The P-I's Strange Bedfellows blog recently highlighted an, uh, awkward response from former local pundit Michelle Malkin to Harry Reid's "this war is lost" blunder:
Personally, I like Mary Katharine Ham's witty retort better, but maybe that's because I still read Dr. Suess with my youngest at times:
I mean, hey, when you're a new Democratic leader and David Broder is already flaying you, it's almost a legal requirement that people pile on. If not, it should be.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 27, 2007 07:45 PM | Email ThisPS-HamNation's last few videos have gone viral, with hundreds of thousands of views.
Posted by: Patrick on April 27, 2007 07:44 PMYes, you need to marry this girl,
Yes, you need to do it soon;
But please don't ask her with a spoon,
Ask her with a great big rock,
And tell her "no, it's not a crock".
Like Economic Marxism before it, today's Politically Correct Anti-American Critical Theory is a paper-thin ruse that exists only as long as the masses are unwilling to call its bluff.
You have to admire the zeal of the Defeatocrat Marxists, because it is their Achilles Heal. There's a hundred ways to be subtle about their hatred, but they will come right out wear it on their sleeves.
Posted by: Jef B. on April 27, 2007 09:09 PMBut I love anything in the style of Dr. Seuss, a brilliant man who, ironically, was vehemently anti-war and pro-environment.
Posted by: Bruce on April 27, 2007 11:06 PMIf you're embarrassed for her, don't blame anyone other than Michelle, it was totally her doing.
BTW, I thought it was funny.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on April 28, 2007 12:46 AM
Since the goal of the left is the destruction of Bush and anyone connected to him, ANYTHING that could serve as an obstacle to that agenda, such as good news out of Iraq, must be rejected out of hand.
You see, there is NO achievement, accomplishment or news out of Iraq that the left would support, since the left wants to discredit Bush, and will cheerfully sacrifice our blood by aligning with their al qaida allies to get it... because the fact that the agenda of al qaida in Iraq is in lockstep with our loyal opposition is the key.
And Bruce should know that.
Even if the Defeatocrats overrode the veto, the Supreme Court could still strike it down. It's a usurpation of Presidential power by the military -- and this President, has been extremely restrained in the use of Executive power in almost all areas except the legitimate one of Defense.
Posted by: John Bailo on April 28, 2007 08:54 AMI also have to agree with Patrick @ #1.
Posted by: Mike H on April 28, 2007 09:58 AMBut whatever the precise calibration of rhetoric, it is simply true that life for the average Iraqi (and the saftey of the average member of the occupation force) has got steadily worse over just about any sustained period of time you might pick in the last few years.
Indeed, the administration seems to have decided that it would rather look like a failure than a fool, because it has dropped the "it's getting better all the time" rhetoric for the "we have to be in this for the long haul" rhetoric.
Bits of good news are indeed welcome respites, because the overall trend is utterly dismal.
Posted by: David Wright on April 28, 2007 01:28 PMI like the YouTube comment about that Michelle Malkin video (she never was a cheerleader, was she? She must have been engaging some sort of high school fantasy ...):
"Since Malkin posted this video, 9 US soldiers have died in Iraq. All under the age of 30."
George W. Bush doesn't seem to mind our troops dying. Maybe he'd have an entirely different opinion if he had done the honorable thing and fought the Vietnam war in Vietnam rather than in the bars of Alabama.
Patrick is right to notice, "conservative women are more attractive" (except for the more part, Sheryl Crow is a liberal is she is prettier than Mary Katherine Ham. And what of Angelina Jolie?)
Okay, conservatives, here is a little patriotic quiz for you:
1. Do you love the American soldiers so much that you are willing to let ... die in Iraq
a. 4,000
b. 6,000
c. 10,000
d. 50,000
Let's see how much you love our troops. Mary Katherine Ham is pretty enough, but I am sick of our troops dying on behalf of George W. Bush's ego.
How much does gasoline cost in Seattle today? I was speaking to a new owner of a Hummer today, a typical obese SUV-mom hyperconsumer. I asked her how much it costs to fill the tank, but she didn't know (the Hummer is that new).
I told her that gasoline is going to $6 a gallon within a handful of years and that there may not be any gasoline available at all five years from now.
She justified her gluttony by saying, "I was paying $80 to fill up my truck before!"
Oh my, Americans are nothing at all except for stupid easily-manipulated consumer cattle. Burn the gasoline, exhaust the oil, and the cattle will have no choice except to learn how to walk again.
Will anyone mourn for America? I doubt it.
PS: ALL (Every single last one) of the democrat global warming loving presidential candidates took separate private jets to their last debate.
Your mayor, governor, and King county exec all have chauffer driven cars that put hundreds of miles on the road every day.
Hypocrits!
Posted by: GS on April 28, 2007 07:44 PM> When the gasoline is all gone, I'll convert all 6 of my cars to wood burning steam vehicles just to spite the David Matthews of the world.
No, GS, I don't believe that you truly comprehend the magnitude of the problems which you are facing.
The loss of gasoline and other petroleum-based fuels is going to have pretty substantial impacts upon your ability to acquire food.
I.e., when the trucks stop rolling the food (often from thousands of miles away) will stop appearing.
You won't mourn the loss of the automobile as much as you mourn the loss of (easy, plentiful & cheap) food.
There are other rather serious consequences which must certainly arise from the end of the oil age.
What will happen to the obese hyperconsumer-powered global economy when the obese hyperconsumers no longer can get to the malls (and all the cheap imported consumer products disappear from the shelves for good)?
I imagine that Americans will discover that the end of oil will bring about the following negative consequencea: No gasoline, no cars, no economy and no food.
We really can afford to lose the first three, but the loss of (easy, cheap & plentiful) food will become a real tragedy.
Of course, I might be wrong. There's only one way to find out what will happen: We can wait around and see it with our own eyes.
While the apocalypse may not happen this year or next year, undoubtedly it will occur during the lifetime of this present generation.
The future is bleak and it grows bleaker with each passing day because Americans are foolish enough to push the global engine until it blows up. We are already redlining and humankind still insists upon adding billions more hungry mouths and the wealthy cannot help but demand to consume more.
But we are the lucky ones. Future generations will inherit all of the problems without enjoying any of the benefits. They will endure hell because of the gluttony and destructiveness and extreme foolishness of this generation.
I wonder if they will forgive us?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 28, 2007 08:07 PMThe Democrats will continue with their political gotchas - just to demonize Bush, with no regard for how the Islamofascists will react, but that is just the way they choose to be, because they believe they can get away with it and score political points too !
How will this affect the morale of our troops - it will hurt that of course, but does Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi care ? Not one bit. Sure, they can say they care but their actions say they don't care. you get the jist...Not with Obama, not with a llama...
Bottom line - Two wrongs (one more wrong for our military) don't make a right.
Posted by: KS on April 28, 2007 11:16 PMA civil war in Iraq is not occurring. What is occurring is an invasion of militants from neighboring countries recently visit by the House Speaker. One may only speculate what Madam Speaker bargained during her visits with the sponsoring countries.
Giving your enemy a date for withdrawing troops is a statement of surrender terms. For surely your enemy will survive till that date and your troops will ask what are we doing here. The democrats sacrifice American blood and the blood of their allies for the sake of gaining votes from their extreme lunatic fringe and of course putting a stake in the heart of GW and company. We are witnessing enormous sea changes in our culture. The lunatics are running the country.
Posted by: Snuffy on April 29, 2007 01:35 AM> How will this affect the morale of our troops - it will hurt that of course, but does Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi care ?
Okay, the Republicans want our troops to have a high morale while they are dying in a lost-cause war because the neocon dead-enders cannot acknowledge that they made a bloody, immoral mistake in Iraq.
KS: Will the Iraq war ever end?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 29, 2007 04:51 AM> I would suggest that based on the number of deaths that occurred in Pennsylvania an immediate withdrawal of law enforcement should begin no later then December of this year. The same demand should be made in Washington DC as the number of homicides occurring in these foreign lands exceeds the number of deaths of American soldiers in Iraq.
Evidently, our dead soldiers are worthless & expendable to you. How many soldiers are you willing to kill, Snuffy?
Nine soldiers died yesterday. How many have to die before Republicans notice?
> A civil war in Iraq is not occurring. What is occurring is an invasion of militants from neighboring countries recently visit by the House Speaker. One may only speculate what Madam Speaker bargained during her visits with the sponsoring countries.
Republicans are divorced from reality, aren't they? Thousands of Iraqis are dying every month and still they insist that no civil war is occurring. But then when it is suggested that American troops leave Iraq, these same Republicans threaten that genocide must follow.
So, according to the Republicans, the Iraqi factions which are not engaging in a civil war now will immediately engage in genocide after we leave. Makes sense, right?
> Giving your enemy a date for withdrawing troops is a statement of surrender terms.
Okay. So would you have American remain in Iraq forever?
Maybe Iraq should become the fifty-first state. If America is going to stay there forever it might as well become a state. The Iraqis should have a vote in America's presidential election. They have shed enough blood on our behalf.
> For surely your enemy will survive till that date and your troops will ask what are we doing here.
I hate to point this out, Snuffy, but "they" live on that land. It is their nation. They have inhabited Iraq for thousands of years. Of course they will still be there after we leave. And they know it, too. How could they not?
Where America withdraws in 2008 or 2080, the Iraqis will remain in Iraq long after we are gone. Bloody wars of occupation become untenable under these circumstances.
> The democrats sacrifice American blood and the blood of their allies for the sake of gaining votes from their extreme lunatic fringe and of course putting a stake in the heart of GW and company. We are witnessing enormous sea changes in our culture. The lunatics are running the country.
George W. Bush has killed more Americans than Osama Bin Laden. How many more?
George W. Bush has murdered over 150,000 Iraqis. How many more?
The Republican party loves our troops, i.e. loves for American troops to die needlessly in a lost cause which now seems eternal. How much longer with the Iraq war last?
Snuffy compared Iraq to Pennsylvania. Okay, here is a 44-minute documentary describing Iraq-Pennsylvania:
Battle for Baghdad: "We Can't Stay, We Can't Leave"
I pity the poor people of Pennsylvania living in those conditions.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 29, 2007 05:11 AMTo characterize a strategic war, whether well executed or not, against a determined foe who planned its attacks for a decade and has already attacked and, by any reasonable assessment, intends to continue its attacks, as murder is of course sheer dilettantism. Such nonsense sells with celebrities, third graders and other romantics perhaps; to adults such gestures are offensive.
When Matthews asks Snuffy whether he wants troops in Iraq forever (as opposed to a determined timetable) he engages the logical fallacy of the false alternative (look it up if you aren't familiar). American involvement was always likely to be long-term (think Korea), showing a hand, other than a focus on victory is tactically insane and an abandonment of our moral obligations to the Iraquis. The insurgents do not represent the majority of Iraquis; never have and never will.
It is the Mr. Matthews of earlier generations who stood back and argued withdrawl while Pol Pot and others planned murder on a vast scale. Only a fool would imagine the same isn't in the offing now. The anti-war protestors of the 70s conspired, through their angry and immature romaticism, to send a million people to the killing fields and the bottom of the South China Sea. If you fail to learn from history you will live it again.
> To characterize a strategic war, whether well executed or not, against a determined foe who planned its attacks for a decade and has already attacked and, by any reasonable assessment, intends to continue its attacks, as murder is of course sheer dilettantism.
The 150,000 Iraqis who have died did not attack us, were not terrorists, were innocent civilians, and are all dead as a result of George W. Bush's aggression ... these people were murdered by George W. Bush and the neocons.
> When Matthews asks Snuffy whether he wants troops in Iraq forever (as opposed to a determined timetable) he engages the logical fallacy of the false alternative ...
If Snuffy chooses to limit the length of America's involvement that would resolve the alleged logical fallacy.
Based upon the language of the President, the Republicans, and conservatives everywhere it appears altogether likely that they want the Iraq war to continue forever. There is no timetable.
> It is the Mr. Matthews of earlier generations who stood back and argued withdrawl while Pol Pot and others planned murder on a vast scale. Only a fool would imagine the same isn't in the offing now. The anti-war protestors of the 70s conspired, through their angry and immature romaticism, to send a million people to the killing fields and the bottom of the South China Sea. If you fail to learn from history you will live it again.
The Great Sins of the Vietnam war was the decision to start the war, escalate the war, and allowing the war to drag on through several presidencies. Those millions of people would never had died if America had not stuck its nose into another nation's colonial war, already lost.
Undoubtedly, the Iraq war will end in a bloodbath. Maybe George W. Bush should have thought about that before engaging in aggressive, unnecessary warfare.
However many millions of people will die ... all of their blood is on George W. Bush's hands. George W. Bush is the evil man who murdered hundreds of thousands in response to evil Osama's murder of three thousand.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 29, 2007 01:53 PMI just visited Townhall.com and read Debra Saunders' column and was absolutely astonished by the following claim:
"If the Democrats prevail, more than 3,300 U.S. troops will have died for a war that al-Qaida in Iraq could claim to have won. Many more Iraqi civilians will die, while survivors will be doomed to living with dread and chaos."
Neverland
To which I reply:
1. Iraqis are living with dead & chaos right now, and have done so since the beginning of George W. Bush's crime against the humanity in Iraq.
2. While it is true that if the Democrats win 3,300 soldiers will have died in vain in Iraq, it is also true that if the Republicans win it will mean that 6,000 or 9,000 or 12,000 soldiers will die in vain in Iraq.
The best idea from the column was expressed by a conservative poster:
"What Bush REALLY Should Do:
Bush and Cheney should go on national television and announce:
"It is clear that this administration no longer has the confidence of Congress or the American people. Therefore, effectively immediately, The Vice-President and I resign."
I wholeheartedly agree. The sooner that George W. Bush & Cheney have resigned the better. Conservatives should contact the White House with the above message. Flood the White House with thousands of e-mails demanding the resignation of Bush & Cheney.
Um. Your homepage says, "I Choose to Live at Peace with All and Refuse to Hate Anyone."
Your words here (such as "George W. Bush is the evil man who murdered hundreds of thousands") tell a very different story.
You so funny!
Bonus track: "Osama Bin Laden, You Ruined My Birthday."
Posted by: pudge on April 29, 2007 03:51 PMIs it funny that George W. Bush has murdered 150,000 Iraqis?
I shouldn't have to spell this out for you, but I will:
Living at peace with all people demands that I oppose the American mass-murder of Iraqis.
and ...
Living at peace with all people precludes my overlooking the murderous acts of the President against the Iraqi people.
***
Now, pudge, are you in favor of George W. Bush's murder of 150,000 Iraqis?
Is mass-murder a matter of patriotism to you?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 29, 2007 03:55 PMBecause we all know Iraq was such a swell place to live before we invaded...
Posted by: Mike H on April 29, 2007 03:57 PMIraqis are suffering in a horrendous manner under the leadership of George W. Bush. Conservatives argue that a withdrawal of U.S. troops will lead to an Iraqi genocide on the same scale as Darfur and Rwanda.
So you think this is an improvement over what the Iraqis had before?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 29, 2007 04:26 PMYour words here (such as "George W. Bush is the evil man who murdered hundreds of thousands") tell a very different story.
You so funny!"
I think that ridiculous and unhinged with a mental disorder better describes he. For example he says; "Conservatives argue that a withdrawal of U.S. troops will lead to an Iraqi genocide on the same scale as Darfur and Rwanda." which is the most likely scenario and an argument for not completely pulling out by giving the enemy a timetable, yet DM like all of the unhinged left doesn't get it and clearly doesn't want to get it.
Posted by: KS on April 29, 2007 04:48 PMI was presenting the conservative argument for allowing this war to last forever, not my own opinion regarding the outcome of a withdrawal.
What conservatives must realize (if they are rational creatures) is that:
The Iraq war is going to end. Whether you like it or not, American troops will not occupy Iraq forever.
Any rational person, including those who are flag-waving nationalists, ought to also conclude:
The United States of America has lost the Iraq war. Remaining in Iraq for another year, five more years, or forever will not change the outcome of the Iraq war. What is lost is also lost forever.
No one here (or anywhere else for that matter) is arguing on behalf of a victory. The surge stratedy is as much a concession of defeat as Hitler's Battle of the Bulge.
America has lost the Iraq war. America cannot win the Iraq war. How many more soldiers have to die before conservatives finally concede that this war was a terrible mistake that should not continue forever?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 29, 2007 05:26 PMThe United States of America has lost the Iraq war. Remaining in Iraq for another year, five more years, or forever will not change the outcome of the Iraq war. What is lost is also lost forever."
Once again, you don't get it - The unintended consequences would be far worse to this country using that attitude and resulting strategy. It is irrelevant why we went there or being wrong at this point. It cannot be undone. For the sake of our country, you are suggesting to give in to the Islamofascists/Insurgents and embolden to expand their empire.
This is more evidence that you wish ill will toward this country, for which you should be convicted of treason and sent to Leavenworth for the rest of your life !
Posted by: KS on April 29, 2007 06:51 PM> The unintended consequences would be far worse to this country using that attitude and resulting strategy ...
Okay, KS, assuming that what you are saying is true, would you have the United States occupy Iraq forever?
Posted by: David Mathews on April 29, 2007 07:04 PM"Is it funny that George W. Bush has murdered 150,000 Iraqis?"
No. It is merely funny that you think he has. Literally, I am laughing out loud at you right now.
And whinge about Bush all you like, but you are clearly not "living at peace" with George Bush, so therefore you are not "living at peace with all people."
My only point is that you, in clear fact, are not "living at peace with all people," as you claim; that your claim that you "refuse to hate anyone" is, clearly, a big fat lie.
But why do I expect you to understand that? You actually think George Bush murdered 150,000 Iraqis! ROTFLOL HAND HTH KTHX!
Your response does indicate that conservatives are disconnected from the reality which is Iraq.
Oh well. I could not expect anything else from those people who consider George W. Bush the greatest American president.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 30, 2007 05:29 AMI'd work harder in my response if your comments merited such effort.
Posted by: David Mathews on April 30, 2007 07:56 AMThat is: your posts make no logical sense, and you are a proven hypocrite. No one here cares what you think, and you are nothing more than pure, hilarious, entertainment.
You say humans are unhappy. I am extremely happy. Maybe your problem is that you irrationally believe everyone is, or should be, as miserable as you are.
> I am not the one who doesn't know what "murder" means
Would you say that creating a condition of bloody anarchy in a country constitutes murder?
Or is there some other term that you would prefer to use?
> You say humans are unhappy. I am extremely happy. Maybe your problem is that you irrationally believe everyone is, or should be, as miserable as you are.
I am not the first nor the only person to observe that humans are unhappy. You should read the Scriptures.
No. Because I know what "murder" means, and it doesn't mean that.
I am not the first nor the only person to observe that humans are unhappy. You should read the Scriptures.
The Scriptures are a big part of WHY I am happy, silly.