reactionary progressive Democrats

Ah, the first attempts at turning "progressive" into a bad word. I was wondering when that was going to happen. Here's the bad news, though: if you guys really latch onto "progressive" and turn it into the epithet of choice for Lefties, we'll just go back to "liberal."

Sometimes you can't win for losing.

good analysis CY. I find myself looking to your website more and more for a fairly balanced--and clearly opinionated--analysis such as you provide in your spare time. The inane comments of trolls notwithstanding, your comments forum also provides a wealth of relevant information on the topic.

I differ with you, however, on your opinion that the war might already be decided. Democrats can always manage to pull defeat from victory--look at Vietnam and their successful termination of aide to S. Vietname, which was rapidly followed by the tanks of Hanoi driving into Saigon.

As for the nostrum "if it bleeds, it leads", I think the blood needed to lead is innocent and/or American blood. There seems to be a fair amount of AQ and Iranian blood being spilled recently, but we certainly don't see that trumpeted on front pages on the evening news.

Here's a question for nunaims and other progressive, liberal anti-war types.

The Dems currently control the House and the Senate.

Why don't they just vote to de-fund the war?

You know, "Here's the FY2008 Defense Authorization. NO money may be spent on operations in Iraq, other than that pursuant to withdrawing the troops.

US troops must be withdrawn by January 1, 2008 (or February 14, or pick any date."

Surely, with control of the House and Senate, and with the mandate that SEN Feingold mentions, the Dems could do this?

It is a quagmire, as we can't leave and won't be able to leave for quite a while.. unless we want to see happen country-wide what happened in Basra when the Brits pulled out.

Of course, progressives can just revert to their true name: socialist. -cp

Nah, they run from that one.

Take the junior Senator from Vermont. What party is he? Why is he consistently referred to as "independent"?

(For those who are unaware, the junior Senator from VT, Bernie Sanders, is a self-described Socialist.)

Stevesturm demonstrates that delusions on Iraq are not limited to Congress.

Earth to Steve: General Petraeus has announced that troops could start coming home in a couple of months.

The liberal -- cough -- progressive agenda is to (a) bring the troops back home and (b) eliminate the don't ask, don't tell oppression that limits the number of gays in the military.

The liberal -- cough -- progressive agenda is to (a) bring the troops back home and (b) eliminate the don't ask, don't tell oppression that limits the number of gays in the military.

Yes, that's pretty much it in a nutshell. The whole smash. Those two things are all we want in the world.

Also: is this supposed to be a dig at Progriberals, or something? Those are two good things.

Nunaim, conservatives want to bring the troops home too.

The difference is, we want to bring them home (a) as victors, and (b) when removing troops won't cause a downward spiral in Iraq and the Middle East in general.

The members of the Party of the Donkey in Congress, on the other hand, want to bring them home right this instant, and they don't seem to give a darn how many Iraqis die after a premature American pullout.

I know you're gonna dispute that, so I should warn you right now that I am gonna demand evidence for whatever you claim, and not from sites like DailyKos. So ya might as well provide links with your first reply to me. That saves time and bandwidth, and also keeps you from looking like a person who doesn't read messages.

I know you're gonna dispute that, so I should warn you right now that I am gonna demand evidence for whatever you claim, and not from sites like DailyKos. So ya might as well provide links with your first reply to me.

A: How the hell do you know what I'm going to do?

B: Who the hell died and made you boss?

Talk about pompous...

So, you are not disputing that the Party of the Donkey in Congress doesn't give a hoot how many Iraqis are killed by a premature withdrawal?

So, you are not disputing that the Party of the Donkey in Congress doesn't give a hoot how many Iraqis are killed by a premature withdrawal?

Incorrect. I'm saying that I have no idea what opinion they all have on that wingnut meme.

iraq had NOTHING to do with the 2006 results.

foleygate, maccaccagate and abramoffgate did.

all exploded out of proportion by the MSM.

Well, let's look at it logically, nunaim.

1) It's been admitted, even by such anti-war publications as the New York Times, that a premature US withdrawal could lead to genocide.

2) The members of the Party of the Donkey in Congress are trying their best to force a premature US withdrawal, their latest attempt focusing on cutting off funding (as they did in Vietnam).

3) Therefore, the Party of the Donkey does not care about the possibility of an Iraqi genocide, which is just another way of saying that they don't give a darn how many Iraqis are killed by a premature US pullout

See what a wonderful tool logic is? You really should try it some time.

Noticed something today... in our Fortune 250 company that's going thru significant transformation, we've got people who are capable of effecting significant change, and people who are inflexible, rigid and refuse to change. Any guesses on who's a lib and who's a "conservative"? Funny thing, how "conservative" doesn't mean inflexible like the libs tell us it does. It turns out the very people who can't tolerate any volatility, change and uncertainty are... registered Democrats. People that would unionize if they could, to slow the impact of change external forces are driving.

Sounds like Feingold and his staffers suffer the same problem. The voters demanded change, Bush gave it to him by replacing Rummy (who I respect), signaling throughout the military hierarchy that the status quo was dead and everyone's balls were on the table. Now, results are being obtained. Lowest casualties. Record AQ high-level captures. Significant levels of AQ supporters being flipped to our side.

Yet Feingold, Reid and company are stuck in 2006. Worse yet, they're being sucked into the Soros missive of the day crap, which has got to be painful for proud libs who used to have their own identity. They're reading Soros talking points from 2006, are stuck making accusations based upon edited audio they know is bogus, and are left supporting dying causes like higher taxes, soviet-era 5-year plans, bigger union pensions and unsustainable pork spending.

Increasingly, it seems the definition of a liberal is one who cannot tolerate uncertainty and change. It sure seems like we're seeing a dying ideology flail about before it implodes.

Yet Feingold, Reid and company are stuck in 2006.

Worse than that. They are stuck on September 10, 2001.

"The members of the Party of the Donkey in Congress, on the other hand, want to bring them home right this instant, and they don't seem to give a darn how many Iraqis die after a premature American pullout."

Well, if we did pull out, at least Blackwater mercenaries wouldn't be running around there like psychotic cowboys, blowing away Iraqis right and left, leaving 17 people dead like this latest incident in Baghdad...

I find the statement by Feingold in the last quote of the post: "If we give in to the defeatist "we don't have the votes" attitude, we're playing right into the hands of the president and supporters of his war..." rather reminiscent of a line in one of my favorite WWII movies.

The movie is "In Harm's Way" headlined by John Wayne. When JW delivers this line he is responding to his estranged son who was raised by his mother and her family - who just happen to be ‘elites’. The son's line is something snippy that he and his family think WWII is "Roosevelt's war". JW's line is close to this: "I seem to remember them saying the same thing about Wilson’s war…”

Interesting that Hollywood - yes, Hollywood - in 1965 (when the film was released) identified and ridiculed the same attitude Feingold espouses. Seems this country has had Feingold types since (maybe) even its inception. Just something to think about for those who hold the same sentiments today when history has NEVER been on that side.

Arbotreeist,

Two thoughts:
1) 17 dead vs. million plus dead in genocide after premature withdrawal.

2) Blackwater's 'fire rates' are lower than the US military's.

I'll take Blackwater's presence any day :)

Tree-hugger -- excuse me, Arbotreeist -- sounds like the sort of socialist/pacifist weenie one finds in the chancellaries of the hollowed-out parts of Europe about to be buried by the Islamic hordes.

Is it just me, or do the cries of "Blackwater, Blackwater" from the left sound very reminiscent of earlier cries of "Halliburton, Halliburton"?

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 10/04/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Arbortreeist - what about the video evidence showing the convoy of US Diplomatic Corps was attacked by "insurgents" before they returned fire? Did you come out of your narrow-minded little hidey-hole to get the whole story, or just rely on your "progressive" pals to tell you what you wanted to hear?

I guess a burden of proof is only good for folks like Bill Clinton, William Jefferson, and Al Sharpton. Some truly are more equal than others.

Arbotreeist

"Well, if we did pull out, at least Blackwater mercenaries wouldn't be running around there like psychotic cowboys, blowing away Iraqis right and left, leaving 17 people dead like this latest incident in Baghdad..."

This sounds pretty scary as a talking point. How many operations have Blackwater personnel actually been on? How many times have they fired their weapons and how many fatalities have they caused?

Please get back to us.

Is it just me, or do the cries of "Blackwater, Blackwater" from the left sound very reminiscent of earlier cries of "Halliburton, Halliburton"?

Your point is well taken, CCG: it does seem that the Administration has repeatedly made questionable choices about who to partner with in this war. It's too bad, isn't it?

This Administration HAS made choices of partnership that Nuniam dislikes.

Poland, Czechoslovakia, England, Australia, Japan, the citizens of Iraq, and Canada instead of his preferred set: China, Cuba, Venezuela, France (though the current prime minister of France has admitted that Chirac's nuniamist antiAmericanism was a terrible mistake), Germany (oil-for-bribes, anyone?), Russia, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, the American Socialist Party, the Knights of the KKK, CAIR, Lyndon Larouche...

You can tell a man by the company he keeps.

nunaim, please do try and keep up. There's a long post by me addressed to you that you haven't responded to yet.

It's polite to respond to earlier messages addressed to you first, you know.

Arbotreeist,

Very often dead insurgents have their weapons carried away and they henceforth become know as civilian casualties...Be careful with your MSM news consumption. Surely, you know by now that you are only getting the version approved by editors who couldn't make it in the real world so they went into journalism...

nunaim, please do try and keep up. There's a long post by me addressed to you that you haven't responded to yet.

It's polite to respond to earlier messages addressed to you first, you know.

I did respond this morning. Later, the post had disappeared.

I did respond this morning. Later, the post had disappeared.

With the exception of a Russian spammer, I have not removed anyone's posts today.

Trying again, then...

See what a wonderful tool logic is? You really should try it some time.

Gee, yeah. Okay, here's one:

1) Due to improved medical technology, more soldiers than ever before are surviving their injuries and coming home maimed for life.

2) Wingnuts want the war, which causes these injuries, to continue.

3) Therefore, wingnuts are perfectly okay with the idea of more US soldiers than ever before living with horrific injuries.

Hey, you're right! That was easy!

Ooooh, now we have nunaim confirmed as a liar.

Keep going, nunaim.

By the way, if technical issues keep a reply from being posted, most intelligent people attempt to re-post it.

And when asked about it, instead of whining that "it disappeared," most intelligent people would re-post at least an abridged version of the reply that "disappeared."

So, I eagerly await your re-post of the post that "disappeared."

Your point #2 is incorrect, nunaim.

We want the war to continue only until our leaving will not cause a further destabilization in the region.

In fact, continuing the war now may actually be saving lives and limbs. The logic goes thus:

1) If we leave Iraq before the region is stabilized, it will become even more destabilized (genocide is a destabilizing influence, and a powerful one).

2) If the region becomes even more destabilized, there is a very high probability that American troops will be called in at some point. Face it, we're the world's policeman now. We may not like it--I am none too fond of the role--but we have it and have to do something about it.

3) If we are called in at a later date, it will be even harder to establish stability in the region than it is now, because all the work that we have already done will be undone by Iran and its proxies.

4) Therefore, if we leave now, we face a bloodier war in the future.

5) Also worth considering, further destabilization would cost the lives of more Iraqis, whether or not American troops are called in again. So once again, leaving will cost far more lives than staying.

In short, if we finish the job properly we will probably not have to go back in again for a long time, which will, in the long run, save American troops' lives and limbs.

Not to mention that pulling out and letting the region go back to the status quo ante (a little Latin lingo, there) will cause all the American deaths to have been in vain.

One more thing worth considering.

If we pull out now, imagine Bin Ladin's crowing... he'll be declaring that Al Qaeda chased the Americans away.

That will, of course, embolden the terrorists again, and we'll probably see terrorist attacks on American soil increase as a consequence of that.

Do ya really want to take the chance of that, nunaim?

So, I eagerly await your re-post of the post that "disappeared."

What are you, a friggin' retard? Or simply too lazy to read the post immediately preceding the one in which you wrote this?

No, I am not a "friggin' retard," but you apparently are.

If you would just look at the time stamps and use a little bit of logic, you'd see that since both posts went up within a minute of each other, it is highly likely that I was typing mine at the same time you were typing yours... which is precisely what happened.

Please, don't work so hard at looking like a microcephalic moron; you do quite well enough at that without working.

Now, please respond to my longer post immediately after the one you quoted.

Now, please respond to my longer post immediately after the one you quoted.

Nothing could be easier. If a legislator votes against a measure to end the war, then the legislator wants the war to continue.

The rest of your stuff is lip flappage.

So, nunaim, you state:

If a legislator votes against a measure to end the war, then the legislator wants the war to continue.

The Dems control both houses of Congress. They could pass a bill to defund the war.

Why don't they? Evidently, the Dems want the war to continue.

Why, nunaim?

The Dems control both houses of Congress. They could pass a bill to defund the war.

Why don't they? Evidently, the Dems want the war to continue.

Why, nunaim?

Why, Santy Claus, why?

nunaim, one can want the war to continue for the motives I expressed above--because they realize that pulling out too soon will mean a bloodier war in the future.

Therefore, you cannot logically support a contention that a vote to continue the war is because the person is bloodthirsty. Nor can a contention that a vote to continue the war is because the person is evil personified be logically supported.

But please, continue to claim such. It makes you look like the microcephalic moron that you are.

The death and maiming of American troops are, for you and yours, and acceptable cost of what's going on over there.

For Lefties, it's not. You're happy to sit in your mommy's basement licking Cheeto dust from your fingers as others pay the ultimate (or, bad enough, the penultimate) price for your twisted view of reality.

Lefties feel that that ultimate price should be saved for a situation that is more dire than the one we're facing. It should, in short, be a dire situation for America before American lives are spent like video game tokens. You disagree. That's your prerogative.

Also: you might want to try something other than "microcephalic moron." It's getting old.

nunaim, you want a more dire situation? Pulling out would create just such a situation.

* Al Qaeda would claim--with some justification--that they had chased the Americans off.

* Iran and its proxies in the Middle East would have a much freer hand, with no American troops in the area.

* Sectarian violence and possible genocide are extremely likely if we pull out... even the NY Times admits that, as I keep reminding you (and you keep ignoring).

The current deaths are acceptable as a means of preventing far more deaths in the future, both American and Iraqi. Or do you not give a darn about Iraqi deaths? Clinton sure as heck didn't, he did nothing through the 8 years of his administration to liberate the Iraqis. At least George H. W. Bush tried, though his attempt stopped far too soon.

In fact, the elder Bush's attempt has lessons for our current situation... the elder Bush pulled out prematurely... and look at the situation he left behind. Here's a story from a source you probably trust about one of the atrocities committed after the 1991 pullout of American forces.

Do you want that to happen again, nunaim? I ask because that is the end result of the policy you advocate.

If somebody is going to kill Iraqi civilians, I'd rather that it not be American troops.

Well, I guess so much for civility, eh nunaim?

Color me puzzled by your response, though. How are the Democrats, who control the House and Senate, like Santa Claus? Surely they're not an illusion, a fable. They really do control both houses, you know.

And if everyone on the Left is so all-fired concerned about death and maiming, again, why don't the Democrats do something about it? Like vote to end the war? Funding, after all, by the Constitution is the Congress' job. This is not something that is up to the President.

It seems to me that you're far more interested in playing GOTCHA! with peoples' lives and limbs, and make yourself feel better parading war pr0n around and getting on your supposed moral high horse, than actually doing something about it.

Perhaps while licking soy crumbs off your fingers?

And if everyone on the Left is so all-fired concerned about death and maiming, again, why don't the Democrats do something about it? Like vote to end the war? Funding, after all, by the Constitution is the Congress' job. This is not something that is up to the President.

And if you want to go to the store so badly, why don't you just drive up on the sidewalk and drive through people's backyards to get there? After all, you have the keys to the car; you're in charge.

Maybe because there are methods you want to use to get to the store--like driving on the street--and methods that you don't.

The measures to withdraw troops would have given time to leave strategically and in good order; cutting funding would obviously lead to a near-desperation retreat.

The former is what the Democrats in Congress have been fighting to bring about.

"In good order" is better than "near-desperation." The fact that you've asked for clarification is proof enough that you didn't understand the concept. I'm glad I was able to help.

The idea that the mass of Lefties secretly want the war to continue is absurd to a degree that is simply impossible to describe. It's not even in the same universe as reality as it iexists. You clearly understand nothing except whatever is floating around in your own brain--and I'd lay odds that you don't understand that very well, either.

I guess you really don't care about the lives of Iraqis, nunaim, if you want us to just leave so that the atrocities can go on... this time perpetrated by Al Qaeda instead of Saddam.

That's a good "progressive" for you... tell me, do you even consider Iraqis human beings?

Let's look at your big idea here. First, take a policy --the Iraq war--that is, by your own description, so fatally flawed that ending the war will, according to you, lead to genocide. Next, continue that policy indefinitely.

Nobody accused you guys of being geniuses, but geez, aren't there limits to your idiocy?

Let me fix your post here, CCG:

I guess you really don't care about the lives of [American soldiers], [CCG], if you want us to just [stay] so that the atrocities can go on...

That's a good [conservative] for you... tell me, do you even consider [American soldiers] human beings?

There. All better.

Nice attempt at twisting my words, nunaim.

I said ending the war prematurely will result in genocide. If we finish the job we started, however, it will not.

Also, since you're saying that the war itself is fatally flawed, would you have preferred that we leave Saddam in power to fill more mass graves?

Also, since you're saying that the war itself is fatally flawed, would you have preferred that we leave Saddam in power to fill more mass graves?

"Ah, yes, Mr. and Mrs. Iraqi. Why are we killing your family, friends and neighbors? To keep you from being killed by Saddam. Or in a genocide."

Good news, though: when we do it, it's only collateral damage, so, to wingnuts, it doesn't count. Kind of like eating ice cream standing over the sink. The calories don't count if you eat it that way!

A simple yes or no, nunaim.

Should we have left Saddam in power or not?

Don't worry, nuanim, I'll continue to refer to you as Copperheads. Copperheads and treason, ham and eggs, Laurel and Hardy.... natural pairings.

Interesting that Hollywood - yes, Hollywood - in 1965 (when the film was released) identified and ridiculed the same attitude Feingold espouses. Seems this country has had Feingold types since (maybe) even its inception. Just something to think about for those who hold the same sentiments today when history has NEVER been on that side.

I believe that by that time, the Duke was producing his own movies, or at least had the clout to make them the way HE wanted, without regard to Hollywood's preferred slants.

Ah, the first attempts at turning "progressive" into a bad word.

Eh? "Progressive" was the label preferred by people who supported massive social engineering, eugenics, and expressed admiration of the policies of a certain German. It's been a "bad word" since the early 20th century.

"Progressive" was the label preferred by people who supported massive social engineering, eugenics, and expressed admiration of the policies of a certain German.

Ah, yes: Fightin' Bob LaFollette, well-known Nazi sympathizer.

So, nunaim, not gonna answer my simple question with a simple answer?

Should we have left Saddam in power or not?

Ask me a simple question and I'll give you a simple answer.

Now I see your problem: two-valued logic. Everything's black and white.

How simple and delightful life must be for you!

Nice red herring. I'll have to find a recipe for it.

Now answer the question. Should we have left Saddam in power or not?

You don't even know what a red herring is, do you? It's cute that you tried to work it into your post, though.

I said that the war was a bad idea from the start, and I'm sticking to that now.

Answer the question. Should we have left Saddam in power or not?

I'll deal with your various red herrings after you answer, and not before.

Well, CCG, I did answer, and the answer now no longer exists.

A quick summary:

1. I did answer your question
2. You are a pretentious fool
3. Stop trying to order me about

Riiiiight. The old "disappearing post" dodge.

So, if it's no longer there, please re-post it.

And you don't have to keep responding, but every time you do, I am gonna hit you with that question until you give a simple answer.

Should we have left Saddam in power or not?

Answer or shut up. Those are your options.

Not cool, CY.

nunaim, are you accusing CY of removing your posts? I have his email, I'd be happy to ask him myself if he has or not. I'm sure he'd be happy to stop by here and set the record straight if I asked him, as well.

Do ya feel lucky, punk?

Oh, should we have left Saddam in power or not?

Point 1: I did remove one of nunaim's comments.

Point 2: The post of nunaim's I removed in no way answered the question.

Point 3: I don't care. Stop. Cease. Desist. If you two want to keep up your argument, by all means do so, but do so elsewhere.

My humblest apologies, CY.