But Bush Is The Dumb One?
By Mitch Berg
Barack Obama digs at Australia, via Scott Johnson:
Australian Prime Minister John Howard criticized Obama’s call for immediate American withdrawal from Iraq. When Obama was asked to respond, he declined simply to express respectful disagreement with a loyal American ally. Instead he insulted Australia’s contribution to the war effort, belittling the 1,600 Australian troops in Iraq. He said that if Australia was so dedicated, maybe it should raise its contribution to 20,000.
Obama not only insulted our ally, he formulated the insult in the inelegant fashion of an intellectual thug. CNN reports that Obama said if the Australian prime minister was “ginned up to fight the good fight in Iraq,” he needs to send another 20,000 Australians to the war. “Otherwise, it’s just a bunch of empty rhetoric,” Obama said.
Not as empty as Obama’s. Australia doesn’t have 20,000 combat troops. The 1,600 men they currently have in Iraq are a very large share of their active military.
Please, Democrats; nominate this hamster.
February 13th, 2007 at 6:43 am
Yeah, Mitch, we don’t want to undermine the Coalition of the Willing(TM). If Australia pulls out, what next? The five-man K-9 unit from Estonia? The Kyrgyz intern? The Jamaican bobsled team?
February 13th, 2007 at 7:30 am
Yeah, Mitch. Why can’t every country have a huge, bloodthirsty military with intervetionist leadership and a castrated political opposition?
February 13th, 2007 at 7:45 am
Gee, Kerm, when did you undergo the political sex change?
February 13th, 2007 at 8:00 am
Your right Mitch.
What Obama should have said was simply “F*ck you Prime Minister Howard”.
And nothing is stopping Howard from proposing an increase in Australian troop levels is there.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:16 am
No.
And nothing is stopping Barack Obama from learning a little foreign policy. Preferably before he’s crowned.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:22 am
The entire army(including HQ and support staff) number approx 26,000 and is currently involved in UN sponsored peacekeeping missions in East Timor, Bougainville, and the Solomon Islands.
Shows a dangerous ignorance of international matters on the part of Obama.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Also shows that Bush’s “coalition” is a Potemkin village.
Look at all you wingnuts getting your panties in a bunch cause a Democrat said something that might put some foreign nose out of joint. Please.
Go back to eating your Freedom Fries. Oh, and suck on it.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:42 am
AC, you of all people should recognize sarcasm.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Mitch bleated: “And nothing is stopping Barack Obama from learning a little foreign policy. Preferably before he’s crowned.”
A little rich, getting the solemn lectures from you wingnuts about “learning a little foreign policy.” I woulndn’t fret for Obama’s sake, though. Six years ago we learned about half the country will vote for a candidate who couldn’t find his ass with both hands – forget South Waziristan.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Kermit said: “AC, you of all people should recognize sarcasm.”
For a change you said something that made sense. I was about to call 911.
You haven’t been having headaches or tunnel vision, have you Kerm?
February 13th, 2007 at 9:23 am
Another insult was referring to Mr. Howard and Australia as an ally of President Bush. No, Mr. Obama, they are, and have been for a long time, one of the strongest and most reliable allies of the UNITED STATES.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:31 am
A little rich, getting the solemn lectures from you wingnuts about “learning a little foreign policy.”
And democrats point with pride to…what? What evidence of mastery of foreign policy?
Vietnam. The Killing Fields. The Shah. 444 Days. The WTC, Khobar Towers, the Kenyan and Tanzanian Embassies, the Cole. Bin Laden let go twice because he didn’t rank high enough in a focus group. North Korea given what they wanted.
There’s no rational question Bush did the right thing; most Democrats agreed at the time (because it was in fact Clinton-era policy!). The execution has been flawed, but it was the right thing.
Algore would have tried to reach a consensus with the Taliban.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:38 am
How’s that bin Laden hunt going there, big fella?
February 13th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Hard to hunt a dead man.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:03 am
How’s that bin Laden hunt going there, big fella?
Better than it was going seven years ago, what?
February 13th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Bin Laden is in all likely hood with his 70 virgins but if not, he’s so boxed in these days and so many of his top henchmen have been whacked he’s hopping around on one foot.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Oh right. Bush can’t get bin Laden, so he must be dead already. I guess the DNC faked those all those bin Laden videos at the studios where they phonied up the moon landings.
Yossarian’s apparently one of those guys who pretends it’s raining when people are spitting on him.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Mitch said,
“And nothing is stopping Barack Obama from learning a little foreign policy.”
Tell it to Prime Minister Howard who is making extreem partisan comments about the Democrats being the al Qaida party of choice.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:18 am
The wingnuts, who cheer every time Bush alienates yet another long-time ally, are suddenly all concerned cause Obama just dissed Crocodile Dundee. You can’t take this stuff seriously, Dug, you just can’t.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Angryclown wondered “You haven’t been having headaches or tunnel vision, have you Kerm? ”
Thanks for asking. All I can complain of is the occasional nosebleed. This Global Warming, single digit weather is a bitch.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:37 am
That’s so sweet! Doug doesn’t believe that the Democrats ARE al Queda’s party of choice. Doug will be expecting a visit from the Easter Bunny in a few weeks, too.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Tell it to Prime Minister Howard who is making extreem partisan comments about the Democrats being the al Qaida party of choice.
See Bin Laden’s election-eve 2004 tape to the world.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Considering that Bush is the best recruiting tool al Qaida could possibly imagine…
February 13th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Bin Laden’s didn’t make that tape, Mitch. He’s dead. Ask Yossarian. Bush is keeping a lid on the news out of respect for the family.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:01 am
For someone as pessimistic as AC, he sure puts a lot of stock in the “authenticity” of bin Laden videotapes and audiotapes.
Hey, AC, I think I saw Elvis yesterday, too.
To paraphrase MacArthur:
“Terrorist icons never die; they simply fade away.”
February 13th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Considering that Bush is the best recruiting tool al Qaida could possibly imagine…
Um yeah.
And you think that when the American people lose their collective mind and elect some Democrat hamster, it’ll all go away?
Do tell.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Really Yossarian? Did Elvis also kill 3,000 Americans in coordinated suicide attacks on New York and Washington? If so, maybe we’d better bomb the living shit out of Graceland and Tupelo and Sun Records and the Ed Sullivan Show and wherever else in the world Elvis might be hiding his sorry Heartbreak Hotel-singing ass. Cause then maybe the next redneck entertainer who rips off African-American bluesmen while heading an international terrorist organization will think twice before sending his minions against Americans. Or don’t you get that?
You have achieved a rare distinction, Yossarian. Mitch’s wingnut amen corner is, of course, populated by idiots. But with this post you have fallen below the minimum standard necessary for Angryclown to take any notice of you. You are therefore banned. Angryclown will no longer reply to you.
Under the terms of the ban, you may petition for reinstatement into the circle of Angryclown’s ridicule after 90 days have expired. I wouldn’t be very hopeful, however.
May God have mercy on your immortal soul, Yossarian, as you wander the blogosphere scorned and alone.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:58 am
May God have mercy on your immortal soul, Yossarian, as you wander the blogosphere scorned and alone.
Meh, it’s been pretty good to me these last five years. Plus, I almost hit 5,000 visitors on Saturday, so if that’s lonliness, I’ll take an extra helping.
You have achieved a rare distinction
That’s SO going on my ThunderJournal. Like, RIGHT NOW!
February 13th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
“he entire army(including HQ and support staff) number approx 26,000 and is currently involved in UN sponsored peacekeeping missions in East Timor, Bougainville, and the Solomon Islands.
Shows a dangerous ignorance of international matters on the part of Obama.”
Actually it shows he did his research. If the war is that important, Australia should dedicate 80% of their armed forces oversees. Such levels would be comparable to WWII deployments. If the war were that important he should drop the U.N. deployments. But the war is not that important to Australia and it would be political suicide from him to do so. Props to Obama for giving Howard a good shot upside the head.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I guess Obama’s not the only ignorant, provincial one:
Actually it shows he did his research. If the war is that important, Australia should dedicate 80% of their armed forces oversees.
Um, we don’t have 80% of our own military in Iraq.
Such levels would be comparable to WWII deployments.
This isn’t WWII.
But let’s stay here for a moment; are you saying that the US, Rick, should adopt a WWII-level approach to this war?
Now we’re getting somewhere!
If the war were that important he should drop the U.N. deployments. But the war is not that important to Australia and it would be political suicide from him to do so. Props to Obama for giving Howard a good shot upside the head.
Um, yeah. If you think this is a “prop” to Obama, ’08’s going to look mighty good.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Mitch said,
And you think that when the American people lose their collective mind and elect some Democrat hamster, it’ll all go away?
I never said such a thing. Bush has us dug in too deep and now we’re stuck with his mess. Plus, I’m sure that Mr. Bush has every intention of starting a war in Iran by this fall so we’ll have to deal with the entire Iranian population taking up arms against the US.
February 13th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
“This isn’t WWII.”
Good to know. Every Twin City blogger/poster should bookmark that quote for future reference.
“But let’s stay here for a moment; are you saying that the US, Rick, should adopt a WWII-level approach to this war?”
No because I do not think Iraq is or was that kind of threat to the U.S. I think our invasion and continued presence only serves the security interests of Iran who we have made a regional superpower. But if I did talk about the threat of Iraq and the code-word for the week or scary brown non-Christians the way Howard and others do, I would propose serious World War II levels of commitment. Either they are not serious or lack the courage of their convictions.
February 13th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Good to know. Every Twin City blogger/poster should bookmark that quote for future reference.
This is one of those places where we can both say the same words, and I’m right, and you’re wrong.
It’s not World War II, inasmuch as there’s no Omaha or Tarawa to storm (as such), no Rhine to cross, no Berlin to take. Mobilizing the entire nation, and drafting most men between the ages of 18 and 30, would probably be counterproductive. And, rhetoric aside, there was never a short-to-mid-term danger of the continental US being invaded in WWII. So your approach – the one you wished upon the Ozzies – would not be a good idea.
However, this IS a war for this nation’s – this civilization’s – survival, although the left seems to have trouble digesting that.
No because I do not think Iraq is or was that kind of threat to the U.S. I think our invasion and continued presence only serves the security interests of Iran who we have made a regional superpower.
That might change very quickly here.
But if I did talk about the threat of Iraq and the code-word for the week or scary brown non-Christians the way Howard and others do,
Um really?
Please show examples of Howard’s racist intent.
I would propose serious World War II levels of commitment. Either they are not serious or lack the courage of their convictions.
And it’s here you vacate any claim to being taken seriously. The Australians have been with us at every step of the war on terror. The Australian SAS fought with distinctionin Afghanistan. The presence of diggers in Iraq isn’t far off the percentage of the US military that’s in Iraq. That, plus providing the best troops the UN has (indeed, it was because Oz told the UN to sod off and let the grownups handle the guns that the Australian-led UN missions to East Timor and the Solomons have been the closest to successful of any UN military mission ever).
I urge you – and that vacuous hamster Obama – to tell it to an Australian soldier. You are talking, to put it in Latin, “de anus“.
February 13th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Here is the single fatal casualty suffered by the Diggers in Iraq.
04/21/06: Kovco, Jake Bruce:Baghdad (Green Zone):Non-hostile – weapon discharge (accid.)
Whatever the Diggers have been doing in Iraq, does not seem to involve the kind of combat that produces casualties – other than accidentally shooting yourself. Indeed from this stat, they are in more danger from each other, than from the Iraqis.
So again – there is a threat to Australia’s survival, but no hostile battle deaths. I just can not take that seriously.
February 13th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Non sequitur.
If you can’t take it seriously, go tell Australia.
See if they give a sh*t.
February 13th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
“Actually it shows he did his research. If the war is that important, Australia should dedicate 80% of their armed forces oversees. Such levels would be comparable to WWII deployments.”
Actually it shows nothing like that. In WW2 the Aussies didn’t send their draftees abroad. They used them on the home front, where they faced a real invasion danger from the North — from the same area where they’ve now deployed peace keepers, E. Timor (Indonesia) and the Solomon Islands. It’s apples and oranges, there is no way that Obama could have used the 20,000 number in reference to Aussie WW2 level deployments overseas in any coherent sense.
I think he was probably talking about Bush’s “surge”, which is supposed to take about 20k additional American troops in Iraq.
The CNN article Mitch links to includes this passage:
“Peace through surrender!” I hope & pray the Dems run with that slogan in 2008.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Neither you nor I know where Obama got the number, but the number is within the capacity of the current Australian forces at a level appropriate to an existential threat.
Our slogan will sure beat “We lost Iraq, We are losing Afghanistan, but how about giving us one more try”.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
“We lost Iraq”-Not until we leave with our tail between our legs — as your side councils. This “we’ve already lost” bit is a cop out. If you’ve got a better idea for winning than what the administration proposes, for God’s sake open up. Otherwise you are a defeatist. Please lookup the definition of same before you accuse me of name calling.
“We are losing Afghanistan”- According to who? You & the editors of The Nation?
“but how about giving us one more try”
Trying will beat not trying anyday, RickDFL.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Mitch, please pardon this outburst.
Rick,
“Kovco, Jake Bruce:Baghdad (Green Zone):Non-hostile – weapon discharge (accid.)….
So again – there is a threat to Australia’s survival, but no hostile battle deaths. I just can not take that seriously. ”
Then take this seriously, you worthless worm. Tell Mr. Kovco’s family you don’t “take it seriously”. Tell Jake Kovco’s comrades in arms it’s “no threat”.
Since theyre not hear to read your pathetic drivel, I’ll do it one better. Tell me. Face to face, you piece of shit.
Tell me, who has served this country as Mr. Kovco served his, what is and isn’t important.
You don’t have the balls to do either, to face this nations enemies or those of us who you piss on with comments like yours.
You are the lowest form of insect. Rot in hell, you worthless pile of shit.
I hope some fucking jihaddi beheads YOUR sorry ass.
February 14th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Eric,
Not that I don’t agree, but please tone it down a tad.
Rick,
Your thoroughly subjective impressions aside, Australia’s contribution to the war effort in both Afghanistan (did you know what their involvment there was, without googling?) and Iraq has been, proportionally, very large.
Or are casualties the only measure that counts for you?
February 14th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Even Angryclown thinks Eric’s got anger issues.
Hey Eric, Sergeant York was a pussy!
February 14th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Also, It’s worth mentioning that Obama said send another 20,000 Australians to the war. He didn’r say 20,000 troops. I don’t give a rats ass if it’s military or not. If Howard wants skin in the game, then he should have the balls to start a draft to find warm bodies to send.
February 14th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Eric –
By pretending that Australia’s zero hostile battle casualties are comparable to the sort of danger faced by U.S. troops in Iraq, you denigrate and demean the service of every U.S. serviceman in Iraq. By failing to recognize the greater dangers faced by U.S. troops, you insult them and their service.
“Tell me, who has served this country as Mr. Kovco served his, what is and isn’t important.”
What gives you the idea I want to tell you “what is and isn’t important.” Just as Bush went after an imaginary threat in Iraq, you are picking a fight with a figment. I will defend my statements to the full, but you will have to handle to phantoms of your imagination.
Mitch –
Only in your world in an uncontested public fact a “thoroughly subjective impression”. If you have other statistics to prove the level of Australia’s effort in Iraq meets the level of Mr. Howard’s rhetoric, please let us know.
February 14th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
RickDFL wrote:
“By pretending that Australia’s zero hostile battle casualties are comparable to the sort of danger faced by U.S. troops in Iraq, you denigrate and demean the service of every U.S. serviceman in Iraq. By failing to recognize the greater dangers faced by U.S. troops, you insult them and their service.”
And a few lines later:
“What gives you the idea I want to tell you “what is and isn’t important.””
No need for further comment.