If you, like me, were completely dumbfounded by the way Democrats jumped on board the Iraq War train prior to the invasion, seeming to have lost their minds in their blind acceptance of the blatantly fabricated evidence and deeply unconvincing threats that were being put out by the administration, this little snippet might be interesting.You and I are nothing alike, Jacob, nothing! [Throws china. Slams door.]
-Jacob Davies @ Obsidian Wings
Do these people get some sort of masochistic thrill from wallowing in their own scandalous foolishness, their childish cliquishness? Am I just missing the fetishistic appeal? A Democratic administration had just spent eight full years ceaselessly bombing and starving Iraq, and you were "completely dumbfounded" to find that Democrats "jumped on board the Iraq War." War with Iraq was the policy of the Democratic party. "Regime change" was a Democratic euphemism.
17 comments:
Hey, you know what's only a few blocks from the Manhattan terminus of that bridge? Careful you don't sell it to Muslims, Monsieur. Otherwise, various ardent believers in small government and the sanctity of property rights will demand that the government prevent the new owners from traveling on it.
And in Davies' "defense," I think he might have reasonably been dumbfounded by the switch from "murder untold thousands with airstrikes and crippling sanctions" to "murder untold thousands with occupation by ground troops." The previous policy had the virtue of being less quagmirey. Not to mention cheaper.
the administration made some ridiculous claims, but it was a democrat that told me through the radio that Iraq could chemically attack inside the united states using unmanned airplanes and wipe out a whole city with a dixie cup of weaponized anthrax. oh, wait, that was Lieberman. he doesn't count.
Do these people get some sort of masochistic thrill from wallowing in their own scandalous foolishness, their childish cliquishness?
They do seem to believe it makes them charming; maybe lends them a little integrity. Their feelings get hurt when it doesn't work like that. Then they get snippy and passive aggressive.
I've come to believe they give their all, such as it is, to the Democratic Party because they're in love with the negative multiplier effect. Each dollar, each vote, each blog post makes things worse in way that they could never manage on their own. With the party in place, they have efficacy. It's a dismal reward, but snippy passive aggressive people can't be choosy.
Blame the Republicans! It's always their fault! Until we have a 100% Donkey Administration, with 535 Donkey congresscritters...
...it's the Evil Rethuglicans who are to blame!
What? Democrats voted for the first legislative bit re Operation: Iraqi Freedom? oh... well they are DINOs, and we will purge them from the party, right after Obama gets re-elected and turns into the Chairman Mao we all know him to be!
And in Davies' "defense," I think he might have reasonably been dumbfounded by the switch from "murder untold thousands with airstrikes and crippling sanctions" to "murder untold thousands with occupation by ground troops." The previous policy had the virtue of being less quagmirey. Not to mention cheaper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTqKxzMLFe0
IOZ you don't write much about constituencies. This very heartbreaking mismatch in sentiments between an Obsidian Wings blogger and the Dem leadership is hardly the point.
Was there a mismatch between the Dem leadership and what its voters wanted, at the time? Half the country just wanted to pound the shit out someone, the other half wanted to wring its hands and get UN approval and then do the same.
Politicians don't matter, because they don't lead. If Mr. ObWi doesn't get this, who cares?
IOZ,
If it's the front door you're slamming, please allow me to offer:
Leave the door open. By doing so, when you're out on the front porch kicking over potted plants — and/or uprooting a few tomato plants, whatever you have that looks promising — you'll have an audience.
Everything will be better if we elect more and better Democrats. We all will get a pony.
My personal favorite part of the Davies post was at the end when he talks about being "shocked" and how "Washington is strange."
I don't really have concern one way or another about particular companies or in this case the book mega-store chain, Barnes & Noble. But the news that B&N is considering putting itself up for sale is, I suspect, a telling moment in history and fate of the physical book.
--Josh Marshall
jesus fucking christ is this asshole stupid or what?
I literally, as one of our pols would put it, nearly pulled the lever for George W. Bush in 2000 because he criticized during the campaign "nation building" and promised the the U.S. military would be restored and used only for purposes related to national security. He actually promised that and Gore criticized him for it, Gore favoring a more aggressive foreign policy. In the end I voted for Nader after realizing that the state I lived in was lopsidedly Democratic enough that I didn't have to worry about whether I was "wasting my vote", essentially my vote got wasted when I was born there.
That said, don't tell me that the Democrats tend to be less sound on foreign policy than the Republicans (and by "sound" I essentially mean "isolationist"). I knew that Woodrow Wilson, after all, was a Democrat. And what exactly am I supposed to do about this?
But the New York Times reported that Obama wants to withdraw American soldiers (most of them) from Iraq next year and I believe him. The man, after all, wants to get reelected.
Democrats in the 20th century are the war party.
Whaddarewegoonnnnaaadoooooowwwww?
But the New York Times reported that Obama wants to withdraw American soldiers (most of them) from Iraq next year and I believe him.
Didn't he say that last year too?
Certainly, the United States will [eventually, at some point, possibly in the distant future] withdraw all "combat" troops from Iraq. Left behind will be a mere thirty to fifty thousand troops and several heavily-fortified military fortresses, but don't worry - those will all be "non-combat" troops, who will be killing people and destroying things in a purely non-combat capacity. Then we can send the troops who've been freed up to do something more useful and productive, like invade Yemen.
Ed,
1) You ... vote?!?
2) Obama first and foremost wants to live.
Capt'n Obvious
'"Regime change" was a Democratic euphemism.'
Umm... no. I mean, yeah the Dems are as much the war party as the Reps these days, but 'regime change' wasn't dem a euphemism, it was neocon code. It meant (to the initiated) that we weren't going in to topple Saddam's government, or even to do that and then replace it with a friendly one (what is known as nation building, and what we ultimately ended up doing), but that we were going in to effect total socio-cultural transformation: to build a new society in Iraq based on a different (better [for us]) set of Noble Lies than their old society was. Which is, you know, even more insane than the nation building that the dems wanted.
Overthrow of unfriendly governments by the United States can be found throughout the past 50 years [3]. Regime change in Iraq became a stated goal of United States foreign policy when Public Law 105-338 (the "Iraq Liberation Act") was signed into law by U.S. President Bill Clinton. The act directed that:
"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime_change
but Billy Boy didn't mean it! really he didn't! not in the way that George W. Bush meant it! no way no how!
Post a Comment