« Send in the clones... | Main | Bonfire of the Vanities #127 »

Quote Of The Day - Hanoi Howie Edition

[The] "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."
Howard "Hanoi Howie" Dean, in an interview on WOAI Radio in San Antonio earlier this week.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Quote Of The Day - Hanoi Howie Edition:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Dean: U.S. can't win Iraq war

» Cardinal Martini linked with Howard Dean is an idiot

» The Right Nation linked with You Can Think It, But You Can't Say It

» All Things Beautiful linked with The D Stands For Defeat

Comments (64)

I am shocked, shocked</i... (Below threshold)

I am shocked, shocked that Dean would say what he really thinks.
Best DNC Chairman ever.

I, today with full assurity... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I, today with full assurity, conclude that the problem adversely affecting Dean and many other Democrats like him is that they were in college (or, at least, involved in academia) during the Vietnam War. Dean continues to say -- as to other Democrats similar to him -- that he's "seen this thing before, you know, Vietnam..." and then to wax off over and over again about "Iraq is the just like Vietnam..." and then insisting on a failure mode, a "drop it"/"leave it" sort of command as if the U.S. was a dog they can summon. Because, that's the concept ingrained in them from formative, academic years and the anger stems from the fact that the 'dog' isn't acting as it should, that the U.S. isn't dropping it, isn't fetching a loss as expected (I paraphrase: "it happened in Vietnam, why isn't it happening now?' What's the PROBlem?! Dog isn't trained well enough, is acting out of order, isn't doing what it's TOLD!").

Dean's entire measure of reference as to U.S. military and "war" is Vietnam. And just look at Kerry, still "fighting" the same "man" he was with the very same words, manner, method and content he was in the '60's. And those they influence, many too young to have experienced the Sixties, believe their woefully inaccurate, Chairman Mao rhetoric, the voice that says the U.S. will fail because it's doomed to fail, that it's not able, not capable, bad/evil/wrong/dishonest/lying/fooled us...

Dean is far more mentally disturbed than ever even I thought he was, after hearing his words (this speech/talk/interview) of earlier this week. He actually IS a madman -- it's not just political-party competition, he's quite mad. And I've always thought Kerry was, but Dean has cinched it with these comments. The man's a raving lunatic.

assurance, not "assurity." ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

assurance, not "assurity." (^^)

Kerry and Dean are evolutio... (Below threshold)
IreneFingIrene:

Kerry and Dean are evolutionarily-backwards rejects with no understanding of self-preservation or self-defense.

That their genes survived into the modern era is a miracle.

Perhaps one day Dean and hi... (Below threshold)
Wanderlust:

Perhaps one day Dean and his cohorts will be visiting the Middle East, when Iran does a live fire test of its Shabab-6 missile...?

One can only hope.

I personally seriously disl... (Below threshold)
WrongWingLiberal:

I personally seriously dislike Dean. More for gut reasons than solid facts. I just get a feeling that he can't be trusted and that he is a sell out (just another politican).

The quote doesn't look so bad within the context of the interview as a whole. But meh.. since has anyone cared about context of a quote?

Barf. While I admit that I... (Below threshold)
AndrewSpencer:

Barf. While I admit that I don't think that going into Iraq the way that we did was the right thing to do and am no fan of the Bush Administration, now that we are there we had better damn win. Comments like this seriously annoy me. We have no choice but to win (by "win" I mean to put the US in an equivalent or better position that it was immediately prior to the war).

If Mr. Dean has nothing constructive to say about how we, the US, can put ourselves in a good position, then he should leave the adults alone to talk and excuse himself to the kiddie table.

When asked "Can we win?" th... (Below threshold)
jp2:

When asked "Can we win?" the war on terror, Bush said, "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are — less acceptable in parts of the world."

I think that's what Dean was saying. In the conventional sense he doesn't feel that Iraq will be "won."

When I read this interview ... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

When I read this interview I get the impression from Dean that I get from a lot of folks who don't think we should be there. They feel the war is unwinnable but when pressed to explain why they tend to rely more on reasons for why we should not be there to begin with - the Bush lied sort of thing. Well, OK, if they think we should not have proceeded in the first place that is fine, I guess. But I am not sure why those feelings automatically extend to the impression that we cannot achieve the goals the President has set out - that is, win. For me, I don't see any other choice but to win. But when this is over, I do hope that we can learn more about the intelligence that led to Bush's decision because I think when that point arrives it would be a good thing to do.

DaveD, Excellent obs... (Below threshold)
edmcgon:

DaveD,
Excellent observation!

My own two cents: If Dean is correct, and I don't think he is, then should we just go ahead and hand the U.S. over to Zarqawi and bin Laden today? Think of all the needless bloodshed we could avoid.

The real war in Iraq today is against Zarqawi and his thugs. If we cannot win, as Dean thinks, then we shall lose the GWOT.

Of course, Dean doesn't really think that. What he thinks (does he actually think?) is he hates Bush. Since Bush and the Republicans are the only ones fighting GWOT, that means Dean by default must fight against GWOT.

Consider what the Left has ... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

Consider what the Left has been arguing since 9-12-01:

You cannot "defeat" terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not an opponent. What we need to do isn't FIGHT terrorism (remember, they also opposed going into Afghanistan), but to consider the root causes of "why they hate us."

One has to wonder if edmcgon's tongue-in-cheek idea of simply handing over Iraq to al-Zarqawi isn't what the Left has been pretty much pushing (albeit in less blunt terms) since the Twin Towers came down?

Howard Dean should be dismi... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Howard Dean should be dismissed—better yet, thrown out on his ass—as head of the DNC.

And Democrats wonder why they lost the election when this chucklehead is speaking for his party? No sane American can even remotely begin to relate to this man or oodles of moonbats who share the same beliefs he does.

Un-freakin'-real.

Lurking - who on the Left o... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Lurking - who on the Left opposed going to Afghanistan. Names, please. Votes too.

Again, let me re-emphasize:
Bush on the War on Terror:
"I don't think you can win it."

Later from the same intervi... (Below threshold)
Robert Sendler:

Later from the same interview.
Bush on the War on Terror:

"I know if steadfast, strong and resolute — and I say those words very seriously — it's less likely that your kids are going to live under the threat of al-Qaida for a long period of time. I can't tell you. I don't have any … definite end. But I tell you this, when we succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's the beginning of the end for these extremists. Because freedom is going to have a powerful influence to make sure your kids can grow up in a peaceful world. If we believe, for example, that you can't win, and the alternative is to retreat … I think that would be a disaster for your children."

Clear now?

jp2:I politely dis... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

jp2:

I politely disagree insofar as that I don't believe Dean is agreeing with the President that the war on terror is not winnable; he's saying the Iraq War is not winnable and that's a different issue.

While those two wars are remarkably similar and connected, the parameters of success in Iraq should and must (and can) be measured differently than those in the WOT. In that respect, and without getting into too many details, one is definitely more winnable than the other: the Iraq War.

Will we have "a signing on the deck of the Missouri" moment? No. Victory parades? Not likely. Continued trouble from insurgents and Baathist hangers-on? Yes, very likely. But can we succeed in the establishing of a democratic, liberal governement that can work and operate on its own (it already is) in the heart of all the oppressive dictatorships, theocracies and monarchies (the cultures that help breed terrorism) in the Middle East? By God, we're trying and making progress in that regard—8 million purple fingers is just the start of proving it.

How can he know the unknowa... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

How can he know the unknowable? Is he God? Or just a demi-god, maybe a Metro-god?

To say that we WILL NOT win is to pregnant with incoherence.

Perhaps he has better intelligence and military advice than Pres. Bush.

Oh, yeah. Flake.

Meant to say that his state... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Meant to say that his statement is pregnant with incoherence.

I am somewhat literate. But I can't see the future, like Mr. Howie.

Peter F - you may have a po... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Peter F - you may have a point there - both of them could be talking in a larger sense, but Dean does seem to be speaking currently. As he's been more right than anyone in the administration about the war, I don't know who to believe. I think Dean's measure for success, like many peoples views of Vietnam, revolves around preparing the country to handle security on their own. It doesn't seem they are close, even Rumsfeld says it could be 12 years. I don't know what Bush's measure for success is, since he won't tell us. Dean also has a plan, with real marks and timetables.

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to
us what the exit strategy is." -Governor George W. Bush

"Clear now?"

Not really. I actually agree with Bush on this one - I also don't think we can win the WOT in Iraq, in the conventional sense. I think terrorism is a tactic now embraced by a large amount of Iraqis. I sure hope things will change for our sake. But like I said, I don't think we will "win" in the sense that a.) most Americans feel we are safer and b.) the Iraqis are self sufficienct c.) most Americans feel it was worth it for 30 - 40 - 50,000 killed and wounded.

I just get the feeling that... (Below threshold)
Rich:

I just get the feeling that they don't care. They are just screaming in opposition to anything the other side does. Later on when the troops do come home(after winning)the Democrats will try to take all the credit for it. Their people will gloss over all the crap that is being said now and make it seem like perfect sense. It is all so sad and pathetic.

Dean is simply a loser. He... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

Dean is simply a loser. He si most comfortable being a loser. His claim to fame was not so much how he did well in the Democratic primaries but how spectacularly he failed.

This, of course, makes him a demi-god to the loser worshipping left. They've never met a loser they didn't love. It defines their whole purpose. By continually surrendering and losing they can claim victimhood, abdicate responsibility and look for someone else to take care of them.

Unfortunetly, their loser friends can't do that either.

That's why they need the government to di it for them.

As I recall when Bush said ... (Below threshold)
audrey:

As I recall when Bush said "I don't think you can win it", he made quotation marks around the word "it" as if "it" was something concrete. GWOT is a moving target. And damn straight we're gonnna win. We have no other choice.
Dean is nothing but a knucklehead.

The funny thing is, that if... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

The funny thing is, that if Dems actually whole-heartedly supported victory in Iraq and took a tough anti-illegal immigration position, they would win the next Prez election by a huge landslide. Probably both houses of Congress, too. Just by doing those two things.

I think Hillary is trying like hell to triangulate that exact image.

One thing is certain, Dean,... (Below threshold)

One thing is certain, Dean, Kerry, and jp2 don't want it won by a Republican. They'd prefer we lost than be proven wrong and made to look like the America-hating morons they are.

We'll see if Dean is right ... (Below threshold)
jp2:

We'll see if Dean is right - I hope not. He's certainly been right about the war though, or at least much more grounded in reality than the Republican leadership. So many major mistakes...

"last throes" and "turning the corner"
Mission Accomplished
Greeted with open arms
The cost of the war
"We don't torture"
WMDs
Troop Numbers
Armor and weapon supplies

jp2:>>>We'll see i... (Below threshold)
SonOfTheGodfather:

jp2:

>>>We'll see if Dean is right - I hope not.

I seriously doubt you hope Dean is incorrect. Sane people already know it.

>>>He's certainly been right about the war though, or at least much more grounded in reality than the Republican leadership.

Your definition of "certainly" and "right" must differ from the general population's.

>>>So many major mistakes...

Dean?... Agreed!

>>>"last throes" and "turning the corner"

Accurate - Now we have an offshore terrorist slaughtering ground to accomodate those desiring to meet Allah.

>>>Mission Accomplished

Accurate - The ship's crew mission was accomplished.

>>>Greeted with open arms

Accurate - Or maybe the toppling of that ugly-assed statue was a way to show protest to the American "occupiers"?

>>>The cost of the war

Apparently, it's the revelation of sheer stupidity of liberals.

>>>"We don't torture"

Condolences to those suffering the humiliation and shame of "panty-hair".

>>>WMDs

Sarin tipped missles. Long-range missiles. MMMM... yummy yellow-cake material... Choose your news sources wisely, jp.

>>>Troop Numbers Armor and weapon supplies

Yes, we should have consulted Howie and his Magical Mystery Think Tank on that.

Dean is a raving, insane moonbat defeatist of the highest order. His (and your) hatred for this administration is detrimental to the country.

Dissent? Sure.
Sedition for politics? Go F yourself.

SOTG

Actually, Dean's comment is... (Below threshold)
edmcgon:

Actually, Dean's comment is fairly astute. How do you define victory? I dare anyone to nail him down on that question. As we go forward, he will continually raise the bar on victory's definition.

We have elections in Iraq? Ok, but the country still isn't safe.

There hasn't been any terrorism in 6 months? Ok, but our troops are still there.

Our troops are out of there now? Ok, but they still haven't increased their oil production to pre-war levels.

They've increased their oil production to pre-war levels? Ok, but there's still a streetlight out in Baghdad.

You see? He can go on and on, finding flaws in the diamond as he goes along. Nothing will ever be good enough. Unless, of course, he's in charge. ;)

'I think that's what Dean w... (Below threshold)
ICallMasICM:

'I think that's what Dean was saying. In the conventional sense he doesn't feel that Iraq will be "won."'

I'm sure that's bullshit.

Bush was talking about the GWOT, Dean was speaking about Iraq. I'm sure few would be happier if the US did lose and few will do more to make it happen than Dean the rest of the Defeatocrats.

Juan Cole (who is considere... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Juan Cole (who is considered an expert in this region) in an excellent thread dissects the problem with the manichean (polar opposite) prediction of Dean's pessimistiic "US loss" vs Bush's prognosis for US"victory "in Iraq. Although he has more in sympathy with Dean, Cole feels it is still possible for the US and Bush to win smart in Iraq. "The debate is just about disengagement strategy. Bush wants to keep a large US military force in Iraq for as long as it takes to build up a new Iraqi military and government under US tutelage, so as to avoid the disaster of a collapse of Iraq when the US comes out (when, not if). Bush's plan probably envisions a significant US troop presence for a good five years (how long it will really take to train an Iraqi army, if it can be done at all)."

Well perhaps it wuold help ... (Below threshold)
seamus:

Well perhaps it wuold help us all if The Moron in Chief himself could define victory. In his speech last week, he defined victory as When the Iraqi's can stand alone and then later as when the indurgents are defeated. He gave two seperate definitions of victory in the same speech. So while little eddie boy is free to speculate as to how Dean would define victory, we know that Georgie has no definition.

Steve: I'm definitely more ... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Steve: I'm definitely more willing to listen to Cole about any of this, rather than Dean or any other paid politician. He's been on the money thus far.

Fredo: Love your criticism for his 'hatred' and at the same time lovely parting phrase of 'Go F Yourself.' Classy.

Juan Cole (who is consid... (Below threshold)

Juan Cole (who is considered an expert in this region)

Yeah -- just ask him.

It is clear that the Democr... (Below threshold)
F15C:

It is clear that the Democrats are ratcheting up their onslaught against Bush and the war. But let's face it, that's all they have to work with because their leadership has failed.

The Democratic leadership has put the party in a position such that they have no vested interest in any kind of positive outcome in Iraq. Every iota of progress toward a free and democratic Iraq it is a blow to the Democratic party in America.

Clearly, the Democratic party has a vested interest in America's defeat in Iraq. There is no way, shape, or form that the Democrats (beyond the few who *truly* support the war) can benefit by America not being defeated in Iraq. Their leadership has guaranteed that much.

Kerry's remarks that our troops terrorize Iraqi women and children, and Dean's remarks in question here are not random. The virulently anti-war and at least semi anti-American sector of the Democratic party is writing the talking points these days. Time will tell what America thinks of that.

As an aside though, whoever said that Howard Dean was one of Karl Rove's greatest achievements was dead on.

Seamus, at least the "Moron... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Seamus, at least the "Moron in Chief" takes the subject seriously which is more than we can say about you.

Why are the the two goals you cite problematic for you? They are not inconsistent, and I doubt the President said that one of the two was the exclusive litmus test for victory.

It's a little too "nuanced" for the Kerry et al crowd. Last August Kerry wanted more troops, now he wants less. Who's the Moron???

"They are not inconsistent,... (Below threshold)
seamus:

"They are not inconsistent, and I doubt the President said that one of the two was the exclusive litmus test for victory."

I know you're an idiot, but at least attempt to work with me here. That's exactly the problem. What is the definition of victory? Is it whne the Iraqi's can stand alone? Is it when the insurgents have been defeated? It is something else altogehter? Bush claims to have a "Strategy for victory" but he hasn't been able to artidculate what victory is.

Mitchell,The problem... (Below threshold)
edmcgon:

Mitchell,
The problem here is that Bush used two sentences to define victory. Seamus gets a little confused when you go past one sentence.

Seamus,
Allow me to explain the victory condition to you: Insurgents down, Iraqis standing, all at the same time.

Is that simple enough?

"Idiot" and "Moron."<... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

"Idiot" and "Moron."

This is the level of discourse that passes for debate on the Left.

If your ideas suck, just throw a little bombast out there to hide the fact, huh?

Insurgents down Iraqis stan... (Below threshold)
Saf:

Insurgents down Iraqis standing, well that’s a good way of defining victory, don’t you mean insurgents down Americans standing, either way you have just proved it America is losing the war because the Insurgents are not down their standing and they getting stronger and stronger, you idiots are so totally loyal to your party your fantasies about Iraq are unreal, it’s a nightmare and its messed up big time, I heard one fool on here describe the Iraqi government as liberal democracy, go and check the ideologies of the ruling parties you ignorant morons, SCRI is the largest party in the parliament go and find out what SCIRI stands for or which party the Iraqi prime minister is from.

These are extreme Islamic Shia parties and the only reason they not fighting is because they can gain power through the ballot box due to the large Shia population in Iraq.

Saf, sometimes things take ... (Below threshold)
edmcgon:

Saf, sometimes things take time. I don't recall anyone saying we would be done in Iraq on December 8, 2005. Nor did anyone say it would be done quickly.

These are your own expectations projected onto the Bush administration or the military. Regardless, wars are a messy business.

Look at WWII. It lasted 4 years for us (6 years for others). How long were we in Germany and Japan after that war? Half a century. Based on your criteria, I guess we really blew that war.

So what if the Iraqi's are ... (Below threshold)
seamus:

So what if the Iraqi's are standing alone but the insurgents are still attracking? Or what if the insurgents stop attacking but the Iraqi's aren't standing alone? What if the insurgents stop attacking, but it's simply a ploy to get us to pull out, and then they start attacking again? You jackasses blundered us into this fiasco, you've blundered your way through it. If at any point, you'd like to get together, put some thought into it, and maybe give us some specifics as to how you plan on getting us out of it, we'd appreciate it.
You're right Mitchell. Maybe I should question your patriotism and whether or not you support thr troops. That passes as intelligent debate on the right.

Seamus, so what should we h... (Below threshold)
edmcgon:

Seamus, so what should we have done with Iraq?

It depends on what we wante... (Below threshold)
seamus:

It depends on what we wanted to accomplish. If we wanted to encourage democracy, we should have dropped the sanctions, sent food and medicine to the hungry and sick and waited for either A) the people of Iraq to "stand up" to Saddam or B) for Saddam to die.
If we wanted to maintain a fairly comfortable status quo, we should have left Saddam as the tin badge, third world, all sabre-rattling dictator he was and gone on wiht our lives as we had for the previous 11 years.
Or, if we wanted to promote a festering sore in the middle east that will plague us for the next thirty years, we should have done exactly what we did.

Instead of fighting back an... (Below threshold)
moseby:

Instead of fighting back and slugging the bully like we did, dean, seamus and jp2 would have us crying and standing in a puddle of piss with a big snot bubble hanging out of our noses giving up our milk money on a daily basis. That is the faggotty America the liberal democrats want!

Seamus, the U.N.'s "oil-for... (Below threshold)
edmcgon:

Seamus, the U.N.'s "oil-for-food" program was about sending food and medicine to Iraq. You see how well that went.

The people of Iraq tried to rebel after the first Gulf War. Saddam crushed that quickly. The Iraqi people had no plans to challenge him again anytime soon. You plan B would happen first.

What would have happened if Saddam died? One of his exemplary sons would have taken over. While this is speculation on my part, I don't think much would have changed.

Let me get this straight: Your plan was we should have left Saddam alone to do whatever he pleases, as long as he keeps it within his own border?

I'm not talking about the U... (Below threshold)
seamus:

I'm not talking about the U.N. I'm talking about the U.S. We take the food, we take the medicine into Iraq and distribute it.

Point two, you're probably right.

Yes, I would have left things well enough alone.

Moseby, you drooling nitwit... (Below threshold)
seamus:

Moseby, you drooling nitwit. Fight back against what? When, exactly, did saddam bully us?

Seamus: he bullied us by f... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Seamus: he bullied us by firing repeatedly on British and American aircraft policing the Gulf War I agreement he made--and then reneged on.

Failure to abide by a dozen or so UN resolutions.

He tried to assassinate Pres. Bush I.

Sadam would never willingly have let US into his country to distribute food and medicine, so you would really be arguing war on this point.

Post-9/11, a "comfortable status quo" is a fool's speculation at best. He had a nuclear weapons program in hiding and appears to have been "running down the clock" on inspections for the day he could reconstitute his other wmd.

When you Libs got your fill of this as a "medicine and food" mission, you would have turned to some frivilous issue and forgotten him, until it was too late.

Saf: If all you're reading is NYT and watching CBS, et al, then I can imagine you think the entire country is burning in one huge fire ball. If you don't, then you are not paying attention to what is going on there. The Constitution is a very progressive document for the Middle East.

Idiot! Moron! Yo Momma wears combat boots, etc.

Oh, I forgot to add: I was... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Oh, I forgot to add: I was chatting with God lately, and he really, really despises you. He told me to tell you that. And to, as he put it, "get your act together."

And then he struck our shrubs with a thunderbolt and we had s'mores last night. You should have been there, we were handling snakes and everything.

I thumped a bible for your soul!

seamus, if you cannot see t... (Below threshold)
moseby:

seamus, if you cannot see that saddam hussein was a bully then there is no hope for your sorry liberal pussy ass.

Seamus, would you agree tha... (Below threshold)
edmcgon:

Seamus, would you agree that Mitchell is right about Saddam not allowing the U.S. into Iraq to distribute food and medicine?

As for leaving Saddam alone, even if we ignore what he was doing to his own people, would he have been content to remain within his own borders? Even if you ignore his buddy-buddy relationship with Al Qaeda, he has already attacked Iran and Kuwait.

What do you think he would have done once he found out Iran was building nukes?

he bullied us by firing ... (Below threshold)
seamus:

he bullied us by firing repeatedly on British and American aircraft policing the Gulf War I agreement he made--and then reneged on.

Failure to abide by a dozen or so UN resolutions.

He tried to assassinate Pres. Bush I.

Exactly. Harmless sabre rattling from a tin badge, third world dictator.

Sadam would never willingly have let US into his country to distribute food and medicine, so you would really be arguing war on this point.

You're right. But at least we could have gone to war with the moral high ground. If Saddam had wanted to go to war with us because we trying to bring food and medicine to his people, we would have been greeted as liberators and had roses thrown at our feet. We would have had an actual coalition, or at least been justified had we told any Old Europe country that dissagreed with us to screw off.

Post-9/11, a "comfortable status quo" is a fool's speculation at best.

Using that theory, since Pearl Harbor, comfortable status quo is a fool's speculation. In fact, using your theory, Saddam would have been justified attacking us, since it was only a matter of time before we attacked him. Hell, at this point, why not just nuke everybody, since at some point, somewhere, somebody's going to attack someone else.

When you Libs got your fill of this as a "medicine and food" mission, you would have turned to some frivilous issue and forgotten him, until it was too late.

According to your own post, it would have resulted in war, so this is just nonsense.

America hater! Traitor! Troop killer! Your mother should be shot in the head for not having an abortion when she had the chance!

EdSee above for yo... (Below threshold)
seamus:

Ed

See above for your first point.

Yes he attacked Iran, but with our tacit approval. He attacked Kuwait 13 years before. He was weak and isolated and he knew it. Had he tried to attack anyone else, he probably wouldn't have had to wait for us to get there to clean up the mess.

I was chatting with God ... (Below threshold)
seamus:

I was chatting with God lately,

Well look at that! Maybe you can be president too!

''Yes, I would have left th... (Below threshold)
ICallMasICM:

''Yes, I would have left things well enough alone.'

Not so well for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in the mass graves, eaten by dogs and fed thru shredders.

Yeah, and how about the tho... (Below threshold)
seamus:

Yeah, and how about the thousand + Americans that died in New Orleans? How about the 35 + million Americans living in poverty? How about the 45 + million Americans without health insurance? How about Darfur? How about those being abused in China? What about those being sent by America to foriegn countries to be tortured? Oh wait, you support that. Sorry. The point is, there is no shortage of suffering in the world. Pick a direction, start walking, and it won't take you too long to find someone being mistreated. Should we sending America soldiers to rescue them all?
This isn't a humanitarian mission, and it never was. At least it wasn't until we couldn't find an Iraq Al-Quaeda connection, or couldn't find WMD's.

'Yeah, and how about the th... (Below threshold)
ICallMasICM:

'Yeah, and how about the thousand + Americans that died in New Orleans? '

WTF? Should we invade hurricanes?

'How about the 35 + million Americans living in poverty? How about the 45 + million Americans without health insurance?'

Living with is a lot different than being dead from. Even you must be able to figure that out.

'What about those being sent by America to foriegn countries to be tortured? Oh wait, you support that. '

You have no idea what I support, you're projecting.

'Pick a direction, start walking, and it won't take you too long to find someone being mistreated.'

Having to wait in line at the ER and being fed thru a shredder are pretty different.

'This isn't a humanitarian mission,'

It's not? Freeing a country from a genocidal mass murderer isn't humanitarian?

No, jizzstain. We should h... (Below threshold)
seamus:

No, jizzstain. We should have taken the men and the money that we've spent in Iraq and used it to fix the infrastructure problems we had in N.O.
So it's not our responsiblity to make sure that all americans are probably cared for, but we have to go to war to make the Iraqi's (who, btw, never stood up for themselves) are taken care of?

Actualy, that post wasn't directed to you. But you're a liar, anyway.

It's not? Freeing a country from a genocidal mass murderer isn't humanitarian?

No, that was a possibly fortunate byproduct.

Harmless dictator, Seamus? ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Harmless dictator, Seamus? Isn't that an oxy-"moron"? Not so harmless if you are in the UN-sponsored overflights being shot at on a regular basis (or, the 100,000's in Iraq).

This red herring about not being able to save the world, therefore why save any other part of it is ludicrous. Under that theory, no WWI, WWII, Korean War participation, and more than 1/2 the world's democracy would never have existed.

We took the battle to the terrorists instead of waiting for them to bring it to us. It is delusional to think that we would wage a war to feed and medicate Iraqis, but disregard the entire ty of what we knew about Saddam's desire for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons that was well-established. So, the tripwire would be, "hey, let us feed you, or we start shooting tomrrow."

You are quite a one-track thinker. Why can't there be multiple goals in war (humanitarian and defensive, as well as standing-up Iraqi troops and smashing the insurgents)? You are so bent on making your I-hate-Chimpy-Hitler-Bush arguments that they become farcical.

I think you are the first person I have ever seen argue for a war for the sake of feeding and medicating people uner a ruthless dictator, but not for any other reason, and certainly not in defense of the U.S., despite every liberal and conservative in responsible positions all over the world acknowledging Saddam's threat to us all.

It is really you playing 20/20 hindsight and assuming the worst about the Administration's positions when even some reasonable Democrats can take a break from partisanship to speak the truth of what we are doing in Iraq (remember Leiberman?).

You sir are no Leiberman, that's for damn sure.

Your rants are so poorly re... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Your rants are so poorly reasoned that I just now noticed that you a little earlier were telling us all that you thought war for the sake of humanitarian assistance in Iraq is fine by you, but your latest rant is that we shouldn't do anything for anyone in the world as long as there are needy people in this country.

Which is it? Stay focused now, quit obsessing on BushieMcHitler for a few minutes and use that thick head of yours . . .

NEWS FROM IRAQ, via the Was... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

NEWS FROM IRAQ, via the Washington Post:

"As Iraqis nationwide prepare to go to the polls for the third time this year on Dec. 15 -- this time for a new parliament -- candidates and political parties of all stripes are embracing politics, Iraqi style, as never before and showing increasing sophistication about the electoral process, according to campaign specialists, party officials and candidates here.

"It is like night and day from 10 months ago in terms of level of participation and political awareness," said a Canadian election specialist with the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, a group affiliated with the U.S. Democratic Party that is working to ease Iraq's transition to democracy. . . .

In January, most candidates outside the dominant few parties largely eschewed campaigning, fearing they could be kidnapped or assassinated. Now, even long shots are getting into the act. One day this week, National Democratic Institute instructors explained get-out-the-vote techniques to a dozen members of the Free Iraq Gathering, a new coalition that "probably won't get many more votes than you see in that room," according to an institute employee."

Definitely not worth having a thriving democracy in the Middle East; even with Democratic Party assistance!

Damn Mitchell, you ain't th... (Below threshold)
seamus:

Damn Mitchell, you ain't that bright are you? Hopefully your mothger stopped smoking when she was pregnant with your siblings. I said quite clearly that I don't think we should have gone in. But if we were going to go in , we should have done it as a legitimate humanitarian mission. Then we would have had the support of other countries, and we would have had the support of the people of Iraq.

'So it's not our responsibl... (Below threshold)
ICallMasICM:

'So it's not our responsiblity to make sure that all americans are probably cared for'

Like pets? Do you mean 'properly'? Are you familiar with the term 'personal responsibility'?

'But you're a liar, anyway.' I'm sorry, what am I lying about?

''It's not? Freeing a country from a genocidal mass murderer isn't humanitarian?

No, that was a possibly fortunate byproduct. '

I'll try to navigate the incoherence. Freeing Iraq from a mass murdering dictator wasn't humanitarian? But it was 'possibly' fortunate?

Are you familiar with th... (Below threshold)
seamus:

Are you familiar with the term 'personal responsibility'?

So personal resoponsibility does't extend to the Iraqi's? It's the people of New Orleans personal responsibility to make sure the levee's can handle a category five hurricane, but not the Iraqi's personal responsibilty to stand up to a dictator who wants to put them in a shredder? Interesting! Amazing! Frightening! The mind of a conservative!

You're lying about being against torture.

WE didn't go to Iraq to free the people from a mass murderer.

If whoever ends up in charge of Iraq turns out not to be another homicideal, mass murderer, that will be a fortunate byproduct of this asinine war.

I just got off my speaker p... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

I just got off my speaker phone with God, and he authorized me and my Christian Brothers to establish a theocracy in the U.S.

When we get this thing up and running, we are coming to get you, sucka.

God also said that he hopes you won't call him a "moron" or an "idiot" much less a "jizzstain."

Nahhhh. God's more of an a... (Below threshold)
seamus:

Nahhhh. God's more of an asshole. Or a douchebag. Possiblyt a jizzjammer.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy