24 Responses to “Not Being a Liberal Or Anything…”

1. flash Says:
   October 2nd, 2007 at 6:53 am

   I had faith in the surge, and continue to support this President on the war on Terror, but how is this preparing the Iraqi’s to take care of themselves. The President said, In January, that he would turn over Iraqi security to Iraqis in November. Is that still a goal, or a pipe dream.

   I mean, with Iran:The Vengence II just around the corner, doesn’t he need to prepare to redeploy soon.

   Flash

2. Chuck Says:
   October 2nd, 2007 at 7:26 am

   I was pleasently surprised to see this reported in MSM. Just skimmed through the articles but it wasn’t a case of what Laua Ingraham calls “but monkey”.

3. RickDFL Says:
   October 2nd, 2007 at 9:41 am

   So are all you warbloggers down with this?

   “Of particular note, the message referred to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr by his honorific, Sayyid Muqtada. Sayyid is a title designating a religious figure as a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad.

   “We also sincerely hope that the cease-fire declared by the Sayyid Muqtada will continue to be observed and be further extended to all members of Jaysh al-Mahdi (Arabic for Mahdi Army),” Crocker and Petraeus wrote.”

   Sounds like the all-wise always victorious David Petreaus is begging for mercy.

4. angryclown Says:
   October 2nd, 2007 at 9:51 am

   You’ve inspired me, Rick DFL. I think I may refer to Mitch henceforth as “Daddy Warblogs.”

5. Master of None Says:
   October 2nd, 2007 at 10:34 am

   I think flash should have a bumper sticker that says

   “I support the War on Terror, but”

6. flash Says:
   October 2nd, 2007 at 11:20 am

   MoN. No buts at all, just not unconditional, blindly, following.

   Funny thing about these latest casualty figures, is when you compare them to last year, pre surge, they are actually higher for the corresponding month(s).

7. Master of None Says:
   October 2nd, 2007 at 12:32 pm

   “The U.S. military toll for September was 64, the lowest since July 2006,”

   “The figure was 988 in September — 50 percent lower than the previous month and the lowest tally since June 2006, when 847 Iraqis died.”

   This seems to indicate that figures from September 2006 were higher than September 2007. What numbers are you talking about? What months?

   “No buts at all” ???? except for this one “I had faith in the surge, and continue to support this President on the war on Terror, but how is this preparing the….”

8. peevish Says:
   October 2nd, 2007 at 12:44 pm

   No one said it was bad news, but thanks for making an argument that doesn’t exist.

   On the other hand, I suppose the response could be, you wait until the administration tells you what to think about everything else, why would you not wait until they tell you what to think about this?

   That said, it’s not as if things are exactly rosey. But hey, try to pretend they are, I mean, why not? It’s one month, and I’m damned glad of it, but pretending I wouldn’t be, well that’s pretty insulting, but par for the course for you. For you, instead of talking about whether the surge is working, you seek out, purposefully, as insulting and degrading a way to spin this to blame liberals. I have a question for you, why not just buy a gun and do what you so obviously want to do, shoot as many as you can?

   You don’t want discussion, this post is case in point.. you’re not looking to have a discussion about is this a turning point, it’s not about whether we can conclude anything meaningful, it’s to position this, as swiftly as you can, into yet another crass, disgusting attack.

   Yep, you’re sure about civility.

9. Master of None Says:
   October 2nd, 2007 at 12:53 pm

   No one said it was bad news,

   Um, RickDFL did, almost as if on cue. Is it Mitch’s fault that you lefties are too easy to predict?

   Even flash who “had faith in the surge, and continue to support this President on the war on Terror”, had no trouble at all in finding bad news in the linked article.

10. peevish Says:
    October 2nd, 2007 at 12:54 pm

    Maybe, Mitch, when you get done insulting and blaming liberals for everything, I mean you have no responsibility for anything it seems..

    You can then blame liberals for the fact that:

    1. Despite the tax cuts.. the economy is in trouble and heading toward more trouble – the mortgage/debt crisis is really in the front-end of it’s impact, not the back, durable good orders are plummeting, etc..
    2. The debt, under Mr. Business President, has exploded, despite controlling both arms of congress for 4 years, having a tie in the senate for 2 (while controlling the house), and that during the ONE year that the Dems have been in charge, the debt shrank (though I don’t blame or commend them)
    3. The Governator took a bid that was the highest, longest, and now needs a loan to pay for the 35W Bridge repair, which is now going to cost an added 140 Million.
    4. Oil is at $80/barrel, stockpiles of refined gasoline are very low, yet gas is at $2.80, whereas a year ago, Oil was at $60/barrel, stockpiles were higher, and gas was at $3.20.. but I’m sure, there’s a reasonable explanation outside the volitility of the spot market, vertical monopolization, and reaction to political winds.. and …

    Clearly, each and every one of these can be blamed on someone else.

    You sure are the party of personal accountability… I’m impressed.

11. joelr Says:
    October 2nd, 2007 at 1:01 pm

    Oh, come on now, Mitch, this one is easy: the lower number of deaths indicates that the ethnic cleansing that has been going on is now much closer to completion, and therefore a sign of the failure of US policy in maintaining a single-state solution in Iraq.

    Flash writes:

    I mean, with Iran:The Vengence II just around the corner, doesn’t he need to prepare to redeploy soon.

    Can we please be serious? Iran is a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq was. For one thing, the population is more than twice the size — and the demographics are worse than they were in Iraq beyond that; Iraqi Kurdistan is a huge chunk of the country, and was already almost entirely autonomous from the Saddam regime before the invasion.

    Anybody who thought that the Rumsfeld approach for Iraq used too few troops will, if they have any intellectual consistency at all, conclude that the US simply doesn’t have enough ground troops to take and occupy Iran, even making remarkably optimistic assumptions about allies. (Gotta love the Aussies — they do consistently fight out of their weight class — but there’s really not enough Diggers to go around.)

    Pretty much everybody, I think, has given up on the notion of stopping Iran from going nuclear with diplomacy; that’s working out not even as well as stopping the Darfur genocide with diplomacy. It’s not going to be stopped by a conventional ground invasion, and this isn’t 1981; it’s not going to be stopped by a single airstrike or even multiple airstrikes against widely dispersed, hardened facilities.

    Realistically, within a very few years, either Iran is going to have nuclear weapons, or nuclear weapons are going to have been used against Iran.

    You’ve probably got about thirteen months to decide who you want to make that decision — Rudy or Hillary.

12. flash Says:
    October 2nd, 2007 at 2:09 pm

    My Bad, I was looking at August Numbers and didn’t realize these were Sept already

    http://icasualties.org/oif/
    06/07

    69/126 May
    61/101 June
    43/78 July
    65/84 Aug
    72/66 Sept

    I don’t really care how you all choose to manipulate numbers, just that you need to decide one way or the other and stick with it.

    The title of this post should read “Not being able to think for myself or anything . .” Its got nothing to do with liberalism.

    There is good news in this article. There is also concerns about what the President said when he initiated the surge and the status we are at now, compared to what he claimed it would be. I want to win, I want to see the Iraqi people take care of themselves, I want to show the world we were right and I then want to bring our brave Americans home. Is that too much to ask!

    Flash

    Flash

13. peevish Says:
    October 2nd, 2007 at 2:35 pm

    Joel..

    First, the domnios (dominoes?) of Syria, Somalia, Iran (not in that order) were laid out 15 years ago in the project for the New American Century. It’s something Cheney is well known for having bought into, and if it wasn’t nuclear weapons, it would be biologics.

    Good point on the ethnic-clensing part, I hadn’t considered it as a reply, but frankly, don’t know I agree. The fact is much of the balkanization that existed prior to our invasion, has moved toward at least regional homogenaity. Not sure one month proves that, not sure it doesn’t. I’d still be glad that fewer people died.. regardless.

    Iran is beyond just being beyond our ability to handle militarily. Could we do so with an all out national effort, no question, none at all. And then we’d gain the emnity of most of the world, and of ALL of the Arab world except MAYBE Saudi Arabia, but probably them too, because they’d see this as a crusade against Islam, which while NOT true for Cheney, IS true for the neo-kooks in the US. For Cheney, it really isn’t about stopping ‘pan-Islam’ it’s about establishing American supremacy now that the Soviets are gone. While the Saudis ane in general the Sunnis may not mind watching the leading Shiite nation get the crap kicked out of it, their populace will, rightly, see it as a precursor to what will happen to any OTHER Muslim nation that pokes it’s head ‘out of line’ with the US (other than India, Pakistan, or Indonesia – ok Indai’s only 1/3rd Muslim, but that makes it the second largest muslim nation in the world). You see, we (meaning Cheney/BushCo adherents have NO desire to actually engage a tough country like that). We might not even be able to do so to be honest, because the war wouldnt be ‘war’ but another protracted police action, and this time, if it was say, Indonesia, against a country with 600 million people, not 25, spread over dozens of islands, millions of square miles. Pakistan would be just as hard, and invoke Jihad amongst several other nations besides (including the Inidan Punjab area muslims).

    No, no, our goal is to take on panty-wastes militarily, where our victory over their military is assured (like Somalia, or Syria). Bush/Cheney/Rumy THOUGHT that’s what they had in Iraq, and woefully underestimated the latent resentment that existed with the Shiaa both toward the Sunni leadership and that WOULD develop toward our occupation. They are just stupid enough to think they’ll somehow get it right second time around in Iran, which obviously, given their immense incompetence, they won’t.

    Would Gulianni be any better, I doubt it, and Clinton wouldn’t try it. If Iran gains nuclear capability, why are you so assured they’ll use it? That’s unproven fear mongering at best.

    What it DOES mean, however, is that Israel will have to play straight with Syria, or Jordan, or Lebanon. While I much more favor Israel, there does, at some point, come a point where the hawks in Israel need to grasp that their supremacy carries a burden that they begin to plan for a day when they are no longer the sole power in the region. We cannot maintain them there imperpetuity, and neither can Isreal maintain itself. If it is not Iran, it will be Suadi Arabia, if not SA, then it will be Egypt, or perhaps Libya. One of these nations is likely to say to Israel “you no longer have a stick to threaten with, because we have a stick too.” What I find baffling is that you think we should keep it status quo, or even try to, forever (it seems).

    Iran is nearly alone in the nations of the world in that it has taken NO offensive action toward a neighbor in 100 years. The claim they’d do so with nuclear capability is not only unrpoven, it flouts that history. Regardles, they are almost certainly (according to the CIA) no closer than several (5 plus) years from a nuclear weapon, if that close. Claiming it will be sooner is not proven, and most likely not true. I’m not saying you’re saying it’s less, but the implication is there.. that Gulianni or Clinton (or someone) will have to deal with a nuclear capable Iran between 08 and 12.. they might have to.. they might not.. much as was the case with N.Korea… who swore to destroy S,.Korea and actually started a war to do it, and threatened it multiple times since, the fact is, having a nuclear weapon is greatly different from being willing to kill everyone you knew, know of, friends, family, parents, kids, by using it. We referred to the Soviets as “the Evil Empire” yet their leadership wasn’t willing to commit mass-suicide, the inference that Iran’s leaders would, is no less wacky than saying the Chinese would (which we once said).

14. joelr Says:
    October 2nd, 2007 at 2:58 pm

    Flash:

    I want to win, I want to see the Iraqi people take care of themselves, I want to show the world we were right and I then want to bring our brave Americans home. Is that too much to ask!

    As long as you’re asking for all that, throw in a pony for me. (I think the destruction of the Saddam regime was about as unlikely as a fly being injured when hit with a sledgehammer; I always thought that any kind of Arab democracy was a long shot, but that grading on the curve, the Iraqis had a better chance than most Arab countries do: hydroplane-slim, rather than none. Best possible result now is some sort of federal light authoritarianism, with some sort of deal among the mullah-worshippers in the South to share oil with the formerly ruling Sunnis in the triangle, and the Kurds going their own way.)

    Peevish: whatever you’re smoking, please bogart it. The Iranian rulers have been every bit as clear as to what their intentions are as the late, unlamented Hitler was in the unexpurgated Mein Kampf. There will be nuclear weapons used in the Middle East within, max, ten years; the only question is by whom and where.

15. peevish Says:
    October 2nd, 2007 at 3:27 pm

    Joelr.

    That’s just more fear-mongering.. Houssien will give WMD to terrorists..

    I’madinnerjacket is NOT in titular control of Iran, not by a darned site. And as for smoking, I believe it is you who is making the outlanding claims. Yasser Arafat said Israel should be wiped out – Ahmadenijad said that Israel does not deserve to exists, that it should have been hosted by the imperialists who started it, AND that the holocaust was unproven AND That there are no gays in Iran.

    He’s a kook, no question, but that’s not the same as saying the whole military leadership, the whole civilian leadership, is interested in having Israel AND the US wipe out half the population, presumably ALL the leadership, and ALL the population of the major cities, in retaliation for use of nuclear weapons in the middle-east (more correctly, against Israel). Iran clearly isn’t going to use them on Iraq (they control Iraq), on Syria (an Ally) on Pakistan (which has Nukes), so who then other than Israel? Saudi Arabia – doubtful, we’d reply, and so would Britain – but more, they’d be the pariah of the muslim world – and would be attacked by it even if WE didnt’… so then, it’s Israel, the only non-Muslim country that wouldn’t invoke the wrath of their neighbors, is Israel.

    So as far as bogarting goes, I think you need to analyze your argument further. You’ve simply bought something as fact that is PURELY not fact. There have long been sabre-rattling idiots, but damned few ever draw the sabre, and NONE do when they know they’ll be run back through 100 times over. More succinctly, starting a nuclear war isn’t the decision of 1 man, it’s the decision of hundreds (normally) or at least dozens – you are suggesting that many dozens of Iranians want to slaughter their own children, their own families.. that’s nonsense.. and I think YOU may need to look at your own pipe first.

    That said, Mitch, care to call soldiers who question the worthiness of this war ‘phoney soldiers’ too? I mean, after all, liberals always want to see the worst – so why not take it a step further with your insulting ways and insult the soldiers like your hero Limbaugh did (and please don’t deny he’s your hero, you’d LOVE to have the same pulpit, to spew the same filth like when you said that liberals spent the 80’s trying to ensure the Soviets won the cold war – as you said on your radio show about five months back). So please, no aligator tears, Limbaugh is the icon of the right, do you agree that any soldiers who disagree with the validity of this war are phonies?

16. peevish Says:
    October 2nd, 2007 at 3:27 pm

    outlandish claims.. doh

17. Mitch Says:
    October 2nd, 2007 at 4:08 pm

    Houssien

    For the love of God, man – it’s “Hussein”. Hussein. Hussein.

    Copy and paste it if you’d like.

    care to call soldiers who question the worthiness of this war ‘phoney soldiers’ too?

    Um, no, and neither did Limbaugh. As Ed and I showed y’all last Saturday, that “quote” was the result of selective editing.

    To wit:

    I’m…smoking…it…- …Israel does deserve…the holocaust…AND. [G]ays in …the whole military leadership, the whole civilian leadership…in …the US wipe out half the population, presumably ALL the leadership, and ALL the population of the major cities, in retaliation for …bogarting…aligator tears.

    So there it is. In your own words – you admit to drug use and eliminationist anti-semitism and extreme homophobia, as well as a propensity to hallucinogens.

    Sucks, doesn’t it? It’s no different, ethically, than MoveOn’s big “gotcha” against Limbaugh.

18. BradC Says:
    October 2nd, 2007 at 8:09 pm

    How can we expect peev to do research to learn the context of Limbaugh’s comments? Remember, he’s too busy to look up the correct spelling of “Hussein”.

19. flash Says:
    October 2nd, 2007 at 10:52 pm

    “” that “quote” was the result of selective editing.””

    Ah, actually, Rush did, it was the spin that was selective editing. But you knew that!

    Flash

20. angryclown Says:
    October 3rd, 2007 at 7:38 am

    Boohoo, I guess you didn’t understand the *nuance* in Limbaugh’s comments.

    Either that or he’s back on the hillbilly heroin.

21. Mitch Says:
    October 3rd, 2007 at 9:00 am

    I guess you didn’t understand the *nuance* in Limbaugh’s comments.

    Seriously, Vobo, I saw Media Matters’ take on this, and then heard the originals, and thought of “Fun with Editing”.

22. angryclown Says:
    October 3rd, 2007 at 10:07 am

    Mitch said: “Seriously…I…take… [illegal prescription pain-killers]. ”

    Angryclown wouldn’t know about that. Media Matters is no more to be trusted than a common street whore. Angryclown boycotts.

23. Master of None Says:
    October 3rd, 2007 at 11:34 am

    After Eric Black’s initial post on this issue where he regurgitated Media Matters talking points, he was forced to try to salvage what little personal integrity he has by posting

    This is a follow-up to a post from Friday that I confess I put up without enough thought or fact-checking.

    Eric Black’s revised take on the issue

    For what it’s worth, I think the Media Matters piece would have been better, smarter, fairer and more honest if it had made some reference to the fact that Limbaugh had subsequently brought up the MacBeth case.

    In my take on the English language, “more honest” means “less of a lie”.

    http://www.minnesotamonitor.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=640AFD2FBD24A881F837D2FE1AE519F5?diaryId=2548

24. Master of None Says:
    October 3rd, 2007 at 11:37 am

    Sorry for linking to MiniMoni, but I find Black’s backtracking on this story pretty amazing. I’m sure the people signing his paycheck were not very happy that he moved that far from the company line.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.