ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Monday, August 07, 2006

Moonbats, MSM react to Senate Testimony


Proof that we can't have Senators setting military strategery during war

At least, that's what I think of when I hear the Moonbats posting McCain's questioning of Abizaid regarding which troops are being deployed where. I mean, there's a reason that we have a Commander in Chief, not Senators-In-Chief.

Anyway, Stupid Country asked me to comment on the testimony, so being the little circus clown that I am, here you go. Although, it should be noted that when commenting, I immediately slipped into Moonbat mode for some reason - it just seemed funnier.

Let's just go through the opening statements which are available from the WaPo. Sorry for the extraordinary length:

WARNER: Secretary Rumsfeld?

RUMSFELD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. And thank you for the invitation to testify.

Senator Clinton, thank you for seconding the motion.

Humor is always good... shame he had to jest about our next President forcing him to testify.
I know we all agree that the American people deserve a healthy, preferably constructive, exchange on matters that so directly affect the lives, their lives, their families' lives and their country's security.

How's that for constructive, you neocon fascist!?!?! You and Bushitler killed my son!!!

Woops, sorry... slipped into Moonbat mode there. Won't happen again! ;-)
I'm joined by General Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Abizaid, the combatant commander of the U.S. Central Command. We will be providing an update on the global struggle against violent extremists and certainly will welcome questions.

In the past few weeks, in terrorist attacks in Afghanistan, in Iraq and now by Hezbollah, we've seen the face of the early part of the 21st century. In this period of asymmetric warfare, irregular warfare, one side puts their men and women at risk in uniform and obeys the laws of war while the other side uses them against us; one side does all it can to avoid civilian casualties while the other side uses civilians as shields and then skillfully orchestrates a public outcry when the other side accidentally kills civilian in their midst; one side is held to exacting standards of near perfection -- the other side is held to no standards and no accountability at all.

Well sure, Rummy... You've got to understand that we're in a war that we want to lose, mmmmkay?
This enemy has called Iraq the central front on the war on terrorism, while some on our side seem to argue that the outcome in Iraq is not part of that global war on terror.
Hey, Chimpy W. McBushitler didn't have to send us into the tarpits of Iraq, turning us into a paper tiger.... or something like that. I mean, sure... Saddam had close ties to international terrorists and had been flouting UN conventions for 12 years.... but, duuuuuude.... he was in a box! Yeah, the box was made out of construction paper and had a handy spot for the French and the Russians and the UN to shove cash into, but it was a box, man... *water bong bubbles*
Sixteen years ago this week, Saddam Hussein's forces invaded Kuwait, killing civilians, unleashing environmental devastation, provoking a crisis that led to Iraqi attacks on Israel and threats to Saudi Arabia and others in the region.

Last week, by contrast, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the new Iraqi prime minister, who was elected by the Iraqi people under a constitution the Iraqi people wrote and ratified, came to the United States to thank the American people for their assistance in building a new future for the people of Iraq.

RUMSFELD: He had spent 25 years in opposition to the Saddam Hussein regime. And before a joint session of Congress, he noted that if terror were permitted to triumph in Iraq, then the war on terror will never be won elsewhere.

But, Rummy... we need to invest in healthcare here at home. Screw the Iraqis and the rest of the ragheads. Why should we give two flips about them? I mean, sure.... after 20 years or so, they'll end up bombing us in the US, killing thousands of Amerikkkans, but I just want to know... "When are we going to raise the minimum wage?"
The enemy understands this as well. They're waging a psychological war of attrition, planning attacks to gain the maximum media coverage and the maximum public outcry.

They want us to believe that perseverance by us is futile, rather than necessary. They want us to focus on our casualties and losses, not on the people causing the casualties and losses. They want us to think about what will happen if our forces stay in Iraq, as opposed to the consequences if our forces were to leave prematurely. They want us to be divided, because they know that when we are united they lose. They want us pointing fingers at each other, rather than pointing fingers at them.
Hey, hey, hey... are you calling the Moonbats unpatriotic? Sure, you didn't use that word, but I get the feeling you are. You sumofab!tch!!!

I'll point whatever finger I want at you, Rummy... neocon fascist HALLIBURTON MCBUSHITL.... *drones off*
I know there are calls in some quarters for withdrawal or arbitrary timelines for withdrawals. The enemies hear those words as well.

We need to be realistic about the consequences. If we left Iraq prematurely, as the terrorists demand, the enemy would tell us to leave Afghanistan and then withdraw from the Middle East. And if we left the Middle East, they'd order us and all those who don't share their militant ideology to leave what they call the occupied Muslim lands from Spain to the Philippines. And then we would face not only the evil ideology of these violent extremist, but an enemy that will have grown accustomed to succeeding in telling free people everywhere what to do.

We can persevere in Iraq or we can withdraw prematurely until they force us to make a stand nearer home. But make no mistake, they're not going to give up whether we acquiesce in their immediate demands or not.

Decisions about conditions for a drawdown of our forces in Iraq are best based on the recommendations of the commanders in the field and the recommendations of the gentleman sitting beside me.

No they're not... they're best based on the politics in congressional districts throughout the country, damnit!!! and JOE LIEBERMAN SUCKS IT BIG TIME!!!!
RUMSFELD: We should strive to think through how our words can be interpreted by our troops, by the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, by our 42 allies in our coalition in Afghanistan, and our 34 allies in our coalition in Iraq. And we should consider how our words can be used by our deadly enemy.

Deadly enemy... I assume you're referring to the Zionists in Israel, right? I have the same sentiments as you, Rummy! Have you heard my love poem to Hizbollah? Click here!
The war on terror is going to be a long struggle. It's not something we asked for, but neither is it something we can avoid. But I remain confident in our mission, in our commanders, in our troops and in our cause. And I remain confident in the good common sense of the American people.

Americans didn't cross oceans and settle a wilderness and build history's greatest democracy only to run away from a bunch of murderers and extremists who try to kill everyone that they cannot convert and to tear down what they could never build.

I could go on and give the opening statements of the Generals, but it's just too long. And it's late.

Now, there also was much buzz about the general saying that Iraq could slide into a civil war. Not sure if you guys have been listening, but people were predicting that before we invaded.

If this is your "gotcha" moment, it just shows how little you've been paying attention these past 3 years.

But, seriously.... I'm going to have to research this, but did the Senators during World War II call Henry Stimson and Dwight Eisenhower away from their duties to come chat with them and justify their decisions?

Victor Davis Hanson - where are you!?

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Comments (1)
Stupid Country said...

The insurgents who resist the Iraq occupation, and the Islamists whose aim it is to drive Western influence out of the Middle East, are passionate people. The integrity of the leaders who drive these people to martyr themselves to these causes is debatable, obviously, but they're rational.

It offends Western sensibilities to watch all the innocents sacrificed as human shields. But sentiment in the Muslim world is consistently pro-Hezbollah, pro-Hamas, and very often pro-Iran -- basically pro-anybody who stands up to the West and to Israel. Muslim sentiment is also overwhelmingly pro-martyrdom.

What I don't think Americans, who have to listen to this endless drivel from people like Rumsfeld and Bush, understand is that the tactics we lump under the heading of "terrorism" are, to the Islamist way of thinking, rational choices. It's obvious to Osama bin Laden and Hassan Nasrallah and their allies that they would have zero chance of withstanding a direct confrontation on an open field of battle with the US or Israel. They resort to basing their forces among civilian neighborhoods because it's a tactic that works for them. Without these methods, these guerrilla groups would have been annihilated decades ago. We find them repugnant, and they scare the hell out of us, but they're simply trying to survive.

And...probably most importantly...they are hiding their forces among civilians who are willing to harbor them. They're willing even after witnessing the deaths of hundreds of their peers in US and Israeli attacks. The insurgents aren't holding guns to these people's heads; the people choose to stay in harm's way, because that's where their homes are.

This is not a value judgment on the morality of Hezbollah tactics, which sicken me as much as anyone else. This is a value judgment on the morality of Don Rumsfeld's testimony.

The Rumsfeld rhetoric is intended to paint the enemies of our forces in the Middle East as less than human. That's what the neocon definition of "terrorist" is, and it's why anyone who picks up a gun or a stone or an IED to resist the occupation gets the label. Which in turn is why the label is so unpersuasive. After four years, this story is wearing very, very thin.

There is a clear difference between the case of Israel and the case of the US. Israel is a tiny country surrounded by hostile forces, including strong forces like Hamas and Hezbollah whose shared mission is to erase Israel from the map. These forces are armed, and based on Israel's border. They have a long, continuous history of staging murderous attacks inside Israel. Israel, in fact, owes its continued existence to its having accumulated more concentrated military bad-assness per square mile than any other place on earth, and using it without hesitation. Israel legitimately has to.

Israel is more than an ally to the neocon ideologue. Israel is living out, in front of our eyes, the crusade the neocons believe is rightly our own, or would be if we could summon up the will.

The US has suffered a series of terrorist incidents, culminating in 9/11 which -- horrific as it was -- was exceptional. Every Western nation faces a constant low-level threat that it will suffer another such attack; 9/11 did not make the US unique in this respect. Other Western countries bear up under this kind of threat, and they don't allow rightist demogogues to warp their cultures and their political discourse so that there is no room in the public mind for the issues you belittle here. We do need to invest in health care here. When are we going to raise the minimum wage? When are going to have even a meaningful conversation about these things?

Rumsfeld went to Capitol Hill, finally, to shore up this administration's crumbling ideological levee. It matters because if Iraq does in fact collapse into civil war -- and no, this is NOT a new idea -- then this is an abject failure of policy that the Bush Administration will have to own up to. Understand -- this will set back conservative ideology for decades. This is utterly unacceptable for Republicans, and they will expend their last nickel of political capital to keep it from happening. This matters to Don Rumsfeld a lot more than the fate of the ragheads. That's what the testimony was about.

Oh by the way, Joe Lieberman really does suck it big time.