Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Hold on there ...
Posted by: McQ on Sunday, November 19, 2006

DarkSyde on the Daily Kos entitles his post, "Bush has lost the war on terror" based on Henry Kissinger saying "it's not possible to win in Iraq."

Wait a minute ... aren't these the same guys who've been telling us since 2003 that Iraq was never a part of the WoT?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

Well, we know they aren’t consistent.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
It’s still Rove’s fault somehow....
 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
It’s irony. The whole point of the post is to say that if you accepted Bush’s logic about Iraq being the center of the war on terror, then we have not only lost Iraq, but also the war on terror as a whole. Actually, I made this same argument many times before the election. I never understood why Democrats tried so hard to de-couple the "war on terror" from the war in Iraq. Voters who did so said we were losing in Iraq but winning the war on terror (because we haven’t been attacked since 9/11). If voters did that, they could, in good conscience, vote for the party that is winning the war on terror. I believe it was Andy Kohut, of all people, who finally noticed down the stretch that some voters were starting to say, "Wait a minute, if we’re failing so bad in Iraq, we must be doing a terrible job fighting Islamist jihadist overall." Bingo, and voter support for Bush on the war on terror started to drop.

So yes, this is a violation of an old Democratic talking point. I think DarkSyde is being ironic here. But I think there is no irony here at all. Failure in Iraq means we have failed (up to now) in the fight against global, Islamist jihadism.
 
Written By: Elrod
URL: http://
Actually, I made this same argument many times before the election. I never understood why Democrats tried so hard to de-couple the "war on terror" from the war in Iraq.
Because it is not.

The central front is the United States. The 50 states.

If terrorists are in Iraq, and killing Americans, then they are killing Americans in the military.

By definition, terrorism is the killing of innocent civilians for the political purposes.

McQ is playing games. McQ thinks that Daily Kos agrees with Bush’s premise that iraq is the central front in the WoT. Trust me, Daily Kos does not accept that premise.

And McQ knows it.

This is what McQ has been reduced to. As a firm believer in our misadventure in Iraq, he is reducded to playing word games.

The message of the Kos post is simple: Bush has been defeated in the "central front" in the "WoT" based on how he defines the quoted terms.

I believe that this really is hard for McQ to understand. He can’t understand the use of a shorthand to convey that Bush has lost the battle based on how he, that is Bush, defines the war.

But then McQ seems to have agreed invading and occupying Iraq was a good idea.

As I have said before, given how many times the McQ’s of the world have been flatly wrong about their assessments and predictions when it comes to Iraq, is it suprising that they continue to get it wrong?

What’s amazing is that those who have been so wrong so many years about Iraq continue to assert that they have anything useful to say about Iraq. But then again, you can’t keep the boy down on the farm once he has seen the big city.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
All of these terrorist attacks in the United States are proof that the war on terrorism has been lost. Wait a minute.....

(Now comes the part where somebody tries to say that terrorist attacks in the United States aren’t the issue.....)
 
Written By: DS
URL: http://
It’s irony. The whole point of the post is to say that if you accepted Bush’s logic about Iraq being the center of the war on terror, then we have not only lost Iraq, but also the war on terror as a whole.
And how is that "logical"? He may have said that Iraq was a part of the WoT but he never said it was the whole of the WoT.

So if irony, it’s rather poor, wouldn’t you say? And it certainly isn’t "logical".
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
The central front is the United States. The 50 states.
If terrorists are in Iraq, and killing Americans, then they are killing Americans in the military.
See how it works, the central front isn’t where they would like to strike. The central front is where they are striking.

By your own admission MK, by your own admission.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
By your own admission MK, by your own admission.
Now shark, you know MK never comes back when someone nails him/her with a logical breakdown like that. You are going to have to learn to play nice.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Oh come on. As Elrod pointed out above, DarkSyde was being ironic.

McQ’s rejoinder is pretty weak:
And how is that "logical"? [Bush] may have said that Iraq was a part of the WoT but he never said it was the whole of the WoT.
Leaving aside that cute "may have", DarkSyde’s explicit point is that Bush admin told us that Iraq is the "central front" in the WoT. (DarkSyde actually makes this point three times in the post.) If you want to split hairs, McQ, I suppose you can criticize his headline as equating losing the central front of a war with losing the war, but that’s pretty thin gruel.

Here’s are the three times DarkSyde made this (warning: irony alert) oh-so subtle point:
That "Iraq Is The Central Front In The War On Terror," and that head radical goons like Osama bin Laden agree, was no brief rhetorical statement by any means. It was affirmed endlessly by Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, and a host of other administration mouthpieces, pundits, and GOP lawmakers for three years running, with George Bush leading the charge.
Over and over the Bush-Cheney Administration, helped out by their Rubber-stamp Republican drones and assorted right-wing media borg have assured us, reminded us, and at times arrogantly scolded us, that all is well, that "Iraq is the Central Front in the War on Terror," that we have to win over there, or we’ll be fighting them here, and that the fate of civilization depends on victory in Iraq.
If the President was being truthful about the significance of Iraq to the war on terror and the stakes therein, doesn’t it flow by elementary deduction that the White House and the Republicans have lost the Central Front in the War on Terror?
 
Written By: Crust
URL: http://
Heh ... its weak at best and not at all well done. You can’t play the "irony" game when you never accepted the premise to begin with.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ, thanks for the reply.

Let’s try again. Here’s Bush in September of this year, quoted by DarkSyde:
The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror and that depends on victory in Iraq
DarkSyde is very clearly not advocating that point of view; rather he is pointing out its consequences. This is not complicated. Whether his piece is well done or not is somewhat a matter of taste, but it is logical.

 
Written By: Crust
URL: http://
You’re right, it’s not complicated. And it still isn’t "irony" if you never bought into the premise.

Bush has often said that Iraq is indeed a part of the war on terror. You really have to stretch to find "irony" in some 80 year-old, 5 times removed from power declaring he doesn’t think we can win in Iraq as "the truth". I mean why didn’t he declare the same when Jimmy Carter essentially said the same thing?

And then you have to stretch it paper thin in order to warp it into "we’ve lost the war on terror".

Like I said, at best, rather weak.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider