I heard this from a source who’s in a position to know this kind of thing (one of the rare occasions I get to play the “DC insider” card) a few months ago, so the idea that Lieberman is angling for the Secretary of Defense job by being Bush’s sock puppy is not out of the realm of the possible. Look, the guy got shafted by his own party the last two years (oh for the days of Joementum!), and has obviously hit his electoral glass ceiling, so an easily confirmed cabinet position is clearly worth Lieberman’s remaining integrity.
What remaining integrity????
So he would have integrity if he advocated surrender?
Dugger
Since some of us both know and acknowledge how much progress has been made in Iraq, and Oliver and most Democrats won’t — for their own selfish poltical gains (not you, Oliver, you’re just blindly anti – Bush) I would say that it is Lieberman who’s got the integrity.
[...] otta Love It
Joe Lieberman – Liar, suck-up, no integrity, opportunist. That s what fellow Democrats are saying about him. After all, it s just so ob [...]
Mr. Curmudgeon — very unfunny or very unsmart. “Both” refers to “know and acknowledge”. ‘Some’ and ‘both’ are two different words, even on the planet you come from.
Since some of us both know…
You’re right, Frank. You and Dugger might be the only ones left that believe we’ve made “progress” in Iraq. Maybe you should join the WH’s messaging team and help our belegeaured president convince the vast majority of these (apparently) selfish “Democrats”, soccer-moms and war vets from coast to coast, that everything is just peachy over there.
‘Cuz last time I checked, something like 6-in-10 Americans thought it wasn’t going so well. Get to work!
Could you please point out which “kids” are getting killed? Last I checked, everyone who enlisted was a legal adult.
So he would have integrity if he advocated surrender?
Over prolonged and multitudinous failure? I mean, those aren’t your kids being maimed and killed on a daily basis, so why not “stay the course”, right?
Stubbornness and ignorance does not equal integrity either.
Why would he want it? Regardless of his standing in his party, deserved or otherwise, he is a U.S. Senator in no danger of losing his seat. He would give that up to be Sec’y of Defense for maybe 2 1/2 years, at best? Unless he thinks that would give him certain credibility to run in 2008 (unfortunately, credibility he has, a personality he doesn’t), or he has some grand plan to be architect of a victory in Iraq, it doesn’t make sense why he would want it to take it at this point.
You re right, Frank. You and Dugger might be the only ones left that believe we ve made progress in Iraq. Maybe you should join the WH s messaging team and help our belegeaured president convince the vast majority of these (apparently) selfish Democrats , soccer-moms and war vets from coast to coast, that everything is just peachy over there.
Therein is another dishonest tactic used by the left. If you say progress is being made, they turn around and say, “Oh right. Everything just wonderful over there!”
One would think self-proclaimed ‘progressives’ (a true misnomer in ever sense of the word), would at the very least, know what the definition of progress is. It is not the equivalent of saying “Everything is doing great!” or “peachy” as curmudgeon says.
But what does one expect from people whose only defense of their position on the war comes down to calling other people chickenhawks?
SF,
Could you please point out which kids are getting killed? Last I checked, everyone who enlisted was a legal adult.
So soldiers are hatched now? They don’t have parents, family?
They aren’t kids at 18, 19, & 20? Does it make you feel better that they had a few extra (legal) adult years in before they were killed? I’d say at 21, most people don’t have their heads screwed on tight, and still mostly rely on their parents for help and guidance. That’s a fucking kid.
The price of War is almost always paid with the blood of our youngest and bravest. Those who’d put their lives in our country’s hands, and trust that their sacrifice not be spent so frivolously.
Frank,
Unsmart?
Yes, that tactic is one of our favorites. You seem to have learned it well, Jay.
One would think self-proclaimed progressives (a true misnomer in ever sense of the word), would at the very least, know what the definition of progress is.
And therein lies another dishonest tactic used by the JayC. Time and again, the “progressive” left has defined the numerous and sundry ways in which this war is folly, and has – in fact – been a terrible mistake, a complete distraction from real efforts against Al Qaeda, and a botched attempt at nation-building where none should have taken place. Yet he’ll simply ignore all that because somewhere, in some report (most likely funded by our very own government) he’s read that a school has been built!
It’s not “wonderful” over there, it’s not “peachy”…it’s not even “good” or “better” than it was. The torture has not stopped, the borders are less secure, Al Qaeda has expanded, Iran has most likely gained territory, and the people now suffer under total chaos.
For all intents and purposes this war has stretched our military to the breaking point while terrorism has flourished worldwide. It’s bound to bring our economy to it’s knees (Congressional budgets don’t even account for the war), and our global influence and reputation has soured dramatically in the face of this perceived U.S. imperialism.
If it’s really so much “improved” over there JayC, why are we seeing the very Iraqis we’re trying to “liberate” opine on how it’s OK to kill our soldiers?
The very, very fragile “democracy” that currently exists, only does so because of Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Husaini Sistani’s persistence, and in spite of the Bush administration…not because of them. We are most likely trying to force Democracy to blossom in a dry, arid desert, where we’re only likely to get more death because of our country’s efforts.
But what does one expect from people whose only defense of their position on the war comes down to calling other people chickenhawks?
Sign up or shut up. It’s not the “only” defense, but I think that’s a pretty good argument, in leui of your support for such a debacle. If you are of military age, and you think it such a noble cause…why aren’t you over there fighting for it? What’s your answer?
Sign up or shut up.
You’re so cute when you act tough.
It s not the only defense, but I think that s a pretty good argument, in leui of your support for such a debacle.
It’s not an argument at all. Like I said, it’s a tactic used by people that cannot adequately defend their position. You can keep listing all those same things you continue to listen to, but they don’t coincide with the facts. Those coming from the boots on the ground, not some pinhead sitting in Washington DC or a reporter who never leaves his hotel in Baghdad.
For all intents and purposes this war has stretched our military to the breaking point
It has? How? There are more troops deployed overseas and afloat in other parts of the world than there are in Iraq. Close to 100,000 more and that doesn’t include numbers from Afghanistan. So let’s see the details on how it has stretched to the breaking point. You can’t just keep repeating it.
while terrorism has flourished worldwide
And what does our military have to do with that? Are you another one that advocates we just start dropping divisions into any country we want to start “killing terrorists?” Again with the DNC quotes, but nothing to support it.
a complete distraction from real efforts against Al Qaeda
Right. Which is why we nailed Al Qaeda’s number three guy last week.
Yet he ll simply ignore all that because somewhere, in some report (most likely funded by our very own government) he s read that a school has been built!
The Willis Tactic. When running out of arguments revert to bogus sarcastic arguments about schools being built.
or better than it was.
I guess we can lump you in with the 41% of Democrats who think things were better off with Saddam in power.
Nice.
“has – in fact – been a terrible mistake, ‘
Not really. Who on the left assesses the war on any other terms than George Bush lied? Who on the left left has a pro and con discussion of the war? Compares it to previous wars and their costs. Who on the left has entertained the trade-off of cost in terms of dollars and lives versus benefits/potential benefits as envisoned by the neocons? I know of no one on the left who has had just an honest discussion. No one. To do so would be to acknowledge the good points of the war along with the bad, (and it might even lead to some acknowledgement that Bush is a decent human being). The future potential good points along with the bad. Show me. All I see on the left is ‘Bush lied’.
Dugger
Bad tag. Second block is me.
I d say at 21, most people don t have their heads screwed on tight
That’s why most of them vote Democrat.
Number one, Dugger, you haven’t described the terms of an honest discussion about Iraq in the slightest. Particularly since the potential benefites we keep hearing about — transforming the middle east into a cradle of democracy — is little more than a neo-con fantasy itself, born from a self-aggrandizing vision of American’s unlimited military power. The plan was remove Hussein and democracy would flower. No one has ever explained in any coherent way how the logic behind this miraculous cause and effect. Instead we end up with war supporters pointing to any and every unrelated political development in the region as proof that the flowering is under way. Lebanon is all about Iraq and has nothing to do with Syria’s decades long policies finally falling apart after an assassination attempt. The United Arab Emirates makes modest democractic reforms and its all Bushes doing, nothing whatsoever to do with the recent death of the country’s monarch. And all the while no one says boo about the fact that Iran, the country we’re there to scare the most, elected a more hardlined government that’s thumbing it’s nose in the face of the American military in its backyard. Potential benefits indeed. We’ve now radically limited our options militarily and diplomatically in a region while simultaneously making it more volatile. You ask for future potential benefits to be factored in. The Right can’t even do that honestly. I’ve seen war supporters argue that a full-scale civil war would be a good thing — American had one afterall — and that the Lebanization of Iraq wouldn’t be such a bad thing because after 3 decades of sectarian violence, terror and occupation we’re starting see signs of hope. It’s easy to talk about future potential benefits when you begin with an infinite horizon. By that line of thinking I could justify an immediate withdrawl — afterall, Vietnam is now making market reforms and becoming a trading party. It took three decades but hey they came around. Chalk one up for victory on the infinite horizon.
The Right has to employ infinite horizons because this administraion has so completely fucked up the immediate and short term siutation. All because no one in this administration stopped for two seconds to think about the complexity and difficulty of nation building in the Middle East. Anyone who suggested that things might go wrong, that there were some serious downsides and major costs to this endeavor, was quickly hounded from the stage as anti-American, a Bush hater, a pessimist. From the earliest inklings of the insugrency Rumsfeld was telling us that all was well and that only a few “deadenders” hadn’t gotten the message yet. Then, in the thick of a two year long campaign of violence, Cheney tells us that the insurgency is in its “last throes.” If you want an honest discussion let’s be honest about everything here.
It’s laughable for you to suggest that the left isn’t being honest about Iraq when the whole policy has been driven by nothing but pipedreams, fantasies and lies. Yes lies. We now find out that the US intelligence angencies manufactured the INC, funded it and shaped the so-called intelligence that its exiles produced which it then fed back to the American press. The only thing was born of a feedback loop of bullshit. And you want an honest discussion now. Some of us have being trying to have one since 9-11.
Could someone please explain to me the validity of the argument “chickenhawks” and slogans like “sign up or shut up”? I understand that Democrats are against the war and have no respect for our troops that they resolve into disrespecting the job, but if I support our troops and what they’re doing, why is it neccessary that I serve? I mean think about — if the US was like the Dems wanted it .. wouldn’t the soldiers be unhappy that there is no support for them and what they’re doing? But alas, you Democrats don’t think about that because you’re an anti-American before you’re a citizen.
And if they still don’t have their heads screwed on by 40, then it’s almost a given that they will vote Republican.
“It s not an argument at all.”
Really? Jay C in your brilliant decimation of curmudgeon’s argument did you present a single fact, did you quote a single trustworthy source, did you quote anyone at all to support your argument?
How could Iraq be straining the military when we have bases all over the world? How indeed:
“To a civilian, it may not make sense that a war involving 130,000 troops could strain the 1.4 million-strong U.S. military to its breaking point. Military officers often say that “amateurs study tactics professionals study logistics.” The reason for this axiom is that even the simplest military task like moving a unit from point A to point B requires a Herculean logistical effort. Planes have to be scheduled; trains have to be contracted and loaded; ships must be diverted and filled with military equipment. Just consider what it takes to move a single tank company from Fort Stewart to Fallujah … Moving one tank company costs a fortune and requires hundreds of people. Now imagine you want to move an entire unit like the 3rd Infantry Division, with hundreds of tanks and thousands of other vehicles. The size and complexity of the task is staggering. It may cost as much as $1 billion to send a division to Iraq. And it can’t be done quickly. Major bases in the United States have a finite “throughput” capacity, meaning that they can only squeeze so many pieces of equipment out the door on any given day … ”
Go ahead and read the rest of it. It’s an article from last year. Has the situation gotten any better? When you say the Left’s talking point don’t coincide with the facts what facts are you talking about? You list none, mention none. You just stick them in the mouths of soldiers “on the ground” as if that gives these phantom facts actual weight and validity. The facts are that terrorism has continued apace around the world even as we’ve been arresting/killing/torturing number 3 guys and number 2 guys and top chiefs and personal drivers for four fucking years.
Blah, blah, blah. Do me a favor Ian, while you’re questioning the validity of the ‘chickenhawk’ meme, ponder the validity of the ‘Democrats hate the troops because they don’t like the war’ meme.
Or to frame it your way, if I support the troops and hope they get home safely, why is it necessary that I love the war that is being bungled and that they are paying the ultimate price for?
But alas, you Republicans only care about the troops as long as you can can use them – either as a tool for your nation-building or as a weapon against critics of your policies.
Pardon the skepticism, but in light of recent events are we referring to ACTUAL Iraqis or Lincoln group propagandists with Iraqi pseudonyms?
I can’t see that you are looking for an honest debate, either. All you seem concerned with is pushing the ‘Democrats hat the troops’, ‘Democrats love Saddam’ and ‘Democrats hate America’ talking points.
Considering it was seven years between WTC attack #1 and WTC attack #2, I think your ‘there haven’t been any attacks on American soil for four years’ is a fraud. Al-quaeda is an extremely patient enemy. And while there may have not been any attacks on the handful of American military targets you have named, only a fool would seriously claim that here have been no military fatalities as a result of terrorist activities in the last four years. And of course, you conveniently omit attacks on NON-American targets in that same time frame which have been numerous and devastating to several other countries.
Talk about unbelievable – you’re writing the book.
John S. — here you are making some huge whine that I am assuming something about you and then you finish off your “argument” — if that’s what you want to call it — by assuming something about me.
You didn’t answer my question anyways. I support the war and the troops but I don’t see how that is a reason for me to go sign up and serve.
frame,
really?
Dugger
Really? Jay C in your brilliant decimation of curmudgeon s argument did you present a single fact, did you quote a single trustworthy source, did you quote anyone at all to support your argument?
I said the ‘chickenhawk’ argument is not an argument.
I can’t count how many times I have linked to articles and pieces and reports showing the progress being made over there only to have them dismissed out of hand simply because they don’t fit within the “Bush Sucks” paradigm. Shit, you people even dismiss the words of actual IRAQIS because of that paradigm.
So quite frankly, it doesn’t matter. You don’t want to have an honest debate. All you want to do is continue to say what’s going on in Iraq is a total disaster. Why? Because ANY and I mean ANY acknowledgement of any sort of progress at all could be conceived as some kind of ’support’ for the President. And you and all the others will never let that happen. Ever. That’s what separates us. I can and have criticized the President on Iraq for quite a few things. But I have yet to see any of the Anti Bush Brigades So you continue to live in your fantasy world, wistfully counting the days until Harry Reid or Dick Durbin is elected President. Meanwhile, I’ll stay here in the real world.
The facts are that terrorism has continued apace around the world even as we ve been arresting/killing/torturing number 3 guys and number 2 guys and top chiefs and personal drivers for four fucking years.
Oh please. Name one attack on US soil in the last four fucking years. Point us to an attack on any US embassies, army barracks or warships in the last four years. You guys are unbelievable.
Ian – Lord only knows what you are blathering about now. A huge whine? It was your huge whine that I merely flipped on you. And what exactly did I ‘assume’ about you other than that which you explicitly stated?
In regards to your question, the chickenhawk meme is tired and weak because it undermines the real reasons to criticize de facto warmongerers. I thought I made that – and the fact that your rhetoric regarding troop-hating Democrats is equally as fraudulent – perfectly clear.
ian,
You didn t answer my question anyways. I support the war and the troops but I don t see how that is a reason for me to go sign up and serve.
If we were talking about fucking Stratego, maybe sitting on your ass in the comfort of your own home would be operative. But when real people are dying for a war that so clearly has no justification, and you continue to support said war, yes…you should be over there dying (or being maimed) in the place of someone who doesn’t want to be there because they believe this is the wrong war, at the wrong time. Besides that, the military is experiencing record shortfalls in the their recruitment goals. REAL support for the troops (from a warmonger that WANTS them to be there) would be to fucking BECOME a troop. Real support from someone that doesn’t support the war, but wants to support the troops, would be to bring them home.
John S.,
In regards to your question, the chickenhawk meme is tired and weak because it undermines the real reasons to criticize de facto warmongerers.
To me, this makes the assumption that they do, in fact, care. Supporters of the Iraq War of Choice are so invested in it for the personal arm-chair, hoo-rah, might-makes-right factor that they’ll continue to throw their support behind this debacle until there isn’t a building – or person – left standing. They’ve bought the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection, they believe the WMD’s are hidden inside an invisible lair and they really think that us fighting them over there, is keeping the Mall of America safe, over here.
JayC,
Shit, you people even dismiss the words of actual IRAQIS because of that paradigm.
Iraqis like the Vice President of IRAQ who has just joined the ranks of those calling Bush the biggest Bullshit Artist since P.T. Barnum?
10 bucks says you dismiss that particular Iraqi yourself!
mr.curmudgeon-
My point is that it is far more important – not to mention relevant – to take to task supporters of this war for their beliefs (the bogus Al-Qaeda connection, the insistence that there are WMD s or that us fighting them over there keeps us safe) rather than dismiss them by calling them chickenhawks.
U.S. forces will withdraw from Iraq as their mission is successfully accomplished.
Bush already declared “Mission Accomplished”….so when do our troops come home?
Ian,
Many on the right employ a version of the “chickenhawk” argument, but they haul it out on a different issue.
Whenever we talk about tax rates, some of us on the left find fault with the thinking that we should be giving tax breaks to high income earners while we’re a) at war and b) running huge deficits.
Typically, someone on the right will come along and holler about “class warfare.” They’ll say, “You want more government services? What makes you think it’s OK to spend someone else’s money to get them?” They find it hypocritical for me to be enthusiastic about government spending programs when the money isn’t going to come out of my pocket.
The “chickenhawk” argument is similar. There are some on the right who are rabidly enthusiastic about the war–but aren’t willing to put their own life on the line to “pay” for the war.
“Chickenhawk” is the left’s version of “class warfare.”
Progress in Iraq?
see here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2005/d20051013iraq.pdf
Criteria for Withdrawing Forces (”conditions – based” timetable)
{ from the abovementioned document }
U.S. forces will withdraw from Iraq as their mission is successfully accomplished. As noted in the July report, criteria for withdrawing Coalition Forces from Iraq are conditions-based, not calendar-based. There is not a timeline or milestones that directly tie the drawdown of Coalition forces to increased numbers of capable Iraqi battalions. Drawdown will occur in a phased, gradual manner as Iraqi forces become capable of taking the lead within areas of Iraq and in concert with Iraqi progress in political and economic capabilities. To assist in determining when conditions permit handing over security responsibility from
Coalition Forces to Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), the United States, the Iraqi government, and our Coalition partners have established the Coalition-Iraqi Joint Commission to Transfer Security Responsibility from Coalition Forces to ISF. Transfers will be effected on an area-by-area basis and will occur only with the approval of the Iraqi Prime Minister, the U.S. Ambassador, and the Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq. Transfer of responsibility will depend on achieving conditions for each area in such categories as:
” levels of present and projected insurgent activity;
” readiness and capabilities of Iraqi Security Forces;
” readiness and capabilities of relevant government institutions; and
” ability of Coalition Forces to reinforce the ISF should this become necessary.
The ability to meet these criteria will continue to be affected by progress in political, economic, and other areas. As reported previously, other conditions that will support and hasten success include the
continued reconciliation of the various ethnic communities in Iraq. Recent polling data indicate that the various groups within the Iraqi body politic have made impressive progress towards coexistence within a political process. Additionally, the increase in registered voters, combined
with polling data that indicate that Sunni Arabs believe that it was a mistake to boycott the January election, indicate that the Iraqi people are becoming active stakeholders in their own future. This will have an important impact on the security situation. The expanded engagement of the international community is vital for the security situation within Iraq and in the region. Continuing United Nations and NATO commitments are similarly critical to Iraqi and regional stability and security. The March 2005 Arab League summit ended with a promise for increased diplomatic representation between its member states and Baghdad,
along with a call to restructure Iraq s debt within the Arab League. The engagement of Iraq s neighbors will be critical to encouraging the Iraqi people to move peacefully down the path of political progress, as well as closing down the continuing stream of foreign terrorists entering Iraq.
Does “curmudgeon”mean ‘witless’?
Frank D-
There’s only one tiny problem with that whole entire spiel you threw up explaining what our criteria for withdrawl are:
There’s not a single objective clearly stated.
The entire fitst paragraph says little more than “here are the conditions that need to be met”, despite the overly verbose framing. Then, it lists bulleted (so they must be important!) items of what the conditions are. Not a single one states an objective.
What are the levels supposed to be? 10 insurgent attacks a day? 5 attacks a day? None? It says absolutely nothing about what the levels need to be – just that the levels are a factor. This is not a clear stated objective.
Looks like familiar territory. What does the readiness to be? What capabilities do the ISF need to have exactly? Stating that the ISF is a factor is not an objective.
It’s like deja vu all over again. What does the government need to look like? What level of readiness and cspbility is required in oreder to fulfill the criteria? Stating that the criteria is that it is a criteria is NOT an objective.
This is getting silly now. I am optimistic – although not confident – that you will be getting the idea by now.
Then of course we have the closing paragraph which pretty much stays the course. Tha ability to gauge whether criteria have been fulfilled depends on other criteria. Other criteria will determine the speed of fulffilling the previously mentioned criteria. And so, in that entire thing there is not a single clearly stated objective that anybody can follow and say “We’ve finally accomplished this criteria.” Which makes the stated criteria for withdrawl complete bullshit.
The fact that gobble it down as if it somehow proves there is a navigable plan or that it clearly states our strategy makes me wonder if “Frank D.” means “witless”.
JS – Did you read the 44 page plan?
I’m not saying you should, but I am saying that what you did read was a conclusion to the plan.
I’d really love to hear from a Democratic poltician — not a blogger who uses a tortured construction (complete with a typo that makes the tortured construction nearly gibberish) to turn a phrase I used on somebody else against me — that there might be a sensible plan for withdrawing our troops, other than shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater. Then I might think about it.
Until then, cries for withdrawal disguised as “Give us a plan!” “Give us a plan!” aren’t just witless — they’re deadly.
other than shouting Fire in a crowded theater. Then I might think about it.
The entire Iraq War of Choice was about shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater, and that doesn’t seem to bother you.
Frank D-
Illuminate for me what the ACTUAL quantifiable objectives are for fulfilling the criteria.
I’d really love to hear from a Republican a plan that isn’t cyclical bullshit – not a blogger who thinks that the bullshit is a plan because it is in writing. I’m not surprised that typos are a stumbling block for you, seeing as how your tortured logic can’t get you to see that the “plan” is nothing more than saying:
The criteria for withdrawl are based on criteria that are defined by criteria and can be acheived depending on certain other criteria.
People like you who accept this nonsense are more than witless – you’re deadly to what America stands for.
And yes, I did read the entire document. There’s not a single clearly stated objective in there that can be measured in any way. And if you’re so keen to allow the Bush administration to say, “Trust us! We’ll let you know when the criteria are filled.”, then you’re an even bigger idiot than I originally thought.
Since you think I’m an idiot, you’re obviously prepared with some cleverly crafted comeback for whatever I might say. The report was a progress report — a report of progress.
What does a progress report tell someone (not you, obviously, but other, thinking, people)? It describes progress towards a goal. It says we have done X amount of this, so that means we want to do more of this.
You want the government to tell you and a bunch of other liberals what it plans to do, so they can mull it over, and critique it, and analyze it, until Iraq does become another Viet Nam: A micro – managed disaster that proved fatal to the people we fought the war for, and betrayed the men who fought and died there.
About 2 and one – half million men fought in Viet Nam and 58,000 died there. There’s probably 2 million men still alive, and over a million of them vote. They’re not going to let it happen again.
Yup, Frank D., you are definitely an idiot if you can say:
And yet the long post you threw up is titled “Criteria for Withdrawing Forces”, which is what we were discussing.
Keep up the good conservative work. Your disconnect from reality is as fervent as your patron saint, Bush.
From my comment:
John S.- hole : you read like a liberal
Frank D.-
Oh, I almost forgot to spell it out for you:
Progress is “movement, as toward a goal; advancement towards an objective”.
You cannot measure progress when you have no measurable goals or clearly stated objectives.
Not that I expect you to grasp this concept.
Frank D.-
Your complete inability to address the bullshit points you bring up when challenged, and to be impressed by long-winded written documents that say absolutely nothing is second to none. You keep repeating yourself like a broken record, and have yet to address the fact that the “conditions based” criteria set forth in that document for withdrawing forces says absolutely nothing that can be deemed as a quantifiable objective.
You read like an ignoramus conservative.