Slack Jawed Yawper? Yeoow!!

LMAO Rick Moran offers a clarification and links to me.

As I fully expected, some on the right are in full throated howl over my suggestion that we alter our mission in Iraq. The predictable response of the slack jawed yawpers doesn’t necessarily depress me, although I am not insensate to the barbs.

Lawdy!! Far be it from me to pile on someone who is not insensate! Perhaps you should try Midol if you're experiencing some pain, Rick. I'm assuming you keep a bottle right next to the thesaurus. At least we can all take some solace in knowing you aren't depressed. Come back when you grow up enough to know it isn't about you, son.

It occurs to me that the one who feels the need to clarify his post here is the one looking the more slack jawed of the two.

Only by accepting the concept of power sharing will the Shia government in Iraq succeed. And only when they are convinced that the Shias are not out to destroy them will the Sunni insurgents lay down their arms and join the government. The sad fact is that the United States military – as bravely as they have carried out their mission – can only create the conditions where this is possible; they cannot unite the factions through any conceivable military action.

No kidding, Rick? Is this something new? That concept just dawned on you, did it? And what is it you propose we do about it?

And lest anyone misunderstand me (or, for those of you who simply didn’t bother to read what I wrote) I am not advocating anything more than a token withdrawal of American troops.

Ah, I see. We are in the middle of a war, young Americans are fighting and dying ... and your visionary solution is a token withdrawal? Keep back peddling, you high minded twit. Step right up to the Right Wing Fun House, plenty of tokens, no waiting. What a sham.

I realize Rick Moran has garnered much praise around the blogophere, some notable at that. Frankly, I've never really figured that out. RWNH has always struck me as a blog written by someone who puts more effort into selecting words designed to impress while penning overly long, naval gazing diatribes amounting to very little in the end.

But that's just me, call me insensate when people offer up token gestures, or turn their backs on the dead and the soon to be dying because the mission looks just a bit too hard from their armchairs, I guess.

Now I suppose he'll start crying due to my personal attack. I mean, his slack jawed yawper quip couldn't have been that. He's so above it all and all that.

On well, you go to war with the punk-assed losers you have, I guess.

Comments

[Buzzy]

As one who has also been accused of writing "overly long, naval gazing diatribes amounting to very little in the end" I'd say that giving even a token nod to the Democrats on Iraq is about the same as officially recognizing a terrorist organization. They're both demanding the exact same thing. Withdrawing a token amount of soldiers from the war isn't going to satisfy them. So we pull out that "token" amount of troops and they want more, do we then stand fast or do we pull another token number of troops out? At what point does Mr. Moran's plan (among others) just become a retreat, a token amount at a time? Isn't this exactly the same as what the Democrats are demanding except that the timetable isn't even written down, just decided upon by Pelosi, Reid, Murtha etal whenever they decide to demand it?

No Mr. Moran, appeasement doesn't work with terrorists or Democrats and you're certainly smart enough to realize that. We are engaged in a war and as such our military commanders need to decide what resources they need to do the job not the politicians. If you, the Democrats, or anyone else wants this war to end, then end it and bring everyone home.

[Misha I]

Ha, Dan. "Slack Jawed Yawper?"

That's nothing. Try:

...MOUTH BREATHING, SCROTUM SCRATCHING NINCOMPOOPS…

…shallow, ignorant, remarkably stupid righties…

…most of these inbreds…

…such towering ignorance…

Such delusional thinking deserves recognition – and a quick trip to the asylum in a strait jacket.

A marmoset has more empathy than these people.

…brain dead righties…

And that was in a post of his when he was taking myself and others to task for not meeting his exacting standards for "what makes a true gentleman of the Right" which, according to His Holy Self, is what he is.

Ah yes, Gentleman Rick of the Flowery Prose.

If I were Glenn Greenwald, I'd be worried. Looks like Ricky is eyeing his turf covetously.

[Barry]

Buzzy, I don't think he is smart enough to realize it. Mr. Moran does just what Dan says, he finds a way to be for every side of an issue. Whatever direction the wind is blowing...

See Misha's description, "His Holy Self".

[Phoenix]

My. What naughty words. I think His Holy Self and his scrotum-scratching nincompoopery need some fervent editing. Oh, and some lessons in manners to uphold his singular notions of what it takes to be a true gentleman.

Hey.... I wonder where he rates himself on Jaysus's General's scale of M A N L I N E S S. Jaysus's G. is an 11. Maybe Him Holy Sef be a twefve. ?

.
I gotta quit this nastiness. I'm breathing too hard threw my mouth. I ought to be giving a blowjob or something worthwhile.

[Phoenix]

I really ought to be engaging in sex seeing as I can't spell. That would be 'through'... not 'threw'.

D'oh.

[scarshapedstar]

Holy cow! I think Dan just read

"The sad fact is that the United States military – as bravely as they have carried out their mission – can only create the conditions where this is possible; they cannot unite the factions through any conceivable military action."

and his brain didn't replace it with "I, RICK MORAN, HATE THE TROOPS". Somebody better call the service technician...

[Phoenix]

What's the connection, Scar? One is talking-spew, "I hate the troops", and the other is Dan musing with some analysis on possibilities.

Nothing remotely similar in the two.

[Jim C]

Scarshapedstar,

When you piss all over the troops mission isn't that exactly what you're saying?

Jim C

[richard]

Jim, not at all, not even a little bit. The troops' mission was poorly conceived and miserably supported by their leader Donald Rumsfeld, who thought an "Army Lite" could hold down an occupied nation. To criticize their mission and declare it a lost cause is an act of patriotism and realism. How do you ask someone to be the last man to die for a mistake? And it was a mistake. Perhaps the goal was noble, but we screwed it up beyond all repair and we have to wash our hands of the entire rotten mess sooner rather than later, because now we cannot win. We cannot even define what victory is; it's not like we are facing off against a Hitler or Tojo. There's no one to sit down and negotiate with, no one who can or will surrender to us. We are being killed by the people we went in to liberate. Both sides are trying to kill us, the Moqtada Shiites and their blood enemies the Sunnis. There is simply no hope, and a shocking number of Republicans are finally getting this. Join the majority of Americans now and work to rebuild America's global reputation and stop the carnage of our soldiers. Support the only sane approach - rapid withdrawal with as little loss of face as possible. Yeah, that really sucks, but now there are no good choices. It's either that, or continue the insanity of insisting we are "making progress" as the US and Iraq bleed to death.

[Cindi]

gotta quit this nastiness. I'm breathing too hard threw my mouth. I ought to be giving a blowjob or something worthwhile.

Posted by: Phoenix | Sunday, April 29, 2007 at 10:19 PM

have no fear, I have threw up a few times myself. Just remember, check his shoes. The sign of a true liberal/democrat,shoes made by TomMcCan, and "fruit da' looms."

richard with a lower case "r" we are making progress. You are just too stuck on yourself to realize that.

[Phoenix]

I think you're right, Richard. Then all the bad men would go home. Including al Qaeda, of course. And everyone will live happily ever after. Oh, and all the Islamists all over the world - not just those in Iraq - will go home, too. Cool.

Maybe that idiot Bush will hang that MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner over the White House, too. And 100% of Americans will be happy and rejoice.

[richard]

Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we invaded. Now you say we have to stay because Al Qaeda is there. Note the twisted logic? Meanwhile, Al Qaeda in Iraq is small and inconsequential. The terror is mainly coming from Sunnis and Al Sadr fighting their age-old feuds. Read the book The Looming Tower about Al Qaeda. It will teach you how Al Qaeda had only one goal with September 11: to lure America into their region where they (Al Qaeda) could pick us off and kill us, forcing America to be defeated in a most humiliating way. When we had only one theater of war in Afghanistan we actually had the opportunity to triumph over this evil agenda. But by idiotically and unnecessarily opening the second theater in Iraq, we opened the door for Al Qaeda to win a double victory. And there is literally nothing we can do. The army is over-extended and we've lost; we handed Osama his victory on a shining silver platter. So yes, tragically we will leave Iraq engulfed in terrorism and chaos. Do we want this to be the case? Of course not. After our march into Baghdad in 2003 I thought we had really pulled it off, and I supported Bush at the time. It took only a few months before I, like Rick Moran and John Cole and most other intelligent people, realized we were wholly unprepared and understaffed, and that our window of opportunity had slammed shut forever - and in so doing, it put our mission in Afghanistan in peril as well. Great planning. And you wonder why 60 percent of the people in America want out? Enough is enough, and mark my words - all the Republicans running in the net election will be echoing this line as well. We blew it, it's over, Al Qaeda got what it wanted and we threw everything away, just to settle an old family grudge. History will look back on this with a sense of shock and disbelief, and they will look at the fringe elements who still want to cheerlead for Bush's war and wonder how they could have so eagerly and totally surrendered their critical faculties and fell for the cheap propaganda Bush tried to spoon-feed us ("As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down..." "Things in Iraq are improving..." "Mission Accomplished..." And the list goes on and on. Shocking. Incomprehensible. Unimaginable. Yet here we are. And you want to keep at it. Maybe another surge, and we'll turn things around. Right.

[LOL]

"Then all the bad men would go home."

If we leave Iraq, AQ and its Sunni Iraqi membership will not prioritize operations against America. How can you do so when the Shi'as are burning down your house?

Your pathetic strawmen isn't even a coherent argument. Your idea that Victory in Iraq will lead to some freedom from terrorism is beyond foolish. It belies a narrow and ignorant perspective on world events over the last century. Even if the fantasy were accomplished--a democratic and united Iraq--there's no guarantee it would be pro-Western, pro-American. Odds are, it would be as anti-American as Hamas or Iran. Wingers should know, that jingoist patriotism sells, and that kind of patriotism relies on external threats. You think Iraqi politicians will give a speech about how we must be loyal to our American protectors?

Further hubris on the Iraq Victory, is that we will have quenched the Islamist movement and handed it some kind of massive defeat. Freedom will be on the march, correct? Most of the Islamists who were willing to kill themselves and thousands of strangers on 9/11 were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two countries that are more or less the same as they were in 2001.

The other idea, so popular amongst the wingers, that needs to be dispelled is the mythology in their Victory over the Muslim Horde. Islamists do not hold a monopoly on terrorism. In a world of increasing technology, and increasing access to bombs and WMD, it is inevitable that someone will out do al-Qaeda for most horrific terrorist act. There is no guarantee that it will be an Islamist though. If you look back in the 20th century, you'll see that most of the terrorism was done by Communist/Socialist groups. And of course everyone should remember what the 2nd worst terrorist attack in US history was. I have little doubt future groups and ideologies will emerge and use terrorism. Insanity and sadism cuts across all lines. This tired "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" is nonsense. And shame on you for taking your pointers from the most cynical of all resources--politicians! You wingers are a sad lot, bemoaning the loss of a Reagan-like figure for your movement, all while drowning in the lies of your politicians. We will be "fighting them over here" for a long time, and there will be many kinds of them, but the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. But perhaps that's too much for some Americans, like you wingers, who seem so keen on dumping it.

[Phoenix]

Not me, LOL. I am in full agreement with you guys. See above. And eat my shorts.

[Fred Beloit]

Say, LOL, I've been trying to discover a victory of the enemy's that would make our retreat a reasonable proposition. But I can't. The enemy is reduced to suicide bombers who mainly attack civilians. Seems to me that people like you have some weird kind of clock in their head. This clock has an alarm. The alarm says wars should only go on on for x months, no longer. Or have you always opposed the war, and, therefore, can't use any arguments that say we are still there even though x months have gone by so you now oppose the war. So which is it my dear friend?

[Fred Beloit]

Guess Lots Of Love had to go to work. Looking forward to a reply.

[Phoenix]

I am curious, Yellow. oh lawd, pleeze tie me down else I be fallin down.

I think Lots of Love is in P.E. class lernin' how to be a soccer coach.

[Jim C]

Well, let me see... the idea that you can support the troops without supporting their mission makes as much sense as saying I'm for the Bronco's, but I don't want them to win the super bowl. This idea that you can have one without the other is simply bullshit. For the leftists it's an attempt to avoid being painted with the brush they were painted with after the Vietnam war, and for sunshine patriots like Rick Moran, it's the age old habit of running from a fight when things get too tough combined with this bullshit habit of sticking their finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.

I'll tell you one thing; we haven't been defeated, and can't be by a bunch of third world savages. I support the troops and their mission. And just so you don't try to say I don't have a dog in this fight; I have a cousin serving in Mosul right now.

Jim C

[LOL]

Gee I don't know Fred. Didn't this administration sell this war to the American people as only taking a few weeks? There have been countless times where the enemy was in its "last throes" or we were "turning the corner" on something. Those failed prognostications tell me that in Iraq, the Bush administration has a massive failing. It is one of two things.

Either they are incredibly cynical and dishonest. They basically believe the American people are tools who can be lied to again and again. If this is the case, then the American people are just being played, and why continue their game?

The other possibility is that Bush and Cheney and all their staff actually believe the bullshit they've said. If that's the case, then their failure to get good intelligence means they are not responsible enough to manage a war like Iraq.

I don't know which case is worse. One of them must be true? Unless you have some other explanation for all these failed predictions? They both demonstrate that this administration cannot deal with the seriousness of a war like Iraq.

I wonder why you wingers always turn this war into something about us, either yourselves or "liberals". That shit doesn't matter when discussing it. Why do you love to avoid talking about the actual prosecutors of this conflict?

Why doesn't the conservative mantra of "Government is the problem" extend to the military. It is just as bureaucratic--if not more so--than any other government organization. It is just as prone to the problems of finding more and more ways to get money for itself as other government projects. If the Iraq War was a welfare program, giving its progress, wingers would have dumped it 2 years ago, if not sooner.

[charles]

Didn't this administration sell this war to the American people as only taking a few weeks

well the war part did only take a few weeks, saddams govt was toppled in record time

as far as what you're implying here bush said the occupation was going to be hard and take a long time so often i got tired of hearing it

"then their failure to get good intelligence means they are not responsible enough to manage a war like Iraq."

congress saw the same intelligence and voted for authorization

are you at all familiar with how intelligence is gathered disseminated and used?

your statement leads me to believe your answer must be no

are you at all familiar with the history of the cia post vietnam? or even post cold war?

once again i think not

good job hitting the talking points tho

"If the Iraq War was a welfare program" well it's not, if the queen had balls and all that

"Why do you love to avoid talking about the actual prosecutors of this conflict?"

why do you love to avoid making note of the daily successes of said prosecutors?

[Charles Warren]

Lesser Charles, a key rule in intelligence is to be very, very careful of exiles. They have their own agenda. They are trying to manipulate you into fighting their battle for them. They will promise you the sun and the moon. They will promise you that cheering crowds will greet you with flowers.

People with any intelligence would have taken Chalabi's slimy promises with a grain of salt but the neocons bought them hook line and sinker. Chalabi told them what they wanted to hear and they bought it. They completely bought it that Chalabi was some kind of Iraqi DeGaulle.

[LOL]

lower case charles, I'm not talking about prewar intelligence. Im talking about occupation-era intelligence. The intelligence that led people like Cheney to say "The insurgency is in its last throes" or Bush to say "Freedom is on the march." There are many presidential statements during the occupation that suggested the insurgency was about to be defeated and the "We'll be greeted as liberators" was about to come true.

According to Cheney's intelligence, the insurgency was in its "last throes" in June 2005.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/index.html

"he predicts that the fighting will end before the Bush administration leaves office"

Again, lousy intelligence DURING the occupation.

[Charles Warren]

"Well, let me see... the idea that you can support the troops without supporting their mission makes as much sense as saying I'm for the Bronco's, but I don't want them to win the super bowl. This idea that you can have one without the other is simply bullshit."

The line the war supporter idiots are pushing is that short of a Dien Bien Phu scale disaster we are making 'progress' in Iraq. Well, we've heard before about 'dead enders' or the insurgency being in its 'last throes' and the American people are fed up with empty worthless promises. They also have the basic common sense to recognize that pounding a treadmill for four years is not progress.

Support the troops ? History is full of rulers who threw away men's lives for their egos. For their vanity. For their 'glory'. For their 'honor'. For their ambition. Bush has thrown away the lives of 3200 Americans for the pipedream of a pro-Western, democratic Iraq with Chalabi as president. Bush has thrown away the lives of 3200 Americans because he wanted to best his daddy and 'finish the job'. The mission was always a crock and you don't support troops by throwing away their lives on a mistake. On the pride of a pigheaded man.

[charles]

i'm gratified to see your expertise on post invasion iraq, bush and cheney sure could use you, oughta send em a resume

cw - Bush has thrown away the lives of 3200 Americans because he wanted to best his daddy and 'finish the job'

in the future i'll be sure to give your opinion the plausibility it so richly deserves

[Dan Riehl]

"Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we invaded. Now you say we have to stay because Al Qaeda is there. Note the twisted logic?"

You deploy your army - say to Iraq. Your primary enemy goes to Iraq to confront you, while also expending valuable resources there, as opposed to on domestic attacks. And "you" advocate running away from the fight? Your logic isn't twisted, it's stupid and cowardly.

[LOL]

AQ isn't just in Iraq Dan. Suggesting so just reveals how ignorant you are

[Phoenix]

Stupid Dan, have you ever experienced the helplessness of being somewhere where you don't know the language ?

Posted by: Charles Warren | Monday, April 30, 2007 at 10:32 PM

Have you ever been anywhere where you knew the language? You know - the language of civil discourse, the language of saying what you mean and backing it up with facts, the language of synthesis of incoming information and application into new realms of thought?

You beat up your wife, don't you?

[Phoenix]

AQ isn't just in Iraq Dan. Suggesting so just reveals how ignorant you are

Posted by: LOL | Monday, April 30, 2007 at 11:57 PM

LOL,

Dan didn't even suggest that. And to think we might be able to send our military all over the world to al Qaeda's hot spots. I know you'd vote for that, eh? The military is the bait in Iraq and al Qaeda is coming for a taste of what they'll get if they come here. That's a good thing.