Rumsfeld Resigning [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

Recyclerz

11-08-2006, 09:30 AM

johnniewalker

11-08-2006, 10:29 AM

RUSH LIMBAUGH: 'I FEEL LIBERATED... I NO LONGER HAVE TO CARRY THE WATER FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T DESERVE IT' Interesting how many people hated this guy.

HeyGuy

11-08-2006, 12:26 PM

foodcourtdruide wrote: Doesn't it bother anyone that up to about a week ago Bush was defending Rumsfield saying that he was the man for the job? Does anything this President say mean anything? I agree, it also seems a little odd that he has said he wasnt going to resign, but the day after the dems take the house and the senate (?????) he resigns. Something tells me he is a little worried about the newbies looking into this war. or this could be a move by bush to say "hey i want to change the course in Iraq and now we can do it"

tele7

11-08-2006, 12:26 PM

"As you know, you leave this job with suit you have, not the suit you might want or wish to have at a later time."See ya' jerkoff!

Bulldogcakes

11-08-2006, 01:06 PM

A.J. wrote: Translation: "I'm sorry I fucked you in the mid-terms Mr. President. I'd better go now."And former CIA Director Robert Gates is the nominee to replace Rumsfeld as SECDEF? STUPID.  His one qualification? He's another Bush crony. If Bush was serious about WINNING this war, he'd hire . . . oh, I dont know. . . maybe a General? This is Harriet Miers all over again. Bush talks about accountability, but practices personal loyalty despite results. Which is why he's a failure as President. And will be remembered as such. It might be too late to fix Iraq anyway. Whats needed is a political solution and the factions are on the verge of (if not already in) an all out civil war. <blockquote />

johnniewalker

11-08-2006, 01:12 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: A.J. wrote: Translation: "I'm sorry I fucked you in the mid-terms Mr. President. I'd better go now."And former CIA Director Robert Gates is the nominee to replace Rumsfeld as SECDEF? STUPID. His one qualification? He's another Bush crony. If Bush was serious about WINNING this war, he'd hire . . . oh, I dont know. . . maybe a General? This is Harriet Miers all over again. Bush talks about accountability, but practices personal loyalty despite results. Which is why he's a failure as President. And will be remembered as such. It might be too late to fix Iraq anyway. Whats needed is a political solution and the factions are on the verge of (if not already in) an all out civil war.  I think you missed this qualification."He also served as President of the <a title="National Eagle Scout Association" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Eagle_Scout_Association">National Eagle Scout Association</a> during the mid-2000s."  I mean geez give the guy a chance before you judge him.

UnknownPD

11-08-2006, 01:17 PM

CuzBum wrote: Wouldn't it be wise to appoint a former General as Sec. of Def.? This is considered a no-no. The head of the DOD is supposed to be a civilian. As I remember it's  happened before, but is not considered the norm. Supposed to separate us from military governments.And considering the god awful job the Generals have done...

This message was edited by UnknownPD on 11-8-06 @ 5:17 PM

keithy_19

11-08-2006, 01:28 PM

johnniewalker

11-08-2006, 01:38 PM

keithy_19 wrote: foodcourtdruide wrote: Doesn't it bother anyone that up to about a week ago Bush was defending Rumsfield saying that he was the man for the job? Does anything this President say mean anything? Considering we're talking about politics, no. It doesn't surprise me.  What does Bush have to gain by criticising someone incorporating his scheme and a member of his cabinet?  That kind of calling out with upper level members of any type organization is unheard of.

pennington

11-08-2006, 01:45 PM

They must have been planning this for months and it was going to happen no matter what the outcome of yesterday's election. I think this is a good move. People (of both parties) get burned out quickly in a Presidental administration; six years is a very long time to be running a bureauracy as big as the DOD.

Gvac

11-08-2006, 01:50 PM

Fuck him too.

sr71blackbird

11-08-2006, 01:52 PM

I kept hearing that this was "planned for months" too.  Real smart to arrange for the announcement AFTER the election!  What would have happened if the Republicans had won - he'd shit can him??  Riiiight!! Fucking bullshit

Bulldogcakes

11-08-2006, 02:13 PM

johnniewalker wrote: RUSH LIMBAUGH: 'I FEEL LIBERATED... I NO LONGER HAVE TO CARRY THE WATER FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T DESERVE IT' Interesting how many people hated this guy. Line of the year. Rush had a very good day today, first time I've listened to him in years. I've been pissed off at Rush and other so-called conservatives who have defended this president despite the fact he has governed to the left more often than not. Bush simply is not, and never was a conservative. 1) Biggest deficits and debt in history 2) Huge expansion of Goverment with Medicaid part D (prescrption drug plan) 3) Botched Social Security reform plan. And by the way Bush campaigned for it (and dropped it soon thereafter), I think his heart was never in it. Just went through the motions. 4) Started a war with no realistic plan to hold the country, and no clear exit strategy. Its like they fucking slept through Vietnam. 5) Harriet Miers 6) Terry Schiavo. Huge overreach by the Feds in something they clearly have no business being involved in by any reading of the constitution. It was said of Bush #1 when he took over that the difference between
him and Reagan was "Reagan wanted to be president to DO something. Bush
wanted to be president to BE something." Conservatives never trusted
Bush 1, and W was sold as being more conservative than his father. But
as it turns out, the apple didn't fall far from the tree.   

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 11-8-06 @ 6:16 PM

HBox

11-08-2006, 02:21 PM

Bulldogcakes

11-08-2006, 02:38 PM

HBox wrote:So he basically just admitted he's been lying for years. And people accept this. Wonderful.  Not quite. He's saying he had to try to defend Bush because he feels the alternatives (Gore/Kerry/Losing the House and Senate sooner) would have been worse. But now that Bush is a lame duck and they lost the House, he can unload on him. Plus he didn't change his beliefs, he would simply attack democrats when he couldn't defend Bush. So he wasn't lying, he just changed the subject. Actually takes some guts for him to do, alot of his audience are Bush robots who dont want to hear the president be criticized. And to do it today can be construed as "piling on". But I thought it was long overdue.

WRESTLINGFAN

11-08-2006, 02:40 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote:  johnniewalker wrote: RUSH LIMBAUGH: 'I FEEL LIBERATED... I NO LONGER HAVE TO CARRY THE WATER FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T DESERVE IT' Interesting how many people hated this guy. Line of the year. Rush had a very good day today, first time I've listened to him in years. I've been pissed off at Rush and other so-called conservatives who have defended this president despite the fact he has governed to the left more often than not. Bush simply is not, and never was a conservative. 1) Biggest deficits and debt in history 2) Huge expansion of Goverment with Medicaid part D (prescrption drug plan) 3) Botched Social Security reform plan. And by the way Bush campaigned for it (and dropped it soon thereafter), I think his heart was never in it. Just went through the motions. 4) Started a war with no realistic plan to hold the country, and no clear exit strategy. Its like they fucking slept through Vietnam. 5) Harriet Miers 6) Terry Schiavo. Huge overreach by the Feds in something they clearly have no business being involved in by any reading of the constitution. It was said of Bush #1 when he took over that the difference between him and Reagan was "Reagan wanted to be president to DO something. Bush wanted to be president to BE something." Conservatives never trusted Bush 1, and W was sold as being more conservative than his father. But as it turns out, the apple didn't fall far from the tree.  This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 11-8-06 @ 6:16 PM Two words for alot of this... Karl Rove

Bulldogcakes

11-08-2006, 02:52 PM

Tenbatsuzen wrote:...gee, who saw this coming? This'll make for fun wacky Dem forum postings. (and no, I'm not talking your typical debates, I'm talking the people who say "LAURA BUSH KILLED SOMEONE!")  Tenbats, you're a great American. . . . . . . <blockquote />

spoon

11-08-2006, 04:17 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote:  johnniewalker wrote: RUSH LIMBAUGH: 'I FEEL LIBERATED... I NO LONGER HAVE TO CARRY THE WATER FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T DESERVE IT' Interesting how many people hated this guy. Line of the year. Rush had a very good day today, first time I've listened to him in years. I've been pissed off at Rush and other so-called conservatives who have defended this president despite the fact he has governed to the left more often than not. Bush simply is not, and never was a conservative. 1) Biggest deficits and debt in history 2) Huge expansion of Goverment with Medicaid part D (prescrption drug plan) 3) Botched Social Security reform plan. And by the way Bush campaigned for it (and dropped it soon thereafter), I think his heart was never in it. Just went through the motions. 4) Started a war with no realistic plan to hold the country, and no clear exit strategy. Its like they fucking slept through Vietnam. 5) Harriet Miers 6) Terry Schiavo. Huge overreach by the Feds in something they clearly have no business being involved in by any reading of the constitution. It was said of Bush #1 when he took over that the difference between him and Reagan was "Reagan wanted to be president to DO something. Bush wanted to be president to BE something." Conservatives never trusted Bush 1, and W was sold as being more conservative than his father. But as it turns out, the apple didn't fall far from the tree.  This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 11-8-06 @ 6:16 PM Give me a break Cakes, he's the republican's fucking mess and failure, not the left's.  Nice try by you and Rush to ditch him as he finally hits the bottom and try to pass him off as being liberal.  If this is the case, why didn't the republican congress and senate do anything to check his power, or Rumsfeld and Cheney's power for that matter.  It's all a fucking joke, and by that I mean your post above.  He's a failure, and your republican cronies let him run wild and defended him at all turns amid historical levels of corruption and scandal.  I long for the day of a blowjob scandal.  It's time to shut this failed operation down, at least we agree on that.

spoon

11-08-2006, 04:23 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote:  HBox wrote: So he basically just admitted he's been lying for years. And people accept this. Wonderful.  Not quite. He's saying he had to try to defend Bush because he feels the alternatives (Gore/Kerry/Losing the House and Senate sooner) would have been worse. But now that Bush is a lame duck and they lost the House, he can unload on him. Plus he didn't change his beliefs, he would simply attack democrats when he couldn't defend Bush. So he wasn't lying, he just changed the subject. Actually takes some guts for him to do, alot of his audience are Bush robots who dont want to hear the president be criticized. And to do it today can be construed as "piling on". But I thought it was long overdue.    Wrong, it's damage control and something I promise we'll see a lot more of all over the conservative outlets.  It surely is the new approach the RNC will be putting out there and that gimp Ken Mehlman will get pass the memo on to all his minions.  Rush is just proving once again that he's a cog in there idiotic wheel and has no true feelings/views of his own unless they mesh with the RNC.  Money is the only language the EIB netword speaks and it shows every day.  He never gets off the tracks unless it's the new direction.  But perhaps I should thank him for his help in the Missouri Senate race.  He definitely had an impact in that race.

Bulldogcakes

11-08-2006, 04:39 PM

spoon wrote:Give me a break Cakes, he's the republican's fucking mess and failure, not the left's. Nice try by you and Rush to ditch him as he finally hits the bottom and try to pass him off as being liberal. If this is the case, why didn't the republican congress and senate do anything to check his power, or Rumsfeld and Cheney's power for that matter. It's all a fucking joke, and by that I mean your post above. He's a failure, and your republican cronies let him run wild and defended him at all turns amid historical levels of corruption and scandal. I long for the day of a blowjob scandal. It's time to shut this failed operation down, at least we agree on that. Spoon, there are divisions within the Republican party. There are the Reagan/Goldwater Conservative Republicans who have a strong libertarian streak. They believe in less Gov't, less spending and more freedom. Tend to be liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal ones. (Thats me) There are the "Rockefeller" Republicans, who are rich country club pragmatist types who believe in getting themselves elected and not much else. They call themselves Republicans if there is some electoral reason to do so. They tend to win elections because they're so damn well funded. (thats Bush) There are social conservatives (Pat Robertson types) who push a family values agenda. They dont care how much money the Government spends, as long as its spent on stuff they like. I never said he's not a Republican, I said he's not a conservative. And he's not. A conservative stands for certain principles, and if you look at this president's record he fails the test more often than not. And I agree the Republican house (where there are more conservatives) gave him a blank check far too often. I agree this president is a failure by any measure. I challenge any remaining Bush supporters (TB?) to give me a great success he's had that he'll be remembered for. I cant come up with one. 

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 11-8-06 @ 8:42 PM

spoon

11-08-2006, 04:47 PM

Here's my problem with that logic BDC, he ran and is labeled a conservative.  If he has strayed, it is and was as a conservative republican.  The mark he left is as a conservative republican.  I for one don't care if other conservative republicans jump off his support wagon, bc he was considered one of you and strayed.  Who's to say all republicans won't follow this path just to get elected? Also, these subclasses within parties only truly pertain to those in office.  Most people can barely get themselves out to vote and rarely follow it that closely.  He's linked to one party for most and now Rush and those who backed him will have to suffer through his downfall.

HBox

11-08-2006, 04:54 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: HBox wrote:So he basically just admitted he's been lying for years. And people accept this. Wonderful. Not quite. He's saying he had to try to defend Bush because he feels the alternatives (Gore/Kerry/Losing the House and Senate sooner) would have been worse. But now that Bush is a lame duck and they lost the House, he can unload on him. Plus he didn't change his beliefs, he would simply attack democrats when he couldn't defend Bush. So he wasn't lying, he just changed the subject. Actually takes some guts for him to do, alot of his audience are Bush robots who dont want to hear the president be criticized. And to do it today can be construed as "piling on". But I thought it was long overdue.   WHO HELPED MAKE THEM THAT WAY?!?!?!How is this having guts? You know what it sounds like to me?FLIPFLOP

spoon

11-08-2006, 04:59 PM

And where's the integrity in Rush's stand/past?

Bulldogcakes

11-08-2006, 05:04 PM

HBox wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: HBox wrote:So he basically just admitted he's been lying for years. And people accept this. Wonderful. Not quite. He's saying he had to try to defend Bush because he feels the alternatives (Gore/Kerry/Losing the House and Senate sooner) would have been worse. But now that Bush is a lame duck and they lost the House, he can unload on him. Plus he didn't change his beliefs, he would simply attack democrats when he couldn't defend Bush. So he wasn't lying, he just changed the subject. Actually takes some guts for him to do, alot of his audience are Bush robots who dont want to hear the president be criticized. And to do it today can be construed as "piling on". But I thought it was long overdue. WHO HELPED MAKE THEM THAT WAY?!?!?!How is this having guts? You know what it sounds like to me?FLIPFLOP   H, try not to think politically for a second and remember that at the end of the day, Rush is in the ratings business. The 30% that still approve of this failed president are the bulk of his audience. When he started dumping on Bush, on the day they just had their butts kicked, alot of them will get pissed and turn off the radio. Some may not return for a while, if ever. It takes some guts to piss off your audience like that to make a point on a principle. The smart business move is to hold your tongue. But the reason why he's as successful as he is he believes deeply in certain things. Whether you agree or disagree with him, you should repect that.  <blockquote />

spoon

11-08-2006, 05:12 PM

I disagree totally bdc.  He jumped ship once he knew for sure it was the direction and after he and the republicans failed terribly in this last election.  You can't tell me he isn't a cog in the RNC wheel and was a part of this failure.  He's a follower based on his party's direction and might a well have a leash and collar on.  EIB baby!

Bulldogcakes

11-08-2006, 05:18 PM

spoon wrote: Here's my problem with that logic BDC, he ran and is labeled a conservative. If he has strayed, it is and was as a conservative republican. The mark he left is as a conservative republican.  Thats the point Spoon. He's labeled as a conservative, but he doesn't govern like one. The proof is in his record and his record is far from being conservative by any standard. THere's a term conservatives use for these guys RINO (pronounced "rhino") and acronymn for "Republicans In Name Only". Since you fall on the left politically, you tend to lump all republicans in the same basket, but its just not the case.  <blockquote />

spoon

11-08-2006, 05:25 PM

I don't lump them until they say one thing and go the other way.  A conservative repub just isn't what it used to be and it has been proven for the last 12 years.  Corporate interests have taken that moniker and flushed it down the toilet.  I don't lump them together, the candidates do that for me.

HBox

11-08-2006, 05:38 PM

We need more political parties. We need a real Libertarian Party without the crazy extremist fools currently occupying it. Then the religious crazies can take the rest of the Republican Party. The socialist peaceniks can have their own party and the rest of the Democrats can be some sort of centrist party. And then we will have more choice.But today, both the Republican Party and conservatism has been redefined by the influx of these crazy religious voters. It's very different from what they were 20 years ago. Politics change. And they have no one to blame because they invited them, exploited them and rode them to 6 years of election victories and complete power. And now they cannot be jettisioned because they are the biggest constituency left.  And what's left of the Republican Party in Congress is even more to the right and more religious than what it was yesterday because most of the Republicans who lost their seats were moderates.

Bulldogcakes

11-08-2006, 06:03 PM

And what's
left of the Republican Party in Congress is even more to the right and
more religious than what it was yesterday because most of the
Republicans who lost their seats were moderates. I really dont know what to make of yesterdays results. Some conservative ballot initatives passed, some didn't. Most of the Dems that unseated Republicans were moderates. Some of the Republicans that lost were moderates, some were hard core conservatives. Leiberman won. Ned LaMont was the poster boy of the anti-war far left, he lost big. Democrats had huge victories in NY and NJ and (get this) DIDN'T LOSE ONE CLOSE RACE nationwide. Pulled the inside straight no one thought they would.  This election will be sorted out by the Zogbys and Cooks of the world for a long time to come, and I personally cant draw many conclusions.    HBox wrote: We need more political parties. We need a real Libertarian Party without the crazy extremist fools currently occupying it. Amen. 

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 11-8-06 @ 10:12 PM

HeyGuy

11-08-2006, 07:54 PM

HBox wrote: We need more political parties. We need a real Libertarian Party without the crazy extremist fools currently occupying it. Then the religious crazies can take the rest of the Republican Party. The socialist peaceniks can have their own party and the rest of the Democrats can be some sort of centrist party. And then we will have more choice. But today, both the Republican Party and conservatism has been redefined by the influx of these crazy religious voters. It's very different from what they were 20 years ago. Politics change. And they have no one to blame because they invited them, exploited them and rode them to 6 years of election victories and complete power. And now they cannot be jettisioned because they are the biggest constituency left.  And what's left of the Republican Party in Congress is even more to the right and more religious than what it was yesterday because most of the Republicans who lost their seats were moderates. I agree. I dont consider myself a dem. I vote dem more often then not but I would consider myself A libertarian. I think fiscally we need to be more conservative with all spending, but the rich should pay a little more, not much but more to balance it out a little., But I'm far left liberal when it comes to personal life issues. If gays want to marry go ahead, abortion your choice if they change the law then there will be no choice which is worng. Like my sig pic says, if you dont like abortion then dont have one, but dont tell someone else what to do with their body based on your beliefs.We do need to have a 3rd party and I wish it was a strong libertarian party.Next time you vote look at were the canidates are listed. They are listed dems then republicans and then all the way to the right not in plain site about 5-6 rows over that were they put the libertarians. Like someones going to look all over. Put the 3rd largest party next to the others and let the 3rd party in debates.

Bulldogcakes

11-09-2006, 02:18 AM

<a href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110806/content/rush_on_a_roll.guest.html" target="_self" title="Here's Rush's comments in full context, if anyone cares. ">Here's Rush's comments in full context, if anyone cares. </a>  <a href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110806/content/rush_on_a_roll.guest.html" target="_self" title="Here's Rush's comments in full context, if anyone cares. "></a>

Yerdaddy

11-09-2006, 02:39 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote:  spoon wrote: Give me a break Cakes, he's the republican's fucking mess and failure, not the left's. Nice try by you and Rush to ditch him as he finally hits the bottom and try to pass him off as being liberal. If this is the case, why didn't the republican congress and senate do anything to check his power, or Rumsfeld and Cheney's power for that matter. It's all a fucking joke, and by that I mean your post above. He's a failure, and your republican cronies let him run wild and defended him at all turns amid historical levels of corruption and scandal. I long for the day of a blowjob scandal. It's time to shut this failed operation down, at least we agree on that. Spoon, there are divisions within the Republican party. There are the Reagan/Goldwater Conservative Republicans who have a strong libertarian streak. They believe in less Gov't, less spending and more freedom. Tend to be liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal ones. (Thats me) There are the "Rockefeller" Republicans, who are rich country club pragmatist types who believe in getting themselves elected and not much else. They call themselves Republicans if there is some electoral reason to do so. They tend to win elections because they're so damn well funded. (thats Bush) There are social conservatives (Pat Robertson types) who push a family values agenda. They dont care how much money the Government spends, as long as its spent on stuff they like.  I never said he's not a Republican, I said he's not a conservative. And he's not. A conservative stands for certain principles, and if you look at this president's record he fails the test more often than not. And I agree the Republican house (where there are more conservatives) gave him a blank check far too often. I agree this president is a failure by any measure. I challenge any remaining Bush supporters (TB?) to give me a great success he's had that he'll be remembered for. I cant come up with one.  This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 11-8-06 @ 8:42 PM It was a struggle to decide which post to quote, I want to make so many points. But not because I want to go after you, BDC, but because I think this is such an important subject. You know all those long-ass boring posts I've been making the last months about conservatism changing after the 1987 overturning of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of right-wing radio and cable "news"? In those posts I'm always appealing to the "traditional conservatives" to reign in or try to take back power from the new generation of what I refer to as the new "extremists". Well, I usually have you in mind when I'm writing that, BDC. You're the guy I'm usually hoping will step in and take on se7en or Bestinshow when they post their outright slanders of Muslims or liberals or whoever they've taken up the task from the pundits to attack that day. In those situation I'm usually appealing to you, as someone who holds traditional conservative values above ideologial demagoguery to demonstrate what conservatism should be and once was. Because, as a liberal, my defenses agains their "arguments" only proves them right. The strain of conservatism today that is more anti-liberal than values-oriented trains them to see

Yerdaddy

11-09-2006, 03:06 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: <a title="Here's Rush's comments in full context, if anyone cares. " href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110806/content/rush_on_a_roll.guest.html" target="_self">Here's Rush's comments in full context, if anyone cares. </a>  <a title="Here's Rush's comments in full context, if anyone cares. " href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110806/content/rush_on_a_roll.guest.html" target="_self"></a>Now, I mentioned to you at the conclusion of the previous hour that people have been asking me how I feel all night long. I got, "Boy, Rush, I wouldn't want to be you tomorrow! Boy, I wouldn't want to have to do your show! Oh-ho. I'm so glad I'm not you." Well, folks, I love being me. (I can't be anybody else, so I'm stuck with it.) The way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I'm going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, "Well, why have you been doing it?" Because the stakes are high. Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the Democrat Party and liberalism does. I believe my side is worthy of victory, and I believe it's much easier to reform things that are going wrong on my side from a position of strength. Now I'm liberated from having to constantly come in here every day and try to buck up a bunch of people who don't deserve it, to try to carry the water and make excuses for people who don't deserve it. I did not want to sit here and participate, willingly, in the victory of the libs, in the victory of the Democrat Party by sabotaging my own. But now with what has happened yesterday and today, it is an entirely liberating thing. If those in our party who are going to carry the day in the future -- both in Congress and the administration -- are going to choose a different path than what most of us believe, then that's liberating. I don't say this with any animosity about anybody, and I don't mean to make this too personal. My thinking is: the left doesn't deserve to win. My thinking is: the country is imperiled with liberal victory. This is the nature of ideology today: it's "we, no matter what we do wrong, are good, and they are evil." Plain and simple. This is why conservatism as a whole has changed. This is why it's taken this long for conservatives to shed some of their enthusiasm for anyone who carries the conservative flag enough to actually lose an election cycle. But, given how much damage to our own security with the Iraq War that it's taken to get to this point, this can only be seen as a natural set-back for the conservative revolution. The actual strategies and structures of conservative media and political tactics have not been proved failures. There will be blood-letting in the form of Rumsfeld, some of the people who lost elections, and maybe some changes in the national party leadership. But, unless there is a major power struggle between the old guard and the new power players, the revolution will continue on the same course. The fact that it's taken this long, that the pundits that have been proved wrong so many times, and that so costly a war has only, after three and a half years of colossal fuck-ups, has only led to a small majority by the opposition, proves that these guys are still winners, and will continue with the same tactics and with the same goals. Now is where they shift the blame to the dems for everything, including the war, and build momentum as underdogs. I don't see a takover effort by the old guard - except possibly, (hopefully), in the 2008 presidential primaries. But, then, the old guard will have to come up with a strategy to avoi

Yerdaddy

11-09-2006, 03:58 AM

Now I can address what I think Rumsfeld's "resignation" means: Scapegoat.He wasn't "resigned" as an appeasement to the dems for winning the mid-terms. He was shit-canned because republicans and the military had turned on him. (They started turning on him - publicly - shortly after Bush's 2004 reelection. Bush's obtuseness kept him this long. Seriously, any rational person would have fired Rummy and promoted Powell at that point.) Bush doesn't want to be a "lame duck". He's seriously concearned about his legacy. He seriously thought Iraq would solidify his status as a great war-time president. Oops! That didn't work out so well. He let it ride this long, hoping that Rumsfeld and other loyalists would pull it out. But now is really last-ditch effort time. And, without control of Congress, Bush really needs republican congressional support, even if it's simply vocalizing his agenda and shifting the blame for every percieved problem onto the demcrats. Firing Rummy serves that purpose. And it was possibly Rummy's idea to take one for the team. After all, his legacy is at stake as well, and he can't possibly have any optomistic ideas about Iraq at this point. Blame-shifting is as good as an exit strategy at this point.So, what we'll see is conservative talking heads saying "we gave you, (all war critics), Rumsfeld so shut up!" I'll have that thrown at me in these threads, and it will be thrown out at every public criticism on Fox News and talk radio. The only possible change in the war strategy, (if one can actually define any strategy to this point), will come only if there is some new voices who replace Rumsfeld in the Oval Office. Rumsfeld was a key architect of the war. It really was only him, Cheney and Rove, who drove the actual policies. The new guy - a Bush loyalist, like AJ said - will probably be ordered to take direction from the other two. That would give us more of the same, of course. The big difference would be that he's probably not the micromanager that the military has been saying Rummy was since before 9-11. So, possibly the military will have more say in running itself again, a fact that will probably lead to conflict within the White House. The policies of Bush's inner core have depended greatly on Rummy's tight control of the military - his proven willingness to fire anyne who challenges his ideas, and the active duty uniformed military's willingness to go along with that. We really need them now to use this opportunity to speak up. In all, I don't see any coherent change in strategies being taken in the war at this point, (tactics, however, are a different story). I think it's too little too late because, at this point there are so few good options left. So much of the decisions on the ground are in the hands of Iraqi politicians, who have a really difficult time selling American ideas for what's best when those ideas have almost always proved to be what's best for the Bush administration and not for Iraq. (See the recent removal of American roadblocks in Sadr City in Baghdad for an example.) New ideas are few and not very promising at this point. That's just a fact of life that the commanders in Iraq have accepted a long time ago, but which I think Bush has just now, sort-of, come to realise.Rumsfeld and the loss of Congress has merely brought an opportunity for the Bush adminsitration to, at the very least, share the blame with the opposition. Like always, it's great political strategy, but doesn't make things any better for the troops in Iraq. I hope I'm wrong. I was wrong about Rumsfeld going. But I don't have much hope left for winning anything in Iraq, and I don't think the President does either. Tactics. Tactics will be defined as strategies at this point, in news stories and by me. Strategies are basically useless at this point. I dont' know what those strategies will be this time. After Bush's reelection we saw the military go into Fallujah guns blazing. Problem was, everyone knew we wer

A.J.

11-09-2006, 04:14 AM

UnknownPD wrote: CuzBum wrote: Wouldn't it be wise to appoint a former General as Sec. of Def.? This is considered a no-no. The head of the DOD is supposed to be a civilian. As I remember it's  happened before, but is not considered the norm. Supposed to separate us from military governments.And considering the god awful job the Generals have done...This message was edited by UnknownPD on 11-8-06 @ 5:17 PM There's only been one been one former General to serve as SECDEF: General George C. Marshall who served as SECDEF for one year under President Truman.

Yerdaddy

11-09-2006, 04:18 AM

A.J. wrote: UnknownPD wrote: CuzBum wrote: Wouldn't it be wise to appoint a former General as Sec. of Def.? This is considered a no-no. The head of the DOD is supposed to be a civilian. As I remember it's  happened before, but is not considered the norm. Supposed to separate us from military governments.And considering the god awful job the Generals have done...This message was edited by UnknownPD on 11-8-06 @ 5:17 PM There's only been one been one former General to serve as SECDEF: General George C. Marshall who served as SECDEF for one year under President Truman.<img height="318" src="http://www.corporatemofo.com/Pix/040321headroom.jpg" width="300" border="0" />

A.J.

11-09-2006, 04:49 AM

That's what I get for talking to someone and typing at the same time."Gotta get the papers...the papers."

Marc with a c

11-09-2006, 05:23 AM

i miss him already

Bulldogcakes

11-09-2006, 04:39 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: In those posts I'm always appealing to the "traditional conservatives" to reign in or try to take back power from the new generation of what I refer to as the new "extremists". Well, I usually have you in mind when I'm writing that, BDC. You're the guy I'm usually hoping will step in and take on se7en or Bestinshow when they post their outright slanders of Muslims or liberals or whoever they've taken up the task from the pundits to attack that day. In those situation I'm usually appealing to you, as someone who holds traditional conservative values above ideologial demagoguery to demonstrate what conservatism should be and once was. Because, as a liberal, my defenses agains their "arguments" only proves them right. The strain of conservatism today that is more anti-liberal than values-oriented trains them to see criticism by a liberal as a validation of thier conservatism - even when it serves as a distraction from honest evaluation of issues. I think this is a major reason why modern conservatism has strayed from the way you see true conservatism. These are true believers in an ideological war who are loyal to their camps and what the orders given them are. They have never internalized the traditional conservative values you outlined above, they simply took up their rhetorical rifles and started blasting away at the "enemy". [I'm not very good with "personal hygene"! I don't regularly "bathe"!]But to say they're not conservatives is a bit of a cop-out, in a very important practical sense. First of all, I dont take the pit bulls as seriously as you do. They've always been around, its nothing new and neither is demagogues and fringes on either side. They're partisans, and if you listen to partisans long enough you'll find them arguing both sides of every issue, depending on who's in power and what party they're from. Complete, utter hypocrites. They believe in little but hating and demonizing their percieved enemies. And for me politics is about ideas, not enemies. The biggest difference between me and you is I dont get as upset by them as you do. I just dismiss them and move on. I seriously doubt I could reign anyone in if I tried, anyway. I think its a first phase that most people go through with politics, that they grow out of eventually in most cases. I did. Plus, I wouldn't let them bother me so much if I were you. Their tone is so bitter and angry they persuade no one. They're just preaching to the choir. Whenever you attack people that much, you rarely persuade them. You just make them dig in their heels, a mindless screaming match ensues and nothing ever gets solved. I'll pass. When they start cutting out womens clitorises, call me. I do think its totally fair for me to put them in a different group than myself and it's not a cop out at all. I'd call them arch-conservatives ("arch" being short for archie bunker) You've said yourself there are huge differences between guys like me (and AJ) and the fringe types. Why not make a distinction?   

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 11-9-06 @ 9:04 PM

Bulldogcakes

11-09-2006, 05:01 PM

Yerdaddy wrote:This is the nature of ideology today: it's "we, no matter what we do wrong, are good, and they are evil." Plain and simple. This is why conservatism as a whole has changed. This is why it's taken this long for conservatives to shed some of their enthusiasm for anyone who carries the conservative flag enough to actually lose an election cycle. But, given how much damage to our own security with the Iraq War that it's taken to get to this point, this can only be seen as a natural set-back for the conservative revolution. The actual strategies and structures of conservative media and political tactics have not been proved failures. There will be blood-letting in the form of Rumsfeld, some of the people who lost elections, and maybe some changes in the national party leadership. But, unless there is a major power struggle between the old guard and the new power players, the revolution will continue on the same course. The fact that it's taken this long, that the pundits that have been proved wrong so many times, and that so costly a war has only, after three and a half years of colossal fuck-ups, has only led to a small majority by the opposition, proves that these guys are still winners, and will continue with the same tactics and with the same goals. Now is where they shift the blame to the dems for everything, including the war, and build momentum as underdogs. I don't see a takover effort by the old guard - except possibly, (hopefully), in the 2008 presidential primaries. But, then, the old guard will have to come up with a strategy to avoid getting "McCained" - which gives them the same challenge that the dems have and haven't come up with anything. But I don't see a major power struggle happening anyway. The old guard usually puts up the biggest fights with its own party right after elections, which is a position of weakness. I see no reason for that to change.It will be business as usual, I'm afraid. Which means we will now see the extreme right - the new core - go into attack mode. We're in for a bumpy ride.  Rush certainly does alot of the "Were the good guys, they're the bad guys" stuff, but remember hes first and foremost an entertainer, and his job is to attract an audience. If you wanted make a movie that would be a box office smash, you'll have the white hats and the black hats. It sells and always has. I dont think the new tactic will be "Blame Pelosi" when it comes to the war. Nobody will buy that. This is Bush's war and everyone knows it. Actually, you'll notice he just picked Gates (from Bush 1) to be Sec Defense and has Baker (from Bush 1) leading the Iraq commission. It seems he has finally turned completely away from the neo cons and has some of his daddy's more pragmatic buddies to get him (and more importantly, the country) out of this mess. Gates signals there will be a drawing down of troops, and Baker will likely give him a blueprint to do so. Pelosi and the Dems are on board with this so far, they will be able to take some credit for a change in policy by simple fact that they are there. Which should mollify their base some. I'll bet this issue is largely off the table by 08.  About them blaming the Dems for everything else . . .well thats just Washington now isn't it? I'm sure the Dems will be blaming back plenty.

johnniewalker

11-09-2006, 05:31 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: [quote] Spoon, there are divisions within the Republican party. There are the Reagan/Goldwater Conservative Republicans who have a strong libertarian streak. They believe in less Gov't, less spending and more freedom. Tend to be liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal ones. (Thats me) There are the "Rockefeller" Republicans, who are rich country club pragmatist types who believe in getting themselves elected and not much else. They call themselves Republicans if there is some electoral reason to do so. They tend to win elections because they're so damn well funded. (thats Bush) There are social conservatives (Pat Robertson types) who push a family values agenda. They dont care how much money the Government spends, as long as its spent on stuff they like. I never said he's not a Republican, I said he's not a conservative. And he's not. A conservative stands for certain principles, and if you look at this president's record he fails the test more often than not. And I agree the Republican house (where there are more conservatives) gave him a blank check far too often. I agree this president is a failure by any measure. I challenge any remaining Bush supporters (TB?) to give me a great success he's had that he'll be remembered for. I cant come up with one. This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 11-8-06 @ 8:42 PM It was a struggle to decide which post to quote, I want to make so many points. But not because I want to go after you, BDC, but because I think this is such an important subject. You know all those long-ass boring posts I've been making the last months about conservatism changing after the 1987 overturning of the Fairness Doctrine and the rise of right-wing radio and cable "news"? In those posts I'm always appealing to the "traditional conservatives" to reign in or try to take back power from the new generation of what I refer to as the new "extremists". Well, I usually have you in mind when I'm writing that, BDC. You're the guy I'm usually hoping will step in and take on se7en or Bestinshow when they post their outright slanders of Muslims or liberals or whoever they've taken up the task from the pundits to attack that day. In those situation I'm usually appealing to you, as someone who holds traditional conservative values above ideologial demagoguery to demonstrate what conservatism should be and once was. Because, as a liberal, my defenses agains their "arguments" only proves them right. The strain of conservatism today that is more anti-liberal than values-oriented trains them to see criticism by a liberal as a validation of thier conservatism - even when it serves as a distraction from honest evaluation of issues. I think this is a major reason why modern conservatism has strayed from the way you see true conservatism. These are true believers in an ideological war who are loyal to their camps and what the orders given them are. They have never internalized the traditional conservative values you outlined above, they simply took up their rhetorical rifles and started blasting away at the "enemy". [I'm not very good with "personal hygene"! I don't regularly "bathe"!]But to say they're not conservatives is a bit of a cop-out, in a very important practical sense. It reminds me of a trend I've seen many times here in the Muslim world. [Curl up by the fire, kids, it's long-ass story time. Or scroll

Yerdaddy

11-10-2006, 03:47 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote:   Yerdaddy wrote: In those posts I'm always appealing to the "traditional conservatives" to reign in or try to take back power from the new generation of what I refer to as the new "extremists". Well, I usually have you in mind when I'm writing that, BDC. You're the guy I'm usually hoping will step in and take on se7en or Bestinshow when they post their outright slanders of Muslims or liberals or whoever they've taken up the task from the pundits to attack that day. In those situation I'm usually appealing to you, as someone who holds traditional conservative values above ideologial demagoguery to demonstrate what conservatism should be and once was. Because, as a liberal, my defenses agains their "arguments" only proves them right. The strain of conservatism today that is more anti-liberal than values-oriented trains them to see criticism by a liberal as a validation of thier conservatism - even when it serves as a distraction from honest evaluation of issues. I think this is a major reason why modern conservatism has strayed from the way you see true conservatism. These are true believers in an ideological war who are loyal to their camps and what the orders given them are. They have never internalized the traditional conservative values you outlined above, they simply took up their rhetorical rifles and started blasting away at the "enemy". [I'm not very good with "personal hygene"! I don't regularly "bathe"!]But to say they're not conservatives is a bit of a cop-out, in a very important practical sense.   First of all, I dont take the pit bulls as seriously as you do. They've always been around, its nothing new and neither is demagogues and fringes on either side. They're partisans, and if you listen to partisans long enough you'll find them arguing both sides of every issue, depending on who's in power and what party they're from. Complete, utter hypocrites. They believe in little but hating and demonizing their percieved enemies. And for me politics is about ideas, not enemies. The biggest difference between me and you is I dont get as upset by them as you do. I just dismiss them and move on. I seriously doubt I could reign anyone in if I tried, anyway. I think its a first phase that most people go through with politics, that they grow out of eventually in most cases. I did. Plus, I wouldn't let them bother me so much if I were you. Their tone is so bitter and angry they persuade no one. They're just preaching to the choir. Whenever you attack people that much, you rarely persuade them. You just make them dig in their heels, a mindless screaming match ensues and nothing ever gets solved. I'll pass. When they start cutting out womens clitorises, call me. I do think its totally fair for me to put them in a different group than myself and it's not a cop out at all. I'd call them arch-conservatives ("arch" being short for archie bunker) You've said yourself there are huge differences between guys like me (and AJ) and the fringe types. Why not make a distinction?     This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 11-9-06 @ 9:04 PM I hope you see that I do make a big distinction between you and them: I respect you. And the big "camp" that I put you together with them in is the some 35% of 300 million Americans who identify themselves as conservatives. The reason I make the appeal to you, and those like you, is that they haven't declared you the enemy yet. Between that and the fact that you are a reasonable person who bases arguments on evidence, I see you guys as the only ones who can point out these people's flawed arguments and either tone down their extremi

Yerdaddy

11-10-2006, 04:26 AM

Well... not ALL smilies.<img src="http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/smilies/suv.gif" border="0" /> <img src="http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/smilies/finger1.gif" border="0" /> <img src="http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/smilies/lies.gif" border="0" /> <img src="http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/smilies/stfu1.gif" border="0" /> <img src="http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/smilies/surrender1.gif" border="0" /> <img src="http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/smilies/bsflag00.gif" border="0" /> <img src="http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/smilies/hmsc.gif" border="0" /> <img src="http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/smilies/votebush.gif" border="0" /> <img src="http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/smilies/Eledonk.gif" border="0" /> The surrender monkey one is hysterical.

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 11-10-06 @ 8:27 AM

Yerdaddy

11-10-2006, 07:59 AM

[QUOTE]<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR2006110901774.html?nav=hcmodule" target="_blank">Understanding Gates</a> It's Not as Simple as Father's Team vs. Son's By James Mann Friday, November 10, 2006; A31  In the early months of 1989, the overriding foreign policy issue for the new George H.W. Bush administration was how to deal with Mikhail Gorbachev. Did the Soviet leader represent fundamental change, or was he merely a new face for the same old policies?The administration was divided. James Baker, the secretary of state, wanted to test out Gorbachev. The anti-Gorbachev hawks were led by Robert M. Gates, the deputy national security adviser. Gates's principal ally was then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney.Baker vs. Gates/Cheney: That alignment should serve as a warning to those who view Wednesday's appointment of Robert M. Gates to replace Donald Rumsfeld as representing the triumph of Bush the Father's administration over Bush the Son's. Any such analysis is far too simplistic. Gates's nomination unquestionably stands for one proposition: a long-awaited recognition that the administration's war in Iraq has been a disaster. But the broader interpretation of the appointment as representing a victory of Bush 41 over Bush 43 -- or of one school of thought over another -- breaks down when you look at Gates's background and the history of the 1980s and early '90s.For one thing, that analysis depends on a selective view of the Bush 41 administration. Yes, it included Gates; then-national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, a determined opponent of the current Iraq war; and Baker, who is now head of a bipartisan group searching for a new Iraq policy. But Vice President Cheney was a charter member of the Bush 41 administration. So were Cheney's former aide Stephen Hadley, the current national security adviser, and Condoleezza Rice -- who have been among the principal architects of the war in Iraq.Moreover, as that 1989 debate over Gorbachev illustrates, the Bush 41 foreign policy team was hardly united. Its members bickered about the Soviet Union, about China, about the Middle East. One of the few things it was in complete harmony on was the belief that American troops shouldn't go on to Baghdad at the end of the Persian Gulf War in 1991. At the time, everyone thought that would be a bad idea, including Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, then undersecretary of defense.Well, then, does Wednesday's appointment of Gates represent a change of philosophy, the triumph of realism over neoconservatism? That doesn't quite work, either. Rumsfeld was never a neoconservative; he was an obstreperous contrarian, committed not to putting forward any particular philosophy but to aggressively challenging whatever ideas his bureaucratic opponents and critics put forward.Gates is being characterized as a "realist," but his record is more complex than that, too. He was an ardent Cold War hawk who did not shrink from moral judgments. "The Soviet Union was an evil empire," Gates wrote in the concluding chapter of his 1996 memoir, "From the Shadows." Gates believed he was simply being skeptical when he insisted that Gorbachev was just another Soviet leader. But others in Washington saw this stand as ideological in nature. Former secretary of state George P. Shultz complained that Gates and the CIA had repeatedly tailored intelligence to fit the policy interests they favored. "You deal out intelligence as you deem appropriate," Shultz complained to Gates in one icy confrontation he recounted in his own memoir. "I feel an effort is made to manipulate me by the selection of materials you send my way."On America's role in the world and the use of military force, it is hard to detect in Gates's record many far-reaching, principled differences with the present administration. He was deputy national security adviser when

Yerdaddy

11-11-2006, 01:09 AM

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4FFY3PLvPo" target="_blank">Why does it always have to be the Daily Show to catch the president in a bald-faced lie?</a> The MSM was too busy sucking Nancy Pelosi's tits maybe?Reporter: "Mr. President, last week you told us that Secretary Rumsfeld would be staying on."Bush: "The reason why is I didn't want to inject a major decision about this war in the final days of a campaign. And so the only way to answer that question and to get you onto another question was to give you that answer."

Yerdaddy

11-11-2006, 03:20 AM

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/10/world/middleeast/10marines.html?em&ex=1163394000&en=c746e57e603e5d98&ei=5087%0A" target="_blank">Iraqi explains to marines who Rumsfeld is. </a>

johnniewalker

11-11-2006, 06:49 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR2006110901774.html?nav=hcmodule">Understanding Gates</a>  I couldn't find anything to take out of this, so I'm posting the whole thing. Sorry. As a writer I hope you don't use phrases like "he was an obstreperous contrarian,"... I have hope with this guy, for me its so hard to see how ideology breaks down into a coherent strategy in Iraq.  Regardless of your ideology, you're hopefully working with in concert with everyone and not just putting your stamp on the country.   That is an extremely interesting idea that rarely gets discussed.  When the executive branch set way to rebuild Iraq, how is it exactly being done?  To me, regardless of your ideology, you have to look purely at the history of failings and successes and draw from them.   You're not instituting conservatisim into a rebuilding project. at least I don't think...

johnniewalker

11-11-2006, 07:08 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/10/world/middleeast/10marines.html?em&ex=1163394000&en=c746e57e603e5d98&ei=5087%0A">Iraqi explains to marines who Rumsfeld is. </a> Its not too surpising the type of detachment that is in combat.  You take orders regardless of your politics, and your politics aren't going to change the overall mission of the army.  I'm not quite sure what to take out this article.   Maybe you can tell me b/c I'm really confused. Do you think its a criticism of the detachment, a rationale for leaving, or a blurb on the insignifcance of Rumsfeld?   Either way i'm not too thrilled if its a rationale for leaving."If there were no American military presence in Iraq, he said, there
would be no insurgents. One serves as a magnet for the other."  I think its this kind of simplistic logical reasoning that got us into this, and we owe Iraq beyond seeing that because A (No American presence) implies B (no insurgents).   We  made a similar assumption when we thought that american presence implied democracy and willing citizens.  This country is not one step away from saving itself.

Yerdaddy

11-11-2006, 12:55 PM

johnniewalker wrote:  I'm not quite sure what to take out this article.   Maybe you can tell me b/c I'm really confused. Do you think its a criticism of the detachment, a rationale for leaving, or a blurb on the insignifcance of Rumsfeld?   Either way i'm not too thrilled if its a rationale for leaving.The article isn't advocating anything. It's a snapshot of a time and place. The journalist was obviously embedded with this unit in this house and this is an interaction that took place. He found that it was interesting and illuminated some aspects of reality over there. He says it's illustrative of the common trend of soldiers being largely apolitical during their time in combat. The story shows that this is in part that there is little time to worry about such things, including even knowing the name of the guy who may decide your fate from Washington. I knew and worked with alot of vets in Washington, and this post-war political interest fits the pattern I've seen. It's also a an illumination of a part of soldiering over there. The unit goes into Iraqi homes to use the location to search for insurgents, and interacts with the families inside. The reason I liked the article enough to post it was that the writer's description of the Iraqi man rang so true to me, having been living in the Middle East for two years. Arabs get excited to interact with westerners. It's generally an honor to have them in your home. Some Iraqis, to be sure, are going to be resentful for the losses they've suffered. But this is going to be a common scene for soldiers: being welcome in the homes of Iraqis and the Iraqis serving them tea and food and wanting to talk about politics and life. Arabs in general are very generous in this way. Even when they're broke-ass poor, they'll share what they've got, even with a westerner who's likely to be wealthy by comparison. Hashim comes across as excited to have these guests, wanting to make the most of the opportunity to host them and shoot the shit. You could see this guy as being very nice and the soldiers appreciating it at first but just wanting to get the job done, and maybe the guy getting a little annoying after a bit but not unbearable. It's a really good job of describing an Arab character in a particular setting. Which is rare.But the author isn't putting the guy's opinions in any sort of authoritative context or advocating anything from anything here.

johnniewalker

11-11-2006, 01:10 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: johnniewalker wrote: I'm not quite sure what to take out this article. Maybe you can tell me b/c I'm really confused. Do you think its a criticism of the detachment, a rationale for leaving, or a blurb on the insignifcance of Rumsfeld? Either way i'm not too thrilled if its a rationale for leaving.The article isn't advocating anything. It's a snapshot of a time and place. The journalist was obviously embedded with this unit in this house and this is an interaction that took place. He found that it was interesting and illuminated some aspects of reality over there. He says it's illustrative of the common trend of soldiers being largely apolitical during their time in combat. The story shows that this is in part that there is little time to worry about such things, including even knowing the name of the guy who may decide your fate from Washington. I knew and worked with alot of vets in Washington, and this post-war political interest fits the pattern I've seen. It's also a an illumination of a part of soldiering over there. The unit goes into Iraqi homes to use the location to search for insurgents, and interacts with the families inside. The reason I liked the article enough to post it was that the writer's description of the Iraqi man rang so true to me, having been living in the Middle East for two years. Arabs get excited to interact with westerners. It's generally an honor to have them in your home. Some Iraqis, to be sure, are going to be resentful for the losses they've suffered. But this is going to be a common scene for soldiers: being welcome in the homes of Iraqis and the Iraqis serving them tea and food and wanting to talk about politics and life. Arabs in general are very generous in this way. Even when they're broke-ass poor, they'll share what they've got, even with a westerner who's likely to be wealthy by comparison. Hashim comes across as excited to have these guests, wanting to make the most of the opportunity to host them and shoot the shit. You could see this guy as being very nice and the soldiers appreciating it at first but just wanting to get the job done, and maybe the guy getting a little annoying after a bit but not unbearable. It's a really good job of describing an Arab character in a particular setting. Which is rare.But the author isn't putting the guy's opinions in any sort of authoritative context or advocating anything from anything here.  I've never asked any soldiers after they got back whether they are told how to interact with Iraqi's.  Obviously professionally, but beyonds that are they told not to talk about politics.  It probably wouldn't matter what they were told, but I wondered.  I remember when we first were going to go into Iraq, I was trying to find out what the Iraqi's wanted.  There was no real accurate gauge of Iraqi opinion. I just was wondering if i should take be taking something more out of this, I'm no journalist and its cool to see what you thought.  Its tough because you see these moments and other small moments where it seems to be positive, yet overall we seem to be completely failing.   Kinda disappointing and sad...

Yerdaddy

11-11-2006, 02:04 PM

If you want to read some of the best journalism being done in Iraq from a guy who really knows how to let the key players in the real battle zones tell their own stories, read George Packer's work for the New Yorker. <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060410fa_fact2" target="_blank">Here's a good start.</a> And <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/archive/previous/articles/050328frprsp_previous1" target="_blank">more here.</a> And he's got a new book out that's gotten huge reviews. Here's an update on <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/10/AR2006111001681.html?nav=hcmodule" target="_blank">Tal Afar</a> in a more generic article from today's paper.

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 11-11-06 @ 6:25 PM

Bulldogcakes

11-12-2006, 06:03 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR2006110901774.html?nav=hcmodule">Understanding Gates</a> It's Not as Simple as Father's Team vs. Son's  I couldn't find anything to take out of this, so I'm posting the whole thing. Sorry.   I really disagree with his whole take on Gates, painting him as a Cold Warrior hawk. Just because he dealt with the realities of the world of 1990 doesn't mean he's ill suited for this situation. The Bush 1 team were known as internationalists and pragmatists. The Bush 2 Neo Cons were hard line idealogues. And yes, it is as simple as Bush 1's team coming in to rescue Bush 2. You can expect Baker to come back with a  unanimous set of recommendations from the bi-partisan commission which will include timelines for the Iraqis to get their acts together and the regional players (Iran/Turkey/Syria) to have a stake and/or role in making sure they get implemented. Its been reported everywhere that Baker refused to get involved unless Rumsfeld was out. This all signals a complete turnaround from the current unilateralist policy to a multi national plan where (at the very least) we'll be withdrawing most of out troops before Bush exits in 08. What all of this means for Iraq remains to be seen, but it should be good news for us.

johnniewalker

11-12-2006, 08:49 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR2006110901774.html?nav=hcmodule" target="_blank">Understanding Gates</a> It's Not as Simple as Father's Team vs. Son's I couldn't find anything to take out of this, so I'm posting the whole thing. Sorry. I really disagree with his whole take on Gates, painting him as a Cold Warrior hawk. Just because he dealt with the realities of the world of 1990 doesn't mean he's ill suited for this situation. The Bush 1 team were known as internationalists and pragmatists. The Bush 2 Neo Cons were hard line idealogues. And yes, it is as simple as Bush 1's team coming in to rescue Bush 2. You can expect Baker to come back with a unanimous set of recommendations from the bi-partisan commission which will include timelines for the Iraqis to get their acts together and the regional players (Iran/Turkey/Syria) to have a stake and/or role in making sure they get implemented. Its been reported everywhere that Baker refused to get involved unless Rumsfeld was out. This all signals a complete turnaround from the current unilateralist policy to a multi national plan where (at the very least) we'll be withdrawing most of out troops before Bush exits in 08. What all of this means for Iraq remains to be seen, but it should be good news for us.   I have a large problem with characterizing Bush as an idealogue as a criticism.  I think that is a misnomer and similar to calling someone a "liberal".   I am sure he adheres to some aspects of a ideology, but saying that someone follows an ideology doesn't mean its bad and it doesn't accurately describe how he acts in every situation.  Everyone follows some form of ideology, whether its religious or a form of religious and society.  At the end of the day we are all based in realism.   To say that bush is just an ideologue is a cop out of a legit discussion, you may as well just call him stupid and ignore anything he says.  Which for many people that is fine, but I do think the complexities of this war have been hard for people to grasp and explain in a easy manner.  I find a quick one liner from the Daily Show equally inept as Bush expounding on liberty and freedom.  In reality, we want the war over and have unreasonalbe expectations of overthrowing a government and establishing a government in 5 years.  Criticism in Bush is well founded, but that doesn't mean he is incapable of good ideas.

Yerdaddy

11-12-2006, 12:46 PM

johnniewalker wrote:  Bulldogcakes wrote:  Yerdaddy wrote: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/09/AR2006110901774.html?nav=hcmodule" target="_blank">Understanding Gates</a> It's Not as Simple as Father's Team vs. Son's  I couldn't find anything to take out of this, so I'm posting the whole thing. Sorry.   I really disagree with his whole take on Gates, painting him as a Cold Warrior hawk. Just because he dealt with the realities of the world of 1990 doesn't mean he's ill suited for this situation. The Bush 1 team were known as internationalists and pragmatists. The Bush 2 Neo Cons were hard line idealogues. And yes, it is as simple as Bush 1's team coming in to rescue Bush 2. You can expect Baker to come back with a unanimous set of recommendations from the bi-partisan commission which will include timelines for the Iraqis to get their acts together and the regional players (Iran/Turkey/Syria) to have a stake and/or role in making sure they get implemented. Its been reported everywhere that Baker refused to get involved unless Rumsfeld was out. This all signals a complete turnaround from the current unilateralist policy to a multi national plan where (at the very least) we'll be withdrawing most of out troops before Bush exits in 08. What all of this means for Iraq remains to be seen, but it should be good news for us.   I have a large problem with characterizing Bush as an idealogue as a criticism.  I think that is a misnomer and similar to calling someone a "liberal".   I am sure he adheres to some aspects of a ideology, but saying that someone follows an ideology doesn't mean its bad and it doesn't accurately describe how he acts in every situation.  Everyone follows some form of ideology, whether its religious or a form of religious and society.  At the end of the day we are all based in realism.   To say that bush is just an ideologue is a cop out of a legit discussion, you may as well just call him stupid and ignore anything he says.  Which for many people that is fine, but I do think the complexities of this war have been hard for people to grasp and explain in a easy manner.  I find a quick one liner from the Daily Show equally inept as Bush expounding on liberty and freedom.  In reality, we want the war over and have unreasonalbe expectations of overthrowing a government and establishing a government in 5 years.  Criticism in Bush is well founded, but that doesn't mean he is incapable of good ideas.  Main Entry: ideo·logue Variant(s): also idea·logue  /'I-dE-&-"log, -"läg/ Function: noun 1 : an impractical idealist : THEORIST 2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology Main Entry: ide·ol·o·gy  Function: noun 1 : visionary theorizing 2 a : a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical programIdeology is the defining characteristic of the management of this war. Every criticism of the planning that has come from the inside - from the retired generals to the White House officials to the intelligence officials, and especially to the former Coalition Privisional Authority officials has pointed to the ideological basis of the decision-making of this war. Google what former Bush Treasury Sec Paul O'Neil said about the way th

johnniewalker

11-12-2006, 01:24 PM

Uh crap, I was using dictionary.com's definitionIdealogue - One given to fanciful ideas or theories; a theorist; a spectator. [R.] --Mrs. Browning.  That sounded rather nice to me, yours sound much harsher.

Yerdaddy

11-12-2006, 02:17 PM

Seriously, you want to know why Iraq cannot be chalked up to "difficulties" or "complexities" or any other non-accusatory descriptions of the war to this point, and why I always have and always will say that there has to be accountability for the people who conducted this war, watch one or all of these FRONTLINE pieces: <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/view/" target="_blank">The Lost Year In Iraq</a>, <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/view/" target="_blank">Rumsfeld's War</a>, and <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/" target="_blank">The Dark Side</a>. It's free, it requires no reading, and it's based on interviews with the people involved. Not crazy liberals. These are primary sources. Anyone who cares about Amierca winning or losing wars should be watching these things.

johnniewalker

11-12-2006, 02:42 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: Seriously, you want to know why Iraq cannot be chalked up to "difficulties" or "complexities" or any other non-accusatory descriptions of the war to this point, and why I always have and always will say that there has to be accountability for the people who conducted this war, watch one or all of these FRONTLINE pieces: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/view/">The Lost Year In Iraq</a>, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/view/">Rumsfeld's War</a>, and <a target="_blank" href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/">The Dark Side</a>. It's free, it requires no reading, and it's based on interviews with the people involved. Not crazy liberals. These are primary sources. Anyone who cares about Amierca winning or losing wars should be watching these things. I don't mean to say they should be absolved from their failures, rather we should be clear in our criticisms.    To me, we should all be able to see that this is clearly wrong and incapable of a partisan argument.    It should be a pointed clear criticism.  I have to catch up on your readings.

Yerdaddy

11-13-2006, 05:16 AM

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1n6oEHF84U" target="_blank">Brits have fun with Rummy</a>

Yerdaddy

11-17-2006, 03:51 AM

<a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/2006/sixyears/" target="_blank">Who ever said the Pentagon doesn't have a sense of humor?</a>

A.J.

11-17-2006, 04:10 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: <a href="http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/2006/sixyears/" target="_blank">Who ever said the Pentagon doesn't have a sense of humor?</a> Navy <ul><ul><li>Started the development of the new Littoral Combat Ship to operate in coastal waters </li></ul></ul>Ummm, no.  Actually, that was former CNO Admiral Vern Clark based on an idea by former Admiral Paul Reason.

johnniewalker

11-17-2006, 03:37 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: Seriously, you want to know why Iraq cannot be chalked up to "difficulties" or "complexities" or any other non-accusatory descriptions of the war to this point, and why I always have and always will say that there has to be accountability for the people who conducted this war, watch one or all of these FRONTLINE pieces: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/view/">The Lost Year In Iraq</a>, <a target="_blank" href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/view/">Rumsfeld's War</a>, and <a target="_blank" href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/">The Dark Side</a>. It's free, it requires no reading, and it's based on interviews with the people involved. Not crazy liberals. These are primary sources. Anyone who cares about Amierca winning or losing wars should be watching these things. I haven't had time to watch these, but I started tonight.  I think its funny Bremer is on there criticizing Rumsfeld while they have other people ripping him apart on how stubborn he is.  Is the eerie music really necessary?   It did answer one of my first questions.   What should your plan be based on?  What historical experience do you base it on?  Choosing Germany has proved to be a mistake.

Yerdaddy

12-05-2006, 02:28 PM

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120500152_pf.html" target="_blank">Meet the new boss. Much better than the old boss.</a>I caught the tail end of the hearings on some life internet NBC news feed. I was listening to the short press conference with Sen Warner and Sen Levin afterwards while I was reading some articles. I guess I tuned out but then noticed I was hearing conversations not coming from the internet cafe here. They had left the camera rolling and the feed airing and I got to watch a couple of suits having a conversation in the Hart Senate Office Building, then some chick setting up a dinner on her mobile, then listen to the crew chat while they took down the equipment. I was hoping for something juicy happening in that little hallway, but it was still amusing. I'm easily amused. Oh yeah, the point. Gates answered questions... with real answers! The Senators had visible boners. Even Hillary! (Just throwing a bone to my conservative home boys.) Rummy used to talk to the Senate like the Iron Sheik on Zoloft - just crazy rants that showed utter contempt for their role as one of the three branches of government. At one point Gates said that he valued the input from the Committee because, with it's system of tenureship, it's the only government player in international relations with the institutional memory to remember past conflicts. Which is true! He warned that the war in Iraq risks provoking a "regional conflagration" unless a new strategy can arrest the nation's slide toward chaos. He called the status quo there unacceptable and said Iraq would be his "highest priority."Asked by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, whether "you believe we're currently winning in Iraq," Gates answered, "No, sir." He repeated the assessment when asked the same question by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).Gates later told the committee he agrees with the view of Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said yesterday that the United States is not winning in Iraq, but is not losing either.A straight answer! I must have Red Sea water still in my ears. No. I'm reading this. STOP THE PRESSES! THERE'S AN HONEST MAN IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH!Gates's view contradicted the appraisal publicly stated by Bush in an Oct. 25 news conference, when he said in response to a question, "Absolutely, we're winning" in Iraq. Bush added then, "As a matter of fact, my view is the only way we lose in Iraq is if we leave before the job is done."So the big question now is whether or not Bush will listen to Gates or continue to rely exclusively on the small group of sycophants he's surrounded himself with to the exclusion of people like Powell and sometimes even Rice. I think there's actually a chance. I'm not getting my hopes up, but there's a chance.John Warner agrees with me, or he never would have said this:Warner opened the hearing by telling Gates, "You simply have to be fearless -- I repeat, fearless" -- in advising the president on Iraq and other critical defense matters. Gates responded later by saying that, especially because his decisions would have life or death consequences for U.S. troops, he had no intention of being "a bump on a log" and would express his views candidly.Gates is widely expected to be confirmed as defense secretary by the full Senate, likely before the end of the week, when Congress may adjourn for the year. Of the bare minimum improvements we need from this guy over Rumsfeld candor is one of the big ones. Defense Department press conferences and testimony are big sources of information on what the Pentagon is actually thinking and doing, which is critical for outside experts - like Gates was as a member of the Iraq Study Group - to be able to adv