The cunningrealist caught an interesting Powerline post in which we learn that the “good guys” and the “bad guys” down in Crawford can easily be differentiated.
I’m waiting for the inevitable stories of the hairy, smelly, dirty protesters living like pigs. It’s like the sun coming up in the morning.
Meanwhile in case you are wondering how to spot them, here’s a picture of a couple of the alleged good guys. Their signs, which feature pictures of Casey Sheehan, say “Freedom isn’t Free.”
No word on whether either of these two “good guys” ever sacrificed anything for freedom.
Atrios brings up something I’ve been wondering about. It’s assumed by most of us that one of the reasons we are in Iraq is because we want to establish permanent military bases there — presumably because we had to remove the “temporary” ones we had in Saudi Arabia (at bin Laden’s rather dramatic request on 9/11.)
Maybe it’s just because I don’t fully understand the military dimension but why do we need permanent bases in either Saudi Arabia or Iraq?
We have bases in Turkey. We will have bases in Afghanistan forever. We can get halfway across the world in hours. Our ally Israel is right there. We have ships and subs of all kinds. We have troops in Europe. We have ICBM’s armed with nuclear weapons. Hell, we’re trying to weaponize space.
I realize that the all knowing PNAC recommends that we create new bases all over the place, partly as a way to reduce the carrier fleet and to redeploy after the cold war, but I’ve never really understood why we absolutely have to have big, expensive bases smack dab in the middle of hostile territory in the modern world. And as far as I can tell, the neocon braintrust has never fully explained it.
I suspect that there really isn’t a military rationale that makes any sense. I suspect that it is another of those show-of-force military pageants of which the neocons are so fond. If we just swagger around in their faces they will be afraid, very afraid.
There is the Israel factor, which I realize. Perhaps that’s the only reason, but if so it is not sellable to the American public and it shouldn’t be. We support Israel, but invading countries, installing governments, creating chaos and spending 200 billion plus to create bases to protect it when it does a very good job of protecting itself is crazy.
I may very well be wrong on this and there is a perfectly good geo-strategic reason to have 30,000+ troops permanently stationed in the middle of a hostile desert. Please fill me in if you know the answer.
Somebody needs to get Karen Hughes on the horn stat. Her boy is really making a mess.
President Bush, noting that lots of people want to talk to the president and “it’s also important for me to go on with my life,” on Saturday defended his decision not to meet with the grieving mom of a soldier killed in Iraq.
Bush said he is aware of the anti-war sentiments of Cindy Sheehan and others who have joined her protest near the Bush ranch.
“But whether it be here or in Washington or anywhere else, there’s somebody who has got something to say to the president, that’s part of the job,” Bush said on the ranch. “And I think it’s important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say.”
“But,” he added, “I think it’s also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life.”
The comments came prior to a bike ride on the ranch with journalists and aides.
He just needs put all this unpleasantness behind him and go on with his life. All this obsession with war,war,war — death, death death could just drive a boy crazy. Besides, being all thoughtful and sensitive is hard work. It makes him feel unbalanced.
“When it all started, we were hearing about nuclear weapons, gas, biological weapons, all sorts of stuff,” Blake says. “Of course I thought we should get rid of stuff like that. But now we know that was all bull, and so I now believe I was wrong. But maybe wrong because I was lied to from the start. How are we going to get out? That’s what I want to know.”
“A couple of years ago, I thought the invasion of Iraq was justified. I believed the reports that stated Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and figured it would only be a matter of time before they were found.
Presidential press conference March 6, 2003, a little more than a week before the invasion:
We have arrived at an important moment in confronting the threat posed to our nation and to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of terror. In New York tomorrow, the United Nations Security Council will receive an update from the chief weapons inspector.
The world needs him to answer a single question: Has the Iraqi regime fully and unconditionally disarmed as required by Resolution 1441, or has it not?
Iraqi’s dictator has made a public show of producing and destroying a few missiles, missiles that violate the restrictions set out more than 10 years ago. Yet our intelligence shows that even as he is destroying these few missiles, he has ordered the continued production of the very same type of missiles.
Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by inspectors. In some cases these materials have been moved to different locations every 12 to 24 hours, or placed in vehicles that are in residential neighborhoods.
We know from multiple intelligence sources that Iraqi weapons scientists continue to be threatened with harm should they cooperate with U.N. inspectors. Scientists are required by Iraqi intelligence to wear concealed recording devices during interviews. And hotels where the interviews take place are bugged by the regime.
These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. These are the actions of a regime that systematically and deliberately is defying the world.
If the Iraqi regime were disarming, we would know it because we would see it. Iraq’s weapons would be presented to inspectors and the world would witness their destruction.
Instead, with the world demanding disarmament and more than 200,000 troops positioned near his country, Saddam Hussein’s response is to produce a few weapons for show while he hides the rest and builds even more.
Inspection teams do not need more time or more personnel. All they need is what they have never received, the full cooperation of the Iraqi regime. Token gestures are not acceptable. The only acceptable outcome is the one already defined by a unanimous vote of the Security Council: total disarmament.
Great Britain, Spain and the United States have introduced a new resolution stating that Iraq has failed to meet the requirements of Resolution 1441. Saddam Hussein is not disarming. This is a fact. It cannot be denied.
Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists, terrorists who would willingly use weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries. Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people and to all free people.
If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks.
The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction. We are determined to confront threats wherever they arise. I will not leave the American people at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons.
All. Bull.
When you fuck up on that grand of a scale, when you look people in the eye and tell them that you know unequivocally that something is a threat and it turns out that there was nothing — you are either a liar or an idiot. Or both.
He can run but he can’t hide. The chickenhawks are coming home to roost.
Examining the ever expanding list of victims to blame for the cock-up in Iraq, John at Blogenlust notices that Hindquarters has found the ultimate betrayors of America — and when you think about it, it makes so much sense. Did the right ever seem very comfortable throwing their lot in with a bunch of … arabs?
This morning, Hindrocket takes Frank Rich to task for saying the war is over, while completely ignoring the Washington Post article that essentially says the same thing. Then he fires the opening salvo of what will surely be the Mother of All Blame Games:
In the medium and long term, what happens in Iraq is up to the Iraqis. It is certainly possible that they might forfeit what the Bush administration and America’s armed forces have given them: a chance at freedom and the opportunity to live in peace with their neighbors. But if the Iraqis fail, it won’t be because liberals stampeded the United States into abandoning them.
Yes, let’s blame the Iraqis. How dare these ungrateful bastards reject the freedom and peace we’ve provided them?
I don’t think Highpockets thought that one through, actually. Regardless of whether the military have become a bunch of bedwetters, or whether the Iraqis are a bunch of ungrateful ragheads — no one is more responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in American history than liberals.
This just shows how rattled the right is at the moment. They’ve temporarily forgotten who the real enemy of the people is.
In case anyone’s wondering, aside from the hideous loss of life for no good reason, we have also spent so far 187 billion dollars to depose Saddam and turn the country into an Islamic theocracy and send it into anarchy. Excellent. Very noble. Worth every penny and every life.
The question is, has anyone told the president all this stuff because he doesn’t seem to be getting the news. Look for him to angrily deny all this and say that he’s the one making decisions and these people don’t know what they are talking about.
Maybe it’s all trial balloons, but this has a whiff of panic about it. I sense some very serious disarray within the administration. They are all over the place. I’m wondering if a palace coup isn’t taking place before our eyes.
Update: Frank Rich says “Somebody tell the president the war is over.”
Update II: And then there’s this from William Kristol:
The president knows we have to win this war. If some of his subordinates are trying to find ways to escape from it, he needs to assert control over them, overrule them, or replace them. Having corrected the silly effort by some of his advisers to say the war on terror is not fundamentally a war, he now has to deal with the more serious effort, emanating primarily from the civilian leadership in the Pentagon, to find an excuse not to pursue victory in Iraq. For if Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, we need to win there. And to win, the president needs a defense secretary who is willing to fight, and able to win.
Update III: Bush slapping down the Generals More on military dissatisfaction from BTC News. Dr Tom More thinks he knows who one of the unnamed senior administration sources is.
Meanwhile, it turns out that the general who was fired recently was having an affair with a female civilian, was separated from his wife and was let go because he was told to end the affair but he called her on the phone. There is something so wrong with that story.
I know this isn’t going to popular on this website, but may I just point something out?
A soldier’s #1 job is to stay alive. If you die, you can’t accomplish the mission, and you weaken your team and put your buddies in danger.
Obviously Sheehan’s son, I forget his name at the moment, didn’t die on purpose, and he may well have have had no control over the circumstances that let to his death.
BUT.
In war, there are no excuses. You find a way to stay alive, whatever it takes — if you’re a good soldier. Sheehan’s son didn’t do that. He paid the price. but he als failed the mission and let down his buddies.
As a soldier, he was a failure. He was brave (maybe), but he was also incompetent.
So, really, how much exactly are we supposed to grieve over this guy? Isn’t a certain amount of disapproval in order for the guy — and by extension his mom, for making such a fuss over a person who was, in the last analysis, by definition a loser?
So shouldn’t Mrs. Sheenhan be showing a little more shame about the situation and maybe not wanting to get her son and his shortcoming splashed all over the media?
Something to consider, anyway.
I shouldn’t have stolen that from Andrew’s comment section, but I needed to get it out there. To start the meme. To provide the right with the argument they’ve been waiting for.
I’ve been thinking for a while that we might be seeing the beginning of a new trend in American politics — the anti-military right. Rush is calling marines “pukes,” veterans are being called cowards and fakers, disabled vets are mocked for not having the right wounds or getting them in the right way, GOP hags are wearing cute little “purple heart” bandaids on their cheeks. People are selling busts of the president using his lack of combat experience as a selling point saying outright that physical courage is no longer particularly worthy of conservative approbation. Being a veteran buys you no credibility and no respect in today’s Real Murika.
This is how they transform Chickenhawkery into a badge of courage.
I suspect that what we are hearing (aside from the self-loathing fidgeting of those who loudly beat wardrums yet are too selfish to serve) is the distant rumblings of a massive rightwing frustration with the military’s inability to just “win” this damned thing so we can move on to our next country. It was supposed to be a cakewalk. They are reading things like this and seeing red:
Administration officials have all but given up any hope of militarily defeating the insurgents with U.S. forces, instead aiming only to train and equip enough Iraqi security forces to take over the fight themselves.
[…]
Top Pentagon officials have made no secret in recent weeks of their eagerness to begin withdrawing some troops to ease the strain of lengthy deployments. At the same time, military commanders have cautioned against expecting that Iraq’s new army and police forces will develop quickly enough to operate on their own within another year or two.
“It’s a race against time because by the end of this coming summer we can no longer sustain the presence we have now,” said retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who visited Iraq most recently in June and briefed Cheney, Rice and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “This thing, the wheels are coming off it.”
But none of this can’t be Dear Leader’s fault. He’s the man with the real courage.
Bush distanced himself from such predictions Thursday, pointing out that he, not the generals, would have the last word.
“The decision finally will be made by me — upon the recommendation of Gen. Casey, through [Defense] Secretary [Donald H.] Rumsfeld, to me,” Bush said.
Well thank god for that. None of those pukes over there know what they’re doing. It’s a blessing that our commander in chief, the man with the political courage to start wars for no reason and bankrupt the country, is in charge. All hail Dear Leader.
Update: Guys, I realize that this might be a parody — or it might not. Wingnuts are just this crazy these days. That’s why wrote the little thing about getting the meme out there and providing them with an argument. It’s that absurd.
The larger point, however, is not. The right is getting a little bit disresepctful toward the military these days. It’s not marching quite to their tune the yway they want it to — which is to kick ass and move on.
Check out Arthur’s response to the inchoate anger towards Cindy Sheehan. It’s a good one.
Returning to the present controversy about Mrs. Sheehan, one aspect of John Cole’s remarks deserves comment:
I think Cindy Sheehan has moved beyond the role of grieving mother, and is now a political figure who gets no free pass for her bizarre, outrageous, and offensive statements.
No one has ever maintained that Cindy Sheehan’s views are entitled to a “free pass.” But it is not her views that are being attacked: it is Cindy Sheehan as a person. Cole thinks many in the “anti-war left” are “cynically exploiting” Mrs. Sheehan’s tragedy. Perhaps some of them are. If that’s true, I wouldn’t like it much (although my mind-reading skills are not too advanced, so I can’t determine people’s motives that easily in the absence of sufficient evidence).
But here’s the truth, which I do not hesitate to name: given the propaganda onslaught that’s gone on for the last several years with regard to Iraq—and the propaganda onslaught that is now underway with regard to Iran, with a still willing and still servile media—I don’t give a damn. Cindy Sheehan is being “cynically exploited” in order to stimulate a national discussion about whether we should get the hell out of Iraq? Good. It’s about goddamned time.
Exactly. Although I’m pretty sure that Cindy Sheehan hasn’t been guided or exploited by anyone in her quest. “The left,” if you’re talking about organizations, can’t get it up to do anything that effective. Believe me, the Democrats would have peed their pants at the idea of sending a woman to Crawford to demand to see the president. It’s so awfully unseemly you know. Someone might get upset. Besides it isn’t manly and we want ever so much to be super-duper manly.
In fact, last year at this time, if you’ll recall, Max Cleland went down to Crawford and wheeled his chair right up to the gate. The Democrats got all nervous that it was too … undignified. Max was getting a little bit shrill, you see, and looked like he might be getting ready to force the secret service to push him off the property in his wheelchair. How indelicate.
No, this was a grassroots move started by one individual who felt strongly enough to put herself on the line. No leftwing group could have ever orchestrated anything this successful.
Here’s a blog report from Camp Casey yesterday when the counter protestors arrived. I’m sure everybody’s heard by now that they were all chanting “we don’t care” which is right up there with “hey, hey ho, ho, social security’s got to go” for sheer political brilliance.
But this really cracks me up:
They’ve got a whole bunch of counter-protesters walking down the street towards Camp Casey like a parade, about 50 people. One is holding a sign that says “Help, I am surrounded by American-hating idiots!” He is apparently quite proud of his sign, Not exactly the brightest bunch!
I just want to shake that guy’s hand. He was a plant wasn’t he? Wasn’t he?
Yesterday I said that Cindy Sheehan is driving the Republicans crazy because she is asking the unanswerable question. The cognitive dissonence is short circuiting their cerebral cortexes. Today The Poorman catches John Cole having a total meltdown, which doesn’t surprise me because Cole actually has a brain and he often uses it. These are the first to have their heads explode in situations like this.
If you haven’t linked to this Poorman post from Atrios’ site already, do so at your own risk. You will laugh until you cry but the evil kitten-man will also implant the nastiest, most unkillable, earworm you’ve ever had in your life. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.
