ThinkFast: November 13, 2006
ThinkFast: November 13, 2006
Democratic leaders in the Senate said yesterday that a phased redeployment of troops within four to six months “would be their top priority when the new Congress convenes in January, even before an investigation of the conduct of the war.”
President Bush will not relent in his defense of John Bolton, his nominee for U.N. ambassador. White House aides Josh Bolten and Dan Bartlett said they will not back down from pursuing Senate approval, despite the fact that Bush lacks the 60 votes necessary to force a Senate vote.
Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has endorsed Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) as the next House Majority Leader, “stepping into a contentious intraparty fight between Murtha and her current deputy, Maryland’s Steny H. Hoyer.” House Democrats meet Thursday to choose the Majority Leader.
Meanwhile, Robert Novak predicts the GOP will “reelect some or all” of its current leadership, including John Boehner (R-OH) as Minority Leader and Roy Blunt (R-MO) as Minority Whip. Novak said sticking with the same leadership team was “an act of supreme irrationality.”
“Insurgent activity in Afghanistan has risen fourfold this year, and militants now launch more than 600 attacks a month, a rising wave of violence that has resulted in more than 3,700 deaths in 2006,” according to a new report.
“Members of both parties in Congress have all but written off” passing lame-duck legislation that would have authorized President Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance legislation.
“The United States last year provided nearly half of the weapons sold to militaries in the developing world, as major arms sales to the most unstable regions – many already engaged in conflict – grew to the highest level in eight years.”
Two new energy studies “are likely to hasten efforts to increase production incentives next year” for renewable fuels. A Rand study found renewables could easily account for 25 percent of the U.S.’s energy use by 2025, while a National Academy of Sciences study predicted “wood chips may become a plentiful source of ethanol and electricity for industrial nations.”
And finally: President Bush likes Will Ferrell’s Bush impersonation — but the warm feelings aren’t mutual. Ferrell says he has twice turned down invitations from Bush to perform. “In both cases, I especially did not want to do the inevitable photo op afterwards where we are all holding hands. That would have been a gesture of support.”
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Ummm… Bush won’t rethink Bolton, Repubs won’t rethink their leadership and at the same time Afganistan is worse, Iraq is worse…. The people spoke but they still won’t listen. We want CHANGE!
November 13th, 2006 at 9:18 amSomebody get George Soros on the phone immediately. Here is our opportunity. This is absolutely beyond crucial for Progressives. Tribune Co. is looking to sell assets because they need cash.
Tribune Co. is taking bids on WGN Channel 9, Chicago’s Superstation on EVERY Cable system in the country. This would include their very popular WGN News at 9pm.
If George Soros were to buy Channel 9 we’d have a great station with a great 9 pm newscast watched by millions around the country. This is our chance to have a Channel & newscast bigger & better that Fox!!! And allow my dream to continue. We could make Keith Olberman the new lead anchor of the channel (he deserves much better than MSNBC)!
This is OUR opportunity calling. Mr. Soros, please buy Channel 9!!! We need media to compete with the ultra-conservatives running and ruining our country. By purchasing WGN Channel 9 INSTANTLY we’d have a news outlet big enough to compete with the right wing wackos!!!
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/local/chi-0611120415nov12,0,5293372.story?coll=sfla-business-front
November 13th, 2006 at 9:20 amphased redeployment of troops within four to six months
Good, then we can see if the violence in Iraq decreases.
President Bush will not relent
And dogs will not “meow”
Novak said sticking with the same leadership team was “an act of supreme irrationality.â€
Same sh**, different issue
“Members of both parties in Congress have all but written off†passing lame-duck legislation that would have authorized President Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance legislation.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:21 amGood, the Democrats should find some way to demonstrate that they support surveillance with oversight and some evidence that BushCo is doing enough surveillance of the right people.
What a great idea, Larry!
November 13th, 2006 at 9:25 amEven if only one part of WGN were purchased, there is the radio station, the TV channel, the cable TV channel, not to mention the Tribune and the LA Times. There wouldn’t be much advantage to buying the Cubs.
But, in the midwest, WGN is HUGE!
Even if only one part of WGN were purchased, there is the radio station, the TV channel, the cable TV channel, not to mention the Tribune and the LA Times.
Couldn’t the money that it would cost be much better spent helping people who need it rather than buying another corporation?
November 13th, 2006 at 9:32 amRe: “supreme irrationality”
Dammit! I hate when Novak says stuff I agree with!
November 13th, 2006 at 9:34 amFrom the Will Ferrell article, on why it’s not his fault that Bush got elected: But I can’t help the fact that people in America seem to not mind stupidity.
That, in a nut shell, is the major flaw in our political process. We accept stupidity in our political leadership.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:41 amI think the Republicans are going to continue to lead the faithful off of far right cliff.
I just watched some anti-abortion advocate in C-Span and she said that the Democrats elected were all anti-abortion and that it was a sign that the nation is turning further right.
I saw a stat that said five of the dozens elected were anti-abortion–Heath Shuler and Bob Casey Jr. were two of them.
So let’s hope they continue to forge ahead far right and continue to push the center towards the Democrats.
Suddenly I feel like saying Amen!
-GSD
November 13th, 2006 at 9:42 amPresident Bush will not relent in his defense of John Bolton…
Yes, he will. He has no choice. But, it’s fun to see him fight it.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:44 amBush on Bolt-on:
November 13th, 2006 at 9:45 amDon’t confuse me with the facts, he’s my guy, you just have to appoint him!
What an idiot. Anyone recall his inane comment about having political capital and wanting to spend it.
His political capital wallet is empty and he doesn’t even know it.
6. By having a station to get our message out we could help people greatly! We help people by keeping radical right ideologues out of office where they try to steal our social security, deny healthcare to poor and send our soldiers to die for a meaningless war while bankrupting our country.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:48 amCouldn’t the money that it would cost be much better spent helping people who need it rather than buying another corporation?
Comment by Tundra
To inform people with facts is to help people.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:49 amCouldn’t the money that it would cost be much better spent helping people who need it rather than buying another corporation?
November 13th, 2006 at 9:51 amComment by Tundra — November 13, 2006 @ 9:32 am
Yes, of course it would, in an ideal world – but it would be a good thing to have a broadcast outlet in America that would be able to counter the hatefilled, anti-democratic rhetoric by the predominant right wingers, and spread the ideas and ideals of American patriots, rather than demagogues.
But the idea is all hypothetical anyway.
#5
Couldn’t the money that it would cost be much better spent helping people who need it rather than buying another corporation?
Soros has already given millions to help people who need it and I’m sure he’ll continue to do so. Maybe you should talk to Richard Mellon Scaife and see if he’d consider spending his millions on something other than trying to sabotage Democrats’ attempts to run for the presidency. Or, maybe talk to Halliburton and get them to give back some of the hundreds of millions that they’ve ripped off from U.S. taxpayers. Maybe they could contribute to the families of soldiers killed and injured in Iraq, since the Republican controlled Congress slashed their benefits.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:53 amI think the odds of getting Bolton approves by a Democratic Congress is about the same as the Texas Legislature changing the state motto to “Fragile – handle with care.”
November 13th, 2006 at 9:54 amGood morning, Juan….After a late night of debate, I see we are right back at it!
November 13th, 2006 at 9:56 amComment by Tundra — November 13, 2006 @ 9:32 am
For the cost of Bush’s War in Iraq, 11 Katrina victims each hour could be given 1 million dollars, creating 264 millionaires each day, 1,848 each week, 96,096 in a year.
Just imagine eliminating the poor class at the rate of roughly 100,000 people per year. Think of the demand for goods and services this would create, as people who previously had little to spend beyond basic necessities could afford to purchase more, fueling job growth and economic expansion.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:56 am“Insurgent activity in Afghanistan has risen fourfold this year, and militants now launch more than 600 attacks a month, a rising wave of violence that has resulted in more than 3,700 deaths in 2006,†according to a new report.
Hopefully, we will take a large amount of those troops redeployed from Iraq and deploy them to Afghanistan. That is a war that CANNOT be lost.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:57 amphased redeployment of troops within four to six months
Forget that just go home and friigin stay there
November 13th, 2006 at 10:04 amAfter a late night of debate, I see we are right back at it!
Comment by Exley
Ha ha ha! Yeah. Arent you tired? Im drooling here, just to check my mail and off to the university.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:06 amComment by Exley — November 13, 2006 @ 9:57 am
You ever hear of battle fatigue?
We’ve already lost in Afghanistan, and in Iraq, because Bush thought the solution was through military might, rather than through diplomancy. Remember, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden if Bush could make the case for extradition. Instead of following the international rule of law, Bush invaded.
The only “winners” are the War Profiteers. How many mother’s sons and daughters are you willing to sacrifice for the sake of their profits?
November 13th, 2006 at 10:06 amHopefully, we will take a large amount of those troops redeployed from Iraq and deploy them to Afghanistan. That is a war that CANNOT be lost.
Comment by Exley
First, however, we would need to define the mission, its goals, and the endpoint. If not, it’s just another Iraq.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:06 amNobody will ever beat the Afghanies …they will wait, troops are bogged in their bases too scared to go on patrol
Just leave Afgjhanistan too …….. the people will elect the Taliban back in next election …….. just like the palestinians
November 13th, 2006 at 10:06 amdoes anyone else wonder what bolton could possibly have on dubbya?
November 13th, 2006 at 10:07 amwhy is he so determined to put that “bull in the china shop”?
#20 Actually, Juan, I am exhausted. But here at the office, ready to join the battle again….(And get some work done, I guess….)
November 13th, 2006 at 10:11 amThe DEMOCRATIC leaders say they want to have a phased redeployment?! Don’t make me regret putting you in power.
Ugh.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:13 amFerrell says he has twice turned down invitations from Bush to perform.
Will Ferrell is great.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:13 am“Mom…meatloaf!! F**ck!!”
First, however, we would need to define the mission, its goals, and the endpoint. If not, it’s just another Iraq.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC) — November 13, 2006 @ 10:06 am
What would qualify as a suitable Endpoint?
November 13th, 2006 at 10:14 am#22, Well, PLC, I would say the primary objective is “Get Bin Laden!”
I think we pretty much can all agree with that.
I think also that there are important differences between Iraq and Afghanistan. I am hardly an expert on Afghanistan history and society, but it seems it does not have the long history and problem of religious and ethnic division that Iraq had. Thus, it would seem that defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda and securing the Afghan government is a less difficult (although still tough) task in Afghanistan than in Iraq.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:16 amWhat would qualify as a suitable Endpoint?
November 13th, 2006 at 10:20 amComment by Tundra
I think that NOT BLOWING UP CIVILIANS could be part of that end point.
What would qualify as a suitable Endpoint?
Comment by Tundra
I think that NOT BLOWING UP CIVILIANS could be part of that end point.
Comment by Juan C — November 13, 2006 @ 10:20 am
Jeez,
November 13th, 2006 at 10:23 amYou just want it all, Juan.
;)
Ok…later. Take care all.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:24 amWhat would qualify as a suitable Endpoint? Comment by Tundra
Well, PLC, I would say the primary objective is “Get Bin Laden!â€
Comment by Exley
I don’t see any other goal worthy of our intervention. And we don’t need to send in the whole cavalry for this.
defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda and securing the Afghan government …Comment by Exley
November 13th, 2006 at 10:25 amAll I can think of is the Lays Potato Chip slogan: “we’ll make more”.
Why not give the money to people who need it? In spite of some people being anti-corporate there is a reason and a purpose to having them. If he or anyone buys WGN they have the responsibility of running the station/network. There are a great many jobs involved, so people are helped there. There is also a multiplier effect where there are a number of jobs supported by the very existence of WGN. Suppliers for the station directly, people who produce programming for the station and then there are the indirect jobs that support the employees of the station, doctors, lawyers, grocery stores etc… Additionally the cash that is paid for the station can be used by the Tribune co. for ventures that may produce additional jobs. True this does not directly support the poor and hungry of the world. But the income generating potential can raise funds to support those in need. It is so much more of a proposition that simply giving the cash away.
In regards to Afghanistan: It is a war that is not going so well, but is one we need to complete correctly. I am not at all against re-deploying troops there. If I am not mistaken this was what the original Murtha plan was all about. 1) Withdraw from Iraq and maintain an over the horizon presence so we can respond if Iraq turns into another Afghanistan. And 2) move more troops to Afghanistan to complete the mission there. This mission is far more achievable than the Iraq mission, it always has been. We just have not treated the war properly there. The troop fatigue issue can be resolved with the next rotations. Instead of rotating troops to Iraq make the next round of rotations to Afghanistan and over the horizon locations.
Last point…after the elections I initially thought that perhaps Bush would actually work with the new congress. My original theory was based on Bush looking to his own self preservation and trading cooperation with congress in exchange for a no impeachment deal, investigations would have to occur though, these are essential. I would fully expect him to toss others to the impeachment or legal process, guys like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, anyone to keep himself out of the frying pan. However now I think I have to re-evaluate my position due to his stubbornness regarding Bolton. As long as he has the same people around him, he will continue to get the same advice and act in the same manner. So hearings can not begin soon enough. I would imagine that even as the jockeying for position for leadership is taking place, that committees for investigations are already being discussed.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:29 am#33 And we don’t need to send in the whole cavalry for this.
Well, I agree that we do not need to send ALL the troops that we currently have in Iraq to Afghanistan (Don’t want a replay of the Soviets’ experience iof the 1980s), but some increase would seemingly help the situation over there. I believe NATO’s commander in Afghanistan just recently said more troops were needed. I also believe that is even the Democrats position.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:31 amExley
I meant we don’t have to send a lot of troops to “get Bin Laden”. I think a small special force would be better suited to this objective. And, it is likely that Afghanistan is the wrong place to look for him, now.
As for any other goal in Afgahnistan, I don’t see the military being a force for change, unless we want to occupy THAT country. To destroy the Taliban and Al Quaeda, we have to eliminate what feeds their attitudes. Our military presence is likely to have the opposite effect.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:40 amI don’t see any other goal worthy of our intervention. And we don’t need to send in the whole cavalry for this.
How long are we prepared for this and what cost in soldier/civilian lives is acceptable? What point do we call it off and say forget it?
November 13th, 2006 at 10:41 am35. there is a need for increased troops in Afghanistan but they will not be coming from Iraq. Just because the democrats handily defeated the republicans doesn’t mean the problems created by the republicans will go away.
Simply put, Iraq needs stability. Removing our troops now will have the opposite effect. In the next few weeks you will hear members on both sides of the isle calling for an increase in troops for Iraq but with clearer objectives. Not just additional police patroling but more strategic strikes.
I don’t care for the situatuions that have been created but they won’t go away by turning our heads.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:43 amHow long are we prepared for this and what cost in soldier/civilian lives is acceptable? What point do we call it off and say forget it?
Comment by Tundra
Not long and minimal. Soon.
I think we could have bought a betrayal of Osama Bin Laden if we had not gone into Iraq and been having dialogue with Muslim leaders from around the world.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:47 am…to Afghanistan. That is a war that CANNOT be lost.
Sorry to post and run (lots to do at work) but this is where we have a serious problem. I disagree with this statement because I disagree that we have to view this in terms of “war”. I am in the camp that views the attacks of 9/11 as a criminal act, and not an act of war, no matter what those on the other side call it. When Timothy McVeigh & Friends bombed the federal building in OK, we did not immediately view that as an act of war. We correctly viewed it as a criminal act and acted accordingly.
As long as we insist on viewing all of this strictly in terms of “war”, we will seriously hinder our ability to tackle the causes of the conflict, and we will likely never bring an end to it. There’s a reason they did this to us, and trying to resolve it through war will never help, because we will never address their reasons for doing it.
Sometimes, the macho man act isn’t the right one, no matter how much fun the president has doing it. Sorry I can’t stick around to defend myself, but we need to open our minds to different solutions to our problems, and not insist on relying on our military. Have fun tearing me a new one while I’m gone.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:50 amThis isn’t what some rightie blogs are saying:
The Democrats lied, we will stay the course.”
To me that means there will be a slow withdrawal.
Well, Congress can’t really order troop withdrawal. They can have a huge effect through appropriations, but not this year.
If there were a non-Bush president in there, I’ll bet he’d be doing his damndest to fix the occupation/reconstruction first, then try troop withdrawal.
But it would end up looking like it does now. This just goes to show that there are only bad options left in Iraq. If we stay, our troops are just targets waiting to be attacked. If we leave, many more Iraqi civilians will die in civil war. Those are our choices. The choices for Iraqis are even worse.
Now, can we blame Democrats for putting us in this predicament? Sure, we can blame every Democrat that voted to give the Bush administration a blank check to go to war with a country that never attacked us. Nancy Pelosi isn’t one of them, but Murtha did. Blame Murtha, and Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, on and on as much as you blame Wolfowitz, Pearle, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Kristol, on and on. All these people are to blame.
But, we have a new crop of congressmen that didn’t vote for the war and are now entrusted to try to steer us out of Iraq. Hopefully they can, but since they aren’t in command of the military, then they can’t be blamed if troops aren’t withdrawn.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:52 amI’d really like to see someone ?? in Congress come up with the idea to invite Arab nations from the region to send in peacekeeping troops, Sunni to help secure the Sunni regions and Shiia to do the same in Shiite regions and neighborhoods. The Iraqi army and security forces are badly compromised, and should probably be disbanded and begun again fresh.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:01 amWe should get the hell out as soon as the arab nation troops take over our mission.
#40, Wayne, So, you advocate a return to the 1990s mind-set that viewed Al Qaeda’s attacks against U.S. targets as criminal acts to which we responded with indictments and subpoenas, rather than force. Well, Wayne, unfortunately, it is that type of weak and ineffective response that helped lead to 9/11 by emboldening Bin Laden. Do you really believe Bin Laden got worried when a U.S. grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned an indictment against him? Of course, he didn’t. By pursuing Bin Laden in the courts, he was left unmolested in Afghanistan free to plot and plan 9/11.
The purpose of going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere militarily is not merely to seek justice for the atrocity of 9/11, but to destroy that terrorist network before they carry out another 9/11 (next time, possibly with WMD) in the future.
Wayne, treating Al Qaeda’s attacks against U.S. targets in the 1990s as a criminal problem did not protect us from the devastation of 9/11. To return to that failed and demonstrably ineffective response to Al Qaeda terrorism is, quite frankly, insanity.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:01 am40. You have valid points. Congress didn’t declare war on either country. The military is involved though and will have to be part of the solution.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:02 am#38, HellinaBucket…The world really has turned upside down. I am actually taking the more “progressive” position on Iraq than you????
You write: “Simply put, Iraq needs stability. Removing our troops now will have the opposite effect.” I am not sure I agree with that anymore. Our troops have been in Iraq for more than three years since the deposing of Saddam and the stability of that nation has not increased. It has worsened. I am beginning to come around to the belief that the presence of U.S. troops may be serving as a catalyst to violence, rather than a deterrent.
Moreover, it is not the role of the U.S. military to prevent Iraqis from killing eachother over ancient ethnic and religious grievances. The military’s mission was to remove Saddam, which it did magnificently (To quote John Murtha). That job is now done. Preventing some Sunni militant from killing a Shiite militant (and vice versa) is not worth one American solider’s life.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:10 amExley
It’s not just about “pursuing Bin Laden in the courts”. How about pursuing him in the field, actually being concerned about where he is and what he is doing? And, the military, which is meant to destroy, can’t very well destroy the “network of terrorists” unless they are unleashed to bomb even in our own country, where there are such networks as well. And, like I said, we need to eliminate what feeds the terrorists’ attitude or the movement will thrive. Your glorification of “force” is part of the problem. Maybe our country needs to stop manufacturing weapons that we put into the world market and trying to muscle our viewpoint everywhere.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:17 amWhat is up with Bush and incompletent cronies? Isn’t the well being of the American people out weigh the need of money grabbing assholes?
And I see the Reps are already beginning their “mind controlling” over the sheep.
At this time I rarely believe nor trust the main stream media jerks, and truly have no respect for Mr. Gregory at all. The progressives do need a media outlet, besides talk radio and the internet.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:18 am45 Exley meet 43 Exley.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:20 am#46, PLC, My “pursuing him in the courts” comment was directed at Wayne Schneider’s posting at #40.
It was not directed at your coments.
As for “How about pursuing him in the field, actually being concerned about where he is and what he is doing?,” I am all in favor of that. But, PLC, let us say a Predator drone spots Bin Laden in the field somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan and we have a chance to take him out and kill him right there with a Hellfire missile — Would you approve of such a strike?
November 13th, 2006 at 11:24 am#48, PLC, They are the same Exley…The situations in Afghanistan and Iraq are vastly different. Thus, the response, strategy, and tactics need to be different in each country.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:26 amExley
I’m no military expert so I am hesitant to give you a yes or no reponse to Post 49. My values are that we have every right and an obligation to kill someone like Osama Bin Laden if 1) he has been found guilty of a crime, 2) he is fleeing and we are unable to capture him without significant risk of American lives, and 3) we can kill him without risking innocent people (collateral damage).
BTW, I agree with Wayne Schneider’s preference for a law enforcement approach. Osama Bin Laden is not the leader of a nation that declared war on us. He is a thug, a criminal.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:35 amWell Exley, I don’t think I ever really stated how Progressive I was. This administration has put us in a no win situation in a Iraq and close to a no win in Afghanistan.
The military mission for Iraq was initially clear. Remove Saddam. The following military/political mission was anything but clear. I’m glad you’ve come around to seeing how short sided Bush has been on this. Better late than never. There needs to be a massive amount of regional help in Iraq now for the political stability and there most likely will be additional US troops to guard strategic value points and for special ops. strikes at the heart of the insurgencies.
The role of the military is to follow and execute orders. They are at their best when the objectives are clear and verifiable borders can be secured. They have been used as policemen (something republicans used to hate). I like Murtha’s idea of just over the horizon but that may still mean additional troops.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:38 am#52 HiB, “I like Murtha’s idea of just over the horizon…”
Yet I think Murtha’s suggestion that they be stationed in Okinawa is absurd. That is not “just over the horizon.”
I heard / read a suggestion that U.S. troops be redeployed to the Kurdish north, where the presence of U.S. troops are popular and welcomed. That would place them close enough to respond rapidly to any immediate military needs in other parts of Iraq. That seems to make sense to me.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:53 amThat’s the type of thinking that should be employed now. It is apparent the current path isn’t improving the situation. Clear goals and objectives have to be set for all involved. I like to see the nervousness of the Iraqi gov’t now. They have to perform. The Kurdish north is one area that makes sense to me also.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:10 pmit seems it does not have the long history and problem of religious and ethnic division that Iraq had.
Comment by Exley — November 13, 2006 @ 10:16 am
Actually, Afghanistan also has a good number of ethnic minority groups.
Do you remember the Northern Alliance that fought against the Taliban for years?
That conflict was divided squarely along ethnic lines, with the Taliban being ethnic Pashtuns while the Alliance was primarily a Tajik group, with several ethnic groups like Uzbeks, and Turkmen, riding on the back of the much larger and formidable Tajik militia.
Not to mention the usual Shia-Sunni divide -the Taliban being a fundamentalist Sunni group whose interpretation of the Quran is not shared by all Afghans.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:55 pmExley “it is that type of weak and ineffective response that helped lead to 9/11 by emboldening…” the PNAC!!!
You still cling to the delusion that a cave dweller pulled off 9/11??
Why no law enforcement this time? Because a real investigation would have uncovered the truth!
November 13th, 2006 at 1:09 pmThe situations in Afghanistan and Iraq are vastly different. Thus, the response, strategy, and tactics need to be different in each country.
Comment by Exley — November 13, 2006 @ 11:26 am
Does anyone seriously believe Exley would be saying this if the repubs had prevailed at the polls? No, he would be restating the position he has previously clung to so tenaciously – that Iraq is the central focal point in the war on terror, and anyone who disagrees is wrong, and mentally inferior. What changed his view? The elections. Now he sees conclusive proof that he’s in the minority – and now he’s suddenly sounding as if Iraq was just a sad failure. The guy always does this, thinking we don’t notice. How about a true mea culpa, Exley, instead of this sad attempt at making yourself sound more moderate than you really are?
November 13th, 2006 at 1:11 pmThat would place them close enough to respond rapidly to any immediate military needs in other parts of Iraq. That seems to make sense to me.
Comment by Exley —
So when the Turks invade, and we’re caught in the middle of another culturally based war, Exley will also find a way to distance himself from these remarks.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:13 pm#57, Barfly, your constant displays of ignorance are truly a marvel to behold. I was expressing my doubts about the continued U.S. presence in Iraq and calling for more troops in Afghanistan many months before last week’s election.
I admire your willingness to keep posting, Barfly, despite the fact that you are constantly proven wrong. Keep trying, junior.
Here is an example from October 18:
You ask: “how do you measure victory?†That is the key question. At this point, I don’t know the answer. Clearly, half the victory has already been achieved — the deposing of Saddam. Where we go from here, however, is uncertain. I don’t believe U.S. troops should be kept in the middle of a civil war. The Iraqi people were handed a golden opportunity and gift by the U.S. and Coalition when we deposed Saddam. We gave the Iraqis every opportunity to create a democratic and civilized society following our overthrow of Saddam’s tyrannical rule. Rather than making the most of this opportunity, the Iraqis have instead seemingly chosen to indulge in the violent settling ancient ethnic, religious, and tribal grievances. If that is what they choose to do, the U.S. should withdraw our troops. You can lead the proverbial horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. We have done all we can for the Iraqis. The rest is up to them.
Comment by Exley — October 18, 2006 @ 10:43 pm
I accept your apology, Barfly.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:24 pmMore embarassment for the Almost-Always Incorrect Barfly. From Septmber 27, 2006:
#280, Well, I am increasingly beginning to come to the conclusion that Iraq was a mistake — at least until we did more in Afghanistan…Not quite tehre yet…..But I am getting closer to my “Bobby Kennedy†moment.
Comment by Exley — September 27, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
You don’t have to apologize to me twice, Barfly. Your first apology shall suffice.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:31 pmYou can lead the proverbial horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:32 pmHear Hear Exley! You’ve just admitted that “democracy” cannot be forced on a country, that it must start from within
Good show, matey!
BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!!!!
DRxJ, Absolutely. If a people do not want to live in a democracy and instead choose to indulge in senseless ethnic and religious violence, and refuse to be helped, then we should leave them be to do whatever they want as long as they pose no threat to us.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:38 pm#40 Wayne, as usual, has it pretty accurately.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:41 pmHey, anyone here see Barfly? Did he run away again after I once again proved him wrong? Well, I understand…It must be very embarassing and frustrating for him to be bested by me so often. But I have already accepted his apology. There is no need for him to continue hiding.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:05 pm“If a people do not want to live in a democracy and instead choose to indulge in senseless ethnic and religious violence, and refuse to be helped,” –Exley
You are an evil and repugnant liar. If an invading country opens the mouth of hell for your population, failing to guard HUNDREDS OF METRIC TONS OF HIGH EXPLOSIVES from unknown hostiles — then it’s the fault of the civilians caught in the IED extravaganza that failure set off.
Racist much?
November 13th, 2006 at 4:01 pmStill waiting for Barfly to show up again….It has been more than 10 hours since his last (erroneous) posting. I have already accepted his apology. Why is he still hiding? C’mon, Barfly! This is not the first time I have proven you wrong…Why so embarassed this time????
November 13th, 2006 at 11:25 pmStill waiting for Barfly…….Still waiting.
November 14th, 2006 at 1:08 amExley, how gracious of you to accept an apology from barfly that hasn’t been offered. In #59 you claim that your position on Iraq and Afghanistan had begun to change ‘many months’ before the election, then as proof of that offer posts from October and late September. That would be ’several weeks’ before the election, not ‘many months’, and certainly by the time you offered those posts it was pretty clear the gop was getting ready to lose. Don’t get me wrong Exley, glad to see you’re finally seeing the light, but I hardly think you’ve proven barfly wrong about anything.
November 14th, 2006 at 9:22 amActually Quadrajet, I have indeed proved Barfly wrong…again. He erroneously stated that I had merely changed my position on Iraq following Tuesday’s elections. As we see that is patently false. Secondly, by his rather cowardly (but understandable) refusal to post again on this topic he has indeed tacitly apologized. And I have graciously accepted it.
November 14th, 2006 at 10:12 amExley,
You are still a weenie.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:15 am