|
|||||
Something in the airSomething potentially ugly. Back when the storm clouds gathered in late 2002 and early 2003, heads attached to graying pony tails, heads filled with grandiose memories from 1970’s street demonstrations remembered the pride of their youth and once again took to the protest ramparts, augmented this time by the organizational power of committed paleo-reds from International ANSWER, side-by-side with bored housewives who believed in a woolly-headed way that “war is wrong, and we really oughtn’t have any” and an assortment of “activist” college students looking for a little whiff of the tear gas perhaps to lend them an aura of jaded euro-gravitas. Oh, and other people joined the marches too of course, folks who honestly thought it was a bad idea, this pre-emption thing, that the ends wouldn’t justify the means, that it was folly trying to impose democracy on brown people, that the President somehow lacked legitimacy to act as anything but a caretaker due to the contested electoral results in Florida. Talking amongst themselves, the ANSWER types might have labeled these latter as no more than idiots – or, using a conjunction attributed to their heroic avatar from an earlier time – useful idiots. These representatives of the comfortable bourgeoisie were and are themselves class enemies to the hard, committed left. They are the people who will be gobbled up last, come the revolution, when it all gets torn down and built up again in a more perfect form, with the right people in charge, willing to do whatever takes to maintain power. All, of course, in name of the greater good. At least one of the things separating the hard left from the merely anti-war muddle around the middle was the realization that things had gone a bit too far, last time around – that the soldiers returning from the war in Vietnam had been treated unfairly in the fresh flush of anti-establishment victory. Mistakes had been made – all of that language about baby-killing: a bit excessive in retrospect. They would do it better this time. Argue against the pols, scream about the horror of war itself until blue in the face, but hands off the soldiers. Even those of us who disagreed with the rest of it found this an honorable position, worthy of recognition, even a kind of deference. After all, soldiers don’t choose which wars to fight in – at least, most of them don’t – the elected politicians choose for them. In return for this humane recognition, I think most of us tacitly agreed to challenge the anti-war agenda’s assumptions, rather than their motivations. To argue against their points, not their people in other words. But none of us have done a very good job at maintaining this compact, and the fabric has gotten very thin in places. There are several reasons why this has happened, and a couple reasons why it is important, especially with troops still in the field, the fighting continuing. It was probably always going to be harder for the anti-war base to hold the soldiers of an all-volunteer force blameless for the war they fought, especially as contrasted to the many patriots who were drafted and served back in the 60’s and 70’s. Especially now, since most of the young men in today’s infantry have enlisted since 9/11, when the outlines of the President’s military strategy in the GWOT were manifestly clear, it’s hard to plausibly label them somehow as victims or dupes, much harder still when the fighters themselves stolidly and often eloquently deny that this is so. For those of us that supported the war, it was hard to square the circle of those who would claim to support the troops but not their mission. Many lives have been sacrificed among the flower of our youth, many more healthy young people maimed in the pursuit of what they believed to be the noblest of causes. Service people tend to take it hard that their sacrifices might have been made in a losing cause. They would take it especially hard that a successful outcome had been undermined, not by the efforts of those committed to the fight in the field, nor yet by those they fight, but by those at home who had always disagreed with the war’s politics or provenance and were therefore personally invested in seeing the effort fail. That these are not necessarily the flip sides of the same argument does not change the fact that this is how such strident opposition is perceived by those actually asked to make the sacrifice. It’s personal, rather than entirely rational. Too, it has been an awfully easy intellectual shortcut for many of us who supported the war to highlight the kooks and loonies on the fringes of the other side of the argument, by implication extending an illegitimacy of thought, un-seriousness of purpose and worse – ill-intention to our adversaries. This goes towards motivation, and it’s important for all of us to realize that there are many, many passionate patriots on the other side of the argument who are not fools, and deeply resent being grouped among them. To do so is to fall gracelessly into the weak habit of thought we all-too-often attribute to the sneering and contemptuous political left: That our opponents are not just mistaken, but evil. Bad enough then, but as another political season approaches things seemed poised to take a turn for the worse. Worse still in that the war has become a left vs right issue, ever more so now that principled Democratic war supporters have been placed in the stocks for their unwillingness to recant their wrong-think. Meanwhile, graying veterans of the Vietnam generation wax nostalgic on the glory days of burnt bras, and burnt draft cards, while moaning about a declining spirit of anti-war activism in college campuses – young people with no personal “skin in the game” since the demise of the draft. But while the students lie quiescent in their intellectual enclaves, resolutely ignoring the impassioned calls to action from their professoriate, the partisans smell the blood in the water. A matter of national historical import wobbles on the precipice of politics, ugly partisan politics – with soldiers still in the field. Soldiers and Marines are tried and convicted in Congressional offices and newspapers rather than in courts martial. Heads are called for, served up on plates, for crimes that have been alleged but not yet substantiated – an ancient formula for propitiation of assumed guilt. Their morality is slyly challenged by the framing – sometimes the literal framing - of the imagery attending to the field of endeavor. Uniformed soldiers are beaten on the streets – of America! This is, I suppose, inevitable. But it is also much to be bewailed: Only the dead have seen the end of war, and only nations that no longer exist have no need of good people to defend them. Blame the troops for the decisions of their superiors, tar all of them with a broad brush for the crimes of the few, bring them home with the job unfinished and label that a defeat because it fits a political frame, barrack a volunteer force that has never lost a battle in the field, leaving them to feel like they have been “stabbed in the back,” their sacrifices unappreciated if you will, but stand ready afterwards to reap the whirlwind in these oh-so-interesting times. Eyes wide open. Update: For those who haven’t got the time to run through comments, I should have made clear that the “whirlwind” being sown – and eventually reaped – would not result in a military style coup, but rather in an increasing unwillingness for young people to serve a body politic so fickle and unserious so as to squander both their lives and their sacrifices. We live in dangerous times, and we will still need strong young men and women to stand up for us. If we abandon the compact of grateful honor we attribute to their service in support of political gain, much may well be lost. 143 comments to Something in the air |
 |
||||
|
Copyright © 2009 Neptunus Lex - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
Jackson Diehl, available on RealClearPolitics, says the above a whole lot better, including how dissent here destabilizes the situation there.
With your permission, Michelle, I propose a plebeian response to your concerns.
We know that our enemies consider the resolution of the situation in Iraq to be central to their strategy. Not only have they said as much on numerous occasions, their actions confirm it. They have suffered great losses in trained personnel; perhaps even more significantly, they have risked (and frequently lost) political capital by changing the focus of their violence from our troops to the very people they wish to win over.
I suggest that this is clear desperation, due to their recognition that the establishment of a stable state in Iraq combining political freedom and economic success for the broad mass of people would be fatal to their strategy. The credibility of millions of Iraqis would do what no amount of persuasive effort by us could do; it would subvert the terrorist program in all the neighboring states. If so, it might well relieve us of having ?
IF we are to follow the “Viet Nam” thread, then let us not forget what followed the withdrawl of American Forces in 1973, and the fall of the country in 1975 (which begs the question: how can you lose a war when you have not even been on the battlefield for a year and a half – but I digress…), i.e.: the “re-education” camps and the “killing fields” wrought by the “victorious” communists, which killed human beings in the millions. I wonder if there are any aging protestors who take any degree of ownership for these events?
For every chip knocked away from the veneers of the Armed Forces, and the National Agenda, one more pebble is placed upon the foundation of those who would do us harm, chiefly by emboldening their resolve and providing them with “good” news to bolster their spirits.
Those who openly protest the war without understanding the impact that their actions have on the security of the country remind me of the sailor who chops madly the spar upon which he stands (and garners the quizzical attention of onlookers, who wonder if said idiot really understands what he is doing.)
Pundits of the anti-war crowd would tell you that all the efforts of this “illegal” conflict could go towards the humanitarian business of bettering the human condition.
While I won’t argue the fact that people must be fed, clothed, educated, given opportunites to earn their daily bread, I would also bring to the table a terse admonishment, from an Infantryman (”Tommie” if you will):
“All the social programs in the world won’t solve a thing if the cities that they support are smoking holes in the ground.”
Well penned, Skipper.
Lex, these parties don’t just have ‘Islamic’ in their names, they’re outright Islamists. Iraq’s government publicly supported Hezbollah in the recent war, to Bush’s fury.
And while the Mehdi/Sadrists fit your description of former underground opposition, the other two are as umbilically linked to Tehran as Hezbollah is.
SCIRI’s militia, the Badr Corps, was basically an Iranian army light infantry division in 2003 when it crossed the border into Iraq.
(Badr, by the way, is now embarked on a campaign of murdering homosexuals, egged on by Iraq’s famous ‘moderate cleric’, Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who recommends using ‘maximum cruelty’ in the killings.)
These links to Iran are highly relevant because the US is drifting towards war with Iran. How are SCIRI and Dawa likely to view that? Members of these groups form the bulk of the Iraqi Army in central and southern Iraq.
Anyway, it may be all part of the fun of democracy that Iranian proxies should come to power in Baghdad, but surely the American voter is entitled to cock an eyebrow at the result of this war. No WMD to disarm, Khomeini-spawned terrorists running the government, and ongoing chaos.
Voters were promised an Iraq that would not only be democratic, but would also be a ?
Mjr, I too read a Jackson Diehl piece today, in the Washington Post, that makes an argument for staying the course. You would find it encouraging, perhaps. But I couldn?
Behold the craft of the Journalist!
Unkawill (53) posts:
…Germany. There were Insurgent/ Terrorist attacks for 11 years after occupation.
OD (54) cleverly reconstructs Unkawill’s assertion thusly:
Not unless you count Swastika grafitti as terrorist attacks. No American soldiers died from anti-occupation violence in postwar Germany.
I see what you did there! You narrowed the scope from “Insurgent/Terrorist attacks” to “anti-occupation violence” that kills American soldiers. Gee, Journalists are clever!
There is this, however.
You must be quite the thing at parties, sneaking in WMD wherever it may or may not fit – I thought we’d agreed to plow more productive turf?
In any case – and this may be startling to some – when we said we were committed to the idea of an Iraqi democracy, we really, really meant it. We’re prepared to live with the choices of the Iraqi people, and I hope that they are too. That’s what I meant when I said that people will make bad choices, and be forced, for a time, to live with the consequences. We hope they learn from them. It’s not that I’m “hoping for the government to fail,” it’s that I’m expecting people who’ve used maximalist language in order to motivate anti-tyrannical elements from within a terrified larger populace to moderate in tone once burdened with the actual task of governing – especially since no one party can create a governing majority.
Maybe you can frighten the children by waving the banner of sharia law in their faces – I am a little less concerned about it: Afghanistan’s constitution, which we helped them author, “references” sharia law as either “the” or “a” source of legitmacy (depending on whom you ask), and insists that no other laws can be written that contravene sharia – we work with the tools that we are given.
Certainly there are some, from our perspective retrograde elements, but that is the culture currently in place over there, and it’s not going to modernize under a tyranny of any sort – this is what we’ve been on about when we talk about “changing the underlying calculus” by the implemention of democratic processes.
We tend to take it as read that democracies do not war against each other – I think that to be true, but now we’ve got the chance to test it out – if the Iraqi people really want to select as their government people directly inimical to the interests and security of the United States, they ought to be aware that will come with consequences. Consequences by the way, which they themselves are no longer immunized against, as they were to a degree in the past, by virtue of being governed by oppressive thugs. Fundamentally, we are asking if an Islamic, Arab state, offered the chance to choose their own government and own fate, can make the choice to live at peace with the rest of the non-Arab, non-Islamic world. I’m very interested to see what they say.
I think I’m starting to see the outline of the plan you have heretofore resisted presenting: Install a dictator who will break enough skulls to return us to the status-quo ante, less Saddam’s dreary tendencies. If you think the Iraqi people hate us now, only wait until we attempt to sneak that by them. Your lot tried that before in Iraq, and the designated head man got ripped to public shreds. We tried it in Iran, and it hasn’t gone very well for us there either.
As for Sadr, that’s an Iraqi problem now, and apparently they’re trying to deal with him in the typical fashion of the bazaar. If that doesn’t work, we’ve still got two years of W after November, and a point or two of our own to raise with the fat boy.
Maybe that get’s in hot water with Maliki’s government, and maybe then he asks us to leave. Which, when you think about it, might be the best that we can hope for: We went there to safeguard our security, we stayed there to safeguard theirs, and help them put together a better form of government, but we can’t want it for them more than they want it for themselves.
Gee…I missed all this? Thanks Ernesto! Dove hunting and lobster eating. Things are SshhhWWWweeeet, Lex!
Near as I can figure the original post had to do with the AVF, and potentially, who would want to populate it in the future. I reckon that’s always just a small segment of the population anyways, even during WWII, I’m talking mainly little badbobs, lex’s, SGT B’s, CAPT J’s, little subsunks and even little Skippy’s! Like it always has and always (I hope) will. However, this phenomena only occurs when the military is seen as an avocation worthy of the populations respect. If the civilian population’s respect for the military institution in this country goes away, y’all better prepare to convert or lose your head!
Re all the rest of the above, below post….. about… let’s say 40…:
Mr. OD- View the regime change and Democratization of Iraq and Afghanistan as our “soft sell”. OBTW, part of that soft sell stands as an example for Iranians to “see & avoid” regarding their own future.
Sigh.
However, pacification and “extreme culture change” visa vis the “hard sell” WILL come later IF the soft sell presently being attempted doesn’t work. Let’s hope that it works….History doesn’t always repeat itself, does it OD?
Either way, plenty to report on, eh?
B2
B2
Steve, either you?
So, what do actual historians have to say about it all?
?
Lex, I can see why you would think I was leading up to a strongman solution, but actually I agree that would be a terrible idea.
No single group is strong enough to subdue the others anyway. That makes democracy the best solution for security. I actually believe some sort of Iraqi democracy will survive, even if the civil strife gets worse.
In fact the current govt has been quite skillfully put together, and well represents the balance of power in Iraq.
I also agree that the US acceding to an Iraqi request to leave would be the happiest ending for all.
But it won’t happen under GW. I’m certain there will be no pullout under GW irrespective of Iraqi govt wishes.
So the likeliest outcome is a GOP defeat in the next election, followed by a pullout in the next presidency.
The people who started this ridiculous war will then be able to falsely claim that they would have won it if not for the Democrats.
You will then have your Dolchstoss myth, and will be well set for decades of extreme partisan polarisation in American politics.
Enjoy!
OD, do not presume on our hospitality, on this absurdly trivial “werwolf” thing, the flimsiest of pretexts. Although we most of us disagree with your evident and thoroughly ingrained habit of pessimism, lament a creeping, if latent tendency towards “I told you so” self-aggrandization, wonder whenever it is you might come up with something more practical and forward-looking than a hearty Bronx-cheer proferred from the usual European sideline, we have for the most part treated your arguments and opinions with the respect that they deserve.
Even when you have dipped a tin-foiled toe into the “WHERE WERE THE WMD’?S BUSH LIED!!!” fever swamps.
That is to say, we have accepted your arguments as things in which you sincerely believe, and feel are important to express. Please do the favor of returning such courtesy to those with whom you disagree. Question argument, not motivation, or else find another hobby or somewhere else to play at this one.
And if the sum and difference of your opinion is that “you guys are well and truly forked, and I saw it coming all along,” well you may consider yourself as being understood, and the most of us here at least as unpersuaded.
Lex: “Question argument, not motivation.”
Steve: “Behold the craft of the journalist…Gee, journalists are clever.”
Are you saying I’m not allowed to defend myself against direct accusations of lying, by presenting the true facts, with sources?
I made the comment that no Americans were killed by insurgents in postwar Germany. Several people have come in and said I was either wrong or twisting facts.
Now you’re telling me I should let their false charges (and false history) stand. Gee, that seems a fair way to moderate a debate.
Anyway, I’ve said my piece – though I haven’t said yet what I think will happen in Iraq, which Michelle asked me. Sorry Michelle.
Actually, Lex, I don’t think you’re completely forked. America survived failing in Vietnam, and will certainly survive failing in Iraq.
But I can see I’m getting on your nerves…
False charges? Against whom, the Germans or your ego? You’d scored with your citations, there was no need to go and say that someone is “dishonest or… so consumed by ideology.”
There’s a difference there between what you’re finishing up with, and Steve’s common framing complaints that journalism is all-too-often heir to.
There is a subtle dance playing here, and for the most part you have danced your role very well: the first one who jumps into the ad hominem pond is perceived to have the weaker argument, and many have stepped up to the line without crossing over it, but we are all coming close to an open breach.
Could you not win a point gracefully, and maybe win an ally? Or if not that, at least grudging admiration? Or is all of this somehow zero-sum, the smartest lad in the class standing upon the shoulders of his adoring throng, who in turn stand atop the corpses of the defeated Luddites?
I can understand your frustration at the fact that not everyone sees the world in the same light as you do, regardless of all your homework on the subject and quick-to-hand reference citations – but people will see the world in different ways, even looking at the same evidence.
Getting on my nerves? Not really, but from the beginning I have had a niggling suspicion that doing so was your actual agenda. You’ve caused me to think a bit, marshall my responses carefully and consider your point of view.
I get no sense that the reverse is true though, for what that’s worth.
re- How Big an Insurngency in Germany Circa 1945 Debate (really important to nitpick over…):
After having read ALL the micro-minutia above, I don’t know what to believe re the “Werewolves” and whether there was a robust insurgency or just some gang graffitti…
However my common sense, pro-GWOT, gun toting, conservative-engineering brain tells me that my Dad must have been goofing off for that 8 months he spent over there, October-festing after Germany surrendered. That of course after a year of Normandy, Market Garden and the Bulge…
Sure, that’s got to be it. There was no insurgency.
Not.
B2
OD
Gee, I thought you had forgotten all about me. Shall I wait with baited breath? Remember the question was two-fold – what would happen in Iraq if the US left now and what you would propose America do after it leaves re: this pain in the rear terrorist stuff?
BTW Lex, I was wondering, what’s your record for longest thread? I came across an old one which was quite long (140+ I think) but it was mostly just goofin’ around. Was wondering what the record is for a serious discussion thread?
Well Lex, I reserve the right to get slightly snarky when accused of twisting history, because I loathe people who rewrite history. Yours is the right to react as you see fit.
I’m not interested in beating on your readers, but I admit I do enjoy beating on Rice and Rumsfeld. They’re the ones who keep framing Iraq in a WW2 context, while misrepresenting WW2 history.
Their misinformation campaign deserves to be exposed. Too many people have started taking government pronouncements without the required pinch of salt.
You’re mistaken that I’ve absorbed nothing here. I’ve done a lot of thinking about the future of Iraq in the last few days.
But it’s inevitable that, since you agree with your government’s arguments, you advance similar ones, and those arguments are already in pretty wide circulation.
To those who say the Werwolf question is trivial, I agree. I only mentioned postwar Germany in one throwaway sentence. But others have kept returning to the point and I’m not just going to let them call me a liar without answering.
I actually would love to see far, far fewer references to 1936-45 in discussions about Iraq.
Badbob – Your dad was there so there must have been an insurgency. That’s pretty fuzzy logic. Why not resolve the issue by looking in a history book?
I’m not badmouthing your dad. He was part of a thorough occupation that was too complete to allow an insurgency. He was also there helping implement the generous plan of the great George C. Marshall, that killed off German radicalism once and for all. Isn’t that enough?
I’m not anti-gun, by the way. I own many and am sitting here wearing my favourite 2nd Amendment belt buckle.
Not only had I not forgotten about you, Michelle, I’ve already written an answer to (both) your questions but hesitated to post it because it was so long.
I left your question till last because it was the hardest to answer, the Big One, the $64,000 question. I find it much easier to point out problems than to suggest solutions, as I’m sure many here have noted.
Tell you what, OD – if you’re concerned about length send me your response to Michelle in an email, and I’ll post it as a guest-blog item – so long as you can resist any tendencies to snark. You might get your chance come comment time, though.
Actually, better yet: Send me your willingness to post via the contact form, I’ll hit you back with an actual email address, and we can save cutting and pasting effort. If it’s really long, I can throw a “read more” html tag in there, and save viewership to who really wants to know how far the rabbit hole goes.
And Michelle, I do believe this is the longest serious post. I’ve had one or two folks drop in to tell me that I was all muddled-headed before, but they don’t have OD’s thorough-going patience.
Well, that or they dropped a bunch of f-bombs after a few posts and got banned. I’ve had those.
Thanks, Lex, but I doubt it would stand up on its own, it’s got references to other people’s comments here, other posts higher up etc, and is too intricately wound up with this particular discussion. I’ll give it some thought.
This has been a great discussion and certainly puts echo chambers like Kos and LGF (or Congress for that matter) to shame.
Seeya later, I’ve got to pop out for a bit.
Michelle, you intrigue me; with what, precisely, is your breath “baited”?
No offense intended; it conjures up pleasant thoughts.
LOL
Hey I thought Lex said this comment thread had ended
Although I must admit, a part of me was kind of waiting for more
But to answer your question – HUH??
Nope, don’t think I’m gonna touch that one….where the heck did that expression ever come from anyway?
Oh well, I still await (we won’t say how) the answer to the $128,000 question – $64,000 x 2 – you know?
OD,
Since you’ve suddenly decided to interpret everything so frightfully literally, perhaps you’ll be good enough to reconcile your citation with your words?
?
Actually, the correct expression is simply a usage of standard English; if you check here, you will see it cited.
The misspelling simply created a delightful image for me in a personal context:
I am spending this week with my wife in Ocean City, MD. During such holidays, we will typically get a takeout of shrimp with garlic sauce from No. 1 Chinese Restaurant. Fortunately, we both like it and can therefore avoid offending each other while undoubtedly repelling third parties up to and including itinerant vampires.
As for your main questions, ODs overall prediction is plain to see at the end of #113 and I am not awaiting anything profound, with bated breath or otherwise.
Unpersuaded indeed. Skipper, I rest my case. If OD’s intent was to educate and convince, he failed. If he just wants to be a troll, that’s your call. In any case, your sensible rebuttals delivered with sorely-tried patience shows you at your best.
Michelle -
It’s “bated” breath, not “baited.”
Gee, now I know why I hang around here, you learn something new every day. At least I will know not to make that mistake again.
gDave, you’re the very soul of subtlety.
OD,
re “I actually would love to see far, far fewer references to 1936-45 in discussions about Iraq.’
I agree. But why take those (possibly) overblown analogies made with some hyperbole, by both views, and use same in the context of the “Bush lied, no weapons of mass destruction, B.D.S.
argument”?
IMO, that’s sort o’fuzzy.
Point about my Dad was to make the point that they didn’t leave shock troops like paratroopers from the 82nd in occupied Germany after WWII to hand out CARE packages and rebuild schools. Nation building wasn’t a concept my father’s PIR could comprehend..
Is that ‘fuzzy logic’ because it was tied to a personal anecdote? Methinks not.
Of course it was all part of a larger historical conspiracy intertwined with Prescott Bush and the International Jewish banking/Triparite Commission/Internatinal Bolshievik Union, right?
And to think we both have NRA belt buckles…. Small world.
B2
Sorry, thought I was answering this:
But to answer your question – HUH??
Perhaps it was rhetorical, or another question entirely. Mea culpa.
All right guys, I couldn’t “thank” Dave the first time cuz I was kind of embarrassed – me likes to think me knows how to speaka de english…..maybe so some days, maybe not, others
(Geez, who knew, you gotta be careful around these high-flying, ground-pounding intelligentia types….but then again, they do liven up the day LOL – all said as an aside)
See, mea culpa, too, me never knew “bate” was a word, but from “abate”…makes sense I suppose.
Glad I was able to give you a chuckle SIE
And thanks for the English lesson guys, least now I can laugh with you.
HOWEVER
even thouhg you all may have won this one ……
I’LL BE BACK (said in my best Arnold Schwarzenegger kind of voice). Likely after I reread the 100+ comments to see what OD actually said in #113. Hey, I need to know, its kind of like flipping to the end of a book (which, just for the record, I would never ever actually do) but I wanna see how it all ends ………waaahhhh
Oh oh, now we gone and done it! We spoiled Lex’s 100+ comment post on the War in Iraq featuring thoughtful, passionately advanced, widely heterodox points of view that nevertheless ends (for now) with something resembling human decency…… sigh…..sorry, Lex
Relax, Daveg, just yanking the chain.
Michelle, I repeat that I do not expect much from OD in addressing your questions.
Our host (and others) have maintained a stout defense against ODs points. Having earlier confessed to wandering off topic, OD began in his later submissions to devote excessive time and a degraded level of civility to what Lex then accurately identified as a trivial side issue. Starting with #113, OD started to lose it. Note in particular:
OD Says:
September 5th, 2006 at 11:17 am
Lex: ?
Gosh, we’ve very nearly gotten back to normal ’round these parts, and folks can’r resist picking at scabs.
Don’t blame me, OD comes back into the fight with a bag of knots and this thing ends up going to two hundred comments…
Sorry, sir, just thinking of the lady. Waiting for this fellow “with bated breath” could lead to serious oxygen deprivation, IMO.
My apologies also, sir. I hadn’t realized you had gotten him calmed down when I posted my rejoinder.
//locking motion at mouth, throws key over shoulder
SIE
Thank you for your consideration, good sir. I have always relied on the kindness of strangers. But, alas, my breathing has returned to normal ….
Lex, although he might well do another few fly bys past your blog again, something tells me that OD won’t return this thread. Unless of course he comes back to see what, if anything occurred in his abscence, and sees us saying he won’t be back!
But my question wasn’t how does the war “end” (or not) – it was Poof, he snaps his fingers, his wish comes true and the US has left Iraq – what happens next in Iraq?
And of course now that the US has left,what should be done next about terrorism – my geuss on the latter being he would say “not much”.
I have yet to reread (but the first time around I did read all but a few of his final comments at which point my eyes started to glaze over…shhh…I didn’t say that!)but I am pretty sure he didn’t answer the first question. Maybe something to the effect that a democracy of sorts would survive in Iraq, but I wasn’t clear whether a little more US participation was needed to make that happen. Of course that was juxtaposed with the comments above about Iraq spiraling into disaster either which way…….a disasterous democracy, perhaps? Oh well, at least it won’t be Saddam….sigh…..
Anyhoo, I hope you pple realize you now have me using a dictionary to check any “suspect” words… sheesh, good thing I laugh a lot here!
dc, in post 26 uses oberman as a reliable indicator of truth in journalism? please. oberman was one of the loudest voices screaching to the high heavens that the bush/rove cabal were behind the “outing” of valerie plame as a way to get to her husband and discredit his drivel. oberman is a partisan talking head with an obvious agenda, and that is to take this government down. unfortunately, all that he is really accomplishing is to further drag the whole country down in his persuit of his overarching egotistical campaign. pick someone credible if you are going to use their words and opinions.
Based on dc’s other writings here, my sense is that he was being ironical. Can see why it might have been read differently, tho.
Sorry about my temporary disappearance, had to go make a living. I’ll be back later today, and we’ll see about those 200 comments.
Oh oh!
Now we went and did it!
[...] Neptunus Lex ” Something in the air Some day real soon the world is going to have to deal with all of the decisions … You can no more battle terrorism than you can battle ambushers. … [...]
[...] Neptunus Lex ” Something in the air Some day real soon the world is going to have to deal with all of the decisions … You can no more battle terrorism than you can battle ambushers. … [...]
car craft article submission…
Almost every webmaster is using article submission software to explode…