November 12, 2006

In-BEDDD Bloggers

Hatched by Dafydd

I'm coining a new phrase: Bush Election-Disappointment Depression Disorder, or BEDDD. (And that's just where some of them should be staying for a while, until they start to recover; I also recommend plenty of fluids.)

I've talked about this before, but it's not getting any better; rather, it seems to be sweeping the Right like an epidemic, despite the best efforts of Captain Ed, Hugh Hewitt, and myself. And one of the most seriously infected is my all-time favorite blog, Power Line. Read this post and see if you concur with my diagnosis (the indented bits come from the Kansas City Star article Power Line links):

The commission’s discussions are said to be focused on an option presented by a panel of experts that the United States concede that the situation in Iraq cannot be stabilized and make plans for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Iraq "cannot be stabilized"? That strikes me as a ridiculous statement. One can legitimately ask whether Iraq can be stabilized at acceptable political, military or financial cost. But that would require some hard analysis of what the stakes are and what those costs may be. Notwithstanding the results of Tuesday's election, I think the American people are adult enough for such a discussion.

[Director of National Intelligence John] Negroponte reportedly has come to agree with what is expected to be the most controversial of recommendations from the Baker group: that the United States approach Iran, and, in tandem with Israel, approach Syria, for help with Iraq, according to a source familiar with Negroponte’s thinking.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but this sounds like the kind of harebrained scheme that only a team of foreign policy "realists" could come up with. Why on God's green earth would Iran and Syria, individually or in tandem, help us to pacify Iraq? Both have been doing everything in their power to create disorder in Iraq for the last three years, presumably because they think it is in their interest to do so. How, exactly, do the "realists" expect to change those countries' assessments of their interests?

Puzzling: so John Hinderaker now believes that President Bush, who has fought against incredible odds to invade Iraq and then to maintain the U.S. presence there, specifically to prevent Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists and jihadis, will now embrace a supposed recommendation that we simply negotiate with Iran -- the foremost sponsor of terrorism and the most jihadist state in the world -- and its sock puppet Syria to let them take over Iraq.

And what is the sourcing for these remarkable claims by the Kansas City Star? Let's examine the remarkably persuasive citations:

A top U.S. intelligence official has been meeting with Middle East counterparts to discuss proposals expected from the Baker commission on Iraq, Middle East sources have told Newsday....

The commission’s discussions are said to be focused on an option presented by a panel of experts that the United States concede that the situation in Iraq cannot be stabilized and make plans for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops.

An alternative proposal, that the United States commit money and troops toward stabilizing Iraq before a withdrawal, appears less likely of adoption, according to sources familiar with the proposals.... [Say, this "alternative proposal" sounds remarkably familiar... where have I heard it before? And why didn't Power Line mention this part of the article?]

Negroponte reportedly has come to agree with what is expected to be the most controversial of recommendations from the Baker group: that the United States approach Iran, and, in tandem with Israel, approach Syria, for help with Iraq, according to a source familiar with Negroponte’s thinking. A spokesman for Negroponte did not respond to a request for comment Friday....

Whether [a pledge not to attack Iran from Iraq] would be enough to persuade Iran to be more helpful in Iraq is not clear, analysts say. Iranian intelligence officials are said to be extremely worried about a precipitous U.S. pullout from Iraq, and resulting chaos, in the wake of Tuesday’s elections....

“[Secretary Designate of Defense Robert] Gates’ world is Brent Scowcroft and Baker and a whole bunch of people who felt the door had been slammed in their face,” one former official who has discussed Iraq at length with Gates said Thursday. “The door is about to reopen.”

Well! Who could argue with that?

So what do we really have? The elite media, which is well known to obscure, distort, and outright fabricate evidence (Rathergate) to push "the story," whatever it is, publishes articles to the effect that a chastened and vacillating President Bush has decided to throw the conservatives under the bus, convert to liberalism, and has brought Bob Gates in to the Pentagon in order to cut a treasonous deal with Iran to subdivide Iraq.

All this so Bush can quickly yank the troops out of Iraq, thus turning against every last jot and tittle of what he has deeply believed and passionately argued about Iraq, Afghanistan, the GWOT, terrorism, Iran, Syria, and Israel... and every single source they cite is anonymous!

Yet we believe them!

This is almost ritualistically unhinged blather from the antique media, with the usual lack of any sourcing whatsoever. Why does any of us take it seriously?

Let's turn it around: suppose the same paper wrote the same tripe; but instead of saying it was Bush who was so anxious to get out of Iraq that he was willing to hand it over to our greatest enemies in the Middle East, suppose the Kansas City Star claimed that the American military, the soldiers and Marines, were calling for this. And suppose the same level of non-citation.

Would anybody in the dextrosphere believe a word of this folderol? Would any of us believe that the rank and file of the Army or the Marines were so anxious to bug out that they wanted us to hand over the real estate they fought and bled and died for to the enemy?

So why, praytell, do we believe it of the president? President Bush has been at least as stalwart and steadfast on this issue as has any member of the military.

If this turns out to be true, then I and nearly every Republican -- and even a huge number of Democrats -- will recoil in horror from the remains of what had been the Bush administration. They might even themselves call for impeachment... and the congressional Democrats, in that circumstance, would be only too glad to oblige. I would applaud such a man being hounded from office.

But for now, I haven't seen one scrap of evidence beyond the self-serving claims of the media. Remember, there is a "story" in progress here; the story is:

  1. The Republicans will suffer a catastrophic landslide in the 2006 midterm elections;
  2. The voters will repudiate the Iraq war, demand an immediately pull-out, and vent their spleens on the GOP candidates en masse;
  3. The Democrats will take over and immediately take steps to implement the Murtha Mandate: declare defeat and come home, or rather, redeploy just around the corner to Okinawa;
  4. The craven and feckless George W. Bush will turn on a weathervane and support the Murtha Mandate, thus proving that he and every other Republican is an unprincipled bastard who believes in nothing at all, and who has confessed to lying to everybody all along;
  5. The terrorists will be so moved and grateful to the Democrats for exposing the American tyrant that they will beat their swords into ploughhorses and study war no more;
  6. The Democrats will move on from victory to victory, John Edwards (or Hillary, or what-you-may-call-um) will be elected president, and the GOP will cease to exist, to be replaced by the Greens, the Peace and Freedom Party, and the Gay Marriage Party;
  7. The unified and triumphant Left will spread its fecundity to the stars.

Of these plot elements in the Grand Story of the American media, not even number 1 has come to pass: in fact, the Democratic electoral victory fell far short of a landslide and doesn't even look necessarily permanent. But already, the Star and other farsighted newspapers and broadcast TV news stations are working on convincing us of number 4.

In the meanwhile, they're going to have a dickens of a time with number 2, as a new survey by Newsweek reveals. Huge majorities of Americans supported the "legislative priorities" of the Democratic party:

  • 92% support the feds lowering drug prices for Medicare recipients by negotiating directly with drug companies;
  • 89% support increasing the minimum wage;
  • 88% support decreasing the rate of federally guaranteed student loans.

(Wow, three historic legislative revolutions there!)

But then this suddenly bubbled up; naturally, the headline made no reference to these findings [hat tip to Sachi, who e-mailed this to me today]:

While a bare majority of 51 percent called the Democrats' victory "a good thing," even more said they were concerned about some of the actions a Democratic Congress might take, including 78 percent who were somewhat or very concerned that it would seek too hasty a withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Another 69 percent said they were concerned that the new Congress would keep the administration "from doing what is necessary to combat terrorism," and two-thirds said they were concerned it would spend too much time investigating the administration and Republican scandals.

Wait, I think I get it: Bush has become a weathercock who shifts with every political wind... which is why he will now cast all of his principles aside, go against everything he has ever argued, and spit upon the graves of American soldiers and Marines in order to implement a policy that is wildly unpopular among American adults.

Yeah. I believe it. And tomorrow, CNN will announce that Laura Bush has decided to join a hippie free-love commune in Big Sur.

Why are we always so quick to believe every horrible claim about President George W. Bush? I think the answer is twofold:

First, because, sad to say, what Thomas Sowell said about liberals in the Vision of the Anointed appears nowadays to apply equally well to conservatives: they have a vision; whoever shares the vision completely is one of the anointed and can do no wrong. But deviating from the vision in even the smallest degree of belief or ritual leads to excommunication; apostates are assumed to be unprincipled tyrants who will do every wicked thing for no reason other than nihilism and the joy of being beastly.

Bush deviates from the vision on one very important issue: rather than being a small-government conservative, he is a big-government conservative. Thus, he is utterly untrustworthy, and he's just looking for an excuse to stab us in the back -- so we'd better knife his back before he gets the chance!

Second, because I strongly believe that George W. Bush is still being punished for the sins of George H. W. Bush, the Judas-betrayer of Ronald Reagan. For after all, doesn't the Bible itself (Exodus 20:5) say...

I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of thy fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me.

(Or if you prefer the Jewish version...)

For I the Lord your God am an impassioned God, visiting the guilt of the parents upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generations of those who reject Me.

Bush the elder betrayed the god of conservatism; so many conservatives, who seem to believe moral weakness is a genetic trait (found on chromosome 19, perhaps), have assumed from the very beginning that Bush the younger was just waiting for a chance to do the same. Whether it's Harriet Miers, Dubai Ports World, or throwing Iraq to Iran like a baby to a hungry lion, these lay-a-BEDDDs are predisposed to believe the absolute worst of President Bush.

It's not just unseemly or even unjust; it's creepy. Why don't we all just back off and at least wait to see (a) what the Baker commission's recommendations are, (b) how Bush responds to them, and (c) what he can persuade the Democrats to do? It won't be long before we find out all of these; and there is nothing we can do in the meantime to affect the outcome of any of them anyway.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, November 12, 2006, at the time of 11:35 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference In-BEDDD Bloggers:

» More Evidence Bush HASN'T Changed His Mind About Iraq from Big Lizards
The elite media is starting to backstep from its initial preposterous claims that President Bush planned to order a quick withdrawal from Iraq, handing it over to Iran and its lapdog, Syria. An AP story today confirms the president's stability... [Read More]

Tracked on November 13, 2006 8:04 PM


The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

I think part of the problem Dafydd is that there is a thundering silence coming from the White House. I applaud a group that can keep a secret, but there are times when you must speak up... and this is one of those times. Somebody up on Pennsylvania Avenue had better get with it, and make some noise about where the President intends to go with his foreign policy when he gets Gates in office. In the absence of data, people's fears run rampant.

And right now the Right side of the Political Realm has reason to be queasy... these stories about Gates and that silly group led by James Baker have been going around for weeks without any denounciation by the White House. "If the White House disagreed..." goes the thinking, "they would have spoken out against the assumed plan!"

Would it kill the President to send somebody out to the Sunday Shows to say that any plan by Baker had better be for Victory in Iraq or it's a non-starter? Could anybody go on the air and say that Gates would follow the orders of the President over the desires of James Baker and his pals? Not until he gets passed by Congress.

Perhaps it is too close to the Election to get the Media to discuss anything else yet, and the White House has decided to hold their opinions close to the vest until after the confirmation hearings. But in the end that is just speculation... and speculation is all we have until the White House speaks.

I don't believe Bush will decide to turn over the plans for Peace to the Baker Boys, I think he hired Gates because he can follow Bush's orders while not attracting so much negative media coverage. It's only for two years, and Gates can always say later that he tried, but could not sway the Prez.

First order of business is to get Gates past Congress. Then Bush can let him speak. Until then it's just a tad premature to condemn the White House for following the plans of the undisclosed sources in the papers. But it would be nice if some of the leaders on the Right could be a little more vocal about their support for Victory in Iraq, especially now that the election is over. These Hawks sure are looking Chicken...

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 13, 2006 12:09 AM

The following hissed in response by: The Yell

Right on. If George McGovern and his Senate allies are not going to get their way, we need to hear that. Replacing Rumsfeld with an ISG baron within 12 hours of polls closing was not a gesture to calm troubled waters. But Bush planned that ahead of time...which can of course only mean...or does it?

Forget it. I'll be surfing instead of RealClearPolitics til the shoe drops.

The above hissed in response by: The Yell [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 13, 2006 1:08 AM

The following hissed in response by: Bill Faith

Excerpted and linked. Dafydd, you make a good argument and I certainly hope you're right. I think a lot of In-BEDDS like me would have recovered from what happened Tuesday just fine if not for what happened Wednesday. I've made no secret of thinking Don Rumsfeld made some mistakes; I think we've needed more troops, not fewer, in Iraq all along and they should have been sent there, if not in '03, as soon as things started going sour in '04. We tried Search and Destroy in Nam; it didn't work there and it hasn't worked any better in Iraq. We need, and have needed, to flood the zone with enough troops so there's nowhere to hide and clean out the vermin before we start talking about smaller footprints. That doesn't change the fact that the way the Rumsfeld matter was handled was disgusting. If W really is planning on moving in that direction why has it taken so long? Why not do it before the election when it might have saved the Senate? I voted for W and I'm not sorry, but the boy's startin' to worry me a might.

The above hissed in response by: Bill Faith [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 13, 2006 1:38 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Bill Faith:

No question, Bush is a mediocre (at best!) communicator, especially about what he's thinking. He's too much a poker player: when I play poker, I try as hard as I can to let not the slightest scintilla of intelligence to slip out whether I'm planning to raise, call, check, or fold.

But what's good in Hold 'Em is not necessarily good for a manager -- and the POTUS is a "super manager."

He really does need to start telling the country what his plans are anent Iraq: what is Bush's bottom line? What will he not tolerate under any circumstances? Contrariwise, what might be on the table? No need to give away specific negotating points; that's no good either, because it gives the Democrats too much hand.

But broad general terms are essential, so the rest of us don't lose heart.

I especially want to hear Bush say "no matter what the Iraq Study Group or anybody else recommends, we will not leave Iraq without victory. That is my bottom line. Within that parameter, there are of course many ways to fight for victory, and I'm open to suggestions from anyone... so long as they're suggestions for how to win, not how to quit."


The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 13, 2006 3:05 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I agree. They need to shut up for awhile. As for the Bush people going on Sunday and talking about this...what are they supposed to say? This is speculation and gossip, how do you respond to that? This is the same old thing all over. It reminds me of Dubai.

It is not just Bush either, the rumors are the same about Blair and Israel. Everyone is supposedly surrendering.

And I am not really prepared to cut these bloggers slack and say if Bush just had not let Rumsfeld go then maybe the loud mouths on the right would not be making unsubstantiated claims right now.

I know this will come as a shock to some people but Bush has access to information that the rest of us, including the boys at powerline do not and he does not have to ask their permission to do anything.

Not all neocons wanted Rumsfeld to say, in fact Kristol has been wanting him out of there for years. This puts Bush in the position where back seat drivers criticize him if he keeps Rumsfeld or if he lets him go either way.

And Rumsfeld was an insider himself, go google his bio. Rumsfeld is not some maverick outsider who never had anything to do with Baker. They both go way back. Baker was not just in Bush1's administration he was in Reagan's and Rumsfeld goes back to Ford. Which means they both were involved with the same people.

I have to say this, I spend a lot less time on the internet nowadays because I visit a lot fewer blogs. And powerline is a place I just don't go to anymore.

Why not wait and see what happens?

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 13, 2006 4:39 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye


He did say that. Bush said his goals have not changed. That is not enough for these people.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 13, 2006 4:41 AM

The following hissed in response by: jp phish


I doubt that Bush will act counter to the Iraq Study Group (ISG) Report. But as you know, there is strong evidence that a course correction is already in the works, and that it involves increasing troop levels.

How can this be? Undoubtedly, Bush and Baker know of each others plans; and leaks to the press seem to suggest something other than troop increases. But, if we look closely at the press articles from the perspective of troop increases there is obvious press tunnel vision; the leakers are telling the whole story but the press are incapable of writing this. Even the NY Sun is guilty.

To get additional insight on what the report might say I went to the ISG Site and read articles recently written by experts working on the ISG Military and Security Group, one of four Expert Working Groups. Specifically I read articles by Michael Eisenstadt and James Jay Carafano.

In SECURING IRAQ: THE WAY AHEAD Eisenstatd writes "To set the conditions for a negotiated settlement, Washington must keep up the military pressure on the insurgents and convince them that military victory for them is unattainable; that the United States will stand by the Iraqi government come what may; that it will retain a potent (if somewhat diminished) military presence in Iraq for years to come in order to preclude an insurgent victory; and that such a US presence is also a major constraint on Shia revanchist violence and Iranian influence in Iraq, and is therefore in their interest. None of this will be an easy sell. Washington must also convince the insurgents that by passing up on a negotiated settlement, they risk missing a historical opportunity to ensure that Sunni Arab equities are protected in forthcoming negotiations to amend the constitution, and risk alienating erstwhile supporters in the Sunni Arab community who are increasingly weary of violence and fearful of a sectarian civil war."

And in The Dangerous Consequences of Cutting and Running in Iraq Carafano writes "The premature withdrawal of American troops from Iraq would have disastrous consequences for Iraq, for the Middle East, and for American foreign policy and would lead to a full-scale humanitarian disaster. Congress should reject outright calls for America to cut and run and in­stead should insist that the Bush Administration finish the job of training Iraqi security forces that are capable of supporting the gov­ernment, dealing with sectarian violence, and providing for the safety of the civilian population."

I think that when the press hears "negotiated settlement" it thinks it also hears reducing the military presence. However, the experts on the ISG believe increased military pressure is necessary to get a settlement with the insurgents.


The above hissed in response by: jp phish [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 13, 2006 6:12 AM

The following hissed in response by: RunningRoach


Well, you know we better take them (MSM) seriously…or else what will happen will happen…and when it does happen we will be told that it didn’t happen, or at least not the way what happened really happened…. and, that they were right on spot all along in that what happened only did so because they said it would happen that way. So why bother thinking about these things? Just sit back…relax…what will be will be. Right!

OK, smart a**. I had to go look up “fecundity” and was disappointed to find that it really wasn’t synonymous with “donkey dust” or “cow patties” or just plain ole bull s**t. But I got your point.



The above hissed in response by: RunningRoach [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 13, 2006 7:39 AM

The following hissed in response by: Eg

Haha: UK seeks help of Iraq's neighbours

Des Browne, the defence secretary, today urged Iran and Syria to help stabilise Iraq, as Tony Blair prepared to deliver a keynote speech on future UK strategy on the war tonight.

The prime minister is poised to announce an "evolution" in the government strategy on Iraq, which will see greater cooperation with its neighbours Syria and Iran in a talk at the Guildhall.

And it comes ahead of the PM's contribution tomorrow to the US-based Iraqi Survey Group, which is looking at alternative exit strategies for the Bush administration. Mr Blair will deliver his evidence to them by videolink from Downing Street.

Never dived head-first through a rabbit-hole?

You have now.

NOW...I am getting depressed.

The above hissed in response by: Eg [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 13, 2006 8:55 AM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

An Update, courtesy of Captain Ed: Rowan Scarborough says Gates isn't a 'Cut and Run' style of guy, and will only work to Win the War in Iraq.

This is exactly the kind of statement that I mentioned in my comment above... and is VERY welcome!

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 13, 2006 9:00 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye


I saw a headline about that, but I still say we need to wait and see what this means. Who knows? They might be making Syria and Iran an offer they can't refuse.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 13, 2006 9:24 AM

The following hissed in response by: MTF

Why all the angst, Dafydd? Yes, Powerline has been increasingly negative about the election chances of the GOP for months and now, since it's all come to pass, they're hungover and grouchy. They'll get over it. But other than post-election anger at Powerline and a few other spots, I don't think the right side of the blogoshere has been as terribly "anti-Bush" as you say.

He is a "big government" conservative, I suppose, if there is such an animal. Or, maybe, he's just pro-incumbancy, and willing to spend money in the classic mode of incumbants. The Drug Plan and the White House's complete inability to keep the Congress in line over the last six years (not using his veto on occasion was a mistake) was not smart politics, and voters might certainly regard those failures as a betrayal of the majority with which the GOP was narrowly entrusted. Predictably, I guess, voters who didn't like those failures might think that majority has been taken away in punishment and understandably they might hold the President partly responsible.

The election is over; the voters have done their worst; and now we'll see just how Bush performs with a Democratic Congress. Who knows: he might just improve!

But on Iraq, the most important issue by far, I haven't ever seen a single coherent argument come out of the Democratic side as to what to do, and I don't see any broad-based demands from the voters that we cut-and-run. Many "neo-cons", like Billy Kristal (I love that name) have got a bad rap for a long time from the nutroots, I think, and the far right has been pretty anti-war for almost from the inception. Other than the far right and the far left, it seems like most voters have been pretty patient with the war, and still want to hang in there. If voters were anti-war, Hillary Clinton would be anti-war, and she's not-- there is no more sensitive a weather-cock than her (the head of the Democratic congressional/Presidential candidate throng).

As days go by and we read more and more analysis of the election, it seems the most likely path the Democrats and the Congress will take is whichever path the President says to take-- while appropriately knashing teeth, wringing hands and wailing. They'll try to make sure they get credit if Iraq settles down, and don't lose credit if it doesn't.

The above hissed in response by: MTF [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 13, 2006 2:10 PM

The following hissed in response by: jp phish

I've been reading more articles written by the experts who are advising the Iraq Study Group (ISG).

The ISG is being advised by four Expert Working Groups and a Military Senior advisory Panel, as follows:

* Economy and Reconstruction
* Military and Security
* Political Development
* Strategic Environment
* Military Senior Advisor Panel

The ISG Site provides the names of all these advisors, and many have written recent articles on Iraq. The writings are scholarly and honest, and provide a refreshing reprieve from the MSM and Washington hysteria. I now think formation of the ISG was a good thing; its recommendations will be much better thought-out than we're led to believe from the MSM. I'm heartened.

To date I've read, based on facts and solid reasoning, that;

  • Removal of troops from Iraq will not reduce the violence.
  • Premature withdrawal/redeployment will have worldwide catastrophic results.
  • Neutralization of the insurents should be the main focus; the militias will disband when the insurgent problem is taken care of.
  • The best outcome will be a negotiated settlement with the insurgents, but this will only occur when they are convinced of our resolve.
  • Nation-building works, is necessary, and is cost effective, provided that adquate resources (military and financial) are invested.

The above hissed in response by: jp phish [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 13, 2006 2:57 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

President Bush has been at least as stalwart and steadfast on this issue as has any member of the military.


On that, i can mostly agree...with the main exception being not having dropped a "MOAB" on Fallujah when such actions were needed. How can one conduct War when one does not at least use some of 'Da Hammers in one's 'Hammer Bag' to speak of using at least a simple 'tack hammer' like water-boarding?!?

Humble Low and Ignorant Insane swamp hermit me has taken a step back since the recent elections, because the results were quite clear...American's (in general) have no stomach for War. We don't want to hurt the "other guy", even if the "other guy" attacked us first, and if the War is going to last more than a few days, we want it to stop. *BAD* Move against such an Enemy as we are to speak.

I'm coining a new phrase: Bush Election-Disappointment Depression Disorder, or BEDDD. (And that's just where some of them should be staying for a while, until they start to recover; I also recommend plenty of fluids.)


President George W Bush was probably America's last that "BEDDD" if you like. America hammered him after he won in 2000, and continued/continues to hammer him to this day. America shows its "Achilles' heel", and America's Enemies know it. It's too late to point 'Fingers of Guilt' at this point, because we have not only lost a "Battle or Two", but we have lost the to speak.

Examples (just a few):

1) A Recipe for Defeat: Europe is Pelosi’s America
2) Waxman Set to Probe Areas of Bush Gov't
3) "Health care is coming back," Clinton warned...

Personally, at this point, i really don't care what the The Baker-Hamilton Commission... says, or what the UPI article "BUSH MEETS WITH BAKER-HAMILTON COMMISSION" has to say or show, because America just lost another case no one noticed besides the Enemy!!!

We have lost this *WAR* Against Terrorism on so many fronts, that i really don't know where to start, so a complete "Redeployment" from Iraq will not surprise me in the to speak of America's MODUS OPERANDI.

How is one's Elected Leader suppose to respond to an attack...a Terrorist *ATTACK* like in 1993 or in 2001?!? Americans allowed Bill Clinton to turn such into a "Legal Issue". These same Americans allowed President George W Bush to "go out onto a limb", and then they "sawed off the limb" behind him?!? For Karma's Sake, what kind of message does that send to the Enemy!?!

Dafydd...where were you when the "Water-Boarding" issue came up??? Well, you were standing right with, and next to the "elite media" to speak of 'Dats Whar!!!

It's not just unseemly or even unjust; it's creepy.

Our Enemy doesn't think that it is "creepy" fact, they are preparing for Victory!!! Who can blame them??? Not me...


The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 13, 2006 4:20 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I saw this link at Austin Bay about all this. It does not sound all that freaky to me. But the last paragraph has an interesting exchange between Kristol and Gates. hmmmmmm.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 13, 2006 4:30 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist


In WW2, we dropped the first Atomic Bomb onto Japan...*TWICE*. Not to change course, but to win. Look at us now. We can't even use water-boarding, but can hold lots of commissions and investigations?!?

Invest in Burkas whilst you still can...


The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 13, 2006 4:46 PM

The following hissed in response by: nk

Yikes. All these old ladies who want their children and grandchildren to make the world a neat, orderly predictable place so they can doze in their rocking chairs and nag querelously when they wake up. And I mean Powerline. I stopped reading those guys a long time ago. It's not the President who needs to grow secondary male characteristics -- it's them.

The above hissed in response by: nk [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 13, 2006 6:14 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist


Actually, in Prison, there are several male characteristics. Alpha Males and the rest.

W is the closest 'Thang to a beta male leader that America has now, and Bill was a juliet/jody male (at best) when he was in Office.

America needs to be pruned...


The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 13, 2006 6:47 PM

The following hissed in response by: Stephen M. St. Onge

        The reason so many of us are worried is that W. seems to have lost it.

        He decided to replace Rumsfeld before the election.  If Rummy had gone a few months ago, when it was decided, the GOP would probably have kept the Senate, and maybe even the House.  Instead, Bush insisted in public that Rumsfeld would stay on.

        If W. is that willing to lie, and that stupid about it, I can believe he'll sell out Iraq, while convincing himself that he's done no such thing.

        I sure hope you're correct, Daffyd, but I remain worried.

The above hissed in response by: Stephen M. St. Onge [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 13, 2006 7:09 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Remember me unto the end of days?

© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved