Right Thinking From The Left Coast
No legacy is so rich as honesty - William Shakespeare

Get that Pen Warmed Up
by Lee

Here comes number two.

President Bush said Friday he regrets that the debate between the White House and a Democratic-controlled Congress over the Iraq war has forced him into vetoing an Iraq funding bill.

“I’m sorry it’s come to this,” Bush said. “Nevertheless, it is what it is, and it will be vetoed. And my veto will be sustained.”

Bush is right.  Both sides come out winners here.  Bush gets his veto, knowing the Democrats don’t have the vote to override it.  The Democrats get to kiss up to the barking moonbats (i.e. the check writers) who want the party to take a solid anti-war stance.  So what we’ll have to wait and see is what kind of bipartisan compromise (i.e. shitty legislation) they’ll end up coming up with.

Posted by Lee on 04/30/07 at 03:01 AM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by on 04/30/07 at 03:23 AM from United Kingdom

The Democrats get to kiss up to the barking moonbats (i.e. the check writers) who want the party to take a solid anti-war stance.

I don’t get you Lee, you seem to think Iraq is as much of a cluster fuck as the rest of us, yet you think any aim to get US troops out of Iraq at this point is taking a “solid anti-war stance”?

What is your solution, endless comittment to a force completly incapable of completing any reasonable objectives we might have in Iraq?

One of my worrys about Iraq prior to the invasion was that Americans would not accept the (at the time I thought financial) cost it would take to fix Iraq up. This is clearly the case, the comittment to fixing Iraq at this point is probably ten times in both financial and troops numbers than what is there now. America is never going to go for this, the war has only been so popular because no one really thinks they are paying for it (their kids are instead).

There comes a point where a half assed effort to fix something is worse than no effort at all.

For years you have been saying things along the line of democrats wanting the US to loose, being defeatist etc - normally about two years later you then start saying exacltly the same things the democrats said two years ago - yet here are you are again, criticisng the democrats. Two more years and you will be saying exactly what they are saying now.

There comes a point where admitting you where wrong in the past istn’t enough, you have to change your actual thinking so you don’t continue to make the same mistakes in the future.

Posted by Para on 04/30/07 at 06:14 AM from United States

I don’t get you Lee, you seem to think Iraq is as much of a cluster fuck as the rest of us, yet you think any aim to get US troops out of Iraq at this point is taking a “solid anti-war stance”?

The Dems are more interested in getting back in power than actually worrying about the war. They’ve used this “the-war-is-a -clusterfuck” mantra as a means to do that. They’ve repeated it so many times that they’ve taught the public that this is reality, however if they had supported victory from the beginning, the only logical thing for the voters to do is to support the current administration ( and his suggested successor), since armies don’t go to war, nations do.

Doing anything as Democratsother than opposing the war at a fever pitch for years would essenttially guarantee a victory for the Republicans.

This is the real reason the war is going badly. Truth is, if you listen to the troops, they’ve made great progress. The story on the ground and the story in the Post very often are completely different. Unless of course, when something bad happens, like stacking naked prisoners into a pyramid, then of course, it becomes the central issue of the war, ie: America is the bad guy.

Posted by on 04/30/07 at 08:47 AM from United States

This is the real reason the war is going badly.

Yes, I sure that’s exactly it.

Posted by Lee on 04/30/07 at 09:22 AM from United States

I don’t get you Lee, you seem to think Iraq is as much of a cluster fuck as the rest of us, yet you think any aim to get US troops out of Iraq at this point is taking a “solid anti-war stance”?

What is your solution, endless comittment to a force completly incapable of completing any reasonable objectives we might have in Iraq?

We’re not faced with two bad choices, and we have to decide which is the less bad.  But leaving completely (what the lefties want) is not an option.  The best thing for us to do would be to fall back to the north and south, the relatively pacified areas, and let the middle war and fight and kill itself out.  We’ll still be in country to conduct operations and exert pressure on Iran, but it gets us out of the Sunni/Shia civil war that’s currently gripping the country.

I think we give the surge a few months, look for signs of progress, and reevaluate our position.  But simply withdrawing all troops and coming home, as the liberals and pacifists and anti-war barking moonbats want, is off the table. 

If you think we’ve had a war there now, wait until Iraq becomes and Iranian vassal state.  Iran wants to be the dominant regional power, the position currently held by Sunni Saudi Arabia.  Imagine what would happen to the world economy if there was a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia in 10 or 20 years time.  It would dwarf in size and scope and cost anything we’ve done so far.

One of my worrys about Iraq prior to the invasion was that Americans would not accept the (at the time I thought financial) cost it would take to fix Iraq up. This is clearly the case, the comittment to fixing Iraq at this point is probably ten times in both financial and troops numbers than what is there now.

And this falls squarely at Bush’s feet.  When he sold this war he did so without telling the people that there was going to need to be a period of national sacrifice.  He sold it, essentially, as something that wouldn’t affect us in our day-to-day lives, nothing to worry about, we’ll go over and kick the shit out of Iraq and everything will be cool after that.  Now that the body count is rising, and the cost of the war is in the trillions of dollars, and no progress is being made, the people have lost their stomach for this war.

Posted by Lee on 04/30/07 at 09:27 AM from United States

This is the real reason the war is going badly

Para, I realize that EVERYTHING that goes on in the world is somehow the fault of the Democrats and the liberal media conspiracy, but you have to be fucking retarded if you actually believe this.  And I say this as someone who has interacted with you both on this blog and on Moorewatch for a few years.  But man, seriously, your ability to blame Democrats and the media for the result of the most ineptly planned and executed war since Vietnam is just beyond comprehension to me.

You’re not just drinking the Kool Aid, you’re taking a bath in it, swimming in it, and giving yourself a Kool Aid enema.

Posted by on 04/30/07 at 09:54 AM from United States

He’s mainlining the Kool Aid!

Posted by on 04/30/07 at 09:55 AM from United Kingdom

however if they had supported victory from the beginning

The democrats did support the war from the beginning. When reality set in as to what was happening in Iraq it became clear our objectives where not reachable. Now, Bush could have changed plans, but he didn’t - mainly because he was supported by people like you who would turn down any suggestion of a change in plan as a defat, being a terrorist or whatever. So we stuck with the same course, which has turned into an even bigger disaster. No what is left?

This is the real reason the war is going badly. Truth is, if you listen to the troops, they’ve made great progress. The story on the ground and the story in the Post very often are completely different. Unless of course, when something bad happens, like stacking naked prisoners into a pyramid, then of course, it becomes the central issue of the war, ie: America is the bad guy.

Yeah, the war is going great - it’s just the media that thinks its bad. That and the iraqis dieing every day of course (made up by the media of course).

We’re not faced with two bad choices, and we have to decide which is the less bad.  But leaving completely (what the lefties want) is not an option.  The best thing for us to do would be to fall back to the north and south, the relatively pacified areas, and let the middle war and fight and kill itself out.  We’ll still be in country to conduct operations and exert pressure on Iran, but it gets us out of the Sunni/Shia civil war that’s currently gripping the country.

Have you read the bill? Explain to me why this wouldn’t be possible under the bill.

I think we give the surge a few months, look for signs of progress, and reevaluate our position.  But simply withdrawing all troops and coming home, as the liberals and pacifists and anti-war barking moonbats want, is off the table. 

The bill does not suggest anything about immediate withdrawl. Again, have you read it, or even a summary of it?

If you think we’ve had a war there now, wait until Iraq becomes and Iranian vassal state.  Iran wants to be the dominant regional power, the position currently held by Sunni Saudi Arabia.  Imagine what would happen to the world economy if there was a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia in 10 or 20 years time.  It would dwarf in size and scope and cost anything we’ve done so far.

Iran and Saudi Arabai are going to vie for power over the middle east, the US being there or not being there is not going to change things. A sunni/shite war that might span multiple countries is also possible; massivly hastened by the cluster fuck in Iraq. The only reason Iran/Saudi Arabai matter is because of oil, which is why we need to find alternatives, now, as a matter of national security. Who knows how far down that path we would be had the money invested in Iraq gone to R&D;spending.

But Iraq is already heading down the line to an Iranian vessel state, and we currently support Shias against the Sunnis who are the ones bombing the place to shit. So what do you suggest we do? Permanent bases - in the middle east? Yeah, that’s going to go down well, can’t imagine that will help recruit new terrorists at all either. Where do you see the endgame to this if you only want to stay in Iraq to prevent Iraq becoming conrtolled by Iran?

Posted by Para on 04/30/07 at 10:47 AM from United States

Para, I realize that EVERYTHING that goes on in the world is somehow the fault of the Democrats and the liberal media conspiracy, but you have to be fucking retarded if you actually believe this.  And I say this as someone who has interacted with you both on this blog and on Moorewatch for a few years.  But man, seriously, your ability to blame Democrats and the media for the result of the most ineptly planned and executed war since Vietnam is just beyond comprehension to me.

Seriously , Lee. How do you KNOW any of this? Where is your additude being shaped? Hoe do you KNOW there is no plan?

You say the war is fucked up......compared to what?  It’s a fucking war, man. It ain’t a fucking rehearsed broadway musical. The Democrats have pinned thier future on this war being a failure. So they repeat it a million times, and then one day , my ally Lee starts repeating what he’s heard on fuckin’ NBC!!!

Again I ask, you say this isn’t going well. I would ask, compared to what. There MUST be a point of reference. Are the troops dying at Vietnam levels? WWII levels? What’s your point of reference?

It’s pretty insulting that my belief in the good of our troops who believe in thier mission versus the lying media is met by scorn from y’all.Oh, and I read the Buckley article, and he’s wrong.

Posted by ? on 04/30/07 at 10:59 AM from United States

Lee,

There will never be a bipartisan compromise and the one thing i believe when Bush says it is “leaving means losing” and IMHO he has no intention of leaving.  In Nov of 2008 there will be well over 100,000 troops in Iraq and 80 deaths a month or more. 

He and Chaney think they are right and history will prove them right.  They will NEVER start bringing home the troops.  And mark my words he will be the end of the GOP as we know it and it will take a generation before the GOP wins congress or the white house. 

While i would take almost anyone rather than bush the idea of one party rule for the dems is likly to turn out just as bad as GOP one party rule.  But Bush is making that happen and unless the GOP big wigs jump ship there will be a dem in the white house??

david

Posted by on 04/30/07 at 11:22 AM from Japan

Are the troops dying at Vietnam levels?

You are right, Para. Iraq is much worse. In the first four years of Vietnam, there were just 1,864 American casualties.

And just like Iraq, no-one actually bothered to find out how many VC or civilians were killed either.

Unless I am misunderstanding you, that is?

I do kinda get your point though - the Dems voted for the war and all. So what percentage blame should they get?

95% Dems
5% Bush

No, no. Too low, dimmit.

98% Dems?
2% Bush?

That looks better. Now we got some real Plame ...oops...blame action happening.

Posted by on 04/30/07 at 11:34 AM from United States

We’re not faced with two bad choices, and we have to decide which is the less bad.  But leaving completely (what the lefties want) is not an option.  The best thing for us to do would be to fall back to the north and south, the relatively pacified areas, and let the middle war and fight and kill itself out.  We’ll still be in country to conduct operations and exert pressure on Iran, but it gets us out of the Sunni/Shia civil war that’s currently gripping the country.

The “lefties” are not speaking for the Democratic party on this issue.  Other than Dennis Kucinich, I know of no one who says pack it up and go home.  My understanding is to get out of the direct line of fire (the Civil war) and redeploy in Kurdistan and Kuwait, meanwhile talking to Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia (diplomacy).  The point is we can’t win this militarily alone.  There has to be room for diplomacy and the Iraqi goverment has got to be held accountable for some signs of commitment.  Notice how Condi said that was a “bad” idea.  Notice too that their Parliament is planning to go on a two month vacation! Meanwhile our soldiers are dying.  But they are painting schools!!  And bringing chocolate to the village children!! What total bullshit.

Posted by Lee on 04/30/07 at 11:36 AM from United States

Are the troops dying at Vietnam levels?

We’ve become much, much better at keeping people alive in the 30 years since Vietnam.  Injuries that would have killed someone in Nam merely maim someone for life in Iraq. 

So, in terms of numbers, no, they’re not dying at Vietnam levels.  But you’re only looking at a fraction of the story, which (gasp!) is the part that happens to support your thesis that Iraq is going wonderfully and it’s the durn librul media conspiracy that refuses to tell the truth about Dear Leader’s wonderful accomplishments.

Posted by on 04/30/07 at 12:21 PM from United States

Not for nothing...lots of people want to have it both ways: the “Dems” voted for the war, so they are just as culpable as the the president for the cluster-fuck.

And at the same time they were always against the war, and have undermined it, so if it weren’t for them and the liberal media, we’d be winning.

Bad Dems, bad, bad dems. 

Now however, the “Dems” are for getting out, So which is it:  Are they just fair weather supporters and punking when the going gets tough?  Or spineless nay-sayers that have always been rooting of the demise of the nation? 

OH, Wait, wait! They’re both!  Fantastic.  We have the enemy!  It’s the Democrats. 

Could it really be that some Democrats though and trusted the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES to do what was right, even if they disagreed?  And that after a long time (it’s been 4 fucking years, for gods sake), after seeing NO progress, if fact, after seeing the entire scheme go south, with no real change in direction or tactics or any will to even try to change things… that some bad, bad, Democrats actually thought they should speak up?  I’m not going to pretend that those fuckers are driven by pure motives, but I be damned if I agree that any change of heart is necessarily and abandonment of the USA, and what it stands for. 

Yes Harry Reid sucks and Nancy Pelosi is a scum-bag, but there are many main stream Democrats (some of them even in elective office) who care what is going on the country, and have become disillusioned by the Administration, if the right can’t see that, then it becomes the “Rabid Right” Cliche that the left likes to claim it is.

Posted by on 04/30/07 at 12:23 PM from United Kingdom

Again I ask, you say this isn’t going well. I would ask, compared to what. There MUST be a point of reference. Are the troops dying at Vietnam levels? WWII levels? What’s your point of reference?

What is your point of reference? It seems that most sane people try and judge whether the benefits outweigh the costs. Do the current and potential future benefits of being in Iraq outweigh more dead people?

Are there actually going to be benefits by maintaining the status quo.

Para, what would make you actually consider Iraq such a failure that withdrawl was necessary? What would be your litmus test that said, ok, now we need to bring the troops back.

If you don’t have one, your opinion is utterly pointless - it’s just “stay the course” because anything else would require some intellectual honesty that you were wrong.

Posted by Para on 04/30/07 at 01:30 PM from United States

Para, what would make you actually consider Iraq such a failure that withdrawl was necessary? What would be your litmus test that said, ok, now we need to bring the troops back.
If you don’t have one, your opinion is utterly pointless

I would say that Iraq doesn’t need to get worse to bring the troops jhome, I’d say it would have to get better.

Posted by Lee on 04/30/07 at 01:39 PM from United States

I would say that Iraq doesn’t need to get worse to bring the troops jhome, I’d say it would have to get better.

“Your honor, move to strike as unresponsive.”

So, say we could see in the future, and it would take 26 years for things to get better.  Should we stay in Iraq for 26 more years?

Posted by on 04/30/07 at 03:40 PM from United Kingdom

So, say we could see in the future, and it would take 26 years for things to get better.  Should we stay in Iraq for 26 more years?

Also, say every year the violence increased - would that provide you additional evidence that the troops needed to stay their longer.

Para, are you a creationist by any chance?

Next entry: Buckley on Iraq

Previous entry: Smile for the Camera

<< Back to main