Deeply, Intensely Stupid
By Mitch Berg
Does the title describe the Dems’ latest proposal – to try to repeal the President’s war powers from 2003?
Or does it describe the Democrat senators themselves?
You be the judge.
Here’s the grimly-funny part (emphasis mine):
While these officials said the precise wording of the measure remains unsettled, one draft would restrict American troops in Iraq to combating al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq’s territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces.
“Showtime Six, this is Showtime Four Two, we’re taking fire from those buildings north of the highway. Say again? Er, roger that. Sergeant Lonsdale! Ask them if they’re Al Quaeda!”
[muffled arabic sounds in distance]
SGT. LONSDALE: “I think that means ‘no, nobody here but us Ba’athists, sir…”
“Negative, Showtime Six. What? Oh…Roger that, Showtime Four Two Out. Cease fire! Cease fire!”
Just a note to all of you who sat out last November’s senate election, or voted Libertarian, or figured that was no difference between the candidates because Mark Kennedy supported ethanol subsidies: Thanks.
February 25th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
RickDFL-
“A defeatist is someone who thinks their side is losing when in fact their side is winning.”
I know you don’t like the being identified as a defeatist, but in fact that’s what you are. You can’t redefine a word because you don’t like its implications.
Here are all the definitions of “defeatist” from dictionary.com:
February 25th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Kermit –
“You think Iraq is the war. Nothing could be further from reality. The Muslims are Sparta and YOU are Athens, Rick. Now go learn some history before you do some real damage.” No I am an American. This is the 21st Century. I think knowing something about Iraq will be a tad more use than Thuycidides. No amount of historical analogies can change the facts on the ground.
As long as we are trading pointless historical analogies, you are Hitler in the bunker blaming everyone else for his defeat.
February 25th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Terry –
What do you think the “too easily” part of that definition means? It means giving up when you are wining, not admitting defeat when, in fact, you have lost.
As for the CRS, if you do not like their Constitutional opinion, find some authority that says Congress can restrict funding for combat against certain groups. This debate started with you people saying it was obviously unconstitutional, know you can not even find any authority to back your position.
February 25th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
RickDFL-
This debate was started by Mitch, not “you people” and who the heck said it was “obviously unconstitutional”? You’re distorting what your experts said, and now your lying about what your opponents say.
While you’re rereading the CRS paper, you might want to look up the difference between ‘nonpartisan’ and ‘disinterested”.
Argument from authority is weak when authority can’t be agreed upon. Look, Patraeus does not think the war has been lost and he’s got much more experience and responsibility for military operations than you or I will ever see. He is the authority in the situation on the ground in Iraq. Why don’t you listen to him? You disagree with the best authority on the issue so you _must_ be wrong. Why don’t you admit it?
Amateur.
February 25th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Embrace your defeatism, RickDFL!
“It means giving up when you are wining, not admitting defeat when, in fact, you have lost.”
We have 120,000 thousand troops on the ground in Iraq who are not evacuating, We control great swaths of the countryside all over Iraq, the leaders of the insurgency are in hiding because we will apprehend or kill them if we find them, they have no standing army, no air force, no navy because they would be quickly destroyed. They attack civilian targets and use IED’s against our guys because they would be quickly killed if they tried a stand off fight. Under these conditions the only way they can win is if we withdraw our troops, exactly the course you & the D’s are advocating.
You’ve now reached the point where, to defend yourself against charges of defeatism, you’re redefining what ‘defeat’ means.
February 25th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Terry –
“We control great swaths of the countryside all over Iraq,”
We do not control anything except the Green Zone, some airports, and a few bases. If there were an area we controlled, you could wander around it unarmed, U.S. reconstruction teams could operate without fear, and our nominal allies would not constantly fear assassination. There are no such areas in Iraq. Iraq is controlled by a wide variety of local militias, most more loyal to Iran than the U.S.
February 25th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
“you are Hitler in the bunker blaming everyone else for his defeat.”
See? You Just Don’t Get it. YOU HAVE NO FRIGGING CHOICE!!! You ARE a defeatist. You are a quitter. You are primed and ready to happily accept your enforced Dhimmitude.
Thanks for the sideways application of Godwins Law, by the way. It shows everyone what a loser you really are, Rick.
February 25th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Go back and read the Bunker transcripts. You are really starting to sound like him.
The only slim chance for a Dhimmitude over America would be if we let fools like you sacrifice our entire armed force in Iraq to you own unwillingness to face facts.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:02 am
“We do not control anything except the Green Zone, some airports, and a few bases.”
I must have missed hearing about the insurgent government that controls the rest of the country.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:36 am
It’s called “anarchy”, dumbass.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:13 am
“I must have missed hearing about the insurgent government that controls the rest of the country.”
Not surprising since you treat our troops as political props for a campaign rally. Why would you go to the trouble of finding out what conditions on the ground are like. Their lives matter less than a few extra votes in an off year election. You conceal the facts on the ground from your self in order to avoid personal responsibility.
There is no ‘insurgent’ government, unless you want to count the official U.S. backed regime which is utterly infiltrated by various militias. The country is controlled by various regional and sectarian militias loyal to local commanders and party leaders, not the central government. Some are willing to cooperate with the central state or U.S. forces in order to procure weapons, money, and assistance against their rivals. But they control the country not us. That is why we can not go anywhere without huge armed convoys. That is why we can not build any significant new infrastructure. Go read “The British Defeat in the South” from CSIS for a decent summary of the current situation.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
“Not surprising since you treat our troops as political props for a campaign rally.”
Again you are lying. You really do have a tendency to simply make things up when you feel your arguments are beginning to fall apart. You should maybe run for elective office. This habit of trying to get personal — you know nothing about me — isn’t a good debating tactic either.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
I infer your indifference to their fate from your glib indifference to the actual conditions they are fighting under.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
You infer from perceived indifference? To quote John F Kerry “Stunning. Just stunning”.
You are in the correct party Rick.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Kreskin — oops, RickDFL — I imagine you spend every night weeping your eyes out for the PBI, sent to fight a war you won’t let them win. You can’t attack my arguments so you attack my imagined mental state & imagined lack of compassion for our troops. You’re not really very good at this exchange of ideas thing, are you?
February 26th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
No, He’s really not.
You Nazi.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Kermit and Troy –
I have consistently attacked your arguments. I think your glib indifference to the actual conditions our troops face is evidence of lack of genuine concern for their fate. For example, the suggestion that we are not winning because someone does not “let” our troops win, completely avoids the entire issue of factors in Iraq that prevent us from winning no matter what decisions we make in the US.
Feel free to rebut this evidence by displaying some awareness of conditions on the ground and how they effect our ability to win.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
I think your glib indifference to the actual conditions our troops face is evidence of lack of genuine concern for their fate.
And I think your glib indifference – dismissal, really – of both the reality on the ground in MOST of Iraq as well as our troops’ own reasoned desire and determination and optimism about winning the war is, to be charitable, at least the same.
February 28th, 2007 at 9:11 am
Mitch –
OK so which parts of Iraq, outside of Kurdistan, do Coalition forces operate without constant fear of attack? Where does reconstruction work go on without the need for overwhelming security? Where can U.S. forces move without armed convoys?
As for our soldiers, they carry out the mission as assigned and try to project an attitude of optimism in any situation. That said, I am unaware of any evidence that a majority of U.S. Army troops support our current policy.
I suspect these troops are not too happy with the President right now:
“Rushed by President Bush’s decision to reinforce Baghdad with thousands more U.S. troops, two Army combat brigades are skipping their usual session at the Army’s premier training range in California and instead are making final preparations at their home bases.”
February 28th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
RickDFL, if you’d actually read the entire text of the articles you quote (& fail to link to) you might learn something. The article you quote that begins with:
Is followed by:
It’s become apparent to me that your debating tactics consist of a) stating, without evidence, that your opponents are somehow less caring then you are and b) digging up some out of context factoid from the internet that supports your predetermined conclusions.
I think you really believe that this is how intelligent people make up their minds on issues of the day.
February 28th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
In combat a marginal advantage is the difference between alive and dead.
If the effect of not providing this training really is marginal, Gen. Maffey would have no objection to shutting the facility down. Of course that is silly, so Gen. Maffey does not mean what most of us mean when we say ‘marginal’. We have National Training Centers for a reason, superior training is the cornerstone of our military advantage. Bush is eroding that advantage.
Instead of complaining about my assessment of your concern for our troops, you could do something other than minimize the challenges they face on the ground in Iraq.
February 28th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
How many stars on your shoulders, RickDFL? You ever hear of an “armchair general”? How much “marginal advantage” is there in not going to Iraq at all? How much “marginal advantage” is their in letting soldiers fire at will rather than adhere to rules of engagement? Your self awarded medal for “greater concern for our troops” is going to kill them and lose us a war.
February 28th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Terry:
Methinks the lady doth protest to much.
February 28th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
“Methinks the lady doth protest to much.”
LOL!