The Idiot in Chief strikes again

Name-calling may equate to criticism around here, but it's still bullshit all the same.

Zeke, you believe what you want to believe and I'll meet you on the baseball thread in three months.

 

Apparently the admin defined it as removing Saddam from power and taking control of some areas of the country.

I've already disagreed with some of the methods for doing so and the lack of foresight for the aftermath.

But those things do not mean the entire effort -- from conception to this second -- was moronic.

 

Fair enough, Pallister.

Dye --

So how would you have defined victory?

My point, and the point of millions of others before this ridiculous adventure started, was that nothing good could really come of our invading. It think we've been proven right.

 

The problem, of course, being that the admin first justified the war as pertaining to a perceived link between Saddam and bin Laden, which they falsified the "proof" for ... then defined victory as getting rid of the WMDs that made Iraq an "imminent" threat ... then defined victory as an overthrow of Saddam, while still maintaining that Iraq was an "imminent" threat ... then couched it all as a way for Iraqis to gain democracy ... never making it clear exactly what their intentions were, let alone their definition of victory. It kept changing -- and now America is finally deciding to call shenanigans on this mess.

 

The use of the idea that people who disagree with you are unpatriotic goes back a long way, and I'm not sure how long.

In the 30s, the term "premature anti-Fascists" was used to distinguish American Communists who were alarmed at Hitler much earlier than other people should have been.

As early as 1946, Nixon used accusations of "Communism" to defeat a Democratic congressman. Four years later, he did the same thing to get elected to the Senate. He wasn't the only one, just the one I remember best.

The idea of questioning someone's patriotism who disagrees with you goes back a long way. Every generation, people have to be reminded that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

 

You can go back to sleep now.

 

Well, no shit, Sherlock. Reason #1,232,980,376 on why calling the current C-in-C an idiot has become a worn-out thread.

Ford didn't want all of flair and pagentry if a funeral was to be held for him. If he doesn't want Fredo there, Fredo isn't going. Fredo would permanantly burn his remaining bridges if he stayed put in Crawford and not head up to D.C. Monday morning. Besides, we're the same assholes who thought Ford was fucking nuts to give Tricky Dick a free pass. Come to find out, Jerry Ford was smarter than we thought. He read the landscape and did the unpopular, but important thing of pardoning Nixon. He knew that it may have cost him '76, but he cared less about it. It was time to move the fuck on with life in this country. Something we haven't learned with respects to the elections of 2000 and 2004. We can't let it go and move on. We are the most ungrateful and carrying-a-grudge-for fuck's sake group of people ever. Ever.

We have a ever growing gap of lower class, middle class, and upper class, our socioeconomical issues have never been resolved regardless who's in charge, and we have a nice problem called Iraq that we're babysitting, because those fuck-ups haven't learned how to do shit on their own. Under a dictatorship, if they even bitched, they were gunned down on the spot before saying "hello." And all you can think and rant about every day is an individual that we have complained about since January 20, 2001.

TELL US SOMETHING WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT HIM. What else is there to know? Shit, you're a veteran in this business, and Bob Woodward can come up with new shit about Bush II that we're still waiting on you to offer here.

If I recall, most of us called him stupid for showing up at Coretta King's funeral. Sorry, last I checked, he had to be there. He's the prez, politics or not. Do I feel it is important for each living prez to be there to bury a former prez? Yes, no questions asked. Bush I and Clinton are the two guys left that I have respect for 'cause they show up, speak when asked to and keep their politics out of it for the most part. Only if Carter could keep it on the down low, then he's okay.

But, do you have to keep burning bridges over "The Little General"? I'm beginning to seriously think that Fredo isn't the one with the problem. It's the motherfuckers who start a new thread who needs to look at themselves in the mirror.

As a peace offering, let's make Sunday and Monday a Fredo-free zone on all the threads. All of us want to end the year and start the new year on a good note and not spend NYE reading about what the Dummy-in-Charge have done or is going to do next. We need the respite.

Don't like what I just said? Too bad. I'm a made man on this board now, just...like...you. I like my donuts glazed, not frosted. I'll fetch the donuts if Moddy and Idaho need a baker's dozen.

We have spent 364 days on the Little Man. Let's spend NYE or NYD without one mention of him, except for his appearance at Ford's funeral. Tony Snow will read him the riot act and let him know that he needs to be there. Count on that.

 

Victory probably needed to happen back in 1991.

This time around, it would have been better to use some justification other than the WMDs, keep some of the allies if possible, station more troops, have a rebuilding plan, etc.

I'm not sure how tolerant the rest of the world would have been to Bush saying: "Saddam has violated the rules time and time again, and enough's enough, so we're invading."

 

You don't have to read the threads. We'll rip Bush whenever we feel like it. We had to tolerate all the "unpatriotic" crap, and all the crap about how we were out of touch with the "real America." It's the other side's turn now. Don't like it, don't read it. Same way I don't listen to Limbaugh if I'm not in the mood.

 

That's some fine wine, with a hint of bitterness.