Skip to main content

View Diary: Supreme Dereliction of Command; Or, the Beginning of the Neocons' Campaign for John McCain (168 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  my head is going to explose (4.00)
    "KRISTOL: We've been trying, and our soldiers are doing terrifically, but we have not had a serious three-year effort to fight a war in Iraq as opposed to laying the preconditions for getting out."

    What? What did he say? WTF? What the living F?

    up=down, left=right, war=peace...

    -6.63, -3.59 If we shall fail to defend the Constitution, I shall fail in the attempt.

    by spoon or no spoon on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 04:39:38 PM PST

    •  Oh, yeah, I've heard that from (4.00)
      my right-wing friends. We lost Vietnam because of a failure of will, and now we're losing Iraq for the same reason.

      Only problem with that is, Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney have gotten EVERYTHING they have asked for on this war. Uh, how many $$$ in budget requests have been turned down by Congress? That's what I thought.

      I'm just worried that we're being set up to have GW be the scapegoat, from whom other Repugs can distance themselves, before the '06 elections . . .

      We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor -The Declaration of Independence

      by occams hatchet on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 04:45:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The most embittered Germans (4.00)
        became Nazis because they felt they hadn't been allowed to win ww1.
      •  They did it on purpose (none)
        First they hide behind troops so no one can refuse them money (or pay for it if they do- see Kerry-Edwards '04), then they refuse to ask for what they really need to win in order to keep the war as cheap as possible so the tax cuts aren't endangered, then when we inevitably lose they get to claim our criticism made the country lose it's will, and they get to create chaos that will prevent Iraqis from letting us steal their natural resources while destabilizing the country next deal whose oil we plan to take next. I think THAT's the lesson the right wing learned from Vietnam- if you lsoe the war you can always blame the liberals who never wanted it in the first place!
      •  Your wingnut (4.00)
        friends should STFU and enlist.
      •  The dolchstoss (4.00)
        The current'we could have should have' is a re-run of the dolchstoss re-run that was the 'we could have won in Vietnam if we had just had the balls to drop the big one on them'.  Perhaps the most important task of the liberal intelligentsia over the next two and a half years is to make sure that the story of our defeat in Iraq is correctly understood by the mass of Americans, most of whom are -- like too many Democratic politicians -- still in denial.  Kristol, Buckley and company are working for a first-move advantage to set the narrative as one of 'we could have won in Iraq, but it was bungled!'

        The proper response to that meme is General Shishenski's point that it would have taken anywhere from 300,000 to 500,000 troops to 'win' in Iraq.  Since we never had 300,000 available (the most we've been able to put in for the Occupation is 160,000) the war could not be won short of significant mobilization -- i.e., conscription.  This point has to be made again and again, front and center.  The mismanagement wasn't in the details, it was in the basic conception.  Kristol and company must be forced to state exactly what wasn't done right, which will expose them for the frauds they are.

        This is urgent.

      •  The Stab in the back: (none)
        Kristol et al. are just setting up all the rest of us for the "stab in the back" excuse I still here from my rt. wing buddies about Vietnam. Such posionous nonsense can really come back to bite a society many yrs. later witness Germany and us now in Iraq. We shouldn't allow their bad choice (this stupid war) to be made into our treachery. They are the traitors not those of us that advised caution before war.

        "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees"

        by Blutodog on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 08:15:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The preconditions for getting out (4.00)
      were layed from the very beginning. Remember 2003 when Rumsfeld said that he doubted the war would last longer than 6 weeks, and definitely not more than 6 months?  Well, three years on, I wouldnt be suprised if our Grandchildren were in Iraq performing some function.  I honestly think that they thought that this was going to be France or Poland 1939-1940.  Quick victory, negligible resistance after the initial blitz, followed by a relatively easy occupation.  I dont think we were ever meant to get out, per say.  I think the plan was for a pliant Iraqi government to grant us a permanent basing plan, which still might come about in the Kurdish north.

      Maynard G Muskievote

      by calipygian on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 04:46:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What he wants is continuous sweeps and (4.00)
      slaughters...he wants Falluja every day and twice on Sunday. He wants us to ignore borders and go into Syria or Iran if they are sheltering any who oppose us. And he wants us to forget about "collateral damage" and just pull back to our fortresses after strikes.

      The idea is to kill off "the enemy" which, by inspiring the erstwhile neutral populace to join them, amounts to genocide.

      Bring them to heel!

    •  MONICA McCAIN (4.00)
      He's been Sucking Bush off for 5 years now.At least Bills Monica got Mad when she was made out to be a whore.McCain Just keeps coming back for more.He even Tried to Protect his Lover in the port story.

      http://dumpjoe.com/

      by ctkeith on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 05:04:35 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  LIES LIES LIES LIES ALL F*CKING LIES !!!! (none)
      Bushco is truly Orwellian. A war without end, used for propaganda purposes to justify anything the govt. wants to do. Truth becomes entirely irrelevant.

      It is a mistake to think that ANYTHING they say necessarily has any relationship to truth. They say whatever they think will most please whatever audience they are talking to on a given day.

      The Bottom Line...They LIE all the time only occasionally telling the truth in cases where it happens to suit their political needs at the moment.

    •  Kristol is losing (4.00)
      it.  And I'm lovin' it.  As for McCain, this morning he sounded as though he was reading words written and previously read by Bush.  I find that rather sad.  I've lost all respect for McCain.

      "He that sees but does not bear witness, be accursed" Book of Jubilees

      by Lying eyes on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 06:34:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with him (none)
      But probably for completely different reasons.  I opposed going into Iraq, but if we were going to do it, we should've done it right.  

      Specifically, we should've had 3 to 4 times as many troops.  We needed half a million to free Kuwait in Gulf War 1.0.  It was patently absurd to think we could've invaded, occupied, and pacified Iraq with 1/3 as many.  

      I think Rumsfeld & Co had a plan for driving into Baghdad, and that worked.  But they completely ignored the ongoing battle thereafter.   They hoped for a best case scenario -- and that's all they planned for.  

      I don't blame the soldiers one bit -- I blame, Bush, Rumsfeld, and the other planners who don't have the balls to come out from hiding behind the troops, and admit they screwed this one up royally.  Every time these "leaders" try to thwart opponents by claiming they're "not supporting the troops," well, they are basically using our soldiers as "human shields."

      We shouldn't have gone in.  But if we were going to, we should've used force far more overwhelming than what we did.  If we had, this might've turned out a lot more differently.  And there would've almost certainly be far fewer deaths on both sides.

      •  he wouldnt have gotten reelected (none)
        if he implemented a draft. this would have jeopardized whatever they had next on their invasion schedule. being in the middle of a war was almost a guarantee of getting a second term, so they hoped 160,000 was enough. it wasnt. we lose. iran wins. thousands die in vain.
      •  I think the initial plan... (none)
        was just to fleece the American people. Once Halliburton got their money and billions went "missing," that was really as far ahead as Cheney and Rummy had planned. They made out like bandits but hadn't really thought how they would permanently secure the oil, much less bring democracy! Their planning was just a short term smash and grab. Now that they got their money, maybe they should just skip town for some nice tropical island and stop destroying everywhere else.
        •  Not just Halliburton (none)
          but the folks who build the bombs are making out quite nicely, also.  It's a win-win situation for these bastards.

          "Don't blame me, I voted for the smart guy."

          by frsbdg on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 08:39:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Achmed Challabi (none)
          He was part of the DC inner circle. He was supposed to be our stooge in satellite Iraq. He would grant the bases and replace Saddam Hussein as our local dictator.  But like all the Bushie's he was incompetent at everything but posturing and lying.
        •  What do you expect? (none)
          What do you expect from a bunch of Chickenhawks, people who NEVER served in the military and have ZERO experience in fighting wars?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site