Mar 20 2008
SurrenderMedia Fantasies
Had to laugh at the SurrenderMedia today as they tried to digest the 5th anniversary of our invasion of Iraq. After their inability to grasp the threats and risks of this complex and dangerous world – so well illustrated when they declared the fact that Saddam Hussein was working with Ayman Zawahiri (AQ’s number two leader) for many years before 9-11 meant there was no connection between Saddam and AQ – it seems they are have to emphasize there other big weakness: impatience. The Washington Post attempted the “we are the media so we look down our noses at you commoners” trick by trying to show there is no difference between the GOP/Bush on fighting to win and the Clinton/Obama/Dems fight to declare defeat and bring the troops home – surrendering to AQ. Check out this accidental exposure of their faults and confusion:
THE FIFTH anniversary of the invasion of Iraq prompted a flurry of speeches from President Bush and the Democratic candidates who hope to inherit the White House next year. Sadly, what they had in common was their failure to grapple with hard realities — beginning with the elusiveness of any clear or quick path toward Mr. Bush’s promise of “victory,” or that of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to “end this war.”
Emphasis mine. Now where did anyone of any standing say Iraq would be quick (and of course ‘easy’)? Ignorance and haste is the sign of lazy minds and weak morals. If it ain’t quick and easy we can’t do it. But then all our problems (and those of the world) are hard and require long term commitment to fix.
This is one of the biggest problems with the left (and some on the far right) – they can only support the quick fix. They want their world views implemented now. The left though tends to really fall for the non-confrontational, let’s all just get along, why do we have to try so hard, kind of crap. That is why people sitting on welfare watching soap operas and wasting away seemed perfectly normal to liberals and abhorrent to conservatives.
No one said Iraq would be easy, and no one said fighting a religious ideology that is basically a suicidal fascist insanity, would be easy. No one who knows what they are talking about said it would be quick. To change hearts and minds takes time and resources.
The fact the left is bored with this necessary work is not a reflection on the job to be done. And since we are building a path to victory in Iraq it is clearly doable. The only people looking pathetic are those sitting behind desks in DC and NYC pretending they know more than anyone else on the planet, when in reality they are bunch of impatient fools who have yet to admit their own mistaken predictions. Too funny.
BTW, the thought about impatient dolts trying to pretend they must fix the world (heaven help us) first came to me last night when I heard Lou Dobbs claim it was time for journalists to develop non-partisan (cough, cough) plans to end the war in Iraq. General Dobbs reporting for duty! What a joke these people have become.
(Homer Simpson voice ON) – “Journalists – is there ANYTHING they don’t know????”
Hard for them to understand the difference between positive occupation versus confrontation, huh?
Alleged ‘journalists’ are probably the most misinformed ignorant people on the planet. No news here, just enterntainment.
How long have we been working on racism?
“Now where did anyone of any standing say Iraq would be quick (and of course ‘easy’)?”
Does the Secretary of Defense count as someone of “standing”?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/15/world/main529569.shtml
“Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that,” [Rumsfeld] said.
Well, taken out of context I guess people could make up what that quote means. Rumsfeld was talking about how long it would take to topple Saddam and his military. If that confused some people that is not the fault of Bush or Rumsfeld, who both said after 9-11 the fight against terrorism would be a generational war, and would last long after his administration. Since those of us who supported the war knew what we were getting into and knew it would take a lot of effort to win over Islamo Fascism, using the confusion of the liberal left on this subject doesn’t make the case about the war, but about the naiveté of the left.
“I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today will last five days, five weeks or five months, but it won’t last any longer than that. ” – Donald Rumsfeld
Are we still using “force in Iraq”? If so, then how can that possibly be “taken out of context”? (And if not, what are all those soldiers for?)
I really would love to see some evidence of your insistence that you “knew what we were getting into”. Can you provide a URL, or a quote anywhere from “anyone of standing” saying 5 years ago that we’d still have 140,000+ troops in Iraq, that we’d be spending an estimated $2 billion a week (remember, Lawrence Lindsey was forced to step down after he estimated the cost of Iraq could reach $200 billion — oh, if only it had been that low), and that nearly 4,000 American troops would be dead?
Now, I’m not looking for specific predictions like that, of course – but I’d love to see something from a member of the Bush Administration, or one of the conservative think-thanks, or even a right wing, pro-war blog from anywhere in 2002 or 2003, which gave a realistic estimate of our involvement in Iraq, in terms of time, cost, *or* human lives.
yawn
That’s all the Left has… looking backward… gleefully “blaming”
Not a freakin word about the future , what to do.. what the consequences are.. nothing of SUBSTANCE.
Just their God-damnned bitching and moaning.
“…The fact the left is bored with this necessary work…” if your argument is based on a fallacy how good is your argument? this was an invasion and occupation of choice. unfortunately the choosers have left the rest of us with the un-intended and un-planned for consequences…they chose to lose 4000 troops, they chose to borrow $2 trillion from china, they chose to strengthen al queda, they chose to strengthen iran, and they chose $4.00 gas. they chose to violate our rights as us citizens, and they chose to torture innocent us citizens. in short they chose to give aid to the enemy, they chose to be treaosnous, and you all continue to chose to support them. victory my arse.
Am I correct to understand that that there are no “operational ties” between Barack Obama and Hiliary Clinton ?
Vince, are you actually suggesting that we should ignore 4,000 dead American soldiers?
Or simply that we should learn nothing from the past?
Strata stated “those of us who supported the war knew what we were getting into”. I simply asked for ONE sign of proof of that, from anyone ANYWHERE on the right. Your somewhat sad attempt to change the subject right away pretty much proves my point: there isn’t any.
you can’t learn from the past if you refuse to acknowledge the reality of the past. one simple example: if you insist on ignoring the stated goal of the 20% troop excalation and simply state over and over again that the 20% troop escalation is a resounding success…then any lessons taken from the 20% troop escalation will be, ipso facto, wrong. there…i used ipso facto in a post…i can go home now.
Breshchau: I’m actually suggesting that people like you should just be ignored as the irrelevent distractions that you are.
I have nothing to prove to yet another clueless braindead Leftist spouting the party for the 94979079027826-89079th time.
You think you’re clever and making statements that no one has ever heard before?
I suspect you’ve asked these questions so many times you have no clue the count..and each tiem you get the same answers and each tiem you respond the same way.
Go waste time with other people.. i dont find playing “Who’s on First” is a valueable use of tiem I could use to masturbate.
Hi, Vince. Still not one bit of proof? Yeah, figured that. C’mon – if it’s been provided countless times, just give me a one link – that’s all.
Oh, and please tell me what qualifies more as an “irrelevant distraction”:
1. An *ONGOING* unprovoked war that killed nearly 4000 Americans, many thousands more innocent Iraqis, and is going to cost this country $1 trillion.
2. Two minutes worth of two different sermons, collected from a 36 year period, given by the pastor of a church at which a Presidential candidate happened to attend – and which has been soundly denounced by said candidate.
Which side of the aisle is distracting us from the important issues, again?
By all means… dont let me stand in the way of your addressing the important issues of 2003.
Okay, so you can’t prove what Strata said is true. You and I agree he’s a liar now? Good, glad we got past that.
breschau,
First and last warning. You are guest here (a very rude one). Insult your host and you are gone.
grow up and try and debate like an adult – if you can.
I wasn’t going to be baited into responding but I can’t let Bresh’s slander of AJ go without comment
I disagree with AJStrata on some things but have I ever thought he was insincere, dishonest, or a liar?
No.
Strata:
Sorry, that probably was over the line. Vince just kind of annoyed me – and yes, I was baiting him.
However, it is difficult to “debate like an adult”, when the other side chooses to insult you, *and* refuses to actually debate the issue. I hope you understand my frustration in the fact that no one will actually address my point: where were the warnings from anyone on the conserative side of the aisle about exactly what we were facing when we invaded? Rumsfeld had “five weeks at most”, Cheney had us “treated as liberators”, Bush had his premature “Mission Accomplished” banner, etc. It seems to me that the Bush Administration did, on several occasions, say that “Iraq would be easy”.
That’s called “false pretenses”. I think we were lied to on several levels — but no, even I won’t get into the tired “No WMD” argument. See, Vince – I do agree that some issues really have been beaten into the ground. But, it is important to remind ourselves of these, and bring the truth out, so that it *doesn’t happen again*. I’m seeing the same kind of untruths and distortions coming from Bush, Cheney, McCain etc. about Iran that we saw back in 2002/2003. THAT, Vince, is why we can’t ignore this and treat it as old and boring news. This country cannot survive another war like this.
See, the irony is – I agree completely with you on the idea that we should have known how long, and hard, and expensive (in more than one sense) this invasion was going to be. What am I trying to find is: who on the right actually said that out loud *before* we invaded?
Beschau,
I understand the frustration – cheers, AJStrata