Back on April 4 I wrote:
“The essence of compromise boils down to five words: “What’s in it for me?”
So with Bush facing a congressional war-funding bill with deadlines attached–benchmarks that he himself mentioned earlier this year, and is now being asked to hew to–congress is hoping that he will compromise on withdrawal dates rather than veto the entire bill.
What’s in it for him to do so?
Nothing.”
And naturally he didn’t compromise. Which, of course, the Democrats should have seen coming (I mean, if I saw it coming, they should have been able to) and one would hope that a Plan B was in effect.
Well, it’s appearing…not so much.
Now it’s the Democrats who need to stay the course. The Democrats who need to dig in and say, “This or nothing.” Unfortunately, they don’t appear ready, willing or able to do that. There is concern that they will be accused of refusing to fund the troops in time of war.
Well…yeah. Obviously that’s going to be the spin. And the spin in response should be “Who’s more concerned about the troops, the Democrats or the White House? Obviously it’s the Democrats.” Unfortunately for the Democrats, the GOP spin machine is simply more efficient, and Bush more intransigent, than the Democratic leadership. They haven’t yet realized, apparently, that they’re dealing with a mindset that’s as uncompromising as any other extremist. You can’t compromise with extremists. Bush understands that because that’s what he himself is. The Democrats are approaching the issue with the mindset of rational people, which is why they’re in trouble.
We can’t announce a pull out date because we’d be giving information to our enemies? Well, maybe, but more relevant is that we’d be giving information to our supposed allies–the Iraqi government–telling them that the whole “they stand up so we can stand down” thing finally has a timeclock. By me, that’s a good thing.
PAD
• 
Would that be Harry Reid, who declares that the “war is lost” while the troops are still fighting? (*There* is a morale booster, yeah boy… for the enemy.)
Senator Webb has the right approach. In his speech on the fourth anniversary of Mission Accomplished he said, “We won this war four years ago. The question is when we end the occupation.” He’s right. The war–the reasons that were given for it–was won four years ago. We toppled Saddam Hussein’s regime. The Iraqis are no longer developing weapons of mass-destruction (though they weren’t developing them a few years prior to the war, either). Now we’re in an occupation phase, and it’s an occupation we have to end. And in the liguistic morphology of the Bush Administration the occupation became the war itself. We’ve lost the occupation. That’s what Harry Reid is saying when he says “the war is lost.” We can’t win an occupation. We’re not going to win an occupation.
Right now American troops are an irritant in Iraq. The Iraqis are shooting at us because we make a convenient target for their anger. Remove the irritant, and Iraq can begin to heal itself.
“The war is a mess. It could have been done much better. But whatever you believe, the fact is we *are* there. Is it so wrong to want to win?”
There’s nothing wrong with wanting to win. If our victory is measured in Iraqi and American casualties though, what’s the point of even playing?
This war isn’t making our lives any safer. It’s not stomping out terrorism, it’s not defending our borders. We’re fighting someone else’s war.
If the insurgents are doing so well causing chaos now with 110k+ American troops on their soil, they’re going to bring trouble back to the streets the minute we ‘win’ this dámņëd war and leave. The Iraqi government will never be powerful enough to keep things in check. These two forces combined can’t do it. How on Earth would one?
That country is dámņëd if we win or lose. The best we can do now is cut the losses for both we, the invaders and they, the natives.
“Such a non issue or did you forget that Condi is headed over there?”
She is? Why? I wouldn’t want to send someone who’s JOB it is to go and visit other countries. I’d much rather have the Speaker Of The House.
But, everyone else is right. The war is lost. Bush Lied ™, Saddam really didn’t have WMDs [it was voodoo he used!], and the only real enemy in Iraq is America, because America is an evil country, and the infidels should leave.
Global warming is also America’s fault. If only we would all just do what Al Gore says [but not does], all the ice caps would stay intact [on Earth AND Mars], and the Sun wouldn’t be so hot.
Honest to heaven above, I hope beyond hope that the Dems take the White House in ’08.
I know I’ll feel safer.
RLR
because America is an evil country
Blah blah blah. Why is that you bushapologists can never understand the difference between thinking America is evil and disagreeing with the current administration’s policies?
You seem to have no problem with the concept when a democrat is in office.
Please name one person on this blog who said America is an evil country or that global warming was all America’s fault. Be specific.
If you want to discuss a different POV, that’s fine, but if you just came here to beat up on a strawman, then don’t bother.
Fun for everyone, thanks to MADtv: Introducing the Apple iRack!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw2nkoGLhrE&mode=related&search=
Robert Rhodes –
I’d much rather have the Speaker Of The House.
Thursday, April 5th:
DAMASCUS (Reuters) – President Bashar al-Assad met a Republican member of the U.S. Congress on Thursday, a day after Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ended a visit to Syria that was criticized by the White House.
The official news agency said the meeting between Assad and Darrell Issa, a member of the House Committee on Intelligence, discussed ways to improve relations between Washington and Damascus.”
Keep it up, Mr. Hypocrite. You’re certainly making a great case for yourself.
>She is? Why? I wouldn’t want to send someone who’s JOB it is to go and visit other countries.
Yah, lets send Bush’s mistress over there, I have such faith in her abilities, NOT! Her office is a disaster and she can’t seem to quit calling ol’ Shrub her “husband”. Sort of like the World Bank.. What is it with these repubs and their out of marriage affairs?
>But, everyone else is right. The war is lost. Bush Lied ™, Saddam really didn’t have WMDs [it was voodoo he used!], and the only real enemy in Iraq is America, because America is an evil country, and the infidels should leave.
Another question why is it when the Repub has no facts left to stand on they pull the equivalent of a 5 year old hissy fit by spewing and stomping their feet? I hear Shrub was waving his fists in the air and stomping when some of his Texas friends came to visit and he was upset because no one was listening to him.
I’ll feel far safer with a Dem in the White House who hasn’t the mental maturity of a 5 year old.
The “decider” has decided repeatedly that his own cause was lost. How so? He keeps changing the standard of success.
Bush’s RETREATING goals include (please fill in anything I skip): Removing Saddam’s WMDs. Um, regime change (which can only be achieved when a new regime can run the country). Um, defeating the insurgency. Um, a stable region. Um, a stable Iraq. And now, um, an Iraq that is only somewhat deadly…
None of this can be laid at any Democrat’s feet. This is purely the Bush Administration’s doing. The “decider” has made the decisions that led us to this point.
The Dems are simply stating the obvious, as every soldier in Iraq already knows.
“Is it so wrong to want to win?”
First off, I’m not trying to start a flame war. But I have to ask, win WHAT? How will we know if we’ve won? What are the parameters for victory?
First off, I’m not trying to start a flame war. But I have to ask, win WHAT? How will we know if we’ve won? What are the parameters for victory?
I think he believes that “winning” is when Iraq becomes stable and no longer suffers any more terrorist attacks or threats from other nations in the region.
“Losing,” of course, is leaving Iraq the way it is.
RLR may feel ganged up on and, having once wasted my time arguing on a message board with a gaggle of pro-war right-wingers, I know how he might feel. Thus the sarcasm.
Here’s the thing, RLR. I hope you don’t sincerely believe that Bush has made no mistakes whatsoever and it’s all on the Dems. Those of us here sure aren’t apologists for the Democratic Party who never express dissatisfaction with them. PAD sure isn’t, as you can see in the “Democrats earn points for snarkiness” post. Me, I don’t see why Al Gore needs to live in such a large house, and if it uses more electricity than a normal house, generated by forms of power that aren’t environmentally friendly, then that isn’t exactly leading by example, I agree.
I’d like you ask yourself, though…how much of this desire to “win” in Iraq comes from concern over the fate of the Iraqi people and how much of it comes from an ingrained fear of losing and the shame associated with losing.
Losing is part of life. Nobody bats 1.000. No basketball team ever goes 82-0 and effortlessly dominates everybody in the playoffs to win a championship. Sometimes America, like individual people, will lose. That’s not defeatism. That’s reality. The question here is how you cope with it when it happens, whether it’s you getting beaten by somebody else in a game or your country not achieving its objectives.
Just hypothetically, if it could be established beyond any doubt that pulling troops out of Iraq would be best for all concerned, would you be in favor of it? Or would you still be against it regardless of what results it brought because you have such an aversion to losing?
Robert, I couldn’t help noticing from the site you link to that you are still a proud Bush-supporter. I was wondering if you could name a virtue of his presidency that earns him a break from reasonable people for the record-breaking borrowing and spending and for an arbitrary invasion that accomplished no benefit to the US that wouldn’t have taken place if UN inspections had been allowed to continue.
I also couldn’t help noticing that almost every single link on your site opens a new browser window. Doesn’t it bother you to have the use of the back button denied you even for pages within the same site?
I just read this and while it is not what I would consider the ideal outcome, I think I could live with it:
“In a closed-door leadership meeting Thursday, Rep. David Obey (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., suggested that the House guarantee funding of the war only through July. The bill would provide additional money for operations after that point but give Congress a chance to deny those funds be used if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks.”
Where to start… ok…
“Why is that you bushapologists can never understand the difference between thinking America is evil and disagreeing with the current administration’s policies?”
If I said I was a “bushapologist,” let me be clear: I’m not.
Yes, I think Bush has done some good. That alone tends to get large words with unkind meaning thrown my way when I say it in public. Bush isn’t popular, and I tend to get an earful when I say anything positive.
But I have serious issues with Bush and his lack of securing the borders, and trying to push amnesty, and spending, and and and…
“Keep it up, Mr. Hypocrite. You’re certainly making a great case for yourself.”
That a Republican went to Syria a day after Pelosi? That’s not the point I was trying to make. The point is that Pelosi went when the White House asked her not too. Could it be that the White House had a plan to talk with Syria? I don’t know. But I think it was arrogant of Ms. Pelosi to think that she could do a better job by herself than the White House could. Don’t cry to me about the partisanship of the RNC, when Pelosi and Reid start trying to run the country against the President’s wishes. And hate Bush all you like, he’s the Commander In Chief. He deserves the respect of the office. That’s what cheesed me off about Clinton: I couldn’t care less if he’s screwing every woman that walked by him… but when it takes place in the oval office, that’s disrespecting the office you serve in.
“..why is it when the Repub has no facts left to stand on they pull the equivalent of a 5 year old hissy fit by spewing and stomping their feet?”
That’s absolutely not true.
I hold my breath instead. Besides, my feet hurt.
“How will we know if we’ve won?”
True. I was vague on that. Here is my definition of winning: Stay long enough to give the Iraqi government a chance to succeed. Another couple of years? No. I agree that they are being wishy washy over there, and wasting time. They need to step it up now, while we’re still there to help and train. I’d like to see the troops coming home by October. But I’d like it to be either because Iraq is ready to hold their own, or they’ve failed to meet their obligation. I don’t want it because it was listed on the time table on some funding bill.
“I hope you don’t sincerely believe that Bush has made no mistakes whatsoever and it’s all on the Dems.”
Nope, I don’t believe that at all. And I try not to lump all Dems and Libs in the same boat. I’m a conservative first, and a Republican second, and I see plenty of Republicans doing stupid stuff that should get them replaced during their next election.
But I also see Pelosi and Reid – the “voices” of the Democratic party – doing and saying stupid stuff. They need to represent their party, and they need to do a better job of it. What did Reid say the other day? Something about shoving the funding bill down the president’s throat? *That* sounds childish to me. Will he be stomping his feet soon?
“…how much of this desire to “win” in Iraq comes from concern over the fate of the Iraqi people and how much of it comes from an ingrained fear of losing and the shame associated with losing.”
Much of it, for me, comes from the concern over the fate of the Iraqi people. I sincerely believe that they want to change. And I see great strides in that country over the last few years to make that change happen. I also believe that if we leave before they’re ready for us to go, that the masses from other countries will come down on Iraqi citizens like a pile of bricks on water balloons. I pray I’m all kinds of wrong about that… but fear that I’m also right.
The shame of losing wouldn’t be mine to bear. It would be that of the soldier that wanted to stay and fight. Are there a number boys and girls that are fed up and ready to come home? Yeah, I’ll bet there are several. But having spoken to some of those soldiers myself.. and having read the military bloggers.. and having read the blogs from the families of the soldiers… I think there are a great deal more military that want to stay and fight and “finish the job,” than want to just pack it up and bug out.
If it could be proven that pulling out of Iraq is best, then I’m all for it. But as with all conflicts, there are no guarantees. We could pull out tomorrow, and Iraq would succeed.. or not.. or pull out when the Iraqi government feels we should leave, and they fail immediately. All I want is for them to have the best possible chance that we can give them. If not us, who?
“…an arbitrary invasion that accomplished no benefit to the US that wouldn’t have taken place if UN inspections had been allowed to continue.”
I believe much has been to the benefit of America and Iraq. But if you don’t believe that, or believe that we should have just left Saddam in power, then no amount of debate on my part will make any difference in my attempt to argue that point.
Are benchmarks the answer? I think so. That’s my personal belief. I just don’t believe in dates set in stone.
“Robert, I couldn’t help noticing from the site you link to that you are still a proud Bush-supporter.”
Is there a more difficult job than that of the President during a time of war? When he’s not even popular? I wouldn’t want that job. So, yes, I’m still a proud supporter of a man who is making unpopular and difficult decisions.
Besides.. I own the site that I link too. If under the roof of free speech, Rosie O can spout 9/11 conspiracy theories, then I should at least be allowed to support an unpopular President Bush.
“I also couldn’t help noticing that almost every single link on your site opens a new browser window. Doesn’t it bother you to have the use of the back button denied you even for pages within the same site?”
Fair enough. Problem fixed.
Thanks for the debate folks… this has been nifty… but I’m plum tuckered out. 🙂
RLR
Hmm. Worth thinking about. The only thing I can really come up with a response to at the moment is the following…
But I also see Pelosi and Reid – the “voices” of the Democratic party – doing and saying stupid stuff. They need to represent their party, and they need to do a better job of it. What did Reid say the other day? Something about shoving the funding bill down the president’s throat? *That* sounds childish to me. Will he be stomping his feet soon?
To that, I’d say that relations between the two parties were pretty bad long before Reid became an important player. Think back to 2004, with Zell Miller’s contemptuous speech, with Ðìçk Cheney telling voters that America would be attacked again unless they voted for Bush, with the Swift Boating of John Kerry. A seemingly endless stream of attack ads and mockery and contempt coming from the Bush/Cheney ticket, directed at Kerry/Edwards.
Then there is today. Bush and others in his party are calling Democrats cowards…troop-haters…saying that they want to “surrender”…”cut and run”…and believe it or not, Rudy Giuliani is repeating the bûllšhìŧ about how America will be attacked again if a Democratic candidate gets elected. Should any of this be acceptable?
The Democrats have taken plenty of abuse from the other side, and if Reid feels like dishing a little bit of abuse out in response then I for one am not going to think less of him for it. Bush belittles Reid and his party at every opportunity. If anything, I want to see the Dems fight back harder.
Well, the spending bill Bush just vetoed allowed the Iraqis 17 months, now, didn’t it?
Robert, if you can’t name a virtue of Bush’s presidency that earns him a break for the record-breaking borrowing and spending and the arbitrary invasion that has made the US no safer — what makes you think your word alone is enough to convince anyone he deserves that break?
You say you’re a conservative first and a republican second. What conservative virtue has Bush sheltered during his presidency? Committing $1.2 trillion to Medicare spending? An arbitrary invasion of a country that was no threat to anyone within American shores? What effort on the part of the Bush administration has been dedicated to any definition of the word “conserve?”
“First off, I’m not trying to start a flame war. But I have to ask, win WHAT?”
A new CAR!
(Sorry; that’ll teach me to work with “The Price is Right” on in the background.)
PAD
The point is that Pelosi went when the White House asked her not too.
And yet you have NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of criticizing Republicans who also went to Syria, none of whom I recall getting a hall pass from the White House.
So, I ask again, Mr. Hypocrite, why do Republicans get a free pass on this when Pelosi does not?
When you can answer me that, then I can take you seriously. Until then, you desperately read like just another Bush apologist.
he’s the Commander In Chief.
So he has told us. Over, and over, and over.
I should add: why the @#$% are they bashing Pelosi for visiting Syria when the White House had said they wanted a dialogue with Syria and Iran, a dialogue that they themselves took their sweet ášš time (as in, until yesterday) in initiating?
“The point is that Pelosi went when the White House asked her not too.”
What was that point, again? Bush isn’t Pelosi’s boss. Last I checked, the branches of the government are supposed to be somewhat equal. And while the President traditionally handles all foreign affairs, his only authority is to make treaties and appoint ambassadors. Congress just asked the President to sign a funding bill to continue his little wargame in Iraq…and he decided not to sign it. Seems to me the government’s functioning exactly the way it’s supposed to…as co-equal parts of the whole.
I fail to see why the “liberal media” keeps asking what the DEM’s are going to do next. They don’t have to do ANYTHING. Once the current money runs out, Bush’s war will come to an end anyway.
If I said I was a “bushapologist,” let me be clear: I’m not.
So you say, yet you’ve clearly mastered all of the proper Hannitized talking points as well as the art of throwing out non sequitors and strawmen to cover up the fact that you have failed to address a single one of the points I’ve raised.
So, I ask again, Mr. Hypocrite, why do Republicans get a free pass on this when Pelosi does not?
Better question: Why did none of these same people criticize Dennis Hastert when he not only went to China, but told the Chinese government to ignore the Clinton White House. Pelosi never did anything like that.
Congress critters make foreign trips every year, including those in leadership positions. They meet with foreign officials every year. To single this one trip out, especially given that the White House did not raise a single objection when first announced her bi-partisan trip to them and only made a big deal about it once the rightwing media noise machine decided to make it an issue.
Regarding Pelosi, the Bushies are just upset that someone might upset their war party and go over there and get this mess resolved.
I don’t know who listens to NPR on the weekends, but for those who don’t here’s a short recap of “Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me”.
Apparently Bush is not the “Decider in Chief”. After rejecting the Senate bill, he dubbed himself the “Commander Guy.”
One of the panelists opined that the current administration is being scripted by Stan Lee. Exposure to some gamma rays and VOILA, he’s Commander Guy!
Posted by dan at May 5, 2007 01:21 PM
Regarding Pelosi, the Bushies are just upset that someone might upset their war party and go over there and get this mess resolved.
Oh Yeah.. I bet Israel will really love that. Maybe she can go to Iran next and tell Ahmadinejad
that Israel is ready to talk…
Been a while but I’m finally ready to write responses to the rest of RLR’s comment.
Yes, I think Bush has done some good.
Blind squirrel, acorn, every once in a while. Stopped clock, right twice a day. All of those expressions.
That alone tends to get large words with unkind meaning thrown my way when I say it in public.
A lot of people really hate the guy and get fired up when somebody defends his actions. Still, I don’t think you deserve to be insulted for your beliefs, unless you go and say derogatory things about people who oppose Bush like Pelosi, Reid, Gore, etc. So I’m sorry about that.
Could it be that the White House had a plan to talk with Syria?
They have, if I’m not mistaken, made it pretty clear that they refuse to speak with regimes who are doing things they don’t like. For instance, Bush refused to talk with Iran. Where is the harm in just sitting down and talking with them? What is there to lose? By agreeing to talk, you aren’t agreeing to make concessions. You aren’t agreeing to go into appeasement mode. You are just saying “let’s sit down together and see if we can come to some kind of arrangement instead of continuing to be opponents.”
RLR, most of the world does not look at the U.S. with very much fondness. I believe somebody has to change that. Somebody has to show the rest of the world that not everybody in the U.S. government subscribes to this notion of “You’re either with us or against us. It’s our way or the highway. Compromise is not unacceptable; you have to do what we say because we’re the world’s last remaining superpower.” If Pelosi and those others who went with her, including some Republicans as has previously been pointed out, are able to send that message and work toward restoring the goodwill that has been lost as a result of Bush’s arrogance toward everybody who does not go along with him, then I say it’s worthwhile.
…But if you don’t believe that, or believe that we should have just left Saddam in power…
Here’s how I feel about leaving Saddam in power, man. As bad as he was, he was not the only one of his kind. There are many people in charge of nations who treat those under their rule like dirt. Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, for example. Also, Kim Jong-Il. Many more. They are all over the place.
Is it possible to replace them all with kind and gentle and compassionate rulers who can transform these hellholes into utopias? It’s a worthy goal, I don’t dispute that. I just don’t think it can be done. That’s not defeatism, it’s realism, it’s knowing the limitations of the armed forces of the United States.
Plus, if you insist on effecting regime change, then you should go after the worst of the worst, which Saddam was not. As it is now, the U.S. is too bogged down in Iraq to effectively address problems elsewhere. That’s no good.
Finally, whether it’s because it was impossible from the start to make Iraq better or because the people who tried to do it fûçkëd it up colossally, things are actually *worse* than they were under Saddam if we gauge how good things are by how many people die per year. More people are dying in this chaos than did under Saddam. Dictators may be capable of horrible brutality, but at least they maintain order.
So the question here is, what is the lesser of the two evils? Leaving Saddam in power and allowing him to kill and torture whoever he wished? Or removing him but destabilizing the country in the process and sparking a civil war…or perhaps what can more accurately be called a whole shitload of angry Shi’ites exacting revenge for their persecution by Saddam’s regime on the Sunnis who were favored by Saddam, and Sunni terrorist groups not liking this and sneaking into Iraq to fight the Shi’ites, and regimes like Iran not liking *that* and sending their own guys in to fight the Sunnis, and nobody liking the Americans, etc. Actually, accurate or not, “civil war” is more succinct.
Are benchmarks the answer? I think so. That’s my personal belief. I just don’t believe in dates set in stone.
We may have found common ground. I’m in favor of benchmarks too. The thing is, if the Iraqi government can’t achieve those goals, what do we do? At what point do we declare it a lost cause, apologize to the Iraqi people for lighting the match that ignited this explosion, and get out of there so at least WE won’t take any more losses?
Here’s the thing. I’d love it if a multinational peacekeeping force composed of U.N. nations were to go to Iraq and do their best to stabilize it. The “go it alone” approach was a mistake, and obviously many nations working together, a real coalition as opposed to the one we’ve got where the U.S. was the only nation with more than 10 000 troops committed, could accomplish much more. But in order for that to happen, Bush has to swallow his pride and ask for help. He has to ask for help from everybody he told to fûçk themselves (paraphrasing, of course) prior to the war. He has to convince them that it’s worthwhile. He has to give them a good reason to bail him out after his prior lousy treatment of them and indifference to their concerns. I doubt he will even try.
Is there a more difficult job than that of the President during a time of war? When he’s not even popular? I wouldn’t want that job. So, yes, I’m still a proud supporter of a man who is making unpopular and difficult decisions.
Frankly, I don’t much care whether it’s stressful for him or not. Just because he has a difficult job is no reason to go easy on him if he screws up, and most people today believe he has screwed up. I don’t think he’s cut out for the job.
Y’see, it’s one thing to be capable of making difficult decisions. But that’s not enough. You have to make the RIGHT choices most of the time, and you have to be capable of realizing when you’ve made a mistake and be willing to admit it and work toward correcting that mistake.
Defenders of Bush, including Bush himself if I’m not mistaken, point out that Lincholn took a lot of flak for getting the Union into the Civil War.
But the difference is Lincoln, as historian Doris Kearns-Goodwin has pointed out a couple of times in the Daily Show, was willing to listen to dissenting opinions and consider other points of view than his own. As a matter of fact, Mr. Lincoln appointed political opponent Edwin Stanton, who had publicly called Lincoln a “gorilla”, to his Cabinet. Bush, by contrast, seems to only want yes-men and -women. Anybody who questions his decisions finds themselves out of a job. That is now how you run a government. A world leader should be more open-minded than that, more willing to compromise.
Mr. Rhodes, I’ll wager that if I were as partisan and uncompromising as Dubya is, this response to you would have been MUCH less civil. However I, unlike Bush, am willing to admit that I may be wrong.
And that’s all for now.
Er, of course above when I wrote “compromise is not unacceptable” I meant “compromise is unacceptable” or “compromise is not acceptable.”
Also, I meant to say “that is not how you run a government” instead of “that is now how you run a government,” although that IS now how the U.S. government is being run, unfortunately.
Anyway, I broke my rule of previewing every post again and again it has made me look foolish. *sigh*
“Oh Yeah.. I bet Israel will really love that. Maybe she can go to Iran next and tell Ahmadinejad
that Israel is ready to talk…”
Keep Israel out of this mess. If the US has good reason to talk with Syria or Iran, do it. If not, don’t.
Posted by Micha at May 7, 2007 08:56 AM
“Oh Yeah.. I bet Israel will really love that. Maybe she can go to Iran next and tell Ahmadinejad
that Israel is ready to talk…”
Tell that to Polosi
The above should have read…
Posted by Micha at May 7, 2007 08:56 AM
“Oh Yeah.. I bet Israel will really love that. Maybe she can go to Iran next and tell Ahmadinejad
that Israel is ready to talk…”
Keep Israel out of this mess. If the US has good reason to talk with Syria or Iran, do it. If not, don’t.
Tell that to Pelosi
Pelosi apparently is the new Clinton for Republicans.
Keep up the placing of blame on others!
Once again: Please explain how Pelosi’s trip to Syria was any different than Hastert’s trip to China.
Other than Pelosi didn’t tell the Syrian government to ignore the executive branch, that is.
Keep up the placing of blame on others!
It’s not so much blame as they’re trying to create another boogeywoman. Since the GOP can’t run on what a great job they’ve done governing the country, they have to make people afraid to vote for democrats.
That’s really all the GOP has left to offer America: Fear.
Posted by: Pat Nolan at May 7, 2007 09:35 AM
“Oh Yeah.. I bet Israel will really love that. Maybe she can go to Iran next and tell Ahmadinejad
that Israel is ready to talk…”
Posted by Micha at May 7, 2007 08:56 AM
“Keep Israel out of this mess. If the US has good reason to talk with Syria or Iran, do it. If not, don’t.”
Posted by: Pat Nolan at May 7, 2007 09:35 AM
“Tell that to Pelosi”
The United States has it’s own interests as far as Syria is concerned. Which I assume is why Pelosi went to Syria. Part of the interests of the US with Syria are connected with Israel. Whatever Pelosi said concerning Israel is of little significance. From my point of view, the suggestion that her decision to go should have been determined by Israeli interests is more harmful to Israel than whatever she said. I also rather not see Israel associated with any side in american internal politics.
Pat Nolan: “Oh Yeah.. I bet Israel will really love that. Maybe she can go to Iran next and tell Ahmadinejad
that Israel is ready to talk…”
Micha: Keep Israel out of this mess. If the US has good reason to talk with Syria or Iran, do it. If not, don’t.
Pat Nolan: Tell that to Pelosi
Remember when I wondered if you were trying to become the site’s new top troll, Pat? And you asked if I was calling you a troll just because you disagreed with me, and many others here?
It’s not because you disagree…it’s the way you express your disagreement, as shown above. You’re not showing much tact here.
“Defenders of Bush, including Bush himself if I’m not mistaken, point out that Lincholn took a lot of flak for getting the Union into the Civil War.”
Except Lincoln had the brains to attack the people who attacked the Union. If Lincoln were Bush, Lincoln would have immediately invaded Canada…
It is silly to compare Bush to any great (or mediocre) president, except to illustrate just how awful he is.
Not to mention that Lincoln didn’t “get us into the Civil War”. The Confederacy fired the first shot.
Bush needs to make up his mind which past president he’s channeling. Over the past few year’s, he’s tried to be Reagan (I’ll cut taxes, no matter how much the deficit balloons up), Truman (you think I suck now, but history will judge me more kindly), Roosevelt (The only thing we have to fear is, well, just be afraid. Be very afraid), and now Lincoln (Why won’t anyone see how great I am??*).
*Okay, that isn’t even close to Lincoln’s attitude, but it goes to show how delusional he’s become.
Yeah, but Den, y’know he could just ask the Queen if he compares to Lincoln, considering he said that she’s been around since 1776. So, she’d know. Because, she’s, like, old and stuff.
Yeah, I am equating Bush with Bûŧŧ-hëád.
Ford Prefect’s ideas about human speech are becoming more proven every day.
Not to mention that Lincoln didn’t “get us into the Civil War”. The Confederacy fired the first shot.
Oh. Well, now I’m curious. Why was his approval rating so low? I just guessed it was because of the war.
Ford Prefect’s ideas about human speech are becoming more proven every day.
I remember him observing that humans often pointed out the very obvious when there was no point, but otherwise I’m drawing a blank. Which ones are you referring to?
Posted by: Rob Brown at May 7, 2007 09:52 PM
“Remember when I wondered if you were trying to become the site’s new top troll, Pat? And you asked if I was calling you a troll just because you disagreed with me, and many others here?
It’s not because you disagree…it’s the way you express your disagreement, as shown above. You’re not showing much tact here.”
I don’t feel Pat’s posts on this subject were Trollish or lacked tact.
Well, okay. The sarcastic tone didn’t sit well with me, and I recalled him posting on another subject saying something along the lines of “you libbies always do this” or whatever. As a result my first impression of Pat wasn’t particularly favorable, but perhaps I’m being too quick to judge.
In this case, I saw that you seemed to take exception to what he said, and my first thought was “great, now he’s annoying Micha too.”
Posted by Micha at May 8, 2007 07:20 AM
I don’t feel Pat’s posts on this subject were Trollish or lacked tact.
Thank you Micha. though I dont strive to be trollish I will humbley admit to the need to be more articulate in my convictions with a bit more substance thrown in to my responses.
I would agree with Micha. Pat may be passionate about his views -and there’s nothing wrong with that- but I don’t think he’s been any more trollish than the rest of us.