I'm not one to disparage expressing complex thoughts using rather precise, if nuanced language. Unfortunately, as has been asserted in certain other discussion threads, this lends itself to attack from the great Faux News noise machine as more of the lawerly talk reminiscent of "it all depends on what the meaning of is, is".
Can't we all just agree to state that these used colostomy bags are grossly stinking liars, rather than "choosing" our words carefully? C'mon Hillary! Just say it!
BTW, I forgot to say how much I enjoyed the picture of Biden, Dodd and Kerrey in the post below. Biden is flapping his jaw, (naturally) Dodd looks disgusted and Kerrey is wondering how the HELL he isn't President today.
Posted by DeminNewJ at September 11, 2007 05:22 PMseems Hillary fanned. But what did you expect. The lady has been handed the Dem nomination a year early and now all she has to do is not screw it up. Play defense, don't throw long, punt instead of going for the fourth and one. But that is her inclination anyway. We have a long year to go of Hillary playing it safe, not committing strongly, but committing in a wishy washy, easily backtracked way. Mr. Soto, this is your candidate, better get used to it. As the campaign shortens, the Obama's and Edwards will shorten up too, for the same reasons. The Biden's and the other also-rans will make the harsh critiques, but no one will care. Hillary could have used today to call for meaningful withdrawal...but, increasingly, it looks like that may not be in her plans either.
Posted by T2 at September 11, 2007 05:30 PMAbout your 4 questions, I did hear at least 2, 3, and 4 touched upon. I heard some talk about the south--mostly that it was bad--but didn't hear anyone elaborate. I think it was pretty clearly stated by both Patraeus and Crocker that there are absolutely no assurances that things will be better in the spring. It's all just hope. Any questions about Iran were pretty much answered by saying that it was out of the scope of Patraeus' job and they'd have to ask someone else. I didn't hear anything about the first issue and I never heard anything about Shiite on Shiite violence.
Posted by CG at September 11, 2007 05:34 PMAs someone who sees everything in gray, rather than black and white, I gotta admit I'm having a hard time with this whole issue. Some things *are* better. If we were at this place in 2004 rather than 2007, would we still think it was too little too late? It seems like if we pull out, things could get a hell of a lot worse, and aren't that likely to get much better. If we stay, things aren't likely to get much better, but might get a little better, and probably won't get much worse. It's just not black and white to me. I could never be president that's for sure--I'd be the flip-flopper in chief. So what if this were 2004? Would it be worth spending more time there?
Posted by CG at September 11, 2007 05:40 PM"In any of the metrics that have been referenced in your many hours of testimony, any fair reading of the advantages and disadvantages accruing post-surge, in my view, end up on the downside."
Sweet breakdancing Jesus on a floormat, Hills, you're not marking Petraeus's freshman war paper.
Christ.
Ooh, sounds like he got, what, a B? B minus?
I know it's a serious hearing, but OMFG.
Posted by Ellie at September 11, 2007 05:40 PM"In any of the metrics that have been referenced in your many hours of testimony, any fair reading of the advantages and disadvantages accruing post-surge, in my view, end up on the downside."
Sweet breakdancing Jesus on a floormat, Hills, you're not marking Petraeus's freshman war paper.
Christ.
Ooh, sounds like he got, what, a B? B minus?
I know it's a serious hearing, but OMFG.
Posted by Ellie at September 11, 2007 05:40 PM
More than likely that is because she knows what is at stake and what the threats are. As much as she would like to say and believe what you nut balls want her to, for vote purposes (of course she would lose a LOT more than she gains), she knows that if she becomes President, she will have the responsibilities that come with the job. That is where she separates from the kooks.
My only son is in the military. He is continuing on with a long family duty, with Honor. The threat to him or his brothers does not come from the enemy as much as it comes from folks like you and those that represent you. The last two days should be an embarrassment to you, but will not be, because you are well beyond that, and that is fine. The freedom you have has been paid for by others. What you write on venues like this, and what you say to each other of like mind is more that likely your only meaningful purpose in life.
What a life it must be. Without Honor or Integrity.
No Thanks
Posted by jj at September 11, 2007 06:24 PMIf we stay, things aren't likely to get much better, but might get a little better, and probably won't get much worse.
Think not, CG? What about for our over-stretched troops? They're breaking at an astounding rate. Have you considered the extra amount of years this has required of the troops to be away from their homes, their children, their careers, missing career advancements? Or if you have no sympathy for that, consider how much intimate realtions they are having to go without, for so many months that add up to years.
Maintaining the status quo is no goal, not when the outcome will be, sooner or later, a re-distribution of equilibrium. It's going to happen, so why wait?
Actually, Josh Marshall noted an interesting theory from commeters there:
Quite a few commentators have noted that the decrease of violence in Anbar province cannot be because of the surge since it clearly predated the surge. That's just basic logical reasoning. And the numbers seem to bear it out. But this blogger suggests a more precise theory: that it was the US midterm election that turned the tide.
Specifically, did the change in thinking among the Sunni tribal chiefs happen because (in response to the 2006 elections) they could see that the US military presence would be winding down?
Really, I think we need to ask if it's our presence that's so toxic. Yes, there will likely be some sort of crisis, not least-likely because US-supported individuals such as Allawi and Chalabi are going to think they should inherit the "throne". But, I don't think it can be avoided, no matter how long we stay. Read Ed Luttwak for his insight on those kinds of dynamics. Cold, but perhaps accurate.
Posted by Julie at September 11, 2007 06:28 PMjj, everybody else here is going to handle you with kid gloves because your only son is in the military (not in Iraq?) I'm not going to handle you with kid gloves, but everyday woman to everyday woman: jj, "honor" and "integrity" are not capitalized.
Posted by Julie at September 11, 2007 07:34 PMKid gloves? Nah. I'm just hoping jj's son has a better grasp than she does on which is more dangerous; words or bullets.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 11, 2007 07:48 PMDeminNewJ, ditto. I get so tired of every Democrat beginning questioning with "you are such a esteemed wonderful guy, and just knowing you is such a privilage, and we are soooo honored to be in your presence, and by golly, I really respect you and everything you stand for." Barf, barf. I would respect them more by justing getting into the questioning without all the bullcrap before the first question is asked.
Posted by Judith at September 11, 2007 08:06 PMI've said it before, the goddamn house is on fire and these fucking dems are acting like the dinner party is still on and not like the manson family has invaded their house and is in the process of murdering them.
Hillary's "metrics" sentence, never have I seen a less clearly expressed non-assertion wrapped in such hesitance with a more perfect cherry of slumber-inducing, pointlessly wordy incoherence on top. Inspiring.
I'm in enthusiastic agreement with the first poster on this thread. Whoever learns how to fucking TALK will not only win politically, but possibly save our country. But it seems to take major, major disasters.
Man, Hill - if that's the best you can do against Karl Rove and the national ruin, bankruptcy, and mass murder abroad his clever words have made possible ... well, you just suck, and all you dems just keep totally sucking. Fuck it, I need a long nap.
Posted by Sharkbabe at September 11, 2007 08:24 PM"jj, everybody else here is going to handle you with kid gloves because your only son is in the military (not in Iraq?) I'm not going to handle you with kid gloves, but everyday woman to everyday woman: jj, "honor" and "integrity" are not capitalized."
"Honor" and "Integrity" are capitalized when one actually knows the meaning of the words.
"...not in Iraq?"
How disgusting you are.
Posted by Bagley at September 11, 2007 08:43 PMI take a lot of crap for being a Damn-the-Democrats doom sayer, but I really cannot stand the weakness, the temporizing, the politesse for the Bush/Cheney Junta as well as its hacks and flacks.
Tell me, please, upon whom should I place my hopes for the future?
If I want change, to whom should I be giving my money, time and vote?
Posted by James E. Powell at September 11, 2007 08:56 PMSteve Soto said, among many other things that read as skeptical of Sen. Clinton:
...In other words, it's Democratic business as usual.
So, the question is, Steve, with sincere respect, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to continue to endorse her, and if so, why? My problem with her has always been not just that the parts of America that even halfway listen to the likes of Limbaugh hate her with an unbridled passion, enough to cost the Dems an election. My problem with her has also been that she always holds her finger to the wind, very, very politic. Hey, it's your site, not mine, and not our's. It's your right to endorse whoever you choose. I'm just suggesting you reconsider that endorsement, withdraw it, and return to the question of who to endorse after at least New Hampshire, please. And I am with all those, especially Judith, Sharkbabe and the rest of the skeptics, on what's wrong with the Dems.
This is NOT politics as usual, Dems! Get it in gear, Dems.
Some other things I noticed in the thread...
cg said:
...Some things *are* better....
Really? What, exactly, is better in Iraq? As near as I can tell, nothing. It is by any and all measures worse in Iraq than it was a year ago, and three years ago. I am open minded and willing to listen, but I really would like an example of what's better. No offense is meant, I am listening, but I would like some examples before agreeing that Petraeus has anything approaching a clue.
jj said:
...My only son is in the military. He is continuing on with a long family duty, with Honor. The threat to him or his brothers does not come from the enemy as much as it comes from folks like you and those that represent you....
What a load of horseshit. Democrats aren't putting IEDs on roadsides in Iraq.
If by "threat" you mean Dems sent your son or his fellow soldiers to war, well, Democrats did vote to send your son or his fellow soldiers to Iraq. Of course, it was at the behest of a lying Republican president and a Republican-controlled Congress, both of which would've done what they felt like anyway. Dems were cowards and some continue to be in not opposing the war, but something tells me that's not what you think "Honor" is.
Unfortunately for your son, he could pay a terrible price for the ignorant life lessons you taught him in "Honor" and "Integrity." Let me tell you what real "Honor or Integrity" are -- and it's not sending young people off to war to die for this president's lies. Honor and integrity are thinking for yourself, not blindly following orders of murderous psychopaths like Cheney and Bush. Unfortunately for all of us, we as a country seemed to have forgotten that lesson.
Bagley, you don't think we'll find "Honor" and "Integrity" in Iraq? Yeah, I agree for the most part. LOL! "Honor?" Honor! LOL! That will go before The Fall, it always does along with all the other accrutements of pride.
Posted by Brian Bell at September 11, 2007 09:49 PMmaybe tis is why she didnt ask anny good questions....
http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20070911/i/r309213089.jpg
Posted by bob at September 11, 2007 10:22 PMReally? What, exactly, is better in Iraq?
Well, Anbar is clearly better. It may not have anything to do with the surge, but it does have to do with people working with the US military. Also, according to Crocker, there is revenue sharing even though it's not codified in law. There seems to be more gov't stability at the local level in some areas and maybe that will work it's way up--maybe not. I'm not saying things are good. I'm just saying that if this was the picture 4 years ago, maybe we would say that it's worth trying a bit longer to get things on track. Is it too little too late, or should we thing better late then never? I do agree, though, that maybe our presence just makes things worse. That's why I'm on the fence.
Posted by CG at September 12, 2007 04:54 AMThe Dems do not even muse about WHY Bushco invaded Iraq, now that they have control of Congress. Why is that? Why don't we have the leaders of the "opposition" party holding hearings about Cheney's actual reasons for invading Iraq and garrisoning it with such relentless tenacity?
Because they are well aware that the goal of the occupation is to have our imperial sturmtruppen sitting on top of the biggest pool of oil in the world. They know it, and unfortuntely I must conclude by their silence that they agree with our imperial mission. I no longer think they really plan to change Cheney's militarist policies, just "modify" them. That'll work great.
And of course EVERYBODY agrees that we need to "beef up" our wonderful military in response to Bushco's "excesses". The OBVIOUS response after a drunken orgy of insane militarism is to increase troop levels and military spending.....
Whatever it does, America does not have the military and economic strength to hold this oil empire together. We are fooling ourselves and this will all end very badly, the bleating cries of "Honor" and "Integrity" from our Retarded Rightists notwithstanding.
I don't think we are that far away from a general shi'ite uprising, they can clearly see that we have "changed sides" yet again, and that there is nothing more really for the shi'ites to gain from our occupation. It will be especialy funny when the sturmtruppen are fighting alongside "al qaeda in Iraq"! But Iraq is going to get MORE violent, not less, and the "tempo" of operations will be on the upswing, I predict.
"Honor" and "Integrity", hoo boy---false, trumped up reasons given for an illegal invasion, demonstrated torture, prisoner abuse, civilian massacres, killing detainees, indiscriminate use of air power on civilians ala the Israeli flyboys, arms selling rings, impotent incompetence to deliver the most basic services for a desperate civilian population over a four year period, manufactured lies about statistical body count "progress", and absurd propaganda fed to us ("it's all al qaeda!") on a daily basis. Yep, Iraq has really burnished our military and national image for honor and integrity.
What level of brain function are these hapless authoriarian militarists operating at?
Posted by euzoius at September 12, 2007 07:04 AMjj: "My only son is in the military. He is continuing on with a long family duty, with Honor. The threat to him or his brothers does not come from the enemy as much as it comes from folks like you and those that represent you."
I'm not going to treat you with kid's gloves. You're trying to silence us. But I will not be silenced by a pants-pissing coward. And it is not the Democrats who want to leave your son to die in a sectarian civil war.
As for And Bagless, you wouldn't know Honor and Integrity if they bit you on your fat ass.
I agree with Sharkbabe. The Democrats have to speak clearly and with passion. And I totally agree with euzoius. The occupation will not end because the Dems believe in it. Unfortunately for them the empire is on the verge of collapse.
Is Anbar better? Well we're giving arms and money to the Sunnis (who were killing Americans) so they can get rid of Al Qaeda who started killing Sunnis. And then what happens? The Sunnis will merrily turn those guns on us and the Shites. Brilliant, fu*king brilliant.
Posted by Gay Veteran at September 12, 2007 09:46 AMNo, we are not trying to "silence" you, at least not me. It is much better to continue to have you talk and write the way you do. That is doing much more to hurt you selfish cause much more that than silencing ever could.
Honor and Integrity.
Your use of your words proves otherwise-a shocking lack of intellect covered by profanity. What an impact you make.
You have none.
Posted by jj at September 12, 2007 03:33 PMjj: "It is much better to continue to have you talk and write the way you do. That is doing much more to hurt you selfish cause much more that than silencing ever could."
gee, my "selfish cause" is making sure your son comes home ALIVE
profanity? go clutch your pearls elsewhere, we're talking about Americans dying in Iraq and you whine about profanity?!?!?!?!?!?
Posted by Gay Veteran at September 13, 2007 06:54 AM