It's confirmed!
" 'Hussein'...Okay for me...but not for thee." - Barry-O
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
40 comments:
Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.
We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You folks are always great for a laugh and a rueful shake of the head.
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell does the way Obama will be sworn in have to do with anything in the world? I swear you see everything as evidence of some grand conspiracy to destroy the US.
Too funny.
BTW, don't try to explain why this is important. I already have a headache and I don't need a migraine on top of it trying to unravel the combination of your prose and your reasoning (Such as it may be). Just let me assume that it means something to you, and let's leave it at that.
"BTW, don't try to explain why this is important. I already have a headache and I don't need a migraine on top of it..."
ReplyDeleteWhat better reason?
Noone was allowed to utter the name "Hussein" in connection to Obama during the campaign, J-Off. He was absolutely ashamed of his name then.
Now it's okay.
Get it?
Nope. Not at all.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't even a molehill out of which you could make a mountain. It isn't anything at all.
BTW, do you honestly think your little reference to masturbation bothers me? Shoot, it's as natural as breathing.
Keep trying, though.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAl et al. The wingers used Obama's middle name solely for the effect of connecting him somehow with Saddam Hussein and radical islam. Period.
ReplyDeleteI heard nobody on the right or anybody else refer to McCain as John Sidney McCain, yet I'll bet he would have sworn the oath of office with his full name. I guess the left could have used McCain's full name to imply that he was a wuss.
Who cares what name he uses? I think the bigger story here is his desire to reach out to Muslims. No doubt he includes America's enemies in this overture.
ReplyDeleteHe apparently still doesn't understand they do not negotiate. They kill.
The fact remains.
ReplyDeleteDuring the campaign Obama was ashamed of his given name.
And J-Off, when did I ever make reference to masturbation?
Just a play on the pronunciation of the unhyphenated portion of your name. That's all.
But you're obviously bothered by it or you wouldn't have outed yourself as a Master-'Bater
The Grand Izard makes it up entirely on his own that Hussein was or is a problem or an issue at all for Obama.
ReplyDeleteAnd then makes up a lame excuse for his version of Geoffrey's name.
Izard seems to have a problem with names. As always, my guess is early Alzheimers.
Mark, not being the sharpest blunt instrument in the blunt instrument drawer, folds all Muslims in with our enemies, which surely includes white Virginia militia creepers.
No, Feo, I don't. I plainly said, "No doubt he includes America's enemies in this overture."
ReplyDeleteWho's the blunt instrument?
Seems that Feodork has a problem distinguishing "sharp" from "blunt".
ReplyDeleteI didn't amke anything up, Feodork. The fact reamins...during the campaign Obama didn't want to see his name in print or hear it broadcast.
One can only deduce that he was indeed ashamed of his given name.
"Noone was allowed to utter the name "Hussein" in connection to Obama during the campaign, J-Off. He was absolutely ashamed of his name then."
ReplyDeleteHow many miles did you log on his campaign plane, Izard?
Mark doesn't subscribe to the notion of the unconscious.
"How many miles did you log on his campaign plane, Izard?"
ReplyDeleteWhat does that have to do with anything, F-Dork?
You honestly believe I am hurt by the reference to masturbation, despite my own clear expression that I think it is natural, good, common, and of no consequence? Lull yourself to sleep, Ozzie, with the thought that I am lying about that.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Mark's comment is concerned, I think he is correct that he did make a distinction between the vast bulk of the world's Muslim population, and those radicals who wish us harm (to be fair here). On the other hand, what evidence is there that he will do so, considering his express position that his goal in re terrorism is pursuit and capture and/or death of Osama bin Laden and other members of al Qaeda? Did you mean, Mark, our enemies such as Saudi Arabia, a country that routinely puts anti-American propaganda on its government-controlled media? Pakistan, where we are currently waging a covert war in the far northwest? Algeria, which, along with Saudi Arabia, provided the bulk of those who were directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks?
What is implicitly "bigger" - as Mark suggest - about the story that Obama wants to reach out to Muslims unless it is Mark's implicit folding of Muslims enemies together?
ReplyDeleteAs is, it is not a big story.
As it is in Mark's unconscious patterns, he is spreading guilt by association, and automatically makes not a big story about one thing into a "big story" about another thing.
GKS is being grudging, not fair, and not reading closely enough.
On the contrary, I think I am reading quite clearly what Mark said. I just want to know, other than al Qaeda, whose operatives and leaders Barack HUSSEIN Obama has clearly stated he will arrest or kill, to which enemies he thinks the Obama Administration will reach out.
ReplyDeleteThat's my question, and I' sticking to it.
As we have good relations now with that part of the Muslim world that simply wishes to live, thrive and prosper, what other part of the Muslim world is left, but those who dislike us for the same reasons as those who take up arms, or planes or suicide vests? And in addition, Barry hopes to remove the very people doing the best PR work for which we could possibly hope, the US military. They have been working amongst the people in Iraq and they have made great strides in relations between our peoples. Led by Petraeus, the surge of troops that Obumble didn't want is doing what he thinks needs to be done. The sad part is that those who look poorly upon us are people just like Obama and his supporters.
ReplyDeleteMarshall reveals that he doesn't actually follow news, just what right-wingers say about things. Even the military wants the hell out of Iraq. Obama's choice for Secretary of Veteran's Affairs, Gen. Shinseki, was clear that our troop levels were far too small for a successful occupation, and events proved him correct. The "surge" was simple - send in roughly another division, in and around Baghdad, concentrate on reducing violence to allow for political reconciliation. The first part was successful, mostly through attrition. The second part? The only thing the Iraqis agree on is that the US troops need to leave. Whether it's tomorrow or next week is a point of contention.
ReplyDeleteSee, that's the real world. The real world is the one where we anger secular or moderate Muslim states - Egypt, Turkey, Aden, Syria, Jordan - and tongue-wrestle supporters of terrorism like Algeria and Saudi Arabia (and please don't hyperventilate about the mention of Syria; the simple fact is, as a secular state in the Middle East, we need to deal with them, no matter how naughty they might be). Had we a sane foreign policy, this wouldn't even be an issue.
The gratuitous swipe at "Obama supporters" really is just silly. Because what it seems to mean is that we, definitely 56% of the American electorate last month, and over 70% currently, who support Obama obviously want America to fail, want our troops to die, want terrorists to kill Americans in ever-greater numbers.
Is it at all possible to have a discussion of these issues where "good faith" is part of the background? Is it at all possible to consider these things sanely and like adults, rather than have this kind of kindergarten, good-guys-vs-bad-guys crap?
Now, I'm begging.
All this talk of masturbation?
ReplyDeleteIs it any wonder I haven't shown my head here lately?
Why shouldn't Obama be sworn in using his middle name? It's his name. It's on his birth certificate... BOTH of them. This is much ado about nothing.
ReplyDeleteThing is, the use of middle names in presidential monikers is fairly commonplace. Ranking just below serial killers.
There's going to be plenty to criticize Obama for in the next four years. Is he a socialist? Whether anyone on the Left cares to admit it or not, yes. But HE'S not the socialist we need to worry about right now. Right now, we need to worry about George W. Bush and Congress seizing control of manufacturing and banking via buyouts. Our government should NOT be buying into partnerships with the auto industry OR the banking industry... our government ruins just about everything it touches. Just look at education. Before Jimmy Carter there was no department of education. But now? IN just 30 some years?
George, desperate for a legacy, will sign just about anything the democrats lay in front of him.
Thank God the auto buyout bill died this morning. They'll try again, though. They're never happy until they can truly muck something up.
I follow things quite closely. In fact, I try to listen to people who are actually there doing the heavy lifting. Shinseki wanted more than could have been granted without a draft or a total re-deployment of troops from around the world, never mind what that might mean for around the world. Did we not have enough? Seems so. Was Shinseki's suggestion necessary. Probably not considering there still isn't close to his recommendations there now. However, it is also quite likely that the original number could have done the trick with a country behind them that showed resolve from right to left, rather than immediate pants-wetting from the left. We'll never know.
ReplyDeleteOf course the miltary wants to get out. What a freakin' stupid thing to say. But they also want to complete the mission that most of them believe to be necessary and noble.
And despite reports regarding the Iraqi feelings about our presence there, the MSM fails to mention that the Iraqis recognize the need to take care of their own business without our help before we go. If you'd pay attention to the whole reports, and not just what Keith Oberman tells you, you wouldn't appear so silly.
MA follows closely but can't think clearly.
ReplyDeleteHe points to the situation today of fewer troops in Iraq than Shinseki recommended at the beginning as evidence that Shinseki was wrong.
Shinseki wanted fewer American dead and fewer casualties than have occurred so far. MA fails to think of the dead as having accomplished something. Shinseki wanted to accomplish the same progress without over 4K dead.
Abizad, in Nov of '06, admitted that Shinseki was right.
Just this month, SoS Rice admitted that the administration did not structure the effort right after the take down of Saddam.
MA shallowly blames criticism of Bush's motivation for war and execution of the war as reason that the dead are dead. What disrespect for the troops. They want out because the commander in chief did not have their back in the mission he set for them.
They want out because they are in a war. War is Hell. Anyone that wouldn't want out has serious mental issues.
ReplyDeleteI am not pro war, and I doubt anyone who posts here is. I am, however, pro victory, and that is the big difference between Libs and Conservatives.
Libs don't care if we lose the war as long as we get out. Conservatives want to win it before leaving. Conservatives understand that losing the war would simply encourage the terrorists. Libs don't care if the terrorists are encouraged. One needs to go no further than the New York Slimes for proof of that statement.
"Shinseki wanted fewer American dead and fewer casualties than have occurred so far." - Feodork
ReplyDeleteFeodork fails to realize that given the nature of the attacks that have caused the deaths of our troops in Iraq, doubling the number of troops there would also have doubled the number of casualties.
But then...when did a US Military death in Iraq EVER fail to excite those on the left? They have relished EVERY single death of an American Soldier since this thing began! Each casualty was useful as a means to a political end.
Pretty damned shameful to those of us who actually love our country.
Izard is just plain stupid here. Without the usual frills.
ReplyDeleteGlad to second that, Feodor.
ReplyDeleteDenial, libs. Plain denial on your part.
ReplyDeletePlease explain to me how twice as many troops...three times as many for that matter, would have done anything other than give the murderous bastards more targets?
The surge worked because the people of Iraq had finally turned on the terrorists in their midst. Having signifiantly more troops there from the beginning would have given you guys exactly what you hoped for each and every day during the America's struggle in Iraq...significantly more casualties.
It suited your political aims.
Truth hurts, don't it?
Hey! Frills!
ReplyDeleteYou think all those extra troops stand around to be shot at and blow up Izard?
How about using 100% more troops to literally sweep through the city, thoroughly combing cellars and back rooms, controlling twice as many streets, and THEN being able to station more troops and hold down the areas just cleaned?
You think our generals are stupid? They don't know how to use extra troops? Powell's doctrine, which Shinseki supported, did extraordinary great work in Kuwait with far, far fewer casualties. Rumsfeld was experimenting with light numbers and higher technology and he prepared the way for far higher numbers of casualties in deaths and devastating injuries.
Overwhelming force on the ground - not technical shock and awe from the air - keeps deaths down.
"How about using 100% more troops to literally sweep through the city, thoroughly combing cellars and back rooms, controlling twice as many streets, and THEN being able to station more troops and hold down the areas just cleaned?"
ReplyDeleteWhile losing literally THOUSANDS in the process!
"You think our generals are stupid? "
That's what you idiots have said for the entire military campaign. Why is it different now that B. Hussein O is in waiting?
"Overwhelming force on the ground - not technical shock and awe from the air - keeps deaths down."
Completely unprovable assumption, chump. Especially against IEDs and individuals who have no problem sacrificing their own lives to kill a dozen...even a hundred or so American troops.
""Overwhelming force on the ground - not technical shock and awe from the air - keeps deaths down."
ReplyDeleteDude...it was our generals who fashioned the aerial shock and awe.
Stupid.
Not "ours," Rumsfeld. Generals carry out the best strategy fitting in with what the administration dictated.
ReplyDeleteThey followed orders. The ones that stayed.
The generals did not set policy, your idiots did.
And after four years of setting bad policy with high casualties, Bush's father gets him to dump Rumsfeld, limit Cheney, get someone from Bush Senior days, change policy, put MORE TROOPS ON THE GROUND (and don't recall very many - "surge" my ass)
ReplyDeleteAND MAKE PROGRESS, Izard.
The very facts of your pride in the present is evidence of Shinseki's being right over Rumsfeld. But, now, with a couple more thousand deaths and tens of thousands more injured than there would have been.
Stop eating squirrel fried in iron skillets and the fog will clear.
Your arguments are American Indecent to the memory of our soldiers.
We did not criticize our soldiers - Cindy Sheehan reveres her son's memory - we did not criticize our generals, we heard their congressional testimony that more troops would be needed.
We criticized Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the other neocons who wrapped poor befuddled Georgie around their middle finger.
Our elected and appointed leaders effed up - lost American lives, strung Afghanistan out till Karzai is now losing ground, and gave lip service to the possible good of making a free and cooperative Iraq a keystone to the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteOh, the possibility was there. The "lib" Thomas Friedman was arguing for the same thing. But you can't carry out tough, potentially heroic policy by spewing out lies of intelligence, acting unilaterally, and trying to do so with wires and cameras, leaving the troops on the ground overexposed.
Overwhelming force, lock down, tie up, foster political leaders, hand over, get out. It could have been done. And if it had been done, today would be looking a lot different than it does.
And you would be happier with a lot less cognitive dissonance toward your President, making up lies about our criticizing generals rather than the "decider."
You'll be better off being angry and feeling betrayed by Bush than sounding willfully ignorant as you do.
"The generals did not set policy, your idiots did."
ReplyDeleteNo, idiot. The generals informed the politicos the best course of action.
"AND MAKE PROGRESS, Izard."
Progress was unobtainable until the people of Iraq got fed up with the thugs in their midst. THEN and only THEN would any "surge" have worked. And it did.
Leave it to a liberal to complain about not taking a course that would have led to many, many more American G.I.s being killed and maimed.
Millions of Iraqis now have a good chance of living in relative peace at the cost of a fraction the lives it took to win a war against a small nation like Germany.
But your pride won't let you admit that. Will it? You'd rather those millions still be in bondage to a madman rather than risk American lives, wouldn't you? You'd also rather bow down to islamic thugs than risk your life to protect your fellow citizens. I know EXACTLY how you leftist schmucks think!
You don't know the meaning of the word "progress", Feodork. It's laughable that the left considers itself "progressive". Utterly so!
Back to stupidity now with froth. Izard you are just too irrational. Protecting your "decider" by saying he didn't decide nothing. Comparing the Iraqi insurgency to the Panzer and Lutfwaffe supported Nazi Army of...
ReplyDelete18.2 million soldiers. 18.2 million soldiers, f***wad.
Size of the Iraqi insurgency in total over the years? 130K at the most.
And now you say that the Iraqi people have won the day for peace?
Still can't honor the American dead?
You are an American Indecent.
"Still can't honor the American dead?"
ReplyDeleteNo, you can't...have never been able to do so. That's why you openly wish there had been more targets for the insurgents.
What's really fascinating is watching you squirm when faced with the truth.
Rationality? You know about as much about rationality as you do about progress.
The generals informed the politicos the best course of action.
ReplyDeleteActually, this is true. However, Rumsfeld with the support of Cheney and Bush ignored what the generals told them. According to Cobra II by Gordon and Trainor and other sources, General Tommy Franks developed the plan with Rumsfeld. Franks started with something like a half million troops (see Shinseki) and Rumsfeld kept cutting it back to fewer and fewer troops. Then when Saddam was toppled so quickly, Rumsfeld stopped sending the rest of the even reduced number of troops recommended by "the generals".
The high cost of American lives in Iraq can be directly attributed to
Rumsfeld.
And the high cost of American lives in Viet-Nam is directly attributed to LBJ (50,000+, wasn't it?). And the MUCH, MUCH higher cost of lives during WWII is DIRECTLY attributed to one of the left's heros, FDR.
ReplyDeleteI guess we need to be wary of Democrats who use initials for identification, eh?
You leftists HATE Donald Rumsfeld for no ther reason than that he made your precious media types look like freaking idiots.
You need to look up the word "scapegoat".
Listening to the clueless discuss matters of military strategy with people who use actual facts is good for a chuckle until you realize that what is being discussed are young American men and women put in harms way.
ReplyDeleteThe protestations that "no one is pro war" is ludicrous. There are always people who enjoy war, who see it as a productive use of national power, and see its unintended consequences as not equaling the benefits that redound in its use.
Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush all were quite free and easy with American troops, although the biggest fiasco prior to the invasion of Iraq - not counting Vietnam - was Reagan's decision to send American troops to Lebanon to act as a peacekeeping force after the Israelis withdrew from Beirut. When some folks destroyed a Marine barracks and killed a bunch of Marines - the same weekend we invaded Grenada in the Caribbean - we ended up pulling out rather quickly and without a lot of fanfare. We have since sent troops to Haiti, Panama, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines (to assist them in ending their Muslim separatist insurgency on some of their islands), and Somalia. We have bombed or attacked with cruise missiles Libya, Afghanistan, Sudan, and Serbia. The net sum of these animadventures in military diplomacy has been . . . zero. Zilch. Nada. We have lost thousands of troops, tens of thousands of tons of ordinance, spent hundreds of billions of dollars and achieved . . . nothing of note. Indeed, the negative fallout from these various attempts to show which country has the biggest balls on the planet has been vast - shoot, all one has to do is say "9/11" to make that point! - as to outweigh any arguments for furthering this stupid, short-sighted use of American troops and military weaponry as a symbol of our power. Yet, we still do it, and people like you folks here seem to think it's OK, as long as it is done well.
Except, obviously, it hasn't been done well. It is one thing to argue, as Ozzie does, that more troops would have meant more casualties. In terms of raw numbers, perhaps or perhaps not. Yet, one principle of military strategy is that a larger force provides resources for security, for control of logistics and lines of supply, and for resupply of battle lines that cannot accrue is a smaller force is used. To use smaller numbers to make my point, if a platoon of Marines, supported by a platoon of supply, is attacked by a company-sized force, the experience in Iraq and Afghanistan is that the platoon will be reduced to a squad, while the supply line will be cut.
Should that initial platoon be raised to a company, being attacked by a force of roughly equal strength, the same numbers, more or less, will be lost in dead and wounded, but the supply lines will not be cut, and the overwhelming superiority of training, of weaponry, and discipline of the American troops will render them victorious. In other words, more troops make it better for the American forces involved.
From the beginning, Rumsfeld, supported by Cheney, argued against using enough troops to fight the war, to secure the capital and other urban centers as the regime collapsed, to police the streets as power moved from Iraqi to Occupation forces, and to conduct the Occupation with anything like security for all those involved. Generals lost their jobs because they continued to argue for more troops; SecDef Gates has continually called for them, not losing his job only because a friend of W.'s Daddy, Brent Scowcroft, has intervened continually in his support.
Let us not forget the absolute neglect of troops returning home, the lack of mental health services and support networks, the abysmal state of some of our VA hospitals, and all the gab about supporting our troops and our vets rings pretty hollow. You support the troops, if you are serious about going to war, by providing enough of them to accomplish the missions as safely and securely as possible. Epic fail number 1. You also support the troops after they come home, whether through the end of a combat rotation or after having an injury, but giving them the support systems they need to deal with whatever issues they may carry with them. Epic fail number 2. There is abundant evidence of all of this out there, should one be interested in looking it up.
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Obama using his middle name during the inauguration, which has nothing to do with anything at all. But, there you are.
"Should that initial platoon be raised to a company, being attacked by a force of roughly equal strength, the same numbers, more or less, will be lost in dead and wounded, but the supply lines will not be cut, and the overwhelming superiority of training, of weaponry, and discipline of the American troops will render them victorious. In other words, more troops make it better for the American forces involved."
ReplyDeleteJ-Off
Dude, we are victorious.
And it wouldn't have been better for the other troops who would have died had put a clusterf8ck of GIs in the paths of IEDs.
I reckon EVERY president is pro-war by your definition...including "O".
Especially after they get the intelligence briefings.
As it happened, the problems in the beginning of the war was related less to troop strength than to protocols and PR within the Iraqi towns and villages where conflict raged. The lack of troops only played a part after sweeping out an area and not being able to secure it before moving on. Yet, in those areas where Petraeus was in charge, his methods of counter-insurgency were already having a positive effect, but his strategies were not widespread. More recently, as Petraeus got more control of the operations there, his techniques, with the aid of the added troops of the surge, turned the tide as he helped the Iraqis see that there was a difference between us and the scumbags responsible for all the deaths.
ReplyDeleteSo in the beginning, numbers would have made little difference, except for the total American dead, which would have been significantly higher.
It is also helpful to keep in mind that there were a constant barrage of negativity that was quickly shown to be untrue regarding the war. Some lamented how badly the Russians fared in Afghanistan, yet we quickly routed the Taliban. Some feared that the battle hardened Iraqi army would thwart our efforts, yet they, too, were routed quickly. There were a number of these predictions that never came true, and I suspect that perhaps Rummie might have gotten a bit cocky. But like his counterparts in every freakin war we've ever fought, things didn't turn out as he thought they would. What this means is that should we have gone with Shinseki's ideas, those likely would have been altered greatly by events as well. It's so easy to pretend one knows better now what would have happened had we gone another route. There's no way to prove it. But everyone strongly felt we'd be attacked again in the States since 9/11 and they were wrong about that as well.
Freakin' monday morning quarterbacks.