home

Today is 7th Anniversary of War in Iraq

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:33:50 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Thanks to Mediaite for remembering, and noting that the MSM has largely neglected to mention that today is the 7th anniversary of the war in Iraq.

< Concessions | Rude Awakening >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Today is 7th Anniversary of War in Iraq | 129 comments (129 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    7 years down... (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:40:51 PM EST
    I don't know, say 50 years to go?  Or when the oil wells run dry and there is nothing to use soldiers as security guards to keep an eye on.

    The MSM sure got quiet about it when it became Obama's Occupation....look, over there, they published Tiger's text messages to a pron star...Iraq who?

    On Schedule, They Say (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 08:44:29 PM EST
    Odierno said "we certainly believe" the U.S. will be able to reduce its forces in Iraq to 50,000 noncombat troops by the Obama administration's self-imposed deadline of Sept. 1. Odierno spoke Monday on CBS's "The Early Show."

    HuffPo

    The promise Feb 2009:

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama said Friday he plans to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of August 2010.

    Between 35,000 to 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq, he said. They would be withdrawn gradually until all U.S. forces are out of Iraq by December 31, 2011 -- the deadline set under an agreement the Bush administration signed with the Iraqi government last year.

    "Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end," Obama said in a speech at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

    CNN

    Looks to me like it is going to happen. Iraq appears to be stabilizing. We'll see.


    Parent

    Didn't McCain say like (none / 0) (#5)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:43:51 PM EST
    100 years?  That would mean that we only have about 93 left to go.

    Parent
    93 years? That must (none / 0) (#21)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:14:24 PM EST
    coincide with expiration of all warranties on our Rhode Island-sized embassy in Baghdad.

    Parent
    It's only as big as Guernsey or Jersey (none / 0) (#38)
    by Salo on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:21:08 PM EST
    Keep it in proportion.  it's a most profitable offshore tax haven i've ever seen though.

    Parent
    I'm sure Cheney and Rummy (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:42:41 PM EST
    are celebrating with a nice lunch. I have no words for how much I despise them and their puppet president.

    Which puppet president... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:45:00 PM EST
    since 2009 you need to specify ruff.

    Parent
    The upside of the incompetent Dem (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:07:47 PM EST
    leadership of the moment is that they could never pull off a hoax of that scale.

    Parent
    Hah! (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:03:39 PM EST
    Very well said.

    Parent
    Oh no, really? (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:58:28 PM EST
    I'm not ready to go there yet kdog. Ask me again in October after the time for the promised troop reductions has expired.

    Parent
    Your perogative... (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:09:20 PM EST
    I'm long past there:)

    Troop reductions are just moving the disposable pawns around the little chessboard they see the flesh and blood world as...I'll come around when somebody starts at least talking about total and utter withdrawal.

    Parent

    I fear you are right (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:01:16 PM EST
    and deep down I know you probably are...just not ready to look at it yet.

    Those bases aren't going anywhere, are they?

    Parent

    Well said, Dog (none / 0) (#67)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:24:44 PM EST
    To me, it really doesn't matter about troop "reductions" if those troops are just being moved to Afghanistan, and other troops are still in Iraq.  I think we're in both places for a very long time.  But then, I'm an old lefty anti-war protester back from the Viet Nam War days, so what do I know?  I actually still believe that all wars except defensive wars are bad. And I mean by that not a bunch of terrorists from several different countries flying planes into our buildings.  How many Iraqis were on those planes?  Uh....that would be....none.

    Parent
    Why do you hate Obama? (snk.) (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:55:57 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, a couple of martinis on Halliburton (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:50:52 PM EST
    but still no effing oil.  Everytime Cheney thinks about it he goes Fred Sanford.  I don't know what more a guy has to do, move in an oil company with a giant monopoly money slush fund and the worlds largest meanest most aggressive army protecting it :)  and you still can't get a drop.  They just blow the crap out of everything. My husband says that every day in Iraq is just another pipeline explosion opportunity :)  Too many miles, too many pipes, so much oil :)

    Parent
    There's still plenty of money to be made... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by desertswine on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:48:18 PM EST
    According to the NYTimes of 15Feb10.

    Halliburton, Schlumberger and Bechtel are among U.S. companies in line to win contracts worth billions of dollars to repair pipelines, rebuild terminals and upgrade other infrastructure so that Iraq will be able to bring its crude oil to market, industry analysts say.


    Parent
    Weren't we supposed to be (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:42:57 PM EST
    in and out in six months?  With cash in our pockets?  Having established a strong democracy for the Iraqi people?  All in six months?

    Wasn't that the original plan as it was presented to us?

    If I were part of the media cabal who reported these fantasies as if they might be reality, I'd be burying the news that it is not over after seven years, too.

    We didn't get (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:04:49 PM EST
    the flowers and sweets, so we had to stay.

    Parent
    I remember the day (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:59:34 PM EST
    Watching it on tv.  The tracers.  It was dreadful.  ThinkProgress has a timeline.

    That it was. Dreadful is the word. (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:03:44 PM EST
    I remember the feeling of dread, and knowing it was soooo wrong. And I underestimated the horror.

    Parent
    It was a season in hell (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:09:32 PM EST
    And I still remember my husband telling me he'd see me in 90 days and ran off loaded down with his pack and all that crap.  Off to slay the evil Saddam, and he got on the bus...really, he told me that and he got on the bus. And I couldn't believe he was that dumb either.  I told him I'd see him in a year because if they were going to carry this B.S. this far they meant to go much further....I knew at that point the longest in combat they could keep soldiers was a year.  And I was right.  It's like a bad B movie or something.

    Parent
    I felt bad enough and I didn't even (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:58:58 PM EST
    know anyone there. I truly can't imagine what that must have been like for you.

    Parent
    I was talking (none / 0) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:12:43 PM EST
    yesterday (?) about the rough and tumble political newsgroup I got to dive into at a former employer in LA.  it so happens that was exactly in the runup to the war.  I was literally the only voice against the war.  if you remember Bush and his cronies had done their jobs so well most liberals were neutered.
    afraid to open their mouths for fear of getting a visit from the secret service.  remember when the guy got a visit for discouraging words in the gym?
    anyway as you can imagine that didnt faze me and I railed against it not stop.  I made them absolutely crazy.

    none of this is news or surprising except that years later I got email from a couple of those people who were piling on there.  telling me I was right about the war and saying very nice things about my not giving an inch.

    that felt good.
     

    Parent

    Had a similar experience with (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:57:14 PM EST
    one of the guys I work with. We used to argue it nearly every day. Took a few years, but he finally came around. For what it was worth. Did show me that it is worth trying to persuade people even when they seem like they are not budging.

    Parent
    I remember going to a party in the lead-up to the (none / 0) (#51)
    by tworivers on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:56:10 PM EST
    war and letting slip the fact that I had gone to a peace march.  Everyone looked at me as if I had three heads.  It was a really weird/alienating experience.  

    One person complained to me that the peace protests themselves were dangerous because with all the people gathered in Boston it created an ideal atmosphere for "them" to unleash a terror attack on the city.

    When I saw the same people 3 or so years later, they had pretty much all turned against the war

    Parent

    it was one of the scarier (none / 0) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:58:53 PM EST
    I can ever remember.  I really felt like I was in 1939 Germany.

    Parent
    The NY Times (none / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:33:19 PM EST
    That great "liberal" paper fell into line.....

    And Bill Maher was virtually strung up by a mob when he said that the hijackers were many things but not cowards--because they willingly died ....You couldn't say diddly that wasn't just perfectly in sync with Cheney.....

    And all those media elites with the dreaded liberal MSM fawning over Cheney's gravitas....And, no, Cheney didn't change because of 9/11--he has always been a reactionary of the most dangerous stripe; he has just been cloaked in an matter-of-fact demeanor.....When he was a member of the House, he voted against MLK day....

    Parent

    yeah (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by tworivers on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:51:09 PM EST
    The NY Times was awful in the lead up to war.  

    It was quite a racket Cheney had going

    1. Cheney or someone from the VP's office would speak off the record to Judy Miller and others,

    2. the Times reporter/stenographer would dutifully report what "anonymous administration officials" had said without trying to verify the truthfulness of what was being leaked to them.

    3. Cheney would use the resulting Times article to bolster his case for war on Sunday morning news shows.


    Parent
    The Washington Post (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:53:56 PM EST
    was absolutely on board with this, too.  Unfortunately.

    Parent
    Maher (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:56:11 PM EST
    lost his first HBO show because of that, right.
    I remember being almost strung up myself for defending him.

    Parent
    Don't forget (none / 0) (#91)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 07:13:48 PM EST
    Phil Donahue who had the highest rated show on Msnbc -- fired for his unwelcome antiwar attitude.

    Msnbc also demoted then released Ashley Banfield -- for making negative remarks about flag-waiving cable coverage of the war, citing Fox News as an example.  Cruel how the GE/Msnbc exec treated her in her final months.

    Parent

    I remember the day, too (none / 0) (#23)
    by Inspector Gadget on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:36:07 PM EST
    I was in Canada at a training class. Most of the class was Canadian, and the way they looked at us was total disbelief. I oppose/d that war with every fiber of my being, but foreigners blame every American for what the country leaders do.

    Watching the explosions while there didn't appear to be any defensive action was one of the saddest things I've ever seen.


    Parent

    Depends on the foreigner, IG (none / 0) (#69)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:34:20 PM EST
    Not all blame all Americans for the mistakes of our government.  Maybe some Canadians- I don't know.  But we have been to Europe a few times since, and I didn't get that feeling.  Certainly not after talking to some of the natives, who quickly realized that we were not on board with our government's actions.  But even before that, we didn't receive any hostility.

    Parent
    I go back and forth (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:02:30 PM EST
    as to whether Iraq is the worst US fp disaster, or Vietnam.

    Both unnecessary and costly, both the longest foreign wars in US history.  Iraq is 7 yrs and counting, the US in VN was about 8 ('65-73) for combat/bombing operations.  

    Both times the administrations' initial decisions to launch wars were not questioned or seriously challenged by the MSM.  Media proponents actually were cheerleading the war effort.  With Iraq, early voices of dissent were silenced or fired.  Probably slightly more dissent allowed on the tv airwaves during VN.

    Not at all! (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:08:52 PM EST
    Ye gods, even the Smothers Brothers were canceled because they dared suggest indirectly the war wasn't such a good idea, and that was years into it!

    For most of the VN war pre-Cronkite, dissent was absoutely verboten on TV.

    Parent

    Got that right, gyrfalcon (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:59:25 PM EST
    It took a long, long time before protests against the Viet Nam War were even thought of as anything but treason.  I know, since I was there, as was my husband (then my boyfriend).  I'm pretty sure my name and photo are in FBI files somewhere.  The day my husband and I knew that the Viet Nam War was doomed was the day my parents (very conservative people) put a bumper sticker on their car that said "Another Family Against the War."

    Parent
    I don't think (none / 0) (#90)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 07:03:57 PM EST
    dissent in the media in either war was very prevalent nor representative of the public attitude, as I noted above, but I'm not sure you're correct in your suggestion that VN censorship was worse.

    There were the occasional dissenting voices heard on the public airwaves back then, early on and later, as with the Smos Bros.  CBS for instance aired a very early discussion/debate for an hour pitting an LBJ admin war proponent and one other vs several academic antiwar people.  (Now, that one did have free speech repercussions -- Lyndon fired the man, nat's security adviser McGeorge Bundy, who'd quietly arranged, behind Johnson's back, to appear on the show to debate, when Johnson wanted the whole VN buildup to remain under the radar.)

    Some of those voices came from the mouths of members of Congress and the dissenting witnesses they called to comm'ees like those chaired by Sen Wm Fulbright.  Twice, 1966 and 1968, these important hearings into the war were televised by the networks, to varying degrees by all three but at times gavel to gavel by some -- much to the great annoyance of one Lyndon Baines Johnson.

    PBS would have on war dissenters -- granted, this was on pro-war Bill Buckley's Firing Line, but at least he gave them a platform occasionally.

    As for the Smothers, I'm not sure it's entirely clear they were fired over their war dissent, though that could have been part of it.  Prior to being canned, the absolute worst negative mail they received involved some satirical religious sermons by comedian David Steinberg.  The boys and the network were constantly battling over censorship matters, a lot of that having nothing to do with the war.  

    Who knows -- perhaps when the new Nixon admin came in, they laid down the law to CBS about what sort of programming it didn't care for and the network got nervous and finally pulled the plug.  

    Parent

    I would just point out to you (none / 0) (#103)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 11:15:52 PM EST
    that 1968 was already years into the VN war, and that we had dissenting voices all over TV on the Iraq war even before it started, including one of the most Village of Village types, Chris Matthews.

    No kidding, I think you're really not remembering either period right.

    No question those voices were very much in the minority, and you had Phil Donahue pretty explicitly canceled by MSNBC because of his anti-war stance.  But there were so few media outlets back during VN, if you had 10 percent dissenters, that still meant 5 minutes of air time a month or so.  With Iraq, that 10 percent amounted to several hours a week.

    Parent

    that long? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CST on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:03:04 PM EST
    I remember finding out and being sooo angry.  So, so angry.  Now I'm just... I dunno.  I have been conflicted on this since we invaded.  I actually supported the surge, since I'm of the opinion that "you break it, you bought it" - but who knows how to fix this mess.  I'm just glad I'm not in charge because I sure don't know.

    My old boss went to Afghanistan yesterday.  He retired from the military last year and is going for engineering work.  I'm actually kind of jealous.  I feel like that's the work I should be doing.  But I'm not quite qualified yet to be doing the work I want to do.

    That poor forsaken country (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:22:15 PM EST
    That, and Afghanistan, and the whole bloody mess of our empire.

    Over at fafblog, the Medium Lobster ponders whether Iraq's "democracy" is worth the bloodshed:

    Because if it's not worth that, then that would mean the occupation of Iraq has not been a selfless nation-building project generously extended from the richest country in the world to one of the poorest, but a sustained and psychotic act of mass murder, a massive, nationwide industrial slaughter that deserves its place among history's great atrocities. And if that's the case, we might find, on closer inspection, more and more American entries in those ranks, from Iraq to Nicaragua to Chile to Vietnam to Korea to Japan to the Philippines to the Trail of Tears. And that would make the United States not an enormous force for good in the world but a monster of world-historical proportions, our leaders gore-guzzling psychopaths who wipe the blood from their chins just long enough to collect the occasional Nobel Prize, and ourselves their numbed, acquiescent followers. And we know that can't be the case, because look at all the good we're doing in Afghanistan
    .

    http://fafblog.blogspot.com/

    Now, what about those Cubs? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Salo on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:19:01 PM EST


    Parent
    Surely you're not suggesting we ship the Cubs (none / 0) (#100)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 09:23:47 PM EST
    to Afghanistan? Haven't those poor people suffered enough?

    Parent
    Hey... (none / 0) (#102)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 10:26:37 PM EST
    ...they might just stand a chance of winning the Kandahar League championship.

    Parent
    time flys (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:35:27 PM EST
    when you are having fun.
    Olberman may be a tool but I bet he will mention it.
    God Save the Queen (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:44:30 PM EST


    7 down (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:44:43 PM EST
    and how many more to go I wonder?

    Well, (none / 0) (#9)
    by bocajeff on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 02:45:44 PM EST
    I'm still waiting to get out of Japan and Germany and that's been 65 years. Not to mention that they are stable, democratic, and not really under threat from anyone or anything...Talk about a quagmire...

    Seriously... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:12:34 PM EST
    I guess an empire can't have too many jump off points...until the empire collapses under its own weight anyways.

    Parent
    That's just nature. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Salo on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:21:59 PM EST
    running it's course. In blood.

    Parent
    I can still remember... (none / 0) (#25)
    by desertswine on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 03:53:05 PM EST
    one of the local newsmen here practically foaming at the mouth in war-ecstasy. They should have given him pom-poms and let him jump up and down in a short skirt. To this day I won't watch that local channel's news.

    meh the Iraqis are lucky to have us (none / 0) (#29)
    by Salo on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:03:33 PM EST
    now we have Obama.

    for some reason (none / 0) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:06:44 PM EST
    I doubt they feel all that lucky.

    especially the dead ones.

    Parent

    Back to reality (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:13:46 PM EST
    Based on what Bush knew he did the right thing.

    Obama is doing nothing about Iran, which is the wrong thing.

    Oh well, Israel doesn't count anymore.

    Thank El! (none / 0) (#35)
    by Salo on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:18:16 PM EST


    Parent
    reality! (none / 0) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:25:22 PM EST
    your strong suit.

    Parent
    Based on what (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:27:27 PM EST
    any delusional, amoral person knows, they're doing the right thing.

    Or, are you suggesting that Bush is-was so pure of motive that he could never possibly lie about what he "knew"?

    You're never going to drop those neocon talking points until someone pries them from your cold, dead fingers, are you?

    Parent

    how could (none / 0) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:28:52 PM EST
    you possibly say that.
    HE IS FOR SINGLE PAYER.  on whatever planet he lives.

    Parent
    He certainly doesn't live on Titan. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Salo on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:31:03 PM EST
    Just me and the Sirens.

    Parent
    Yes, I saw that (none / 0) (#44)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:33:51 PM EST
    I'm still trying to bend my mind around that....

    Parent
    It gives him (none / 0) (#47)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:40:11 PM EST
    one "liberal credential" to cover the trolling.

    Kinda like kidneystones tapping into the the p*ma rage in order to do the same.

    Parent

    you gotta give him one thing (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:00:59 PM EST
    he doesnt seem to be in "that" group.

    Parent
    Quite a few of you seem (none / 0) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:07:59 PM EST
    to think that to be a liberal social issues means that you must also be anti-war.

    BION there was a time when liberals were just as strong on national defense as conservatives.

    And I think several of you are old enough to perfectly understand that being liberal and for strong national defense are not... repeat are NOT... mutually exclusive positions.

    Parent

    There was also a time (none / 0) (#61)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:14:57 PM EST
    when "defense" didnt mean attacking disarmed countries halfway around the world.

    Parent
    I'm 62 years old, Jim (none / 0) (#82)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 06:05:24 PM EST
    And despite Scoop Jackson and other "socially liberal, strongly pro-war" Democrats way back then, I was never pro-war, and I'm not the only one- there were a whole lot of us.

    Parent
    There may have been a few (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 06:47:19 PM EST
    anti-war folks, but you didn't have to be anti-war to be considered liberal. That started during Vietnam.


    Parent
    I was a liberal (none / 0) (#92)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 07:51:13 PM EST
    before I even started protesting against the Viet Nam War.  I would have to say, in fact, that I protested the war because I was a liberal.  I was also pro-Civil Rights and pro-Feminist Movement, as well as anti-Viet Nam War.  And I had many friends who felt the same way.

    Parent
    So? (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 12:34:42 PM EST
    We can agree on everything except National Defense.

    That doesn't make you good or me bad.

    Parent

    Considering ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:15:10 PM EST
    ... you guys usually apply that label to anyone who's even slightly critical of Obama, ...

    ... I'd say you're making progress  (pun intended).

    Parent

    ;-) LOL (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:18:08 PM EST


    Parent
    what this really means (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:20:34 PM EST
    ... you guys usually apply that label to anyone who's even slightly critical of Obama, ...

    slightly critical = irrational trashing with every breath.


    Parent

    also (none / 0) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:21:50 PM EST
    I would say jim has reality grasped firmly in both hands compared to you.

    Parent
    In both cases "reality" (none / 0) (#70)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:36:58 PM EST
    being a family-friendly euphemism

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#77)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:53:12 PM EST
    You think so?

    I'm hurt.

    Give me some time to recover from that one, ... 'kay?

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#81)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 06:02:30 PM EST
    not really, but you kinda got in the line of fire.

    Parent
    I think it was for (none / 0) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 06:12:30 PM EST
    me

    Parent
    Either, ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 08:22:36 PM EST
    ... or, actually.

    Parent
    And you are not (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:03:33 PM EST
    as shown by your actions.

    Parent
    Once the ultimate (none / 0) (#58)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:11:01 PM EST
    authority speaks, one has no choice but to do a serious reassessment of ones liberal principals.

    Parent
    Well, your actions speak loudly. (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:14:24 PM EST


    Parent
    Must I always remind you (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:13:27 PM EST
    that my social liberal credentials are well established and of lengthy tenure.

    Your problem is that you automatically attack anyone who is not anti-Bush. At one time I thought it was because you were anti-war.

    Now I know you are just anti-Bush.

    Parent

    You cant be both? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:18:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Interesting, I would (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:42:39 PM EST
    not have guessed any liberal views....but I suppose all things are possible...

    But torture--hard to be in favor of it and still be liberal on social issues...  

    Parent

    Liberal views (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:47:43 PM EST
    ie, Karl Rove can continue to cruise Ralph Reed, as long as they both redouble their efforts to strengthen the coalition with the fundamentalists.

    Parent
    single payer (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:44:00 PM EST
    single payer

    single payer

    single payer

    etc

    Parent

    I would be glad to bring up all my comments (none / 0) (#110)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 12:45:02 PM EST
    in support of social liberal issues if you will commit to acknowledging that the current health care abortion is not about healthcare, just Obama paying back the insurance companies.... and "winning this one for my Presidency..."

    Parent
    Torture? (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 12:40:28 PM EST
    First of all waterboarding isn't.

    Secondly, w2aterboarding isn't.

    Thirdly, do you agree that we are our brother's keeper?

    And if so, at what point do you decide you won't do things to protect your brother?

    Parent

    So Hitchens was lying (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:30:24 PM EST
    when he said it was, after volunteering to experience it at firsthand?

     

    Parent

    I didn't know you (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:24:54 PM EST
    considered Hitchens an expert???

    Parent
    I brought that up (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by jondee on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:50:59 PM EST
    for your benefit. My impression was that anything a public flaming neocon said was gospel to you.

    Parent
    My impression is that you (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 05:28:53 PM EST
    need more facts and less inmpressions.

    Life is better that way.

    Parent

    "Facts" (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 03:40:28 PM EST
    Like the fact that you know more about waterboarding than people who have actually been waterboarded?

    Your facts read more like a pile of dittohead bumperstickers.

    Parent

    Last time I looked (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:34:18 PM EST
    Israel had a nuclear deterrent -- and is so preeminently concerned about being non-antagonistic and keeping the peace that they've stepped up expanding settlements again.

    Parent
    But, why, other than (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:39:10 PM EST
    to be deliberately provocative?  

    Parent
    bingo (none / 0) (#48)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:45:33 PM EST
    Im starting to think Mossad must have an archive of compromising photos of every American pres going back to the seventies..Or something.

    Parent
    And I thought even the (none / 0) (#49)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:49:28 PM EST
    conservatives in Israel were supportive of an ultimate two-state solution--it was the means of getting to that end that was the issue.

    Now, it appears that a significant block of Israelis just want to push all the Palestinians out of the West Bank entirely....

    Parent

    Is it that they (none / 0) (#55)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:05:25 PM EST
    dont have a powerful enough coalition without doing things to please the "Greater Israel" crowd; the way the Repubs pretend to be a voice of reason while, at the same time, petting teabaggers, birthers and Rapturists? Or, for that matter, the way the A-man in Iran succours his Islamists and nationalists?

    Parent
    That sure is a weird crowd (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 05:33:54 PM EST
    you hand out with.

    I mean you must since you know all about them.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Israel is our one and only friend in the Middle (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:09:29 PM EST
    East.

    Parent
    Not so friendly recently (none / 0) (#73)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:46:05 PM EST
    And they need us more than we need them.

    Our support of Israel has cost us dearly in the Middle East.  A price I am willing to pay because I support Israel....But this latest stunt....not good.....

    Parent

    The only thing that got hurt (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 06:48:42 PM EST
    was Biden's feelings.

    Parent
    Hardly (none / 0) (#89)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 06:57:00 PM EST
    It shows a blatant disrespect for their ally and benefactor....

    More settlements makes it much harder to broker any kind of peace agreement....

    It hurt the chances of peace....but for some that is a good thing....

    Parent

    If the Palestinians wanted a two (none / 0) (#107)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 12:32:16 PM EST
    state solution they could have had one years ago.

    And I fail to see why we should be embarrassed.

    That is unless you want to count Obama's goofs with England and SA.

    Parent

    Not true (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 05:46:37 PM EST
    Jordan has been very helpful to us....

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 08:15:45 PM EST
    How many displaced people have they allowed to come to Jordan?

    None.

    The Palestinians are mere fodder for the other Mulsim states.

    Parent

    And trash and cannon (none / 0) (#97)
    by jondee on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 08:31:10 PM EST
    fodder for the Israelis and American the-end-is-near nutbars.

    Since we're making wild generalizations.

    Parent

    My comment was factual. (none / 0) (#105)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 12:28:29 PM EST
    What do you have against Jews?

    Parent
    Anti Semitism? (none / 0) (#111)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 01:15:15 PM EST
    Israell is a country not a religion. Israel does not represent the Jews, Israel represents Israel.

    Racists and bigots like to use a small selection of people to represent the whole group in order to make fictitious generalizations, are you now joining the ranks of anti semites?

    I guess that once you got into the habit of doing it with one or two groups, it follows that you would continue the pattern with other groups.

    Parent

    Israel is not Jewish (none / 0) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 05:30:35 PM EST
    Hmmmmm

    The things the Left touts.

    Parent

    Making Sh*T Up Again? (none / 0) (#126)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:52:23 PM EST
    What I said:
    Israell is a country not a religion. Israel does not represent the Jews, Israel represents Israel.

    Many orthodox Jews do not  recognize Israel as a legitimate. Israel certainly does not represent them, and it certainly does not represent me, nor does it represent "the jews" as you insist.

    Of course the wingnuts, AIPAD, and you as their minion, love playing politics with those who are Jewish, and claim any who oppose Israeli policies are anti-semitic.

    An analogous absurdity would be that anyone who criticizes a men's club for their sexist polices hates men.

    Parent

    Lets see: they tend to (none / 0) (#128)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 03:54:14 PM EST
    vote around 65 to 70% Democrat, and at your website you say "there are no moderate Democrats", so I guess that means you think most Jews are  un-American (to read just slightly between the lines) radicals.

    And of course, following the logic of the Robertson, Lehaye, Hagee wing of your coalition, they's all gonna burn durin' the Rapture.

    With friends and "defenders" like that, who needs enemies?

    Parent

    What do you have (none / 0) (#113)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:42:16 PM EST
    against not being a manipulative, race-baiting cretin -- who wouldnt know one if one accidentally showed up at one of your teaparties?

    Parent
    Nasty little thing aren't you? (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 05:31:38 PM EST


    Parent
    All your comments (none / 0) (#114)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:43:37 PM EST
    are factual.

    Parent
    They tend to vote (none / 0) (#115)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 02:56:08 PM EST
    around 70% Democrat -- and we all know "there are no moderate Democrats" -- so I guess that means they must have something against YOU.

    Parent
    That is one of the mysteries of life... (none / 0) (#125)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 05:35:53 PM EST
    But it appears to be shrinking.

    Parent
    Mysteries of life (none / 0) (#129)
    by jondee on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:59:55 PM EST
    If I had to guess, I'd say it has something to do with intelligence -- and the realization that a significant segment of your coalition claims they're destined for the Lake of Fire.

    Parent
    Saudi Arabia (none / 0) (#85)
    by cenobite on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 06:16:09 PM EST
    Has had a special, favored relationship with the United States for 65 years, which is a bit longer than the state of Israel has existed.


    Parent
    And who's fault is that? (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 08:17:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 08:32:24 PM EST
    Bush knew things just like you know things: If all the intelligence reports say there are no WMDs, Bush knows that there are WMDs, because like you Bush does not need intelligence to know things.

    Parent
    Problem you have is that (none / 0) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 12:29:39 PM EST
    the reports said they WMD's,

    Please quit trying to rewrite history.

    Parent

    The only reports acceptable (none / 0) (#116)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 03:58:01 PM EST
    to the regime change gangsters said they had wmds --
    while there still existed a well documented, ongoing debate within the intelligence community about it.

    Quit trying to write.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#117)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 04:04:52 PM EST
    Cheney's men and women made sure that the intelligence was fixed. That is the same kind of intelligence you regularly to have to offer here, albeit a toned down version from what you write on your wingnut blog.

    Knowing something is dishonest, yet promulgating it does not make it credible.

    Parent

    Even some Republicans (none / 0) (#118)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 04:18:17 PM EST
    are starting to come around to the view that Iraq was a mistake. In another couple of years, the biggest problem in relation to the Iraq invasion may turn out to be a shortage of rope and lamp posts.

    Parent
    The wars are like the health care debacle (none / 0) (#37)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 04:20:00 PM EST
    When our own side is screwing us, it's so much harder to stop them.

    Status quo ante? (none / 0) (#83)
    by diogenes on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 06:07:27 PM EST
    So I guess the people here would prefer that Saddam Hussein still be in power?  And should we have been maintaining the embargo for all these years or have dropped that as well?

    The usual false dichotomy accusation (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by cenobite on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 06:25:01 PM EST
    There were plenty of other things we could have done other than "nothing" and "unleash hell on earth for the Iraqi people".

    Actually, ISTR there was an offer on the table that Hussein would leave Iraq if we didn't invade, and Bush turned it down.

    But it wasn't about Hussein, it was about enriching friends of Bush and Cheney, pushing through a hateful domestic agenda, and Bush doing his pops one in the eye.

    You know, Bush is responsible for more Iraqi deaths (approx 1 million) than Hussein ever was (approx 300,000). Just saying.


    Parent

    I think Hussein turned down a chance (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 08:18:28 PM EST
    to leave with is family.

    Parent
    Not necessarily 'still' in power (none / 0) (#101)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 19, 2010 at 09:30:25 PM EST
    But in power at least until we had finished the job in Afghanistan? Yes.

    Parent
    A ray of hope (none / 0) (#104)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 20, 2010 at 10:26:53 AM EST
    Two Republican congressmen - "Iraq was a mistake"

    Two GOP congressmen say most Republicans on the Hill now believe the Iraq war was a mistake, and "more than half the Republican caucus" believes the way in which the US entered the Afghanistan war was also a mistake.

    Reps. Tom McClintock (R-CA) and Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) made the comments at a discussion panel at the Cato Institute on Thursday.

    Going into Iraq "was a mistake because I thought we had to finish the job in Afghanistan," Rohrbacher told the panel, echoing a popular Democratic talking point at the time.
    Today is 7th Anniversary of War in Iraq | 129 comments (129 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment