Some Libs Need To Get Honest With Themselves

By
January 16, 2009

One must be harboring a lot of hate if they can't dispel it after 6 or 8 years.

Along with Krugman throwing one of his usual Bush hissy fits, there are pols and other Lefty pundits who just don't seem to want to let go of the blanket of anger they cloaked themselves in through Bush's term.

Hamsher points to Sheldon Whitehouse talking investigations, suggesting this is about giving a pass to "elites." But that's a transparent play.

Try to find any of these folks calling for the serious investigation into Chris Dodd that appears warranted, for instance.

Evidently only Democrats can wander the halls of power for longer than most and not be labeled an "elite."

In going after Bush after he leaves office they are out for nothing other than a full scale political prosecution. The Soviet Union may remain gone for now but the tactic of always going after your political opposition with something all too conveniently dressed up as the rule of law remains with us – too much so where today's American Left is concerned in my view.

They need to take a page from one of their favorite shadow groups and move on. 

Please consider supporting RiehlWorldView with a small donation
, by shopping at Amazon via our Associate link in the sidebar or by re-distributing our content across the Web with the options below. Thank you.


Comments:
  1. Lala says:

    Well, he can skip FISA according to this -
    “Ever since the Bush Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program was exposed in 2005, critics have denounced it as illegal and unconstitutional. Those allegations rested solely on the fact that the Administration did not first get permission from the special court created by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Well, as it happens, the same FISA court would beg to differ.
    In a major August 2008 decision released yesterday in redacted form, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, the FISA appellate panel, affirmed the government’s Constitutional authority to collect national-security intelligence without judicial approval. The case was not made public before yesterday, and its details remain classified. An unnamed telecom company refused to comply with the National Security Agency’s monitoring requests and claimed the program violated the Fourth Amendment’s restrictions on search and seizure.
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123206822799888351.html

  2. Fred Beloit says:

    The leftist nitwits in the Congress and our own village idiot Harpo won’t get any help from the FISA Court:
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022562.php
    “The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review has made public its decision, reached last August, that the federal government has the power to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a specific court order, even when Americans’ private communications may be involved.”

  3. Fred Beloit says:

    Great minds think alike, isn’t that so true, Lala?

  4. Fred Beloit says:

    As for Krugman, who seems to be at least a part owner of Memeorandum, he is there on almost a daily basis, he says:
    “I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.”
    I’m sure he is for a thorough investigation and prosecution of the powerful NYT for printing leaked classified documents, which action is clearly illegal.

  5. SacTownMan says:

    BDS is alive and well!!
    The pathetic life of the troll centers around George W. Bush as the cause of ALL of the things that are wrong with their lives, instead of just looking in the mirror!
    These worthless losers will always turn a blind eye towards the real causes of the worlds problems. How easy it is to just point to President Bush and say… He did this! It’s his fault that the bank loaned me $700,000 for a house on my $45,000 income and I’m bankrupt!
    He caused all of the problems in the middle east, those folks over there loved America before he came along. Just forget about those other attacks like the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, the Cole, the African embassy bombings, the first attack on the world trade center that everyone seems to forget! Bushie did that too don’t you know!
    What will these MSM trolls do now but keep butt licking Barry and point at Bush for all of the worlds ills?

  6. Lala says:

    Yes, Fred.
    It’s good that we found two different sources.

  7. Fred Beloit says:

    Yep, otherwise it would have looked like collusion, or worse plagiarism.

  8. Anon says:

    In the interest of fairness I have to remind conservatives that there was a lot of “Bill Clinton did it” that went on these past years as well…

  9. Fred Beloit says:

    Sac and Dan are right. If you have your own belief that there is a Harvard lawyer who is a god, there must be conversely be a Yalie who is da debil.

  10. Lala says:

    Speaking of “elites”
    Carol Browner, Barack Obama’s nominee for energy-environment “czar,” is quite the socialist -
    “This was not the only time that Browner was accused of abusing her authority. According to a February 2001 report in Time magazine, the EPA was plagued with “festering racial problems” during Browner’s time in charge. One African-American EPA employee, Dr. Marsha Coleman-Adebayo, told Time that she’d been passed over for promotions for being “too uppity,” adding, “We [African-American employees] were treated like Negroes, to use a polite term. We were put in our place.” Coleman-Adebayo was later awarded $600,000 in damages in a settlement that found the EPA guilty of “discrimination and retaliation against whistleblowers.” Shortly thereafter, Congress passed the “No Fear” government whistleblower protection act in response to the Coleman-Adebayo v. Carol Browner decision. Dr. Coleman-Adebayo lamented in a recent interview, “The very woman I prevailed against in court is being elevated to a White House decision-level position.”
    At least 150 EPA employees filed similar lawsuits during Browner’s time there. In one particularly bizarre incident, blogger Shawn Mallow notes, “Anita Nickens, an EPA specialist, and the only black present during a visit of Mrs. Browner, was told to clean the toilet prior to her arrival. Afterward, the rest of her white co-workers bragged about it.”
    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=B733BA80-D8A2-42FD-8859-C15F36C5A6A1

  11. Fred Beloit says:

    Bill Clinton DID do it, if you are talking about perjury, Anon.

  12. Anon says:

    I wasn’t talking about perjury but I don’t care and never did care about Clinton’s relationship w/Lewinsky and for my money he should never have been asked the question in the first place since it had ZERO bearing on his role as president…that whole investigation was a travesty that the right should be ashamed of. It did however serve as the last example of Clinton’s chief flaw which was always, always to stonewall and deny instead of tell the truth, which is what caused his presidency to be largely ineffective.
    I was more talking about how Al Quada has been blamed on Clinton as well as a number of other economic and diplomatic issues that were blamed on Clinton for years after he left office.

  13. Lala says:

    Let’s keep the record straight – it was the Jones’ case that brought about the perjury – Lewinski was secondary.
    “President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.”
    More Information
    • Starr Report
    • Clinton’s Aug. 17 Grand Jury Testimony
    • Clinton’s Jan. 17 Paula Jones Deposition
    • Full Coverage
    Clinton Perjury Allegations
    By Peter Baker
    Thursday, September 24, 1998; Page A14
    Independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr’s report to Congress alleged that President Clinton committed perjury, obstructed justice, tampered with witnesses and abused power. Of the 11 counts laid out by Starr, five allege that Clinton lied under oath in his Jan. 17 deposition in the Paula Jones case and again in his Aug. 17 grand jury testimony.
    http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/gperjury092498.htm

  14. jharp says:

    And the exclusionary rule is now almost worthless.
    http://www.nypost.com/seven/01152009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/when_cops_forget_150225.htm
    This oughta put the wingnuts in a quandary. Wingnut Glen Reynolds is pissed at the wingnuts on the SCOTUS. Whose side to take?
    Our Constitution has taken a real beating.

  15. Anon says:

    Um, maybe I’m not getting it, but all the perjury charges stem from what he said about his relationship with Lewinsky, not Jones.

  16. Anon says:

    The exclusionary rule has not taken a beating here, that is more liberal hyperbole, the ruling basically says that absent any evidence of an ongoing, systemic problem that simple clerical errors that occur which are unknown to the police are not enough to exclude evidence.
    Do people really want paperwork errors and such to ensure that violent guilty people aren’t prosecuted?

  17. Lala says:

    Anon, go to the link, it started with the Jones civil suit against him.

  18. jharp says:

    “One must be harboring a lot of hate if they can’t dispel it after 6 or 8 years.”
    I don’t hate anybody. I do hate what George Bush did though.
    And I 100% agree that his actions should be investigated and whoever broke the law should be prosecuted. No one is above the law. Not even your King George.
    After all, if he did nothing wrong he has nothing to worry about. Isn’t that the reasoning you jackasses use to justify warrant less spying on Americans?

  19. Jimbo says:

    Geez, the nutjobs are out in force around here, huh? Clinton is not president. he hasn’t been president for a lllloooonnnnggg tttttiiiimmmmeeee!!!! Get over it, already. You folks need to decide where your loyalty lies: either in the form of a man (bush) or the Constitution. It is really that simple – just like you folks. You can either follow behind bush – dirtying your nose the whole time – or you can look at the guiding principles we are governed by. You cannot be loyal to both our little boy king and the rule of law. make up your minds. Frankly, if every discussion on the Bush years gets yanked back into Clinton’s issues, you folks are more delusional than your dear leader. Really.
    Name anything Bush has touched which remains a success to this day. Don’t use that GOP canard that he has kept us safe, because you know in your hearts he has only generated thousands more angry and motivated young people to avenge the unfair treatment in our torture prisons. And don’t forget about the deaths due to the anthrax letters – which is still unsolved.
    I am trying to imagine the huge whole in your lives now that you may have to think for yourselves. You can still tune into o’reilly and limbaugh for your daily talking points, so you have that going for you. I would prefer you simply did your own research and make up your own minds, but that isn’t really your goal now is it? Your goal is to create a ‘daddy state’ where you have no minds of your own. Robots, I guess. Just GOP robots who think Jeebus walked the earth with the dinosaurs. This country is so in trouble if you folks don’t grow up and look at the condition your idiot preznit left us in. If you still need to revere a monarch, may I suggest Saudi Arabia. You know Saudi Arabia right? That’s where most of the 9/11 highjackers were from. Where 10 year old girls can be married off to old men. Where the country is the exact opposite of the philosophies America was founded on, but still Bush kisses their behinds. Why would that be?

  20. Philip McDaniel says:

    Oh, oh…I sense another rant session coming from the nitwit twit.

  21. Fred Beloit says:

    Here is another example of why the progressives should be more honest with themselves. There IS torture going on at Gitmo, and our government is doing nothing much about it. Waterboarding? Hell no, that isn’t torture. THIS is torture:
    “There are multiple assaults on guards every day, mostly verbal and sometimes physical. At least once a week, every week, at least one soldier is doused with a “body fluid cocktail” of feces and urine as they attempt to perform their daily routine. I asked one young female non-commissioned officer what happens after such an event. She explained that the soldier washes off and changes into a clean uniform, and after a medical evaluation is permitted to choose whether or not to return to the cell block.
    The option is given so the soldier has the opportunity to calm down, process what happened, and seek out a chaplain or mental health professional if desired. Without my prompting, the NCO added that in the year that she had worked there, not one soldier had decided to take the rest of the day off.”
    A dose of terrorist Muzzie mung. And we would never even consider putting a small piece of bacon in their chow for committing an act like this. But we are “better than they are” so we permit our lads and lassies to be tortured like this and do nothing to punish the offender? And this means we are “better than they are”. Well that is quite a comfort, that is.

  22. Fred Beloit says:

    Jimbo, however, says: “Don’t use that GOP canard that he has kept us safe, because you know in your hearts he has only generated thousands more angry and motivated young people to avenge the unfair treatment in our torture prisons.”
    I bet Gynbo has Muzzie-munged a few honest citizens in his time. Why he’s trying to do that here and now. Go eat a porkchop, you POS.

  23. Anon says:

    Bush isn’t going to be investigated any more than he has already been, those people who want to see Cheney in jail are delusional. The time to call Bush to account for his flouting of the Constitution is long past. Nobody is going to jail. Me, I think Wolfowitz and Feith may belong in jail as well as Gonzales, but it is not going to happen. The country, and that includes the Democrats and all the liberal organizations sat by and did nothing but complain, the legal challenges to clearly illegal and unconstitutional moves never came. Congress rolled over when Cheney told them he was his own branch of government and so be it. It is TOO LATE for any of that now, all those precedents have been set now.

  24. “Isn’t that the reasoning you jackasses use to justify warrant less spying on Americans?”
    Actually, that shows the difference here; to Democrats like yourself, jharp, aiding and abetting terrorists is a good thing, and stopping them is a bad thing.
    http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/10/terror.trial.lawyer/
    “You folks need to decide where your loyalty lies: either in the form of a man (bush) or the Constitution.”
    LOL…..given that liberals openly support denying people the right to vote and hold public office on the basis of their religious beliefs, denial and confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens, and confiscation of personal property by the government for redistribution to private citizens and businesses (see Kelo), what exactly is the definition of “loyal to the Constitution”?
    Furthermore, Jimbo, let’s not forget that you fully supported and endorsed Clinton’s proven lying under oath. You make all sorts of allegations against Bush while ignoring and spinning that it was perfectly OK for Clinton to violate the Constitution. Why is that?
    “Don’t use that GOP canard that he has kept us safe, because you know in your hearts he has only generated thousands more angry and motivated young people to avenge the unfair treatment in our torture prisons.”
    Then, by that logic, there should have been no terrorist attacks whatsoever during Clinton’s reign, since Democrats never do anything unfair to anyone.
    Ever consider the possibility that these people are motivated by irrational hatred against the United States? Or does that not work in the “blame America first” Democrat Party, the one that calls our soldiers murderers and baby-killers and endorses and supports vandalism, violence, and hate speech against them?
    http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/02/371741.shtml
    http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/12/jodie-davis-code-pink-founder-obama-bundler-osama-apologist/

  25. mark l. says:

    “No one is above the law.”
    unless the crime is perjury and the perp is a sitting democrat president.

  26. jharp says:

    The exclusionary rule has not taken a beating here, that is more liberal hyperbole, the ruling basically says that absent any evidence of an ongoing, systemic problem that simple clerical errors that occur which are unknown to the police are not enough to exclude evidence.
    Do people really want paperwork errors and such to ensure that violent guilty people aren’t prosecuted?
    Posted by: Anon | Friday, January 16, 2009 at 12:04 PM
    Yes the exclusionary has taken a severe beating. Even wingnut Glenn Reynolds agrees.
    The police can now arrest and search whomever they choose. And just plead that it was an honest mistake.
    In case you didn’t know ignorance of the law was not, nor ever has been an excuse, until now.

  27. Philip McDaniel says:

    Fred, the only good thing to come about from all this is that we are not capturing as many on the battlefield as before…if you get my drift.

  28. Fred Beloit says:

    Another butt plug chimes in: “I think Wolfowitz and Feith may belong in jail as well as Gonzales, but it is not going to happen.”
    Might one inquire as to the charges, Anon?

  29. Fred Beloit says:

    Lawyers on the battlefield, Phil. We ask a hell of a lot from our young soldiers.

  30. Anon says:

    As usual you are wrong, they don’t call it the “exclusionary” rule for no reason and if you actually read the decision you would see that it is not broad but very, very narrow and there are plenty of loopholes for judges to decide on a case by case basis whether or not clerical errors should bar evidence, it does not mean or even close to mean that police can arrest and search anyone they want to, in fact it has nothing to do with arrests at all, only with bureaucratic mistakes as they relate to warrants.

  31. jharp says:

    “Nobody is going to jail.”
    Very sad to say I must agree with you on that.
    Don’t think any of them, Feith, Wolfowitz, Bush, Cheney, or Gonzales are going to be doing any travel outside the U.S though. I take a little comfort in that. Just a little.

  32. Anon says:

    Wolfowitz and Feith for falsifying evidence and perjury; Gonzales for perjury.

  33. Fred Beloit says:

    What perjury, may I ask, Anon.

  34. Fred Beloit says:

    Falsifying evidence? Evidence of what?

  35. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that jharp, the Obama and Bill Ayers supporter, wants to hate the police. He and his fellow leftists still don’t see anything wrong with planting bombs to kill police officers; in fact, he supports giving the people who do so hundreds of millions of dollars to teach children to hate police just like he does.

  36. jharp says:

    “it does not mean or even close to mean that police can arrest and search anyone”
    Yes, it does. All it takes is one other law enforcement official to “accidentally” claim there is a warrant when there is none. It gives the police power they have never ever had.
    Why do you hate the Constitution?

  37. Fred Beloit says:

    Harpo has his Muzzie mung semi-auto out and is shooting the place up.

  38. Philip McDaniel says:

    I think our men in combat and their unit commanders know what the score is…61 detainees showed back up on the battlefield from what I hear, by the way. Let’s not go into details, Fred, but I think our guys can handle the situation from now on without anything like Gitmo.

  39. Anon says:

    Wolfowitz and Feith falsified evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, had acquired new WMD, had tried to acquire yellow cake uranium and that Iraq was a ‘threat’ to the U.S. as well as all the rest of the massive massaging and editing of intelligence reports to say what they wanted them to say.
    My opinion is that Wolfowitz lied his ass off in his testimony to Congress and so did Gonzales, so, there is your perjury.

  40. Anon says:

    OMG you are such a fool. READ the decision!!! It does not mean the police can say there is a warrant when there isn’t one or never was one. In this particular case the police executed what they thought was as VALID warrant, because of a procedural glitch that he police KNEW NOTHING ABOUT that occured in another county the warrant was no longer outstanding. Thus, the police acted in good faith at the time they executed what they thought was a valid warrant. The error had nothing to do with the police or even with police record keeping, but was a separate division. Again, you know nothing you didn’t read in the headlines of some blog yesterday, there are ALREADY EXCEPTIONS for when police act in good faith. How many ways do you want to tie the hands of law enforcment to enable clearly guilty people to go free based on PROCEDURAL errors? We aren’t talking about made up informants that don’t exist or cops planting evidence or lying about what happened, we’re talking about paperwork.

  41. Fred Beloit says:

    You mean this yellow cake?
    “The UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was very upset last week that the US had shipped about 1.8 tons of low—enriched uranium and other radioactive material out of Iraq for disposition in the US. One would think that the IAEA would have appreciated our work in assisting them in the implementation of the provisions of the Non—Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in this particularly volatile region of the world. But one would be wrong.”
    From American Thinker blog.

  42. Jimbo says:

    “No one is above the law.”
    unless the crime is perjury and the perp is a sitting democrat president.

    There you go again…Democrat president? Not Democratic president? So you all do take your cues from the nutjobs, huh? And still dragging ancient history back to the discussion? I thought my previous words were clear about your goals and ideas – they are dead. Dead as the regional party the GOP has become. The GOP is filled with uneducated, backward losers who do not know how to adjust to life without ‘dear leader’ to guide them. Where can you turn to get the best way to disparage the progressives? I know it will be difficult for you to honor the new administration, but the fact is that the Obama administration will take better care of you and your family than the GOP. If you’re union, the GOP wants to shut it down. If you don’t have health care, too bad. If your pension just got whacked from the financial meltdown (again, also on Bush’s watch), too bad. If you just lost your home, too bad. If you are in the mlitary and you want to retire, forget about it. As long as the GOP wants to start mulitple wars, you are going to be ‘drafted’ and forced to fight wars to benefit the GOP – not America. The cartoon characters you folks seem to revere are cowards and charlatans. They force you and your loved ones to fight in illegal wars, but they sit at home and cheerlead the destruction – never to be in harms way (excpet if you go birdhunting with Cheney). You have been had and you are starting to realize the lies you bought. I think that is a good sign.

  43. jharp says:

    “READ the decision!!!
    I did read it. And I also read the dissents. Maybe you should try that. And here is another piece you should try.
    “http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/the-surpassing-significance-of-herring/
    Good friggin grief. Glenn Reynolds, a tried and true wingnut, agrees it is a horrible decision. You won’t be happy until our Constitution is in shreds.
    Why do you hate America?

  44. Fred Beloit says:

    Anon: “My opinion is that Wolfowitz lied his ass off in his testimony to Congress and so did Gonzales, so, there is your perjury.”
    My opinion is that you are lying and there is absolutely no evidence of perjury in the cases you mentioned; but I made a New Year’s resolution not to re-argue cases already won with people who prefer to remain close-minded, so I’m not going to waste further time on you over this moonbat nonsense you have introduced.

  45. Fred Beloit says:

    Why Ginbo, what a veritable mountain of Muzzie mung you have shown us. Where do you get it all, from Muffington Post? Are you trying to best Harpo at the head village idiot game?

  46. Anon says:

    Nobody outside of NYC and Detroit and “progressives” who never met a stereotype about ‘workers’ they didnt’ like cares about unions anymore, they account for about 10% of the workforce, nothing Obama can do including deprive ‘workers’ of the right to vote in private is going to change that.
    Obama’s health care plan is going to cost billions more than he admits and everyone knows it except liberal dolts who care only about propaganda but never bother to do the math.
    If your pension just got whacked you are shit out of luck and Obama isn’t going to change that, you seem to forget that Obama appears to care the most about people who don’t work at ALL, not anyone who worked for enough years to get a pension. LOL. Obama is going to take your pension and give it to some shiftless welfare recipient and call it a tax rebate.
    If ‘you’ just lost your home, unless you also lost your job or incurred some kind of unforseen expenses then you deserve to lose your house. But, you are right, Obama is going to make sure that every dirtbag making $30K a year who bought a $300K house gets to keep it, screw the banks, screw the 90% of people whose mortgages are not in trouble, they are the ones who are going to pay for the stupid/greedy group that are living in houses they don’t deserve and can’t afford.
    The GOP is not to blame for the Iraq War, that is on the neocons.

  47. jharp says:

    “Obama is going to take your pension and give it to some shiftless welfare recipient and call it a tax rebate.”
    Utter and complete nonsense. And it makes you look stupid even posting such hogwash.
    “The GOP is not to blame for the Iraq War, that is on the neocons.”
    So the neocons are democrats? You losing it buddy. The Iraq War is George Bush’s baby. And George Bush is the GOP’s baby. And you know it.

  48. Anon says:

    No, I’m not losing it, the neocons are a cult like group that took over huge portions of the Bush White House, before that, they had largely been relegated to the scrap heap of history. Wolfowitz has never been right about anything in his whole career. If you remember Bush got elected in 2000 promising to stop meddling in the affairs of other countries…If you remember, prior to 9/11 Cheney and Rumsfeld were proto typical GOP conservative hawks who were big on deterence and not too big on building democracy. The real story of the Bush presidency is how and why the neocons were able to co opt Bush and Cheney and take over foreign policy up to and including fighting a war based on false information.

  49. Fred Beloit says:

    Steve P. (Harpo to us) says: “The Iraq War is George Bush’s baby. And George Bush is the GOP’s baby. And you know it.” No, we don’t Harpo. The Congress backed him every step of the way. It is our government’s war, just like Afghanistan.
    For more of Steve P., if you have the stomach for it, go here http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/a-firsthand-look-at-the-real-guantanamo/#comments and scroll way down.

  50. mark l. says:

    there is a companion sentiment that accompanies the hatred of the left towards bush…
    fear.
    Fear that Iraq flourishes as a democracy over the next 30 years. (If it fails in 10 years, will they blame Bush, or the sitting president?)
    Fear that his reelection was a tacit endorsement of his policies, over a democratic challenger.
    Fear that some his conservative policies will be replicated, because they worked.
    The lefties, like children at a beach, are furiously trying to bury W in the sand, without considering that the waves of history will discover him again. I’m sure some of the children will be vigilant and devote the next twenty years of their lives trying to keep bush down, only to fail in their task as the wave of history breaks on their heads and deeds.

  51. jharp says:

    “the neocons are a cult like group that took over huge portions of the Bush White House”
    Just how did they take over? They didn’t do it at gunpoint.
    Geroge Bush and the GOP adopted neocon policies willingly. George Bush is every bit a neocon as the rest of them.

  52. jharp says:

    “there is a companion sentiment that accompanies the hatred of the left towards bush…
    fear.”
    There is no fear and there is no hatred. I just want justice done and want him to go away.
    “Fear that Iraq flourishes as a democracy over the next 30 years. (If it fails in 10 years”
    I have no doubt that it will fail. Your surge just delayed the inevitable. Iraq has been Sunni ruled for a long, long time. And if you believe the Sunni’s in the region are going to allow a foreign power’s military to seat their opposition you are sadly mistaken.
    Though I’m sure Iran will have something to say about it. And it’s gonna be ugly. And there ain’t a dam thing we can do about.
    Iraq was the worst foreign policy disaster in the history of the U.S. And was lost the day we went in.

  53. mark l. says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents
    This is an interesting anecdotal piece:
    from 82-96, Ronald Reagan held a poll ranking avg of 21.
    from 99-05, his average went to 10th.
    since our ‘withdrawal’ from Iraq should be done in 2011, doesn’t that make it the subcategory, the year 0 A.I., after Iraq?
    If the ME flourishes, the role Bush has played in history will be monumental. All roads will lead to this event. IF it fails, it just means nothing has changed.
    Given the choice of promoting, furthering, fostering, helping to improve upon the ME’s fate versus consigning bush to the role of foreign policy pariah, I have little doubt that the left would enjoy massive social failure among a billion of the world’s population, if only to provide Kieth Olbermann with new material.

  54. jharp says:

    The leftist nitwits in the Congress and our own village idiot Harpo won’t get any help from the FISA Court:
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022562.php
    “The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review has made public its decision, reached last August, that the federal government has the power to wiretap international phone calls and intercept e-mail messages without a specific court order, even when Americans’ private communications may be involved.”
    Posted by: Fred Beloit | Friday, January 16, 2009 at 11:10 AM
    Fred,
    It is you who is the nitwit. Can’t you get anything right?
    “The court decision, released yesterday, refers to the Protect America Act; it does not “vindicate” supporters of Bush’s NSA program. The case was not about “the government’s Constitutional authority to collect national-security intelligence without judicial approval”; the case was about the authority of Congress to expand the executive’s surveillance powers.”
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_01/016471.php
    Good grief. You’re been wrong on everything. And you call me the village idiot? What do you call yourself? Dumber than a friggin stone?

  55. Fred Beloit says:

    Iraq War I. Success. Kuwait retaken and their territory restored to them. Iraq War II. Success. Saddam’s forces defeated; Saddam taken, tried, executed; democratic elections held; democratic government installed; resistance crumbling in mop up operations.
    Fact are facts. Idiots think facts are inferior to speculative propaganda. Pity them.

  56. Anon says:

    Bush was duped by the neocons who took full advantage of 9/11 to pursue a radical, NOT a conservative, agenda of toppling governments, building democracy and remaking the ME. He liked the idea of invading Iraq to as the saying goes, finish what his father started, but the neocons provided all of the false data to convince him of invading Iraq. What Cheney’s real game was, I don’t really know. I believe he is too smart to have really thought Iraq was any kind of a threat to anyone in the ME let alone the U.S., so, was it his opportunity to strengthen the executive branch, maybe, pay back his oil buddies, could be, but doubtful he would plunge the country into war for such a reason, perhaps he thought it was a gamble worth taking, thought the military was getting soft and needed a hard war, I don’t know.
    Bush isn’t going to get credit for something that happens in Iraq in 20 or 30 years, since logically, whatever it is, would have probably happened anyway, regardless of Hussein being toppled when he was. This is something that conservatives need to face up to, you can believe Bush did it based on the best ‘intelligence’ at the time, if you want, you can even believe that Iraqis are better off today than they were in 2003, though I suspect most would disagree w/you, but you can’t get away with claiming the Iraq War was some kind of great victory or that lack of civil war is a vindication. The Iraq War was a mistake, a huge mistake, if you want to think it was an honest mistake or a worthy gamble, okay, but to keep on trying to make the case that it was the right thing to do and that it has turned out good flies in the face of too much reality.

  57. Fred Beloit says:

    The entire media of the U.S. is wrong, but Benen [IMO read left-wing wack head] says he has it right. He attempts to prove it by employing Algebra and solving for X.
    “Some aspects of the debate over warrantless searches are open to debate and legal interpretations, but the Wall Street Journal is simply, objectively, factually wrong.
    The court decision, released yesterday, refers to the Protect America Act; it does not “vindicate” supporters of Bush’s NSA program. The case was not about “the government’s Constitutional authority to collect national-security intelligence without judicial approval”; the case was about the authority of Congress to expand the executive’s surveillance powers.
    It really isn’t that complicated, and yet, conservative bloggers, the New York Times, and the AP got it wrong yesterday, and the Wall Street Journal is doing a victory dance today.”
    “1) From 1978-2006, there was a law in place that said “don’t do X; if you do X, it’s a felony.”
    2) The Bush administration secretly did X.
    3) When it was caught doing X (a felony under existing law), it argued that it had the “inherent authority” to do X regardless of what the law says, a claim that has no support in constitutional case law.”
    Hilarious.
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_01/016471.php

  58. Fred Beloit says:

    Blatently false: “And you call me the village idiot”
    I called you OUR village idiot.

  59. mark l. says:

    “Bush was duped by the neocons who took full advantage of 9/11 to pursue a radical, NOT a conservative, agenda of toppling governments, building democracy and remaking the ME.”
    a co-conspirator?
    2002 Democratic Majority in the Senate provides the blank check for him to proceed. It was favored 27(?)-21 among democrats.
    If Bush was the dupe, I can give you a party with at least 27 members which got duped as well. You’d think if there was any chance of saving their crediblity, by providing the agents, methods, and means of their being fooled into blanket authorization, they would have built the scaffold for public hangings in 2004…
    for the very reason that there has been no investigation or charges produced upon the knowledge that there were no wmds would suggest an acceptance of guilt by those who were fooled, including the democrat party.

  60. Anon says:

    You get no argument from me that the Dems were enablers though I don’t think they were fooled…..they made the cowardly, but politically astute decision that if the war went well they could share credit, but if it went badly they could blame the WH for misleading them…and so they have.

  61. ET says:

    Anon, you are smoking crack. The invasion of Iraq was genius…We took the fight to the enemy, just as Bush promised in the weeks after 9/11 (remember 9/11?).
    Saddam had plenty of time to comply with numerous UN resolutions, and decided to play coy instead. We took his ass out, liberated an oppressed people and established a toehold in the most volatile region of the world. The world intelligence community all believed Iraq had a WMD program…they were all wrong, but the idea that “bush lied” is a liberal myth.
    Oh, and just according to plan, thousands of crazed jihadists poured into Iraq to die for their prophet. We were only too happy to oblige them. Of course, when the going got tough, as Bush predicted it would, you lefties politicized the war and called for surrender and a disatrous retreat. thank God more intelligent and courageous leaders, like George Bush, prevailed.
    future generations will thank us for stabilizing the region and positioning us to defend ourselves against radial islamic regimes. the fact that you don’t get it doesn’t change that fact. You and you leftwing nutjob friends here will go to your graves dead wrong…you don’t have the character to admit it.

  62. Anon says:

    The ME is stable now? Do tell. It looks to me like Israel conducted a disastrous invasion of Lebanon and, is, as we speak conducting a disastrous invasion of Gaza. It looks like the Iranians are doing whatever the f**c they want and there is nobody to stop them.
    Since Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11 it looks like we must have taken ‘the fight’ to the wrong ‘enemy’ since Al Quada was and is in Afganistan and Pakistan.
    Oh, and the ‘going got tough’ because the war planning was done with the intelligence level of a dumb 9th grader.

  63. Anon says:

    PS…
    As for positioning us to defend ourselves against radical Islamic regimes, I’m not sure who you are referring to, maybe you can explain how decimating Iraq has helped us contain Iran, the only radical Islamic regime I am aware of, and they don’t want to destroy the U.S. but Israel, same as Hamas and Hezbollah, and last time I checked, despite Israeli and neocon propaganda to the contrary America and Israel are two different countries with two different sets of priorities.

  64. jharp says:

    “The invasion of Iraq was genius”
    Posted by: ET | Friday, January 16, 2009 at 03:20 PM
    Good Grief. $1 trillion taxpayer dollars. 4,500 dead Americans. 30,000 maimed Americans. Over 6 years and counting and while our own economy went down the toilet. For nothing. Not one single benefit to the U.S.
    Let me guess, ET, you’re a Palin supporter too. It is no wonder our country is in the condition it’s in with complete morons like you running around in it.
    You are an unbelievably foolish man. Shockingly stupid. Not ignorant. Stupid.

  65. Lala says:

    Fred, beat you to it – hahaha
    January 16, 2009
    Obama Says He’ll Be a Failure Only If He Fails to Close Guantanamo by End of First Term
    A double: Both yet another Obama bar-lowering story, and also a All Obama Promises Come With an Expiration Date story.
    Gee, I guess the situation is more complicated and dangerous than fatuous liberals claim. Would have been nice to have known that four years ago.
    Caught by the Corner.
    digg this
    posted by Ace at 12:41 PM

  66. Funny, we used to think the libbies actually cared about genocide.
    http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm
    Or environmental destruction.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/marsharabs.html
    Or mass starvation and death among children.
    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/072100-03.htm
    Or oil company and governmental corruption.
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110007613
    The problem here is that Saddam Hussein found out how to protect himself; he paid bribes to global leftists and America-haters, who then manipulated their stupid puppets like jharp.

  67. Anon says:

    I can never understand why the Iraq war makes conservatives go so crazy and to such ridiculous lengths to justify something that was so obviously a bad idea.
    Dead children? Environmental destruction? Genocide? Corruption? Mass starvation?
    Do you wnat a list of all the countries where this has occured that we did not INVADE?
    Saddam Hussein was not a threat to the United States and no amount of rhetoric is going to change that fact. In hindsight, he wasn’t even a threat to any of his neighbors, let alone a global superpower thousands of miles away.
    I’m not so sure that Iraq is better off without Hussein, their infrastructure is still destroyed, tens of thousands at least dead, hundreds of thousands who left the country as refugees, a renewed legacy of religious strife….I don’t know that removing a dictator by destroying the country, is on balance a good thing.

  68. templar knight says:

    Hahaha, off topic, but Obama has been named “Gun Salesman of the Year” by a trade group. Which is why I’m off to a gun show tomorrow to buy more guns. That I will make a profit on, knowing some of my friends and family will want them at a later date when they are no longer available. This is fun.

  69. jharp says:

    “hundreds of thousands who left the country as refugees”
    More than 2 million Iraqi’s have fled their country.
    Do any of you right wing jackasses feel any obligation to these people? Enough that we should let them into the U.S.?

  70. Lala says:

    Saddam put people into a plastic shredder. I’m sure the Iraqi people miss that a little bit.

  71. jharp says:

    “That I will make a profit on, knowing some of my friends and family will want them at a later date when they are no longer available.”
    What makes you think Obama has any plans to make guns no longer available?
    And what makes you think he’s going to allow you to sell guns when and if they are no longer available?
    You’re living in an illusion.

  72. Anon says:

    I don’t believe Obama when he says he supports the righ to bear arms and neither does anyone else who actually supports the right to be bear arms. What I suspect you will see is language about ‘reasonable’ restrictions that will totally gut the right to bear arms.
    As far as ‘illegally’ selling weapons, well, it happens every day already, as I am sure you know, in cities like New York, Chicago and DC which have among the most restrictive gun laws on the planet, and yet….people still being killed w/illegally obtained guns.

  73. East Bay Jim says:

    “the neocons are a cult like group”
    There’s a cult in American politics all right. However, it revolves around Obama worship. Who is ‘lead neocon’ in the neocon cult? Cults revolve around charismatic leaders. Ask a dozen neocons and you’ll get a dozen blank stares.
    “that took over huge portions of the Bush White House”
    Where I come from they call this ‘getting hired’.

  74. East Bay Jim says:

    “Do any of you right wing jackasses feel any obligation to these people?”
    The crowd that caused 1-3 million brutal Cambodian DEATHS is questioning the morality of the pro-Iraq War crowd? Your war ended up with the Killing Fields. At best you’re amoral.

  75. Lala says:

    Anon,
    Although New York City has very restrictive gun policies almost no one gets prosecuted when caught in possession of an illegal gun. If I wanted one I could get it within minutes.
    I believe that what is going to happen is that the sale of ammunition will be severely restricted. I’ve read that the supply is already running low.

  76. “Do you wnat a list of all the countries where this has occured that we did not INVADE?”
    Well, let’s see.
    By that logic, we never should have been involved in the Kosovo conflict — especially since, compared to Saddam’s multi-decade legacy of dealing death to millions of people, Kosovo was a popgun.
    Furthermore, it would also mean that staying out of Rwanda was an absolutely-correct idea — even more hilarious, since Saddam Hussein made the Hutu look like amateurs when it came to mass killings and eradication.
    Finally, what should be noted already is that the collapse of Iraq’s infrastructure had far less to do with the United States destroying it than it had to do with Saddam Hussein pilfering it so that he could keep himself and his cronies in luxury.
    http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm
    And finally this most hilarious one.
    Do any of you right wing jackasses feel any obligation to these people?
    Yes, we do; that’s why we liberated them and allowed them to leave, rather than letting them be fed into plastic shredders like you did.
    Explain that one to us, jharp. Why didn’t you care when they were being killed, but now whine and scream about when they’re leaving their country?

  77. templar knight says:

    I’m heading to my daughter’s basketball game, you guys keep the chatter going. Gun show tomorrow, more fun. Life is good, for now. But reality hits Tuesday, so enjoy this last weekend of freedom from liberal tyranny. LOL.

  78. Anon says:

    Sorry, get back to me with the links on our INVASION and OCCUPATION of Rwanda and Kosovo. LOL. You are comparing apples and oranges, we declared war on, invaded with an army and then occuped and set up a provisional government in Iraq. There is absolutely no comparison between that and any of the examples you cite.
    Also, we allegedly went to war against Iraq because Iraq was a threat, not to liberate the Iraqi people, so its kind of revisionist history to claim that liberating them was the sole, or even the primary purpose of our invasion. just sayin.

  79. Lala says:

    I picked this up about gun sales on a message board
    “And this hasn’t been a run of the mill run on guns… All things AR & AK are what has sold out repeatedly all over the country. Some of the more popular AR manufactorers are up to 6 months back ordered. Most of the wholesalers are quoting up to 4 weeks to ship when 6 months ago 2 or 3 days to get a shipment out was considered a delay…

  80. Peach says:

    I wasn’t talking about perjury but I don’t care and never did care about Clinton’s relationship w/Lewinsky and for my money he should never have been asked the question in the first place since it had ZERO bearing on his role as president
    ANON
    It was only asked because he suborned perjury by having a witness present a false affidavit in a lawsuit that was allowed to proceed while in office and countered his own deposition in said proceeding. He lied. He shouldn’t have, but he did.
    Clinton and his defense team challenged Jones’s right to bring a civil lawsuit against a sitting president for an incident that occurred prior to the defendant’s becoming president. The Clinton defense team took the position that the trial should be delayed until the president was no longer in office, because the job of the president is unique and does not allow him to take time away from it to deal with a private civil lawsuit. The case wound its way through the courts, eventually reaching the Supreme Court on January 13, 1997. On May 27, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Clinton, and allowed the lawsuit to proceed.

  81. Peach says:

    UNANIMOUSLY ruled AGAINST Clinton, and ALLOWED the lawsuit to proceed.

  82. mark l. says:

    “The ME is stable now? Do tell. It looks to me like Israel conducted a disastrous invasion of Lebanon and, is, as we speak conducting a disastrous invasion of Gaza. It looks like the Iranians are doing whatever the f**c they want and there is nobody to stop them.
    Since Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11 it looks like we must have taken ‘the fight’ to the wrong ‘enemy’ since Al Quada was and is in Afganistan and Pakistan.”
    before we invaded Iraq, saddam was openly offering palestinians 25k to be suicide bombers. Yes, he had nothing to do with 9/11, but he remained the poster child for state sponsored terrorism. The belief that the successful campaign in Iraq to remove him from power provided no imporvement in the ME is naive.

  83. Anon says:

    What improvement has occured in the ME since we invaded Iraq?
    I also think you are wrong, I think that Saddam gave money to the families of suicide bombers after the fact, not in advance…a lot of Arab countries do the same, so please don’t try and put over that toppling Saddam had any appreciable effect on the Palestinian issue or their ability to get money or weapons.

  84. MarkJ says:

    “I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.”
    Let’s change the Krugster’s comments a bit:
    “I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into how a consistently wrong, certifiable idiot like me, Paul Krugman, actually received a Nobel Prize…it means that the Nobel is worthless because anybody can get it if they just kiss the committee’s collective ass long enough.”

  85. MarkJ says:

    Anon,
    “What improvement has occured in the ME since we invaded Iraq?”
    Well for a small start, nitwit, Saddam and his two psycho sons aren’t a) feeding people feet first into shredders, b) giving them electro-shock therapy with car batteries, and c) building palaces with Oil-for-Food money.
    You’d know this…unless, of course, you’ve been in low elliptical orbit around Neptune for the past six years.

  86. Anon says:

    Sorry, that is way, way too small. It certainly isn’t worth $1 trillion in U.S. debt, thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and it has nothing to do with the geopolitical situation in the Mideast.
    Again, if the litmus test for invading and occupying another country was that the guy(s) in charge committed atrocities we would have to invade and occupy just about every country on the planet outside of Western Europe.
    So, I will ask again, what improvement has occured in the ME as as result of our invasion of Iraq? Just because all you can come up with as an improvement is that Saddam and his sons are dead doesn’t make me a nitwit. A good sniper could have accomplished that for a few bucks.

  87. ET says:

    Anon seems to be one of those liberals who assume that Iraq would be a utopia today if not for the US invasion. How much less stable would the Middle East be if Saddam was still the chief shit disturber? Thankfully, we’ll never know.
    I also notice the the classic pretzel logic that only seems to be applied against the bush admin. We shouldn’t have invaded Iraq because they didn’t cause 9/11, but the war is a failure in part because toppling Hussein didn’t improve the Palestinian problem. What?
    Look at a map, Anon. The US has a footprint in the heart of the middle east. We will have a stable democratic ally there within a decade. THAT is real improvement from the September 10, 2001 situation. If geopolitics is a chess match, we put our enemies in check. Again, just ’cause you don’t appreciate that doesn’t mean it isn’t so. You are just wrong. Sorry.
    Oh, and jharp…I am glad to hear you say that there has been no benefit to the US. I guess you are abandoning the misguided notion that we invaded Iraq to steal the oil and enrich ourselves at the expense of innocent Iraqis.
    Damn, Son…you can’t even win an argument with yourself. No wonder your business has failed.

  88. Actually, Anon, the better question is this: why did you prefer all of these?
    http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/marsharabs.html
    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/072100-03.htm
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110007613
    So let’s recap.
    – You would rather hundreds of thousands of children starve to death than for a few thousand Americans to die
    – You would rather a few million Iraqis die at the hands of Saddam Hussein than a hundred thousand or so die at the hands of crazed jihadists
    – You would rather that trillions of dollars in oil money, environmental damage, infrastructure destruction, and weapons-building vanish from a country where doing so would essentially cripple the economy than put money at risk from a country where you and your fellow Democrat leftists can blithely plan to drop that much and more each YEAR without any harm (or so you claim) whatsoever to our economy.
    But of course, since your leftist friends at the UN were getting their bribes, you probably didn’t care too much.

  89. Anon says:

    No, I am one of those realists who knows that the price we paid for a “possible” “future” “democratic” “U.S. friendly” Iraq is too high. A stable democratic ‘ally’ you mean like the Saudis or the Pakistanis. LOL. Thanks but no thanks.
    What you are trying to do is save something from the rubble of the Iraq War, and the fact that it rests on something that has not happened yet and may NEVER happen shows just how bad a decision the invasion was.
    Nobody knows what will happen when the troops start to come home. Sadr is still alive and well funded. The Shia and Sunni have, thanks to us, stored up enough resentment and hate to last another 100 years.
    Again, what “enemies” do you think we put in check? Iran is more powerful and out of control than ever. If you mean Al Quada, well, they would be a lot more ‘in check’ if we had focused our military efforts on them, and not squandered all that money and manpower in Iraq.
    Sorry, I will never be convinced that the Iraq War was anything but a fools errand, thought up by a bunch of ex liberal think tank brats who rechristened themselves neoconservatives. Fools errand, total failure.

  90. Anon says:

    Oh and by the way, its funny that even though I have bashed Obama, the Democrats and Liberals on this blog from day one, just because I happen to agree that the Iraq War was a fiasco and that Bush was a terrible president, all of a sudden I am a ‘lefty’ a ‘nitwit’ and all the rest of the prejorative terms.
    This country is doomed. From the right and the left, both sides are nothing but bullies, crybabies, whiners, liars and crooks. You are no better than the Obama worshippers.

  91. ET says:

    –I will never be convinced that the Iraq War was anything but a fools errand…
    Anon, statements like this are why we are lumping you in with the other liberal idiots on this site. Your mind is closed and you will block out any and all evidence that contradicts the view you have CHOSEN to accept as reality. Typical liberal characteristic. You have earned the moniker “nitwit.”
    Consider:
    1. “What you are trying to do is save something from the rubble of the Iraq War, and the fact that it rests on something that has not happened yet and may NEVER happen shows just how bad a decision the invasion was.”
    Actually, it HAS happened. Iraq is a democracy in a region dominated by despots. To deny that is to deny the truth.
    2. Nobody knows what will happen when the troops start to come home.
    Of course nobody knows for sure what will happen when the troops are drawn down. But you are foolish to think they are ALL coming home anytime soon. Obama will keep our presence there for years to come. Our forces will reduced, but we will be there and ready to ramp up when needed.
    3. The Shia and Sunni have, thanks to us, stored up enough resentment and hate to last another 100 years.
    Thanks to us? So, they loved us before the invasion??? Seriously? That is classic “blame America first” thinking. Millions of Iraqis LOVE US for freeing them of the tyrant Saddam. YOu never seem to count them.
    4. Again, what “enemies” do you think we put in check? Iran is more powerful and out of control than ever. If you mean Al Quada, well, they would be a lot more ‘in check’ if we had focused our military efforts on them, and not squandered all that money and manpower in Iraq.
    Did you read my post? Iran more powerful than ever? What? Just how do you know that they are? How much of a threat would they be if we were not parked on their back porch? Al Qaeda? As I stated earlier, thousands of jihadists poured into Iraq to fight the great Satan…they fell right into our trap. We killed THOUSANDS of Al Qaeda in Iraq. That was part of the plan from the beginning. Genius, I tell ya. Genius. You just don’t get it.
    I guarantee that if a democrat had invaded Iraq, harpist and the Muslim llama would be defending it to the death. Of course, they and you will defend obama’s escalation of the war in Afghanistan and accept his excuses for following Bush’s timeline for the Iraq troop drawdown. Liberal criticism is selective.
    History will judge Bush kindly regarding his decision to invade Iraq and his forbearance when the going got tough and unpopular. You are on the wrong side of this debate. Period. And for that, you are a nitwit.

  92. Anon says:

    Nobody so far has provided any evidence that the Iraq War was a good idea or successful. If the best you can come up with is that Saddam and his sons aren’t putting anyone in the shredder and there is a ‘democracy’ held together by 100,000+ armed soldiers, then your case is brutally weak.
    Iraq is about as democratic as Russia, in my humble opinion.
    If the only way Iraq remains non violent and ‘democratic’ is if hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops remain in the country, then, again, that isn’t much of a testament to the success of the venture. I agree, Obama will not withdraw troops if violence escalates and we are stuck in Iraq for the forseeable future. But that itself is evidence of our failure, we only have a friendly democracy as long as our troops are on the ground. That isn’t liberation, its military occupation.
    I meant the Shia and Sunni had stored up, thanks to us, resentment and hatred toward each other, that in Iraq was not evident or violent until we liberated them.
    Do you have a poll that shows that “millions” of Iraqis love us? Every poll I have seen says they want us out of their country and they are very divided on whether life was better or worse under Saddam than it has been since their ‘liberation’ so I have to say I think you are making this one up, but I am happy to see some data that proves millions love us now.
    Um, Al Quada Iraq wasn’t the same Al Quada…see we CREATED thousands of new jihadists who poured into Iraq, killing our soldiers and causing the death of civilians who didn’t exist before we invaded the country. So, you can’t really claim a victory by killing an army that didn’t exist prior to you starting a war.
    I REALLY don’t think that a huge insurgency that veered toward civil war was part of the plan in the beginning, this is nonsense and makes those who say it sound like ‘nitwits’ just like you all sounded like nitwits when you kept on claiming that Saddam “really, really” had WMD but he sent them to Syria and all the rest of the lame ass excuses that were used for years and years to explain why the whole premise of the war didn’t materialize.
    We should have always been in Afganistan since that is where Bin Laden is/was and that is where Al Quada’s base was, Iraq was a stupid side track, and you can put together all the talking points in the world about democracy and everything else and it won’t change the facts.
    As far as Iran, well, is there any evidence that Iran is weaker? I don’t see it. The idea that Iran is/was going to roll tanks into Israel or any other country in the ME was always a neocon talking point/scare tactic and never bore any resemblence to reality. So, again, based on what information or evidence is your belief that Iran is LESS of a threat now? They haven’t knuckled under to what the UN wants, they are still funding Hezbollah…I see an Iran that saw the limits of U.S. military power and they know that w/us bogged down in Iraq and Afganistan there is NO WAY we are going to ever invade their country and occupy it. So, I say that makes them bolder.
    Should Iraq ever turn into a functioning democracy with a functioning economy and should the country ever be able to stand on its own again, then, that would be the time to revist an assessment of Bush’s policy, but until that time comes, it is a full on failure.

  93. ET says:

    Anon, your analysis is so flawed that I surrender to the fact that, indeed, you just don’t get it.
    1. Nobody so far has provided any evidence that the Iraq War was a good idea or successful. If the best you can come up with is that Saddam and his sons aren’t putting anyone in the shredder and there is a ‘democracy’ held together by 100,000+ armed soldiers, then your case is brutally weak.
    By this logic, the Marshall Plan was also a failure.
    2. Iraq is about as democratic as Russia, in my humble opinion.
    And your opinion is just plain wrong.
    3….I am happy to see some data that proves millions love us now.
    I’d like to see the polls you refer to…do you mean polls? Or man on the street interviews by the MSM? You have not backed up in your assertion that the majority of Iraqis dislike us and want us out.
    4. see we CREATED thousands of new jihadists who poured into Iraq
    You make a huge leap here…how do you know we created them? They came from the training camps in Afghanistan and Syria…maybe they had a good recruiting year, but these groups existed before we invaded Iraq. And they openly professed their desire to destroy us. We set the trap in Iraq and they walked right in to it. Bush state this as part of the plan in 2003. And it worked. Your failure to acknowledge this is bds.
    5. As far as Iran, well, is there any evidence that Iran is weaker?….I see an Iran that saw the limits of U.S. military power…
    Sure. The US military DESTROYS the entire Iraqi Army, against whom Iran had fought for a decade, in THREE WEEKS. That sure gave them confidence. In reality, there is no evidence that our action in Iraq strengthened Iran. They are still a huge threat, and we will be forced to deal with them unless they implode. But your assertion that they are emboldened by our actions is unfounded.
    I get from your other posts that you are not the typical liberal freak. But you are really misguided in your thinking on this topic. We can agree to disagree, but I am convinced that Bush’s strategy will be judged as a significant victory in the first battle of a long war against Islamic fanaticism.

  94. libocrat says:

    Anon, Bill Clinton was being deposed in a lawsuit by Paula Jones. Ms Jones was asserting her rights as a U.S. citizen in suing Mr.Clinton for sexual harassment. Clearly Mr.Clinton did harass her as the evidence indicated.
    Her rights as a citizen were violated when in the process of being deposed Bill Clinton lied under oath. The problem with leftists like you, is that character isn’t on your radar screen. Character matters. If we can’t trust our leaders to be honest, we are in trouble. You freaks on the left have political differences with Bush and Co. So you hate him with a passion. Nothing Geo. W. Bush did while in office was for his own personal gain. And as Rodham is about to get confirmed at the State Dept. her husband has deposited $490,000,000.00 much of it from foreign govts. You don’t think that is a conflict for Rodham? Wasn’t she the Co-President? Isn’t everything she is and has become a direct result of being Clinton’s wife? You lefties have no moral compass.

  95. “I meant the Shia and Sunni had stored up, thanks to us, resentment and hatred toward each other, that in Iraq was not evident or violent until we liberated them.”
    Obviously you missed these examples.
    http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/marsharabs.html
    Not surprising; after all, the Democrat-dominated media for some reason was doing quite a bit of propaganda-pushing for Saddam’s regime.
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110003336
    I suppose the violent imprisonment, torture, and death of hundreds of thousands of people only matters, of course, when the liberal news media reports on it.
    “see we CREATED thousands of new jihadists who poured into Iraq”
    Note that inadvertent slipup; they “poured INTO” Iraq, which means they weren’t there before and came from somewhere else.
    Furthermore, when they got into Iraq, what did they run into? A fully-armed and ready force of trained soldiers ready to kill them.
    These people who would wage jihad now have clear-cut proof that doing so is suicidal foolishness. Oddly enough, al-Qaeda has waned in both power and influence in the process, especially since their irrational behavior led to them blowing up fellow Muslims.
    “They haven’t knuckled under to what the UN wants, they are still funding Hezbollah”
    Of course they haven’t knuckled under to the UN, for one simple reason; they know the UN is a bunch of caving fools who are more motivated by anti-American bigotry and hate than anything else.
    If you want to see a 180-degree change in Iran’s attitude, let them know that the UN is sick of their games and that, if the US and Israel decide to do something about their nuclear program, that the UN is not going to do thing one to stop them.
    The “limits of US military power” are set by how much we have to kowtow to countries that hate us. Clinton put that ahead of all else; as a result, Saddam broke every rule, North Korea broke every rule, Milosevic was able to bog down NATO for quite long enough to achieve his objectives of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, an Aegis destroyer was nearly sunk by two guys in a rubber raft, and missile attacks were made against camps that the CIA knew bin Laden had abandoned nearly two weeks prior.
    http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9808/13/bombing.bin.laden/

  96. libocrat says:

    jharp said that going into Iraq was the greatest blunder in history.
    Jharp is a dullard. Typical weak in the knee libtard. I guarantee that jharp does not earn a living. He is dependent on govt. for his lifes blood. Little boys like jharp live in an insulated make believe world of gum drops and rainbows. Grow a pair chump.

  97. libocrat says:

    Anon said…”I’m not so sure that Iraq is better off without Hussein”.
    He is todays Democrat. Libs merely want power and control. They want to tell you when you can fart and how much methane you can emit. They want to tell you how much you can weight and what you can drive. They want to tell you that you MUST take public transit. They want to support unions so as to keep votes. They want to gut the military and they want us not to use spy tactics, violence, threat of violence or even loud music to extract info from our enemies. They want to tax the successful until we all drive Lada’s and live in concrete apartment blocks. They want to allow women to snuff their own children up to and including the childs actual birth. And in Obama’s case he would allow the child to be carried to a dirty hamper and left to die. Liberals are not willing to sacrifice anything for the comforts and protections that they have. Liberals are like jilted husbands. If they can’t have the power, they don’t want others to succeed. They’d rather we were harmed so they can power grab again. Everything a liberal touches turns to crap.

  98. libocrat says:

    Weak libtards like Anon are quite easy to defuse.
    He asserts that we went into Iraq because they were SUPPOSED to have weapons of mass destruction etc etc etc. They DID have weapons of mass destruction. We know that because they had used them previously. Herein lies the rub that morons like Jharp and Anon pretend not to see.
    Here’s the Cliff’s notes synopsis that even a LIBTARD moron CAN understand.
    {{After 9/11 we could no longer ignore Iraq and it’s refusal to comply with it’s SURRENDER TERMS from the Gulf War. In fact the refusal to comply as agreed to, left us in a predicament. Do we TRUST Saddam Hussein, or do we try to FORCE COMPLIANCE and VERIFICATION. We chose the U.N. path. The U.N. is as worthless as TEATS on a BULL. Iraq gave the U.N. the FINGER.
    We gave Iraq one more chance to comply. They told us to FOCK OFF. We gave them a TIME CERTAIN, a RUBICON warning….if you will. The told us to FOCK OFF.
    We acted.}}
    We had made a case at the U.N. (Colin Powell), and in part we were wrong. So was the rest of the world. We were wrong because Iraq did not follow the terms of compliance and refused to. In fact Saddam Hussein admitted that he was trying to bluff us/U.S. and the world. His mistake.
    I previously made the point that we could no longer let the IRAQ SITUATION fester post 9/11. Iraq had to be brought into compliance with it’s SIGNED TERMS OF SURRENDER, because we could no longer afford to look the other way. Liberals morons have it completely ASS-BACKWARD. They call the IRAQ war a disaster. Unplanned as it was, it turned out to be quite the opposite. A 2-fer if you will. Al Qaeda came to the Saddam ass-kicking party and it too got ass-kicked. Instead of us trying to hunt Al Qaeda down, Al Qaeda brought the fight to Iraq. Their mistake. This turn of events made liberals poop their pants. The moronic whining and pants pissing ensued.
    I’ll make a small analogy and then I’ll finish. As I pulled into my driveway at 9:30 tonight in 8 below zero. I saw a mouse scurry up my driveway as it saw my Jeep. It was pretty obvious in the snow to see! It ran to my garage door, then took a right and found a crack big enough to crawl into my garage. I live in the country and realize there are lots of mice and other critters. This mouse was out, until it saw me. I know and I knew where mice would congregate. It makes my job MUCH MUCH easier.
    Al Qaeda came to Iraq. We killed them killed them and killed them some more!! Allah Akbar!! Their mistake. So AGAIN libtards piss their pants and look for some moronic talking points!!! We are CREATING MORE OF THEM!!
    Horse-shyte!!! But giving these LIBTARD morons the benefit of the doubt. We created them and then we killed them.
    To paraphrase the Chicago Bears great linebacker, Mike Singletary, now coach of the 49′ers!! “I like this kind of party, I can do this all day!”
    When we killed Japanese from December 41-August-45, we didn’t create more of them. When we killed German Nazi’s form 12-41 thru 5-45, we didn’t create more of them. When you kill cockroaches in your filthy libtard kitchens. They don’t multiply, they die.
    Thanks for listening and have nice night!

  99. jharp says:

    From ET,
    Clearly a dittohead right wing foold.
    “The US has a footprint in the heart of the middle east. We will have a stable democratic ally there within a decade.”
    You are such a friggin featherbrain that it is hard to fathom where you come up with such nonsense.
    You ever here of Kuwait? How about Saudi Arabia? The country that hatched the 911 attackers? Are they a friend or foe? Dubai?
    You are a birdbrained jackass.
    And my business is fine. Thanks for asking. I work when I want and retards like you buy my cheap junk from China. It’s all about value. And I do one hell of a job.

  100. jharp says:

    Sorry, I will never be convinced that the Iraq War was anything but a fools errand, thought up by a bunch of ex liberal think tank brats who rechristened themselves neoconservatives. Fools errand, total failure.
    Posted by: Anon | Friday, January 16, 2009 at 09:14 PM
    And then Anon chines in with the stupidest most ludicrous remark ever.
    You’re a total complete fake.
    Neocons are ex liberals? Go fuck yourself. You miserable jackass.

  101. WBestPresidentEver says:

    jharp and anon as born losers. Once a loser always a loser.
    The only life they have is to come here and name call everyone and anything they do not agree with.
    No one cares what either of them say.
    They are the kind that believe that everything they say is right.
    They are so WRONG in everything they say and they no it. That is why they keep coming back and arguing all the time
    Typical loser big time.
    Get a life jharp and anon and the like. Get a life. Go bury you heads in the sand.

  102. WBestPresidentEver says:

    Jharp.. you are the one that f’s himself all the time. Why else would you use that phrase all the time. How is your gay lover doing these days anyway ?
    HA !

  103. Lala says:

    What is a neocon?
    Neoconservatism… originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry (‘Scoop’) Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves ‘paleoliberals.’ [After the end of the Cold War]… many ‘paleoliberals’ drifted back to the Democratic center… Today’s neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.

  104. jharp says:

    Lala,
    “they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.”
    You guys are wearing me down with the stupid.
    You have gone beyond the absurd. You, your party, ET, are now reaping the benefits of your stupidity.
    My wife is going to the inauguration next week and me and the rest of the family are going to have one hell of celebration.
    I am very sorry you and your like are still trying to sell your stupid bullshit. But that’s just how it is. No one believes it
    Kristol and Podhoretz heirs of ex leftists? In the stratosphere of stupidity.

  105. ET says:

    –Go fuck yourself. You miserable jackass.
    Why jharp, you foulmouthed malingerer, you. Your irrational anger must affect other areas of your life. Perhaps that is why you cannot satisfy your wife or provide for your children.
    Poor, sad little man.

  106. Lala says:

    The most stupid, ignorant, mean, vile person around here is JHarp. He claims to know so much and in reality he knows so little. What does he think a neocon is?

  107. Anon says:

    Generic name calling is not productive, whether it is ‘libtard’ or ‘rethuglican’..or ‘mcsame’ or whatever…it shows the name caller to be classless and childish.
    Reasonable adults can disagree on policy. There are dozens and dozens of experts on the Middle East who have written papers and done studies that support my position that the Iraq War was tragically flawed and horrendously executed and so far shows no sign of bringing any benefits to Americans that are worth the costs. Reasonable people also hold the opposite view and can summon their own data to support the idea that history will judge it to have been a success.
    It is one thing to call a person an idiot, especially if they have given some evidence by their posting of being an idiot, but ‘dimicrat’ and that type of attack is counterproductive to people acting like adults and thinking logically.
    I think the Iraq War has been a total failure on all fronts, that doesn’t make me a liberal or a nitwit.

  108. Anon says:

    Jharp, it is not an OPINION but a FACT that the founders of the neocon movement were ex liberals. They admit this, they explain in numerous books and papers how they moved from the classic liberal viewpoint to the neocon viewpoint.
    Again, you show your total ignorance to call something false and a lie that is not even in dispute by people who know the history of the movement.

  109. Philip McDaniel says:

    Excellent, libocrat! Looks like I missed an interesting evening. That will teach me not go enjoy myself at a dinner party (LOL). Lala, I did hear that there are plans to limit ammunition supplies. Not sure I buy it, but I’ll check it out.

  110. Lala says:

    Philip,
    There’s something about registering ammo in Pennsylvania and the ammo having serial numbers on it. I just glanced at the article, comments that were being made were about re-loading, whatever that means.

  111. Philip McDaniel says:

    “I think the Iraq War has been a total failure on all fronts, that doesn’t make me a liberal or a nitwit.”
    I disagree with your take on the war, Anon, but you don’t come across as a liberal nitwit. I look forward to seeing some spirited discussions from you. I would comment further but I’m a bit hung over this morning. ;-)

  112. Anon says:

    The Iraq war discussion is kind of pointless though, much like abortion, it seems nobody changes their mind.
    I will admit I thought the surge would fail from a military standpoint, but saw early on that politcally it was a genius move for Bush, he boxed in Pelosi and Reid and they never saw it coming. It remains to be seen if the surge allowed for lasting improvements to be made–probably did–or if sectarian violence and paramilitary thugs will again start killing in a scramble for real power when we draw down troops. But, the surge far, far surpassed my expectations.
    However, that doesn’t change my general take on the war, which that it completely fails in the cost/benefit analysis in terms of American interests, what we got for what we had to expend.
    The surge also points up the original massively flawed decision to disavow the Powell doctrine and go in with too few troops…if you are going to fight a war of choice, for god’s sake, do it right the first time. The Bush people screwed around for, what, 2 years, in full on denial of the deteriorating situation..first it was a few disgruntled army guys, then it was ‘outsiders’ and only finally when it was beyond obvious that the country was on the brink of civil war did they admit the insurgency was a serious, serious threat that they had not properly anticipated. So, it really pisses me off to hear today, six years on, that the insurgency was something that was ‘planned’ and was a genius move to get the fighters to come to Iraq. That is beyond stupid.
    I despise revisionist history whether it comes from the right or the left.
    While I don’t disagree that the idea of a secular, even somewhat U.S. friendly Iraq would be a powerfully seductive idea, on paper, back at the Pentagon and at think tanks all around D.C…and I don’t disagree that sometimes the real reason a country does something aren’t the public reasons a country does something…that still does not excuse the pathetically incompetant execution of the war and its aftermath. If we had gone into Iraq, got things under control quickly, even though I personally would never support a war of pure aggression like that, on balance, it could have turned out as a positive for long term U.S. interests. But, we didn’t. We failed at the core issues that were necessary for success on any level and for people to dream that maybe in a few decades the war will be vindicated is I think naive and revisionist. Even if Iraq turns into everything the architects of the war wanted it to–secular, friendly, a counterbalance to Iran–it can never erase the major mistakes and miscalculations that cost hundreds of billions and tens of thousands of live unnecessarily. And forget about the hit to the U.S. image. That is not going away either.

  113. Akatsukami says:

    “As long as the GOP wants to start mulitple wars, you are going to be ‘drafted’ and forced to fight wars to benefit the GOP – not America.”
    Rangel is secretly a Republican? Who knew!

  114. Mwalimu Daudi says:

    They need to take a page from one of their favorite shadow groups and move on.
    Purges, witch hunts, kangaroo courts, and show trials are an essential part of fascist dictatorships. Which is what we will be after January 20.

  115. Black dog says:

    I truly don’t like either party BUT we have spent so much time watching and listening to these little Krugman creatures spew their hate and haven’t fought back. This little ass has done a damn thing for this country in his entire miserable, useless life. I think of all those that have died in order to give people their freedom. He would be in prison or dead if he were in many countries…of course given the current course, the only people with freedom of speech in this country will be vile bastards like Krugman.
    I am sick of the media and bastards and bitches like: Reid, Pelosi and their useful idiots in the media for the last eight years. They have conspired not only against the president but against the country. Look at the crisis THEY caused with the sub prime mess.
    Look at the backstabbing as a president did everything possible to protect this country from another attack (there have been dozens of attacks prevented since 911). There was a vote to go to war but apparently the politicians and the media forgot all about that vote and support.
    Look at the stand on energy as they prevent America from going after her own resources. Never let American’s security or jobs get in the way of politicians that have been bought and paid for by the likes of George Soros.
    Look at the Obama/Biden plan to conspire with the UN to bleed this country dry.
    I for one am sick of of the left attacking everything this country stands for…no God, no heroes, no history, no culture, no freedom to work save and protect you own family.
    Wouldn’t it be nice if these bottom-feeders spent as much energy protecting and caring for the country as they do tearing it down?
    Create a crisis and use it to take control…seems the Democrats have taken a page right out of the Hitler Playbook.

  116. Black dog says:

    I truly don’t like either party BUT we have spent so much time watching and listening to these little Krugman creatures spew their hate and haven’t fought back. This little ass has NOT done a damn thing for this country in his entire miserable, useless life. I think of all those that have died in order to give people their freedom. He would be in prison or dead if he were in many countries…of course given the current course, the only people with freedom of speech in this country will be vile bastards like Krugman.
    I am sick of the media and bastards and bitches like: Reid, Pelosi and their useful idiots in the media for the last eight years. They have conspired not only against the president but against the country. Look at the crisis THEY caused with the sub prime mess.
    Look at the backstabbing as a president did everything possible to protect this country from another attack (there have been dozens of attacks prevented since 911). There was a vote to go to war but apparently the politicians and the media forgot all about that vote and support.
    Look at the stand on energy as they prevent America from going after her own resources. Never let American’s security or jobs get in the way of politicians that have been bought and paid for by the likes of George Soros.
    Look at the Obama/Biden plan to conspire with the UN to bleed this country dry.
    I for one am sick of of the left attacking everything this country stands for…no God, no heroes, no history, no culture, no freedom to work save and protect you own family.
    Wouldn’t it be nice if these bottom-feeders spent as much energy protecting and caring for the country as they do tearing it down?
    Create a crisis and use it to take control…seems the Democrats have taken a page right out of the Hitler Playbook

  117. Todd says:

    Jeez, it’s not like there’s been any shortage of Republican criticism of Bill Clinton since left office. All ya gotta do is tune in Limbaugh or Fox News and it won’t be long until you hear some of that.
    George W. Bush was an awful president who left this economy, our foreign policy and our standing in the world in tatters. By turning us into an economic basketcase with structural deficits as far as the eye can see, our national security has become compromised. Bush started unnecessary wars and paid no heed to piling on enormous amounts of national debt to spread democracy to countries that weren’t ready for it. It’s not 100% George W. Bush’s fault (the rest of the GOP can claim the rest of the responsibility for the mess for not reigning Bush in), but he embraced the neocon vision on foreign policy and the supply-side economics that brought these deficits. People at the top are responsible. Period. And if you can’t stand the criticism, don’t run for the office.
    And, why should Bush be immune from criticism just because he has left office? His disgraceful tenure as president means he will be villified by most Americans for years to come.

  118. Todd says:

    What is a neocon?
    Neoconservatism… originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry (‘Scoop’) Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves ‘paleoliberals.’ [After the end of the Cold War]… many ‘paleoliberals’ drifted back to the Democratic center… Today’s neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.
    Posted by: Lala | Saturday, January 17, 2009 at 12:33 AM
    ——————-
    That’s rich. Nice revisionist history. Show me a present day neocon who is a Democrat.

  119. Anon says:

    Nobody said that neocons were Democrats now, the record shows that the movement, when it ORIGINATED, was largely started by former liberals, it isn’t revisionist history, it is history, straight up and I am actually shocked to learn that anyone wasn’t aware of this fact.

  120. Mickey says:

    Todd – You Americans are pathetic sheep being taken to slaughter. Your carelessness about history makes me wonder how you have managed to survive this long. You criticize and even hate the people preventing your destruction and actually elect a man that is a Communist on a mission to destroy you from with in.
    Just a quick lesson from history would demonstrate that your poor will become even more poor as “O” is committed to Africa not America.
    Are you so willfully uninformed that you don’t know how your own government works? You have two elected bodies that write and pass laws. I know it’s hard to keep up but guess where spending bills come from your band of fools elected to the two houses of CONGRESS! Bush didn’t use a veto to stop the people responsible for representing the people’s interests.
    I would suggest that you get a clue and do some serious research rather than the same old bullshit lines coming from people that hate and want to destroy your country. Be honest and stop being an extremely stupid herd of sheep.

  121. Larr says:

    Todd – I was in grade school and didn’t have any criticism of Clinton. I don’t remember him being blamed for everything from the weather to allowing our citizens to be murdered by Muslim terrorists all over the world. I do seem to remember the Clinton administration killing people at Ruby Ridge, WACO and I do remember the Middle East Connection to the Oklahoma City bombing being covered up.
    I would have to say that Bill Clinton and his co-president were a disaster for the country. I would say in fact that had Clinton taken a declaration of war against this country seriously that there would have been no 911. Perhaps Monica could have come up for air and the useless HillBilly team would have taken out Bin Laden.
    BTW, it took the “Contract with America” to get old Billy out of economic trouble.

  122. ET says:

    Anon,
    1. Iraq was a logical and strategic target in the war on terror, once we had the Taliban under control (which they were at the time of the Iraq invasion.) The Bush strategy was to attack the state sponsors of terrorism, and Iraq was among the most active in this regard. Trying to limit our response to 9/11 to the Taliban is revisionist. We were told from the start that the WOT was a multi-front war. Iraq was selected as next in line for a lot of good reasons. Then Saddam gave us the finger and the rest is history.
    2. I agreed we went in with too few troops. That is a function of the fact that the US is the most restrained super power in the history of civilization. Our inclination to minimize casualties, both our, the enemy’s and civilian, caused us problems in this case.
    3. Our slow response to the insurgency was partly due to the politicization of the war efforts by the liberals on the homefront. It is revisionist to expect that we could predict and plan for the eventual sectarian violence, but I grant you that our response was too slow.
    4. The success of the surge is real. Of course, no one can predict the outcome of the still tenuous situation, but all signs are positive. I am heartened by the fact that Obama has adopted the Bush strategy for withdrawal — base the drawdown on conditions on the ground according to the terms of the SOFA. This give us real HOPE for success.
    5. You cost/benefit analysis is flawed, and based on opinions and assuptions. The monetary cost is like an insurance premium, it seems high until you need the benefit…then you thank god you spent the money. The cost in human life is remarkably low in historical terms. You are making value judgements when you assert that the war was not “worth it.”
    I also detest revisionist history from the left or the right. And I am tired ob being called a baby killer when I remind folks that smart people made tough decisions in the run up to the invasion and in the prosecution of the war. I prefer to give thanks that our president had the balls to stick by his promise to take the fight to the enemy and fight the battle on their turf, not ours.
    There. And I didn’t call anybody names.

  123. ET says:

    jharp, you’re as ass.

  124. Ken Hahn says:

    The entire philosophy of the left is built on greed and envy. It can be summed up as “if your neighbor has more than you, vote for us and we’ll hold a gun to his head until he gives it to you.” Greed and envy is what they do well, oh you you can throw in hate. They really hate well. And they really hate Bush. Bush isn’t really a conservative, but he deprived them of the Presidency of St Albert. They never let go. They still hate Reagan… and Goldwater and even after nearly 80 years, they really hate Herbert Hoover. Hate drives them. It’s the center of their universe.

  125. Just saying says:

    Anon – Your truly are a fool or an idiot or both.

  126. Anon says:

    ET, I just disagree that invading Iraq was a good or reasonable strategy in the so called war on terror. If the goal was to minimize radical muslims ability to recruit new groups of terrorists then our first stop would have been to force a reasonable solution on Israel and the Palestinians, and don’t kid yourself that we can’t impose a solution if we want to, in my opinion. The rhetoric of the war on terror has never really matched the reality of the threat, who is really threatened and why. So, I can’t agree that invading Iraq was anything but a very serious blunder, wrong target, wrong time.
    We’re going to have to agree to disagree on the Iraq War, though I do agree that all signs point to the surge having been effective in giving the country the ‘breathing room’ that it was designed to.
    I also don’t think we went into Iraq w/fewer troops as a way to reduce casualities, that doesn’t really make sense, we went into Iraq with too few troops because Rumsfeld wanted to test/prove his theory of a smaller, defter use of military force. Had we used overwhelming force there would have been far FEWER casualties, both military and civilian because the entire country would have been secured within a few months. Instead, the limited number of trooops fostered chaos and uncertainty and allowed violence to get a foothold. Though I do agree that we do our best to limit casualties, which is why we should stay OUT of situations that lead to guerilla warfare since our morality puts us at a huge disadvantage in fighting insurgencies that have popular backing.
    Lastly, I don’t think the insurgency should have been a surprise, if the war planners had done their homework they would have known it was a very likely possibility. Indeed,the state department warned of this outcome but Rumsfeld blew it all off and didn’t plan for it. The war planners were deluded by their own visions, precisely what I have hated so much about the Bush Administration, its rejection of facts and pragmatism.

  127. ET says:

    Fair enough, Anon. It will be interesting to see how we extract ourselves, which we all agree we must. I am hopeful that Obama will take a reasonable course, despite his campaign rhetoric. If his administration can avoid some of the mistakes of the past, we might just have the positive result I anticipate in my posts.