It continues to amaze me how the Right so often bucks up admittedly fine, talented and intelligent young men as the would be sages of their age by giving their words such notoriety, when they are so lacking in deeds other than writing - read experience and genuine maturity. And I am not calling Rod Dreher a poseur within the context of his Conservatism, I am calling him that within the context of someone who pretended to have the strength, vision, experience, insight and wisdom to support a difficult war.
Apparently Rod Dreher has set himself up to be the current most misrepresented and consequently, most misunderstood conservative by taping a short, annoyingly superficial and maudlin anti-Bush, anti-war commentary for NPR. Clearly, Dreher hasn't abandoned conservatism, that will simply be the translation offered by the Left, always so in need of this or that useful idiot to pimp their mindless cause.
Hopefully Mr. Dreher will permit someone without the professional byline, but with ten or so more years of life experience, to tell him a few things. Frankly, his commentary suggests to me he understands very little about life, or the real world at all. I'll mostly address his commentary, as available via CrunchyCons in follow up to his mournful 3 minutes of NPR drone.
Anyway, I make it clear in the piece that I'm still a conservative, but that the experience of conservative government with regard to the Iraq war has done away with any illusions I had about the importance of having a Republican president when faced with a national security crisis.
Dreher is talking apples and oranges here. It's impossible to even understand why he brought conservatism into his commentary - excepting that it shows what a superficial, John Wayne-ish concept of conservative leadership he, evidently, has been entertaining himself with all along. Simply put, what Dreher is saying is that he is disappointed with George Bush (I'll address that). Fine! So, say it, Mr. Dreher, but why drag the concept of conservatism, or even Republican-ism, into the muck with you, when in this context, neither belongs there at all?
So, let's cut to the heart of the matter and I'll address his concerns as regards Bush and the managing of this difficult war.
In my essay, I talked about how the conduct of the war was what alienated me. That includes the falsehoods and half-truths told to get us into this mess -- for example, the things we were told back in 2002 by this administration and took on good faith, which we ought to have been far more skeptical of.
What things, Mr. Dreher? Do you even know anything about the real world? Do you think that because a mostly clear and definitive answer to everything you've ever researched or written about is available through some wiki or text, that the answers to precisely what a real-world enemy is doing, or has said or plotted behind closed doors, is readily available to you because you're, you know, John Wayne, The Avengers, and the President of the United States all wrapped up into one?
If you believe that this President didn't attempt to learn everything he could about pre-war circumstances and then subsequently convey and act upon them as best he could, you're not only immature in your reasoning, you're a fool. Either that, or simply someone who has been spending too much time poking around NPR.
And if in the conveyance of said pre-war information you now believe that this President may have highlighted this, as opposed to that, well, for heaven's sake, Mr. Dreher, that's what every dedicated and determined leader of any movement, enterprise or endeavor in the real world has to do. If not, in a democracy, you end up with 300 million people sitting in a national room twiddling their thumbs without ever coming together around a solution for anything at all.
Yet my commentary was explicitly not about my thoughts about economics, or social policy, or anything other than trusting conservatives in power to do the right thing on war and foreign policy.
Again, he conflates Bush, one man, with conservatism. It almost seems like his entire concept of conservatism is the worshiping of icons, or men destined to be enshrined on mountains. He says he doesn't, but repeats the rhetorical error time and again. But, I digress, as, unfortunately, so did he at that point in his piece.
My error was to think that all Republicans were like Reagan, or to be more precise, that "Reaganism" -- standing tall, carrying a big stick -- was always and everywhere the right response. I failed to be as critical of GWB as I ought to have been before it was obvious to everyone with eyes to see what a disaster his administration has been re: Iraq. What's Jonah's excuse?
Good grief. A big stick? Is that what you think we have been applying in Iraq, Mr. Dreher? Have you ever read any history, perhaps that of the Second World War? What have you been watching these last four years? Not the war that I have, that's for sure. Mr. Dreher, we are having problems in Iraq precisely because we did not go in there like some wholly external and unreasonable force of empire crushing everything in sight, only to later build it anew.
In response, Jonah Goldberg highlights the weakness card:
Indeed, even if the result of Bush's foreign policy has had the consequence of projecting an image of weakness around the globe as Rod asserts, that doesn't mean they are similar foreign policies.
Why is it that an allegedly informed individual cannot comprehend that George Bush attempted to carve a democracy in Iraq, not simply slash and burn the country down to build one up? That isn't weakness, it's actually strength. That, as it requires more maturity, restraint, time, patience and perseverance to make it work. But, in sheer numbers, it can ultimately save a lot of lives.
What is it Mr. Dreher wants? Strength, only in the sense that the Middle-East appreciates it - only through overwhelming might? Isn't that one of the very things we are attempting to change within a region having the potential to threaten us so much? That's the easier and, ultimately, less humane, weak way, in fact. And who cares what the world thinks? One begins to wonder if either of these two fine fellows are really conservative at all.
Were there difficult decisions to be made? Yes. Do some, or even several, now, with the benefit of hindsight, appear to have been wrong? Sure! So what? There are few if any truly difficult real world endeavors wherein that isn't the case. Have you experienced enough of them, or simply written of some? Or maybe you acted them out on a pod cast for NPR?
Do you take apart the post-war standing army in Iraq to head off hostility as it was the tool used to subjugate 80% of that nation's population? Or do you leave it in place because it could suddenly be trusted to secure the peace and not almost immediately overthrow any new government the moment America's back was turned? Consult Lexus Nexus, or your encyclopedia, Mr. Dreher, prove to me you could have found that answer four years ago ... I'll wait.
Is this President a mortal human capable of making a misjudgment? Is Donald Rumsfeld? Sure! Again, so what? Aren't we all likely to err, most especially when situations are so complex and dynamic as within a troubled Middle-eastern nation during time of war?
What is it you expected from the beginning? That we'd have this thing done in two hours, so you could run to the fridge and grab a coke? That's not a failing of President Bush, Mr. Dreher, it's a failure in the depth of your thought.
And, now, your judgment, to record what, albeit it in monotone, is no less than an anti-war, anti-Bush screed for NPR, empowering them to pimp you out as this day's useful idiot suggests that if you had anything to do with decision making in Iraq, things would be worse.
Fine, Mr. Dreher ... you've jumped the warship, you're out on your own. Please have the sense, the courtesy, the human decency to go sink to the bottom alone somewhere. While brave Americans are still fighting and dying for a necessary cause, those of us out here in the real world with experience and stamina have just that much more rowing to do, now - and still miles to go before we rest.
Go read or write a book, or something. You certainly don't have what it takes to fight, or even help fight a difficult war. With benefit of hindsight, I'm forced to assume you never really did.
larry writes: "MAN, i can't wait for the upcoming civil war. "
Sorry, I'm not quite following you, larry. What civil war would that be?
[crickets]
As you can see, larry clammed up when asked for clarificatiion on this, and for good reason. This fascinating little bit of survivalist porn pops up in the grimier blogs from time to time, and it's well, really pretty crazy, folks.
The upcoming civil war he's talking about is one in which right-thinkin' amurikans rise up and "take back the country" from liberals and multiculturalists (whatever that is) and schoolteachers and attorneys and black helicopters from the UN and whatnot, kinda like Red Dawn, only starring Larry as Patrick Swayze. Sometimes in the fantasy, there's a post-apocalyptic wasteland, sometimes not, but in any case you can bet that men want to be him, women want to be with him, etc.
Usually blog proprietors cringe when they see this crap, because let's face it, who wants to have their nose rubbed in the fact that their fan base is primarily fucking looney tunes, but in Dan's case, since he's already advocating hanging those who don't support his war, he may not have much of a problem with it.
Anyway, that's the dream: larry knuckles out of his cave each bright morning and bags his limit of liberals, and he is the hero. It's always assumed, incidentally, that conservatives would prevail in such a civil war, 'cause, you know, they're much handier with firearms and all. Good luck with that, larr!
Oh, by the way, Dick Cheney called, wants to know if you'd like to go hunting with him.
Posted by: Chris Vosburg | Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 09:42 AM
"The political divide in this country has made it impossible for a Republican president to wage a war"
Uhhh..wow. Where do I begin picking apart this scaburous piece of myth making?
The "political divide" was basically invented by this administration, with help from lap dogs like you and fox news.
And this republic president has waged war just fine, thankyouverymuch. In fact, the only way he keeps it hobbling along is by exploiting that divide. So let's just sweep that bit of nonsense off the table shall we?
Ahhh..now, let's see what's left, ohhhh..my, my, my. Just some hubris, symantic acrobatics and some scraps foxy news posturing. Not much to wage a war on, I agree but, you go to war with the support you've got left, not the support you'd like.
Posted by: Dr. Know | Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 10:04 AM
" I hold the current servicemembers to be heroic in the extreme as they continue to do their duty even as it becomes more and more plain that they are led by a incompentent and petulant ass."
Well, they've/we've had experience with that dating back 14 years.
Cordially...
Posted by: Rick | Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 10:47 AM
"The "political divide" was basically invented by this administration, with help from lap dogs like you and fox news."
Speaking of myth-making. Oh, yeah, the far-left shepherd's of today's "progressives" had nothing to do with it. And all the rest of the (corporate) media reports All Truth, All The Time. Feh...seems you missed the Hale-Bopp call.
I appreciate big words as much as anyone, but "scaburous" doesn't exist in the English tongue. The Dr. has got to Know a little more.
Cordially...
Posted by: Rick | Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Rick,
I'll take the fact that your argument has been reduced to a paraphrase of "Clinton was worse!" as tantamount to your waving a tiny white flag in this little debate we're having.
And no, worm, if this nation was attacked by would-be invaders, no Republican president nor any president would have the least bit of trouble mustering the fearsome totality of American strength to oppose it. It is possible, you see, for Americans to fearlessly defend their homes and ideals and STILL believe that a unnecessary war of choice being waged 10,000 miles away is god-awful foreign policy.
Posted by: Horatio | Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 11:58 AM
The "political divide" argument is becoming increasingly popular with administration mouthpieces like Hannity and Limbaugh and quickly filtering down to the party faithful. Its a repeat of the argument that we would have "won" in Vietnam if not for the anti-war movement at home. The only problem is that todays anti-war movement is a joke. No campus shutdowns, no marches on Washington, no riots in major cities, not much aside from Cindy Sheehan camping out in Crawford for a couple weeks every summer. Also unlike Vietnam, anti-troop rhetoric is nonexistent. Walking down my street in Boston I can count half a dozen yellow ribbons on my neighbors' cars. Going into this war, Bush had 80-90% approval ratings and a Congress that was playing dead. Bush has conducted this war exactly the way he wanted to, and has no one but himself (and the Project for a New American Century) to blame for its current state. The problem is unrealistic goals and incompetence, not a non-exsistent domestic conspiracy.
Posted by: chiron82 | Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 12:05 PM
Rick, before you start smirking at minor spelling errors, maybe you oughta learn to stop inserting apostrophes in your plurals (see your comment above, "the far-left shepherd's of today's 'progressives'")-- the badge of grammatically illiterate hillbillies everywhere.
Further, viewers of Fox News Channel-- which you no doubt feel is "fair and balanced"-- were found to be the least well-informed of those who got their news from the television, which gives the lie to the FNC slogan's claim and your ridiculous assertion.
But you already knew that, so why the bullshit?
Posted by: Chris Vosburg | Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 01:00 PM
And speaking of bullshit, I don't recall Clinton repeatedly miring troops in unwinnable conflicts or illegal invasions. When he called 'em out, the objective was well-defined and the duration was limited by design.
What did I miss?
And Rick, BE SPECIFIC. Don't be creeping away with that "of course you don't agree because you're liberal" shit again; just make your Goddam case like a brave boy.
God, you kids are such a trial!
Posted by: Chris Vosburg | Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 01:09 PM
I don't see what Riehl and Goldberg are whining about...Conservatism is ALL about 'feelings' and 'nostalgia'...the support 'conservatives' have been relying upon (other than the 30% crazy factor they automatically pull a la the christianists) are those 'conservatives' who were enamored of poor, simple-minded, though muchly lauded by the Right Wing, Reagan.
These are the conservative converts, confused by the complexity of the world and seeking to be reassured by 'Dad' (aka the GOP), that are now realizing their heretofore simplistic reasoning has led them astray...
OF COURSE one questions Authority, respects the man as it is earned (and not by default the "Position") and looks for reason and logic among the arguments.
It don't bode well for conservatives when you've lost, at last, the recently converted by fear poseurs who swell your ranks.
I'll say it again...it is difficult to keep people stupid and really, that's the entire conservative meme...confuse and downplay facts and reason and logic and play up the emotion and fear and tsk-tsking...
But a strong conservative voice is required to provide caution for the Progressive, occasionally heedlessly so, movement...conservatives are once again a welcome minority (and will never see national prominence again...). Your nation thanks you for your service these past 6 years...the adults will take over from here.
Peace.
Posted by: Russ | Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 01:17 PM
what did you "miss", chris? well, you "missed" the fact that bubba's excellent adventure in bosnia was a complete & total waste of time, effort, and money. content to let the usaf bomb wooden tanks, and empty tents, bubba manfully played warrior ("look, hilly! they have to salute me!") while bosnia contines - to this very day - its slide into anarchy. care to comment?
(crickets chirping)
yeah, i thought so. hey! it's FUN asking questions the other guy won't dare answer!
of course there's a divide in this country: the dems started it, when it seemed bush would do well in the war, and have frantically continued it to this day. nothing - not progress, not the truth, not having to manufacture outright lies - can be allowed to come between their goal of seeing bush fail. the fact that "bush failing" means "america fails, too" is just a bonus for the scummy little hypocrites.
still, the children currently running congress shouldn't have too long to trash the place. despite their media lapdogs maintaining a respectful code of silence, the web and the blogs have at last set free the dogs of truth. was anyone else tickled by the amusing spectacle of rahm emmanuel being shouted down by mama sheehan? and then running away like a little bitch, cursing a blue streak the entire time?
yeah, that didn't make the nightly news, did it. no matter: we all found out anyway! ta-ta, lovies. free the samoan starkist slaves! death to the evil corporate puppet, the hideous oppressor pelosi!
Posted by: larry | Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 01:58 PM
"It is possible, you see, for Americans to fearlessly defend their homes and ideals and STILL believe that a unnecessary war of choice being waged 10,000 miles away is god-awful foreign policy."
The purpose of a forward strategy is to place the seat of war in the enemy's homeland. Since Al Qaeda was a global caliphate centered on Baghdad, they've got a little hitch in their gitalong, now don't they.
But if you want to confront Islamism reactively rather than proactively, that's sort of a strategy. Kicks the can down the road, and doesn't make use of all the available tools, but it's a strategy. A poor one, though.
Like the way Clinton was pro-active in attacking Serbia (Illegal war! France opposes! No U.N. backing!). It's never a back idea to overthrow a dictator when cause presents, and this was an isolated bright light in his Presidency. That region does seem to have settled down a good bit, so perhaps it's time to pull out of there to confront some real players. I mean, it seems we're mired in the Balkans for no purpose. As in Germany & Japan, among other locales.
"Rick, before you start smirking at minor spelling errors..."
Oh, ouch. I was smirking not at a typo/spelling error, but at a puffed-up screen name using a non-word. He/she bought an extra vowel on Wheel of Fortune, it would seem.
Thanks, Chris, for reporting a "finding" in re: Fox. Could you please tell me who sponsored/conducted that? Or the questions? Something tells me with wasn't Bernard Goldberg. Better to hear from Dan Rather--still on the trail of Lucy Ramirez--on how the New York Times is middle-of-the-road. Maybe for left-wing inbreds, but the bovine mentality of that demographic--the engine of post-1972 Democrats, but apparently not prized by TV advertizers--is what helped give him the sack. Yes, Rather and, oh, Scott Engberg--really making the Murikan pipple "well informed."
Horatio, far be it from me to wave the French flag. I assert that Bush is certainly *no worse* than Clinton. And I hope that's the last time I use both names in the same sentence.
Cordially...
Posted by: Rick | Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 01:59 PM
global caliphate centered on baghdad?....It would be convienient to buy into the Rick Santorum view of history that the entire region is united under his half-baked understanding of the caliphate, but reality says otherwise. Historically and currently, the "Muslim world" has been no more politically or militarilly united than the "Christian world". Islamism is a fringe movement that is most effectively countered with intelligence, law enforcement, and political measures, with occasional recourse to the military, as in Afghanistan.
I enjoy watching things go boom and hanging bad guys as much as anyone else, but no one seriously prepared for what you do after that. Touting Bush's little adventure as part of a "strategy" gives it too much credit. It was dreamed up in the vacuum of a thinktank by chickenhawks like Wolfowitz and Kagan, and the contingency planning stopped at "greeted as liberators." The apocalyptic notion of a conspiracy stretching from Morocco to Indonesia is a justification that has been imagined after the fact. The failure of Iraq to follow the gameplan MUST be due to some cabal of everyone who doesn't like us...it couldn't possibly be due to our ignorance of history, military affairs, Iraq's ethnic makeup, etc., etc.
Posted by: chiron82 | Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 03:12 PM
Larry, unable to address my criticism of his dopey, uneducated, and inappropriate use of the term "statist" and my argument that his favorite administration conforms the worst "statists" in the history of the Republic, must resort to an attempt at criticizing my paragraph construction.
Way to let the Fussy Schoolmarm inside you out, Larry!
Then, after this feeble display of attempted pedantry, wheels round and criticizes the expansive diction of my post.
Looks like the coveted Office of Grammar Commissar for the impending Civil War will, alas, elude him.
Posted by: tom | Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 03:47 PM
"....It would be convienient to buy into the Rick Santorum view of history that the entire region is united under his half-baked understanding of the caliphate, but reality says otherwise. **Historically and currently, the "Muslim world" has been no more politically or militarilly united than the "Christian world". Islamism is a fringe movement **that is most effectively countered with intelligence, law enforcement, and political measures, with occasional recourse to the military, as in Afghanistan."
It's also Bin Laden's view & aim.
** Yes, let's keep that going, by all means. Including Iraq. Well, actually, the Muslim world *was* united during the "prophet's" (piss be upon him) lifetime, and rolled outward thousands of miles from its Medina-Mecca axis. Just as in the Roman Empire, the fracture started over succession. Thankfully, inshallah.
But still, we must confront Araby's religious right by choosing our battlegrounds.
Cordially...
Posted by: Rick | Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 03:51 PM
Larry inexplicably writes: "what did you "miss", chris? well, you "missed" the fact that bubba's excellent adventure in bosnia was a complete & total waste of time, effort, and money. content to let the usaf bomb wooden tanks, and empty tents, bubba manfully played warrior ("look, hilly! they have to salute me!") while bosnia contines - to this very day - its slide into anarchy. care to comment? "
Sure. That's what reasoned debate is about, after all, larr.
Clinton's intervention in Bosnia in '94 ended a civil war which had taken several hundred thousand lives. His air strikes of serb targets were a nudge to bring the serbs, who already had pretty much achieved most of what they were after, to the negotiation table. In 1995 Clinton hosted the Dayton Accords, peace talks which ended hostilities and left a single Bosnian state.
As you point out, tensions re-erupted in '98, and Clinton argued pursuasively for NATO airstrikes of serb targets. A heavier bombing campaign, which I personally was opposed to, as it represented the first attack of a European country by NATO forces, was undertaken, and the serbs surrendered-- again-- in June 1999, upon which attacks were suspended. Hard to believe I know, but Clinton stopped being President shortly thereafter. In fact, did you know he hasn't been President for six whole years? Wow!
As I said, in these cases, Clinton's objectives were well-defined and duration was limited by design. So, as you can see, the Bosnian case supports my argument rather well. Incidentally, how many troops did we lose in that conflict?
Ah.
Contrast with the foreign policy objectives and achievements of the current President. And for God's sake please tell us what the hell they are.
I didn't find anything else in your lengthy rant worth commenting on, but it was, as I say, lengthy, not to mention tiresome, so I'd appreciate your pointing out anything else that you feel I should address.
Posted by: Chris Vosburg | Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 05:56 PM
Rick writes: "Thanks, Chris, for reporting a "finding" in re: Fox. Could you please tell me who sponsored/conducted that? Or the questions?"
I'd be glad to. The study was conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, which I am given to understand is "a joint program of the Center on Policy Attitudes (COPA) and the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM), University of Maryland."
In summary, the PIPA writes:
"An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions."
The study also asked where respondents got their news, and a correlation was found. The following table lists percentage of respondents who had none of the three mispeceptions, listed by chosen news source:
NPR/PBS: 77%
Print Sources 53%
CNN 45%
NBC 45%
ABC 39%
CBS 30%
FOX 20%
You can examine the study yourself-- and furiously parse the data over and over, desperately clawing around for loopholes that alter the data so it doesn't make a monkey out of you-- here:
http://tinyurl.com/l4owq
What, they didn't report this on FOX? Huh.
Posted by: Chris Vosburg | Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 06:25 PM
Larrrrrrrrrry, Rick seems to feel differently about "Bubba's Excellent Adventure in Bosnia," enthusing heavily about the way:
"...Clinton was pro-active in attacking Serbia (Illegal war! France opposes! No U.N. backing!). It's never a back idea to overthrow a dictator when cause presents, and this was an isolated bright light in his Presidency. That region does seem to have settled down a good bit, so perhaps it's time to pull out of there to confront some real players. I mean, it seems we're mired in the Balkans for no purpose. As in Germany & Japan, among other locales."
Discuss, or perhaps have exciting cage match. Your choice, Lulu.
Posted by: Chris Vosburg | Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 06:37 PM
Rick writes: "The purpose of a forward strategy is to place the seat of war in the enemy's homeland. "
That's just so friggin' crazy. Iraq is the enemy?
Posted by: Chris Vosburg | Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 06:43 PM
Thanks, Chris. I heard of the study when it was released, and had no idea that it was so tightly limited to the "misconceptions." To wit:
"An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions."
One and two are not misconceptions, but differences in degree to importance assigned to the discovered AQ links and weapons caches, documents, equipment, chemicals, etc.
As for world opinion, you've be correct in assuming I could give a merde. That really ought to be a response option, below "don't know." Living on the east coast, I know my deep-blue environs looks ato world opinion as a source of oracular wisdom. Others know better.
I quite thought this study, brandished briefly last year, would've covered lots more ground. That is, domestic policy. But yes, from a tranzi viewpoint--quite the coloration of the authoring organization (one from dear old alma mater, for shame)--NPR is authority, durn tootin.'
So not quite disinterested & objective. But a window into the blue bubble.
Oh, done furiously parsing & desperately clawing. Progressives are just too scary smart!
Cordially...
P.S. Seat of war is in the Land Between The Rivers, where OBL has conjured visions of restoring the caliphate glory. Better to fight him there, than leave Horatio to do his Leonidas routine at the U.S. border.
Posted by: Rick | Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 09:11 PM
Rick writes: "I heard of the study when it was released, and had no idea that it was so tightly limited to the 'misconceptions.'"
It wasn't.
Perhaps you should actually just read the study.
Rick writes: "One and two are not misconceptions, but differences in degree to importance assigned to the discovered AQ links and weapons caches, documents, equipment, chemicals, etc. As for world opinion, you've be correct in assuming I could give a merde"
The questions weren't asking for opinion, or your shit, they were asking respondents whether evidence existed to support the allegations.
Perhaps you should actually just read the study.
Rick writes: "I quite thought this study, brandished briefly last year,.."
What? You mean 2003/4.
Perhaps you should actually just read the study.
Rick continues: "...would have covered more ground."
It did.
Perhaps you should actually just read the study.
Rick writes: "Oh, done furiously parsing & desperately clawing. Progressives are just too scary smart!"
[sigh]Your willful ignorance would be highly amusing if not for the hundreds of thousands who have died, the hundreds of thousands more injured, tens of thousands of families destroyed or displaced, and at last count two countries destroyed as a result of it (not counting the US). You disgust me.
Perhaps you should actually just ram the study up your ass.
Posted by: Chris Vosburg | Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 10:28 PM
ho-hum. more of the same tired old left-wing road appleage, pretending they want the best for the country. let's sum it up: i have relatives serving as GI's in iraq; right now. they - and all their buddies, they tell me - appreciate all the sanctimonious, hypocritical "support" from the left-wing, but they say what they *really need*....what'd *really do them some good*....is the following list:
1) reinforcements (also known as a "surge")
2) seal the iranian/syrian borders; use whatever force necessary
3) loosen up the moronic rules of engagements the brave "combat attorneys" have saddled them with.
those 3 little things, they tell me, will allow them to get the job done right. "right" defined as "we win".
can't help but notice that our fellow patriots, the liberals, are calling for....none of these things, nor will they ever. they want to "support the troops" not by giving them what they NEED, but rather by....folding up shop & running away.
in a world where the everyone watches the US, hoping we'll fail, (just like a dnc meeting, actually), where 'mercy' is interpreted as 'weakness', our liberal friends want to take their ball & go home. give up. run away like little bitches. they want us to...you know....to lose. because we're all racist & imperialistic and were mean to the indians and all, just like the prof said.
or am i wrong? are there ANY liberal/statist/leftwing swine out there ANYwhere calling for reinforcements? action against syria/iran? freer combat 'fire' rules? calling for a US victory, "whatever the cost may be"?
(crickets chirping)(tumbleweeds blowing down the deserted street)
no, of course there aren't. how come? don't they **want** us to win?
Posted by: larry | Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Larry writes: "those 3 little things, they tell me, will allow them to get the job done right. 'right' defined as 'we win'."
And "win" defined as what, exactly?
Posted by: Chris Vosburg | Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 06:05 AM
"i have relatives serving as GI's in iraq; right now. they - and all their buddies, they tell me - appreciate all the sanctimonious, hypocritical "support" from the left-wing, but they say what they *really need*....what'd *really do them some good*....is the following list:
1) reinforcements (also known as a "surge")
2) seal the iranian/syrian borders; use whatever force necessary
3) loosen up the moronic rules of engagements the brave "combat attorneys" have saddled them with.
I called your relatives larry and they kept asking why you aren't over there serving with them. They said you get all bitchy when confronted about doing more than "supporting" them with a little yellow ribbon on your car. Suddenly you have another call or the connection gets bad or someones at the door. Now understand they're not calling you a coward or chickenhawk or anything (that's our job) but they would like you to get some facts straight.
Like who to blame for not enough troops. I know, I know. It's a silly question to ask since the decider has decided right?! But it deserves an answer.
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/008174.html
"Well, showboating Congressmen, Senators and pundits can say all they want, but the commanders on the ground say there are enough.
President Bush says he has not received any request to send more American forces to Iraq and that commanders have told him the 144,000 troops already deployed are "what they can live with."
Hmmm.. Akward..
As for the other two points like defending the boarders and all those cumbersome "rules of engagement"? Well I guess those pussies at the pentagon are to blame. After all it was those pinkos who single handedly tripped up the well oiled bush warmachine. So, let those relatives know that when they get sniped at, when a bullett passes thru flimsy armour or when they just sit and wonder why the hell they're out there, just tell them to ask their friendly neighborhood neocon. Trouble is they'll be here at home, sitting behind a keyboard and quietly stabbing them in the back.
Posted by: Dr. Know | Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Dr Know writes: "President Bush says he has not received any request to send more American forces to Iraq and that commanders have told him the 144,000 troops already deployed are "what they can live with."
It's also worth pointing out that MilitaryTimes polled servicemembers in December of last year and found that 38% of 'em supported increasing the number of troops in Iraq.
I think it's interesting that this disagrees so strongly with Larry's claims about what all of "his relatives and their buddies" in Iraq are telling him.
Further, it's interesting that none of Larry's "relatives and their buddies" voice the most common complaint I've heard yet from troops, that of the dearth of proper equipment.
Larry's "relatives and buddies" do, however, agree 100% with the group of troops hand-assembled for Robert Gates' recent photo-op. Guess what, they unanimously supported the increase in troops.
From this I logically conclude that Larry, like the administration, is simply not being truthful.
Wow, there's a shocker.
Posted by: Chris Vosburg | Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Dr Know writes: "President Bush says he has not received any request to send more American forces to Iraq and that commanders have told him the 144,000 troops already deployed are "what they can live with."
It's also worth pointing out that MilitaryTimes polled servicemembers in December of last year and found that 38% of 'em supported increasing the number of troops in Iraq.
I think it's interesting that this disagrees so strongly with Larry's claims about what all of "his relatives and their buddies" in Iraq are telling him.
Further, it's interesting that none of Larry's "relatives and their buddies" voice the most common complaint I've heard yet from troops, that of the dearth of proper equipment.
Larry's "relatives and buddies" do, however, agree 100% with the group of troops hand-assembled for Robert Gates' recent photo-op. Guess what, they unanimously supported the increase in troops.
From this I logically conclude that Larry, like the administration, is simply not being truthful.
Wow, there's a shocker.
Posted by: Chris Vosburg | Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 11:20 AM
Oops. Damn Hiccups!
Posted by: Chris Vosburg | Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 11:21 AM
yeah, i thought that post would rattle some cages.
one of the more contemptible things about hardcore kneejerk leftwing liberal brainless automatons is their tendency for shifting tactics, often in the same sentence. when - after diligent searching - they can find a few grunts willing to complain about the war, and the knotheads up the chain of command, they're all "we must listen to the troops!"
but when it's time to listen to the vast majority of them, who say they're doing good work in iraq, and just need a few simple & cheap extras, then we hear, "what do they know? they're mere soldiers! it's not like they have advanced degrees in sociology, like all good liberals do."
witness my call for the 3 extras needed in iraq. they're cheap; easy to make happen; the troops fervently believe they'll work; and the liberals response is....."absolutely not! anything but that."
i say again: the left wants us to quit iraq, humiliated, and is actively working to make this happen. chris, being a leftwing robot, naturally disagrees, because that's what the prof ordered him/her to do. "much better to run away! teacher told us so!" oddly enough, that was *never* a liberal response to a failing social program. hmmm....wonder why?
Posted by: larry | Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 02:45 PM
Larry writes: "when - after diligent searching - they can find a few grunts willing to complain about the war, and the knotheads up the chain of command, they're all 'we must listen to the troops!'"
A lie.
I merely pointed out that a poll of troops made by what is clearly a pro-military magazine does not agree with your claim that they unanimously support the President's desire to increase the number of troops in Iraq. In fact, far from it: The poll shows that just 38% support it, a clear minority.
And note that this is not "a few grunts willing to complain about the knotheads up the chain of command;" it's a survey of randomly chosen servicemembers. So there is your second lie.
Larry writes: "but when it's time to listen to the vast majority of them, who say they're doing good work in iraq, and just need a few simple & cheap extras, then we hear, 'what do they know? they're mere soldiers!"'
Nobody here said that, Larry. That's your third lie.
Further, unless your anecdotal sample of relatives of their buddies numbers over a thousand, then it is not as representative of the "vast majority" of them as the survey cited. But you knew that, so that's your fourth lie.
Larry writes: "witness my call for the 3 extras needed in iraq. they're cheap; easy to make happen; the troops fervently believe they'll work; and the liberals response is.....'absolutely not! anything but that.'"
Additional troops are "cheap and easy to make happen?"
My. Fucking. God. Put a pretty high value on our troops lives, huh?
Sealing the borders of Syria and Iran "cheap and easy to make happen?"
That's your fifth lie. Sorry, no further explanation forthcoming, or necessary.
Relaxing the rules of engagement "cheap and easy to make happen?"
Two words: Abu Ghraib. Three words: Shock and Awe.
We'll be paying the price of these relaxations of the rules of engagement for decades to come, believe me. Here's two more words: "Genocidal Sociopath." That's you, Lulu.
And the troops do not "fervently believe they'll work." That's your sixth lie. You have only to ask them. Military Times did, you didn't; I suspect you merely are repeating what you heard on a wingnut cable TV or radio show.
[sigh]
Larry, poor you. There you are, posed on the roof of the garage and about to jump, with a bathtowel tied around your neck, saying you're going to "fly, like Superman." I'm trying to prevent you from jumping because it is unlikely in the extreme that you can fly, and you are accusing me of trying to prevent you from jumping becuase I want you to fail.
The folks who do not want us to "lose" this "war" are the same people who argued against the invasion of Iraq in 2002, and pointed out at the time that it was the fucking stupidest idea ever, because it was unlikely in the extreme that it would pan out as the Neocons predicted. The folks who just wanted to stir up some shit in the middle east-- they are the useless fuckers who wanted us to lose. And we have.
You've already gone through the guardrail, you fucking fool, and you are hauling ass hellward at 10m/s/s, and you want to put on the fucking snow chains while sane folks are trying to fashion a parachute outta the rag top.
It'd be great to just holler "Haw haw! The Democracy you deserve!" as you pass, but unfortunately you're taking us all with you.
Thanks, Lulu, I won't forget, and neither will the rest of the planet. Be interesting to see if Dubya's brave enough to visit another country-- any country-- after his term is up. I doubt it.
I'll leave you in peace now, and the last word is yours. Honest.
Posted by: Chris Vosburg | Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 03:58 PM
"witness my call for the 3 extras needed in iraq. they're cheap; easy to make happen; the troops fervently believe they'll work; and the liberals response is....."absolutely not! anything but that."
Lemme post this little response from the decider on # 1 of your extras list about more troops-
"President Bush says he has not received any request to send more American forces to Iraq and that commanders have told him the 144,000 troops already deployed are "what they can live with."
So.. I guess this makes the duh-cider one o' them knee jerk lefties!? Those bastard liberals have pulled off the greatest manchurian candidate switcheroo since George Soros slipped Rush Limbaugh bad oxycotin!!
Oh, one more thing-
"when - after diligent searching - they can find a few grunts"
Google says it took 0.12 seconds. So much for diligent...
Posted by: Dr. Know | Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 11:22 PM
"You disgust me.
Perhaps you should actually just ram the study up your ass.z'
I am truly blessed in my booby foes. Be called a "worm" by Horation and digusting by Chris--febrile & dimwit"progressives" --is actually lauditory. Your hate keeps me warm.
I wouldn't dare handle that risible "study," as it manifestly was pulled *out* of some lame tranzi ass. Rather like that 1964 "conclusion" by some dozens or hundreds of psychiatrists diagnosing Barry Goldwater as mentally ill. Same prog shit, different millenium.
Yet still, liberal civilization will be saved. Horatio has our six, and Chris..who knows?
Cordially...
Posted by: Rick | Saturday, January 20, 2007 at 06:01 PM
"Hopefully Mr. Dreher will permit someone without the professional byline, but with ten or so more years of life experience, to tell him a few things."
No one who's finished high school starts a sentence with "Hopefully." And the anti-war left has no more use for equivocators like Dreher than you do.
Posted by: Bill | Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 09:55 PM
"Hopefully Mr. Dreher will permit someone without the professional byline, but with ten or so more years of life experience, to tell him a few things."
No one who's finished high school starts a sentence with "Hopefully." And the anti-war left has no more use for equivocators like Dreher than you do.
Posted by: Bill | Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 09:55 PM
"Hopefully Mr. Dreher will permit someone without the professional byline, but with ten or so more years of life experience, to tell him a few things."
No one who's finished high school starts a sentence with "Hopefully." And the anti-war left has no more use for equivocators like Dreher than you do.
Posted by: Bill | Tuesday, May 22, 2007 at 09:55 PM