"Iraq is a total mess and we are responsible"
Tweet
It’s not every day that conservatives, especially conservative bloggers, admit the truth — but here you go.
53 Responses to “"Iraq is a total mess and we are responsible"”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
“Iraq is a total mess and we are responsible”
[Source: Oliver Willis: Like Kryptonite To Stupid] quoted: It’s not every day that conservatives, especially conservative bloggers, admit the truth — but here you go…
Too little, too late have these blogging wingnuts stopped clapping louder and opened their eyes. Damn them all.
So if one conservative blogger says Iraq is a mess, and some on-the-outside miltary types, then it is true? So what if other generals and other bloggers say otherwise? Are the only ones not ‘lying’ the ones that agree w/you?
One of the nice things about being on the ‘right’ side, is that we have true diversity of opinion. If someone on your side speaks up, he’s gone.
Yea, Republicans are tolerant of even centrist views. Like Joe Schwarz from Michigan. Or Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island. Oh, that’s right, one of them lost their primary and the other one will.
Yeah diverse conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, firing staffers for writing papers critical of Bush policy. If the right was any more diverse they’d be frikkin Cybermen.
“we have true diversity of opinion”
That’s right! Some conservatives think liberals should all be killed, while other conservatives just consider that to be “humor.” It’s a beautiful rainbow of serious thought! Civilization thanks you!
“So what if other generals and other bloggers say otherwise?”
Oh, Dugger. You are truly priceless.
Or, to put the previous four posts more succinctly, oh shut up Dugger.
So the evil Dugger suggests conservatives have diversity of opinion and that progressives are sorely lacking the same.
So, I was expressing a diverse viewpoint on this progressive site and thus the open minded, progressive response to this suggestion of their intolerance to others viewpoints is (TADA!!!):
“Or, to put the previous four posts more succinctly, oh shut up Dugger.”
Prosecution rests, your honor.
Dugger, you haven’t visted RedState, have you? Ever tried posting on Free Republic with a moderate view? How about LGF? Are you actually acquainted with the conservative movement, or do you just read OW.com?
Dugger,
I believe you were asked to shut up because of the monumental stupidity of your post. We only have so much Advil on hand.
There are honest differences of opinions and then there’s total denial of reality. Iraq is a mess on every level. Anyone, right now, arguing that things are on track and going great in Iraq isn’t expressing a different opinion based on a reasonable interpretation of the facts, they are expressing pure, ideological fantasy.
Dr. Anatole suggests an interesting experiment: Log on the DailyKos and post a diary supporting Bush (of course this would have to be in a moderate voice: “I think Bush’s policy on X is correct because of such-and-such reasons”, not “DemonRats suck! Bush pwns j00!”). Do the converse at Free Republic (again “I think BUsh is totally wrong on X because of…”, not “Chimpy McHitlerburton is turning us into Nazi Germany!”).
See how long the posts survive in both places.
“Ever tried posting on Free Republic with a moderate view? How about LGF?”
Ever tried defending Bush at DemocraticUnderground? How about DailyKos?
I don’t think either side has the moral high ground when it comes to the mean-spiritedness and hate of its kook fringes.
I think that we are responsible from freeing warring factions from the oppressive boot of Saddam Hussein (which kept them in line), but not responsible for creating those factions or fomenting their wars.
As I pointed out in a previous thread, sectarian warfare following the lifting of an oppressive regime is common and expected. It is a known risk and, in my opinion, not a sufficient reason to cause us to automatically oppose the removal of violent or oppressive regimes from power.
The real question is, how do we stop sectarian warfare without resorting to violence? Obviously the Bush administration has done a poor job with this. Yet the ‘alternative’ proposed by the Left is cutting and running. How does this solve the problem and not hand Al Qaeda a huge moral victory — just like the victory recently handed to Hezbollah by the Israelis?
If liberals truly believed that the military is the problem and not the solution, then I would expect to see Jesse Jackson or Bill Clinton sitting down with warring Iraqi factions and negotiating peace agreements between them, thus shaming Bush and Rumsfeld’s heavy-handed use of force.
“As I pointed out in a previous thread, sectarian warfare following the lifting of an oppressive regime is common and expected.”
Apparently by everyone except the Bush administration.
And while were on the subject of tolerance I would just love to see the Right Wing reaction to a Jackson or Clinton trip to Iraq to negotiate a political settlement: “BILL CLINTON: THE NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN OF OUR TIMES.”
Wonderful.
To turn it around Mike, where is the right wing leader calling for more troops? Where is the right winger who will stand up and say we need 400,000 more troops and to get them we need a draft? Anyone want to campaign on escalation?
Ever tried defending Bush at DemocraticUnderground? How about DailyKos?
My DKos UID is #207, so I have been there a long time. What is your UID there, so I can see what happened to your diary or your posts supporting Bush?
Wait. You didn’t post one because you have no UID? I see. So your opinion of DKos is…informed by what? The rabid nutwingers on the crazy right-wing sites?
Excellent!
how do we stop sectarian warfare without resorting to violence? Obviously the Bush administration has done a poor job with this. Yet the ‘alternative’ proposed by the Left is cutting and running.
I proposed an alternative in 2003. I said don’t do it.
Do I look like a genius now? Me and hundreds of millions of other geniuses worldwide?
Now that our advice was ignored, we’re supposed to come up with a “plan” for a situation where no possible plan will have a good outcome.
Tell me again why no one listened to the people like me who were right from the beginning, and why we should pay any attention to those who have been wrong now for three years plus.
If your manhood would be shattered by a retreat from Iraq, why aren’t you there staying the course? My contempt for those who would put others in harm’s way while avoiding it themselves is indescribable.
Mike and Dugger, I need not remind you that you are expressing an opposing point of view here on OW.com, a centrist progressive website. Among your critics, there is a wide diversity of opinion from OW himself, who is pretty middle of the road, to ex-Republicans like myself to people I assume to be very liberal, like frame or factcheck. We like it here and are given a great deal of liberty to express our opinions.
I once posted a similar post on RedState in which I argued that increasing the power of the state to spy on its own citizens was not conservative. I am banned from RedState.
There is no equivalence between the two sides of the aisle and it is not worth wasting your time trying to argue that there is.
“So if one conservative blogger says Iraq is a mess, and some on-the-outside miltary types, then it is true? So what if other generals and other bloggers say otherwise?”
That’s an interesting observation, Dugger.
Maybe you could point us to those “generals and other bloggers” who still insist things are going swimmingly in Iraq?
Saddam Hussein wasn’t violent?!? Okay, whatever…
Funny how Dugger sees the fact that we’ve lost a war as a moment to toot his horn for conservative “diversity of opinion.” And look what the fruits of GOP opinion have been: thousands of dead Americans and Iraqis thrown away FOR NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER. Better go get your morality checked, Dugger. Your ethics are on the fritz again.
Saddam Hussein wasn’t violent?!? Okay, whatever…
Shorter Farris: Look over there!
I am tolerant of other people’s viewpoints, Dugger. In you’re case it’s entirely personal.
How wrong you are, Duros. The very question in 2003 Repack Rider claims to have answered (along with his millions of cohorts) was “what do we do”? Their answer was: leave Saddam in power to inflict his own brand of Abu Gharib-ism over the country whilst in a race with Ahmadinejad to see who could use the most inflamatory, anti-US extremist rhetoric.
For you to allege that there have been trade-offs and consequences (unintended or otherwise) thanks to our decision to go into Iraq, then you certainly have to acknowledge there would have been trade-offs and consequences of NOT going in.
Abu Ghraib-ism. That’s funny.
Scary, scary rhetoric! And there’s a race to use it, even! I know I’m scared. But Farris is the most scared of all! So frightenened that’s he’s willing to throw thousands of his fellow citizens into the wood chipper so he can stop “extremist rhetoric.” Why he thinks he has any credibility, having pushed a lost war for NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER is a mystery for the ages…
SaveFarris, you have been reduced to incoherent babble. There are leaders in every country who make a living by using anti-U.S. rhetoric. Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro come to mind. There are also plenty more leaders across this globe who are killing their own people. Those have never been the yardstick by which we determine to we invade another country. The Iraqi invasion represented a radical departure from U.S. foreign policy and it has been and continues to be an unqualified disaster.
I acknowledge no such thing. The question in 2003 was our response to the perpetrators of 9/11. Afgahnistan was one answer, as yet left unanswered completely. OBL was another. Saddam and Iraq was diversionary and over- inflated. The threat posed by Saddam Hussein were negligable to the US (but not to US and big oil interests).
Before you say it, no I don’t think Saddam should have been left in power. But you know what? There are despots all over the world. We had no business invading Iraq, where we knew OBL was not.
Oh, and BTW, Ahmadinyjacket was not in power in 2003.
But you say I’m wrong to point out that you are trying to de-rail this thread. Ok, then.
“… whilst in a race with Ahmadinejad to see who could use the most inflamatory, anti-US extremist rhetoric.”
Rhetoric? Sticks and stones …
BTW, Save, thousands of Iraqis are dying every month. http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/news/ci_4188665
If you all have left to justify this war is that Hussein killed more people than the chaos we’ve unleashed, well, the numbers are rapidly turning the morality by mathametics. The tipping point will no doubt come sooner rather than later given that Bush has no plan whatsoever to slow the violence and seemingly no intention to even come up with one.
“Oh, and BTW, Ahmadinyjacket was not in power in 2003.”
Hilarious. Good catch. Save, you truly an idiot.
“Oh, and BTW, Ahmadinyjacket was not in power in 2003.”
Hilarious.
Oops did that go through twice? Sorry. See I was trying to tone it down. Civility and all. Oh well.
I admire your newfound restraint, Frame1.
I’m just glad I’m not the only one who calls him Mr Achmed Dinnerjacket.
Actually, NG, I kindof lifted that from you, bro’.
props.
It’s the only way I can remember his name.
I don’t think I’ve been called bro before either.
Farrises comment is especially stupid when you consider Shrubbie’s “axis of evil” comment pretty directly led to the hard liners Ahmedi-the hell with it’s election.
The very question in 2003 Repack Rider claims to have answered (along with his millions of cohorts) was “what do we do”? Their answer was: leave Saddam in power to inflict his own brand of Abu Gharib-ism over the country
Like our ALLY Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan? The guy who boils his opponents? Why are we leaving him in power?
As to Abu Ghraib, none of us would have even recognized the name of Saddam’s prison had our own people not taken over the activities there without losing a beat.
whilst in a race with Ahmadinejad to see who could use the most inflamatory, anti-US extremist rhetoric.
Name calling? Now THERE’S a serious threat. Time to take out Ann Coulter.
you certainly have to acknowledge there would have been trade-offs and consequences of NOT going in.
Yeah, tens of thousands of people still alive, $300B not borrowed from China, our military still in working condition, and a measure of worldwide respect. Bummer stuff.
What is your military record? Do you plan to serve in Iraq?
So if one conservative blogger says Iraq is a mess, and some on-the-outside miltary types, then it is true? So what if other generals and other bloggers say otherwise? Are the only ones not ‘lying’ the ones that agree w/you?
One of the nice things about being on the ‘right’ side, is that we have true diversity of opinion. If someone on your side speaks up, he’s gone.
Here’s the thing that doesn’t make sense. One minute, you say that the left isn’t united, hence they suck. Then you turn around and say that the left doesn’t have diverse opinions, hence they suck. Doesn’t that strike you as the least bit odd? Flip-flopper.
‘Cut and run’ or ‘put targets on our troops’, which strategy appeals to me. We are unable to provide security because we don’t have enough troops. We can’t send more of our troops. With Bush in office we can’t get international military help. What does that leave us, grining our army down or pulling them out?
Quaker said
“That’s an interesting observation, Dugger.
Maybe you could point us to those “generals and other bloggers” who still insist things are going swimmingly in Iraq?”
Perhaps its interesting because you distorted what I said. Is there not a middle ground? Or if some generals do not think Iraq is a total mess, do they then, by default, have to believe things are going swimmingly?
Nothing in between?
Zython, You misinterprteted. My comment on the left has to do with intolerance of opposing viewpoints. Almost opposite of what your confused post seems to be saying.
Zython, You misinterprteted. My comment on the left has to do with intolerance of opposing viewpoints. Almost opposite of what your confused post seems to be saying.
It’s not that hard to understand. Here’s the jist of it:
Moment A: “The left isn’t united on any ideas, so they suck.”
Moment B: “The left isn’t tolerant of any ideas that they agree upon, so they suck.”
In the end, you’re left with saying that the left isn’t open to new ideas that opposes the ideas that the left doesn’t even have in the first place. If you bother to think about it for a second, it doesn’t make sense. The talking points the pundits have fed you are conflicting with eachother.
Then again, I don’t blame you for not refuting my point, considering the fact that you and the rest of the conservative trolls here are too scared to respond to my posts most of the time.
“Is there not a middle ground?”
For krissakes then Dugger please show us a general or other blogger who thinks everything is just so-so in Iraq.
Z
Why refute an invalid point?
Gen Peter Pace and Sean Hannity.
Dugger, Pace recently told the Senate that there is a possibility of Iraq sliding into civil war and that he had not anticipated such a possibility just one year ago. When asked by a Marine during a visit to Fallujah how much more time the Iraqi government sould be given to get its act together, Pace said: “I guess they have as long as it takes. Which is not forever.”
If you’d like to decipher that last bit, have at it. From where I stand you have a general saying that things are getting worse in Iraq and that we can’t stay there indefinitely until the Iraqis sort it out. How that differs from what anyone on the left or the mainstream of American public opinion, is saying, you got me.
And I can’t believe you had brought up Sean Hannity. Hannity would applaud Bush if he started killing puppies on the White House lawn. Hacks of a feather, I guess…
You now it also should be add that by any measure Iraq is already in a civil war which goes back to the original point: Saying things are going okay in Iraq doesn’t make it so. Providing political cover for a failed president over a failed war does not equal reality.
frame,
Pay attention, son. I was asked to name a blogger and a general who did not believe Iraq was a total mess (or just ‘so-so’).
I admit it would be much harder to name a blogger you like who doesn’t believe Iraq is a total mess.
Perhaps its interesting because you distorted what I said. Is there not a middle ground? Or if some generals do not think Iraq is a total mess, do they then, by default, have to believe things are going swimmingly?
Nothing in between?
That’ll work just fine.
“Iraq: Not a total mess.”
Too bad Sean Hannity doesn’t have a blog, otherwise Dugger may have had a point.
Or is duge claiming that Sean Hannity is a general? I’m confused.
“I admit it would be much harder to name a blogger you like who doesn’t believe Iraq is a total mess.”
Just try naming a right wing pundit with a passing familiarity with reality. How about that?
And with regards to Pace, I don’t think anyone who sees a civil war in Iraq as a possibility could be characterized as supporting the claim that things are going so-so in Iraq. Pace strikes me as being on the down side of the assessment.
But again, let me point out that simply believing things are going okay in IRaq doesn’t mean that they actually are. Or is that concept totally foreign to you guys on the right?
Hell, Dugs, why didn’t you just quote Inhofe and be done with it:
http://www.senatemajority.com/outrageous_quote_of_the_day_james_inhofe_0