Comments Posted By r4d20
Displaying 31 To 40 Of 53 Comments
REID AND THE DEMS: COWARDLY, IMMORAL JELLYFISH
Let me say up front that it is ridiculous for anyone to make a judgement about the success or failure of “the surge†at this point. That’s because 1) all troops earmarked for deployment have not arrived; 2) other factors relating to the new strategy such as the increased number of reconstruction teams have not been realized as yet;
So what you are saying is that we've been telling the enemy about our "Surge" strategy for months and we are STILL haven't really started on it.
Hell, if I was a nineteenth century British noble I might applaud the president for being so "sporting" with the insurgency, but as a twentieth century American I happen to think that it's completely inappropriate to give your enemies months to prepare by announcing your actions months ahead of time. It is even more inappropriate to do so while simultaneously claiming, as this Admin does, that demands for a withdrawl "endanger our soldiers by emboldening the enemy" - nothing "emboldens" the enemy as much as telling them our strategy months in advance.
3) it will be largely up to the Iraqi government and the political steps it takes to confront its shortcomings and reach out to various factions to discern whether or not our military efforts have born fruit.
Which, as is clear to anyone not blinded by emotion, AINT GOING TO HAPPEN because too many Iraqis political leaders have a vested interest in preventing it!!!! There are just too many powerful faction leaders who feel they stand to gain more by war than peace. Anyone who tried would, quickly be killed by one of the MANY factions who see peace as a threat to their interests. Sadly, the fact that the majority of "normal" iraqis want peace is currently immaterial next to the fact that the minority who doesn't is MORE than big enough (not to mentioned organized and well-armed) to tank any chance there may, hypothetically, be.
And the steps he has taken so far have been tiny and mostly ineffective...Despite these problems, there is still time for Maliki to offer bold leadership that will start the Iraqis on the road to political recovery and allow for at least some of our troops to come home
Yeah, and there is still time for Michael Jackson to develop a taste for adult women.....
Seriously, what kind of Utopian nonsense is this? There is NOTHING in Maliki's track-record to indicate that he has any serious desire, let alone intention, of risking his life to offer this kind of "Bold Leadership" and it is completely irrational to bet American lives and resources on the theoretical possibility that he could pull a complete 180 change in behavior.
You are neither a fool nor a hopeless idealist, so why do you raise this hypothetical change-in-course as anything close to a serious possibility - let alone a chance that justifies betting American lives and resources.
The war was winnable but we screwed the pooch years ago while our leaders dithered about "last throws" and "dead enders".
Comment Posted By r4d20 On 20.04.2007 @ 19:59
ARE WE DAYS AWAY FROM WAR WITH IRAN?
Attacking Iran would be stupid.
We don't have troops to follow up an attack, so the "best" we can do is an isolated bombing campaign that will not take out the regime and certainly bring "retaliation" which could well be more than we are currently prepared to deal with.
We have 130,000 troops in Iraq, surrounded by hostile natives at the end of long and vulnerable supply lines. Iran has plenty of manpower, including millions of basij who can support the regular army by rushing us in numbers - soaking up our ammo and air/artillery support. Iran also has enough anti-ship missles to effectively close the straights of Hormuz to our ships - we haven't won any of our own wargames that wasn't "rigged" by artifically limiting the number of missles "allowed" to be used by Iran.
Not that any of this will matter to most of you - You proabably think I'm slandering the troops by not believing they can do anything. You think supporting the troops means believing they can do everything on a shoestring budget ... and then asking them to do just that.
Comment Posted By r4d20 On 26.03.2007 @ 06:59
DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT
It's amazing how no scandal of this admin can shake your faith that "The Left" is worse. Decades ago there was a "Left", but those times are past. "The Left" now is a phantom - the real threat is so-called conservatives who copy the tactics of the old, real, Left.
Comment Posted By r4d20 On 26.03.2007 @ 06:28
The Republican party doesn't resemble the Nazis - it resembles the Soviets. That, in some ways, is even more damning.
HILLARY: THE FRONTRUNNER IS BACKSLIDING
Keep telling yourself that the only reason anyone would regret supporting the war is because they grovel for the netroots.
I regret supporting a war waged by jackasses who blew a war that would already be over if they had any idea how to fight.
Comment Posted By r4d20 On 15.03.2007 @ 09:09
WHAT JOE WILSON'S LIES HAVE WROUGHT
no evidence that she was, in fact, covert.
No evidence that is made publicly available - because if that kind of evidence was in the public domain the agents in question wouldn't remain "covert" for very long because suspcious foreign governments could use these same sources to discover if some suspected American is an agent of ours The US government will neither confirm nor deny ANY claims about almost ANY suspected agents status as a covert agent for the same reason they won't confirm or deny if ANY given warship has the capability to launch nuclear missiles - any firm admission or denial discloses information to potential adversaries. Its really sad how so many people have no problem understanding this concept when it is used to justify refusing to answer questions regarding terrorist surveillance programs, only to completely "forget" when it is their ox that is gored.
This is the same bullshit Kennedy pulled with the "missle gap" lie - he knew it was bullshit but that Eisenhower & Nixon couldn't prove it was a lie without comprimising the existence of the U2 and the overflights of the USSR. Eisenhower knew that even a statement like "its a lie but we cant tell you how we know" could raises Soviet suspicion that they had an information "leak" and potentially comprimise the whole thing. Thankfully, Eisenhower and his administration cared more about the national security of this country than about politics and refuting a pack of bald-faced lies (which were more egregious and cynical than anything credited to Joe Wilson).
This administration, however, saw some 2-bit pompous gasbag, whose allegations were relatively weak at best, as an unignorable threat that demanded refutation. Even then, the only refutation they really needed was to point out the fact that he was only one man, with limited access to info, whose investigation mainly consisted in conducting voluntary interviews with Nigerian officials who themselves may not have known, or cared to tell him, the whole truth.
Frankly, I remember being thoroughly unimpressed with the "conclusions" of his op-ed for the afore-mentioned reasons and certainly didn't see them as proof that Bush 'misled' us into war (because they weren't). I knew the Dems would pounce on it but, since it wasn't really a "smoking gun", I felt it would soon fade away and wouldn't lead anywhere.
Instead I became increasingly amazed as I saw the response to these minor allegations become progressively more unhinged and divorced fromboth common sense and reality . From the "outing" of a covert agent, to ridiculous claims that the CIA was a nest of traitors who were willing to sabotage the security of the nation they swore to protect simply to embarass Bush, to Kennedy-style allegations that she wasn't really covert and demands for proof to the contrary which obviously cannot be supplied without risking sources and methods , to snide comments that displayed both abyssmal ignorance of real-world intelligence operations and a callous disregard for the lives of the foreigners who are on OUR side ("Even if she was covert, its not like she was a James Bond superspy, so how much harm could her outing have really done anyway?". The reality is that most CIA 'covert agents' dont sneak around in the dark*, but rather travel "openly" under false pretenses. Her cover was an employee of a fake company doing legitimate business in Iran . Once her cover was blown any Iranian seen meeting with her in public, or known to have done business with her "company", is immediately placed under suspicion of being an American agent).
Finally, I watched as it was all rationalized by the idea (repeated by Bruce above) that we must, above all, stop "continually taking “the high road†and not fighting back and challenging the left’s distortions of the truth" ... an idea which has now been taken so far that even breaches of national security are (despite obligitory denials) openly justified as needed to "stop the left". "Nothing improper was done....but even if it had been it would have been justified because her husband is a leftist asshole and a liar " *wink*
None of this should have been necessary to respond to a clown like Wilson. If they had played it cool this would be over by now, but they flipped the hell out and started this chain of events. They have no one to blame but themselves, and I don't understand how otherwise smart individuals can fall for these lame-ass "points" and excuses.
*Covert and Clandestine are two different things. "Clandestine" activities derive their security from not being detected - but if detected are recognisable for what they are. "Covert", on the other hand, refers to activities which are done openly but under false pretenses. A night-time raid into Iranian territory by a military unit wearing US uniforms is "clandestine". A spy who travels openly on a commercial flight to Iran under the pretense of doing business there, is "covert". Obviously something can be both clandestine and covert, but an agent can be "covert" and still be "high profile" in his assumed persona.
Comment Posted By r4d20 On 7.03.2007 @ 22:42
A thought that should give pause to even the most reactionary leftist…the possibility of veteran security establishment technocrats ham-handedly attempting to swing the outcome of a Presidential election during a time of war is the stuff of banana republic cabals, not American democracy.
Slandering the CIA as a cabal that is are willing to risk the security of this nation just to embarrass Bush is as fact-free and despicable as any of the slanders aimed at our military by the radical leftists.
If you are going to slander hard-working Americans, who are as integral to this country's defense as the army or navy, don't pretend to be a patriot while you do it - You occupy the same moral plane as the people who spit on soldiers.
Comment Posted By r4d20 On 7.03.2007 @ 17:55
the left will still hate these ‘linguini spined conservatives’ as much as if they said the ‘f’ word themselves.
A shrink was giving a man a Rorschach Test. He held up the first picture and asked what it looked like to the man. "People having sex" he responded. He held up the second card, and got the same response. Card after card and the answer was always the same: "sex". Finally, the shrink said "I've diagnosed your problem. You are obsessed with sex". "Whatever doc" came the reply, "you're the one showing me all the dirty pictures".
One thing I've learned by interacting with radicals on both wings is this: The more one attributes "hatred" to his opponents, the more certain it is that he hates them.
Comment Posted By r4d20 On 5.03.2007 @ 22:17
Conservatism used to be about fighting for individual liberties against the creeping power of the state.
I completely agree with you, but where have you been for the last few years??? Is this really the first time you've noticed a disconnect between the definition of "conservatism" we believe in and the definition believed by those who outnumber us by a substantial margin (and have correspondingly more influence)?
If everyone started saying "dog" to mean "cat" and visa versa you can either rant about how wrong they are, and continue to speak in away that will now be misunderstood by the world, or you can adapt to the new meaning and speak so that others will understand you.
When you say "conservative" you may mean the kind of beautiful philosophy expressed by the likes of Hayek, Popper, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, etc. but in the minds of the majority (of "conservatives") it will be understood as "simply a matter of believing in low taxes, small government, a strong defense, and family values" and, I add, reflexive opposition to anything labeled "left/liberal"
You are NOT going to change the current of this river. You can either head toward the bank to get out or be swept downstream by it.
Comment Posted By r4d20 On 5.03.2007 @ 15:27
MAHER: BEYOND POLITICALLY INCORRECT
DC: "If you support the war on terror, then it only makes sense to support it where the terrorists are fighting us"
Translation: "Shouldn't we fight the enemy on the ground, and under conditions, of his choosing?"
It is this kind of incompetence that is getting our soldiers killed. Don't even get me started on his (and Rumsfelds') plan to pacify Iraq by filling the streets with 300,000 unemployed men armed with AK-47s (and who were quickly offered $10,000+ per attack on Americans by jihadis funded by his Saudi friends).
Too many of our soldiers have died because of his complete incompetence.
Comment Posted By r4d20 On 3.03.2007 @ 23:43
RM: "Plenty of fake outrage on the left too. And if its not fake, they’re idiots to allow themselves to be used as unwitting stage props in Coulter’s show."
True, outrage against Coulter is stupid and merely feeds her propaganda machine.
OTOH, I understand why they get upset at the fact that left-idiots like Ward Churchill often get far more negative media attention than the equally contemptible members of the right. WC was an unknown 2-bit pseudo-academic who the "right", not the "left", made a household name and he would still be unknown by 99% of the "left" if the "right" hadn't used manufactured outrage to make him famous. Unlike WC, however, Coulter wasn't made famous by her enemies - she was made famous by her supporters who agree with her and buy her books like hotcakes. WC was never a regular guest on National TV, but Coulter still is to this day.
As a younger brother who got in trouble for the same things my older brother got away with, I understand the frustration.
Comment Posted By r4d20 On 4.03.2007 @ 00:16
