« The World Entire | Main | Jonathan Chait Deals With Life's Little Vicissitudes... »

November 29, 2006

Comments

"We can accept nothing less than victory for our children and our grandchildren."

What about our great-grandchildren? And our nieces and nephews? And our uncles and aunts who happen to be younger than us?

How about victory for your (the Iraqi's) children and grandchildren? It isn't all about the US.

"Note to Bush: you can't always get what you want, and it isn't always about what you will and won't accept."

You can usually get what you want, if you are willing to pay for it. Not being willing to pay for it has always been a problem for Bush.

"We can accept nothing less than victory for our children and our grandchildren."

The world must be made safe for the Bush twins to party Buenos Aires into the ground!

actually, as Eric Martin points out, this is probably good news, although the whole thing is ominous. Mookie decided to suspend rather than collapse the government, although how long things can continue is an open question.

I'm not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete.

What did I say?

Stranger, report to the Spartans
we lie here, mission accomplished.

I don't know if anyone else has thought of this, or if it's just my cynical mind at work, but it occurs to me that Bush may be setting Maliki up for an abrupt removal from power, to be replaced by a friendly strongman.

Sounds like quite a crisitunity.

My 8-year-old still thinks this way, that he can just *will* something into occurring or not occurring. But he's slowly growing out of it.

When Kennedy said "We will not accept" missiles in Cuba, he had a range of strategies on the table to debate and choose from. The missiles were removed not because he *said* he wouldn't accept them......he did the hard work to manage the crisis.

I really believe the President sits alone and looks at failures and says to himself "but I *told* him to take care of that...."

Sen. Warner made a statement yesterday thhat was interestinng. He used thhe phrase "civil war" to describe Iraq, even thouugh that's not the offical Republicann party line, and went onn to say that staying thhe course wasn't onne of our options. He said we needed to be looking at alternatives and that "hopefully the President will be cooperative". I'm not sure thhat he used the word "cooperative" but it was a word starting with "c" and withh a similar meaninng.
I got thhe impressio that he ws warninng the White House that Republicans weren't going to let Bush dictate the terms of our involvement any more.
I don't knnow why this keyboard doubles so many letters, but I'm sick of tryinng to correct it.

every time i hear that clip i think "well, he's just going to change the mission".

and, i sense the beginning of that in the way the media now talks of Bush telling Nouri al-Maliki how Nouri al-Maliki should run his country, and how Nouri al-Maliki should do this and that in order to restore order to his country. it feels a lot like Bush is pulling out, at least rhetorically - "hey, it's not my country!"

it feels a lot like Bush is pulling out, at least rhetorically - "hey, it's not my country!"

It's the modified Pottery Barn rule: if you break it, you lease it. The lease is up.

Bizarro World explains to al-Maliki what he must do.

Notably absent is the "how" part.

Bizarro World explains to al-Maliki what he must do.

I eagerly await their post on how we must have cold fusion.

Notably absent is the "how" part.

the commenters unanimously agree that the solution is to kill al-Sadr. they just can't agree which weapon to use.

"the commenters unanimously agree that the solution is to kill al-Sadr. they just can't agree which weapon to use."

Perhaps global warming?

spartikus:

hmmm, that post was written by a person calling itself redRum, which I believe spells "witless nobody who knows precisely nothing until the shite hits the fan" backwards.

If those keyboards wouldn't keep jamming, these guys would have, could have been having a Dairy Queen in downtown Baghdad by now.

How is it that in these United States of America the guys and gals who know precisely what should be done are sitting in their bathrobes in their basements staring at a computer screen, while the folks who know nothing and couldn't govern their way out of paper bag ascend to the highest offices in the land?

Well, I guess it's time to get dressed and set things right.

they just can't agree which weapon to use.

Who needs a weapon when the Vulcan nerve pinch is available.

Kill the bas***d. Kill as many of his followers as we can find and do it indiscriminately. If some "innocents" get killed in the process, that's just too bad. And just so I'm not misunderstood, if we kill 100,000 people in Sadr City that's just a good start.

I think Bizarros everywhere want nothing to do with those guys.

That's the bottom line, isn't it? For vanity's sake we have to win. It doesn't matter who or how many we kill. Winning is all that matters because righhtwinngers can't accept resonsibility for failure. If we can't kill everyone inn Irq, then blame the Democrats. The righhtwing must feel like winnners. Like Bush, it's all about them annd their egos.

This is the kind of "solution" that I assumed was the one OCSteve didn't want to talk about (I was wrong in that assumption) on the Civil War, Or The Failure Of Reconstruction? Who Cares? thread.

Does anyone know anymore what "the mission" that we can't leave without accomplishing, is?

If we don't know, could we take our troops out and use them in Afghanistan where they could actually be of some use accomplishing a mission we understand and that will actually do us some good?

Does anyone know anymore what "the mission" that we can't leave without accomplishing, is?

I expect it has to do with Executive Order 13303. Some things are so important, the US army must die for them.

Bush may be setting Maliki up for an abrupt removal from power, to be replaced by a friendly strongman.

The cui bono is kinda tricky on this, isn't it? It does undermine Maliki to the extent that it a) makes him seem less competent, and b) makes it clear that the US regards him as a expendable. But it also strengthens his position with the Shia somewhat, since it acknowledges that the preferential treatment they get is visible even to clueless Americans

Another likely explanation is that this is a negotiating tactic -- letting him know that he's in trouble ahead of his talks with the boy prince (assuming those ever actually take place).

OTOH, the memo also undermines the WH hawks. The NYT doesn't emphasize this, but it's a pretty sobering reminder to anyone who might be starting to feel complacent that the whackjobs are still firmly in control of the executive branch.

What is one supposed to think when Stephen "tactical nukes" Hadley says that Maliki is living in a bubble, that we need to stay the course (so to speak), that we can support Maliki by "continuing to target Al Qaeda and insurgent strongholds in Baghdad" and that we should consider "helping him form a new political base among moderate politicians" (like al-Hakim!). It's not as incoherent as some of the stuff we've seen, but it's not exactly reality-based. This could also have been leaked by somebody who wants us to get out of Iraq before we have to fight our way out.

This exchange on the Maliki Red State post:

"And our job should be to kill them in very large numbers until there are either no more Muslims who want to be martyrs or no more Muslims. Either solution is fine with me."

Followed by:

"Moderator, is this in line with posting rules?"

Answer (with delicate pinkies-lofted dignity):

"Iffy, primarily because of the last bit."


Well, I'm glad no one dared to get the word "chicken" too close to the word "hawk", or the newly adopted mercifulness in the posting rules over there would have gone kaput.

I will say that the kill everyone strategy is the logical one, since the gifts of lofty sweetness, goodness, and light from the Magi in the White House have been so gratuitously rejected. It comports with everything Graham Greene observed.

This question: If we kill everyone but two guys in Iraq and THEN institute democracy, and then the two guys vote for each other, thus ending the election in a tie, which one should we kill to make things less complicated?

Hurry, I need to know cause I've got shopping to do.

and after we kill everyone in Iraq, who gets the land ? and the oil ? do we stay and make states #51-57 out of it, or do we give it all to the Kurds ?

Let's remember Bizarro World is considered by some to be just an obscure, marginal website and except for Bizarro World editors getting hired, and yes fired, by the Washington Post, appearing on CNN during election day as well as guest posts by Dennis Hastert, Tom Delay, Tony Snow and many other senior GOP figures, they are right.

"Iffy, primarily because of the last bit."

Hmmm...iffy because he's not saying the only solution is 'no more muslims' or iffy because he's willing to allow there to be a solutions where muslims are still around? I report, someone who's been banned from Bizarro World decides (and if you're banned from bizarro world does that mean you can still post there, it being bizarro world and all)?

Hurry, I need to know cause I've got shopping to do.

Well yes, who doesn't. Be careful out there, remember, several American cities are just as dangerous as Iraq and many a mall-goer has been the victim of pushing, shoving, toe-stepping-on, and maybe even a sprained ankle. Oh, the carnage.

Wow. I hadn't read Froomkin's take when I posted that 3:06 comment, but it seems that we agree, right down to some of the phraseology...

Saudis Will Fill Vacumn ...Steve Clemons, read the comments

And So It Begins ...David Altig on the dollar

I have often thought that when the timing was right, Bush would be destroyed with the two weapons he handed America's enemies:Iraq and the deficit. I also believed that the Saudis and Chinese were the ones most likely to hand Bush his walking papers.

I also think this may mean Bush has decided to bomb Iran. SA and China have been deterring Bush for years with the threats of Holy War in the Gulf and crashing the dollar.

I could be wrong, and this could all be brilliant strategery. If I am right, or close, we are in WWIV, and you ain't seen nothing yet.

Before I slit my throat, I'm going to have two beers and think about how many times I've come to drastic conclusions based on currency fluctuations.

;)

On the other hand, I might decide to find Bush and do a Jim Webb on him between the two beers and the throatslitting.

On the other hand, I might decide to find Bush and do a Jim Webb on him between the two beers and the throatslitting.

So many (likely illegal) things to type.

anyone know what the penalty is for punching the President in the nose? cause i wonder if it'd be enough to dissuade me from socking him one, if i was Mr Webb.

anyone know what the penalty is for punching the President in the nose? cause i wonder if it'd be enough to dissuade me from socking him one, if i was Mr Webb.

Double minor and a game misconduct.

anyone know what the penalty is for punching the President in the nose? cause i wonder if it'd be enough to dissuade me from socking him one, if i was Mr Webb.

Probably at least several years in prison, though if it was hard enough they might try to get you on attempted murder.

Someone wrote an article a while back, I think maybe on Slate, about whether he could write about wanting to hunt down the President and strangle him with the writer's bare hands, without getting into trouble (all hypothetical and non-threatening, Mr. Secret Service man). He migh have linked to the relevant statutes.

and strangle him with the writer's bare hands...(all hypothetical and non-threatening, Mr. Secret Service man)

And really, how can you strangle someone with someone else's hands?

And really, how can you strangle someone with someone else's hands?

Chop off Cheney's hands, give me access to President Bush, and I'll have a go. Wish me luck.

(PS: If the FBI are reading this: I'm joking. I wouldn't enter the US again if you paid me.)

(PPS: To the FBI agent who just e-mailed me: No, I said not even if you paid me.)

Careful Jes. It’s the Secret Service not the FBI, and I think they have a little more leeway. I also think they have a working relationship with Interpol…

More than one person has had a little visit due to a blog post/comment. NSA snooping on Americans don’t you know…

In passing, Gary Farber has made an appearance, and could probably use a few bucks.

The whole meeting in Amman is a huge clusterf*@k.

The leaked memo -- at best it represents infighting in the White House. It certainly represents a lack of any consensus as well as no certainty as to how the talks with Maliki will go. No one engages in diplomacy in this fashion.

We already know that Maliki bailed out of the first day's meeting -- pretty bizarre to have heads of state "meet" without anything worked out in advance, and then this happens? It will be interesting if they meet opn the second day -- if so, it's because Maliki worked out some understanding with Sadr to allow a face saving meet and greet.

What a fiasco. And now Bizarro World chatters about killing them all -- the original war cheerleaders lapsing into the default killing mode.

OCSteve, I know of a woman who got visited/interrogated (politely) by the FBI because she had expressed a wish in her livejournal that people should pray for Bush to have a heart attack. Someone reported her to the FBI as having made a threat against the President's life, and she deleted the post. In any case, it would be the CIA for me.

Slarti: Gary Farber has made an appearance

Well, that's good news.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad