Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Conditions on the ground

"As many as 38 people were killed and more than 100 were wounded Monday in multiple attacks across Iraq, including one in which a man detonated a suicide vest near a convoy of coalition vehicles in Mosul, killing up to 16."

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/story/795329.html

But, now that the election's over, and the "anti-war" candidate reappointed Bush's Secretary of Defense, who cares? Not the "anti war community".

5 comments:

FinFanJim said...

In all fairness, Barry, I do think it is a tad early to expect the Code Pink branch of your party to get all in a dither over Obama's Iraq stance.

If I am an Amerika hating commie hippie, but don't you DARE question my "patriotism" (a/k/a your party's "base" LOL :)), I am thinking:

1. The guy hasn't even taken office yet;
2. He is "THE ONE" so it doesn't matter if he keeps Gates. He'll use his force, vision, and supernatural miracle genius, to make sure Gates does what The One wants. He's keeping Gates purely for the experience and background until The Messiah gets his feet wet in DC.
3. So no worries, Comrades, The One will can Gates and install Michael Moore or George Clooney or Ophah as defense sec within the next year.
4. The "Spin" which your party's base will lap up like zombies?...Will be..If The One DOES decide to stay in Iraq, that is brilliant pragmatism on his part - made sadly necessary by warmonger Bush (regardless of whether that is simply following Bush's plan all along). The Man with the Vision will decide that a "smooth transition" to Iraqi control is the Wisest course of action....and Katie Couric, Chris Matthews, and Co., will swoon....'oh, the brilliance.'

Barry Jay Warsch said...

Did you hear about the Howard Dean interview by / conference with left bloggers, in which he said (I paraphrase), Bush wants to stay 36 months, we want to pull out in 18 months, is it worth fighting over 18 months? And because its Dean talking for Obama, all's cool. I just can't ignore the stunning hypocracy by the "anti war" wing.

FinFanJim said...

Hypocracy? You ain't seen NOTHIN yet.

The first time The One decides to send any of our young military men and women into harms way and danger...whether it be to attack warlords in Darfur; ramp up an Afganistan surge; "go after Bin Laden in Pakistan" (which your side has been bleating for, for years); or any number of dangerous hot spots around the world......let me know when and if you EVER and I do mean EVER see in print or hear THESE two words coming from ANY democrat blogger site, democrat internet message board, or for that matter any randem group of Libs standing around a water cooler:

"Chicken Hawk."

It was used over and over and over and over and over again against Bush and Cheney. And in any discussion, against anyone else who dared to express any support for the Iraq war. YOU haven't spent the past 8 years being called a "neocon chicken hawk" - and being told "if you think it is so great go yourself or send your own kids." And other words to that effect.

In other words, unless you yourself are at risk or your child is at risk, you have no moral standing or even a right to support the President's decision to use military action.

But now, it is differnt. Different standards now apply. Now, no matter WHAT Obama does in terms of using the U.S. Military, I 100% guarantee you that you will NEVER hear the "chicken hawk" epitaph thrown out.

That phrase is now obsolete, passe, extinct, as a phrase to be uttered on the left side of the aisle. (Until the next Republican non-veteran president).

But payback is a bitch, and I can assure you that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" if that president elect of ours, decides to liberate some African backwater with some half baked operation involving US Marines who get into firefights on the ground and take casualties.

Andrew said...

Barry - Clinton used the military as a social experiment and a social service under his 8 years.

My concern is Obama will use the military in the same fashion and ignore the real threat of global jihadist terrorism.

Barry Jay Warsch said...

Definitely - - we will be more likely to use the military to cope with a natural disaster than with a man-made threat.
I really am afraid of his combination of naivete and messiah complex.