Sunday, November 25, 2007

And AA wanted us to vote for Ted's Butt-boy Kerry

Posted by at

9 comments:

Arelcao Akleos said...

IF a Kerry-McCain ticket had happened, under the conditions of McCains responsibility for the conduct of the "WOT", THEN I would have voted for Kerry. The point is that such a Kerry for which this could materialize was not/ no longer was Ted's Butt-Boy.
That never happened, or only happened in some alternative universe, so to that JJ in that alternative universe kudos for the post "And AA wanted us to vote for Not Ted's Butt-boy Kerry". To the JJ in this universe, you sayin' McCain would have been Ted's Butt-boy??
Anyway, back to Pat "Angel of Doom" Buchanan.

11/25/2007 10:45 PM
Mr roT said...

So, McCain would've got rid of your and AI's buddy Airwad Rumpsfield and replaced him with a ground guy like Petraeus? I think not! I think Kerry and Co would have made Feingold SecDef, upped Sanchez to a 5-star and put him in charge of a retreat starting at Okinawa and ending on the other side of Okinawa.

11/25/2007 10:52 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...

Actually, I do think McCain would have favored taking action on the ground. He was for it from the beginning, faulting Rumsfield for inadequate troop presence in Afghanistan and in the moves into Iraq. Whether he would have gone with Petraeus I don't know, but the affinity between what Petraeus envisioned and McCains "tactical stance" is strong.
Again, think of this IF in that Kerry-McCain scenario. The deal, as far as we know of it, was that McCain would be offered a much enhanced role for a vice-president, particularly control of all aspects of the "WOT"--including combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure, this may well reflect Kerry's complete lack of gumption for that task. Only the more reason why he would be glad to have washed his hands off of it and leave the onus on John's shoulders.
My hypothetical absolutely requires that IF. No "If" then no "then".
You are arguing, I think, for a scenario where the deal succeeded in electing Kerry, but John McCain was being set up for a bit of three card monte by that Swifty Slicker . Had McCain bit, he would have presumably been trapped in Blair house while Kerry reneged on all deals and went full spead ahead on the Yellow Cabrone road.
I disagree, for two reasons. First, McCain would have brought hell fire down on Kerry's administration if he had tried such a tricksy play. Second, it would have taken huge cojones for Kerry to assume responsibility for the "WOT", diss in a major way his vice-president, publically piss on an agreement which had been the keystone to his election, and almost surely guarantee a monstrous defeat in a reelection bid. Major major cojones....But, never forget JJ, it takes a village of skilled techicians with an electron microscope to find vestigial evidence of the existence of Kerry's political cojones.
I will give you this. If Kerry had won the election on his own terms, and he was not so far away from doing so in 2004, then we would be lucky to have a "warrior" like Sanchez leading the retreat--it would probably have been Wesley Clark.

11/26/2007 12:23 AM
My Frontier Thesis said...

You guys should consider authoring an historical novel.

11/26/2007 12:46 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...

Hmmm you mean like The Mankerrian Candidate?

11/26/2007 1:41 AM
Mr roT said...

You and your IF. IF Kerry would've got elected with McCain, he would have showered him with a ton of "cost in human lives" shit (meaning "cost in MoveOn votes") and put him right into Blair house BECAUSE of his sub-CryoEM-resolution-sized testicles.

One drooling meandering speech from Kerry (wiping up Kennedy's ooze from his lips) and McCain would be begging his buddy Feingold for help on this one too.

Seen any good sense come out of him lately, O AA?

11/26/2007 1:57 AM
Tecumseh said...

When our tale opens, it is the last month of 2006, Democrats have just scored a blowout in Congress, Iraq is in shambles, and the country is calling for Bush to change course. He does. But he changes course in the other direction, radically revising his Iraq strategy, adopting aggressive new rules of engagement, and sending in 30,000 more troops.

Powwwww!!!

Afraid of moving directly to defund the armed forces, Democrats decided on a series of steps that would have the same effect without saying so, i.e., putting so many restrictions and regulations on troop deployments that the number available would in effect be greatly reduced. These would be sponsored by veterans (James Webb and John Murtha), and the stated goal would be to help the armed forces. The real goal, however, was to strangle the surge in its crib.

Sneaky, sneaky, sneaky!

The Democrats are now doing the same thing in reverse, closing their minds to all news that is not catastrophic, or, on the rare occasions they admit to a small sign of progress, denying all credit to our strategy, to our leaders, or, worst of all, to our troops.

Mais bien sur.

Seldom before in the annals of governance have so many politicians fought so long and so hard to completely screw up a winning strategy being waged on their country's behalf. Some cruelly define this as treacherous conduct, but this is imprecise and unkind. They tried, it is true, to do serious damage, but were compromised in the event by their chronic incompetence, as well as by being too above-board and open to try to do things on the sly.

Oh, well -- shit happens. They can only try again, maybe next time they'll manage to get those choppers flying from the
roof of the Embassy in the Green Zone...

11/26/2007 2:10 AM
My Frontier Thesis said...

Hmmm you mean like The Mankerrian Candidate?

OhhHHHhh, sometimes the puns are so bad that they are good.

11/26/2007 10:42 AM
Mr roT said...

AI, I also liked those quotes and others. I usually shy away from papers like Weekly Standard but this Noemie Emery is pretty good. You ever hear of her?

11/26/2007 12:12 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)