible success.
America needs something to celebrate, something that unites us, and if Bush can’t find that something, then he needs to CREATE IT.
It’s also true that the milblogs have been trumpeting our successes there right along, but most of America doesn’t read milblogs (or blogs at all, for that matter).
hey Neo, the MSM is the occupier and we are the insurgents. That is why the MSM always holds over us, the Sword of Damocles, and they are willing to use it, but we are not willing to use it in Iraq when we have the power. Therefore you see how successful the media is in getting people to vote Democrat, as opposed to America, in getting people to stop killing each other. When you use your power, you get rewarded by more power. So long as you don’t go overboard.
[ADDENDUM: Austin Bay makes some interesting points about what the change at Defense might signify. And I agree with this that Rumsfeld’s “resignation” would have been more strategicially sound had it been accomplished before the election rather than after.
Bush addressed this in his first part, which I think you said you missed.
Basically, Bush did the same thing he did with Fallujah. Held it off until the elections were over. Bush was already getting Rumsfield’s resignation oiled and working before, but he didn’t announce (if only Bush can learn to keep OpSec that well for his other stuff) it because he didn’t want politicsl to intrude. So Bush truly is the compassionate conservative. He does things because he believes them to be right and to benefit the troops, because he CARES, not because it is strategically beneficial. Heh, of course, you don’t exactly want that kind of a person in charge of a war, all in all.
Neo, you need to decide the difference between bluntness and rudeness.
I have a good friend that is a bluedog democrate (and vice-priciple at Berkeley High.), identical to your political leanings.
When we get together for a BBQ, or as my girlfriend and his wife call it, “The Thrilla in Wonkavilla.”We hurl rhetorical thunderbolts at each other. He being pro-war, me being anti-war. It’s a contest of sorts.
To quote you, that’s the rodeo, babe.
It’s smelly, profain and good for your vascular system.
And because we are at war(occupation) it can get heated as it should.
The “cut and run” smear gets plenty of play on Hugh Hewitt, who has switched from kool-aid to glue sniffing if you read yesterday’s post’s.
Elevate the debate, and the debate will be elevated.
Just don’t mistake a good rhetorical crack in the nose as rude.
Dishonesty should get the scarlett letter.
Neo still doesn’t get it.
The Invasion and Occupation of Iraq was a political war designed to rally Americans around a weak and duplicitous presidency. Now that this political ploy has lead to the devastation of soo many political careers there will simply be no motivation amongst the republicans to continue with the charade.
mark,
Got any interesting theories about 9/11?
No I don’t.
“Joe is strongly pro-war, but his personal honesty and integrity is evident”
Sergey
The crack is good in Moscow! How could anyone interpret what Liebermann did as honest or honourable? It was as low as it gets.
Which is why Lamont lost. Forward the Darkness!!
mark avers:
“Neo still doesn’t get it.
“The Invasion and Occupation of Iraq was a political war designed to rally Americans around a weak and duplicitous presidency.”
And the evidence of this “duplicity” is exactly we]hat? Michael More-on versus four independent investigations – including Lord Butler’s accross the pond, which found that Saddam DID SEEK uranium from Africa in 1998-9. (See last year’s book “The Bomb in My Garden” for FIRST-HAND details on Saaddam’s well-hidden nuke program.)
Ther 2006 election is a triumph of media lies about Bush – “Bush lied, people died” “What WMD?” “Saddam was in his box” – because important substantive matters like endemic UN corruption of the Food For Oil program made alternative impossible. (But, oh, that weould make Bush look good – can’t have that if it’s all Vietnam all the time.) Same with the Joe Wilson’s partisan fraud of Plamegate!
But then expecting honesty about foreign policy from the MSM is like expecting honest about Bill Clinton’s impeacdhment – ain’t gonna happen!
It was never about sex and privacy, as the MSM sold it to the ignorant masses, since ‘sex’ was never mentioned in the bill of impeachment. It was about the rule of law and whether or not the preseident is subject to the same laws as you and me – especially when sued under a law he himself signed! But surely all this is news to “mark”
Toppling Saddam and and installing democracy became US olicy in October 1998, when Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act.
Again, the “outrage” about Iraq is so ill-informed by all historical measures that ’06 shows that the MSM has got what it wants once again – control over the terms of political debate.
I fear for our future because of their ego-maniacal myopia. We are their hapless victims.
Neo:
“In addition to that, Bush seemed especially–and I know some of you might find this word odd in relationship to that particular person–but especially articulate and focused.”
Oh yeah, now he gets all articulate. Now that would have been a nice October surprise.
Orson.
No question about it. You definitely are a “hapless victim”.
Excellent post as always.
Who’s Robert Gates?
These are not ‘bad’ men, just wrong men. Bush, Rumsfeld, actually I have nothing but contempt for Cheney.
Bush cried when a Iraqi delegation called him a liberator. He’s not inhuman, its just as Armitage said ‘cannot fit the suit of a president.’ Rove (to put it mildly) is a rotten influence, wrong politics. All many wanted including me is that this administration should be held accountable. Now the democrats who have just won the senate as well can do that, but should keep themselves accountable themselves. People have shown they have impatience.
It’s not directly related to the topic of this thread, but I’ve just made two political posts (very unusual) on my blog that I think are very important. Well, one’s more just a rant about bad logic, while the other one (ended up being rather lengthy) is my take on why people disagree in politics.
Partisan Politics and Logic 101
Politics
Sergey wrote:
“Really good news is Joe Lieberman success as independent. It shows that real problem for voters was not so much “war or no war”, but morality of Republicans.”
That’s just one Joe Lieberman. But in seat after seat, anti-war democrats have won. In fact, where the Democrats put up pro-war candidates, they weren’t very successful. See the article about this in Counterpunch by clicking here: :
“Wherever they were given the opportunity, voters across the country went strongly for antiwar candidates. True, the national Democrats, led by Rahm Emanuel of the Democratic Congressional Campaign, had tried pretty successfully to keep such peaceniks off the ballot, but in a few key races the antiwar progressives romped home. The Democrats won, despite Emanuel. If the Clintonites weren’t still controlling most of the campaign money, and more openly antiwar populists had been running, the Democrats today would probably be looking at a wider majority in the House and one committed solidly to getting out of Iraq.
“Take the sixth district in Illinois, in the Chicago suburbs. This was where the national Democrats threw money at Tammy Duckworth, the prowar double-amputee running in the primary against antiwar Christine Cegalis, who almost took down Republican Henry Hyde in 2004. Flush with Emanuel’s campaign cash, Duckworth narrowly beat Cegalis. But yesterday Duckworth’s clouded message on the war failed to rouse the voters and she went down to defeat.
“In northern California, another of Emanuel’s Democrats was Charlie Brown, an Iraq vet. The race looked like a landslide for the Republican but in the last weeks it began to tighten up. Then in a debate, Doolittle, the Republican, tried to bait Brown with supposed ties to Cindy Sheehan. Instead of standing his ground and denouncing the war, Brown quavered that he had no ties to Sheehan and Mrs Brown later told Sheehan to stay away. Confronted with this craven performance voters gave up on Brown and the awful Doolittle cantered home.
In the nearby district around Modesto it was a different story. Here was a ripe target, an implacable foe of nature called Richard Pombo, who had spent his entire career campaigning against the Endangered Species Act, and any enjoyment of nature other than the enrichment of cotton and rice farmers. In the primary season Rahm Emanuel and George Miller put the party’s resources behind a Pombo lookalike who was duly trounced by Jerry McNerney, an antiwar foe of corporate agriculture. National Democrats chafed at McNerney’s effrontery and predicted victory for Pombo.
“But on Tuesday the voters leaped at their opportunity. They booted out Pombo and sent McNerney to Washington. In the upset’s aftermath, the Contra Costa Times marveled, “It will go down in California history as a massive upset in a congressional district where the incumbent held a 6 percentage point party registration advantage. No other district
Sorry, the link was: http://www.counterpunch.org/
(the first line following is a joke, so don’t get too offended)
Remind you of the Wernher Von Braun song?
reinhardt
Herr Heydrich,
I’m sorry, but thats not a very powerful argument from you.
(I apologized beforehand, and i apologize again)
As for The President being articulate, I think of the personal interviews. He expresses himself well in those, he also expresses himself quite well in the group conferences with other leaders (as long as the media doesn’t completely ignore that there is someone else there for a reason)
I don’t think that The President is inarticulate, I think he is all too often locked into the position of “chief politician for the party” thats why he fidgets so much during the talking points conflicts that are called “press conferences” I don’t think he likes “politics” and I think it makes him uncomfortable, since everything he’s trying to accomplish on a grand scale is beyond politics.
Example.
Ask a wage slave programmer to charm a room full of money grubbing gladhanders. Ask an author to respect an opinion from a highschool dropout, ask a physicist to respect the opinions of someone who makes a statement that perfect sense in it’s simplicity, “if you include a variable aren’t you making the formula more complicated, rather than less?”
You won’t find them.
I think that The President is somewhat specialized, so he comes off as a buffoon when he is outside of the area’s he’s good at. Fundamental leadership as The Commander in Chief of The United States of America’s Armed Forces.
That however, is not an excuse for him to have made as many silly statements as he has made. Then again, it doesn’t forgive the congressional ‘pubs, the congressional dems, and the media to blame someone who has a completely different job from the legislature for not articulating the wishes of the legislature.
One more thing.
If you want the apple to cover more of your face, you can hold the apple closer to the camera.
Perspective in the lense is different from fact, you can stand closer to the camer, or hold the apple closer.
It isn’t just the apple thats smaller, it might be, but it’s also your bean.
The new picture has a smaller neo-neo-con head/face than the previous, and since the whole range interpretation thing is a nature of optical physics, theres no fighting it.
stand closer to the camera, and hold the apple closer to the lense.
I’m just saying, I haven’t commented more than twice since you changed your picture, so I thought I would comment.
On the other hand, the new picture protects your annonymity, and makes you look like a rather hot momma. the old one with the greys (I don’t mind greys) made you look WAY! too amy goodman.
Herr Heydrich?
We’ve killed thousands of people in a country that possessed no ability to harm the USA.
1943 Italy.
1943 France?
We killed more French than we did germans, but they were FRENCH NAZI’s huh?
well?. . . you starting to see a connection Herr Heydrich?
Everythign must be redifined, No I make a mistake, everything must be defined for the first time.
What is victory?
What is terrorism in Iraq?
Is unilateralism possible in the contemporary world, any world?
Who are our real allies?
Who are the enemies?
What do you actually have to do in the region/world?
Everytime Bush raises the stakes through belligerent words unrealistic goals, he puts the victory goals higher and higher, until they have become unachievable. One cannot lose face, but one must not raise the bar so high that it is inevitable.
A long time ago on my very first thread here there was a discussion about the Roman Empire, which naturally moved to the Byzantine Empire.
Rome was more powerful than the US. Because they were accountable to no one.
Byzantium was less powerful than the US. No single defeat, no war, could crush this empire and it had an enormous economy and military, even though their military was fallible. However it did not rely on military strength alone, it relied on diplomacy , bribes and threats, and Byzantine intrigue that constantly outfoxed its opponents. Facing the complex threats of the modern world the US must adopt some of this cunning and all of this diplomacy. It must reverse the dangerous unilateralism of the past 6 years. Brute force is overrated, unless you are in a conventional war. However, conventional wars now are the exception, not the norm.
Rummy suscribed to the notion that grunts compliment high techary (wizardry) and it cost him his job. “An army goes to war with what it has, not what it wants” he said. Well, the first clue of bad planning was when the troops were calling for more armor for their vehicles. When the voting Public saw the troops innovating, as they are want to do like at the hedgerows in France in WW2, this proved to the Public that the planning was terrible. I heard Rummy and a top general say they simply did not anticipate as much resistance and religious killing as manifested. Hmmmm, we leave the Shi’ites out to dry after Gulf War 1 and then we think they are going to give us hugs and kisses when we return? No cigar on that one. What demonstrated to me there would be no trust in our forces to provide security was the total failure to even attempt to prevent looting. Muslims feel quite strongly about theft of any kind, I think a bit more so than we do, and only a fool would think the looting was contained to government buildings only. Looters should have been shot in the legs on sight. Another problem that developed and the Pentagon still does not have a clue about it, centers on children. We are always playing and fooling around with the kids, paying attention to them and not the adults. Fine, but does anyone have a clue how disruptive this can be to traditional family structures? This puts a child in a parental role by being a point of reference and expertise on the Americans/occupiers. A kid brings home an MRE to a family that is short of food and suddenly he is assuming the father’s role. This does not bode well in rigid, totally paternal societies. How would you feel if a strange, extremely powerful alien force came to earth and only paid attention to your children? Would you implicitly trust them? I saw this same disruptive dynamic at play when I was in the Peace Corps. We didn’t need high techary in Viet Nam to ascertain which villages were hostile and which were friendly. We relied on the children. They would either come running out of their homes smiling or giving us the finger. The fact that Iraqi children were and are approaching our troops shows a basic openness to us, but we have blown it. 20/20 hind sight, but Rummy was the boss. Lincoln sacked Generals at the drop of a hat during the Civil War, Truman sacked McCarthur, it’s nothing new. I hope now both the Dems and Repubs quit catering to the fringe elements and heed the center. There is some real work to do and all the Bush bashing by the Dems now gives them a chance to prove to voters they can do better. In looking at some of the very close contests, it won’t take much to tip the scales back the other way if they don’t produce. If they cut and run, the Repubs and conservative media will not give them a pass on the carnage that will follow and what will make the current violence seem almost trivial. Nope, no pass for the MSM like they got with Viet Nam and the vicious repression the Nort
Loki, the projection of naval and air power remains conventional. Conventional methods on the ground are being used in Afghanistan, they were used in Panama, Haiti, Grenada, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Gulf War 1 and the current Gulf war. Good logistics and being fluid and flexible is what matters, the evolution and adaptation to terrain, indigenous populations and available resources. The Russians would still be in Afghanistan had they employed helicopters to disperse and dispense their logistical necessities. they relied on conventional convoys that were easy to ambush in mountain terrain. When Turkey refused to allow our 3rd ID to embark there and move South into Iraq, they were flown in.
In Iraq, the Sunnis now know that if the US pulls out, they will pretty much be wiped out by the Shia’s who are and will be helped by Iran. The Kurds are content to hang on to what they have in the North – oil and security. To paraphrase al qu’ran, the Sunnis will have no helpers. What needs to be done now is kill al sadr and devastate his militia.
Neo-neo, if there is one quibble that I have with your post it is the constant reference to what the Democrats did to “Vietnam”. It wasn’t just Vietnam for which they cut off funding, but Cambodia as well: I hold the Democrat Congress of the time responsible for the ravages of the Khmer Rouge, as well. Let’s hope that Iraq doesn’t confront the same fate. As one commentator of the time pointed out, being a friend of the United States can be fatal.
As far as the Lefty trolls are concerned, it may be worthwhile noting that one of the key reasons that Byzantium fell to the Islamofascists of their time is the internal political strife that prevented the Byzantines that sapped their will and prevented them from organizing an effective resistance. I have to wonder if the “anti-war” coalitions of the 12th-15th Century were anything like the Democrat/Left of today. One thing for which I cannot fault the OBL Jihadis is their lack of appreciation for History’s lessons.
“A rodeo’s a tough game. But it’s a game. Politics may appear to be a game, and it’s a rather nasty one at that. But it influences affairs of state and global events, which are more than a game. And after the rough and wild rodeo of a political campaign, the cowboys who have been thrown by the bucking broncos, as well as the ones who haven’t, have to get up and get to work.”
Lol. You’ve outdone yourself Neo – that’s a keeper that one.
Hard-hitting political insight that you’ll never find in the MSM.
Long live the blogs…
Actually, for those who started this war – yes you Neo and your lot – the rodeo is just about over.
“I think it’s the worst kept secret in Washington. That everybody – everybody I talk to in Washington has known and fully knows what their agenda was and what they were trying to do.
“And one article, because I mentioned the neo-conservatives who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that’s the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy and those who propose it. I certainly didn’t criticize who they were. I certainly don’t know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I’m not interested.
“I know what strategy they promoted. And openly. And for a number of years. And what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don’t believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn’t know where it came from.”
General Anthony Zinni
As towards Bush’s speech pattern, I think when he has a prepared speech, has had time to study it and it is written in his style, it flows much more freely then when he has to try to articulate his free-flowing thoughts…
“Say what you like about politicians, but one thing they almost always display is an uncommon ability to pick themselves up and dust themselves off, and to do it on what must be almost no sleep at all.”
This is true; it is a necessary ability for prostitutes…
The real rodeo has just begun. Taxes will have to be raised to support the domestic spending so loved by Democrats. Iran will rear its ugly nuclear head then expand its influence violently. China’s trade competition will greatly intensify in a year’s time and North Korea is not going away quietly. More Mexicans will continue to pour across the border and outsourcing of jobs will increase. Hating the President will not resolve these problems by next election and the Democrats track record will be far from shining at that time.
Loki needs to get drunk again, he’ll get better coherence then.
“The real rodeo has just begun. Taxes will have to be raised to support the domestic spending so loved by Democrats. Iran will rear its ugly nuclear head then expand its influence violently. China’s trade competition will greatly intensify in a year’s time and North Korea is not going away quietly. More Mexicans will continue to pour across the border and outsourcing of jobs will increase. Hating the President will not resolve these problems by next election and the Democrats track record will be far from shining at that time.”
Gee – that sounds more like the last 6 years of GOP ‘rule’ less the blatant corruption, scandal, arrogance and failure in foreign policy choices.
But hey – those tired old mantras, as crap as they are, just don’t go away….
Raising taxes?
No thats really not necessary – just recinde the tax cuts for the rich.
Are you rich Rebbi?
Ymar – i do better drunk than you do sober if content is the issue
Anon 12.09 wow Zinni, a lot of that happens everywhere and here(if you don’t agree you’re a jew hater, Osama lover, see every thread here at neoneo)and other rightwing blogs. On Huff post, you had trolls suggesting that Dem victory was a victory for ‘dimmitude’.
———-
Lemieux 8.48 Yes errr no, I was talking about Byzantime diplomatic tactics for manipulating their enemies and amplifying their power, I was suggesting that the US should take a leaf out of their book, as opposed to not talking to your enemies and just using brute force.
You’re talking about projecting your own concerns into the past. Osama makes as much sense when he says that Spain belongs to Aljazeera ( meaning the Muslim world or island), claiming a pathetic ‘precedent’. Byzantium lasted a very VERY long time and nothing lasts forever.
———
I thought Bush looked frazzled and defeated…for the moment, but as tony snow said, ‘Bush doesn’t absorb a defeat.’ Pity because you learn a lot from defeat. We’ll see in the last two years what Bush is actually capable of and whether he can salvage anything from this presidency.
———
18 women and children died in their sleep at Gaza. Or is that another Reuters photo-op gone wrong? Look, cut to the chase, start the genocide in the Palestinian territories. Who’s going to stop them if they do? The US? Ymar? Gray? the EU that you have nothing but disdain for? Colombia University?
Few are capable of addressing issues and resort to name calling. Hope I’m going slow enough for you Y.
Goesh – Yes but on the ground in afganistan the numbers of Nato soldiers is limited…(for reasons best known to this brilliant administration) and they are fighting unconventionally, kind of SAS Desert Rats North Africa.
Victory in Iraq (when it was possible – and it still could be depending on how you define it) depended on unconventional combination of tactics maybe – smething it has been argued that the US was unprepared for and unprepared to do.
I suppose that in Iraq, even the pretence that the US were fighting stopped soon after the invasion. When the public could have been sold the idea of more war Iraq could have been won. The denial of this administration denied true victory in Iraq.
Since 2003 aside from some clear out operations there has been nothing but patrols for what reason? The clear out operations have failed, and served only to cause more insurgency.
—
In a sense Rumsfeld and the Admin denied the possibility of victory early on by denying that there was a problem in Iraq…an now you cannot make a child grow smaller. Perhaps now threats and diplomacy are the way to bring reconciliation.
——-
Nato troops will have to go to Iraq which means going on our knees to the UN and EU, thanks to this incompetant administration. And dont forget that we have our friend Turkey to contend with. Think about this, Turkey is moving away from its EU obligations at the moment, now why would that be do you think? Yeah look to the north of Iraq.
PS Osama is dead
Hasn’t Loki realized yet, in his drunken stupor, that I don’t read his posts so it is not like I need to exert any great will to ignore him? I can’t ignore something I don’t even read.
Brilliant Ymarskar
So you’re dismissing something you haven’t even read, how do you know it’s not worth reading? If you don’t read it why/ how can you have an opinion?
Please, give yourself a break…
How old are you? I wont address you again, you are a waste of time.
Loki – they are “not feeding the trolls”(LOL) – in the hope that when you present facts, truth and logic that you’ll just go away and they can continue in their little mythological, hate mongering sewing circle…
Actually I quite prefer when they don’t respond to proper questions and go on the troll trip – it shows with crystal clarity the intellectual and moral bankruptcy, and the fact that any dork in cyberpspace can have a blog and be a rightwing hero nowadays…
“Because I knew ZERO about military history, so all I could do was trust in the President and the generals. But, I’m a little bit more educated now.”
Except that Y. That, from your website sums up your naivete.
Dear Anon 8.49
It’s not like I’m advocating some goddam lefty liberal agenda even…maybe the ppl here are further right than I imagined,
But if you want to see REAL ludicrous delusion Anon 8.49, see ‘Augean Stables’. That is something else. It would be ok if the guy was a little logical or could even see that what he was criticizing or the manner in which he was criticizing applied equally if not more so to HIMSELF! He blankets his arguments in ridiculous terms that are seemingly supposed to give it an aura of academia, very tragic.
Anyway I am leaving neo neo con i think, or will try to. It’s too distracting and no one really argues, they just have positions to defend, thoughtlessly.
I may be back, if anyone ever wants to argue facts not ‘givens’
You can get drunk on hops all you want loki, but trolling anonymous isn’t going to get you anywhere.