freecounterpoint: A Test

Thursday, December 07, 2006

A Test

If Bush goes along with this Baker-Gates nightmare unfolding before us he will prove himself not only fatally weak or weakminded, [ it is the fatal part that is in question here] he will have undermined us against Islam Militant in a way which is awfully worse than what came before. Bush one was awful. Clinton was bloody awful. But they had some excuse of it not yet being crystal clear what we are up against. For Bush, it was crystal clear less than a year into his first term. So he has no excuse, none whatsoever. If the House of Bush is so damaged by its relations with the House of Saud that it blows off reality like a crack whore in the Bronx, then just how much has been going on, how much have we already been compromised?

Bush can prove me wrong. It is a test. He can look Baker in the eye and say "Fuck You, you don't vote for me". He can look Gates in the eye and say. 'Sorry, but I changed my mind about being under Daddy's leash. Enjoy Houston". He could, but he won't.

I don't have to bet my life on it. This administration already has done that.

16 comments:

The Darkroom said...: So you'd rather see more of the same ?; 12/07/2006 11:34 AM
Tecumseh said...: How about defeating the head-hackers, for a change? That would be a change in policy, not more-of-the-same. Winning trumps surrender any time of the day, in my book. Not in the French book, of course.; 12/07/2006 3:23 PM
The Darkroom said...: It doesn't look like much defeating is going on on the part of the US either. You guys are so funny bitching at those who advocate a pull out - but what is your strategy for victory ?; 12/07/2006 3:46 PM
Tecumseh said...: Kill the bad guys. Too difficult a concept to grasp for a oh-so-sophisticated mind?; 12/07/2006 4:17 PM
The Darkroom said...: That's your strategy ? Kill the bad guys ? Y'all have been at it for three years, achieved basically nothing and look at the shit you've stirred !
So more of the same, he ?; 12/07/2006 4:40 PM
Tecumseh said...: You got it, buster.; 12/07/2006 5:46 PM
The Darkroom said...: Yeah, isn't it tough when reality comes around to piss all over ideology ?; 12/07/2006 5:51 PM
My Frontier Thesis said...: That all depends on whose "reality" you're referring to, Pepe.; 12/07/2006 6:39 PM
The Darkroom said...: the reality is the failed iraqi policy, mft - unless you want to argue it's a success.; 12/07/2006 10:02 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: the iraq policy that failed was the policy that refused to bring the attack to the enemy and defeat him. A policy which bets on the americans having more patience than the IMs is as certain of complete failure as Pepe is as certain to go to his grave with Fidel in his heart, as Strawman in his hand, and a Non Sequitur on his lips.; 12/08/2006 5:07 AM
My Frontier Thesis said...: AA's got a point, Pepe. Remember the pre-war drums that got everyone ready for the "Shock and Awe"? Then, when it came, well, it wasn't. We can say that that set the tone for the rest of the war.; 12/08/2006 4:49 PM
The Darkroom said...: it wasn't ? i thought they pretty much razed baghdad.; 12/08/2006 6:20 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: You thought wrong. But not your fault, you actually trust Dan Rather to set the proper frequency. It's just a tuning problem; 12/08/2006 7:27 PM
My Frontier Thesis said...: A razing would have been full-on B-52 carpet bombing for a week. The Pentagon doesn't need to do that these days though, especially when it comes to urban warfare. A proper Shock and Awe campaign might involve simultaneously striking hundreds, perhaps thousands, of targets in Baghdad with precision guided munitions, all within the time frame of about two minutes.

I digress: at this point, all this talk about "What should've been done" is just a bunch of waste and prattle.; 12/08/2006 8:32 PM
The Darkroom said...: They Told You So

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 8, 2006

Shortly after U.S. forces marched into Baghdad in 2003, The Weekly Standard published a jeering article titled, “The Cassandra Chronicles: The stupidity of the antiwar doomsayers.” Among those the article mocked was a “war novelist” named James Webb, who is now the senator-elect from Virginia.

The article’s title was more revealing than its authors knew. People forget the nature of Cassandra’s curse: although nobody would believe her, all her prophecies came true.

And so it was with those who warned against invading Iraq. At best, they were ignored. A recent article in The Washington Post ruefully conceded that the paper’s account of the debate in the House of Representatives over the resolution authorizing the Iraq war — a resolution opposed by a majority of the Democrats — gave no coverage at all to those antiwar arguments that now seem prescient.

At worst, those who were skeptical about the case for war had their patriotism and/or their sanity questioned. The New Republic now says that it “deeply regrets its early support for this war.” Does it also deeply regret accusing those who opposed rushing into war of “abject pacifism?”

Now, only a few neocon dead-enders still believe that this war was anything but a vast exercise in folly. And those who braved political pressure and ridicule to oppose what Al Gore has rightly called “the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States” deserve some credit.

Unlike The Weekly Standard, which singled out those it thought had been proved wrong, I’d like to offer some praise to those who got it right. Here’s a partial honor roll:

Former President George H. W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, explaining in 1998 why they didn’t go on to Baghdad in 1991: “Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.”

Representative Ike Skelton, September 2002: “I have no doubt that our military would decisively defeat Iraq’s forces and remove Saddam. But like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road, we must consider what we would do after we caught it.”

Al Gore, September 2002: “I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century.”

Barack Obama, now a United States senator, September 2002: “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”

Representative John Spratt, October 2002: “The outcome after the conflict is actually going to be the hardest part, and it is far less certain.”

Representative Nancy Pelosi, now the House speaker-elect, October 2002: “When we go in, the occupation, which is now being called the liberation, could be interminable and the amount of money it costs could be unlimited.”

Senator Russ Feingold, October 2002: “I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. ... When the administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the administration’s motives.”

Howard Dean, then a candidate for president and now the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, February 2003: “I firmly believe that the president is focusing our diplomats, our military, our intelligence agencies, and even our people on the wrong war, at the wrong time. ... Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.”

We should honor these people for their wisdom and courage. We should also ask why anyone who didn’t raise questions about the war — or, at any rate, anyone who acted as a cheerleader for this march of folly — should be taken seriously when he or she talks about matters of national security.; 12/08/2006 10:41 PM
My Frontier Thesis said...: People forget the nature of Cassandra’s curse: although nobody would believe her, all her prophecies came true.

Blah-blah-blah: Again, Pepe, the Left that you endorse has just as great a desire for armegeddon as the Religious Right you hate. The Left loved that Hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans and they wish it had done so much more so they could say, "See! Global Warming!" The Religious Right would love it as well so they could say, "See! The Lord is upset with us!"

You guys are a bunch of friggin cranks. Keep whatever you're smoking in your own house, and stop sharing the stupidity.; 12/09/2006 9:47 AM