Counterattack! Harry Reid accuses Boehner of blaming the military

posted at 7:59 pm on November 1, 2006 by Allahpundit

Why is Kerry so widely derided for having a political tin ear when Reid gets a mostly free pass? He reads Keith Olbermann into the Congressional Record, he refuses (initially) to return tainted campaign contributions, he threatens the broadcasting license of television networks that dare to besmirch Bill Clinton’s legacy, and now this. The only difference between him and Waffles is that Waffles married his money while Reid made his through “creative” land deals.

Here’s the press release via the lovely KP, whose e-mail to me in its entirety read “AAAAARRRRRGHHHH.” Quote:

John Boehner ought to be ashamed. He’s blaming our troops for failures in Iraq. If he wants to cast blame, he can start by looking in the mirror because he and his Congressional Republican colleagues have rubberstamped the Bush Administration’s failed policy for nearly four years. Our troops in Iraq have performed bravely. It’s political leaders like Congressman Boehner and Donald Rumsfeld, who have failed. I expect President Bush and Congressional Republicans, who demanded John Kerry apologize, hold their own party’s majority leader to a much higher standard. There’s no spinning his disparaging comments. He made them. He needs to apologize.

Here, in streaming video, are the awful comments for which Harry Reid is demanding an apology.


There’s no spinning them. In which case, when does Time magazine plan to apologize?

Dan Riehl e-mails to say that Kerrygate might not be quite dead yet. Mark Levin supposedly said on his radio show tonight that quotes will surface tomorrow that suggest Kerry was indeed discussing the troops, not Bush, when he made his remarks. I’m skeptical, but this is Waffles we’re talking about. We shall see. Meanwhile, Cheney’s getting in his uppercuts while he can.

KP was all over Kerry earlier today. Lucky guy.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Gotta give credit where credit is due.

Wolf Blitzer said the obvious off the cuff comeback line…

“Well, but he’s in charge of the military.”

Well, duh.

Christoph on November 1, 2006 at 8:07 PM

*crickets*

Well I guess Boehner doesn’t have a history of maligning the troops, lying about his war record, or being an elitist prick.

E L Frederick on November 1, 2006 at 8:27 PM

Pinky’s (aka Reid’s) attempts at making hay of Boenher’s comments are as lame as the “botched joke” defense. In fact, I hope he continues such “counterattacks”, because it will only continue to highlight Kerry’s gaffe, and they won’t be able to blame the Republicans for continuing to bring it up.

As far as Cheney’s uppercuts go, I hope he keeps getting them in, because they are a good reminder of not only the choice we faced then, but the choice we face now. And as sucky as the congressional Republicans have been the last 2 years, it could be worse – much, much worse.

thirteen28 on November 1, 2006 at 8:28 PM

Huh. Someone with worse political instincts than Kerry.

Who knew?

Slublog on November 1, 2006 at 8:29 PM

To be fair, he did say it was the generals’ fault, not the troops; though it does ignore the fact that the administration screwed up everything from a strategic standpoint, start to finish.

Constantine on November 1, 2006 at 8:29 PM

Harry Reid, that Harry Reid, the leader who overlooked millions on his disclosure? He knows more about the what is going on, on the other side of the aisle, than what is in his own pocket. His idea of a statesman is Obelman (spelling I don’t care). A Pelosi puppet, hey where is Pelosi’s hand?

“I am Harry Reid and my shady business partner approves of this message”

right2bright on November 1, 2006 at 8:29 PM

KP was all over Kerry earlier today. Lucky guy.

Je crois double-entendre est français, oui?

Ali-Bubba on November 1, 2006 at 8:35 PM

The more they “fight” the more they flounder. They can’t even muster the balls to stand up to their own. What do we expect them to do with terrorists?

SouthernGent on November 1, 2006 at 8:40 PM

Through the looking glass. These people have it backwards. The question how do you define success in Iraq ,is not the question to be asking. The question is what constitutes falure. How do you measure that, Seems the body count ain’t workin. Colateral Damage ain’t workin. Throw these guys on a cruise to nowhere for a couple months and lets get this job done.

sonnyspats1 on November 1, 2006 at 8:43 PM

To be fair, he did say it was the generals’ fault

Am I missing something? I though he said

But the fact is the generals on the ground are in charge

To what fault is that referring? I think we all know the generals on the ground are in charge, that is why they are generals.

Wade on November 1, 2006 at 8:45 PM

Horray for KP! Beautiful *AND* principled!

…advise me how to vote, baby…I’m putty in your hands….

Puritan1648 on November 1, 2006 at 8:55 PM

To what fault is that referring? I think we all know the generals on the ground are in charge, that is why they are generals.

He said “Let’s not blame what’s happening on the ground in Iraq on Rumsfeld. It’s the generals who are in charge.” I understand him to mean that the war is going badly because of the poor performance of the generals, not Rummy.

Constantine on November 1, 2006 at 9:11 PM

To be fair, he did say it was the generals’ fault, not the troops…

…and, to be fair, he did not. He said that that the generals are in charge on the ground, so saying that Rumsfeld isn’t in charge of the tactical decisions being made. That is true.

Take into consideration also that there’ve been a barrel of quotes from “generals on the ground” countering assertions from the Administration on how things are going, some taken out of context, some not.

Ultimately, though, he’s in charge and he gets the blame. Responsibility comes with leadership.

…still, this was about Rumsfeld…I don’t see *ANTHING* where Boehner blames the troops, except to assert that it’s the generals who’re in charge on the ground. Nothing in the clip even goes to the rather debatable point that it’s going badly, so that there would be any “fault”.

…though it does ignore the fact that the administration screwed up everything from a strategic standpoint, start to finish.

…this is just hyperbole serving boilerplate.

Strategically, this is a war, in a difficult part of the world, where the opposition has had its bones crushed to powder, but still has an effective stinger. If you’re going to be so lock-step, why not unload on:

* Lincoln for his strategic short-sightedness in not dealing more effectively with an effective guerilla insurgency in Missouri in 1862-63

* Lincoln through to Hays for the first Klan and the failures of Reconstruction

* Grant through Arthur for the Apache insurgency in Arizona

* Roosevelt through to the other Roosevelt for insurgencies in the Philippines and Haiti

* Kennedy for Cuba and for getting us into Vietnam

* Carter for his amazing statesmanship in his gift to the world of the Islamic Republic of Iran

* Clinton’s handling of Somalia, the Balkans and, as Gorbachev pointed out, missing the chance of helping to develop a robustly Western Russia instead of ignoring it to decay into Putin’s mess today.

Bush *DOES* have a long pointy tail, I’ve heard, and cloven hoves deftly hidden in his wing-tips…all in time for Halloween.

These discussions shouldn’t be about “your guys is worse”, they should be about what’s good for the country. This is a non-starter, all this — ad infinitem and ad nauseum — “what’s bad with Mr. Bush.”

Puritan1648 on November 1, 2006 at 9:12 PM

Ole Harry. What a pathetic try

Opinionnation on November 1, 2006 at 9:12 PM

…did say it was the generals’ fault … though it does ignore the fact that the administration screwed up everything from a strategic standpoint…

Constantine, I think you miss the point. The generals dictate the strategy, for the most part.

DaveS on November 1, 2006 at 9:14 PM

darn it there are no failures in Iraq! Werejust gettin better than the day before.I love all the tanning bed generals thinking up stuff. Its like taking your car to the mechanic for an overhaul and walking in the garage half way through the job, then start telling the mechanic what to do. Lady go sit in the waiting room!

sonnyspats1 on November 1, 2006 at 9:20 PM

Dave, Puritan, perhaps you could explain how Iraq parallels the American Civil War or WWII? I mean, besides the fact that people are shooting at each other. Seems like Vietnam would be the most valid comparison.

I agree that war is always messy and imperfect, but the biggest mistakes appear to be strategic common sense errors made by the administration. For example, Paul Bremer’s idiotic “deBaathification orders” that banned former members of the Baath Party from holding any position in the new Iraqi government. They locked out a huge portion of Iraq’s most capable civil servants from the reconstruction process and disbanded the Iraqi army that could have helped maintain relative order. This essentially created around 400,000 enemies of the new government. You can’t blame generals on the ground for that.

Constantine on November 1, 2006 at 9:36 PM

First of all, he never called them uneducated, idiots or any name. He didn’t say they were to blame, he just took some blame off Rumsfeld, a popular bashing target.

Next, Democrats and Republicans blame Generals, nothing new. There’s a difference between coming out and saying that our troops are uneducated, and saying that the Generals share some blame with Rumsfeld.

americanpundit on November 1, 2006 at 10:05 PM

A very pathetic try by Reid to try to regain some ground. Just ignore it. It will just “lie and die” as Waffles once said.

americanpundit on November 1, 2006 at 10:06 PM

Reid read Olbermann into the Congressional Record?

Hell, that’s like reading Greenwald in the Record. Oh, wait….

HerrMorgenholz on November 1, 2006 at 10:29 PM

Rumsfeld deserves as much blame as anyone for our current situation.

WisCon on November 1, 2006 at 10:30 PM

Boehner correcting Wolf Blizter when he said Rumsfeld was in charge is a scandal?

Where was Harry when Wolfy made an appearance on a nutroots website in blackface?

bert169 on November 1, 2006 at 10:35 PM

Boehner is not blaming anyone for anything in this video. Reid’s comment is nothing but a lame attempt to deflect attention away from Kerry’s despicable remarks.

The “right” needs to stop caving into this silly idea that we are loosing in Iraq. Yes we have lost nearly 3,100 soldiers, but that is the result of engaging a brutal and relentless enemy for three and a half years ! This may sound calloused, but if we had accomplished nothing more than keeping the enemy tied down for such an extended period, that by itslef is a major accomplishment for so few casualties. Don’t we remember that nearly the same number of Americans were killed in a single hour on 9/11 ? This war is worth fighting and we cannot expect to have war without causalities.

And what do you suppose the losses have been for enemy combatants? The enemy is generally not well trained, they have radical and irrational leadership and they are far from being a disciplined force. Reports are that insurgents are supplied generously with drugs, perhaps amphetamines, to boost their “courage” in order to face our troops in battle. As for the enemy’s effectiveness in battle, its very clear that whenever our military encounters insurgents en masse they are dispatched in short order with few or no losses to our side. So what are enemy losses? 20 times, 30 time 50 times our losses? I think its reasonable to speculate toward the higher end of the spectrum.

Can anyone name a single battle we have lost in this war?

Thomas Jefferson said: We are not to expect to be transported from despotism to liberty in a feather bed.

Let’s stop cursing the darkness and light a lamp. Let’s send more troops, thus giving our forces what they really need and discourage and punish the enemy in the process !

Maxx on November 1, 2006 at 10:56 PM

Dave, Puritan, perhaps you could explain how Iraq parallels the American Civil War or WWII?

…sure…and then you can explain to me how constantly presenting the problem (war and its consequences) without *ONCE* presenting a single solution other than disengage and leave the field to the insurgents — who’re already past masters at killing those innocent civilians you’re so on about — will solve anything. This endless litany of self-serving polls from self-serving and skewed sites, casualty figures which are long-since discredited, and loud hyperbole about how democracy is crumbling because your worldview isn’t winning is getting pretty predictable.

…point about “the War”, etc.: this war wasn’t the first with a messy insurgency involved. Some were *ONLY* insurgencies. That, and until Kennedy, the insurgents all *LOST*.

…maybe history repeats itself.

Puritan1648 on November 1, 2006 at 11:25 PM

screwed up everything from a strategic standpoint, start to finish.

Constantine on November 1, 2006 at 8:29 PM

See? That’s what I’m talking about with being intellectually dishonest. I knew it wouldn’t take you long to prove the point.

Constantine, get out a map and look at the ME. Specifically look at where iran’s located. Then look where Iraq and Afghanistan are located. Notice anything? Any patterns click into place for you?

Yeah… a strategy that surrounds your really most dangerous enemy with tough, well-educated, well-trained, well-equipped, battle-hardened and proven US troops. Yeah… that’s dumb as hell. Establishing for the People of Iraq, who are brand spankin’ new at this democracy thing, a chance to form their own government… yeah, dumb as hell to try to accomplish something like that in the ME, right?

And, oh look. There’s syria… easy to just reach out and swat, if need be. You do know that iran and syria are right this minute threatening to overthrow the government of Lebanon, right? No? Well, you might want to look into what’s actually happening in the ME. As opposed to mindlessly spouting amply debunked libtard talking points.

You gotta bring better than this, Constantine. Do your homework before blurting out ignorant stuff like that.

Just tryin’ to help.

techno_barbarian on November 1, 2006 at 11:36 PM

And Constantine… You do make some decent points. We all know that disbanding the army might have been a bad idea (at least theoretically), and some of those other things you mentioned have merit. But you must remember that at the time disbanding the army seemed like a good idea.

It sounds like you demanding absolute perfection and absolute foresight in the chaos of war. I think that is an unreasonable expectation.

DaveS on November 1, 2006 at 11:43 PM

No matter what your perspective, I would recommend reading COBRA II by Michael R. Gordon and General Benard E. Trainor. It will give you, I believe, a good idea of the mechanics involved in the planning and execution of this current conflict as well as some behind the scenes factors.

No matter what your views for or against or who you blame, we need to support the troops on the ground.

When it comes to the rest, perhaps it’s time to realize that we are indeed in a clash of civilizations and of survival. I pray that we collectively are prepared to do what is necessary, and that history does not always repeat itself.

Emmett J. on November 1, 2006 at 11:50 PM

When it comes to the rest, perhaps it’s time to realize that we are indeed in a clash of civilizations and of survival. I pray that we collectively are prepared to do what is necessary, and that history does not always repeat itself.

Emmett J. on November 1, 2006 at 11:50 PM

Well said, Emmett.

Believe me, I don’t want democrats as enemies on top of the very real ones actively aligning against us. I would much rather have strong allies. We need Democrats who are true to a set of more traditionally conservative core beliefs closer to the center, and strong on defense like they used to be. Before they were hijacked by the far left.

techno_barbarian on November 2, 2006 at 12:00 AM

I don’t want democrats as enemies on top of the very real ones actively aligning against us. I would much rather have strong allies. We need Democrats who are true to a set of more traditionally conservative core beliefs closer to the center, and strong on defense like they used to be. Before they were hijacked by the far left.

techno_barbarian on November 2, 2006 at 12:00 AM

techno_barbarian, you have said it all, and said it well. Oh but to return to the days when both parties could disagree yet stand together and fight common enemies for the common good.

Emmett J. on November 2, 2006 at 12:11 AM

But if we dare to bring up those ugly little things called facts and realities, well, we’re just using fear.

That’s the scariest thing that I see going on right now. Lemmings that will NOT look into the face of reality and deal with it. Better to blame someone who won’t hurt you. Who won’t kill you.

I’m sick of the petulant children masquerading as adults.

techno_barbarian on November 2, 2006 at 12:30 AM

Can anyone name a single battle we have lost in this war?

Thomas Jefferson said: We are not to expect to be transported from despotism to liberty in a feather bed.

Maxx on November 1, 2006 at 10:56 PM

Right now, I would say that Baghdad is the single most important city in the world for us outside of the U.S.A.

Why isn’t it secure? How can you expect democracy to take hold if its nursery is a bloody mess?

WisCon on November 2, 2006 at 12:39 AM

Why isn’t it secure? How can you expect democracy to take hold if its nursery is a bloody mess?

WisCon on November 2, 2006 at 12:39 AM

Because we’re having our elections and the terrorists in Iraq and the ME want us to lose our will, give up and go away. They’re very strongly rooting for the liberal democrats to win not only this election, but the one in ’08 as well.

Most of Iraq is stable and peaceful. The news is out there, but you really have to hunt for it yourself. Anything that might reflect well on W cannot be tolerated. So the MSM just ignores it. And willfully misleads the Nation’s opinion. During a time of war.

We’ve got bigger problems than Iraq. I sure wish we could get Democrats on our side for a change.

techno_barbarian on November 2, 2006 at 1:24 AM

See? That’s what I’m talking about with being intellectually dishonest. I knew it wouldn’t take you long to prove the point.

Thanks for finally explaining what you mean by “intellectually dishonest”: disagreeing with you.

Looking at the breadth and depth of the evidence before you, from ALL sources, and consider the loss of life, the lack of clear objectives, the fact that none of the rosy predictions made by the administration have come true, the allowing of cities and munitions dumps to be ransacked, the constant murders, the horrible fraud and waste committed by government contractors who were given sweetheart deals… consider all that and tell me I have no right to evaluate this campaign as a failure (so far). Yeah, that’s so dishonest.

The product of the administration’s policy is not surprising, because on its basis the war is an immoral act of aggression spawned by soulless men who don’t care about the soldiers and civilians who pay the price for their grand schemes. They seem to subscribe to the “break a few eggs to make an omelet” philosophy of conflict. Just like Vietnam, we’re there for all the wrong reasons and getting many of the same results.

Constantine on November 2, 2006 at 1:33 AM

Most of Iraq is stable and peaceful. The news is out there, but you really have to hunt for it yourself. Anything that might reflect well on W cannot be tolerated. So the MSM just ignores it. And willfully misleads the Nation’s opinion. During a time of war.

We’ve got bigger problems than Iraq. I sure wish we could get Democrats on our side for a change.

techno_barbarian on November 2, 2006 at 1:24 AM

Right again! Fortunately, there are more of us getting our news from the net, blogosphere, etc. than from “traditional” MSM sources. The ranks of the informed are growing.

Rank and file Democrats will come along eventually – even if their leaders are out of touch (ironically like the MSM).

Especially when it becomes more evident that our bigger problems start to become more obvious. Unfortunately, I fear that that is what it will take for the collective populace to snap out of their complacency.

Emmett J. on November 2, 2006 at 1:36 AM

See, now that clip can be called out of context, and ignoring the point Boehner was actually making.

RightWinged on November 2, 2006 at 2:56 AM

Constatine wrote: “They locked out a huge portion of Iraq’s most capable civil servants from the reconstruction process and disbanded the Iraqi army that could have helped maintain relative order.”

DaveS wrote: “We all know that disbanding the army might have been a bad idea (at least theoretically),…”

Disbanding the army and the civil servants were absolutely necessary. The Army’s officers were not only inept and corrupt, they were all members of the Ba’ath party.

Allowing the Army to be retained under this leadership would have been equivalent to the Allies allowing the WaffenSS generals to remain in command of the Bundeswher after WWII.

Further, while the bravery of individual Iraqi soldiers ought not to be questioned, their leadership (i.e., the officer corps) in the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War and OIF. proved to be disasterously (for them) incompetent.

The folly of retaining the old Iraq army was proven in April 2004 when the provisional government put the “Iraqi Brigade” in charge of Fallujah. They immediately went over to the other side.

The same applies to the civil servants — every one was a Ba’athist and a loyalist to Saddam. It would have been unacceptable to the Iraqi people for their tormenters to be retained in the new government.

It may interest both of you to know that the New Iraq Army does have former Saddam-era soldiers enlisted. But they have been vetted and former Ba’athists are still not allowed to join.

georgej on November 2, 2006 at 4:33 AM

Wolf Blitzer sure has turned to sh*t in the last 10 years. Come to think of it, CNN has really turned to Sh*t. But then again, Ted Turner became too far gone for Jane Fonda. Now that is saying something.

Shmo on November 2, 2006 at 10:21 AM

Constantine on November 2, 2006 at 1:33 AM

Thanks for finally explaining what you mean by “intellectually dishonest”: disagreeing with you.

Once again, Constantine, you miss the point entirely. You are more than welcome to disagree with me. I encourage it in fact, as I remain teachable, and through the disagreement I may learn something useful from the exchange. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But facts are facts and some of the things you assert are tired old lib talking points that have been roundly debunked and disproven, over and over again.

Let’s just take a look at the latest batch of poo you’ve flung on the walls here and see what we have.

Looking at the breadth and depth of the evidence before you, from ALL sources

ALL sources, eh? Even the completely bogus ones that just happen to bolster your specific point of view, right? There is a huge amount of disinformation out there. Your posts show the shallow depth and myopic nature of your research.

and consider the loss of life,

This current conflict has been the most humane in the history of warfare. Casualties, military and civilian, are stunningly light when compared with any other battle space. Here’s some useful information on the numbers I found a while back.

the lack of clear objectives,

I’ve answered that one already.

the fact that none of the rosy predictions made by the administration have come true,

Ummmmm… WHAT rosy predictions? I don’t know where that one got started. You guys keep saying W promised you all lollypops and rainbows. I keep hearing the left saying that over and over, hoping repetition will make it fact, but it doesn’t work that way. Give me a link to the source for that, if you would. Right from the start W cautioned and prepared us for what lies ahead. He said right up front that this is going to be a long hard war. And a war very different from any we’ve fought before. Our military is adapting, has adapted (and very well, I might add) to the challenges of this new battle space.

the allowing of cities and munitions dumps to be ransacked,

You do realize this is war, right? And that our enemy doesn’t distinguish itself from the civilian population with which it can seamlessly meld. Right? Think that might present opportunities for mistakes to happen, no matter how careful you are? You lefties expect bloodless coups. You’re deluded.

the constant murders,

Let’s talk about that. Much of the violence over there right now is a lot of age-old score settling. The sunni bathists ruled incredibly cruelly and unjustly over the shia majority and the Kurds. There is no way you’re going to stop all of that. And, actually, some of the people shuffling off this mortal coil really deserve to be room temperature. The people who engaged in REAL torture. Not that panty-on-the-head pseudo-torture that our leftist enemies so effectively damaged and unfairly impugned America’s overwhelmingly decent and moral armed forces for months on end.

the horrible fraud and waste committed by government contractors who were given sweetheart deals…

Ok. Here’s another area where I’m teachable, since I haven’t dug into this one yet. I know this is the whole Halliburton thing, but I’m a pro-business entrepreneur who built my own little business from nothing, teaching myself as I went along. I don’t reflexively hate capitalism. Give me the links. Educate me. And here’s a link to some of the very good things we’re accomplishing over there.

consider all that and tell me I have no right to evaluate this campaign as a failure (so far). Yeah, that’s so dishonest.

And get down off the cross and lay off the victim schtick. I for one am sick of it. You libs wear your victimhood (even when it’s undeserved) like a force-field. Grow up. Nowhere did I say you have no right to evaluate this campaign as a failure. I said you’re basing your beliefs and your passion on false pretenses, many times disproven already. That’s the thing, you guys don’t let facts stand in the way of a good story. Prove me wrong.

The product of the administration’s policy is not surprising, because on its basis the war is an immoral act of aggression spawned by soulless men who don’t care about the soldiers and civilians who pay the price for their grand schemes.

This one is particularly irksome because it implies that our fine fighting men and women are being used against their will. We have an all volunteer fighting force. Wonderful People who sign up and lay it ALL on the line so you and I can sit here and type little symbols at each other. You unfairly denegrate our military and leadership.

And what a pompous moral judgement you make with the souless comment. Sometimes you have to stand up and draw a line in the sand. I know you libs are alergic to commitment, but in the real world, if you don’t draw lines, evil people walk all over you.

Rather than look at the facts, it’s so much easier to demonize those you mistakenly perceive as your opposition. How open-minded. How tolerant. How utterly hypocritical.

They seem to subscribe to the “break a few eggs to make an omelet” philosophy of conflict.

But you subscribe to the “war without death, omlet with no eggs” philosophy, or maybe you don’t believe war is justified at any price. You want to talk and talk and talk, to people who cannot be negotiated with in good faith. With people who would happily kill you while screaming ‘allah is great!’ You refuse to look at what we’re facing over there.

Just like Vietnam, we’re there for all the wrong reasons and getting many of the same results

You don’t know the actual history of Vietnam, do you? I was a hippie at the time. I was also a mindless young idiot more interested in getting high and chasing pretty girls than politics and world events.

The only way this war on terror relates to Vietnam is because, once again, and by the very same people (jf’nkerry and all the other washed up hippies and traitors), the media is being used to weaken the will and the resolve of the American People. And again, unjustly so.

I don’t want or like war. But I look out at the world today and look at the translated videos coming in daily, hourly, from the ME on places like MEMRI.com and I realize that we’re going to be at war for a very long time, whether we want to or not. The jihadis are clearly aligning against us. So are other idologies and dictatorships. And you, Constantine, and those like you are making the enemy salivate at the division you’re fommenting.

What do you think about the jihadi threat, for example? What’s your solution? Hide? Ignore it? Hope you’re not at ground zero of the next big attack… or small one?

We have to at least try to give people in the ME a chance at something different. Granted, it may not work. But Iraq is a lot better off than is being portrayed in the media propaganda outlets all over the world. It may not ultimately work, but like Clinton, at least we can say we tried.

If it doesn’t work, you better be thankful we have the military we have. They’re going to be all that’s standing between you and the destruction of our civilization and way of life.

techno_barbarian on November 2, 2006 at 10:24 AM

If you read the transcript from the interview, he clearly does not say it’s the generals’ fault, it’s the terrorists who are ramping up the violence. Democrats are just trying to twist what he said and selectively quote him in order to show something that he really didn’t say. In otherwords, it’s payback for the Kerry flap.

Iowa Voice on November 2, 2006 at 1:25 PM

To be fair, he did say it was the generals’ fault, not the troops; though it does ignore the fact that the administration screwed up everything from a

strategic

standpoint, start to finish.

Constantine on November 1, 2006 at 8:29 PM

I always love it when people who barely know the difference between strategic and Stratego pontificate like they’re the next von Clausewitz. There’s never any shortage of armchair generals.

ReubenJCogburn on November 2, 2006 at 6:12 PM

Techno, thanks for your thoughtful response. Back atcha.

ALL sources, eh? Even the completely bogus ones that just happen to bolster your specific point of view, right? There is a huge amount of disinformation out there. Your posts show the shallow depth and myopic nature of your research.

Perhaps you could provide me with all the “real” sources I should be considering? The two references I make most often are to a Vanity Fair article providing evidence that the Bush administration was at the very least distorting prewar intelligence, if not outright lying about it. The other is a PBS documentary called “The Dark Side” wherein intelligence officials, on camera and in their own words, explain how the administration (particularly Cheney) repeatedly ignored evaluations that Saddam was no threat. Are you calling bullshit on every one of those professionals as well? Seems it’s pretty easy to avoid information that conflicts with your argument if you get to determine what is and is not a valid source. Just like it’s easy to say you don’t torture anybody if you unilaterally get to decide what constitutes torture.

Here’s some useful information on the numbers I found a while back.

I think that’s pretty easy source to shoot down on its face, #1 because of the absurdly low casualty total– only 15,955? Really? You seem to have found the only source with a total that low. icasualties.org lists over 24,000 for the period 1/2005 through 10/2006 alone, based on news reports. And even if you consider the recent estimate of 650,000 civilians to be too high (even though the methodology has been validate by at least two independent sources)… hell. Cut it in half. It’s still way above the logictimes.com numbers.

Ummmmm… WHAT rosy predictions?

Oil revenues “could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years… We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”
– Paul Wolfowitz, 3/27/03

“We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east west, south, and north somewhat”
– Donald Rumsfeld regarding WMDs, 3/30/03

“Relax, Celebrate Victory”
– Title of Op Ed piece by Richard Perle, 5/1/03

Tim Russert: “Are Americans prepared for a long, costly and bloody battle with significant American casualties?”
Dick Cheney: “I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators.” Cheney goes on to contradict Gen. Eric Shinseki’s view of how many troops the occupation will require. “To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don’t think is accurate. I think that’s an overstatement,” said Cheney.
Meet The Press, March 2003

“I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.”
Dick Cheney on Larry King Live, June 20, 2005

You do realize this is war, right? And that our enemy doesn’t distinguish itself from the civilian population with which it can seamlessly meld. Right? Think that might present opportunities for mistakes to happen, no matter how careful you are?

How many mistakes have to be made before you see a pattern of incompetence? Before you declare there’s a problem? I choose to have high standards when lives are at stake.

Much of the violence over there right now is a lot of age-old score settling. The sunni bathists ruled incredibly cruelly and unjustly over the shia majority and the Kurds.

Which we have now enabled by destabilizing the country. Mission accomplished?

I know this is the whole Halliburton thing… Give me the links.

Just to set the stage, know that Halliburton was awarded a $7 billion reconstruction contract over the objections of Army Corps of Engineers Bunnatine Greenhouse. She later tells Congress it was “the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed.”
Halliburton exec on fraud charges
Halliburton Fraud Lawsuit Details Super Bowl Party
New Fuel to Halliburton Fraud Fire

I said you’re basing your beliefs and your passion on false pretenses, many times disproven already. That’s the thing, you guys don’t let facts stand in the way of a good story. Prove me wrong.

You’re going to have to give me specific instances of my sources being contradicted by other sources. Blanket statements with no backup don’t really help me here.

Constantine: The product of the administration’s policy is not surprising, because on its basis the war is an immoral act of aggression spawned by soulless men who don’t care about the soldiers and civilians who pay the price for their grand schemes.

techno_barbarian: This one is particularly irksome because it implies that our fine fighting men and women are being used against their will.

I can’t understand where you get that implication. The administration sets policy. The soldiers follow orders; that’s what good soldiers do. I wouldn’t presume to speak for any individual soldier as to what he/she would or would not do or believe, much less the entire military. I was referring to the administration apparently making the decision to invade and occupy without regard to how much could go so very wrong, and the cost in lives when that happens, especially knowing there was so little real threat.

And what a pompous moral judgement you make with the souless comment. Sometimes you have to stand up and draw a line in the sand. I know you libs are alergic to commitment, but in the real world, if you don’t draw lines, evil people walk all over you. Rather than look at the facts, it’s so much easier to demonize those you mistakenly perceive as your opposition. How open-minded. How tolerant. How utterly hypocritical.

This administration decided to “draw a line in the sand” against a country that it knew full well was no threat to us, and yet sold us on that idea in order to fulfill some other agenda they knew the American people would never endorse. Seems sociopathic to me.

But you subscribe to the “war without death, omlet with no eggs” philosophy, or maybe you don’t believe war is justified at any price. You want to talk and talk and talk, to people who cannot be negotiated with in good faith. With people who would happily kill you while screaming ‘allah is great!’ You refuse to look at what we’re facing over there.

We needed to go after the perpetrators of 9/11 in Afghanistan, and we did; good idea as far as I’m concerned. This administration botched that up by diverting resources to Iraq, which was no threat. Perhaps you can explain something to me: if you subscribe to the “bug zapper” theory of attracting terrorists to a particular theater of operation, why wouldn’t have this worked by finishing the mission in Afghanistan? We could have fought on only one front and had a much better chance for success.

The only way this war on terror relates to Vietnam is because, once again, and by the very same people (jf’nkerry and all the other washed up hippies and traitors), the media is being used to weaken the will and the resolve of the American People. And again, unjustly so.

Also because it was also considered part of a crusade, at that time the motivator being communist paranoia (rather than terrorist paranoia). The military at that time thought that conflict would be a cakewalk, too. People with a conscience spoke up and made a change, just as they’re doing now.

What do you think about the jihadi threat, for example? What’s your solution? Hide? Ignore it? Hope you’re not at ground zero of the next big attack… or small one?

Protect our ports, our borders and our allies. Period. All the billions spent in Iraq could have been used to equip our ports to scan every cargo container that enters the country. You know how many get inspected right now? Under 10%.

I don’t want or like war. But I look out at the world today and look at the translated videos coming in daily, hourly, from the ME on places like MEMRI.com and I realize that we’re going to be at war for a very long time, whether we want to or not. The jihadis are clearly aligning against us. So are other idologies and dictatorships. And you, Constantine, and those like you are making the enemy salivate at the division you’re fommenting…
…you better be thankful we have the military we have. They’re going to be all that’s standing between you and the destruction of our civilization and way of life.

I’ve got news good news for you:

TERRORISTS CANNOT AND WILL NOT EVER DESTROY AMERICA OR OUR WAY OF LIFE NO MATTER HOW HARD THEY TRY– THEY DON’T HAVE THE NUMBERS OR THE RESOURCES. IT IS A PHYSICAL AND LOGISTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. THE VERY IDEA IS A PARANOID FANTASY PROMOTED BY THOSE WHO WOULD EXPLOIT YOUR FEAR IN ORDER TO FULFILL THEIR PERSONAL AMBITIONS. THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN DESTROY AMERICA IS US, BY BETRAYING OUR MORAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES.

Constantine on November 3, 2006 at 1:59 AM