Radical Left

The Nation Divided Against Itself or, From Trog to Prog

|

Robert Dreyfuss, a blogger at progressive mag The Nation, blames the dames for the U.S. adventure currently unfolding in Libya:

We'd like to think that women in power would somehow be less pro-war, but in the Obama administration at least it appears that the bellicosity is worst among Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. All three are liberal interventionists, and all three seem to believe that when the United States exercises military force it has some profound, moral, life-saving character to it. Far from it. Unless President Obama's better instincts manage to reign in his warrior women—and happily, there's a chance of that—the United States could find itself engaged in open war in Libya, and soon. The troika pushed Obama into accepting the demands of neoconservatives.

To which well-known Nation columnist and American flag-non-waver Katha Pollitt responds:

In a post entitled "Obama's Women Advisers Pushed War Against Libya" (originally titled "Obama's Women" tout court) he's shocked-shocked-shocked that UN Ambassador Susan Rice, human-rights adviser Samantha Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were keen on intervening militarily in Libya. The piece is dotted with arch and sexist language—the advisers are a "troika," a "trio" who "rode roughshod over the realists in the administration" (all men) and "pushed Obama to war." Now it's up to the henpecked President to "reign (sic) in his warrior women." Interestingly, the same trope—ballbreaking women ganging up on a weak president—is all over the rightwing blogosphere.

You know what would have been great? If the 1970 Joan Crawford movie Trog had been called Prog instead, and was about a rational woman (a doctor, even) who soothes a politically neanderthal man. Take 40 seconds out of your busy day and tell me I'm wrong:

NEXT: The Right to Not Be Offended

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Who weeps for Trog?

    1. Didn’t Trog rip some lady’s face off when she tried to help Crawford get Trog back in the house?

      1. Yeah, but only after she interrupted him shtupping the intern.

        1. Bitch had it comin’.

  2. you’re wrong. Not even 40 seconds.

    1. but really, you’re not wrong.

  3. Unless President Obama’s better instincts manage to reign in his warrior women

    Ahh, those mean bitches drove Obama to it. Sucking his peaceful life essence from him.

    1. The same way that George W Bush undermined his strict vow pacifism by forcing him to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      Oh, and to deploy Flying Killer Robots in Pakistan.

      1. “Flying Killer Robots”

        Good band name.

        1. “The Flying Killbots”

      2. George W. Bush had a strice vow of pacifism?

        Wow, when getting elected to POTUS, you gotta put all them principles aside…

        Too bad he didn’t have a vow of silence…

        1. Oh fuck, wait, I just got your comment. Reason should impose a three day waiting period on all comments.

          Well played sir… well played.

          1. Don’t blame yourself. My comments are like Hegel: rife with misspellings, vague referents, and dropped words. Ultimately, they mean whatever you want them to.

            1. Huh… I took it as a sign of your genius.

              *bubble bursting*

            2. Don’t be so hard on yourself… your comments are much more coherent than Katherine Heigl.

              1. But nowhere near as interesting to look at.

                1. Yeah, but on the other hand you probably don’t smell like cigarettes and Vagasil all the time.

                  1. 🙂

                    http://www.wwtdd.com/2011/03/k…..-a-bikini/

                    Honestly, I could probably put up with a red alert level bitch if she looked that, I don’t wanna say hot because that is not exactly it, that bitchy.

                    1. That pic reminds me of a girl I used to date. God I loved to watch her smoke.

                    2. If you gotta go with a smoking blonde that smokes, Candice Swanepoel is where it at.

                  2. She quit smoking and opted for the e-cig.

  4. “President Obama’s better instincts”<?blockquote>

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    That’s a good one!

    1. html fail

      1. This is what happens when you war-hungry females try to use the delicate tool of html.

        1. Aresen had a sex change? Maybe because in Canada, it’s free? You just have to wait 12 years.

          1. Just because something is free doesn’t make it worth the price.

  5. Dreyfuss should be celebrating these skirts breaking through the glass ceiling of ill-conceived, open-ended, foreign adventure quagmires.

    Another victory for Feminism!

  6. The piece is dotted with arch and sexist language?the advisers are a “troika,” a “trio” who “rode roughshod over the realists in the administration” (all men) and “pushed Obama to war.”

    Can someone please explain to me what’s sexist about “troika”? Or “trio”?

    1. troika is Russian, which we all know is a sexist and arch language. Riding roughshod is gender neutral, unless there’s a missing horseface comment somewhere.

      1. there’s pics of me riding roughshod…while shirtless…drinking straight vodka babieeee

        1. I love your Direct TV commercials. Where can I get a miniture giraffe?

        2. Mr. Putin, I have never seen anyone over compensate more so that you in order to convince both themselves and others that they were not gay.

      2. Troika, among other things, is a Russian sled pulled by three horses. Think about it.

        1. So we’ve established that Dreyfuss thinks these women are like horses in some way?

        2. Troika, among other things, is a Russian sled pulled by three horses.

          Yeah, and if you are riding in it, you’re looking at three horses’ asses.

      3. Riding roughshod is gender neutral,

        Is “riding roughshod” like “riding dirty”? If so, that’s some serious trans-gender-ism going on there.

    2. M?nage ? troix are male-imposed sexual performance dominance fantasies. Any time you have three chicks doing the same thing, you can be sure a man is forcing them to do so with his evil Male Gaze.

      1. Your M?nage ? troix has 50% more women than my M?nage ? troix. Damn you and your suave male dominance!

        M?nage ? quatre?

        1. His M?nage ? troix has infinitely more women than mine!

        2. More than three becomes an orgy, methinks.

          1. Mon Dieux

            1. I’ve only ever been in a Devil’s Threesome. 🙁

              1. I am tempted, but know you better than to ask.

                1. Two guys and a girl. Thank Jebus it was dark and I got to go first.

                  1. That’s too bad, but I guess if you just couldn’t shake the girl…

    3. Who knows. Interestingly, she misses the actual sexist part of Dreyfuss’s article:

      We’d like to think that women in power would somehow be less pro-war

      1. heh heh!

        ^^this!^^

      2. Yes, so would we.

        1. The difference between Indira Ghandi and the NY Islanders goaltender is that Indira Ghandi could stop seven shots in a row.

          1. Dat’s gnott berry gneiss.

    4. It is associated with Threesome. A threesome is the archetypal male fantasy involving the subservient, powerless and victimized female whose sole role is to satisfy the prurient desires of the male. Or not.

      1. damn. should have hit refresh before posting that. I see Hugh has it covered.

      2. Not. As previously stated, a troika was orginally a sleigh pulled by three horses. It later came to mean a panel of three individuals exercising power.

        1. I was being a smartass…with no pretense of linguistic integrity. I merely ended up looking like a dumbass since the sentiment had already been posted. My apologies if I compelled you to repeat yourself.

          1. I’ll add a little mea culpa of my own: If I’d been paying attention, I would have caught the sarcasm.

            I blame PL. One of his comments broke my sarcasm meter last week.

          2. madness:genius :: dumbassery:smartassery

            fine lines, etc

    5. Can someone please explain to me what’s sexist about “troika”? Or “trio”?

      In Macbeth, there are three witches. In witchcraft, the number three has special significance. The implication is that the trio or troika are like a coven of witches brewing up some malicious poison for Obama’s mind.

      1. It’s like that for Stooges as well.

        1. Moe is their leader.

          1. chowderhead

          2. “What was Homer yelling?”

            “Beat’s me. Something about being gay.”

      2. “Your language is arch and sexist!”

        “Luckily, it’s so obscurely so that no women are smart enough to catch it.”

        Take my wife, please.

      3. I just saw a production of Macbeth where two of the witches were men. Yes, it kinda sucked.

    6. In Russian, the word troika is grammatically feminine.

      1. And Grammar Changes You!

  7. Can someone please explain to me what’s sexist about “troika”? Or “trio”?

    Because those words were used to criticize wymyns – duh.

    1. and grammar changes you!

      1. Yob tvoiu mat!

        1. Mommy thanks you in advance.

  8. Somebody should have told her her wig was falling off.

  9. The piece is dotted with arch and sexist language?the advisers are a “troika,” a “trio” who “rode roughshod over the realists in the administration” (all men) and “pushed Obama to war.”

    Someone’s sleeping on the couch tonight.

  10. “Bitch set me up . . . . I shouldn’t have gone into Libya . . . goddamn bitch”

  11. One of the arguments the suffragettes made was that with women voting, there would be fewer wars.

    Right…

    1. We’ve only had 1 declared wars after the 19th Amendment passed.

      1. So at least women are more subtle?

    2. The Urkobold (TM) does not advocate the believe that women are human.

      1. I’m not sure about that. Being inhuman himself, He views neither male humans or female humans worthy of respect.

    3. Here’s another great fictional Otto for your repertoire: “Otto the Gorilla, Dr. Satan’s fretful right hand man in Rob Zombie’s satire comedy The Haunted World of El Superbeasto.”

      1. Otto von Bismarck
        Dr. Otto Scratchensniff
        Dr. Otto Octavius
        Otto Palindrome
        Dr. Otto Hasslein
        Dr. Otto and the Riddle of the Gloom Beam

          1. Yes, and Otto Mann of the Simpsons.

            1. The Simpsons, that is.

        1. Otto Man, the founder of the Ottoman Empire. Also a nice place to rest your feet.

        2. Otto the Springfield school bus driver.

        3. Interesting the number of Otto doctors.

          Otto from Repo Man is apparently Otto Maddox. Dr. Otto Maddox.

          1. Without that sweet PhD money, an Otto is just a no-neck schmuck.

            1. That’s bullshit. You’re a white suburban punk just like me.

              1. I know… but it still… hurts.

        4. What about Otto Preminger, the non-American hero of Lenny Bernstein’s soiree’ with the Black Panthers?

        5. Otto? Otto parts?

          1. Ottomatic.

            1. Otto Erotic.

          2. I ain’t gonna be no repo man!

            1. It’s too late. [hands Otto $25.] You already are.

      2. No love for Otto in a Fish Called Wanda?

        1. He was covered in the Morning Links.

          1. Missed that.

            1. What? You missed that the suggestion that I get a Kevin Kline tattoo meant that BakedPenguin was renaming himself Otto after A Fish Called Wanda? It was clear as day! 😉

              1. Oh-h-h-h nuh-uh-uh-uh-no! K-k-k-k-ken’s c-c-c-oming to k-k-k-kill me!

                1. I love Otto. Wish he’d gotten a TV series or another movie. Or written a book, like Apes Don’t Read Philosophy.

        2. I believe he was the reason that BP adopted the name in an earlier thread. Truly, the greatest of all possible Ottos.

          1. for sure

            1. Whatever, I’m going to get a beer.

  12. Hillary has to show her military chops now, to ensure her GOP nomination.

    1. I thought we had this pretty roadmap well layed out in H&R a few weeks ago.

      1. . . . roadmap pretty well . . .

      2. Yes. I stole it.

        1. Or, rather, I revealed it prematurely in that thread. I was punished by the Uber Troll for my sins.

        2. Glad to have helped….

    2. Hillary / Palin in 2012. It is too insidious and insane not to happen.

      1. I almost believe it.

      2. Sort of the Palpatine/Cthulhu ticket.

        1. I’ll consume your flesh for that, Aresen! I don’t do tickets with pussies who lose wars to ewoks. Or, so I assume he did, Cthulhu is too cool and ADD to watch any of those POS movies in their entirety!

          1. HaHa funny Cthulu. I kill you last.

  13. The ladies in the Obama Administration are probably all synchronized by now and Ghaddafi picked the wrong time of the month to cock off.

    1. I suspect the women (I am unaware of any ladies) in the Obama administration had their last period some years ago.

      1. +1000

    2. +1. Poor bastard never had a chance.

  14. Women are insane. Just sayin’

    1. True – by male standards, all women are insane, it’s just a matter of degree.

  15. Unless President Obama’s better instincts manage to reign in his warrior women?and happily, there’s a chance of that?the United States could find itself engaged in open war in Libya, and soon.

    I should buy Northrop, then.

  16. We’d like to think that women in power would somehow be less pro-war, but in the Obama administration at least it appears that the bellicosity is worst among Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power.

    There’s a simple explanation for this.
    Women are more politically vulnerable to charges of weakness on national security, and therefore have to be extra hawkish.

    1. ah huh, not that a madman’s promised slaughter of thousands in bengazi had anything to do w it.

      1. It didn’t. That’s just a convenient excuse, to fool children.

        Has anyone seen any (i.e. ANY) coverage whatsoever of what’s taking place in rebel-held territory? Any score-settling, revenge, just plain-old human nastiness? Me neither.

      2. No, it didn’t. I had far more to do with it than any concerns over human rights. Obama does not give a shit about human rights. If he did, he would treat airline passengers with more dignity.

      3. I’m sure it had something to do with it.

        It just didn’t have anything to do with why the women in Obama’s administration are more hawkish than the men.

        Unless you think women have a special affinity for Lybians.

        I dunno, maybe they’re worried about a shortage of coin belts for their belly dancing outfits.

        1. Lybians – Lesbians… hmmmm

  17. the United States could find itself engaged in open war in Libya

    If bombing Libyan military assets and the capitol isn’t open war, I don’t know what is.

    1. Well, we’ve lost one plane so far. The crew was rescued but apparently there were some Libyans machine gunned by a rescue chopper, so now there’s gonna be an investigation to figure out if they were good libyans or bad libyans.

      1. so did they have AK’s or…AK’s?

        1. That’s why we need an investigation! Apparently it’s not enough that the plane was there in the first place to bomb these Libyans…

      2. And so it begins. Hey, what’s just one more fucking war, right?

        1. How many is that? I lost count a while ago. We occupy half the planet, anyway.

          1. I was reading the story about the kill teams in Afghanistan, and the DoD spokesdude said something about being in Afghanistan for 10 years. And then it hit me: holy shit, it’s been ten fucking years. It’s Vietnam.

            1. No, this is a good war, now. Everyone loves it. See any protesters?

            2. No, this is a good war, now. Everyone loves it. See any protesters?

              1. So correct, you had to say it twice!

                Hey TEAM BLUE scumbags, care to tell us why this is OK?

              2. Oh, wait, I forgot. This is Obama’s war. Never mind.

            3. Longer. Gulf of Tonkin was ’64. We declared peace and GTFO in ’73.

          2. This is Libya’s second or third time with us. Slut.

            1. 8====D~~ {()}

      3. Al Jazeera is saying they were good Libyans and one of them is going to have to have his leg amputated. America, creating good will wherever we go.

        1. I say we buy him a parrot and an eye patch and give him a greencard to work at Pirates of the Caribbean at Disney.

          1. But first we send him to Guantanamo for a few years. Have to make sure he’s a “good” Lybian.

          2. Wouldn’t Somalia be closer?

        2. America – getting suckered wherever we go.

      4. “Anyone who runs, is a bad Libyan. Anyone who stands still, is a well-disciplined bad Libyan.”

        Not sure if there’s a military situation that a quote from Full Metal Jacket can’t help explain…

        Also, if italics codes work on this board, why won’t strikethroughs?

        1. Also, if italics codes work on this board, why won’t strikethroughs?

          Yer doin’ it wrong. Strike-throughs are easy. Just like italics, only with an “s” rather than an “i”.

          1. thx Thanks.

            1. Strikethrough with italics.

                1. Impressive. Then again, no one can deadlink like you.

                  Strikethrough with bold italics and a dead
                  link in a block quote.

                  1. D’oh. Forgot blockquote.

                    1. That’s the end of the available tags for the less equal pigs here?

                      Seems there used to be more but as I recall someone abused them to the point we all almost went blind.

                    2. During that brief interlude, in-line images–even video–were possible, as was the blink tag and other shenanigans. A long time ago, I think UL tags were permitted.

                      It’s pretty tight now, post-Day of the Commenters, so I’m not sure anything else is available.

                    3. I remember the Day of the Commenters well. I was urging Reason‘s swift return to order, and was naming names left and right.

                    4. See how boring things are now? In an alternative–and freer–universe, we’d be producing commenter videos by now.

                    5. 3-D commenter videos.

                    6. Do you guys really want Nutrasweet to have that kind of power?

                    7. 3-D commenter porn videos.

  18. Why is Trog not humping the blonde and eating everyone else. He’s really giving neanderthals a bad name.

    1. Is Trog gay?

    2. NO MAKE FUN OF STEVE EARLY CAREER. STEVE NEED MONEY AND SO TAKE ACTING JOB. STEVE ADLIB MANY RAPES IN TROG FILM BUT ALL LEFT ON CUTTING ROOM FLOOR. STEVE REALLY WANT TO DIRECT.

  19. Liberals like Dreyfuss would be hysterical if they weren’t so pathetic.

    The idea that Obomba could be intimidated or bullied by Hillary Clinton is just laughable. He doesn’t pay attention to a word she has to say about anything.

    I have no idea what the real reason is that caused him to change his mind the way he did, but I’m certain that Hillary had nothing to do with it.

  20. ” Interestingly, the same trope?ballbreaking women ganging up on a weak president?is all over the rightwing blogosphere.”

    [Citation needed]

    1. Is he a weak president?

      Yes.

      Are Hillary, Rice, and Power ballbusters?

      I would say so.

      And you would think a radical feminist would be proud of the fact that our foreign policy team is headed up by three women who aren’t afraid to bobbit any man who crosses them.

      Really, is there no satisfying that woman?* Would she be happier if it was three men pushing the President into war? If the President ignored his all-chick diplomatic A team?

      *I know, to ask it is to answer it.

      1. That’s the great thing about her position. If you call the women weak, you’re sexist. If you call them strong, you’re sexist. Regardless, the guy who wrote the piece calling them “warrior women” will have to grovel before his Nation masters. In the opinion world, that’s power.

  21. Katha Pollitt responds:

    In a post entitled “Obama’s Women Advisers Pushed War Against Libya” (originally titled “Obama’s Women” tout court) [Robert Dreyfuss is] shocked-shocked-shocked that UN Ambassador Susan Rice, human-rights adviser Samantha Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were keen on intervening militarily in Libya.

    He should not be shocked-shocked-shocked as it is clear there are so many good intentions behind these ladies’ bellicose bloodlust.

  22. You know what would have been great? If the 1970 Joan Crawford movie Trog had been called Prog instead[…]

    Or call Katha Pollitt: “Beulah Balbricker”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFpsRr0WjDE

    1. Beulah Witch…now that’s some Buddy Rich!

  23. “…but in the Obama administration at least it appears that the bellicosity is worst among Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power.”

    Somebody might point out that Obama won the nomination over Hillary–not because they wanted his healthcare plan–because Hillary’s stance towards the War on Terror was that the Bush Administration wasn’t going far enough.

    My problems with military intervention have to do with costs in terms of humanitarian concerns and casualties, straight up expense, and questionable strategic benefit.

    In other words, I think Bush did a poor job on the strategy side itself–I don’t think what we got out of Iraq was worth the suffering of our troops or the Iraqi people, or the expense.

    Whether that Bush the Lesser should have worked harder on getting a meaningful UN resolution, should have disbanded the Iraqi military, or should have waterboarded and humiliated Muslim prisoners like that–making us look even worse in the balance? Those are completely different questions from whether we should have intervened.

    By refusing to commit ground troops, the Obama Administration has managed to avoid repeating all those stupid mistakes so far in Libya.

    How willing the Obama Administration is to use military intervention is an interesting topic, I guess, but it’s nowhere near as important to me as whether he learned anything from Bush’s stupid mistakes.

    1. By refusing to commit ground troops, the Obama Administration has managed to avoid repeating all those stupid mistakes so far in Libya.

      What makes you think they aren’t there now? Someone’s pointing out to the guys flying around or the guys shooting off TLAMs, which Libyans are bad guys and which aren’t. That, and/or someone followed the advice of the poster here a week ago who suggested airdropping communication devices (sat-phones, etc…) to the rebels, and the rebels are calling in the strikes.

      1. They could be, but I doubt it.

        We’re not there in any meaningful numbers.

  24. …but it’s nowhere near as important to me as whether he learned anything from Bush’s stupid mistakes.

    One thing he apparently didn’t learn is that you can’t fight a war with nothing but air power and technology. The civil war in Libya is a tribal thing. We can help knock Qadaffy out of power, but all his people will just blend into the population and become an insurgency. You can’t fight an insurgency or do peace-keeping without boots on the ground.

    1. “One thing he apparently didn’t learn is that you can’t fight a war with nothing but air power and technology.

      We’re not fighting a war in Libya.

      1. We’re not fighting a war in Libya.

        Nah, we’re just using our armed forces to attack their armed forces and their capitol. Not a war at all. Nosireebob.

        1. I think there are a couple of important differences.

          1) In a war, we’re talking about putting lots of ground troops or sailors or pilots at risk.

          I don’t think we’re doing that here.

          2) In a war, I think we’re responsible for what happens there afterward if we win.

          That’s why we’re still in Japan and Germany. That’s why we’ll probably be in Iraq for a long time.

          That’s why the French feel it necessary to invade the Ivory Coast and elsewhere periodically.

          If this were a war, we’d be responsible for what happens in Libya–I don’t want to be responsible for what happens in Libya.

          1. I don’t even want to be responsible for what happens in Detroit!

          2. I do no t see why we have to be responsible for Germany and other countries we have liberated.

            1. “I do no t see why we have to be responsible for Germany and other countries we have liberated.”

              Yeah, and people have been saying that for a long time.

              It’s not just that World War II is over–the Cold War’s over too!

              We’ll be in Iraq that long. Iraq’s our baby now.

              If we didn’t want that responsibility, then we shouldn’t have declared war.

              Colin Powell warned us about this.

              Those of you who want Congress to declare war, you shouldn’t be asking yourselves whether the president’s authority should be circumscribed by Congress’ power to declare war…

              The question you should be asking yourselves is whether you want the president to have a free hand to commit troops and make us responsible for Libya for generations to come–by Congress declaring war.

              Congress voting to give the president a ton of more power? Doesn’t circumscribe the power of the president. Some people here don’t seem to understand that.

          3. 1) In a war, we’re talking about putting lots of ground troops or sailors or pilots at risk.

            That hardly matters at all. In fact, the less risk the better. Like George C Scott said, “no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.”

      2. We’re not fighting a war in Libya.

        Of course not – it’s the UN. We’re just the ones who’ll pay for it.

    2. If your goal is to knock Qaddafy out of power and call it a day, that doesn’t necessarily matter.

      1. True, but I wonder if Obama would be content with that. There is the idea that if we break it, we own it.

  25. “It’s been a long time since anyone seriously maintained that women in power, simply by virtue of their gender, are reliably less warlike than men ? how could they be, given that men set up and control the system through which those women must rise? But apparently Nation blogger Robert Dreyfuss has just noticed this fact.”

    Indeed, it seems that women’s pacifism was just another one of those male-induced chauvinistic myths propagated to keep women outside the decision process of blowing brown people to bits. Seems like women – especially tought, driven, liberal women – are just as bloodthirsty and indifferent to human suffering as men. Who would’va thunk it?

    1. And what system other than democracy would favor women’s rising more?

      Trial by ordeal?

      1. fluffy

        The “system” she’s referring to is not democracy as an ideal type but the very flawed version of democracy that leftists like her think exists in the US today, rampant with structural inequities, obstacles to participation and elite influence…

    2. “Seems like women – especially tought, driven, liberal women – are just as bloodthirsty and indifferent to human suffering as men.”

      Isn’t it a bit more complicated than that seeing as how these women see themselves as urging force to end the use of force by others to slaughter and oppress a third group? Is the cop that shoots the would be murderer bllodthirsty and indifferent to suffering? You libertarians have been lecturing me on the critical difference between supporting force to be used against an initiator of force and initiating force, that’s the difference these women seem to be basing their stance in.

      1. Yup, it’s the desire to stop the use of force by a 2nd party to oppress and slaughter a 3rd group that led Hillary to demand war with Bahrain and Yemen’s current leadership, too.

        Hillary is just TOO LEGIT TO QUIT on the morality front, you see.

        1. Yeah, because the situation in Baharin (protests) is so similar to the one in Libya (full scale rebellion).

          But actually I kind of agree that our stepping in here while not doing more for the Baharanians (?) stinks.

      2. That’s right, MNG. We’re involved in Libya to stop a tyrannical madman from oppressing his people. And, um, terrorism and WMDs and stuff too. It’s a good thing people like you are running the country now, instead of corrupt neoconservative Bushpigs, otherwise who knows where we’d be right now?

  26. I’ve never understood all of the stateside bitching about these kinds of campaigns. Can someone explain it? If this shit weren’t on TV or being written about no one here would even know about it. It’s not like they’re drafting the internet bitch-brigade to drop ordinance. How does this complicate Joe Sixpack/internet commenter’s life?

    Even on a bad day in Iraq or Afghanistan your chances of getting whacked or seriously injured are miniscule; your average line unit (battalion) loses about 2% KIA in a year – and that’s for a mission gone “horribly, horribly awry” – at least by today’s pussified standards. And what do the rest of the participants get? CIBs, tax free combat pay, and a chance to travel and do a job that’s fucking awesome! Libya isn’t even a ground job – it’s strictly USAF and USN air. Where’s the loss? Why all the bitching? We lob some missiles, drop some ordinance on some shitheads who deserve it – no harm, no foul.

    Is it the money? Sorry assholes – you’re not getting that back and never had a chance. You’re too dense, fat, and unmotivated to claw that back ($650B this year, baby!). The only logical explanation for all of the bitching that I can see is that it’s something to do. Instead of joining the military, you lazy sacks of shit have decided to comment and bitch in the blogosphere all day long about things you have no involvement in, and should things go “bad” you won’t pay for that either, so again – why all of the reservations about this? You’ve got no skin in the game, none at all. You’re spectators. From my perspective, we’re giving you good TV. You should be happy.

    1. Is this the same troll that was in the Drug Cop thread yesterday?

      1. Seems more of a satire than a troll.

        1. Yeah that’s what I meant. They both seem to hold opinions that no person with two brain cells to rub together could maintain, let alone express.

          I dunno, maybe it is a satire, but it doesn’t realize that playing a straight gag with no rube just makes it look like a sincere idiot.

          1. It could go either way.

            War stuff seems to bring out the worst in people.

            I use a couple of tells to make a guesstimate. If he were just a troll, some of the stuff would be in ALL CAPS. …and if he were spoofing a troll, the whole thing would be in all caps.

            So, anyway, that’s my bet–he’s dead serious.

            1. Wow, really? Huh. A douchebag that clueless can’t be too common. He should be a in a zoo somewhere.

    2. Hey recruiter, I pay the taxes that pay YOUR salary. So have a little respect. The military isn’t for everyone.

      OBAMA LOSES THE LEFT.
      http://libertarians4freedom.bl…..-left.html

    3. Dear Recuiter

      When we use force, people often die. Thinking that taking lives should be a last resort–even if those lives aren’t ‘Mericans–doesn’t make someone an asshole, fat, dense or unmotivated. But describing everyone else that way certainly demonstrates which one of those qualities you possess.

  27. Hey! Hey!
    B. H. O.
    You’re Amazon Corp
    Has got to go!

  28. Instead of joining the military, you lazy sacks of shit have decided to comment and bitch

    Hey, Recuiter,(sic) I put my four years active in over forty years ago, probably even before you were filling your diaper. So I think I’ll bitch and moan and comment all I fucking well please, turkey.

  29. I’m so sick of hearing that if the world was ruled by women there would be no wars. Women are disciplinarians by nature, ask anyone who’s had a mother!

    OBAMA LOSES THE LEFT.
    http://libertarians4freedom.bl…..-left.html

  30. I know a good therapist if anyone is interested.

  31. Anyone ever noticed that about Obama? The kinds of women he surrounds himself with?

    With no Daddy around, all he had growing up were overbearing women (mom, grandma) and from what I can read between the lines, a whipped grandpa. So he marries his boss. Surrounds himself not just with women but overbearing, loud, cantankerous women?

    Guy’s got more daddy issues than a stripper.

    1. He’s mamma’s good boy now, don’t you talk bad ’bout him.

  32. Lord, the only thing more tiresome than feminist outrage is the predictable outrage at feminist outrage in some circles. I do though find interesting how it so often comes in the form of actually confirming the original overblown feminist outrage:

    Feminist: “I’m outraged as these comments are full of sexist insults and innuendo!”

    Internet Commenter: “Can you believe she’s outraged? Jeebus there is no pleasing these silly, fickle, ball-busting, pushy women!”

    1. @ Feminist: “Say, you’re cute when you’re angry!”

    2. Lord, the only thing more tiresome than outrage at feminist outrage is the predictable smug paternalist who thinks he is doing the little ladies a favor when he defends their virtueeous feminism when he is just another domineering male asserting a claim on the roost of hens. Butt out, it is not your fight, man.

      1. “Abzug’s Left Nipple”

        yeah that’s just great…thanks for the visual

    3. We confirm the original overblown feminist outrage because that’s fun.

      It’s what one does with/to someone one does not respect.

    4. MNG, not all women are feminists.

  33. Hillary Clinton and her ilk (Madelaine Albright) have always been worthless cunts. Here we have the worst of all worlds – idiotic domsetic liberal tendencies with hawkish foreign policy fantasies. It’s no surprise she is in line with the dipshits that supported the Iraq invasion.

    Clinton is the antithesis of Ron Paul.

    1. Woodrow Wilson in drag.

  34. Obama lied! And the Republic was all the better for it.

  35. I say to all of you naysayers: The buck stops here!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.