The Pushback Strategy Debunked

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

Conservative blog Protein Wisdom summarizes the Bush "Pushback Strategy":

Clearly, the important administration arguments are beginning to coalesce:  1) Criticism of the war is not by itself unpatriotic 2) Similarly, answering anti-war critics is not challenging their patriotism 3) But opportunistic and cynical anti-war critics who are trying to walk back their own votes and level spurious charges at the Administration (they lied to take is into war) are themselves lying 4) These lies are hurting the country and the troops.  5) The burden of proof, in a post 911 world, was on Saddam Hussein to prove he’d disarmed; we could not wait for the threat to become imminent before acting 6) The cause the troops are fighting for is just and right 7) Iraq is moving toward freedom; and things on the ground are improving daily, regardless of what the MSM and prominent Dems would have us believe.

These points, taken together, form an easy, concise, and—most importantly—a factually correct counter-narrative to the Dem / MSM narrative . . .

Easy?  Concise?  Bwaaaaahahahahahahaha!

Let’s try (for a start) "internally contradictory".  The pushback strategy would have you believe that criticizing the war is not unpatriotic (#1 and #2), yet it "hurt(s) the country and the troops" (#4).  Query the definition of "patriotic".

But perhaps #4 does NOT contradict #1 and #2, if #4 only applies to "opportunistic and cynical anti-war critics who are trying to walk back their own votes"(#3).  Of course, that defies logical sense.  How exactly does changing one’s mind about the war (as opposed to always being against it) hurt the troops and the country?

And, of course, #3 resurrects the canard that Democrats "voted for the war".  What many of them voted for, and what they understood their vote to mean (as many said at the time), was that they gave Bush the authority to invade Iraq so Bush could go to the U.N. and get international support behind him.  Bush, at the time, was publically saying that he wasn’t even sure he intended to invade Iraq.  With trust in those statements, the Democrats supported the October resolution.  That’s far different from actually supporting invasion itself.

But, whatever.  I’m not an opportunistic and cynical war critic attempting to walk back on my vote.  I didn’t GET a vote, and if I DID, my position now is the same as it was then.  So #3 doesn’t apply to me. 

#5 is the biggest joke.  If neo-cons were really interested in Saddam meeting (or not meeting) his burden of proof, they would have allowed to let the inspectors continue to inspect Iraq.  If neo-cons were honest, with themselves if not others, they would admit that would NEVER have been satisifed with whatever proof Saddam (or inspectors) offered.

I have no problem with #6.  Assuming that "the cause the troops are fighting for" can be defined as "combating terrorism".  Of course, it avoids the chief criticism, to wit, does our presence in Iraq reduce terrorism, or increase it?  Most people, including promiment military experts and leaders, think the latter.  So saying that "the cause" is just and right does not serve as an approval of the dysfunctional way in which we achieve that goal.

And if Iraq is moving toward freedom (#7), doesn’t that mean, on some level, "Mission Accomplished"?  Doesn’t that mean we can at least discuss bringing troops home?  Or are we planning to stay until democracy there is 100% perfect, something which we didn’t (arguably) achieve until the end of our civil war some 80 years after democracy’s birth?

Every Mother’s Nightmare

Ken AshfordScience & TechnologyLeave a Comment

This is too funny.

So everyone can appreciate it, let me explain the technology and background.

Xbox Live is a game system where you can play games with other players over the Internet.  In certain games, you play a character, and your opponent(s) play a character, and all of you run around a virtual world trying to kill each other.  And if you have a headset-with microphone, you can talk (or taunt) the other players (and your character’s mouth moves as you speak).

Okay.  So there was this nine year old kid playing an XBox Live against opponents.  It was a shoot-em-up game.  During the course of the game, the 9 year old boy starts getting into a fight with his mother about chocolate milk — he wanted her to bring him some.  Unfortunately, one of his opponents was recording the game and the argument.

Here is the video of the game, as recorded.  Listen to this devil kid curse out his mother.  It really begins to cook about one minute into it.

I don’t know how it ends up, but now that this video is out, I’m betting that kid doesn’t have an XBox anymore.

This Penn Believes

Ken AshfordGodstuffLeave a Comment

I have nothing against people of faith — "whatever floats your boat" I always say.

But to those who go beyond their internal faith, and engage in the arrogant practice of proselytizing, I wish they would take a moment to reflect on the words of Penn Jillette (of Penn & Teller fame), who talks about what he believes in an essay from NPR’s "This I Believe" series:

I believe that there is no God. I’m beyond Atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy — you can’t prove a negative, so there’s no work to do. You can’t prove that there isn’t an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?

So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The Atheism part is easy.

But, this "This I Believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life’s big picture, some rules to live by. So, I’m saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no God."

Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I’m not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it’s everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I’m raising now is enough that I don’t need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.

Believing there’s no God means I can’t really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That’s good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

Believing there’s no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I’m wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don’t travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That’s just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that’s always fun. It means I’m learning something.

Believing there is no God means the suffering I’ve seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn’t caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn’t bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.

Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-o and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.

On Opening The Door For Women

Ken AshfordWomen's IssuesLeave a Comment

This was a mini-topic in the blogosphere a couple of weeks ago.  A few blogs I read were having discussions about the practice of opening doors for women as it pertains to the larger topic of chivalry.  (Sorry, I’m too lazy to research and link — just take my word)

I had nothing to add to the discussion — like most other men weighing in on the topic, I open the door for people, especially if I happen to be closest to the door. 

And if I happen to take greater pains to the open the door for women (as opposed to men), then so be it.  When doing that, it’s not a comment on their supposedly "weaker" sex.  I’m not, as someone wrote tongue-in-cheek, expecting a blowjob for my minimal effort.  And frankly, as "chivalry" goes, it’s a pretty meager display of it. 

It’s just — I don’t know — something I do, reflexively.  Deal with it.

So I was taken aback by this comment from George Will, in a post about manners in today’s society:

Furthermore, it is a brave, or foolhardy, man who shows traditional manners toward women. In today’s world of "hair-trigger sensitivity," to open a door for a woman is to play what Truss calls Gallantry Russian Roulette: You risk a high-decibel lecture on gender politics.

I’m "brave"?  Or "foolhardy"?  How?

I suppose that I have engaged opening doors for women literally thousands of times in my life, from Boston to New York City to rural North Carolina.  And statistically, I probably have opened the door for many liberated women (the kind that Limbaugh calls "feminazis").

And not once — NOT ONCE — have I been subjected to a "high-decibel lecture on gender politics" for this minor traditional act.  Furthermore, I have never seen anyone else subjected to such a lecture for the same thing.  Not once.

Am I a fluke?  What is Will talking about?  Has anyone ever seen anyone be lectured at simply for opening a door for a woman, or is this (as I suspect) some sort of urban myth?  I’d be interested in hearing anecdotal evidence of this, because I suspect this is — um — total bullshit from social conservatives.

Something I Didn’t Know

Ken AshfordRandom MusingsLeave a Comment

Of the many things I didn’t know, one of them is that Martin Luther King delivered a rough draft of his "I Have A Dream" speech in Rocky Mount, NC:

"And so, my friends of Rocky Mount, I have a dream tonight," he said. "That one day, right here in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave-owners will meet at the table of brotherhood."

Curveball

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

For those who haven’t heard it yet, the story of Curveball is an important component of the whole pre-war intelligence issue.

I’m going to turn the mike over to Pat Lang, retired senior officer of U.S. Military Intelligence and U.S. Army Special Forces, who served as “Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East, South Asia and Terrorism" for the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and was later the first Director of the Defense Humint Service.  Col. Lang was the first Professor of the Arabic Language at the United States Military Academy at West Point.

Blogging here, Lang comments on "Curveball" and the important LA Times story:

In the case of Iraq, the US went to war because the American people became convinced that Iraq was a direct threat to the American homeland. They were convinced of that through an artfully orchestrated campaign of half-truths which used evidence from dubious sources to make the case for Iraq as a threat to the US. Paul Wolfowitz admitted as much in public when he said (paraphrasing) that WMD was sold to the American people as a threat because it COULD be sold and that nothing else would serve to take us to war.

CURVEBALL, the Iraqi source of the German intelligence (BND) became an essential element in the campaign of distorted and manipulated information. CURVEBALL was a fraud. The Germans said they did not believe him. DIA said they did not believe him, but the Bush Administration evidently did believe him. Why? They believed because they wanted to believe.

Goetz and Drogin’s story in the Los Angeles Times lays out the sad story of incompetence and deception which centers, at least in part, around this man.

Some samples from the article:

"The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein’s suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq. Five senior officials from Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service, or BND, said in interviews with The Times that they warned U.S. intelligence authorities that the source, an Iraqi defector code-named Curveball, never claimed to produce germ weapons and never saw anyone else do so.

"Curveball’s German handlers for the last six years said his information was often vague, mostly secondhand and impossible to confirm. "This was not substantial evidence," said a senior German intelligence official. "We made clear we could not verify the things he said." The German authorities, speaking about the case for the first time, also said that their informant suffered from emotional and mental problems. "He is not a stable, psychologically stable guy," said a BND official who supervised the case. "He is not a completely normal person," agreed a BND analyst."

"The senior BND officer who supervised Curveball’s case said he was aghast when he watched Powell misstate Curveball’s claims as a justification for war. "We were shocked," the official said. "Mein Gott! We had always told them it was not proven…. It was not hard intelligence." In a telephone interview, Powell said that George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, and his top deputies personally assured him before his U.N. speech that U.S. intelligence on the mobile labs was "solid." Since then, Powell said, the case "has totally blown up in our faces.""

"CIA officials now concede that the Iraqi fused fact, research he gleaned on the Internet and what his former co-workers called "water cooler gossip" into a nightmarish fantasy that played on U.S. fears after the Sept. 11 attacks. Curveball’s motive, CIA officials said, was not to start a war. He simply was seeking a German visa."

""The Iraqis were adept at feeding us what we wanted to hear," said a former official of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency who helped debrief about 50 Iraqi emigres in Germany before the war. "Most of it was garbage.” "

"On Feb. 5, 2003, Powell told the packed U.N. chamber that his account was based on "solid sources" and "facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." "We thought maybe they had the smoking gun," recalled the BND supervisor, who watched Powell on TV. "My gut feeling was the Americans must have so much from reconnaissance planes and satellites, from infiltrated spotter teams from Special Forces, and other systems. We thought they must have tons of stuff." Instead, Powell emphasized Curveball’s "eyewitness" account, calling it "one of the most worrisome things that emerge from the thick intelligence file.""

""Powell’s speech failed to sway many diplomats, but it had an immediate impact in Baghdad. "The Iraqis scoured the country for trailers," said a former CIA official who helped interrogate Iraqi officials and scientists in U.S. custody after the war. "They were in real panic mode. They were terrified that this was real, and they couldn’t explain it." An explanation was available within days, but U.S. officials ignored it. On Feb. 8, three days after Powell’s speech, the U.N.’s Team Bravo conducted the first search of Curveball’s former work site. The raid by the American-led biological weapons experts lasted 3 1/2 hours. It was long enough to prove Curveball had lied." "U.N. teams also raided the other sites Curveball had named. They interrogated managers, seized documents and used ground-penetrating radar, according to U.N. reports. The U.N. inspectors "could find nothing to corroborate Curveball’s reporting," the CIA’s Iraq Survey Group reported last year. On March 7, 2003, Hans Blix, the chief U.N. inspector, told the Security Council that a series of searches had found "no evidence" of mobile biological production facilities in Iraq. It drew little notice at the time."

"One CIA-led unit investigated Curveball himself. The leader was "Jerry," a veteran CIA bio-weapons analyst who had championed Curveball’s case at the CIA weapons center. They found Curveball’s personnel file in an Iraqi government storeroom. It was devastating. Curveball was last in his engineering class, not first, as he had claimed. He was a low-level trainee engineer, not a project chief or site manager, as the CIA had insisted. Most important, records showed Curveball had been fired in 1995, at the very time he said he had begun working on bio-warfare trucks. A former CIA official said Curveball also apparently was jailed for a sex crime and then drove a Baghdad taxi. Jerry and his team interviewed 60 of Curveball’s family, friends and co-workers. They all denied working on germ weapons trucks. Curveball’s former bosses at the engineering center said the CIA had fallen for "water cooler gossip" and "corridor conversations." "The Iraqis were all laughing," recalled a former member of the survey group. "They were saying, ‘This guy? You’ve got to be kidding.’ "Jerry tracked down Curveball’s Sunni Muslim parents in a middle-class Baghdad neighborhood. "Our guy was very polite," Kay recalled. "He said, ‘We understand your son doesn’t like Americans.’ His mother looked shocked. She said, ‘No, no! He loves Americans.’ And she took him into [her son’s] bedroom and it was filled with posters of American rock stars. It was like any other teenage room. She said one of his goals was to go to America."The deeper Jerry probed, the worse Curveball looked."

We were made fools of. By whom? Is it not obvious?

Take note:

The Iraqi government was frightened and surprised by Powell’s assertions at the UN about mobile bio-weapons production facilities. They searched the country looking for whatever it was we were talking about. they seem to have been afraid that there was something going on that they did not know about.

We should all be ashamed in this country. We should be ashamed that we are so childish and easily manipulated that CURVEBALL’s supposed story and that of all the other shoddy sources and rumor mongers were so easily "sold" to us by a band of political extremists. Our gullibility raises the issue of our collective worthiness to be the sovereigns of the commonweal of whom Jefferson wrote.

Bush Hearts Dissent

Ken AshfordBush & Co., IraqLeave a Comment

Bd6After all the GOP soldiers took turns taking potshots at Murtha, Bush said some odd words in China on the entire thing:

People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq. I heard somebody say, well, maybe so-and-so is not patriotic because they disagree with my position. I totally reject that thought. This is not an issue of who’s patriot and who’s not patriotic. It’s an issue of an honest, open debate about the way forward in Iraq.

Kevin Drum notes that it was only days ago that Bush said Iraqi war critics were sending "the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will".  Drum quips: "Looks like he was for demagogic attacks before he was against them."

By the way, the picture at the right is from a series of photos of Bush making his statement in China.  The entire sequence is in a post entitled "Exit Strategy" over at Eschaton.  Give a look and have a laugh.

New Hampshire Is The Most Miserly State

Ken AshfordEconomy & Jobs & DeficitLeave a Comment

Yahoo News:

PORTLAND, Maine – New Englanders remain among the most tightfisted in the country when it comes to charitable giving while Bible Belt residents are among the most generous, according to an annual index.

For the fourth year running, New Hampshire was the most miserly state, according to the Catalogue of Philanthropy’s Generosity Index. Mississippi remained at the top for generosity.

The index, which takes into account both "having" and "giving," is based on average adjusted gross incomes and the value of itemized charitable donations reported to the Internal Revenue Service tax returns, the latest available.

However, its methodology has been criticized and has helped give rise to new studies of charitable giving.

"We believe that generosity is a function of how much one gives to the ability one has to give," said Martin Cohn, a spokesman for the Catalogue for Philanthropy, a Boston-based nonprofit that publishes a directory of nonprofit organizations.

Using that standard, the 10 most generous states were, in descending order, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Utah, South Carolina and West Virginia.

The 10 stingiest, starting from the bottom, were New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Minnesota, Colorado, Hawaii and Michigan.

But a study by the Boston Foundation concluded that the index presents an undeserved image of New England as a region made up of Yankee skinflints.

"If everyone in Massachusetts gave 100 times as much to charity as we do today and everything else remains the same, we wouldn’t get above the bottom half of the chart," said David Trueblood, a spokesman for the foundation. "And no matter what Mississippi did, it couldn’t fall below 22nd or 23rd."

The foundation proposed an alternate measure of generosity based on each state’s share of overall charitable contributions and income, adjusted for differences in taxes and living costs. Using that methodology, Massachusetts’ generosity ranking last year would be 11th, instead of 49th.

Priorities

Ken AshfordCongressLeave a Comment

36% of Americans approve (and 53% disapprove) of the job that the Republican-controlled Congress is doing.

So what is Congress doing about this?  The lede paragraph of this AP report says it all:

The Republican-controlled Congress helped itself to a $3,100 pay raise on Friday, then postponed work on bills to curb spending on social programs and cut taxes in favor of a two-week vacation.

Apparently, they feel they are doing lousy because they’re not paid enough, and are overworked.

Michelle Becoming Unhinged

Ken AshfordRight Wing Punditry/IdiocyLeave a Comment

Looks like our local radio station asked a question that stuck in Michelle’s craw.   Methinks the lady doth protest too much.  But then again, methinks that protesting too much is the lady’s raison d’etre.

And she’s still whining about the fact that, over six months ago, an anonymous commentator (who could be a 12 year old for all we know) on Kevin Drum’s blog called her the C-word.  She even provides a handy link to a Google search ("michelle malkin cunt") to supposedly show ALL the liberal websites that have called her that name.

Unfortunately for Michelle, her Google search disproves her point.  The FIRST hit (the most popular under Google’s search criteria) is Michelle Malkin’s blog herself.  Apparently, Michelle is the one who is most effective at furthering the "Michelle is a cunt" meme.  Subsequent hits — the ones from liberal blogs — are merely responding to Michelle’s "Look What They Are Calling Me" whines, rather than actually calling Michelle names.  (A typical example of a liberal using the word "cunt" in reference to Malkin can be found in the THIRD google hit — Majikthise’s post entitled "Michelle Malkin Certainly Is NOT A Cunt").

Michelle, honey, this is the no-holds-barred Internet.  It would be nice if everyone who used it engaged in the highest level of civil discourse, but such an expectation is realistic.  Besides, your not exactly one to preach about lack of civility.  Anyway, my point is, if you don’t want your name associated with that perjorative word, perhaps you should take overt steps to link the two together.

Heeeeeeey You Guuuuuuuys!

Ken AshfordPopular Culture1 Comment

ElectriccompanyHow totally incredibly cool is this?

That’s right, it’s The Electric Company on DVD!

One of the best educational children’s shows ever made, and adults will love it, too!  It’s available in this "best of" 4 DVD set.

Sadly, this won’t be filling stockings for Xmas, since the release date is February 7, 2006, but still….

It’ll be nice to check in once again on The Adventures of Fargo North, Decoder (a bumbling detective who solves crimes with word puzzles), Letterman (a Spiderman-like superher0), the wonderful animation ("It’s The Plumber. I’ve Come To Fix The Sink!"), and Easy Reader (a real fly dude played by — who’s that? — Morgan Freeman!?!)

Not to mention, of course, the regular cast, including the Short Circus (the collection of singing, dancing kids), Bill Cosby, and Rita Morena.

And what about Naomi?  We can be sure she’ll be included, too!!

Rewriting Resolutions, Rewriting History

Ken AshfordBush & Co., Congress, IraqLeave a Comment

What a night on the floor of the House.

For those of you in a cave, it went something like this:  Conservative pro-war Democrat Rep. John Murtha from PA came out recently and spoke against the war, urging "immiediate withdrawal".  For that, this decorated war hero was attacked by the Bush White House as being part of the "Michael Moore" fringe, and others castigated him as being a coward.

Murtha proposed a resolution, the salient part of which reads as follows:

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

The Republicans, in a clear political ploy, sought to embarrass Murtha, by "rewriting" Murtha’s resolution and getting the House to vote on it.  The rewrite (called the Hunter Resolution) read, in its entirety, as follow:

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Now, the obviousness of the ploy was easily apparent.  The Republicans drafted a resolution which would easily be voted down, and then they could claim that Murtha’s resolution was voted down, thus embarassing Murtha.

Of course, anyone with a brain would ask: if you want to reject the Murtha resolution, why not VOTE on the Murtha resolution?

For what it is worth, the Hunter-not-Murtha Resolution was voted down 403-3 last night.  In the course of the "debate", Rep. Jean Schmidt from Ohio, who barely won her seat running against a Democrat who was an Iraqi war veteran, got herself into hot water by insinuating that Murtha was a "coward".  This woman is a vile reprehensible thing: just watch the video (relevant transcript is here)

In the light of dawn, the whole debacle was a Democratic victory.  I checked the conservative blogs, and most of them sense that last night’s stunt didn’t work to the Republican benefit.

Glenn Reynolds quotes blogger Larry Kudlow:

…Therefore I believe that Pres. Bush and Sen. McCain are exactly right: premature withdrawal would be a disaster.

That said, however, I do not like the Duncan Hunter resolution "…that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

It is not serious. It demeans the House. It totally politicizes the debate. It is a ploy and a rather weak one at that. . . .

Why not state the resolution in the affirmative? " We pledge to deploy troops in Iraq until the mission of liberation, freedom and democracy is satisfactorily completed." And why not seek to gain as much bi-partisan political support as possible? This would truly help the mission, and the troops.

I think that’s right. And I think that to the (large) extent that some Republicans are making this a personal issue about Murtha, instead of talking about the absolutely unsupportable nature of his proposal, it’s a mistake.

Even the boys at Powerline were nonplussed:

The House leadership had a golden opportunity to make the Democrats put up or shut up tonight, and I’m afraid they blew it. Rep. John Murtha offered a resolution demanding surrender in Iraq within six months (at least, that’s how the New York Times describes it; I haven’t seen the actual text, and news reports have varied.) If the House leadership had precipitated a vote on what Murtha actually proposed, we could have had a useful moment of clarity. Instead, however, they scheduled a vote on a resolution calling for immediate withdrawal, which was how Murtha’s resolution was widely reported, but, apparently, not quite what it said. That gave the Democrats an easy out; they opposed it, and it failed overwhelmingly (403-3 is the last tally I’ve seen.)

So nothing was accomplished. And the debate, needless to say, was less than edifying.

However, Redstate’s Leon H seems to think it was a Republican victory, because the Hunter Resolution was (according to Leon H) "substantively identical" to Murtha’s.  You can read his attempt to explain why this is so, although you’ll see his reasoning is tortured and strained.  And of course, he avoids the obvious question I mentioned above: if the purpose was to defeat Murtha’s resolution, why not VOTE on Murtha’s resolution?

The response from the left is actually pretty subdued.  We’ve seen these outrages many many many times.  And we now know that these tactics are not resonating with the American people.

I leave with some words from Shakespeare’s Sister and (below the fold) DemfromCT:

Murtha’s resolution, as originally proposed, is really solid. Our presence, and being seen as occupiers, fuels the insurgency; withdrawal dampens its flames. Retaining an emergency force in the region to respond if the fledging democracy needs military assistance is probably not only the best and most productive help we can give to the Iraqis at this time, but also has the added political benefit of deflecting charges that we cut and run—because we won’t have. But the GOP won’t even allow a good-faith debate about the parts and pieces of Murtha’s resolution; they just keep babbling about supporting the troops.

This is how much respect the GOP has for the troops: they’ll not only use them to fight a war of choice halfway around the world, sending them to risk their lives over a pack of bloody lives; they’ll also use them as a shield at home, hiding behind the soldiers they refuse to properly armor, using the troops as a shield to deflect criticism. These chickenhawk pieces of shit won’t even walk onto the battlefield of ideas. They cower instead behind ribbons and bumper magnets and lapel pins and small flags on sticks, stubbornly insisting that they are right, and caring none for the consequences if they aren’t.

Read More

The Latest Coward

Ken AshfordIraqLeave a Comment

War supporters are fond of saying that troop withdrawal out of Iraq is "cutting and running".  In fact, I just heard some Republican representative on C-Span say from the House floor that the mere talk of withdrawal hurts and endangers our troops fighting in Iraq.

Mmmmm.  I wonder what they would say about this coward — the U.S. commander in Iraq, General Casey:

The top U.S. commander in Iraq has submitted a plan to the Pentagon for withdrawing troops in Iraq, according to a senior defense official.

Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades — usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each — begin pulling out of Iraq early next year.

Arrest that man! He’s is cutting and running! Emboldening the terrorists!