« Phoenix Initiative | Main | Did McCain Back the New Counterinsurgency Strategy » Freedom's Just Another Word for Perpetual Occupation24 Jul 2008 01:22 pm New VoteVets ad takes on John McCain's new line that we don't need to listen to the Iraqi government when deciding whether or not our troops will be in Iraq: The thing missing here is that the necessity of leaving if asked used to be totally uncontroversial. McCain and everyone else you can care to name have been on the record for years about this. Comments (21)
I don't find the ad very compelling, though. Of course, despite my efforts to learn cinelerra, kdenlive, kino, and blender, I haven't even produced one video. 
Suggestion: worth a new post on the Thursday Times for its "fair and balanced" coverage of McCain's inability to defend the surge honestly? We get the gaffe as a charge of liberal critics, a contrary view by other "analysts" (meaning a long-time defender of the war, O'Hanlon), and a conclusion that everyone stretches things in a campaign but McCain's supposed larger point stands.
Under what conditions would Obama extend his 16-month "timetable" for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq? For how long is Obama willing to extend his "timetable?" A few months? 3 years? 5? Indefinitely? How many troops does Obama plan to leave in Iraq as his "residual force?" A few hundred? A few thousand? Tens of thousands? How long does Obama plan to keep his "residual force" in Iraq? A few months? Years? Indefinitely?
They just never expected to actually be asked.
You can see how pathetic McCain's recent gaffes are when Mixner is reduced to .. not even pretending to defend them, not REALLY even attacking Obama, but asking a series of meaningless and irrelevant questions about Obama's policies. But as I said a day or two ago, it is amusing seeing the never at all convincing masks being ripped from the faces of monsters like McCain. Of course it won't matter, given the ignorant self involved stupidity of the American people and the supine McCain loving press, but at least anybody in the rest of the world who has any residual affection for this hideous nation will realize who is the biggest enemy of world peace. Americans should count themselves lucky that the existence of our nuclear arsenal, combined with economic realities, makes it unlikely that the U.S. will get what it deserves. Because what we deserve is the fate of Carthage. Though at least there is the prospect of the squabbling groups in Iraq uniting to throw out the U.S. occupiers. That is something I am truly looking forward to.
"voice of reason" Because what [Americans] deserve is the fate of Carthage. Why are so many Obama supporters such raving lunatics?
Hey voice of sick fucking America, I'm not much of what you call an Obama supporter - he, too, supports the hegemonic project, and he is just the lesser of two evils compared to that monster McCain. But it is, indeed, a sad state of affairs when opposition to murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people to support our sick dreams of hegemony makes one a "raving lunatic."
Why are so many Obama supporters such raving lunatics? Driven mad about the obscene uses of America's awesome power, which run contrary to our principles. If you gave a shit about this country, you'd understand that.
John Haber, I'll second your post at 1:42. I've been astonished more people today haven't been commenting on that atrocious Times article, complete with O'Hanlon as the "expert" (only surprised it didn't add "war critic"). It was vaguely similar to the "Social Security is a disgrace" article of a few weeks back, which buried McCain's very real ignorant statement deep inside a "both sides do it" article mostly concerned with an untrue accusation leveled against Obama by right-wing bloggers. I know alot of people consider the post-Judy Miller Times useless in general, but these two articles have stood out for me as especially hack-licious, given they were on topics fairly widely -- and correctly -- covered elsewhere.
Why are so many Obama supporters such raving lunatics? Why are so many Republicans blood-thirsty imperialists?
And you know, the real irony here. Believe if you will that I go to far in my hatred of the U.S. hegemony. But let's be honest - sadly, less than 1% of the public agrees with me, and we have no influence upon policy. What really staggers the imagination is that the "conventional view" on these issues - held by the people which actually control policy - is in favor of torture, aggressive warfare, world domination, etc., etc., the whole sorry spectacle. That sick and demented vision isn't just held by a few people, but by most of our leadership. And you are calling ME a "raving lunatic? This nation truly has gone mad.
Why are so many Obama supporters such raving lunatics? Because, we've found our savior who happens to be so effing cool.
"Hey voice of sick fucking America ... world domination ... This nation truly has gone mad." Seriously dude, get a grip.
harold, Seriously dude, read the Statement of Principles of the Project for the New American Century. Then slit your ignorant, warmongering throat. Stupid fucking asshole.
And for the hard of reading, let me just say this: what about the word hegemony, and the terms "sole superpower" and "full spectrum dominance" (among many others) don't you understand?
"The thing missing here is that the necessity of leaving if asked used to be totally uncontroversial. McCain and everyone else you can care to name have been on the record for years about this." I don't get it, why didn't the white house and republicans get out in front of this thing by declaring victory, basking in the glow and negotiating a "re-deployment". if they really wanted to stay they could just wait for something to happen that would be a justification or create an "event" that would be a justification. I mean if these guys are such masters of conspiracy why are they running around looking like they are doing a monty python skit now?
I am with voice of reason.... well except for the whole Carthage thing. Im not convinced that violence is a good way to stop violence. I personally am rooting for government bankruptcy.
"The thing missing here is that the necessity of leaving if asked used to be totally uncontroversial. McCain and everyone else you can care to name have been on the record for years about this." I don't get it, why didn't the white house and republicans get out in front of this thing by declaring victory, basking in the glow and negotiating a "re-deployment". if they really wanted to stay they could just wait for something to happen that would be a justification or create an "event" that would be a justification. I mean if these guys are such masters of conspiracy why are they running around looking like they are doing a monty python skit now?
paul m, It's not a "conspiracy" in any meaningful sense of the word. A conspiracy implies a degree of secrecy that has been missing. For anyone without his or her head up his or her ass, there are hundreds, thousands even, of public statements, and publicly announce policies, that make explicit our intention to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and to use it as a base for power projection in the Middle East. There is nothing REALLY controversial about this fact, for any literate person with an IQ above 80. It is true that there were also, in addition to the explicit statements of our intention to stay forever, public statements to the effect that we would only stay as long as the Iraqi people wanted us to. These statements were, of course lies, but not every lie has a "conspiracy" behind it. As to your question, I can think of dozens of reasons why the criminal administration didn't adopt that particular strategy, including political reasons (such negotiations would have given aid and comfort to the Democrats), but really such speculation is sort of meaningless, given the uncontroversial fact that we always intended to saty.
Josh SN: Linux rules. On topic, once again it's IRRELEVANT how long the US THINKS it's going to be in Iraq. The Iraqis (and Iran) are "The Decider", and it's clear the US won't be in Iraq for more than about another two years - and if Bush attacks Iran, that drops to two or three months tops.
Comments closed August 07, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
"Hey Iraq, no fair calling our bluff. Just for that, it is 100 years more occupation for you!"
Posted by DTM | July 24, 2008 1:27 PM