A guide to reactions from our friendly conservative rivals

November 9, 2006

I suspect many of you probably avoid most, if not all, of the leading conservative blogs. Truth be told, I used to steer clear of them too, before Peter Daou insisted that I do both halves of the Daou Report.

With this in mind, I thought it’d be worth taking a moment to let readers know the kinds of reactions I found from some of the leading conservative blogs to the midterm elections.

I think you’ll agree, they’re the model of decorum, civility, and accepting the GOP’s defeats with class.

Here’s a good one:

Bin Laden and Zawahiri and all the rest of the goose-stepping Islamo fascists are probably besides themselves with glee right now. And every brave Iraqi who stood up to take control of their country, who braved suicide bombs to vote, are probably cowering in fear. The Democrats are coming, with people like Keith OIberman [sic] at their head spewing insults and conspiracy theories.

Here’s another:

The elections are over and America has fallen for the al-taqiyya and distortions of the Democratic Party, rolled over on their backs, and surrendered to al-Qaeda. Radical Islam has won a very important victory, and the West is now full on its way to defeat. You are loosing the war on terror – the one that people like Nancy Pelosi don’t think exists. Mohammad and even al-Zarqawi are laughing their asses off from their graves – they now know that America is too weak to fight their ideology and that you will surely be defeated.

And another:

We’ll be running like hyenas from Iraq, failing to do anything at all about Iran, Syria, or North Korea, and selling Israel down the river. Our knees will be knobby and sore from all the apologizing we’re going to be doing to the UN and EU. A new era of “tolerance” for Islamic extremism is dawning…. The exuberance of the celebrations in the streets of Sadr City today will rival that of the ones on 9/11.


This one had a nice elitist touch.

Maybe the GOP should get in touch with al-Qaeda in time for ’08, because I believe we’ve just seen that when terrorists endorse a political party, the American people listens [sic].

And here’s a big picture view:

I think we’re in for two years of defeat and retreat, pandering to Islamic extremists, extreme political correctness, multi-culturalism, open borders beyond belief, amnesty…in other words, we’re going back to the 1970s, right after Vietnam. This is what the Democrats wanted to do, because that was their heyday, when they last had this kind of power.

Just to be clear, I’m not violating Drum’s law — these are actual posts from well-read bloggers, not their commenters. I’m also not saying that these are wholly representative of the right this week; I’ve seen a handful of sites that are far more serious and contemplative.

So, why am I mentioning this? Because I think it’s worth noting, on occasion, a) just how nutty some of our friendly rivals on the right really are; b) just how much they hate us; and c) just how poorly many conservatives are interpreting this week’s election results.

Plus, I think it’s kind of funny how, just a few weeks ago, Peggy Noonan lambasted the left because, she insisted, we lack “an element of grace — of civic grace, democratic grace, the kind that assumes disagreements are part of the fabric, but we can make the fabric hold together.”

I think we’re in for two years of defeat and retreat

because, after all, foreign policy is the purview of the President, especially a lame-duck President.

Ah, civility, how nice to see you back.

  • What was that phrase that the far right kept uttering over and over and over and over again about 6 years ago? Was it:

    Get over it already!

  • Joe Scarborough is one of the more thoughtful conservative (of course, he’s paid to remain somewhat self-reflective of his own party), and yesterday he correctly referenced that democrats left Bush in 2000, and moderates left Bush somewhere around Katrina and Tuesday was their own party abandoning the GOP due to corruption, cronyism, Iraq, inter alia. The fact that these boneheads are blaming everyone but their own base is pretty silly. Wonder if they’ll ever “get it” to use a ‘publican cliche.

  • If I’ve learned anything in the past couple of decades, it’s that the kool-aid is stronger than anything I used to drink. People such as those quoted aren’t going away and nothing is going to change their minds. So, over the next 2 years the Democratic Congress (cool, huh?) is going to have to prove to everyone else that they can govern effectively. Tall order, but convincing the masses is the only way I can see to marginalize the wingnuts.

    (I hope Daou also gave you a drawer full of antiacids or something stronger.)

  • As stupid as they sound, they’re just doing their best Cheney impressions.

    But let’s see how civil Cheney is when he gets his first subpoena.

  • Firefall – Yeah, that’s what I keep thinking. These people act like Pelosi is going to wave a magic wand and make Bush withdraw from Iraq. The guy is still in charge of foreign policy for more than two years.

  • NEWS FLASH, THIS JUST IN !!!

    Republicans not taking responsibility for their own ineptitude at governing and blaming everyone else.

    What really cool is some of the attack dogs are looking squarely at Bush, Cheney, and Rove. This is going to be better then a Friday night fight.

  • The fifth one from Iowavoice is my favorite. Let’s take a look at it, shall we?

    I think …

    Oh, I highly doubt that.

    we’re in for two years of defeat and retreat,

    Because we’re winning now, don’t ya know?

    pandering to Islamic extremists,

    Translation: If we don’t torture them, we’re pandering to them.

    extreme political correctness,

    Rather than overt racism, which is better.

    multi-culturalism

    Which is bad, because only white Anglo culture counts.

    in other words, we’re going back to the 1970s, right after Vietnam.

    In other words, I’m mad because we’re not going back to the Dark Ages, right after the Inquisition, because we’ll now have to worry about such peksy things as science, and racism, and education, and health care, and …

    I think the pig shit fumes have gotten into Iowavoice’s head.

  • OOPS. The links didn’t come through in bloglines for some reason. Nothing to see here, move along!!

  • What I don’t get is where these guys get their notion that Democrats advocate surrender to al Qaeda.

    Oh yah, LittleGreenFootballs.

    Who, I am reliably informed by my (slightly to the right of Alan Keyes) wife are all atwitter (no better word exists in the English Language to describe wingnuts right now) that a Nation of Islam member was elected to Congress Tuesday.

    If any wingnuts actually listened to US or talked to US or read US they would know we think that Osama should be dead right now at the hands of our military (or CIA, I don’t mind) and all his rotten ilk. It’s Boy George II who has caved to the Islamo Facists (read, House of Saud) by not going after the author of the 9/11/01 attacks and distracting the wingnuts with Iraq.

  • Further proof that there are two orders of the genus Homo on the planet: Homo sapiens and Homo sap, and these halfwits are members of the latter order.

    If you really want to see how sad these bozos are, try checking out Freeperville, where the Mighty 69th Kooky Keyboard Kommandos are typing one-handed at high speed. If there’s a collective double-digit IQ there, I’d be amazed.

    Oh, and they aren’t our “friendly rivals.” They’re “The Enemy.”

  • Steve, I feel your pain. This Daou gig is truly cruel.

    At least, I hope Salon pays you an insalubrity bonus.

  • failing to do anything at all about Iran, Syria, or North Korea

    Unlike ShrubCo which has gone with the oh so effective strategy of wagging its finger and using the word “provacative” a lot.

    Fine, I’ll assume that 1. All of the writers have some disability that prevents them from enlisting in the army (I’ll be damned if I give their coutner a tickle by following the links) and 2. We’ve officially surrendered to Al-Qaida and the blood thirsty hordes will be here any moment.

    And A-Q’s American soul mates will do what about it? Perhaps they think blood thirsty hordes are repulsed by constant mewling and the angry click-click of a keyboard. Feh. The worst thing is: Now these guys are praying for a terrorist attack so they can say “Told ya.” But that doesn’t make them blood thirsty or nuthin’. That and I’m sure that somewhere a bunch of mentally deficient freaks with fire power are reading this crap, chewing No-doz and scanning the horizon for the wave of gay, Islamic stem-cell researchers. If/when they do hurt a bunch of people it will be the Democrats fault of course. How dare they win an election!
    Arse clowns.

  • I completely understand that these writers will never self identify as a Democrat, but the accusation that Democrats are allied with terrorists is so truly absurd I simply don’t know how any sane, rational person can listen to them.

    I am appalled when the traditional media compares rational sites like CB’s and DaillyKos to radical, unhinged sites like those linked in the article. Democrats truly are reality based.

    I’m not sure where the Rebpulic Party is.

  • When I was a kid there is a movie line that my sisters and I used to use on each other whenever we thought people were being overly melodramatic (we had 4 girls in my family). Forgive me, but it is from Ghostbusters.

    “Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together – mass hysteria.”

    Must be delivered with a very exaggerated eyeroll.

  • The elections are over and America has fallen for the al-taqiyya and distortions of the Democratic Party, rolled over on their backs, and surrendered to al-Qaeda.

    Jesus, can we just agree to call them a bunch of whining crybaby cowards whenever they pull this shit? Stop acting like this is a fight to the death and a few thousand terrorists have the upper hand on us. Fucking losers.

  • As Stephen Colbert asked his Dem guest, “So what’s your agenda — I mean besides tax and spend, cut and run, and man on man?”

  • Well, I for one am utterly amazed at the self-control and maturity the right-wing bloggers are showing. Maybe they are growing up. I didn’t see ONE of them blaming the Republican’t loss of Congress on their Public Enemy #1: Bill Clinton or #2: The Liberal Media.

    Kudos to right wing-nuts for showing such restraint!

    P.S. I would like to see one of the Righty bloggers respond to this post by CB. That is, if they can get past the math question.

  • You might try reading some of the more civil posts from the very same site you quoted above. And here’s another, just to show I’m not alone.

    Then perhaps you could revisit your post and comments here, and explain how much more graceful and civil you all are in victory, than your opponents (not enemies, Mr. Cleaver) are in defeat.

  • Joe,

    Let me be the first to congratulate you on responding to CB’s comments. And on your math skills.

    Finally, if you truly believe it’s going to get worse (from here on out) before it gets better….well, you just haven’t been paying attention for the last 6 years.

  • You don’t really think the jihadists will stop attacking us simply because Congress has a Democratic majority, do you, Gridlock? Love the name, by the way.

  • Thanks for the compliment on my name Joe.

    And no, I don’t think that the islamic extremists will stop. However, without the Preznit’s rubber stamp Congress, maybe we will actually have a national discussion about strategy. Not to mention the fact that the admin. will have to get Americans lined up behind him, not through fear and sloganeering, but through reason, leadership and compromise.

    I would also like to see someone on your side admit that going to Iraq was taking the eye of the ball on the WoT.

    Your not one of those righty bloggers who really thinks that Dems want to turn this country into the United States of Surrender and start a holiday for Osama, are ya?

  • I’d love to have a discussion on strategy, if I could determine what the Dems strategy actually is. Near as I can tell, the “phased redeployment to Okinawa” mentioned by Murtha and others is simply a cut-and-walk to defeat. No victory for us, no stability for Iraq, but a very real win for the jihadists, so I oppose this. Or is there some other strategy I’m unaware of?

    The Reps strategy, on the other hand, is and has been failing for about the last year. I do believe we need to ‘stay the course’, meaning we should stay in Iraq until it is stable, but the current deployment/strategy/whatever-you-call-it is clearly not working.

    My own preference is an increase in troop strength and a much more intense prosecution of the insurgent elements – essentially what the troops on the ground will tell you (off the record, of course).

    And yours?

  • in other words, we’re going back to the 1970s, right after Vietnam.

    Help me out here: wasn’t there something going on then, similar to what’s going on today? You know, phony war based on lies that’s being forced on America by its’ out of touch leadership? Something about that sounds awfully familiar to me. Some help here?

    And, what exactly happened then again? I seem to recall that a corrupt, out of touch group of Republican’ts with imperial delusions resigned before criminal charges could be brought on their a$$es, and then another Republican’t pardoned them for their illegal activites.

    I wonder why Republican’ts don’t like to be reminded about that these days?

    You might try reading some of the more civil posts from the very same site you quoted above. And here’s another, just to show I’m not alone.

    Then perhaps you could revisit your post and comments here, and explain how much more graceful and civil you all are in victory, than your opponents (not enemies, Mr. Cleaver) are in defeat.

    Comment by Joe — 11/9/2006 @ 12:26 pm

    I’m sorry – I can’t hear any civility over the twenty plus years of Dem bashing, lies, hypocrisy, and name-calling. Maybe, if you keep on acting like decent and honorable humans for the next several years, you might get a shred of credibility.

    Republican’ts:

    Can’t handle it when others treat them the same way they treat everyone else.

    P.S. I’m even more impressed by the math skilz – the question keeps changing, so actual thought from a Reich wingnut is involved. It still looks like they’re gonna have enough fingers and toes to figure it out, though – so maybe I’m giving them a little too much credit here…

  • My own preference is an increase in troop strength

    I agree. An increase in soldiers would be great since that’s what the people who actually know real war isn’t quite like movie war wanted from the first. So if the American people would just stop hoarding all of the spare soldiers in their basements and attics, they could get out there and fight.

    Oh wait, we don’t have a lot of soldiers do we? Someone decided to spin a cloth of lies to justify an invasion, didn’t they? And someone else decided that “Ya go to war with the army you have,” was a good strategy. Well, looks like we’ll need a draft. We’ll start with every able-bodied person who voted for Bush in the last election. Hell, Bush rides a bike all of the time, he must be in shape too. And I know he was eager to serve during Vietnam, this could be his big chance. Rumsfeld? He’s a stroppy bastard. He can try giving people the finger in Iraq. That should send them running. There! That should go a long way to getting the required number of bodies to Iraq. And if you get killed, take heart: Journalists will be allowed to show pictures of your casket.

  • If it will help you get past your anger and onward to civil discussion, Tom, I’ll be happy to apologize for “Republicant’s” and “Reich wingnut” name-calling for lo these past twenty years. Truce?

  • “My own preference is an increase in troop strength and a much more intense prosecution of the insurgent elements.” – Joe

    So basically you want to kill more Iraqis in Iraq because you are afraid that if you don’t al Qaeda will come to America and you’ll have to fight real terrorists here?

    Aside from the minor fact that it would be a lot easier to spot the terrorists if they were trying to fight us here rather than in Iraq (where all the Arabs look the same to us) there is also the moral question of fighting your wars in other people’s countries.

    For the centuries between the discovery of America and the Napoleonic Wars whenever the French and the Spanish wanted to fight a war (which was fairly often) they would go either to Germany or the low countries to fight it despite the fact they actually share a border. Now there is a certain logic to fighting in Germany rather than over the Pyrenees as the campaigning is a lot easier (and the loot better). But the fact remains that the Germans did not really appreciate being the campaign ground for these two great powers (especially not during the Thirty Years War).

    And we all remember how Germany turned out in the nineteenth and early twentith centuries, yes?

    So that said, there really are good reasons NOT to be in Iraq. If their government wants to order our troops around, let them do their own work. They would have a lot easier time of it in Iraq if they weren’t so hellbent on killing each other under cover of our occupation.

    As for Iraq becoming a haven for al Qaeda, I’d just make clear to anyone and everyone that we reserve the right to bomb and infiltrate troops back there whenever we want to take out terrorist camps or leaders.

    I agree that Murtha does sound rather absurd with his withdraw to Okinowa. But remember that’s were the special forces deployed from to kill Zarqarwi, not from inside Iraq. So obviously we can project power over rather long distances without the need of having National Guardsman and woman dying by the tens every month inside Iraq.

    My plan, if I was in a position to enact it, would be a K&K withdrawl. Move troops up into Kurdistan (mostly to keep the Turks from invading) and down into Kuwait and just barest border area of Iraq to control the Shatt al-Arab and the Ramadi oil fields and negotiate the management of the rest. Send the reserves and National Guard home and keep special forces there.

    Of course, that’s more of a plan than “we react after the insurgents come up with a new IED triggering device” of Don Rumsfeld.

  • Congrats, journ-O-samas! is the title of a recent post on Joe’s little link, Cold Fury, yet here he is asking us to “get past [our] anger and onward to civil discussion.”

    Give me a fucking break. I’d like to welcome you here to reality, Joe, but I doubt you intend to stay that long. Take your regurgitated talking points back to Rove’s ‘reality’ and let that cold fury build up inside of you.

    It’s time for the adults to run the government.

  • First of all, welcome, Joe!

    I always find it interesting when I hear/read the typical right-wing talking point that Dems don’t have a plan in Iraq or on terrorism. Seems to me you all aren’t really trying that hard to find out if it’s true or not.

    Take this one from Wes Clark, or this one from the Democratic party itself.

    The fact is — and as you admit — the current strategy simply isn’t working. And the reasons are numerous: it ignores centuries of history in the regions in question … it relies on intelligence that is stovepiped into an already made decision, rather than on factual analysis … it sees any suggestions of diplomacy as a sign of weakness, rather than as a strategy to neuter fundamentalism before it has a chance to reproduce … it confuses an “objective” with “strategies and tactics” (since “winning” is neither of the last two) … and, most dangerously, it is made more for political gain than actual warfighting success.

    I still can’t figure out how in the hell the Republicans are viewed by so many as masters of military support, or as so strong on national defense, when they’ve pretty much proven they suck at both.

  • Edo, could you save me the research and give me a thumbnail version of Gen. Clarks plan? One as detailed as mine will be fine, thanks.

    The answer WAS orange, you say Oh wait, we don’t have a lot of soldiers do we?
    But the fact is, we do have quite a few soldiers. 1,610,000, last I checked. Since only 120,000 of those are in Iraq at present, I’m sure we could spare a few of the others from hot-spots like Germany or Okinawa.

  • So basically you want to kill more Iraqis in Iraq because you are afraid that if you don’t al Qaeda will come to America and you’ll have to fight real terrorists here?

    More or less. My actual fear is that we will lose an American city to a dirty bomb. But I live two hours from the nearest small city, so that isn’t a fear for my personal but rather yours.

    Unholy Moses, thanks for the links. I’ll go check them out and be back.

    doubtful, there are several writers at Cold Fury, and that’s not one of my posts. But if it helps, I’ll offer you the same apology I gave Tom. 🙂

  • Joe–
    One problem with your 1.61 million number — that’s the total number of service members, not actual “Soldiers” (a term that, in reality, only refers to members of the Army. But that’s for a different thread).

    And out of that 1.61 million, only an actual small number of them are able to suit up and fight, since they include logistics, supply, comms, and a host of other jobs that are not expendable.

    Simply put, we don’t have enough actual warfighters. Period. If we did, they wouldn’t have to keep calling up 40-year old men from the Guard and reserves. They’ve tried everything to get more in the regular services (lowering standards, ignoring questionable paths, etc.), but it still ain’t workin’.

    There’s also another flaw with using them — what if something happens somewhere else? Say, North Korea goes nuts and invades South Korea. What then?

    The truth is, invading Iraq has made us less able to fight on other fronts, have stretched us too thin, and has made Afghanistan the bastard stepchild when, in reality, it should’ve been the prodigal son.

    More international troops would be great, but Bush and Co. have successfully pissed off the rest of the world, so that’s out. Although, China has the manpower — just not sure if we can trust them.

    I’d like to see Iraqis step up, but one general said it may be DECADES before that can happen (and it also ignores sectarian elements within the current Iraqi military structure, including Kurds who are just waiting to pounce).

    Quite frankly, I wish I had a sure-fire answer on how to solve the problem. But there’s a reason I’m posting here while at work, rather than in DC. 🙂

  • I can’t tell you how moved I am that someone as important as Peggy Nooner considers me worthy enough to lecture regarding my lack of ‘grace’. Grace is big on the right as the links to the featured posts limn all too well. Interesting that iowavoice figured out that we want to return to the ’70s but it isn’t 1975 that we want to return to. Some will remember our orderly retreat from Vietnam that year, specifically from the rooftop of the embassy in Saigon. I mean, talk about cut and run. Instead, we’d like to return to mid-1974 when another lying, arrogant, overconfident, secretive, criminal, and overrated Republican administration came crashing down under its own weight. Yes, we Dems had plenty of power that year and in subsequent ones and it was all thanks to the malfeasance of Republicans. One thing is for sure, one-party Republican rule has been very, very good to Democrats.

    The truth isn’t always “civil”, Joe. Grow up.

  • Holy Moses – I scanned your two cites, and after filtering out criticism of what’s been done wrong, I don’t see anything stating what they’d do differently, now, other than Clark’s contention that we need more troops, with which I’ve agreed. Criticism is not a strategy, so again I ask you: what is yours? Specific steps, please, not “they’re doing it all wrong”.

    As to my 1.61 million soldiers … support troops are usually about 50-60% of the total troop strength. Are you really saying that we can’t spare another 100,000 troops (7% of our forces) from our global potential hot-spots to fight in an actual hot-spot? How about if we just draw them from the 1.073 million reserve right here in the US? Then even if we needed them in NK or Iran, they’d be that much closer and easier to deploy.

    And how do you reconcile your approval of Clark’s plan, when you’re opposing an increase in troop strength, his only real change from the status quo?

  • Step 1. Stop torturing people.

    Step 2. Fast track funds to intelligence; we need more experts on the area’s religions and languages and customs. It feels like we’re at war with aliens; we simply don’t understand our enemies OR our allies at any level.

    Step 3. Supply adequate troops and munitions. Proper armor for troops and vehicles, etc. This will boost morale as well. (The troops do not have faith in their leadership, and that’s bad.)

    Step 4. Revoke all no-bid contracts and introduce accountability for contractors; stop letting Haliburton serve our troops rotten food and contaminated water.

    Step 5. Identify and hold targets; the troops are getting tired of doing the same jobs over and over again.

    Step 6. Fast track infrastructure projects; see step four. Electricty for two hours a day? No wonder we aren’t viewed as liberators.

    Sure that won’t solve everything and it’s just the tip of the iceberg, but those are some changes that should be made now that the purse is in saner hands. I think the generals need to go back to the drawing board and write a new plan and frankly it’d be nice if Bush would listen to them instead of just saying he is.

  • Simply put, we don’t have enough actual warfighters. Period. If we did, they wouldn’t have to keep calling up 40-year old men from the Guard and reserves. They’ve tried everything to get more in the regular services (lowering standards, ignoring questionable paths, etc.), but it still ain’t workin’.

    I meant to address this tired old chestnut, too. I think you’ve been misinformed, Moses. The enlistment and re-enlistment rate has exceeded it’s goals since the Iraq conflict started. Standards have not been lowered. Just because you are unwilling to serve doesn’t mean that no one will.

    and also, “Soldiers” (a term that, in reality, only refers to members of the Army. True, but the question I was answering appeared to be using soldiers as a generic for all military personnel, so I did likewise. Regardless, I linked to the actual breakdown of personnel by branch and country per the DoD.

  • doubtful, I respond by your numbers:
    1. We don’t. Waterboarding is the most severe interrogation tool we use.
    2.Good points, but I don’t think it’s quite that bad. Which intelligence would you fund – the CIA that got it all wrong before the war? Army CID? NSA?
    3. Our troops have the world’s best equipment. You should understand that armor is subjective, and always a tradeoff for mobility and other weight demands (like ammo). Early problems with unarmored Humvees were because those vehicles were intended to move troops quickly to combat zones, not protect them from IED’s in civilian areas. These problems have been mostly rectified.
    4. No one gets rotten food or contaminated water served deliberately, and I’ve never heard of it happening even accidently. Do you have a source for this claim? And if you don’t want no-bid contracts, you need to triple the size of our military to provide those services. Halliburton gets no-bid contracts because no one else can provide those services. They got them from the Clinton Administration as well.
    5.Agreed, and this is one of the major flaws of current strategy, and largely due to insufficient troop strength.
    6.Being done, but Iraq’s infrastructure was in miserable shape before the war, so it isn’t repair, it’s replace, and that takes time.

  • Joe—
    I didn’t say I agreed with Clark’s plan. I was just proving your “Dems have no plan!” meme was false. So please stop willfully ignoring the fact that the left has provided several plans. Oh, and stop putting words into my keyboard that I never actually typed.

    Secondly, a press release from the DoD doesn’t impress me. Why? BECAUSE I’VE WRITTEN SEVERAL OF THEM. My company works with the military and I’ve penned a few in conjunction with a Public Affairs officer – I know their version does not = the whole truth.

    Third, your numbers are still misleading because they count Air Force and Navy personnel. And there’s a reason the National Guard are part timers — they were designed to be support personnel, not front line personnel. To expect them to carry the load is part of the current problem.

    And last, for you to ask for some sort of simple answer to an insanely complex problem is ludicrous on multiple levels. The fact is, NO ONE has easy answers to the Iraqi problem. Not you, not me, and sure as hell not anyone else on this board. But to think that tens of thousands of more troops are suddenly going to stop sectarian violence (which is the main issue) seems to me to be false. Unless we’re willing to stay in Iraq forever, we’ve successfully opened a wound hundreds of years old. A few more Soldiers or Marines aren’t going to act as some sort of miraculous salve for the problem.

  • 1. We don’t. Waterboarding is the most severe interrogation tool we use.

    Okay … if you believe that, then we can just stop this right now. Seriously. If you believe that, I’ve got some oceanfront property here in Kansas City I’d like to sell you.

    4. No one gets rotten food or contaminated water served deliberately, and I’ve never heard of it happening even accidently.

    Then you don’t listen all that well.

    You know, I honestly, truly love debating with people from all sides of an issue. Often times, it gives me a new perspective.

    But it’s only enjoyable when that person is informed on the issues. You, apprently, are not that person.

  • Oh, and I found this while doing some job-related research. The highlight:

    Even if there were a case for staying the current course in Iraq, America’s badly overstretched Army cannot sustain present force levels much longer without long-term damage. And that could undermine the credibility of American foreign policy for years to come.

    [snip]

    As early as the fall of 2003, the Congressional Budget Office warned that maintaining substantial force levels in Iraq for more than another six months would be difficult without resorting to damaging short-term expedients. The Pentagon then had about 150,000 troops in Iraq. Three years later, those numbers have not fallen appreciably. For much of that time, the Pentagon has plugged the gap by extending tours of duty, recycling soldiers back more quickly into combat, diverting National Guard units from homeland security and misusing the Marine Corps as a long-term occupation force.

    These emergency measures have taken a heavy toll on combat readiness and training, on the quality of new recruits, and on the career decisions of some of the Army’s most promising young officers. They cannot be continued indefinitely.

    It goes on to say that the gadget the DoD seems to love (i.e. the F-22 stealth fighter) shoudl go, and that

    The most straightforward [solution] would be to greatly increase the overall number of Army combat brigades. That would require recruiting, training and equipping the tens of thousands of additional soldiers needed to fill them.

    Seems to me that if more troops are the answer, then a draft will be the only way to get them. And that ain’t gonna go over real well.

    Of course, they could offer people a 6-figure income (you know, like the mercenaries get), but I don’t see that happening, either.

  • CB, it’s hardly fair to go nutpicking, especially since there are so many nuts to choose from. Yet I understand the temptation to revel in their misery. Frankly, after the final news of Allen’s capitulation, my cup runneth over with schadenfreude. About the only way I could put any icing on this cake would be if I was allowed to punch out Dubya and take a hunting trip with Dick.

  • I didn’t say I agreed with Clark’s plan.
    My mistake. I apologize for my misunderstanding.

    So please stop willfully ignoring the fact that the left has provided several plans.
    Again Moses, criticism is not a plan. Change requires some action be taken. doubtful provided seven steps above – that’s a plan, albiet (as he says) an incomplete one. I’ve repeatedly asked you for something besides criticism of actions already taken, but all you’ve provided is more criticism.

    And there’s a reason the National Guard are part timers — they were designed to be support personnel, not front line personnel. To expect them to carry the load is part of the current problem.

    You’re simply wrong, Moses. The NG is structured to be a supplemental but front line fighting force. This was done during the 80’s and 90’s to reduce the costs of a standing military. You’ll notice the DoD breakdown I linked makes no separate NG distinction.

    Who doesn’t listen well? From your source:
    While bottled water was available for drinking, the contaminated water was used for virtually everything else, including handwashing, laundry, bathing and making coffee, said water expert Ben Carter of Cedar City, Utah., and also

    A military medical unit that visited Camp Ramadi in mid-April found nothing out of the ordinary in terms of water quality, said Marine Corps Maj. Tim Keefe, a military spokesman. Water-quality testing records from May 23 show the water within normal parameters, he said.
    “The allegations appear not to have merit,” Keefe said.

    So who was “served” contaminated water? No one. And where’s the “rotten food” ?:

    The officer for the CPA in Baghdad questioned why. if conditions were as bad as the media had reported, no American soldiers had been shown to have contracted any food-borne illnesses.

    Wendy Hall, a spokeswoman for Halliburton, raised the same question, although she conceded that the early days of the occupation presented serious challenges to her company’s mission to erect and operate foodservice facilities. She concluded that the media reports were inaccurate and overblown.

    In September a poorly maintained refrigeration unit led to the spoilage of a large inventory of meat that never was served, and a subcontractor responsible was fired, she said.

    It’s this kind of gross exaggeration of a isolated, localized, and unconfirmed problems into “stop letting Haliburton serve our troops rotten food and contaminated water” that damages your credibility. Try to remember that an accusation is not necessarily true.

    And last, for you to ask for some sort of simple answer to an insanely complex problem is ludicrous on multiple levels.
    I don’t think asking for a brief outline of a plan equates to asking for a simple answer; perhaps you should follow your own advice “and stop putting words into my keyboard that I never actually typed”.

  • http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1533349

    Were thousands of troops and civilians stationed at a U.S. military base in Iraq exposed to contaminated water? The answer is yes, according to whistle-blowers testifying before Congress today.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/23/iraq/main1228058.shtml

    Granger’s July 15 memo said the exposure had gone on for “possibly a year” and added, “I am not sure if any attempt to notify the exposed population was ever made.”

    The water expert said he told company officials at the base that they would have to notify the military. “They told me it was none of my concern and to keep my mouth shut,” he said.

    —

    Is that enough, or are CBS and ABC also news sources you discount immediately?

  • Is that enough, or are CBS and ABC also news sources you discount immediately?

    Might I remind you, doubtful, that I discounted this claim from the source Moses provided as his “evidence”? And here you are presenting the same claims, about the same isolated and localized incident, which are discounted in your sources as well:

    ABC Former Halliburton employees are alleging KBR provided troops at Camp Junction City with bottled water for drinking and cooking, but that internal company documents show the water provided for other purposes, such as showering, shaving and laundry, was not treated.

    Exactly as was stated above, no one was “served” this water to drink, and not even the disgruntled KBR employees are claiming this was done. Read your sources and make your claims more carefully.
    and also:

    Halliburton spokeswoman Melissa Norcross said KBR had conducted its own inspection of the water at the site and found no evidence to substantiate the allegations made by the former employees.
    “Although these individuals claim to have been adversely affected by the water at the site, they have provided no medical evidence to substantiate their claims,” she said.

    Halliburton could not substantiate the claims of three disgruntled employees, nor could a Marine medical unit, after testing said water supply. But we should believe the 3 unhappy employees with no evidence, instead?
    Let’s look at See-BS:

    We exposed a base camp population (military and civilian) to a water source that was not treated,” said a July 15, 2005, memo by William Granger, the official for Halliburton’s KBR subsidiary who was in charge of water quality in Iraq and Kuwait.

    Sounds serious! But hold on – ABC says:

    “It is my opinion that the water source is without question contaminated with numerous micro-organisms, including coliform bacteria,” he wrote. “There is little doubt that raw sewage is routinely dumped upstream of intake much less than the required 2 mile distance. Therefore, it is my conclusion that chlorination of our water tanks, while certainly beneficial, is not sufficient protection from parasitic exposure.”

    Well, somebody’s wrong here, doubtful. The water can’t be chlorinated and not treated at the same time. Who to believe? Your own sources contradict each other, and you. The only consistent and credible statements come from … Halliburton and the Marines. Guess I’ll believe them.

  • We will show you all the tolerance and respect you showed us…in other words, none.

    Bill Clinton recast American politics in confrontational and divisive terms, setting “rich v. poor”, “white v. black”, “north v. south”, etc., and the nation has not recovered.

    This vote proved that lies and smears work and that the media can still swing elections (see, e.g., Virginia). It also shows why conservatives need to vote, even when the Republicans aren’t conservative. Bush is a moderate and we need less compassion and more conservatism from him.

    The people want a “new direction”? What is the new direction from an economic boom, full employment, no inflation, reduced pollution and no terrorist attacks in over 5 years? We will soon find out, much to our national detriment.

  • Again Moses, criticism is not a plan.
    Again Joe, you apparently didn’t read the whole thing. I think you just read the overview. The Dem plan lists these specifics for Iraq, the WOT, and other military issues:

    We will immediately implement the recommendations of the independent bipartisan 9/11 Commission and finally protect our ports and airports, our borders, mass transit systems, our chemical and nuclear power plants, and our food and water supplies from terrorist attack.

    Insist that Iraqis make the political compromises necessary to unite their country and defeat the insurgency; promote regional diplomacy; and strongly encourage our allies and other nations to play a constructive role.

    Eliminate Osama Bin Laden, destroy terrorist networks like al Qaeda, finish the job in Afghanistan, and end the threat posed by the Taliban.

    Double the size of our Special Forces, increase our human intelligence capabilities, and ensure our intelligence is free from political pressure.

    Eliminate terrorist breeding grounds by combating the economic, social, and political conditions that allow extremism to thrive; lead international efforts to uphold and defend human rights; and renew longstanding alliances that have advanced our national security objectives.

    Secure by 2010 loose nuclear materials that terrorists could use to build nuclear weapons or “dirty bombs.”

    Redouble efforts to stop nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea.

    Screen 100 percent of containers and cargo bound for the U.S. in ships or airplanes at the point of origin and safeguard America’s nuclear and chemical plants, and food and water supplies.

    Prevent outsourcing of critical components of our national security infrastructure — such as ports, airports and mass transit — to foreign interests that put America at risk.

    Provide firefighters, emergency medical workers, police officers, and other workers on the front lines with the training, staffing, equipment, and cutting edge technology they need.

    Protect America from biological terrorism and pandemics, including the Avian flu, by investing in the public health infrastructure and training public health workers.

    Not sure how much more specific they need to get for you to be satisfied.

    Change requires some action be taken. doubtful provided seven steps above – that’s a plan, albiet (as he says) an incomplete one. I’ve repeatedly asked you for something besides criticism of actions already taken, but all you’ve provided is more criticism.

    Sorry, I’m trying to post from work while actually getting work done, so I missed that.

    My ideas are similar to those noted above in the Dem plan, plus additional international – not American – troops to stabilize Iraq. Why? Because a bigger international force would cause much, much less animosity, and diffuse the idea that we’re just there to take over their country forever.

    Also, I will note that simply increasing the number of troops and staying until the job is done isn’t a plan, either. (Not saying that’s what you advocate personally – just that those two things appear to be what you’re advocating. Let me know if that’s wrong.)

    You’re simply wrong, Moses. The NG is structured to be a supplemental but front line fighting force. This was done during the 80’s and 90’s to reduce the costs of a standing military. You’ll notice the DoD breakdown I linked makes no separate NG distinction.

    No, I’m not wrong. I work with the military every single day. I talk to these guys day in and day out. And each and every single one of them (including two full-bird Colonels) agree that the NG was not meant to be a primary, frontline fighting force.

    Are they designed to be able to step and in and take some of the load off? Sure. But they were never meant to be a frontline fighting force for 18+ months. And I think I’ll take the word of Colonels and Majors and Captains I work with over yours, or a PR piece from the DoD. No offense … seriously; none intended. I just think that people who have been in the NG for 20 years have a better grasp of the issue.

    Who doesn’t listen well? From your source: (insert quote from Halliburton and military PR here).

    Okay, I admit that wasn’t the best source (I am trying to get work done as well). How about this one:

    Outrage overflowed on Capitol Hill this summer when members of Congress learned that Halliburton’s dining halls in Iraq had repeatedly served spoiled food to unsuspecting troops. “This happened quite a bit,” said Rory Mayberry, a former food manager with Halliburton’s KBR subsidiary.

    [snip]

    William Granger of KBR Water Quality for Iraq reached this conclusion in an email after investigating Carter’s complaint: “Fact: We exposed a base camp population (military and civilian) to a water source that was not treated. The level of contamination was roughly 2x the normal contamination of untreated water from the Euphrates River.” Granger admitted that the contamination was “most likely … ongoing through the entire life” of the camp, but that he was “not sure if any attempt to notify the exposed population was ever made.”

    That’s not gross exaggeration, nor is it PR spin from Halliburton. That’s a statement of fact from someone who did the audit of the water and food for KBR. Naturally, Halliburton and the right tried to discredit the guy, just like they did for auditors who exposed the billion or so in profiteering. Not surprising.

    I don’t think asking for a brief outline of a plan equates to asking for a simple answer;

    If a “brief outline” doesn’t equal a “simple answer,” then I don’t think the words “brief” and “outline” mean what you think they mean. Regardless, one is presented at the beginning of these comments.

    Okay … I’ve got a busy day, so not sure if I can check back in or not. I will note, however, that I truly have enjoyed this discussion. Granted, arguing on the Internet is pretty stupid, but I enjoy the back and forth. 🙂

    Oh … and a note to Matt (post #53) – Dude … if you projected any more, you’d be a PowerPoint presentation. Hopefully someone will show you the just plain ludicricity of your post (and, yes, I just made up that word).

  • Joe, your first problem is you believe the two sources most likely to cover up the incident. Your second problem is you keep arguing semantics.

    Okay, so you’ve got a problem with the word ‘served,’ but the source says they were ‘exposed to’ contaminated water for over a year. You don’t think during that time someone drank some? Or bathed in it? Washed their hands? You’re a sick fuck to argue semantics while our troops are washing their hands in shit. Absolutely pathetic.

    And you’re arguing that chlorinated is the same as treated? I can take sewage and add chlorine to it, that’s doesn’t mean it’s ‘treated’ or safe for human use.

    If old military documents and semantics games are all you have to bring to the table, it’s no wonder the American people rejected your lousy party handily. The long nightmare is finally over.

    • Comments are closed.