Still Hating America.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
PS:

In a way, I am extremely anxious for the Bush administration to end.

President Bush has become such a "bogeyman" for the Left, that these lunatics are willing to sell out everything we hold dear just to "oppose" him. Blinded by hatred, the majority of the American Left is willing to do just about anything, so long as it is opposite the "Bush" position - including national defense and self protection.

In a way, I am hoping that when he is out of office, this rabid mob will sufficiently calm down, do some self-evaluation, and realize how out of line they really are. Maybe a timeout, and some clarity, is what is necessary to get these folks grounded back to reality.

Similar, if mirrored, sentiments were expressed back in the late 1990s. No such luck, I'm afraid.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Hmmm. Once again, Spanky takes license with the truth. Am I the only one trend-spotting here?

Are you suggesting there's an objective truth discernable in any of the debates on this board?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Are you suggesting there's an objective truth discernable in any of the debates on this board?

in the bi-partisanship I will admit that I have agreed with almost all posts of this Ty@50 sock. Kuh-bah-ya!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Al Qaeda lied!

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
In sum: as wars go, this one - in terms of both blood and treasure - has been a drop in the bucket.

That's wonderful news.

But what about the cost in national prestige, foreign policy effectiveness, the structural strain on our military and our ability to project power elsewhere to address other crises?

(e.g. Cut a deal with NK, no credible threat to Iran, etc.)

Now do the cost-benefit analysis.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Since the change in command and the announcement of the "surge", we've taken out a great deal of Al Qaeda leadership, we're taking over the Sunni gang strongholds in Baghdad, and Moqtada took it on the lamb.

Can you point me to links on the al Qaeda thing? (really)

I saw an article about the death of an aide to the big guy, and his wounding.

S_A_M

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
... and Moqtada took it on the lamb.

You either mean the lamb took it from Moqtada or Moqtada took it on the lam.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Is everyone on this board a moron?

It seems that way sometimes, doesn't it? At least when reading posts written by upbeats...

Okay, so it turns out that a few pints of Newcastle are no better for the qualities of one's posts than is a liter of boxed wine. I got a little confused.

[SlaveNoMore]

With a rare moment of clarity, the WaPo editorial board supports what I've been saying for over a week.

Namely, John "unindicted co-conspirator" Murtha is a spineless ignorant fool:


--
Not the 'Real Vote'
Or so Rep. John Murtha says of the House's Iraq resolution.

Saturday, February 17, 2007; A30

REP. JOHN MURTHA (D-Pa.) has a message for anyone who spent the week following the House of Representatives' marathon debate on Iraq: You've been distracted by a sideshow. "We have to be careful that people don't think this is the vote," the 74-year-old congressman said of the House's 246-182 decision in favor of a resolution disapproving of President Bush's troop surge. "The real vote will come on the legislation we're putting together." That would be Mr. Murtha's plan to "stop the surge" and "force a redeployment" of U.S. forces from Iraq while ducking the responsibility that should come with such a radical step.

We'll return to Mr. Murtha's plan, but first it's worth considering the five days of debate that he so breezily dismissed. It's true that nonbinding resolutions won't stop the troop surge, which is already underway. But after years of minimal debate and oversight of the war, the House Democratic leadership was right to allow scores of representatives to speak at some length on Iraq. Some of the speeches were little more than partisan rhetoric, but there were also intelligent and heartfelt interventions, especially from veterans of Iraq and Vietnam.

The House vote does matter: It ought to increase the pressure on Mr. Bush and the Iraqi government to follow through on their pledges to accompany the military campaign with tangible steps toward political accords and economic reconstruction. Senate leaders would be wise to reach an agreement today allowing a similar debate. And both chambers should aggressively conduct oversight hearings aimed at holding the administration to its promise to link continued U.S. troop deployments to Iraqi performance.

Mr. Murtha has a different idea. He would stop the surge by crudely hamstringing the ability of military commanders to deploy troops. In an interview carried Thursday by the Web site MoveCongress.org, Mr. Murtha said he would attach language to a war funding bill that would prohibit the redeployment of units that have been at home for less than a year, stop the extension of tours beyond 12 months, and prohibit units from shipping out if they do not train with all of their equipment. His aim, he made clear, is not to improve readiness but to "stop the surge." So why not straightforwardly strip the money out of the appropriations bill -- an action Congress is clearly empowered to take -- rather than try to micromanage the Army in a way that may be unconstitutional? Because, Mr. Murtha said, it will deflect accusations that he is trying to do what he is trying to do. "What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said.

Mr. Murtha's cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq. He continues to insist that Iraq "would be more stable with us out of there," in spite of the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies that early withdrawal would produce "massive civilian casualties." He says he wants to force the administration to "bulldoze" the Abu Ghraib prison, even though it was emptied of prisoners and turned over to the Iraqi government last year. He wants to "get our troops out of the Green Zone" because "they are living in Saddam Hussein's palace"; could he be unaware that the zone's primary occupants are the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy?

(Slave - here's the kicker. Wow!)

It would be nice to believe that Mr. Murtha does not represent the mainstream of the Democratic Party or the thinking of its leadership. Yet when asked about Mr. Murtha's remarks Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) offered her support. Does Ms. Pelosi really believe that the debate she orchestrated this week was not "the real vote"? If the answer is yes, she is maneuvering her party in a way that can only do it harm.

link

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You either mean the lamb took it from Moqtada or Moqtada took it on the lam.

Mint jelly!!!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
It seems that way sometimes, doesn't it? At least when reading posts written by upbeats...

I think Gattigap resents that.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
PS:

In a way, I am extremely anxious for the Bush administration to end.

President Bush has become such a "bogeyman" for the Left, that these lunatics are willing to sell out everything we hold dear just to "oppose" him. Blinded by hatred, the majority of the American Left is willing to do just about anything, so long as it is opposite the "Bush" position - including national defense and self protection.

In a way, I am hoping that when he is out of office, this rabid mob will sufficiently calm down, do some self-evaluation, and realize how out of line they really are. Maybe a timeout, and some clarity, is what is necessary to get these folks grounded back to reality.

I had the same hopes with respect to Clinton. Oh well.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
PS:

In a way, I am extremely anxious for the Bush administration to end.

President Bush has become such a "bogeyman" for the Left, that these lunatics are willing to sell out everything we hold dear just to "oppose" him. Blinded by hatred, the majority of the American Left is willing to do just about anything, so long as it is opposite the "Bush" position - including national defense and self protection.

In a way, I am hoping that when he is out of office, this rabid mob will sufficiently calm down, do some self-evaluation, and realize how out of line they really are. Maybe a timeout, and some clarity, is what is necessary to get these folks grounded back to reality.

I had the same hope when it came to the end of the Reagan administration and Star Wars. Before Reagan proposed "Star Wars" my parents were involved in the peace movement with Dr. Caldicott, and she and all the other the other peace activists used to start of the speeches by asking "if the Soviets launched a hundred missiles at us, how many would get through?". At that time the audience was always shocked to hear that 100% would get through and the anti-nuclear activists would state that the evil government in Washington was more concerned with killing Soviets citizens than in protecting their own people.

When Reagan came along with SDI, I expect the antiwar activists (like my parents) to be happy, but because Reagan was proposing it they immediately turned against it. The problem is, even after Reagan left, because he proposed it, the liberals still hated it. And even after the end of the Cold War, when its need was even more apparent, they still stuck to the same old B.S. arguments.

The personal hatred trumps all rational thought.

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
I had the same hopes with respect to Clinton. Oh well.

Ho hum. We weren't at war then.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
I had the same hope when it came to the end of the Reagan administration and Star Wars. Before Reagan proposed "Star Wars" my parents were involved in the peace movement with Dr. Caldicott, and she and all the other the other peace activists used to start of the speeches by asking "if the Soviets launched a hundred missiles at us, how many would get through?". At that time the audience was always shocked to hear that 100% would get through and the anti-nuclear activists would state that the evil government in Washington was more concerned with killing Soviets citizens than in protecting their own people.

When Reagan came along with SDI, I expect the antiwar activists (like my parents) to be happy, but because Reagan was proposing it they immediately turned against it. The problem is, even after Reagan left, because he proposed it, the liberals still hated it. And even after the end of the Cold War, when its need was even more apparent, they still stuck to the same old B.S. arguments.

The personal hatred trumps all rational thought.

Either that or the peace activists recognized it as yet another esacalation and provocation (leaving aside the expense and still miniscule chance of success).

But you know, you can just keep assuming that you are the only rational one. I do, however, suggest that you watch out for a mine shaft gap.