Rightie Challenge II

This is a follow up to yesterday’s post that challenged righties to answer a couple of basic questions about Iraq. There are some great comments to that post, but none from righties. It’s possible none happened to drop by. I don’t exactly keep a “Righties Welcome” sign out, do I?

Anyway, Josh Marshall expresses some of the same ideas:

… The real problem though — and this becomes clear listening to the president, and increasingly from his supporters — is that the president no longer has any coherent idea of what the war he’s fighting amounts to or what victory would look like.

He says we’ll fight it out to victory or that “as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.” But it’s been a really long time since I’ve heard any coherent plan for what we’re trying to do besides slogans like this.

If we’re honest I think what the president is saying is this: We’re going to stay in Iraq until the place calms down and we can leave with a sense that we’ve accomplished something.

Isn’t that basically the idea?

Isn’t it? If not, why not?

At Kos, Armando argues that some kind of withdrawal really is the only plan on the table, and all the “never surrender” talk is … just talk. Beside getting out … sooner or later … there is no plan.

Eleanor Clift writes in Newsweek

If Bush wants to retrieve his credibility, he should call off the attack dogs and make a televised speech to the American people conceding that the certainty he presented about weapons of mass destruction was not there, and that the administration relied on a single source, aptly named “Curveball,” who was later discredited. Bush can then present his case–what he saw, why he acted, and why he still believes he did the right thing.

Bush won’t give that speech because he can’t tolerate ambiguity. It’s part of his personality. He gave up drinking cold turkey, and it’s all or nothing. He demands simplicity, and he equates dissent with disloyalty. The result is a White House that has become dysfunctional.

Bottom line: The invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and George W. Bush isn’t man enough to admit he made a mistake. And all the smearing and derision and bluster coming out of the Right is just enabling.

At The Left Coaster, larre writes,

A somewhat obscure blog known as Kazablog already is saying this is the tipping point. There will soon be many more. Just watch Technorati or Blog Search or Daou Report or Lefty Blogs or any of the dozen other blog aggregates, left and right.

That’s what has war supporters of both parties gnawing their tails. They know that If you really want to support our troops, military leaders are saying through Mr. Murtha, you’ll help to bring them home now.

By January, the criminal George W. Bush will be trying to join the chorus.

We’ll see. I think the tipping point has been reached as far as the majority of Americans is concerned. The question is, how long will it take before the Bitter Enders — now down to 34 percent — realize this?

Update: See the Mean Jean smackdown by ReddHedd at firedoglake.

4 thoughts on “Rightie Challenge II

  1. Yes, they are enablers, but they’re so much more. I see them as accomplices. When analysing the words from Cheney and the rest of that pack of wolves in the Murthra feeding, I’ve realized that the dynamic of their recent langage has become abusive, the same dynamic found in an abusive relationship through passive-agressive dialog..To be a wife beater you don’t have to use your fists.. words are more than adequate to destroy their being. I’m outraged that Cheney and his minions would verbally abuse the American public with words like” backbone”, and ” cut and run” to imply a moral failing when the opposite is the case, We who oppose the slime buckets do so out of moral rectitude and we also know that you can’t defend a lie.

    I’m going to photoshop Mean Jean now…Im gonna try to bring out her personality. But first I have to locate a picture of Pan.

  2. “Bottom line: The invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and George W. Bush isn’t man enough to admit he made a mistake. And all the smearing and derision and bluster coming out of the Right is just enabling.”

    Not exactly. 1) The invasion of Iraq was a crime. 2) The question is not whether Bush can admit a mistake, but whether his people can admit that they committed a crime. 3) It’s not “just enabling”. The tail is wagging the dog, and so has it been for many years past. The Republican propaganda machine is running the country. It speaks for 50%, plus or minus noise, of the people. All of the attitudes and failings that are attributed to Bush, or Cheney, or Rumsfeld, or DeLay, or whichever figurehead, are actually those of the propaganda machine’s constituency. Until you understand this, you understand nothing.

  3. Chalabi had lunch with Condi. This week. The Neo-Cons have not given up their dream. They want a pro-US, Israeli friendly, Iraq under the benign control of Ahmad Chalabi. You can ask “What are they smoking?” I can ask “Where can I get some of what they are smoking?” but hard as it is to believe some people are still smoking the hookah of Ahmad Chalabi.

  4. The only way I can think of to wake up the far right is to point out that the war in Iraq is destroying our military. If a guerilla war with a country that has no army, navy, or air force can chew us up this bad, how can our military leaders prepare for a conflict with a nation like China that has all of the above? What if the bone heads in foggy bottom decide to expand the war into Syria, Lebannon, Pakistan,Iran, or Saudi Arabia?
    If we are in an epic battle against Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida, WHY ARE WE CONCENTRATING ON IRAQ? this makes absolutely no sense! Kinda like a pit bull attacks your kid, so you kill every cat in the neighborhood…
    Of course, the rights’ answer would be “just nuke ’em all”.

Comments are closed.