Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Cut And Run?

The headline from today's New York Times:

Cut And Run?

0 comments

The headline from today's New York Times:

Senate Republicans Pushing for a Plan on Ending the War in Iraq

The lede:

In a sign of increasing unease among Congressional Republicans over the war in Iraq, the Senate is to consider on Tuesday a Republican proposal that calls for Iraqi forces to take the lead next year in securing the nation and for the Bush administration to lay out its strategy for ending the war.

The commentary from the MyDD blog:

Like cockroaches from sunlight, Republicans are scrambling to get away from President Bush, who's driven the relatively young 'permanent Republican majority' right into a brick wall.

The first reader's comment from the MyDD blog:

Really bad when the DC Dems have just figured out that the war is an issue, and half of them still don't know what to say about it, then the Reps just take it away. Maybe we'll still get to hear Hillary, Biden et al talk about how we can't leave.

The commenter's name:

Brutus1.

Et tu, Will Bunch?

He's after Hillary Clinton to say those three words that John Edwards was able to say this week.

Meanwhile, Scrappleface hangs another fanciful pelt from its righty belt. Says al Qaida's man in Iraq is backing the Republican's plan:

"We think it is important for a democracy such as the United States to be transparent with the public," said Mr. Zarqawi in a video statement released to al-Jazeera TV and CNN. "We'll all feel better when we learn strategic and tactical details of how Mr. Bush intends to stop al Qaeda from turning Iraq into the first major victory in the global jihad."

William Young
Posted 11/15/2005 08:12:51 AM
Hoo baby, you sure inhale a lot of this lefty nonsense. Are you safe to drive?

Let's see, Democrats "have just" figured out the war in Iraq is an issue? Really, what reality based community does this person not live in? The one your paper circulates in, perhaps?

I love how anybody takes seriously the NYT speculating that the US might "cut and run," as you put it, when you and your side of the argument never wanted to be there in the first place. So, "cutting and running" to meet your demands of not being there is equally bad.

As if that would ever happen. But let me get your talking points straight right now: any reduction in numbers of US servicemen in Iraq during the upcoming year will be labeled as "cutting and running" rather than a simple adjusting of troop strength to meet the needs on the ground. I got that right?
Puck
Posted 11/15/2005 08:57:55 AM
> "Like cockroaches from sunlight"

Charming reportage - know you love this kind of objectivity Daniel.  That's why you write for the Inquirer.  And that's why I'm so glad to see it fail.

Here's an interesting thesis I haven't see covered - but which I would ike to see covered.

The OSP (AIPAC's office inside the Pentagon) flaks who got us in this war never cared about building a Democracy in Iraq.  Their goal was destabilization - because that is what is in Israel's best interest.  Bush was too dumb to see that and fell for the "create a Democratic Middle East" spin hook-line-and-sinker.

Now Bush is twisting in the wind and the OSP is off on its next project - war with Syria/Iran.

Whoever the next president is - he/she should realize that no war in the Middle East instigated by the OSP is meant to be won - it is just meant to destroy and destabilize a regime.  That will keep Israel safe - for a little while longer.


Daniel Rubin
Posted 11/15/2005 09:11:03 AM
Damn, you saw through the smoke screen. Yes, blame Israel. That's the evergreen answer. 
Puck
Posted 11/15/2005 09:20:17 AM
Ah yes!! Don't dare mention Israel - must be an *whisper* antisemite.  I apologize.  Of course Israel has no influence on American foreign policy in the Middle East.  AIPAC is only interested in cultural affairs.  And America's and Israel's interests could never (by definition) ever be inconflict.

And yes Puck is always green.
Daniel Rubin
Posted 11/15/2005 09:39:04 AM
No, mention Israel. It's not anti-Semetic to mention it or criticize it. I do. But your comment blamed it for getting us into the war. 
Puck
Posted 11/15/2005 10:01:08 AM
OK - but it is not wrong to say that the OSP was created (or at least had the effect of creating) a second channel for intelligence allowing the recipients of that intelligence to bypass the CIA. Furthermore it is not wrong to say that the OSP is chock-full of AIPAC agents (it's amazing that there is a serious spy scandal going on with the Larry Franklin affair, that foreign agents have been indicted, and you cannot read a word in the Inquirer because it is Israel).  Furthermore it is not wrong to say that Israel has expressly said this war was in their interests, and is now pushing for an American war with Iran.

I will acknowledge that my comment "..OSP flaks who got us into this war.." could be argued with and contains a little of my opinion.  In return you acknowledge that "Like cockroaches from sunlight, Republicans are scrambling to get away from President Bush" contains just a wee bit of hyperbole that you happen to like.


Daniel Rubin
Posted 11/15/2005 10:07:14 AM
I'll pick one more nit: The Inquirer is not ignoring negative news about Israel because "it is Israel" - and I speak as one who spent a couple months under fire there in that hellish spring of 2002, doing stories that angered both sides. Our allegiance is to interesting articles.
Puck
Posted 11/15/2005 10:30:56 AM
What could possibly be more interesting than the Larry Franklin affair - especially in light of the administrations efforts to avoid / bypass CIA intelligence data?

Stories on Israel always anger "both sides."  But that's becuase there are dozens of sides - 90% of which are nbot considered because they are off limits.  The argument over a Palestinian homeland will anger "both sides." Yet neither side speaks for my opinion.

And I'm just really tired of hearing that you can criticize Israel.  Because every time (literally 100%) I do it the reply is a threat or insinuation against my character - rarely against my argument.  The line is - "we don't object to legitimate criticism of Israel."  The reality is - every gentile who does it is a Nazi.


Citizen Mom
Posted 11/15/2005 11:09:35 AM
Smokescreen alert! Tossing Israel into the argument is the classic right-wing rhetorical avoidance gambit. Don't take the bait!
Puck, you can throw as many words at it as you want, but the issue remains that the Congress and the American people acquiesced to this President's lust for war because they (gasp!) chose to trust government intelligence. Whether it was purposely cooked up or just misread, it was WRONG. Incompetence at the highest level. Everything else is noise.
Puck
Posted 11/15/2005 12:54:12 PM
Actually if they had trusted government intelligence they would not have gone to war.  There was no government intelligence leading us to war.

That's why AIPAC and it's neo-con allies had to create the OSP in the first place.




William Young
Posted 11/15/2005 01:23:14 PM
Oh, bother. What does a sane person do when the facts change? Why, change their mind, of course. So, when the facts show the intelligence wasn't cooked up or manipulated, what's a partisan lefty Democrat do? Sheesh, there's even video of actual elected Democrats saying exactly the opposite of what they are saying right now.

Plus, the source of this post seems to be just plain wrong, judging from this story. So, what's the deal? I mean, if you can't even get the basic facts of the narrative correct, what am I supposed to think of the narrative?
danielrubin
Posted 11/15/2005 01:28:29 PM
Don't ask me what a sane person should do, Wm. But am I the "partisan lefty Democrat" you're talking about? Careful about basic facts. I'm a registered Independent. Have been for years.
William Young
Posted 11/15/2005 02:37:21 PM
Not you Dan. I was talking about actual partisan lefty Democrats like the ones in the video I linked to via Instapundit.

And, like you, I'm registered non-partisan. Have been for years.
Daniel Rubin
Posted 11/15/2005 03:34:26 PM
I like the rhythm of that sentence.
Daniel Rubin Inquirer Columnist
0 comments
 
comments powered by Disqus
About this blog
Blinq is a news commentary blog featuring contributions from Inquirer Metro columnists Kevin Riordan and Daniel Rubin.

Daniel Rubin Inquirer Columnist
Also on Philly.com
Stay Connected