To be responsible, it seems to me, one needs to stop defining success in Iraq as the absence of terrorist attacks.
So the presence of terrorist attacks is obviously a sign of success in Iraq. Up is down, etc.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Dumbing America Down
December 5th, 2005
65 Comments
So the presence of terrorist attacks is obviously a sign of success in Iraq.
Christ, do you even READ this stuff or are you deliberately leaving out the context hoping your majority liberal audience won’t bother clicking over? Right after that sentence is this one:
As Senator Joe Lieberman recently suggested, a better measure of success might be that a vast majority of Iraqis — tens of millions — are on the side of the democratic government, while a comparatively small number are opposed to that government. I would suggest that this gives the Iraqi people an enormous advantage over time.
What he’s saying is, “It’s not simply about stopping terrorist attacks.”
Look, if the security situation in Iraq doesn’t improve–it doesn’t matter if Iraq is the very model of democracy.
What Rummy is saying is akin to bragging about what a great media room you have as the house it’s in is burning down.
That’s immaterial, and you know it. He’s saying “never mind the terror attacks, Joe Lieberman’s in the tank too!”
So when are you signing up, Dugger?
Dugger,
Fuck off. Seriously.
Rummy got it right. It may be too complex for the “duhh Bush lied’ crowd though. Terrorists can attack almost forever, anyplace, because of the nature of terrorism. If all the terrorists had to fight were “cut and run” Democrats, they would have already won in Iraq. How to beat a Democrat: bomb a bus, assassinate a few judges and they’ll declare the war is lost and whimper home with their tails between their legs.
Dugger
That should say- “how to beat a chickenhawk”.
Ask General Howard Dean how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory -
“Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don’t belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don’t have enough troops to do the job there and its a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Musab) Zarqawi…”
What Middle East country you miight ask General Dean?
“Dean didn’t specify which country the US forces would deploy to, but he said he would like to see the entire process completed within two years. He said the Democrat proposal is not a ‘withdrawal,’ but rather a ’strategic redeployment’ of U.S. forces.”
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=C36A87B9-63A0-4CDE-AA91-B41571AFD3AF
If all the terrorists had to fight were chickenhawk republicans, they’d have already won. How to be a chickenhawk- take away his deferment and his keyboard and he’ll declare the war is lost and whimper home with his silver spoon between his lips.
“Dumbing America Down”
Well how else do you think we can get the point across to people like Jadegold.
Ian:
Wanna see something funny?
Gosh, one would think Catholic School would teach a 16 year-old the difference between “through” and “threw.”
“Iraqui”???
And the grammar….ooofff.
Maybe mom and dad could get a rebate on tuition.
Randy:
Do you really think we’re winning in Iraq?
If you do, I suspect it was your pipe and nickel bag in Michael Irvin’s car.
but this is blogging
Yeah. It’s only public writing that hangs your ignorance and/or lack of editing skills out in front of everyone. C’mon…at least pay lip service to the idea that you’ve acquired an education by now.
quite off topic.
if i was writing a term paper i would have double checked and what not — but this is blogging. go back to touting your fake military creds, i liked that.
So what’s it about anyway? I thought this was about the war on terror. I thought the war on terror justified everything the CIA and this administration is doing in rolling back your civil rights.
One last time, so they can hear you in the back: what’s this about if it’s not about terrorism?
Jadegold: Your “comment” to Ian had to be your lowest moment on the Internet. I’m pretty sure it’s the lowest thing I’ve ever seen anybody do on the Internet. I find it hard to believe that you are a veteran, but if you actually are, I am ashamed to be in your company.
You should be ashamed of yourself, and if you were a real man, you would apologize. I know you, Jadegold. You are scum. So, I don’t expect you to be ashamed or to apologize.
Concordian: You’re not a whole lot better — double teaming a teenager. Way to go.
When are you signing up Olliver? You support the mission in Afganistan, don’t you? The chickenhawk thing really does not help your cause.
Oh give it a rest, Frank. He’s sixteen, which means he’s old enough to take it. And if you’re sixteen and haven’t learned to use a fucking spellchecker, at the very least, you have larger problems than being razzed at oliverwillis.com for your poor spelling.
Jesus H. Christ.
So when are you signing up, Dugger?
Sorry, OW. Already did my time (27). When are you signing up?
Dugger
Mouse,
“I thought this was about the war on terror. ‘
and other causes/reasons, as has been enunciated multiple times – to the point that those don’t get it by now do so willfully.
Dugger
So let me get this straight. Rumsfeld says that a little terrorism here and there is acceptable as long as the vast majority of average Iraqis are able to still live free in a democratic Iraq? So all we have to do is get terrorism down to, say, an irritant level? That’s the plan?
He s sixteen, which means he s old enough to take it.
Old enough to take what? Being insulted by you? Is it your job to dish it out? Who gave you the assignment — Jademold? Grow the f*c* up.
I get that the reasons given for war have changed and interchanged depending on who was talking and when. But that’s not the point here.
The point is that Rumsfeld (and by extension, those who are defending his statement) is now saying that terrorism–or its absence–is no longer the measure by which we can define success in Iraq.
Considering everything that the U.S. has done to protect itself from terrorism, how can Rumsfeld now say that terrorism isn’t the point?
Mouse nad frame,
Rumsfeld is saying that sucess in Iraq can and should be measured in terms other than just terrorist attacks. Makes sense doesn’t it? He’s not saying they aren’t significant but that we can have success in Iraq and there can still be terrorist attacks in Iraq. There are terrorists attacks in Israel but I would call that country a Mideast success story.
Dugger
So essentially what you’re saying is that we can declare victory in Iraq if Iraqis can get to a place where terrorism is not the focus of their lives, but rather only a nuisance?
Jadegold,
Yes, I would say we have won according to the details set out in the Iraq Liberation act of 1998.
“While there will continue to be fighting in Iraq and many challenges remain, the ultimate outcome is no longer a mystery”
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2005/10/end-of-beginning.html
Old enough to take what? Being insulted by you? Is it your job to dish it out? Who gave you the assignment Jademold? Grow the f*c* up.
Frank, I anxiously await a link to a scan of your license to criticize others in a public forum. You do have one, don’t you? Since that’s what you’re implying everyone (or at least everyone who disagrees with you) needs.
Piss off.
“Yes, I would say we have won according to the details set out in the Iraq Liberation act of 1998.”
So we can leave now?
Jay C, and those that share his outlook, will never, ever, find fault with those that support the conquest of Iraq.
“We have always been at war with Oceana.”
Frameone,
Only if you would like the country to backslide into its former self -
“…Today, there is a real chance of a vastly better result–precisely because the insurgency survived, because it wasn’t quickly defeated. Sunni intransigence needed to be crushed slowly; a quick in-and-out war was not enough to kill the dream of forever tyrannizing Iraqi Kurds and Shia. More important, thousands of senseless murders over the past 32 months have taught Iraqis–Sunni, Shia, and Kurd alike–just how vicious Zarqawi and his allies are. That lesson will have very useful consequences for the long-term health of the region.”
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w051205&s=stuntz120605
But you knew this already.
Hi Frank .. thanks .. I’m actually going to be 18 in a few months, but it doesn’t matter what my age is as the only thing liberals can do to win arguments is personally attack others.
Frameone,
Well maybe you need another reason not to retreat that is not so historical -
“…It is thus essential for the new Iraqi Army to be given time to develop properly, and be trained to an acceptable standard for a fledgling force to defend not only it s country, but also itself as a stable and enduring institution.”
“The old guard was malignant with corruption and depravity. It was never trusted and always feared. But with every passing day, American NCOs are providing the impetus to remake the Iraqi soldiers in their own image. It’s hard to go wrong with the most powerful and well trained army in the history of the world as your model. Special Forces teams are working with them one-on-one, and infantry platoons such as my own patrol with them daily; leading by example, displaying how a professional military looks and acts, and especially how it does not.”
http://americancitizensoldier.blogspot.com/2005/12/credo-of-retro-nco.html
No Randy, I wasn’t aware that a long drawn out insurgency that has lead to the deaths of 2000 plus US soldiers was a good thing. I did not know that William J. Stuntz and the editors over at TNR had grown this insane.
Randy –
I don’t have a problem with trainging a competent Iraqi military and police force. I just don’t understand why the administration can’t give the American and Iraqi people an estimated timetable for all this occur. One year? Two years? I don’t buy the “secret timetable” arguments. Announcing a timetable wouldn’t give the insurgents any more strategic advantage than they have now. They know were training Iraqis to defend the country, what difference does announcing a timetable make? I also don’t buy the idea that the insurgents will wait us out if we announce a timetable. If were training a competent Iraqi military to take our place, what difference would it make? The only reasons for not announcing a timetable are a) the administration has no plan for completing the mission b) it doesn’t want to be held accountable for any changes in the plan or missed benchmarks along the way c) it has no intention of ever reducing America’s military presence in Iraq. Otherwise, announcing a timetable is a win for public relations with little to no strategic downside.
Concordian, I was suggesting that the barbaric jademold doesn’t need your assistance in roughing up a teenager. But, as they say, “Lie down with dogs…”
Frank:
I wasn’t previously aware that knocking someone for poor spelling and/or grammar in published material is now considered “roughing them up.” Or is it “barbaric”?
First, he’s old enough to stick up for himself. Second, if you can’t stand a little criticism, don’t publish your material. And finally, if agreeing that public display of poor spelling and grammar is bad form now constitutes “rising with fleas,” then I suppose I’ll just have to get used to Frontline treatments.
Man, talk about lowering your standards.
Still, I’m disturbed to think that you and others believe that the longerand more violent the insurgency, the better it is for our purposes. That’s simply crazy.
I haven’t a leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing typos and misspellings but how about basing political attacks on poor math skills?
“However, Oliver forgot (whoops!) to put this tidbit in his post:
bHe added that Texas now has three African Americans serving in Congress, up from two before the redistricting.
DeLay hates blacks so much that his redistricting plan give two more seats to them than before. Oh that racist, Tom Delay.”
http://thepoliticalteen.net/2005/12/03/racistdemocrats/
I have it set on my keyboard that Ctrl+B pastes — I don’t know how to reset it back to the originally function of Ctrl+V — .. but I am too lazy to fix that mistake as some tool already pointed out the error.
“some tool” See Frank, the kids fine on his own out in the deep waters.
Ok, fine. Then you can be as rude and crude to him as you are to everyone else. How delightful for you.
Hey I haven’t used a single rude or crude word in this thread. I will note, however, that I still haven’t gotten any clarification on what Rumsfeld is talking about. Is he really saying that that we can declare victory in Iraq if Iraqis can get to a place where terrorism is not the focus of their lives, but rather only a nuisance? Is this our plan now?
As is usual, frame is intentionally being obtuse, and bastardizing the obvious meaning of a statement, so he can twist it into something else. They are various metrics available to judge success, and the existence of terrorists attacks is not the only one. I will concede that it is absolutely impossible to elminate terrorism, just like it is impossible to eliminate crime, but that does not mean we should not continue to fight back against both.
That’s great JD. We sat through months of Right-wing “surrender monkey” crap during the election last year after Kerry dared to admit that it was impossible to elimiate terrorism — that the best we could hope for was to reduce terrorism to a “nuisance” — and now when Rumsfeld says pretty much the same thing, you’re all on board with your semantics and rationals, metrics and bullshit (I just can’t keep that rude and crude side down). You guys are utterly, utterly bankrupt.
Oh no JD. You don’t get off that easy. Rumsfeld is saying that eliminating terrorism should be off the table as a measure of victory which means that as long as other elements fall into we can accept a certain level of terrorism in Iraq and declare mission accomplished. Tell me he’s saying something else. But that is not what Rumsfeld or any other Republican was saying during the campaign. Remember when Bush went off script and told Matt Lauer that he didn’t think the war on terror was a war that could be won? You just agreed with that statement when you said that no one could ever possibly eliminate terrorism completely. But back in the campaign he was on Limbaugh’s show the very next morning backpeddling like a madman to argue that the he meant no such thing: “It’s a totally different kind of war. But we will win it.” The Right was saying the exact opposite of what Rumsfeld said. The exact opposite. Now you come along and defend his sorry ass. I twisted his words, you say, but you can’t look at the record, you can’t defend the record all you can do is run from it: “Oh I didn’t say it was acceptable.” Did Kerry? Did Kerry say there was an acceptable level of terrorism? But there you have Guiliani accussing him of saying it. During the campaign if Kerry had said the exact same thing that Rumsfeld said you guys would have crucified him. You would have burned him at the stake. Totally, totally bankrupt.
Here’s Giuliani — your sides fucking moderate — talking about Kerry’s comments:
“The idea that you can have an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening. How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent people that are killed, that we re going to tolerate a certain acceptable [level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then we ll stop thinking about it? This is an extraordinary statement. I think it is not a statement that in any way is ancillary. I think this is the core of John Kerry s thinking. This does create some consistency in his thinking.”
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15504
During the campaign an acceptable level of terrorism is frightening. Now according to Rumsfeld and guys like Dugger and you, there is an acceptable level of terrorism and not only that, when we hit it, we can declare victory. I’ll say it again, totally, completely bankrupt.
Where did I say, or even imply, that it is ever acceptable ? Not being able to ever completely eliminate something, and condoning a certain level of something are simply not the same thing.
Yes, Frank, I admit…criticizing poor grammar is rude and crude. You win. Bully for you. I expect it won’t be too much longer before we hear that you’ve personally seen to it that Lynn Truss has been bound, gagged and shipped off to Gitmo to suffer for her sins.
Would you please go sit in your corner now and let Ian fight his own battles? He’s a big boy, after all.
And JD, I think Frame’s closer to the facts on this one than you. This is the same class of rhetoric from Rumsfeld that we got when we were told that “freedom is messy.” He’s looking for wiggle room. I understand and agree that there are different metrics for success. But Frame is correct in pointing out that Rumsfeld is essentially suggesting that our final definition of “success” is likely not to include the criterion “total elimination of terrorist acts.”
Which is, no matter how you slice it, an admission that there is a certain level of chaos that we’re willing to live with. A level that is “acceptable.” That, of course, is exactly the sort of reasonable statement that Rumsfeld’s leashholders demonized Kerry for making.
The problem here is not what Rumsfeld says. He’s right, for once. There’s no reasonable way that we can quantify “success” in Iraq as “the absence of terrorist acts.” Or at least not with the money and troops we’re willing to commit. Congratulations to him for admitting the truth.
The problem is that his bosses and allies slagged Kerry left and right for admitting the same truth — that we cannot and will not be able to eliminate terrorism completely. At some point, you have to decide that you’re willing to live with a certain level of risk. We all do this every day…I’m not sure why this calculus should be different.
If you’re willing to call Rumsfeld “right,” but not willing to admit that Kerry was also right, and that Giuliani and the assorted other Republican mudslingers were wrong to characterize his remarks as they did, then Frame’s right … you’re ethically bankrupt.
“the kid” ..
If he is speaking the truth now, why are you attempting to twist his words and excoriate him ?!
Unlike you, I am not speaking for these people. I do not see where any of the quotes you have provided condone or accept terrorism.
Now you are criticizing me for defending something you admit to be true? And I am morally and ethically bankrupt ?!
I intended to say he was “not wrong”, simply because, as I pointed out, his choice of words left something to be desired.
Ugh. I smell a lot of “We had to destroy the village in order to save it” coming off that quote.
And of course Isreal is a success. As Concordian says, Rumsfeld is speaking the truth NOW. But he and the administration were singing exactly the opposite tune all through the campaing. I’d like to see you find a single Republican during the campaign who held out the level of violence we see in Israel as a model for what we’re hoping to achieve in Iraq. And since you aren’t running from anything, I’d also like you to take the Guiliani challenge:
“How do you explain that to the people who are beheaded or the innocent people that are killed, that we re going to tolerate a certain acceptable [level] of terrorism, and that acceptable level will exist and then we ll stop thinking about it?”
How ’bout it JD? Give us a draft of the speech Bush will give to address all the beheadings and killings that happen after we declare victory based on a wide range of other metrics? Again, Rumsfeld is speaking the truth now but durng the campaign those who spoke the same truth were pilloried as pussies and traitors. Look at the difference in tone between Rumsfeld, Dugger and you now compared to your right-wing brethern Giulliani then. Now its all metrics and complexities and levels of success. But back then it was all bloody rhetoric about beheadings and murdered innocents. It doesn’t matter what you said then, you are now defending this totally bankrupt administration. Way to go.
You are correct, terrorism can never be eliminated completely. Only a fool would think that it could be. However, either intentionally or not, you seem to want to make this out to be something that it is not, an acceptance of a certain level of terrorism. Nobody is saying that it is acceptable. I am not trying to defending anybody’s record here or run away from anything, unlike yourself, who takes it upon himself to repudiate all that is Bush. I am simply saying that given the context, the meaning which you are giving to the words stated is not, IN MY OPINION, what the speaker intended.
Dugger gave a great example earlier – would you define Israel as a success, despite the continued existence of terrorism there ?
By the way, you will be hard pressed to show that I repudiated Kerry’s comments. He could have been more judicious in his choice of words, but he was not wrong.
“I am simply saying that given the context, the meaning which you are giving to the words stated is not, IN MY OPINION, what the speaker intended.”
Pray tell us again, in your own words, what you think the speaker intends?
Again, I’m with Frame…please elucidate exactly what you think he intended, because I’m sorry to say that it looks to me as though you’re splitting hairs. If it’s not an “acceptable” level, then what, precisely, is it, and how does it differ substantially in definition from “acceptable.”
Frankly, I think Rumsfeld really did mean “acceptable.” For better or worse, he and his superiors find lots of things “acceptable.” After all, a certain level of looting was acceptable after Baghdad fell, because freedom is messy. Apparently, a certain level of detainee abuse is acceptable, because we need to get information out of those sorry fuckers at any cost. A certain number of civilian and friendly-fire casualties are acceptable…c’est la guerre.
It’s all of a piece, to me. This is exactly the kind of talk we’ve come to expect from the Bush Administration, and most particularly from Rumsfeld…these soft circumlocutions that dance around the point without ever quite making it firmly enough to trigger any real alarms.
He could have been more judicious in his choice of words, but he was not wrong.
Speaking of dancing around the point, those are really nice tap shoes. Is it really that hard to type the phrase “John Kerry might have chosen his words more judiciously, but he was right”? Sure, I’m doing the same kind of hairsplitting I’m accusing you of, but only because I think it’s funny. “Not wrong” and “right” are not equivalent, of course, but they’re functionally identical in this context. I just find it amusing that you apparently can’t bring yourself to put “Kerry” and “right” in the same sentence.
And by way of correcting my own errors in the absence of an “edit” function, Lynn Truss should actually be spelled “Lynne” Truss.
Why is it that you folks attempt to make anybody to the right of you defend any statement made by anybody to the right of you, as though this set of people is some monolithic group that has singular thoughts ?
My you’re a slippery one. I’m twisting Rumsfeld’s words but you can’t even tell us what he’s saying?
I happen to think he’s saying that eliminating terrorism is not a reasonable measure of success for our endeavor in Iraq. Rather if we make significant progress in other areas then a certain level of violence will be acceptable within our definition of victory.
That isn’t twisting his words, unless you misunderstand how I’m using the word “acceptable.” I’m not saying Rumsfeld thinks terrorism is acceptable, but he is saying that a certain level of terrorism has to be acceptable because that’s reality folks.
That makes sense to me, but it also made sense to me when Kerry expressed the same idea in the campaign when the Right went for his throat. You see, JD, you cannot defend Rumsfeld now without indicting the entire administration as the most viscious sort of hypocrites. You seem to know that but you can’t bring yourself to accept it. Instead you play the same old rhetorical games. “I’m not defending anyone, I don’t speak for these people, we’re not monolithic.” And yet now you can’t even answer the question put forth by a mainstream leader of the Republican party, Giulliani. You won’t do it. Because you know that the standard Giullani set for Kerry condemns Rumsfeld too. Back when Giulliani set that standard he was doing this administrations dirty work: attacking the truth with viscious smears and lies. Now that this administration has discovered the truth, now that it has been forced to accept it, we have to forget what was said, we have to look away from the past, we can’t answer the questions we used to ask. Unbelievable.
Actually, JD, I think the problem is that (and I can only speak for myself here) you’re not taking the same meaning away from Rumsfeld’s comments that I am. I can’t be sure of this, because you seem loath to explain exactly what you think he’s saying. I find truth in my interpretation of his comments. I might in yours, too, if I knew what it was (other than, apparently, not mine).
I do not see where any of the quotes you have provided condone or accept terrorism.
First, you’re artificially conflating “condone” with “accept,” which I’m sure you’re aware is deceptive. Accepting something does not automatically mean you condone it…the meanings are quite distinct.
Second, I wasn’t suggesting that the provided notes do any such thing. I was merely noting that Rumsfeld’s rhetorical style in these most recent comments — i.e. basically saying that there’s an acceptable level of terrorism without coming right out and saying there’s an acceptable level of terrorism — is consistent with his circumlocution in other cases. Rumsfeld rarely says anything outright … he dances around the point ad nauseum because he comes from a school of political thought that places plausible deniability above all else. He can always protest that he never said there was an acceptable level of terrorist activity, when in fact that is exactly what he said.
I’m not twisting his words at all, neither am I “excoriating” him for anything other than a persistent unwillingness to speak clearly — and I can certainly see why you wouldn’t consider that a problem.
If I might jump back in, I think what Rumsfeld might be alluding to is the fact that there is no way to prevent terrorist attacks in a Muslim country no matter how long we stay. Now Rumsfeld didn’t actually say that because that would cause a huge sh!t storm. But radical Muslims have a habit of using bombs instead of ballot boxes.
Frameone,
By the way TNR is not a conservative mag as you suggested above.
Great, Randy. From now on I’ll listen to what Rumsfeld says and not what he means.
And it’s understood that TNR is not a conservative mag. But that doesn;t mitigate the idiocy of the argument presented: Long wars are better than short wars because grievous violence builds character and teaches valuable lessons.
not to mention the fact that you mobilized it in defense of this administration’s war policy.
Maybe Kerry was right? Maybe? Gimme a break.
Do you think it is possible to completely stop terrorist attacks in Iraq or any country with a sizable militant muslim community? I don’t think you can stop the jihadis from blowing up people and chopping off heads. Maybe Kerry was right. Get the attacks down to a level that is a nuissance (similar to Israel), and call it a day.
“Long wars are better than short wars because grievous violence builds character and teaches valuable lessons.”
Obviously you don’t agree with the argument laid out by the author in the TNR piece, but I thought it was convincing in the context given.