Monday, July 21, 2008
Pre-Hatched Eggs
"We're winning in Iraq." That's another slogan that the pro-war forces have spitting out a mile a minute of late. Unfortunately, for me, all it does is conjure up images of all that rhetoric that came out of the Johnson and Nixon administrations during Vietnam. I mean, weren't we always pretty much winning over there, too? In fact, I don't think we ever lost a battle, for Christ. I just wish I could get the people who weren't around during Vietnam (and some of the ones that were, frankly) to realize that, yes, there will always be a big difference between "winning" and having won - a big difference. We haven't won anything yet, folks......................................Yes, the violence is down. But it's like I've been saying over and over and over again. There are numerous competing explanations, other than the surge (which, sure, has probably contributed somewhat; increased checkpoints, etc.), that could account for this lessening; ceasefires, the results of ethnic cleansing, the buying off of Sunni militants, etc.. I mean, sure, we can probably keep the lid on this situation for as long as our army holds out (yes, that's the real strategic challenge here). But, really, until the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds (not to mention the myriad of sub-groupings) completely bury the hatchet (yes, preferably not in each other's backs) and we get the vast bulk of our men out of there, "winning in Iraq" will remain exactly what it is; namely, another in a long line of platitudes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
216 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 216 of 216So apparently will you are against capturing the terrorists that attacked us or stopping them from operating training camps to train more terrorists to kill innocents...........HMMMMMMMMM!
YOU NEVER mentioned "actionable intelligence" or "strategic targets".........you chose your words VERY carefully in fact, you said Obama THREATENED and you even capitalized INSIDE PAKISTAN for added empasis implying he wanted to recklessly bomb the country and without even considering he could destabilize it............there is a HUGE difference between going into or to capturing a small group of people in remote mountain regions or strategically targeting remote regions and recklessly bombing INSIDE PAKISTAN to the point of causing civil unrest and destabilization............AND YOU apparently were aware of that distiction thats why YOU used one set of terms to smear and misrepresent Obama's position on Tomcats site and used a COMPLETELY different set of terminolgy to respond to me today YOU KNEW YOU LIED LIKE A SLIMY PARTISAN and YOU WERE TRYING TO COVER UP YOUR BALDFACED LIE.
YOUR NOT SO FAIR AND BALANCED ARE YA BILL...........That WHOPPER OF A LIE WAS WORTHY OF FAUX NEWS AND SEAN HANNITTY!
YOU were forwarding and circulating Reich Wing talking points to make Obama look reckless and inexperienced and thats WHY i dont buy for a second you support Obama and are gonna vote for HIM and not McSame.............lets examine the facts shall we you smear Obama and defend McSame at almost EVERY opportunity, you deny facts and label anyone who disagrees with you as a rabid partisan, and lastly you associate with two of the most partsan Reich Wingers on the Internet.
To further illusrate your hippocrissy you gleefully find Rusty a partisan troll who attacks and slimes others and disrupts other peoples blogs "amusing"........yet when a troll disrupts YOUR blog and attacks you you dont seem to find it as amusing........more double standards and hippocrissy.
Oh my God. Of course, he would need actionable intelligence. I never said he would bomb willy nilly. I emphasized INSIDE PAKISTAN because of what I said; 1) It's a fragile country and 2) It has 40 plus nuclear weapons. And like I also said before, I criticized Bush for precisely the same reason. I think it's a dangerous strategy. That's my opinion, O.K.? You're impossible, man. And strange.
What is wrong with you, man. I didn't lie. I just didn't use the exact wording both times. Why look for something sinister when it isn't there. Saying it either way, I disagree with it and I disagree with it when Bush said it. This is ridiculous.
YOU LIED.........you CLAIMED you sdaid Actionanle Intelligence and STRATEGIC TARGETS............NOW that you got caught you CLAIM that was implied ..............Slimy Biill REALLY Slimy.
Its obvious for anyone but an idiot and/or a Reich wing ideologue what you were trying to do.
You were trying to smear Obama and make him look reckless, inexperienced and naive............now WHY would a fair and balanced non partisan moderate want to do that.
Are We Learning Yet?
I don't trash Obama. I've criticized him. Am I not allowed to do that? And I've criticized McCain, too. My next post (I write my posts in a notebook first) in fact will be very critical of McCain. And, besides, one of the main reasons I've criticized Obama to the degree I have is to counter the uncritical adulation coming from the far-left blogs (and most of the ones I run into ARE far left). As far as you guys coming here and insulting me, the fact that I haven't deleted you yet should show you that I have MORE integrity than the Lydia Cornell people. How 'bout giving me some credit for that? I haven't even deleted the sexually inappropriate Nicholas. You guys have been impugning my integrity and it isn't fair. P.S. So, what is it, Mike, am I "to the left of you" (as you once said) or am I a part of the far-right machine (as you allege tonight)? Talk about a guy who can't keep his story straight.
So are YOU saying General Petraeus is wrong and needs to be fired and/or rempoved since he agrees with Obama that we need to go ,into REMOTE areas on ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE to STRATEGICALLY CAPTURE or TAGET THE TERRORISTS.
There is a huge difference between saying going into remote areas on actionable intelligence and Just bombing INSIDE PAKISTAN so as to destabilize it and let the nukes fall into the terrorists hands.
YOU chose your wording VERY carefully and painted a purposely vivid picture........you used one set of terminology to smear and misrepresent Obama's position over at Tomcats and a COMPLETELY different terminology when i called you out.
Come on Man are YOU trying to say its the same and evokes the same picture wehen you paint a picture of THREATENING a country and BOMBING INSIDE that country so as to allow the terrorists to seize power and gain control of nuclear weapons................. vs going into REMOTE mountainous areas on actionable intelligence.
One sounds reckless and dangerous the other sounds reasonable, justified and neccessary!
Idiot! I never claimed that I said "actionable intelligence" (like I said, that doesn't change my opinion). I don't remember exactly what I said 2-3 months ago. My point was that Obama was willing to bimb inside a Muslim country with nuclear weapons. I thought that that was a bad idea! Sue me!
Mike, in the debate, HE SAID BOMB!!!!! And Hillary hammered him for it. Your spinning for him. Very uncool. Good night!
I think bombing inside of Pakistan is wreckless, yes. And he must realize it now, too, in that he hasn't repeated the statement since Hillary boxed his ears for it. Kudos to him.
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
Idiot! I never claimed that I said "actionable intelligence"
Oh Really?
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...2) To Mike, I never said simply that Obama was going to "bomb Pakistan". I said that he (his words) was ready, if he had actionable intelligence, to bomb strategic targets inside of Pakistan.
So do YOU believe General Petraeus is reckless and incompetent and should be fired since he says the SAME thing as OBAMA!
So YOUR implyiing THREATENING to bomb INSIDE PAKISTAN and on actionable intellience going into REMOTE mountain regions or strategically targetting them are the SAME thing............they sure paint two vividly different pictures in my mind and sound night and day different kinda like a swat team sniper on actionable intelligence surgically taking out a killer by patiently WAITING for a clean shot...............VS a large group of people storming the building and opening fire with automatic weapons during a hostage situation.
One sounds logical, and carefully planned out, while the other, sounds reckless and dangerous and something only and inexperience naive person with poor judgement would do.
dear, dear, will;
It looks like these comments are coming home to roost;
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
Voltron, when you get a chance, check out Utah's blog. I just unloaded on Keith Olbermann (one of her heroes). Man, oh man, is she ever going to be pissed!
June 18, 2008 10:10 PM
Are we pissed yet?
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
Rusty, good to see you over at Politics Plus. It appears that we just left back to back bombs over there. Serves him right, I say, all that character assasination of McCain. It's disgusting, I'm telling you.
June 26, 2008 10:00 PM
Looks like those bombs kind of boomeranged.
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
A centrist can't even get a hearing over there. As for Mike, I don't actually think he's a son-of-a-bitch. I get a kick out of him, to be honest with you. Him and Rusty teeing off on each other. It's entertainment PLUS!!
June 28, 2008 7:21 PM
Enjoy cause it seems they are doing it on your blog now.
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
Great graph, Voltron. Witty and irreverant, as usual (I'm going to get hammered for complimenting you, you know that, right?). The only thing I would change (only my perception, mind you) would be to slide both me and Fox News a little to the right. I would keep Mike and Cliffy, however, to the left of Pink-land. LOL
July 7, 2008 5:10 PM
Which references this
and by your own admission it makes the MSM centrists and you and fox into right wing activists.
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
Voltron, sorry about that Utah Savage brush-up. I e-mailed her directly and smoothed it over. She's basically a good egg but, yeah, you're right, a tad on the thin-skinned side. If you ever read her blog, you'll find out that she does have some mental health problems and possibly that was at play here. If you check out my latest post, you'll see that we're having a little difference of opinion on the blogger Tomcat (Politics Plus). Feel free to weigh in.
June 13, 2008 7:07 PM
So you admit to covering FOR partisan right wingers but attacking left wing partisans?
Interesting.
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
Voltron, I just left a bomb over at politicsplus.blogspot.com The guy (Tomcat) was throwing around that Nazi innuendo again. I couldn't help myself. Check it out.
June 14, 2008 8:34 PM
Sucks to get your own medicine back right?
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
Tom? I'm ready to sick Rusty after him at this point.
May 29, 2008 3:40 PM
Don't like it when YOU get the sick on treatment I guess.
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
Have you noticed how protective of Eisenhower I've become? You can bash any other President (Bush, Clinton, what have you) and it doesn't bother me but you lay a glove on Ike and I go frigging crazy. You don't think I've got a man-crush on HIM, do you? LOL
May 24, 2008 9:10 PM
In a one word answer,
Yes, in a Montgomery Clift sort of way that is.
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
My "evidence"....was pointing out that the source (some loser working out of his basement, I gather)was bogus. I'm sorry, but when people (even those who I don't support) get swift-boated, I tend to get a little berserk. Actually, I thought I was funny (using her sit-com as a means to torture, saying that rather than watching said sit-com, I'd prefer to stare at a chalk-outline of Sal Mineo, etc.). And, just for the record, I went equally ballistic when Kerry got swift-boated in '04. As for the way I came across, insults, sure, but what lies and generalizations did I make? Christ, I was the one who was unfairly/prematurely characterized as a McCain operative. And, bro, I NEVER see any dissent on the Lydia Cornell site. That's MY definition of an echo chamber; everybody reading off the same play-book. Whatever. P.S. Come and visit some time. If you're as nonpartisan as you say you are, you might even like it.
May 10, 2008 7:40 PM
Unlike the placed you have "bombed" at, you actually invited Mike here.
Which nobody did where you go uninvited right?
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
Have you ever checked out existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com? That guy makes the Lydia clan look like the Claire Boothe Luce Institute. A lot of 9/11 conspiracy crap. P.S. I've heard that France is 80% nuclear. No good?
April 13, 2008 8:11 PM
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
Stay tuned, gentlemen. I have yet another Lydia Cornell lambasting just around the corner. Existentialist Cowboy, though, have you checked that garbage out yet? tnp
April 16, 2008 10:06 PM
Both posts showing YOU doing what your crying about here. Asking right wingers to go places and do what you cry about being done here, seems a little hypocritical doesn't it?
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
Another far-left wack-job to report on, Voltron. The individual goes by the name of 1138 and can be reached at bethat.blogspot.com. Accepts no criticism of Obama, WHATSOEVER, spins the "typical white person" comment to the point of making those who criticize him for it the actual villains, and accuses McCain of staying in an "upscale POW camp" (oxymoronic or what?) Check it out and please leave a comment. I'd love to see you play some devil's advocate there. Later, bro.
April 25, 2008 7:52 PM
Sucks to have a devils advocate show up doesn't it?
Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...
I went back, me-bucko. Like a damn fool. Guess what? They're still vilifying me. Of course, I couldn't help myself and left a couple more of my patented tactical nuclear blogs. All that's left is to wait for the fall-out. Later, man.
April 9, 2008 10:09 PM
It looks like YOU aren't as honest or innocent as you pretend to be.
Or as moderate, I bet you wish you hadn't started this,
Because like Will Smith said in Men in Black
Don't start nothing won't be nothing
I hear the karma goddess is such a bitch in ways like that.
And it seems you are her latest target.
For a "take no prisoners" kind of guy, you seem to whine a hell of a lot.
Talk about a guy who can't keep his story straight.
Post a Comment