Mickey Posted February 25, 2006 Posted February 25, 2006 Noted liberal Sheehanesque whack job, William F. Buckley says: "One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed." And further, that the challenge for the President is to: "...persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy." And lastly, "...different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat." I guess he can't see through the media conspiracy to portray the Iraq war as a disaster when in truth it is a smashing success. Chalk up another defeatist. Link fixed
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted February 25, 2006 Posted February 25, 2006 Noted liberal Sheehanesque whack job, William F. Buckley says: "One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed." And further, that the challenge for the President is to: "...persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy." And lastly, "...different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat." I guess he can't see through the media conspiracy to portray the Iraq war as a disaster when in truth it is a smashing success. Chalk up another defeatist. Buckley 611253[/snapback] The war part of the Iraq dilemma is over dude. We kicked ass. We won it in just days. Link does not work.
Sirius99 Posted February 25, 2006 Posted February 25, 2006 Noted liberal Sheehanesque whack job, William F. Buckley says: "One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed." And further, that the challenge for the President is to: "...persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy." And lastly, "...different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat." I guess he can't see through the media conspiracy to portray the Iraq war as a disaster when in truth it is a smashing success. Chalk up another defeatist. Buckley 611253[/snapback] Buckely has never been a fan of GWB, and is generally not in favor of forcible regime change, especially when an area does not have democratic history. So this is either a tautology, or a no duh. Either way it's not news and I fail to see any appreciable point.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 25, 2006 Posted February 25, 2006 Either way it's not news and I fail to see any appreciable point. 611374[/snapback] Welcome to Mickey's posts...
IBTG81 Posted February 25, 2006 Posted February 25, 2006 Welcome to Mickey's posts... 611512[/snapback]
Mickey Posted February 26, 2006 Author Posted February 26, 2006 The ability to admit reality comes easier to some than to others. If you don't think it is significant that conservatives are now calling it a failure, fine. Reality will overcome you sooner or later, like it did Buckley. Lets see, if the left doesn't support it and the right doesn't support it, who would that leave? Oh yeah, the looney right.
Mickey Posted February 26, 2006 Author Posted February 26, 2006 The war part of the Iraq dilemma is over dude. We kicked ass. We won it in just days. Link does not work. 611347[/snapback] Excellent point Captain Pyrrhic. Haven't more soldiers died since we "won it" than did in winning it? How many soldiers do we have there? 130,000? I guess since the war is over, they must be on an extended and unusually lethal training exercise.
Ghost of BiB Posted February 26, 2006 Posted February 26, 2006 Link doesn't link. Nothing in properties under the URL.
Mickey Posted February 26, 2006 Author Posted February 26, 2006 Link doesn't link. Nothing in properties under the URL. 611746[/snapback] Here you go: Buckley
Mickey Posted February 26, 2006 Author Posted February 26, 2006 Buckely has never been a fan of GWB, and is generally not in favor of forcible regime change, especially when an area does not have democratic history. So this is either a tautology, or a no duh. Either way it's not news and I fail to see any appreciable point. 611374[/snapback] Right, what point could there be to posting the opinion of a noted conservative columnist on one of the most important issues of the day on a political discussion board entitled "Politics, Polls and Pundits"? What was I thinking? What is the point you are trying to make with regards to Buckley not being a "fan of GWB"? Does that fact, despite his conservative credentials, mean he has no credibility? Is his argument somehow less reasonable, less valid merely because he is not a fan of GWB? If so, does that mean that the only people with any credibility on this issue or whose views are worthy of discussion here, are those who are fans of GWB? Whether he is right or not is one issue, another is the reaction his questioning will provoke. Were he a liberal or a democrat, it would be charges of treason, cowardice, partisanship or some comibination of the three. With more conservatives willing to question the war, that kind of reaction becomes even more obviously ridiculous. In that vein, I note your initial reaction was to go after Buckley's politics, who he is or is not a "fan" of rather than to discuss the merits of the issue.
Ghost of BiB Posted February 26, 2006 Posted February 26, 2006 Pretty lame OpEd. You know that, you used to be better. I'm thinking the entire world is learning that with only a few moves and shifts, they can go a long way to marginalizing the US. I bet there are a whole lot of strange bedfellows out there. Sticking to the middle east, I really don't like where this is going - Israel is probably shitting purple right about now with Hammas, Iran and serious internal political issues as far as leadership. SU-25's or whatever aside, the Iranian BM capability is going to be absolutely frightening a couple years from now. This whole Iraq thing seems to be really backfiring. Saudi Arabia I think is slowly distancing itself from the US. Everyone in the region has their own interests and relationships with each other. It's not all about the US, as many Americans seem to think. Things are going to reach a boiling point in about 2 years. Excellent chance that we will have a Democratic administration that's going to base it's platform on the mistakes of this one, which is going to mean a totally different tack on dealing with the world. For that matter, I can see the same out of the Republicans. In my opinion, security concerns will be addressed by isolating ourselves from projecting any power and influence other than certain GWOT operations that no one sees or knows about. Security money will get put into Homeland Security/Defense type stuff that will appease the voter but be ineffective towards addressing the problem. And, no one is going to B word much, because there won't be any attacks on American soil, unless the attacker is really stupid. The attacks will be stepped up against American interests and Allies that also won't be too visible to the American press. They will though, force the wedge. Americans will feel safe while not realizing they are being contained. Europe is going to appease everyone, the only exceptions of note right now being Great Britain and Italy, and they will both have liberal leadership by the time this takes place. Blair is on his way out. Oil is still, and will be the currency. China's energy needs are multiplying at an exponential rate. They will be all over the middle east, with virtually no concerns that there is any real threat to mother China from anyone there. If nothing else, the geographics dictate that. They will also give the carrot with no stick to anyone who plays nice. I think Russia is well aware of that and that is pushing some of their current moves. This is the first administration I have seen since Reagan that has tried to implement policy with an eye on the world 10 years from now, not ten minutes from now. They seem to have seriously !@#$ed up in Iraq through poor execution. Sadly, that has colored the rest of it. Buddying up with India is probably too little, too late. If this sounds like rambling - I'm trying to squeeze a lot into one post just to get my base thoughts across. But, the situation is probably pretty obvious anyway. But, quote whoever. You and I used to have decent discussion. At what point did you shift to party hack and nut? Make an argument, Counselor. A real one. No links, no articles - your thoughts? I know you have them, but hide behing Buckley? Come on. Oh, BTW...I'm just a rambling fool.
KRC Posted February 26, 2006 Posted February 26, 2006 Pretty lame OpEd. You know that, you used to be better. ... But, quote whoever. You and I used to have decent discussion. At what point did you shift to party hack and nut? Make an argument, Counselor. A real one. No links, no articles - your thoughts? I know you have them, but hide behing Buckley? Come on. 611769[/snapback] He has basically become a joke here. As you mentioned, he used to be a good poster. Now, he is just a dishonest DNC hack.
Ghost of BiB Posted February 26, 2006 Posted February 26, 2006 My appology, Mickey. I had no cause to say rambling fool. Sorry for that.
Mickey Posted February 26, 2006 Author Posted February 26, 2006 My appology, Mickey. I had no cause to say rambling fool. Sorry for that. 611773[/snapback] I discovered that only by agreeing with most around here could I avoid the lable of party hack. Any disagreement whatsoever on my part was immediately attacked as partisan hackery. So it was either express my views or pretend I didn't have them. Take Buckley's column, he makes a simple point, that sectarian violence that can't be controlled by 130,000 US troops has led to failure in Iraq. Is there sectarian violence? Not even arguable. Is it being controlled by the presence of our troops? Less clear but certainly a reasonable conclusion. Has it led to failure? Much less clear but again, not an entirely unreasonable position to take even if he is ultimately wrong. Say what you will about him, he is no democratic hack. So the basic point of the column is more or less reasonable and it is by a guy who is clearly not a partisan democratic hack. And yet, I am a left wing hack for noticing it and *gasp*, posting it.
KRC Posted February 26, 2006 Posted February 26, 2006 I discovered that only by agreeing with most around here could I avoid the lable of party hack. Any disagreement whatsoever on my part was immediately attacked as partisan hackery. So it was either express my views or pretend I didn't have them. Take Buckley's column, he makes a simple point, that sectarian violence that can't be controlled by 130,000 US troops has led to failure in Iraq. Is there sectarian violence? Not even arguable. Is it being controlled by the presence of our troops? Less clear but certainly a reasonable conclusion. Has it led to failure? Much less clear but again, not an entirely unreasonable position to take even if he is ultimately wrong. Say what you will about him, he is no democratic hack. So the basic point of the column is more or less reasonable and it is by a guy who is clearly not a partisan democratic hack. And yet, I am a left wing hack for noticing it and *gasp*, posting it. 611791[/snapback] Uhhh...Ok...It is everyone elses fault you are a DNC hack. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! You are a left-wing hack because you have basically become everything you claimed to despise in RichInOhio. There is no difference between the two of you.
Kelly the Dog Posted February 26, 2006 Posted February 26, 2006 Uhhh...Ok...It is everyone elses fault you are a DNC hack. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! You are a left-wing hack because you have basically become everything you claimed to despise in RichInOhio. There is no difference between the two of you. 611793[/snapback] There is a huge difference. Mickey does have original stances and thoughts and opinions and an ability to express them, in addition to and apart from all of the perceived DNC hackery. Parrot in Ohio had none of that.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 26, 2006 Posted February 26, 2006 I discovered that only by agreeing with most around here could I avoid the lable of party hack. 611791[/snapback] That's funny...there's plenty of other people here that can disagree without being labelled party hacks. But I'm sure the problem is everyone else, not you...
Mickey Posted February 26, 2006 Author Posted February 26, 2006 There is a huge difference. Mickey does have original stances and thoughts and opinions and an ability to express them, in addition to and apart from all of the perceived DNC hackery. Parrot in Ohio had none of that. 611807[/snapback] Thanks, I think... Notice the lack of response to Buckley's article by KRC? When I pointed out in the reply to bib that the basic point of Buckley's column was fairly reasonable and that clearly he is no partisan yet, I am one for posting it, there was still no response to Buckley's point that sectarian violence in Iraq due to 130,000 troops not being able to control such violence has led to failure. KRC's only response is not substantive, ie what is going on in Iraq, but instead, all he has to say is "Mickey suks". And I am the one who has gone Richio. Here were the options for KRC in first reading the post that started the thread: 1. express an opinon on Buckely's column 2. express an opinon generally on the war 3. lacking an interest in doing either 1 or 2, post no response 4. express your personal distate for the poster Which of the four seems most Richio like? Which path did KRC choose? Back to the substance of the post. There is sectarian violence, that is a point that is not even arguable. This morning, even George Will called it a civil war, in fact, he almost bust a gut laughing at the notion that this isn't a civile war. Someone asked, what does a civil war look like? Will said "this, this is what it looks like". So you now have George Will and William F. Buckley in agreement. Two very conservative guys. Maybe they are wrong, maybe they are right. Seems like we ought to be able to reasonably discuss it.
Scraps Posted February 26, 2006 Posted February 26, 2006 That's funny...there's plenty of other people here that can disagree without being labelled party hacks. But I'm sure the problem is everyone else, not you... 611832[/snapback] Who on the left do you not consider to be a party hack?
Sirius99 Posted February 26, 2006 Posted February 26, 2006 Right, what point could there be to posting the opinion of a noted conservative columnist on one of the most important issues of the day on a political discussion board entitled "Politics, Polls and Pundits"? What was I thinking? What is the point you are trying to make with regards to Buckley not being a "fan of GWB"? Does that fact, despite his conservative credentials, mean he has no credibility? Is his argument somehow less reasonable, less valid merely because he is not a fan of GWB? If so, does that mean that the only people with any credibility on this issue or whose views are worthy of discussion here, are those who are fans of GWB? Whether he is right or not is one issue, another is the reaction his questioning will provoke. Were he a liberal or a democrat, it would be charges of treason, cowardice, partisanship or some comibination of the three. With more conservatives willing to question the war, that kind of reaction becomes even more obviously ridiculous. In that vein, I note your initial reaction was to go after Buckley's politics, who he is or is not a "fan" of rather than to discuss the merits of the issue. 611762[/snapback] You have presented Buckley's comments as some sort of proof that conservatives now consider the "war in Iraq a failure". First, that is statistically invalid. One cannot make that kind of extrapolation. Second, one must consider the source to evaluate what individual biases may be affecting the individual's opinion. Buckley's brief CIA experience has most definitely tainted his opinion regarding this type of issue. Also, he has publicly stated he does not believe GWB is a conservative. That does not mean his opinion is without merit. It just means this type of writing from him is absolutely not a surprise, so your posting of the article here as an indication that Bush's support base is turning on him is inaccurate. Suprising would be an article from Buckely praising GWB in these areas. It has been obvious for some time that you have no intention of discussing the merits of any of these issues, so your critcism in that regard is hypocritical.
Recommended Posts