Bush's Speech Last Night and Reactions To Same

Nick Gillespie | September 14, 2007

Move over Britney Spears--an even more recent soporific TV appearance has wiped the memory of your bomb performance at the VMA.

We're talking about President Bush from last night, where he failed to manage even Max Headroom level hurrahs from his tiny audience:

In a televised speech last night, President Bush said his "surge" strategy has produced positive results, which will allow the US to cut the number of troops in Iraq. The Washington Post say on the front page that Bush coined a new slogan to describe his latest strategy, 'Return on Success,' meaning that further progress will enable further withdrawals." However, Bush's remarks, in which he endorsed the recommendations of Gen. David Petraeus, are receiving generally skeptical coverage. The Washington Post says Bush "made a case for progress in Iraq by citing facts and statistics that at times contradicted recent government reports or his own words." On MSNBC, Chris Matthews said, "The idea we're one of 36 countries fighting the war I think is ludicrous and why the President would throw that out there, I think it only opens him up to ridicule."

More pans here.

The presidential candidates weigh in here. Snippets:

FORMER REPUBLICAN MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY:

"President Bush understands that our most crucial objective in Iraq is to make sure it does not become a safe haven for al-Qaeda and Jihadist terrorists. But that's just what would happen if Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have their way. Our troop presence has emboldened Sunni leaders to resist al-Qaeda. This is progress -- important progress."

DEMOCRATIC SEN. HILLARY CLINTON OF NEW YORK:

"What the president told the American people tonight is that one year from now, there will be the same number of troops in Iraq as there were one year ago. That is simply too little too late, and unacceptable to this Congress and the American people who have made clear their strong desire to bring our brave troops home."

FORMER REPUBLICAN SEN. FRED THOMPSON OF TENNESSEE:

"Every day, our troops in Iraq demonstrate a heroic resolve to win. I wish Democrats in Washington would dedicate as much time and energy to winning as they do on how to surrender the fight."

DEMOCRATIC SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD OF CONNECTICUT:

"Not only is the president not offering us anything new; he's insulting our intelligence."

And let's be clear: When you're insulting Chris Dodd's intelligence, you've already given in to the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Bush's talk here.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Eric Dondero|9.14.07 @ 9:30AM|#

Ahh, the cynics at Reason start the morning off with a little classic Bush bashing.

Ron Paul's tanking, so they gotta cut down the Republicans and Bush, and presumably Giuliani.

How predictable.

|9.14.07 @ 9:38AM|#

I see mustache boy is back for his daily dose of abuse.

Let's all take a look at The Real Rudy website to get him going.

Awik Dunderoooo|9.14.07 @ 9:39AM|#

awooo! isn't he just precious?

The Artist Formerly Know as Tr|9.14.07 @ 9:44AM|#

I tried to watch W's speech last night, but something was wrong with my TV. All I heard was a giant sucking sound.
-T

thoreau|9.14.07 @ 9:49AM|#

I won't have time to abuse DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO as much as he deserves today, so let me just say that I agree with whatever Timothy has to say on the matter.

|9.14.07 @ 9:53AM|#

Ahh, ~~the cynics at Reason~~ Mr. Lie-About-His-Residence-In-Court-Papers starts the morning off with a little classic ~~Bush~~ Reason bashing.

~~Ron Paul's~~ Iraq's tanking, so he's gotta cut down ~~the Republicans and Bush,~~ Reason and thinking people everywhere and ~~presumably~~ praise Giuliani's scraping the bottom of the 9/11 barrel.

~~How predictable.~~ We are all predictable.

|9.14.07 @ 10:31AM|#

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

You lie or otherwise misrepresent the truth. A lot*. Consequentially, most of us find there's not much point in paying attention to anything you have to say (except, of course, to facilitate brewing up a cup of your rich blend of idiocy and madness).

Why don't you save yourself the effort (and, I imagine, the impending aneurysm) and go outside and pay for a hooker or something?

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

* A few examples: number of languages spoken, Giuliani's political views, addresses on petitions (in court, no less), details of Naval service, the very definition of libertarianism, the success of the Iraq war, etc., etc., etc.

Jennifer|9.14.07 @ 10:36AM|#

"Every day, our troops in Iraq demonstrate a heroic resolve to win. I wish Democrats in Washington would dedicate as much time and energy to winning as they do on how to surrender the fight."

Every day, our troops demonstrate a heroic resolve to build a highway connecting Boston to the moon. I wish Democrats in Washington would dedicate as much time and energy to finishing as they do on how to give up the attempt.

|9.14.07 @ 10:36AM|#

One of the things I found insincere was his comparison between now and a year ago. He made it sound like things were really bad in 2006, yet in 2006 he never said things were that bad. He will only admit a bad situation when he can use it to say things are better now.

""""Ron Paul's tanking, so they gotta cut down the Republicans and Bush, and presumably Giuliani."""

What's wrong with that? I don't hear you bitching about Republicans cutting down Democrats. I guess you have one set of rules for your camp and different set for the other.
Maybe that's why no one really takes you seriously.

Jennifer|9.14.07 @ 10:42AM|#

Jake, I have it on good authority that Dondero has more than enough fluency to meet his globetrotting needs:

Dutch:
Ik zal dubbel betalen indien u mij niet maak draag een condoom.

Spanish:
Pagaré doble si usted no me hace llevo un condón.

French:
Je paierai le double si vous ne faites pas me porter un préservatif.

German:
Ich werde Doppel bezahlen, wenn Sie mich nicht machen, trage ein Kondom.

Italian:
Pagherò doppio se lei non me fa indossa un preservativo.

Portuguese:
Pagarei dobro se você não me fizer uso um preservativo.

Russian:
Я заплачу двойной, если Вы не будете заставлять меня носить презерватив.

Norwegian:
Jeg vil betale dobbelt hvis du ikke lager meg sliter en condom.

Simplified Chinese:
我将付钱给极相似的人如果你不使得我穿一个避孕套。

English:
I'll pay double if you don't make me wear a condom.

Handmaiden of Weibskobold|9.14.07 @ 10:49AM|#

"You [Dunderooooo] lie or otherwise misrepresent the truth. A lot*"

To add to Jake's list:

"i'll only put it in part way"
"it's only a cold sore"

AND WHY HAVEN'T YOU CALLED, AWIK??? WHY?????

Thai Hooker|9.14.07 @ 10:51AM|#

"i'll only put it in part way"

No, that's entirely true. Not enough there to fill me up.

Handmaiden of Weibskobold|9.14.07 @ 10:54AM|#

you mean... you mean.... what was under his massive, swollen codpiece was a lie? That was the whole package??

*sobs. runs off*

|9.14.07 @ 12:03PM|#

Yes, Dondero, many people don't like Bush. Like 70% of the country. Wow, how shocking.

Eric Dondero|9.14.07 @ 12:12PM|#

Cesar, looks like you're a victim of the leftwing media propoganda.

I'd suggest you start your morning off with RealClearPolitics.com who cover all the polls and average them up nationwide.

Latest: Bush's approval of the handling of the War is in the mid to upper 30s. Hardly "70% opposed to him." That's DNC spin.

Shows how ignorant you are to eat up everything the Democrats say without checking the facts.

Eric Dondero|9.14.07 @ 12:14PM|#

Amazing to me how so many people who claim to support libertarian views and individual liberty here at Reason.com are opposed to legalized prostitution.

But then again, that fits. The NeoCon LewRockwellite Anti-War Fascists here have no problem with Radical Muslims invading our country and imposing Sharia Law.

They occasionally mouth support for civil liberties, yet in reality they are aligned with the Radical Muslims on social matters such as prostitution.

Witness all the oppositing here at the Reason Blog to prostitution and sexual liberties.

|9.14.07 @ 12:15PM|#

Dondero-

That means you have your base and no one else. Good luck!

Eric Dondero|9.14.07 @ 12:17PM|#

Jake Bonehead, if you don't want to pay any attention to what I say, than why are you obsessed with responding to me with every single post I make here.

You're almost like a stalker.

Go back to that shack in the Texas desert of yours. I smell that critter stew of yourse a boiling.

|9.14.07 @ 12:18PM|#

Radical Muslims invading our country and imposing Sharia Law.

How are those rubber pants working for you Dondero?

Eric Dondero|9.14.07 @ 12:18PM|#

Cesar, I was talking about polling numbers.

You obviously get your morning news from the DailyKos or Huffington Report.

Obviously they are going to take ultra-left wing polling numbers from the DNC and other sources to smear Bush and pretend that he has less than 30% support of the American public.

Might I suggest you check out some more unbiased sources such as RealClearPolitics.com.

SPD|9.14.07 @ 12:20PM|#

Eric,

www.freerepublic.com is that way (pointing to far right)

|9.14.07 @ 12:21PM|#

You obviously get your morning news from the DailyKos or Huffington Report.

You can think that, but you'd be very very wrong.

I guess the Wall Street Journal is full of liberal bias, though.

Eric Dondero|9.14.07 @ 12:21PM|#

Hey Cesar, guess you missed the news yesterday, Michelle Malking's HotAir.com.

Some Muslim dude was decked out in camoflauge pants with an AK-47 roaming around a public park in Dearborn, Michigan with a crazed look on his face. The cops were immediately notified, and fortunately he didn't have time to pull off a Radical Muslim murder spree in the vain of the Seattle Shooter, John "Beltway Sniper" Muhammed, or the Salt Lake City suburban shopping mall mass murderer.

Nah, it's just the "Religion of Peace". They don't want to kill us.

|9.14.07 @ 12:22PM|#

Hey Cesar, guess you missed the news yesterday, Michelle Malkin's

Yes, Michelle Malkin. The epitome of objective, serious journalism.

Eric Dondero|9.14.07 @ 12:24PM|#

Funny, you should mention the WSJ. They're recent polling WSJ/NBC suggests support for Bush and the War "surging." Of course, they use more milder adjectives, like "gaining" or "uptick."

Face it, you're bumbed out right now, cause the American public isn't buying your Ron Paul conspiratorialist Blame America First line.

They're favoring Victory in the War on Terror.

And all America-haters like you can do is nitpick at the edges.

It ain't working. Partly cause Real Libertarians like me are exposing your idiocy.

|9.14.07 @ 12:24PM|#

"Latest: Bush's approval of the handling of the War is in the mid to upper 30s. Hardly "70% opposed to him."

I'm game. What are Bush's approval numbers?

Eric Dondero|9.14.07 @ 12:25PM|#

That's only the link. It was reported all over the web yesterday - Jihad Watch, Little Green Footballs, that Blonde lady from Philly (?).

And I would even assume the Detroit media.

Of course, the Leftwing America-hating biased national media has ignored the story.

Just like they did 10 months ago with Salt Lake City.

|9.14.07 @ 12:25PM|#

I see you got your RNC talking points today. You are a sad, sad, partisan shill.

The Wall Street Journal, that bastion of liberal bias (sarcasm) has Bush's approval at 33%, in the most recent poll.

|9.14.07 @ 12:27PM|#

"They're favoring Victory in the War on Terror."

And that War on Terror is fought in Iraq.....

And George W. Bush is doing a good job of handling it despite the 30% approval ratings from idiot average joes.....

Yeah, real libertarians advocate senseless invasions of foreign countries under the untenable premise that it makes us safer. Wow. You are exactly like so many neocons: Started out libertarian, then gradually made excuses and justifications for your war hard-on.

|9.14.07 @ 12:28PM|#

That's only the link. It was reported all over the web yesterday - Jihad Watch, Little Green Footballs, that Blonde lady from Philly

And you accused me of getting news from biased sources? Wow.

|9.14.07 @ 12:33PM|#

Nah, it's just the "Religion of Peace". They don't want to kill us.

I just checked with the Persian in a neighboring cubicle. He said that he may spare me because my wife makes good cookies.

|9.14.07 @ 12:38PM|#

I just checked with the Persian in a neighboring cubicle. He said that he may spare me because my wife makes good cookies.

How do we know you aren't one of THEM Taco???????? You could be plotting to march us all off to gas chambers at any moment!

|9.14.07 @ 12:44PM|#

How predictable.

If it's so predictable, why didn't you predict it?

And aren't we supposed to be "Fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here"? Then how can all these incidents be happening Eric? Iraq should magically cure them all!

|9.14.07 @ 1:02PM|#

Making fun of someone's love life is now exactly the same as favoring laws against prostitution.

Only Real Libertarians understand this. You know, the ones who get their information from Michelle Malkin.

|9.14.07 @ 1:04PM|#

37% of Americans think Bush is doing a good job.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296712,00.html

|9.14.07 @ 1:07PM|#

His average rating, when taking the most recent polls together, is 33.5%.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

|9.14.07 @ 1:10PM|#

"Today 37 percent of Americans say they approve of the job Bush is doing, up from 33 percent last month, and 58 percent disapprove.

In addition, approval of Congress also increased: 32 percent of Americans approve, up from 24 percent in August, and 56 percent disapprove." This is from the same source as above.

Bush's numbers are up by 4 points. Congress is up by 8 points.
2% of the people disapprove of Bush more than Congress, account for error, and they are equally disapproved.

|9.14.07 @ 1:11PM|#

My god, Jennifer, I'm impressed with the condomic fluency in multiple languages. You go, girl!

|9.14.07 @ 1:15PM|#

You haven't been taking you meds lately, have you?

|9.14.07 @ 1:19PM|#

Amazing to me how so many people who claim to support libertarian views and individual liberty here at Reason.com are opposed to legalized prostitution.

Please identify them for me. Both of them.

My goodness, ladies and gents, he really has a problem or two doesn't he?

highnumber|9.14.07 @ 1:34PM|#

The NeoCon LewRockwellite Anti-War Fascists

Juh?

Double "juh?" for "Anti-War Fascists"?

Is that the good kind of fascism?

rho|9.14.07 @ 1:37PM|#

Hey Cesar, pull his string again.

|9.14.07 @ 1:49PM|#

Hey Cesar, pull his string again.

Hah, a Dondero doll would be interesting. Pull its string to get it to say six different phrases!

|9.14.07 @ 1:52PM|#

Geez, Eric, a handful of nut balls commit crimes.

Sounds like a local law enforcement problem to me.

I mean it seems to me the local cops in Salt Lake City handled that one OK. We didn't have to send the Air Force to nuke the place, did we?

Oh, wait, come to think of it I haven't heard from any one in Salt Lake lately. Holy Crap.

|9.14.07 @ 2:11PM|#

Some terrorists attacked us, and we retaliated against Afghanistan who harbored and supported them

|9.14.07 @ 2:15PM|#

Amazing to me how so many people who claim to support libertarian views and individual liberty here at Reason.com are opposed to legalized prostitution.

Wow, Eric, so the guy who did his level best to run all the hookers out of NYC when he was mayor is going to legalize prostitution?

Just, wow.

|9.14.07 @ 2:23PM|#

Whoops, hit the submit button too early!

Some terrorists attacked us, and we retaliated against Afghanistan who harbored and supported them. Our military venture should now be over. So why are we in Iraq, a nation that did not attack us, and was not an imminent threat? More important, why are Real® Libertarians™ like Dondero advocating an endless war on a religion? It sure sounds to me like that's what he is doing.

Eric is NOT a libertarian! He is a neo-conservative through and through. He wants war. War for war's sake. War financed with inflation and debt. He is just using Islam as an excuse for war. What liberties will he urge be eliminated next in the fight against a religion? What religion will he have us attack next after we kill every last Muslim?

There is room for libertarians to disagree on matters of foreign policy. But Eric goes far beyond disagreement, and has adopted an entirely different philosophy, one that is closer to Stauss and Kristol than Hayek or Rothbard.

Timothy|9.14.07 @ 2:48PM|#

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Oh, I'm for legalized prostitution Eric, just not for you.

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

|9.14.07 @ 2:57PM|#

Sounds like a local law enforcement problem to me.

I mean it seems to me the local cops in Salt Lake City handled that one OK. We didn't have to send the Air Force to nuke the place, did we?

Oh, wait, come to think of it I haven't heard from any one in Salt Lake lately. Holy Crap.

The moron in Dearborn (avg. police response time - 2 min.) was immediately apprehended without gunfire. Gosh, I wonder why it wasn't on the front page of the NY Times!

|9.14.07 @ 3:14PM|#

"The NeoCon LewRockwellite Anti-War Fascists here have no problem with Radical Muslims invading our country and imposing Sharia Law."

What are the chances of that?

lunchstealer|9.14.07 @ 3:18PM|#

We can all support removing legal persecution of prostitution, but that doesn't mean we're not gonna make fun of you for having to partake thereof.

Because criminalizing prostitution is using force to prohibit people from making choices about their own bodies and their own livelihoods for one's own moral outrage, and creates a destructive black market which almost certainly does more harm than good.

Whereas riffing on pompous, mustachioed jerkwads is a highly entertaining, mostly harmless, and on the whole tax-free form of amusement.

|9.14.07 @ 3:25PM|#

if you don't want to pay any attention to what I say, than why are you obsessed with responding to me with every single post I make here.

Because you ask...

Here is why I respond to you: I do not want a new visitor to this site to read your dick-waving bullshit and think it represents Reason, the majority of the commenters here, or the philosophy of liberty. Despite your claims, you are in no way a libertarian, and I think you, with your pitiful need for someone to promise to protect you from the terrorists, are doing far more to harm the movement now than you've ever done to help it.

I think you are a liar, an idiot, and an asshole. I find you repugnant, and even more so because you pretend to share my philosophy. You are an ignorant, fascist prick, and I hope that my incessant badgering will, in some small way, help dampen the damage you are attempting to inflict with your fact-free smears against libertarianism.

For the record, I am absolutely for the decriminalization of sex work for and by consenting adults. However, also for the record, I think that you are a pathetic douchebag, and I pity the prostitute who encounters you.

Does that clear things up for you, you worthless son of a bitch? Should I use smaller words next time?

|9.14.07 @ 3:32PM|#

What are the chances of that?

Right up there with Luke Skywalker fighting with Voldemort for control of the one ring.

Timothy|9.14.07 @ 3:38PM|#

Jake, lunchstealer: No, I think prostitution should be legal for everyone but DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I'm serious. It should be a crime for him to be naked in the presence of a human being. Seriously.

|9.14.07 @ 3:43PM|#

Actually, while I philosophically support even DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!'s (yes, the three exclamation points are part of the correct spelling) right to pay someone for sex, I believe it's already outlawed somewhere in the Geneva conventions. I think it was what Gonzales referred to as the "quaint" parts. Or maybe I'm mixing that up with something the URKOBOLD says on occasion...

|9.14.07 @ 3:50PM|#

"""Hah, a Dondero doll would be interesting. Pull its string to get it to say six different phrases!"""

Mine just keeps saying "if you don't me, find another doll."

|9.14.07 @ 3:55PM|#

Oops, I just realized I bought the Dan T doll.

|9.14.07 @ 3:58PM|#

"""Of course, the Leftwing America-hating biased national media has ignored the story.""

Then you should be able to find it on Fox.

But then again I didn't know we had a "national" media.

What's all this crying and whining about the media anyway, you whine like a liberal.

|9.14.07 @ 4:15PM|#

But then again I didn't know we had a "national" media

TrickyVic, what about USA Today, America's High School Newspaper?

|9.14.07 @ 4:44PM|#

"""USA Today, America's High School Newspaper?"""

lol

DannyK|9.14.07 @ 4:52PM|#

If there was no Eric Dondero, Hit&Run posters would be forced to invent him.

|9.14.07 @ 5:23PM|#

I'll be damned... It looks like there actually IS a libertarian equivalient to frequent HNR poster "joe."

The irony is that I really can't guess which of them will be more insulted by the parallel...

|9.14.07 @ 5:24PM|#

Dammmit! TrickyVic beat me to it!

"What's all this crying and whining about the media anyway, you whine like a liberal."

|9.14.07 @ 5:43PM|#

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

(I prefer a variant romanization.)

Go back to that shack in the Texas desert of yours. I smell that critter stew of yourse a boiling.

Funny, you usually say you're from Texas and act all Red-Statey - and you even made noises about running for Congressman in Ron Paul's district until you realized that would involve exposure to sunlight. But all of a sudden, you pop out with a redneck crack that sounds like something from a Bostonian who'd never heard a Texan voice in his life...

|9.14.07 @ 5:49PM|#

...Not to mention talking about "the Texas desert". Seriously, it's like the time I was talking to a guy in Connecticut who thought Houston was surrounded by sand dunes. There's desert in West Texas stretching in from New Mexico, Old Mexico, and Arizona, but there's scrub land, plains, and forest over the rest of it.

|9.14.07 @ 6:00PM|#

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

the NeoCon LewRockwellite Anti-War Fascists

You have a problem with "NeoCons"?

Or just the oxymoron of "NeoCon LewRockwellites"? (Same here, but why'd you invent it, then?)

The rest...well, we know you're pro-war and have adopted the pouty european student "disagrees with me" definition of "fascist", no surprise there.

lunchstealer|9.14.07 @ 6:16PM|#

And let's be clear: When you're insulting Chris Dodd's intelligence, you've already given in to the soft bigotry of low expectations.

By the way, Nick, I just wanted to make sure that you knew that this line was appreciated. All the Dondero bashing - fun though it is - may have drowned that out. This may be my favorite H&R quote since "The Coming Huckabacalypse"

lunchstealer|9.14.07 @ 6:36PM|#

The NeoCon LewRockwellite Anti-War Fascists here have no problem with Radical Muslims invading our country and imposing Sharia Law.

Although this gets an honorable mention for the sheer fruitbatshit insanity of it. I mean, wow. Insisting on civil liberties and not invading all willy-nilly == imposing Sharia on Milwaukee. I like crazy people better when they just see 6 foot rabbits named Harvey.

Timothy|9.14.07 @ 11:45PM|#

To be fair, lunchstealer, Milwaukee might have it coming.

Although, the imposition of Sharia law on just DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! would be pretty excellent.

|9.15.07 @ 5:17PM|#

Although, the imposition of Sharia law on just DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! would be pretty excellent.

I don't know if that would help. Does the Koran or the hadith contain any prohibitions against irritating, ignorant blowhards? I don't think so.

iih, a little help here, please.

thoreau|9.15.07 @ 11:25PM|#

Hey! Milwaukee is a fine city! With excellent frozen custard!

Now, if you want to impose Sharia law on Gary, Indiana, be my guest. That place stinks.

|9.16.07 @ 11:17AM|#

rob | September 14, 2007, 5:23pm | #

I'll be damned... It looks like there actually IS a libertarian equivalient to frequent HNR poster "joe."

Eric Dondero's predictions about Iraq have been consistently proven right for five years?

I did not know that.

|9.16.07 @ 11:58AM|#

joe,
Let's have that laundry list of your "proven right" positions that you can't get anything remotely resembling consensus on thes threads or anywhere outside your partisan echo chamber.

You might be the most prolific poster in the history of Hit and Run (since you've avoide the fate of "Gary Gunnels.") There appears to be some pretty deep-seated need this place fulfills for you, and watching your commenting style leads me to believe that it is a pretty twisted set of needs...

Here's my "armchair shrink" analysis of your online persona:

You're addicted to conflict and you're addicted to profanely insulting other posters - an odd form of political sadism.

You're also so desperate for your fix that you're happiest alienating people who agree with you on other topics when they honestly disagree with you in other areas. Perversely, you're also obviously addicted to being proven wrong repeatedly and humiliatingly - like a guy with a gambling problem who is truly only satiated when he loses eveything.

You're an odd creature, motivated by your desire for attention in the form of an odd version of political and intellectual masochism.

You generate that attention by making ridiculously grandiose claims that you then attempt to support through ignorance rather than fact, and through rhetorical fallacies and cheap tricks, rather than honest discussion.

Because you enjoy causing others discomfort you attack them with these dishonest tactics, but you doing so creates opportunities for others to do the same to you. Probably because you crave the humiliation you get on these forums as much as (if not more) than you enjoy attempting to inflict it.

In other words, yeah, you and Dondero are basically the same guy. You're both cut from the same cloth and you both show up here on these forums for the same reason.

The only difference is that you need your fix nearly all day, every day, which is reflected by your posts on most of the threads while
Dondero just wanders in here for his whipping every once in a while - which probably means he has some other location to satiate his addiction.

|9.16.07 @ 12:26PM|#

Ah, I knew you couldn't stay away.

But ok, here the predictions I've made that came true.

The WMD threat was overhyped, and based on phony evidence.

There was no Saddam-al Qaeda connection.

We would not be greeted as liberators.

There would be sectarian violence.

We would not be able to install democracy by force.

There really is an insurgency, and it's growing.

Our invasion will make al Qaeda stronger, and allow them to ally themselves with Sunni Iraqis.

Our invasion would distract us from the war against al Qaeda.

The elections would be a setback, not an advance, for Iraqi political reconcilliation.

A civil war is breaking out.

The Iraqi government will be a tool of Shiite ambitions, and closely allied with Iran, leading it to wage the Shiite side of the civil war.

The surge will not bring about political reconcilliation.

Leaving (withdrawing, cutting and running, whatever you want to call it), as we did in Anbar, will not lead to al Qaeda taking over, but to Sunni Iraqis turning on their erstwhile jihadist allies.

As for your feelings about me, I'd want to change the subject to personal attacks, too, if I was trying to argue your political positions.

|9.16.07 @ 12:34PM|#

How about some more?

The troop levels will not be enough to pacify the country after the invasion.

We will be there for years, not months or weeks.

This war will destroy the goodwill he had after 9/11 and weaken our influence in the world.

Our occupation will not bring about democratic reform in the Middle East.

War supporters will fall back on the "those people have been killing each other for centuries" line when the failure of their Grand Strategy become impossible to deny.

This war will endanger the Kurds' security and democracy.

|9.16.07 @ 12:36PM|#

But I only wrote those things, in real time, over the past five years, because of flaws in my personality.

|9.16.07 @ 4:48PM|#

Who the hell is "Gary Gunnels"?

|9.17.07 @ 1:46PM|#

|9.17.07 @ 1:47PM|#

joe - To go with that laundry list, let's see the links, and some sign that there's a consensus on your positions here at HNR.

The fact that you can - off the top of your head - come up with a list that long pretty well confirms my "armchair shrink" bit.

Here's the point by point reality check…

"The WMD threat was overhyped, and based on phony evidence."
- Feel free to insert a link to pre-invasion claims you made here. It's amazing how many political figures you think of as the good guys "fell for" this because they had access to far more info than you did and yet you got it right with virtually nothing but TV and internet access. A guy spinning a roulette wheel has a chance of winning once in a while, right?

"There was no Saddam-al Qaeda connection."
- Feel free to insert a link to pre-invasion claims you made here. Or show your cards that Hussein didn't support terrorism around the world - particularly against Israel - which inevitably also killed U.S. citizens.

"We would not be greeted as liberators."
- Patently false, depending on which part of population you're referring to.

"There would be sectarian violence."
- Feel free to insert a link to pre-invasion claims you made here. Of course when the strongman is taken out you get post-Tito Yugoslavia…

"We would not be able to install democracy by force."
- Feel free to insert a link to pre-invasion claims you made here. But oddly, you seem to think that trying to install democracy by force in the former Yugoslavi and in Afghanistan is "just peachy."

"There really is an insurgency, and it's growing."
- I think you actually did predict this... As part of your over-wrought "worst-case scenario" along the "it's a quagmire" that will kill almost every U.S. soldier who deploys to Iraq routine.

"Our invasion will make al Qaeda stronger, and allow them to ally themselves with Sunni Iraqis."
- That doesn't seem to be working out quite the way you claim.

"Our invasion would distract us from the war against al Qaeda."
- Feel free to insert a link to pre-invasion claims you made here. While you're at it, you could try to explain how "al Qaeda in Iraq" isn't part of fighting al Qaeda. Maybe you can repeat your claim that Saddam Hussein wasn't directly involved in terrorism. (http://www.husseinandterror.com/ - it's got lots of pictures, to make it easier for you to follow.)

"The elections would be a setback, not an advance, for Iraqi political reconcilliation."
- This certainly hasn't proven to be the case. You get credit for making the claim, just not for being right.

"A civil war is breaking out."
- Still hasn't happened, but there has been plenty of killing between various factions there. Like... hmmm... the former Yugoslavia, an engagement you think was an example of doing the right thing. What's keeping the cork on civil war, joe? Perhaps a strong military force deployed to the region? Does that sound like any of the engagements you're more hawkish on?

"The Iraqi government will be a tool of Shiite ambitions, and closely allied with Iran, leading it to wage the Shiite side of the civil war."
- Feel free to insert a link to pre-invasion claims you made here, or even in the wake of the invasion. (Rather than parroting partisan talking points already laid out for you.) Nevertheless, the idea that the Shiites would align closer to the Iraqis than their former Sunni oppressors isn't exactly a startling prophecy requiring brilliant analysis. (I don't think the Shiites are exactly on the same team you claim they are, though. It looks like an old standard to me - an internal group looking for support from an exterior power, who sees things more like they do than other internal groups. I also think you fail to account for the potential for nationalist friction between Iraq's & Iran's Shiites.)

"The surge will not bring about political reconcilliation."
- Military operations don't bring diplomatic solutions. War isn't usually intended as a means of reconciliation (to double-tap the obvious). The best that military ops can achieve is to set favorable conditions for political solutions - unless you're looking for a WW2-style unconditional surrender and total military occupation that lasts decades. This isn't an example of you being an accurate "oracle," but a guy beating a straw man that even the proponents of the surge didn't claim as a likely outcome.

"Leaving (withdrawing, cutting and running, whatever you want to call it), as we did in Anbar, will not lead to al Qaeda taking over, but to Sunni Iraqis turning on their erstwhile jihadist allies."
- Feel free to insert a link to prescient claims on this topic. Oddly enough, though, military control of an area with sufficient forces and combat power to hold and control an area is usually a prerequisite for post-conflict order sufficient to establish something other than the law of the jungle where people can begin to live somewhat normal lives. Most of your claims are either wrong, the result of 20/20 hindsight, or claims that have not been borne out one way or another because the events haven't run their course.

"As for your feelings about me, I'd want to change the subject to personal attacks, too, if I was trying to argue your political positions." - joe
No, you'd engage in the "politics of personal destruction" you enjoy so much - the insults and underhanded tactics you're recognized for by all but the most gullible commenters and fellow partisans on these boards. (Shoreter version: Read my posts more carefully, because the previous sentence is a summary of my previous post.)

"How about some more?"
- Sure, why not. Since the previous examples didn't work out so well for you.

"The troop levels will not be enough to pacify the country after the invasion."
- Actually, as I recall, you just jumped on that bandwagon after the "there's not enough troops to successfully invade the country, it'll be a quagmire with 10's of 1,000's dead" bandwagon proved to be as untrue as the same claims made about Afghanistan failed to pan out.

"We will be there for years, not months or weeks."
- . Not exactly prescient, nor even counter-conventional wisdom there... You and Colin Powell and everyone from the first Bush presidency - and US foreign policy in general - adheres to the "Pottery Barn" principle (the belief that once you defeat a nation you are responsible for that nation's internal security not just its external security). Acting like you invented the wheel doesn't make you the guy who actually

"This war will destroy the goodwill he had after 9/11 and weaken our influence in the world."
- 9/11 was a high-water mark for "goodwill" and "influence" for the U.S. as an "innocent victim." It didn't take long for some quarters to start claiming the U.S. dead had brought that on themselves by being members of a nation engaged in Middle Eastern affairs. Besides, pretending it would last forever, if only we hadn't invaded Iraq, is just naive - not Nostradamus. (On par with claiming that if you just keep your yard-work done that you'll always be on good terms with everyone on Earth, regardless of fundamental differences.)

"Our occupation will not bring about democratic reform in the Middle East."
- Remains to be seen. You seem to be in favor of occupation as a means to bring about democratic reform in Afghanistan, though. What is it about the Middle East that makes you believe it is so much less friendly to democratic reform than Afghanistan?

"War supporters will fall back on the "those people have been killing each other for centuries" line when the failure of their Grand Strategy become impossible to deny."
- Watch joe construct straw men to set afire… "How about a little fire, scarecrow?" Sheesh.

"This war will endanger the Kurds' security and democracy."
- How so? By creating an environment where consistent combat airpower presence and employment no longer has to be applied (Operations Nothern & Southern Watch) to prevent repeated attempts at genocide resulting in mass graves?

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements