WaPo Luvz (♥) War
Hey, no surprises here, WaPo makes its editorial a plug of McCain this morning. It rubber stamps his ridicule of Obama's commitment to end the war on the basis that he hasn't been there yet. Last week the candidate was on about he can't be informed because Obama hadn't been to Iraq, remember?
Anything that comes out of the war mongers' mouths is not believable anyway. They lost. They can't leave because the fighting is raging, or they can't leave because the fighting has died down. Let's face it, this shares rational behavior with a barrel of monkeys, but isn't so much fun.
The occupied White House was going to cut taxes because we had a surplus. The surplus went away. The cuts were made anyway. The reasons can change, but the conclusion remains the same? Not in a real world, only in the Magic Kingdom/occupied White House.
As usual, commenters have a grasp of reality, in spite of that Shiny Trinket that oil constitutes for the warmongers.
walkerbert wrote:
I fully support Obama's position on the war. They've urinated away hundreds of billions of dollars on this, and it's time to stop throwing good money after bad. To say that corruption and incompetence have been central to the Iraq 'war'(undeclared by Congress) would be an understatement. Had they invested similar amounts of capital in domestic energy independence initiatives over the same period, we'd now be in the position of being able to say, 'thanks, but no thanks' to future middle east oil shipments. Gotta let go of the Shiny Thing, here, and break out the sciencer on this problem and get to work, do things like engine and transmission retrofits, supplemental crop production for ethanol/biofuel stocks, do like the one Senator said and reconsider the double-nickel speed limit until we're clear of this oil dependency mess, which is the primary driving force for the war in the first place. When our troops are home, then it's time to clean house in D.C. on all the oil biz lobbyists who've been drooling over Iraq for years, as they were certainly the cheerleaders and underwriters if not the instigators for the whole ugly mess that's now cost people their lives and livelihoods over there, and is threatening the entire domestic economy over here. Call it 'an oil derrick too far', write a book about it, but bring the troops home. That's my view.
Of course, you knew since I already clicked on it, I'd have to add a soupcon of rational analysis - with the usual modesty.
jocabel wrote:
The misnomer "war" for our occupation of Iraq makes inevitable the mistakes in this post. But aside from that, WaPo repeats McCain's simplifications as is inevitable, when the editorialists here are committed to supporting the insupportable. WaPo supports the war and ignores that the war ended in 2003, we are now trying to find a way out. Anyone who, like Obama, accepts the facts and works with them offends the editorialists' sense of pride in their own words - I would say judgment, but that would be another misnomer. Standing by your man may be good in a barroom universe, but in international affairs, it creates the kind of muddle that WaPo editorialists have gotten built up around themselves. I do hope that, like the U.S., they can extract themselves and let some light in. For the U.S. it has become obvious that only a change in personnel will achieve that.
7/16/2008 4:43:09 AM
Recommended (16)
And our Eschatonian commenter, thundering with his growing irritation at Hiatt's totally predictable idiocy:
ifthethunderdontgetya wrote:
Fred Hiatt scribbled:
Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital U.S. security interest.
-----------------------------------------
Your advice is worthless, Fred. You and your bloodthirsty, war-cheerleading pals have been relentlessly wrong. You still can't even admit the obvious: This war was the biggest foreign policy debacle since Vietnam.
We'll still be paying the price long after President AWOL has gone back to his weed farm in Crawford.
If Donald Graham actually cared about the paper he inherited, he would fire you.
You should resign.
I waver between igoring the twaddle and adding a little touch of reality for the other readers. And yes, I know that eventually I'll read that all those clicks show the WaPo's 'popularity'. It's the kindergartner reasoning, if they're paying attention they must like you. And oil is just great for America. And down is up.
Anything that comes out of the war mongers' mouths is not believable anyway. They lost. They can't leave because the fighting is raging, or they can't leave because the fighting has died down. Let's face it, this shares rational behavior with a barrel of monkeys, but isn't so much fun.
The occupied White House was going to cut taxes because we had a surplus. The surplus went away. The cuts were made anyway. The reasons can change, but the conclusion remains the same? Not in a real world, only in the Magic Kingdom/occupied White House.
Mr. Obama reiterated yesterday that he would consult with U.S. commanders and the Iraqi government and "make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy." However, as Mr. McCain quickly pointed out, he delivered his speech before traveling to Iraq -- before his meetings with Gen. David H. Petraeus and the Iraqi leadership. American commanders will probably tell Mr. Obama that from a logistical standpoint, a 16-month withdrawal timetable will be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill. Iraqis will say that a pullout that is not negotiated with the government and disregards the readiness of Iraqi troops will be a gift to al-Qaeda and other enemies. If Mr. Obama really intends to listen to such advisers, why would he lock in his position in advance?
"What's missing in our debate," Mr. Obama said yesterday, "is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq." Indeed: The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war's outcome -- that Iraq "distracts us from every threat we face" and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That's an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world's largest oil reserves.(Emphasis added.)
As usual, commenters have a grasp of reality, in spite of that Shiny Trinket that oil constitutes for the warmongers.
walkerbert wrote:
I fully support Obama's position on the war. They've urinated away hundreds of billions of dollars on this, and it's time to stop throwing good money after bad. To say that corruption and incompetence have been central to the Iraq 'war'(undeclared by Congress) would be an understatement. Had they invested similar amounts of capital in domestic energy independence initiatives over the same period, we'd now be in the position of being able to say, 'thanks, but no thanks' to future middle east oil shipments. Gotta let go of the Shiny Thing, here, and break out the sciencer on this problem and get to work, do things like engine and transmission retrofits, supplemental crop production for ethanol/biofuel stocks, do like the one Senator said and reconsider the double-nickel speed limit until we're clear of this oil dependency mess, which is the primary driving force for the war in the first place. When our troops are home, then it's time to clean house in D.C. on all the oil biz lobbyists who've been drooling over Iraq for years, as they were certainly the cheerleaders and underwriters if not the instigators for the whole ugly mess that's now cost people their lives and livelihoods over there, and is threatening the entire domestic economy over here. Call it 'an oil derrick too far', write a book about it, but bring the troops home. That's my view.
Of course, you knew since I already clicked on it, I'd have to add a soupcon of rational analysis - with the usual modesty.
jocabel wrote:
The misnomer "war" for our occupation of Iraq makes inevitable the mistakes in this post. But aside from that, WaPo repeats McCain's simplifications as is inevitable, when the editorialists here are committed to supporting the insupportable. WaPo supports the war and ignores that the war ended in 2003, we are now trying to find a way out. Anyone who, like Obama, accepts the facts and works with them offends the editorialists' sense of pride in their own words - I would say judgment, but that would be another misnomer. Standing by your man may be good in a barroom universe, but in international affairs, it creates the kind of muddle that WaPo editorialists have gotten built up around themselves. I do hope that, like the U.S., they can extract themselves and let some light in. For the U.S. it has become obvious that only a change in personnel will achieve that.
7/16/2008 4:43:09 AM
Recommended (16)
And our Eschatonian commenter, thundering with his growing irritation at Hiatt's totally predictable idiocy:
ifthethunderdontgetya wrote:
Fred Hiatt scribbled:
Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq's future is a vital U.S. security interest.
-----------------------------------------
Your advice is worthless, Fred. You and your bloodthirsty, war-cheerleading pals have been relentlessly wrong. You still can't even admit the obvious: This war was the biggest foreign policy debacle since Vietnam.
We'll still be paying the price long after President AWOL has gone back to his weed farm in Crawford.
If Donald Graham actually cared about the paper he inherited, he would fire you.
You should resign.
I waver between igoring the twaddle and adding a little touch of reality for the other readers. And yes, I know that eventually I'll read that all those clicks show the WaPo's 'popularity'. It's the kindergartner reasoning, if they're paying attention they must like you. And oil is just great for America. And down is up.
Labels: Cronyism, Election 2008, Iraq War, Republican Lying, the Press
posted by Ruth at 1:00 PM
2 Comments:
A different approach to McCain criticism is the following: OK, now Obama goes to Iraq five time and talk to the generals. Does this make him more qualified than he was before. According to McCain it does. I don't think so.
The objection to the war is not technical. It's a question of the role of the US in the world. We, the opposition to the war, say that we are against such wars always. Iraq is not special and we don't stay or leave based some pipe dreams.
Going to Iraq is not going to change anything the McCain campaign says. Being fifth from last in his class and getting shot down and squealing and making propaganda tapes for the enemy are only good credentials to a crew of war criminals who have nothing to offer. What they need to do is tear down the opponent. That's all they've got.
Post a Comment
<< Home