Audio: Kristol rips NYT, Senate “jackasses” on Iraq; Update: McCain, Voinovich in backroom “brawl” over Iraq
posted at 8:26 pm on July 10, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I like his plan for McCain and his point about letting Petraeus, whose appointment Congress ratified, being given a fair chance to implement his strategy is naturally well taken. But does anyone think things are going to be so vastly improved ten weeks from now that it might change the naysayers’ minds about whether to begin a drawdown soon or not? The improvement would have to be so dramatic and impressive to the public that it would actually be in Harry Reid’s interest — which begins, of course, with those precious Senate seats he’s been dreaming of — to switch his vote?
Anyone see that happening? Under any circumstances?
Update: What happens when the most notorious temper in the Senate clashes with one of his dimmer colleagues in the amnesty wing? Magic, baby:
Fresh off a trip to Iraq, a visibly tired McCain lit into the “liberal left” for advocating retreat in Iraq and then went behind closed doors to brawl with a fellow GOP senator over the war.
In what one senator called “the most serious fight that I have seen in my time in the Senate,” McCain clashed with Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) over the Arizona senator’s assertion that the most dangerous threat facing U.S. troops in Iraq was Al Qaeda members.
Voinovich, who recently urged President Bush to change his war policy now, shot back that Al Qaeda “wouldn’t be in Iraq” if American forces weren’t there, according to people who witnessed the exchange.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
OT: What was the name of that heavy rock band with the black rapper lead that did all the tough guy “kill the Islamists” stuff?
Jaibones on July 10, 2007 at 8:28 PM
AP - that is the crux of the argument i’ve been making among my people for weeks now, and it goes kinda like this:
“we’ve found our General Grant, but we also replaced Abe Lincoln with James Buchanan.”
nothing Gen P does in country will make any difference to what happens here at home. Once again, an American war will be won at the tactical/battlefield level only to be lost at the strategic level by an incompetent, uncaring Congress and an incompetent, uncommunicative White House.
Yeeaarrgghh!!
Mike D. on July 10, 2007 at 8:34 PM
Stuck Mojo.
CurtZHP on July 10, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Thanks, bro.
Jaibones on July 10, 2007 at 8:36 PM
The Democrats are so heavily invested in defeat that they would portray the mission as a failure even if the citizenry killed all the al Qaeda and the Sunnis and Shia walked arm in arm down the street with George Bush buttons festooned on their jackets. The Democrats brought down a president and lost a war before and they sense they can do it again, consequences be damned.
pistolero on July 10, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Bill Kristol is a chickenhawk.
If he thinks that the Islamic “Nation Building” in Iraq is so damned important, why doesn’t he serve over there?
He is too old to join the U.S. Army now (not that he did when he was younger), but he could drive a supply truck for some contractor.
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 8:45 PM
But does anyone think things are going to be so vastly improved ten weeks from now that it might change the naysayers’ minds about whether to begin a drawdown soon or not?
Yes, but they are very heavily medicated or should be anyway!
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 8:47 PM
Winning or losing the debate on Iraq is not now, nor has it ever been, about the actual merits of leaving vs. staying. It is about how the discussion is framed, and right now supporters of the war are allowing the discussion to be framed in terms of ‘casualties’ and ’sectarian strife’ and ‘benchmarks’ rather than grander themes, where their case is strongest, like ‘long term transformation,’ the ‘advancement of freedom’ and the ‘trustworthiness of the United States’ to finish what it starts.
Kristol is right, what Congress is doing right now has nothing to do with casualties (which are at the lowest rate of any recorded conflict in history) and everything to do with electing Democrats to Senate seats. It’s recklessly irresponsible and displays a lack of civic virtue that is all to common in the political classes.
ConfigSys.boy on July 10, 2007 at 8:48 PM
With all due respect, you appear to need to re-familiarize yourself with the plan - you might, for instance, re-read the Kagan pieces in THE WEEKLY STANDARD. Petraeus & Co. have a plan of operations that does not anticipate an “eternal surge” or greater escalation. It is, indeed, highly likely that US combat troops will be withdrawn in substantial numbers. That’s very much in the cards, and only truly dramatic external events would change that.
This panicky reaction to every twist & turn in the political debate is unseemly. It looks to me that Bush isn’t backing down, and wasn’t planning to back down or even seriously considering backing down. Taking the rest of this garbage too seriously merely amplifies the political noise to no purpose, except possibly, indirectly, to pressure the Iraqi government. Whether that’s positive or not is something way beyond all of our pay-grades.
If the Democrat leaders really are stupid enough to force precipitous withdrawal, and thus shift responsibility for the aftermath to their own shoulders, opening the ‘08 campaign to massive uncertainty and turning their apparent (though wasting) Iraq advantage into a potentially decisive disadvantage - then they’re even stupider than they pretend to be and stupider than their followers. That would require levels of stupidity so extreme that autonomic reflexes would be placed in jeopardy, and most of them would die of heart failure or asphyxiation.
CK MacLeod on July 10, 2007 at 8:49 PM
Mike D. on July 10, 2007 at 8:34 PM
Well said. Sad and frightening… all at the same time. The only good news is that not one single Senator that is presently serving will ever get re-elected after the 7 cities fall.
Griz on July 10, 2007 at 8:52 PM
Well said CK.
commonsensehoosier on July 10, 2007 at 8:54 PM
From brother infidel, InfidelPride, and I quote.
“On supporting this war - it’s won already. What’s our remaining goal(s)?
WMD - check
Odai/Qusay - check
Saddam Hussein - check
Zarqawi - check
Elections - check
Democracy? They have a new constitution - not based on our values, but theirs - namely shariah. Under this set-up, Chaldeans and Assyrian Christians are fleeing to (of all places) Syria (while the US plans to take in 7000 Iraqi Muslim refugees). Which of them - Shia or Sunni - are
pro-US? Shia? They are mainly supporting Iran and Hizbullah. Sunni? They are either supporting Saddam’s Baathists, or Zarqawi’s al Qaeda. Kurds? Sure, they are the most grateful of the lot, but we aren’t supporting a separate Kurdistan. So which of the people who we are trying to support actually deserves it?
And once again - what’s our mission _now_? Resolving whether Mohammed’s rightful successor was Umar or Ali? If there is a civil war between pro-Hizbullah Shia and pro-Ikhwan Sunni, whose side should we pick? Should we even stop such a fight, were it to break out?
Remember the 80’s war between Iran and Iraq? Did we end up any worse off due to millions of fanatics on both sides getting killed? Remember the 60’s proxy war between Egypt and Saudi Arabia in Yemen? Was that a good or bad thing for Infidels?
Bottom line - if there is an internecine war between Infidel hating Muslims and Infidel hating Muslims, why is that a bad thing for Infidels? If two or more of our enemies are busy destroying each other, why should we even bother stopping them?
Want to know my exit strategy for Iraq? Exit is the strategy. What will result is a civil war between Shia and Sunni. Initially, it’ll be in Iraq. Then, inshallah, it’ll spread to Saudi Arabia, where the Shia in al Hasa province can rebel. Let all that Saudi cash that funds madrassahs and CAIR in the US be diverted towards containing their restive Shia, and in the meantime, let Iran’s cash flow to their science project and Hizbullah be diverted towards encouraging Shia rebellions in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Bahrein. Once we have these 2 US hating groups at each others throats, we can then keep arming at a low level either side so that neither gains the upper hand.”
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 8:55 PM
Jeff Huber said it pretty well
“In a May 6 New York Times article, noted neoconservative and chief architect of the Iraq escalation strategy Fred Kagan said that lack of a Plan B is no reason to criticize the surge. He argues that, in fact, “there is no Plan B because there cannot be one.” There can be no Plan B, he further states, because “The strategy now underway in Iraq… will change the situation in Iraq significantly, whether or not it succeeds in its aims.” Whether the surge succeeds, fails or fall somewhere in between, there’s no need to plan ahead to the next step because it’s too soon to tell what that next step might need to be. We can’t predict now what things will look like in the fall, when U.S. commander in Iraq General David Petraeus is scheduled to report on the surge progress to Congress. So there’s no sense revisiting alternate plans proposed in late 2006–they’ll be irrelevant in 2007. Kagan tells us we especially don’t want to revert to that darn old Iraq Study Group (ISG) proposal. That won’t make any sense at all come this fall, according to Kagan. But then, when it comes to not making sense, Fred Kagan is in a league of his own.”
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 9:04 PM
“In preparing for battle I have always found that plans can be useless, but planning is indispensable.”
–Dwight D. Eisenhower, 5 star General and 34th president of the United States of America.
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 9:09 PM
Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that the battle lines in Congress are firmly drawn. No amount of progress in Iraq will dissuade Harry Reid or Carl Levin from calling the whole operation a quagmire and working toward immediate surrender no matter what the consequences. It simply isn’t in their best political interest to admit that they’ve been utterly wrong for the last three years!
In short, the military operations in Iraq are completely isolated from the “discussions” going on in Congress. I, for one, am completely disgusted with all these career politicians and am calling for throwing them all out of office in 2008! Too many of them have decided getting reelected is more important than actually leading.
highhopes on July 10, 2007 at 9:15 PM
Anyone see that happening? Under any circumstances?
Yes the dems do. That is why they are pushing this now. They hear the reports of Anbar going quiet and now Dyila. They understand another 10 weeks of good news will chance the polling on this. We had 90% approval when things were going well. We can at least get back to 51% approval if the surge decreases the violence. This is what the Dems are afraid of and why they are pushing this now.
unseen on July 10, 2007 at 9:20 PM
Did Cryin’ George really say if it weren’t for us Al Qaeda, “wouldn’t be in Iraq”
Let’s assume that’s true for the purpose of the argument. The fact remains they are there now. Who cares how or why they are there?
Cryin’ Geroge doesn’t like how they got there so he figures we don’t have to fight them. The man is dumber than I thought.
Drew on July 10, 2007 at 9:23 PM
the Dems and the Dem Media on Iraq, I don’t think has a thing to do with Iraq.
outside the desire to win power in general, the winner of 2008 will be able to push the courts one way or the other…..this is huge to them, the courts are their gods.
Senators need Term limits.
jp on July 10, 2007 at 9:24 PM
Potential U.S. Army recruits are voting on the Iraq war with their feet -
“WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Army, strained by the war in Iraq, fell nearly 1,400 recruits short in June, the Pentagon said on Tuesday, marking the second straight month the military’s largest branch missed its target for new soldiers.
The active-duty Army recruited 7,031 soldiers in June, missing its goal of 8,400. That followed a shortfall in May, when the Army signed up 5,101 recruits, below its goal of 5,500.
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 9:29 PM
this has already been debunked, check newsbusters….quit spreading leftist propaganda.
jp on July 10, 2007 at 9:31 PM
jp on July 10, 2007 at 9:35 PM
What are you talking about? Leftest propaganda? It was just reported on Tue, Jul 10, 6:10 PM ET with stats from the Defense Department.
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 9:36 PM
the stats are spin, not in full perspective…..its why they jumped all over it while ignoring it the months the opposite is true or the fact we are ahead of target for year so far.
they are about undermining the war effort in anyway possible.
http://newsbusters.org/node/13996
jp on July 10, 2007 at 9:43 PM
BTW jp, are you under 42?
If so call 1-800-USA-ARMY and help those July Stats.
Be sure to choose a combat arm and ask for the bonus.
Personally I would recommend the Field Artillery.
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 9:48 PM
While you’re busy debunking MB4’s rather troll-ish contributions (from the lame chickenhawk slur to the lazy citation of third party characterizations), the total number of direct casualties of the Iran-Iraq War were estimated at approaching 1,000,000, not “millions.”
At any number, however, it was a vast human tragedy. Most of the casualties were conscripts, including children sent roped together in human waves to clear mine fields, not to mention civilian casualties. Dismissing them all together as “fanatics” is repulsive.
Even from a perspective of pure self-interest, we were lucky that the second order effects on the world economy and trade weren’t far worse. Only our direct intervention in the Gulf prevented it from being so. There’s absolutely no reason to expect that a second conflagration would be contained as successfully, especially with the US in retreat, Iranian proxies so well-established in Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, and Iraq itself, and with the positions of all of the other players regionally and extra-regionally having changed.
CK MacLeod on July 10, 2007 at 9:54 PM
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
Son is there, doing that, wearing the T-shirt.
So are millions of others like him.
Short 1,400 this month. Over 1,400 the next.
Polls, stats, Neilsen ratings. 1+2=4.
Limerick on July 10, 2007 at 9:58 PM
MB4: COuld you possibly limit your essays to no more than 4 an hour?
Jerk.
ahem on July 10, 2007 at 9:59 PM
Great rebuttal.
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 10:05 PM
I have a hard time believing this without the line, “Voinovich is now in stable condition.”
- The Cat
MirCat on July 10, 2007 at 10:06 PM
Limerick - “So are millions of others like him.”
Millions have been to Iraq?
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 10:07 PM
Your mom’s a chickenhawk.
That better?
Citizen Duck on July 10, 2007 at 10:07 PM
Soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, coasties, policemen, firemen, emts, border patrol, customs, secret service, CIA, DIA, TSA…..millions of them
All voluteers. All looking out for you. All putting it on the line so your mocca-crapacino is waiting for you a Starbucks. All wearing the uniform. All willing to pull your butt outta a crack as much as mine.
Limerick on July 10, 2007 at 10:11 PM
MB4 is a Kos Kid that slipped in when registration opened last time. He’s just trying to undermine support for the war. You can tell he’s a Kos Kid by :
1. Chickenhawk slurs.
2. Obsession with whether or not your a neocon (Jew).
3. He thinks muslims blown to pieces by fanatics from both sides will appeal to you, cause your a cretinous Rethuglican who likes mass murder.
4. He has no sense of the campaign of information warfare we’ve been fighting against the last four years with DOD statistics.
MB4 give it up. You’re pure novice. People who still support the war, support it’s aspirations as well. You peeled off all the nativist, racist morons that ever supported this venture back in ‘04 after we caught Saddam. You’ve probably marched with them at your Klan rallies…I mean Anti-War Demonstrations.
The Apologist on July 10, 2007 at 10:12 PM
80% of U.S. troops killed in Iraq are killed by IED’s while they are driving from point A to point B. Who knows for sure who is planting them or who is helping them.
Al Q?
Sunni Baathists?
Sadr militias?
Other Shiite militias?
Members of the Iraqi police?
Members of the Iraqi army?
Iranians?
etc?
more etc?
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 10:12 PM
Bill Kristol is 100% right in his comments. John McCain deserves credit for saying what is right about the Iraq War and supporting General Petraeus. Voinovich, Lugar, Hagel and Domenici are jackasses. The New York Times is traitorous.
Phil Byler on July 10, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Flame War Flame War!
- The Cat
P.S. Click Me
MirCat on July 10, 2007 at 10:14 PM
Apologist - “MB4 is a Kos Kid that slipped in when registration opened last time. He’s just trying to undermine support for the war. You can tell he’s a Kos Kid by :
Blah, blah, blah and more blah, blah, blah”
Don’t give up any day job that you have to become a detective, as you would likely starve.
MB4 (which BTW is “The Hill” at Fort Sill, Oklahoma) happens to be a former Captain in the U.S. Army Field Artillery. I went to the very same U.S. Army Field Artillery school that General Tommy Franks did.
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 10:20 PM
MB4, read this from from June 11, 2007. The next one will likely be out soon.
In almost every catgory the Army is above yearly enlistment/re-enlistment goals. They missed the May goal but were at 105% of the yearly goal. Even with the shortfall in the May target, at the end of May they were 2,112 over the goal to date. That more than covers for the 1,400 shortfall of June.
The Army have been doing it for years. The goal isn’t just numbers but numbers with requirements such as skills, education and physical condition. They’re shooting for an 80,000 figure for the year, they set goals based on historical averages. It’s an average, each month they are sometimes higher and sometimes lower. Historically they have been very good at hitting what they need.
What has changed since last October, the new fiscal year, that the Army is at 105 of goal? There was no good news then (has there been any from the MSM evah?), the war was just as unpopular, the surge was starting to be discussed about then and in January it was confirmed. Yet you want to jump on May and June numbers to treat us to your wisdom that the potential recruits are voting with their feet now, so please tell us what they were doing for the first seven months that still was putting us above targets.
I’d also be interested in what you know about feet voting patterns for the Marine, Navy and Air Force results for the year. Ya got something that doesn’t sound like a “Mommy, guess what I just heard from Brian Williams!”
Dusty on July 10, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Credentials! Wow, Lee Harvey O had em too.
Limerick on July 10, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Whoops, the read this is read this. Sorry.
Dusty on July 10, 2007 at 10:22 PM
“May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.”
–Dwight D. Eisenhower, 5 star General and 34th President of the United States of America.
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 10:22 PM
MB4, I suppose you think this is the “checkmate” argument for use against those that support the war?
I politely ask that you refrain from supporting or criticizing a politician in the upcoming election unless you run for office.
Please also pay your taxes without complaining unless you apply for a job at the IRS to implement change.
Your argument is just not valid. It would have a little more merit if our military had compulsory conscription (like Israel). But much to your chagrin (I’m sure), this country continues to produce thousands of brave men and women that join the military knowing full well what they are signing up for. Those people are heroes. And your puerile, playground argument is offensive to them, their families, and their service.
Don’t tell people what they should and shouldn’t do when volunteering if you don’t want me criticizing how you flip burgers.
Have a nice day.
Weber48IDA on July 10, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Limerick - “Credentials! Wow, Lee Harvey O had em too.”
You are clearly an idiot.
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 10:23 PM
Thanks ‘Captain’!
Limerick on July 10, 2007 at 10:26 PM
I think mb4 is a lefty troll whose mission is to sew seeds of defeatism on this site. The best thing for everyone to do is to ignore him.
Phil Byler on July 10, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Mar
himself served. So have many others that turned out to be Jew obssessed, Mulsim hating, cretins. Serving doesn’t make you smart and it certainly doesn’t make you persuasive. I know brilliant men who’ve served and I know guys I would cross the street to avoid a conversation with who’ve served as well.
In this forum you’re judged on the quality of your ideas and your information. Your ideas are less than stellar and I haven’t seen anything from you that suggests you know something I don’t about our chances for success in Iraq. If you didn’t know that recruitment numbers fall every summer and jump every fall or that we’re ahead of our recruitment goals for the year then you don’t pay very good attention. And if you did know these things then you’re intentionally misleading people in an effort to undermine support for the war. Either way I stand by my previous characterization. Kos Kidz are Kos Kidz in or out of uniform. All my “blah, blah, blah” points still stand.
The Apologist on July 10, 2007 at 10:35 PM
Weber48IDAI - “I politely ask that you refrain from supporting or criticizing a politician in the upcoming election unless you run for office.”
I was responding to jp who accused me of spreading leftist propaganda.
He was also optimistic that July, August, and September would be good recruiting months for the Army. I naturally wondered, if he was under 42, if he was willing to help out. Many would find that a natural question to ask of someone who seems to think that staying in Iraq is so important.
So don’t have a cow.
It happens to be very unbecoming when those who beat the war drums the loudest have never even served and are not willing to.
None of you “analogies” changes that in the least.
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 10:35 PM
So ‘Captain’ were you RA or US? Why no O-4 or was it your OER?
Limerick on July 10, 2007 at 10:38 PM
MB4, when do you start using profanity to make your case? Most liberals are profane by now for lack of substance in their argument. You can almost feel the rage building in someone that knows others know they aren’t kidding anyone. Do you realize yours is a fool’s errand?
Weber48IDA on July 10, 2007 at 10:40 PM
His google search must be taking a while.
Limerick on July 10, 2007 at 10:42 PM
MB4, do you not realize the logical fallacy of your argument? (What am I saying, of course you don’t.) Are you really saying that unless 75 million (whatever the number) Americans enlist in the armed forces they have no right to offer an opinion regarding the defense of our nation?
You know, it sometimes helps an argument when what you are arguing is actually possible. Regardless of whether it’s likely, it’s just not possible.
But since when does the real world get in the way of a liberal arguing an irrelevant point?
If you aren’t willing to become a Pastor or a Priest then you ought not pray.
That’s silly talk.
Weber48IDA on July 10, 2007 at 10:48 PM
Here let me help you out ‘Captain’….
RA= Regular Army (West Point)
US= Reserve (ROTC, OCS)
O-4 = ‘Major’
OER = Officer Evaluation Report
Limerick on July 10, 2007 at 10:50 PM
Seems you’re right.
xplodeit on July 10, 2007 at 10:53 PM
or worse, a Jihadist troll…with the internet how can you know.
jp on July 10, 2007 at 10:53 PM
Wish I saw that one the other day before I engaged. Same topic
PowWow on July 10, 2007 at 10:55 PM
Sorry for feeding the trolls……got my dander up.
Limerick on July 10, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Apologist - “In this forum you’re judged on the quality of your ideas and your information. (You are clearly judging by if someones ideas and information are something that you like or don’t like. Don’t kid yourself.) Your ideas are less than stellar (Translation - you don’t like them and don’t want to hear them and you don’t want anyone else to either) and I haven’t seen anything from you that suggests you know something I don’t about our chances for success in Iraq (You see, but you do not observe.). If you didn’t know that recruitment numbers fall every summer and jump every fall or that we’re ahead of our recruitment goals for the year then you don’t pay very good attention. (The numbers were matched against the quotas, which correspondingly rise and fall.) And if you did know these things then you’re intentionally misleading people in an effort to undermine support for the war.(I am not misleading anyone. Everything that I have posted is to the best of my knowledge true. People should get more than just George Bush and John McCain and Lindsey Grahams rose colored glasses version of events.) Either way I stand by my previous characterization. (So?) Kos Kidz are Kos Kidz in or out of uniform.(Clearly to you anyone you disagree with is a “Kos Kidz”.) All my “blah, blah, blah” points still stand. (Maybe in the back corner someplace, leaning badly.)
*************************************************
Before you call so many names you should ponder the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, 5 star General and 34th President.
“May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.”
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Why apologize. It’s what they do?
PowWow on July 10, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Unless you are a cop you can’t support people that fight crime.
-MB4
Unless you are a fireman you can’t support people that risk their lives fighting fires.
-MB4
Unless you eat worms you can’t watch Fear Factor.
-MB4
Weber48IDA on July 10, 2007 at 10:59 PM
There are lots of veterans who regularly post here, MB4. And, in spite of my membership in the “101st Fighting Keyboarders” which Captain Ed created to tweak persons like yourself, I, too, am a veteran (USAF 1981-1994, USAFR 1995-2003) and support victory in the Global War on Terror in all of its theaters of operation.
Let’s pretend that your insistent flinging of “chickenhawk” boogers made any sense. That would mean that everyone who has never served could not in good conscience support those who do serve and have served. Something that I can tell you from experience: when one is a service member, there are few things that are more demoralizing than having members of the population whose life, liberty and pursuit of happiness you defend not support that defense.
Therefore, if you’re saying that persons who choose not to serve in an all-volunteer force should not support the mission of that force, then you are advocating the demoralization of said service members.
If demoralization of the troops is your goal, it would be more honest to say it outright. That’s what a real man/woman would do.
baldilocks on July 10, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Response? Yeah, I have a response…. Uhhhhhhh, What?!?!
Weber48IDA on July 10, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Yep. Thanks for your service.
Weber48IDA on July 10, 2007 at 11:02 PM
I take it you never read ‘Eisenhower at War 42-45′ by David Eisenhower. Roosevelt backer. Compromise compromise compromise. Sorta the blue print of the ‘reach across the aisle’ Republican that we all know and love today.
Limerick on July 10, 2007 at 11:04 PM
Limerick - Sorry for feeding the trolls……(ad hominem, nothing more) got my dander up.
“When we see persons of a contrary character, we should turn inwards and examine ourselves.” - Confucius”
“When we see persons of a contrary character, we should call them trolls” - Michael Moore
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Profound insight ‘Captain’. Profound indeed. Think that up yourself?
Limerick on July 10, 2007 at 11:07 PM
So Limerick, are you implying that you would call Dwight D. Eisenhower a troll too if he were still alive and commenting on this blog?
If so you say a lot about yourself.
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 11:09 PM
Confucius wrote the one that I attributed to him.
The Michael Moore one? Well with you Limerick, that one pretty much wrote itself!
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 11:12 PM
I think the audience knows exactly what I am saying MB4. I don’t care what you think I am saying ‘Captain’.
Limerick on July 10, 2007 at 11:13 PM
Micah Wright, line 3…
Jim Treacher on July 10, 2007 at 11:15 PM
MBR…er…’Captain’, let me make this as simple as possible. You come on here, insult my friends and me by calling us ‘chickenhawks’, and expect us to swoon and look away. You throw out quotes from mega-minds like Confucious, Eisenhower, and of all people, Michael Moore, and expect to win your case. Good luck buddy.
There are a lot of people here you know what lead sounds like as it passes by. There are a lot of people here you know what 122’s sound like as they leave the tubes. There are a lot of people here who have been in dark and scary places all over the world, and YOU CALL THEM CHICKENHAWKS.
It doesn’t matter if you were in a torpedo room at 500ft below sea level, or on O2 at 50,000 with a pair of twin ram jets strapped to your butt. I don’t care if you stormed San Juan Hill with TR. You start throwing out ‘chickenhawk’ expect more then that thrown back at you.
Well, ‘Captain’, welcome to the party. Cause there are plenty like me who won’t let you get away with that crud here, even if you were a ‘Captain’. You want to make your case, then make it. Leave the Dkos script at home and speak your own mind.
Your neighbor, and VOTER
Limerick.
Limerick on July 10, 2007 at 11:33 PM
The truth hurts when you’re living a conservative fantasy world.
What are you going to do? Eat your spinach?
Fragility on July 10, 2007 at 11:48 PM
Even better then that Fragility……vote.
Limerick on July 10, 2007 at 11:50 PM
I, certainly, will also eat my spinach since leafy green vegetables are good for the body (no vegetarian).
I certainly hope that you were suggesting that for Limerick’s good health and not putting forth some sort of childish Popeye reference.
baldilocks on July 11, 2007 at 12:12 AM
Ooo. I didn’t know that Fragility got banned in the Pope thread! Darn. And I was just starting to “like” him/her/it. Via con Dios, Fragilty!
baldilocks on July 11, 2007 at 12:20 AM
Didn’t we effectively stomp the ‘chickenhawk’ canard about three or four years ago? Looks like our boy here needs to get his head out of Bartlett’s Quotations and do a li’l thinking.
Maybe he’s using “MB4″ because he’s all “CB4″, straight out of Lowcash, crazy chickenhawker named Gusto…
Chap on July 11, 2007 at 1:21 AM
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 10:20 PM
You can claim to be a captain all you want, the fact that you claim it anonymously over the internet doesn’t make it so. Furthermore I will tell you this, having had a Colonel for a grandfather and a captain for a father and knowing quite a number of officers, nothing in your posts shows the degree of intelligence or self control I have ever witnessed in any commissioned officer.
doriangrey on July 11, 2007 at 1:24 AM
Boill Kristol: ★★★★★
Kevin M on July 11, 2007 at 1:46 AM
Er.. Bill Kristol: ★★★★★
Kevin M on July 11, 2007 at 1:47 AM
MBR…(MB4)er…’Captain’, let me make this as simple as possible (Yes “mom”.). You come on here, insult my friends and me by calling us ‘chickenhawks’, (You must be REALLY into playing the victim as well as having no other arguement, as the only one I called a chickenhawk was Bill Kristol [The main subject of this thread, remember], and he is one. To beat the war drums as loudly and repeatedly as he does when he never served a day is very unbecoming to say the least.) and expect us to swoon and look away (I didn’t expect anything of the kind, although the leftist, kos whatever name calling did surprise me a bit.). You throw out quotes from mega-minds like Confucious, Eisenhower (They were “mega-minds”), and of all people, Michael Moore (The quote as I said above was not from Michael Moore, just what I think someone like him and apparently you would say. I’m not sure that he would try to play the martyr though, don’t know.), and expect to win your case(You have already made up your mind and you know it.). Good luck buddy.
There are a lot of people here you know what lead sounds like as it passes by. There are a lot of people here you know what 122’s sound like as they leave the tubes. There are a lot of people here who have been in dark and scary places all over the world, and YOU CALL THEM CHICKENHAWKS (Yet again, the only person I called a chickenhawk was Bill Kristol. Why are you trying to play the victim? Oh that’s right because you don’t have any other argument.).
It doesn’t matter if you were in a torpedo room at 500ft below sea level, or on O2 at 50,000 with a pair of twin ram jets strapped to your butt. I don’t care if you stormed San Juan Hill with TR. You start throwing out ‘chickenhawk’ (There you go again.) expect more then that thrown back at you.
Well, ‘Captain’, welcome to the party. Cause there are plenty like me who won’t let you get away with that crud (You just call what I say that as you don’t want to hear it and apparently have no other argument than to play aggrieved victim). here, even if you were a ‘Captain’ (What do you want me to do, send you my dd214? I only brought that up as I was being called a leftist and a Kos whatever for expressing my opinion. Actually I was an E1, E2, E5, O1, O2 and O3. But believe whatever you want to believe, you are good at that.). You want to make your case, then make it (I did, you just didn’t like it so you get all “red faced” mad and try to play the injured victim and make everything personal rather than discuss the issues.). Leave the Dkos script (There you go again. It is not a Dkos script. Everything that you do not agree with is not a DKos script.) at home and speak your own mind.
Your neighbor (I doubt it.), and VOTER (Yes I vote too. I voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004, but I have now seen the error of my ways, because of both his Iraqi F-up and his open borders F-up.)
Limerick (You really need to calm down. I hope that our little discussion has helped.).
MB4 on July 11, 2007 at 2:16 AM
MB4 on July 10, 2007 at 10:20 PM
You can claim to be a captain all you want, the fact that you claim it anonymously over the internet doesn’t make it so. Furthermore I will tell you this, having had a Colonel for a grandfather and a captain for a father and knowing quite a number of officers, nothing in your posts shows the degree of intelligence or self control I have ever witnessed in any commissioned officer.
doriangrey on July 11, 2007 at 1:24 AM
I was promoted up to Captain (When I got out after 3 years, 5 months of service) just as fast as Tommy Franks (Who had gone to the same Field Artillery OCS as I did) was, so I must have fooled a lot of someones pretty good.
But those folks handling selection and promotion in the Army are not nearly as smart as you are of course.
P.S. I would not even have brought up even being in the Army at all had I not been called a leftist and a Kos whatever by folks who apparently can’t make any other argument other than that ad hominem and, of course the one guy who likes to play the victim.
But believe what you want.
Maybe some other web site will have less folks who just want to make things personal.
MB4 on July 11, 2007 at 2:28 AM
nothing in your posts shows the degree of intelligence or self control I have ever witnessed in any commissioned officer.
doriangrey
You are really into the ad hominem aren’t you.
No question mark as that was rhetorical.
MB4 on July 11, 2007 at 2:35 AM
LOL! You know you’re a troll if you feel compelled to start posting in bold.
JM Hanes on July 11, 2007 at 2:53 AM
I went to to Military School with Roger Staubach. Doesn’t make me a great Football quarterback.
Thats pretty amazing. You must be an exceptional soldier.
While it is possible, it is pretty uncommon to make E-5 in less than 2 years; and it takes an Act of Congress to make 03 with less than 4 years TIS and 2 years TIG.
Where did you get your Medal of Honor and where did you get your Battlefield Commission? Or did you graduate from West Point, turn down your commission and enlist, get AIT Honor Graduate, then Ranger School Honor Graduate, then decide to accept a commission?
Or are you following in the footsteps of Jesse MacBeth?
I’m not saying that your claims are impossible… Just darned unlikely.
LegendHasIt on July 11, 2007 at 4:37 AM
And may we never confuse dishonest dissent with loyal subversion, either.
Jen the Neocon on July 11, 2007 at 6:59 AM
MB4: “Bill Kristol is a chickenhawk.”
I find your comment, and the spirit you intended when you wrote it, and your comments that followed, to be offensive.
The epithet you used is designed to be an insult against the non-veteran. However, you also insult the very founders of this nation. It may have escaped your notice, but Patrick Henry, John Adams, and Ben Franklin — 3 of the founders of this nation — were also “chickenhawks.” None served in the military. Thomas Jefferson, the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was a “chickenhawk” too. So was John Hancock. You remember Hancock? The man who was President of the Continental Congress and who signed the Declaration of Independence first — and in such a large flourish that King George would be able to read it without his glasses? Yeah, he was a “chickenhawk,” too.
There were a lot of “chickenhawks” that signed the Declaration of Independence, putting their lives, their property and their “sacred honor,” at high risk, in nothing but a skiff made of paper.
Every one of these “chickenhawks,” sir, were better men than YOU WILL EVER BE.
Boston Globe columnist, Jeff Jacoby, has the best response to people who (like you) try to use the “chickenhawk” slander to belittle the ideas of others:
You will note, I hope, the clause: “military leaders take their orders from civilian leaders….” (which I highlighted). Imagine that: Civilian control of the military. Did they tell you at field artillery school that “civilian control of the military” means that the CHICKENHAWKS ARE IN CHARGE? And that this is how it is supposed to be?
Maybe you should apologize now. To veterans and non-veterans alike. Or maybe you should simply go away.
georgej on July 11, 2007 at 7:47 AM
Great, OCS. 90 Day Wonder. They produced 2LT William Calley too.
Franks was a good general officer, but he overthought the Iraqi situation. There was no reason use the entire 4th ID as a head fake on Saddam. It was like Shaq against a 12-year old. They would have been better served on the ground securing the aftermath. But Franks only stayed on after Afghanistan saying he would take care of the invasion and let someone else lead the reconstruction. He knew the reconstruction would take years and wanted out. But in that transfer of power, momentum and command authority was lost. Was Bremer in charge or the new CENTOM commander?
BohicaTwentyTwo on July 11, 2007 at 8:01 AM
The troop surge to Iraq was just completed only 2 weeks ago…and Dirty Harry has announced it to be a failure (if Reid wants to see failure he need only to stare in the mirror). However, the Marxist Media will portray Iraq a failure no matter how successful the mission might be…and the simpletons will always buy what they read in the ever so liberal MSM. As for Voinovich, this baffoon has always been nothing more than a political hack holding his wet finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing (usually in the same direction as the ever so liberal MSM). He is a fool and a coward and only one example of what is terribly wrong with our government.
lynnv on July 11, 2007 at 8:17 AM
Can’t say this enough. Thanks to your son for his service and to you and yours for raising a fine son.
csdeven on July 11, 2007 at 8:30 AM
Actually, I’ll extend that thanks to all of our members who put on a uniform with the knowledge that they could be called to sacrifice for others at a moments notice.
csdeven on July 11, 2007 at 8:43 AM
Good morning cs….
Thanks and I trust your son is also well. God bless em’ all.
Limerick on July 11, 2007 at 8:56 AM
MB4-
Use of the chickenhawk accusation is unworthy of a veteran. Having come up through the ranks, you should know that not everyone can serve, and not everyone who serves has absolute moral authority on military matters. Indeed, you and I apparently have several issues on which we disagree…which one of us gets to claim the mantle of ‘a veteran speaking on a military matter?’ With the kind of racking and stacking you’re trying to apply here, do I get to tell you you’re wrong simply because I’m still active duty and you’re not? Is that the way you’d like all your points to be considered?
And another thing…when you were in, would you have wanted only the support for your mission of your fellow current and former servicemembers or would you have liked that mission to have the support of lots of people from all walks of life? I don’t see how you can denigrate those Americans whose hearts and minds have been won.
-The Major
James on July 11, 2007 at 9:02 AM
Opps, I’m sorry, this seems to be in the wrong forum. While trying to comment on the Iraq war I ended up here in the MB4 Bait the Troll place.
TunaTalon on July 11, 2007 at 9:04 AM
When you start a brawl (for whatever reasons), you want to win your way out, not compound a bad opening (flawed intelligence) move with a disastrous exit (failing to calculate the much worse future problems that will result from giving up halfway through the battle).
You star a fight, you’d better finish it on your terms, or you only embolden a bestial enemy.
profitsbeard on July 11, 2007 at 9:33 AM
I’m sorry, are you advocating getting out of Iraq to let Iran have free reign to develop their nuclear program? I don’t care if you are George Patton posting from beyond the veil, that’s one of the dumbest ideas I’ve ever seen posted.
As for the chickenhawk argument, go back to Allah’s update for this post and you are defeated by your own logic. If your theory is that only those who served get to have their opinions heard on matters military, then we should be following Senator McCain’s advice about standing strong in Iraq, and not that of Senator Voinovich, who never served.
Dudley Smith on July 11, 2007 at 9:36 AM
I place most of the blame for the Republicans losses in the 2004 elections at the door of Kristol and fellow Rebublican commenators who attacked the war effort before the election.
The Republicans in Congress coming out against the war are just self serving hacks with no thought for the security of the country. Why? Because they do not have the common decency to would wait until September to read the evaluation from Iraq.
The rumours have the report on the Iraqi parliament saying that the parliament has not met any of the benchmarks. Contrast this to the Democratic Congress which has met only one of its benchmarks (Rise in the minimum wage attached to a defence spending bill).
Lets do a little comparison of relative effort:
Iraq - Newly formed Democracy, new parliament, new government cobbled together from many political parties. Major economic and civil disruptions (to put it mildly)
USA - Long time democracy, new two party Congress. No economic or civil disruptions.
And we are upset with the Iraqis. We should be ashamed.
davod on July 11, 2007 at 9:41 AM
profitsbeard,
You just nailed the Senate debate. Reid’s point is that the opening was a disaster, and McCain’s point is that an early exit would be a disaster. Both are true. Our choices as a country are either to change the past or control the future. I’m pretty that bitching about the past doens’t change it.
TunaTalon on July 11, 2007 at 9:41 AM
csdeven on July 11, 2007 at 8:43 AM
Ah, some thing we can completely agree on.
doriangrey on July 11, 2007 at 10:09 AM
MB4 on July 11, 2007 at 2:35 AM
Coming from the
idiotguy who started the ad hominem attacks thats a rather ironic statement. Furthermore as I said, I have some small experience with how and officer and a gentleman acts, and so far you have acted neither as an officer or a gentleman.No as I said before I don’t simply accept anonymous claims made over the internet as fact, there are simply too many people making false claims just to bolster their arguments for any rational person to accept such claims at face value. And quite frankly your claims are so exceptional as to be highly dubious.
Not to mention that you have made highly inflammatory and egregious assertions that smack of racism unbecoming an officer.
Not to mention a serious lack of strategic forethought. This quite frankly is a god awfully bad strategy which I find very difficult to believe any US military officer would ever seriously suggest. As was suggested before it sounds like something that a dKos kiddy would spout foolishly believing that the ignorant uneducated redneck conservatives would find appealing.
Not only is it not a strategically sound option, its a vile racist suggestion that no Arab or Muslim is trustworthy and that their only value is that of cannon fodder because they are only capable of savage butchery. The very fact that you would make such a suggestion suggest that even dKos is to much of a civilized place for you to call home and perhaps you belong someplace like Stormfront.
doriangrey on July 11, 2007 at 10:31 AM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »