MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough invited a group of “heavy hitters” on to “Scarborough Country” Wednesday, and the discussion quickly moved in the direction of why impeachment proceedings of President Bush should be commenced due to his handling of the war in Iraq (video available here). After addressing what the President said at his morning press conference, Scarborough got the bash-fest started:
Yes, those words coming from the man who`s decided the only way to turn things around in Iraq is by sending in more troop. Despite being told by the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell and the man running the Iraq war, General Abizaid, that sending more troops to Iraq would only get more Americans killed…Now, seeming to confirm his opponent`s worst suspicions that this president does not value the opinions of those with whom he disagrees, Mr. Bush has now decided to go it alone in Iraq against the wishes of his allies, against the desires of his fellow countrymen, and yes, even against the advice of his own generals.
Scarborough then got his first guest involved in the bashing:
Michael, Crowley, you know, the situation seems to become more and more grim in Iraq, and the White House -- the situation there is every bit as disturbing as each day passes. How can this president thumb his nose at the very military leaders who are fighting this war in Iraq just because they know that more troops in Iraq will not win this war?
MICHAEL CROWLEY, "THE NEW REPUBLIC": Yes, I mean, Joe, there`s something very unsettling about what we`re starting to hear from Bush. For so long, his mantra was that he was taking his lead from the commanders on the ground, and that was this -- you know, this ultimate card he could play of credibility...
SCARBOROUGH: And Michael, as long as he said that -- exactly. As long as he said that, it didn`t matter that only 12 percent of Americans support this president`s effort to send more troops to Iraq. But when all of his generals abandon him, when the Joint Chiefs abandon him, the admirals abandon him, when John Abizaid abandons him, when Colin Powell abandons him, everybody abandons him, he`s standing alone! He just doesn`t seem to have any credibility. And this is extraordinarily disturbing to me, as a guy who supported this war and supported this president twice.
The host then brought another one of his guests into the festivities:
And Josh Green, I want you, if you will, to imagine, how would Republicans have responded if President Bill Clinton had ignored the advice of all of his Joint Chiefs, his top general in the war zone, his former secretary of state, and 80 percent of Americans? Is it not a stretch to say that many Republicans would have considered impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton if this situation were identical?
JOSH GREEN, "THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY": I think they would have launched a coup. It probably would have been -- probably would have been centered at Fox News. They`d be going crazy, the way, you know, frankly, quite a few of them are beginning to get with Bush.
Scarborough saved the biggest of the three Bush-bashing guests for last:
Well, Mike Barnicle, as you know, I supported this war and I supported this man twice for president, and yet I`m growing more disturbed every night by how isolated George W. Bush has become. All the Joint Chiefs oppose his plan for Iraq. His lead general opposes his plan in Iraq, and now he`s going to quit because Bush has ignored him. Colin Powell opposes his plan in Iraq. And an "L.A. Times" poll is showing that only 12 percent of Americans support his plan for more troops in Iraq. Shouldn`t more Americans be disturbed at this unprecedented example of a White House that`s in -- and you can only call it this -- a bunker mentality?
MIKE BARNICLE, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think, Joe, that more Americans ought to be truly depressed by what they saw today on TV, the latest press conference. We have a president of the United States who is isolated. He`s delusional. He is stubborn. He has had one intervention that clearly didn`t work, the Baker-Hamilton report. He is clearly in need of another intervention.
Scarborough continued with Barnicle:
Mike, let me ask you, historically, has a president ever been so alone in his determination to fight a war, even when his generals and the American public oppose it? I mean, there`s not a more significant decision a president makes than war.
BARNICLE: You know, the last...
SCARBOROUGH: Have you ever known of any president being this alone?
BARNICLE: No. The last great -- the most recent epic that this country has been through, a cultural and social epic that shattered the country, Vietnam, the president of the United States, Lyndon Johnson, as obstinate as he was for as long as he was, going down to the White House Situation Room, monitoring bombing runs, both strategic and tactical bombing runs over North Vietnam and South Vietnam, at least finally, at the end, toward the end, he listened to Clark Clifford and withdrew, withdrew himself from the presidency, a noble gesture in retrospect.
This president -- this is dangerously close to a delusion that is going to result in death and carnage for years to come in the Middle East, too many Americans and too many people in the Middle East.
Scarborough seemed to like Barnicle’s views the best, for he came back for more to conclude the discussion asking, “You really think he is delusional?”
BARNICLE: I do. I don`t think he could explain to us tonight what he meant by what he said today. At one point, he said we`re not winning, but at another point, he said, you know, we`re going to win a victory there. He can`t define victory.
The deaths in this war right now, at this stage in our life, our political life, our national life, and especially if there`s a surge in troops in Baghdad -- the deaths of American soldiers verges now on the criminal. And I don`t think that`s too strong a statement. It verges on the criminal. There`s no plan. There`s only this poppycock that you get from the president of the United States, who says one thing one moment, another thing the next moment, and he can`t figure out what he is saying.
SCARBOROUGH: So what`s going on there, Mike?
BARNICLE: What is going on there? I think you have a president totally isolated from reality, totally delusional, kind of paranoid, figuring that everyone`s against him, including his own Joint Chiefs of Staff, figuring that history 30, 40 years from now is going to prove him correct.
Extraordinary stuff. What follows is a full transcript of this astonishing segment.
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: Tonight, the Democratic frontrunner for 2008 takes her pre-campaign campaign to "The View." But first, stop the presses. George W. Bush says America is not winning the war. Yes, those words coming from the man who`s decided the only way to turn things around in Iraq is by sending in more troop, Despite being told by the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell and the man running the Iraq war, General Abizaid, that sending more troops to Iraq would only get more Americans killed. Perhaps it was no coincidence that on the same day that Mr. Bush ignored his top generals` advice, General John Abizaid abruptly quit, announcing he would step down soon.
Now, seeming to confirm his opponent`s worst suspicions that this president does not value the opinions of those with whom he disagrees, Mr. Bush has now decided to go it alone in Iraq against the wishes of his allies, against the desires of his fellow countrymen, and yes, even against the advice of his own generals. And in the face of this crisis, almost without precedent in U.S. history, the president offered this advice to the American people today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE WALKER BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And I encourage you all to go shopping more.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: Here to talk about the crisis that seemingly becomes more dangerous by the day, here`s Michael Crowley with "The New Republic," Josh Green, senior editor for "The Atlantic Monthly," and MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle.
Michael, Crowley, you know, the situation seems to become more and more grim in Iraq, and the White House -- the situation there is every bit as disturbing as each day passes. How can this president thumb his nose at the very military leaders who are fighting this war in Iraq just because they know that more troops in Iraq will not win this war?
MICHAEL CROWLEY, "THE NEW REPUBLIC": Yes, I mean, Joe, there`s something very unsettling about what we`re starting to hear from Bush. For so long, his mantra was that he was taking his lead from the commanders on the ground, and that was this -- you know, this ultimate card he could play of credibility...
SCARBOROUGH: And Michael, as long as he said that -- exactly. As long as he said that, it didn`t matter that only 12 percent of Americans support this president`s effort to send more troops to Iraq. But when all of his generals abandon him, when the Joint Chiefs abandon him, the admirals abandon him, when John Abizaid abandons him, when Colin Powell abandons him, everybody abandons him, he`s standing alone! He just doesn`t seem to have any credibility. And this is extraordinarily disturbing to me, as a guy who supported this war and supported this president twice.
CROWLEY: No, there`s something almost kind of alarming about it. I mean, he`s been telling us the whole time, These guys know what`s best, I take their lead. And they`re saying, This is not -- not uniformly, but many of them, many of the senior guys, the smartest guys, Abizaid, people with a lot of credibility, are saying this is not the way to go, and it looks likes he`s not going to listen to them. And there`s something quite alarming about that.
You know, things are -- you thought things couldn`t get worse, and now you have a situation where, gosh, he`s overruling the people who really do seem to know best. And we`re sort of in uncharted territory here, if you ask me.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, this is uncharted territory. And Josh Green, I want you, if you will, to imagine, how would Republicans have responded if President Bill Clinton had ignored the advice of all of his Joint Chiefs, his top general in the war zone, his former secretary of state, and 80 percent of Americans? Is it not a stretch to say that many Republicans would have considered impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton if this situation were identical?
JOSH GREEN, "THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY": I think they would have launched a coupe. It probably would have been -- probably would have been centered at Fox News. They`d be going crazy, the way, you know, frankly, quite a few of them are beginning to get with Bush.
You know, we heard yesterday for the first time, you know, at least an admission on Bush`s part that this line about how we`re winning the war in Iraq is no longer operative. And he admitted to "The Washington Post" yesterday that while they`re not winning the war, they`re not losing. So at least he`s come a small step down the road toward being where everybody else is, you know, most importantly his top generals.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, Mike Barnicle, as you know, I supported this war and I supported this man twice for president, and yet I`m growing more disturbed every night by how isolated George W. Bush has become. All the Joint Chiefs oppose his plan for Iraq. His lead general opposes his plan in Iraq, and now he`s going to quit because Bush has ignored him. Colin Powell opposes his plan in Iraq. And an "L.A. Times" poll is showing that only 12 percent of Americans support his plan for more troops in Iraq. Shouldn`t more Americans be disturbed at this unprecedented example of a White House that`s in -- and you can only call it this -- a bunker mentality?
MIKE BARNICLE, MSNBC CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I think, Joe, that more Americans ought to be truly depressed by what they saw today on TV, the latest press conference. We have a president of the United States who is isolated. He`s delusional. He is stubborn. He has had one intervention that clearly didn`t work, the Baker-Hamilton report. He is clearly in need of another intervention.
You don`t have to be von Clausewitz to figure out that urban warfare in the city of Baghdad, comparably the size of New York City, a tremendously hostile environment now, will become even more hostile with the introduction of more American troops. It will do very little, if nothing, to lessen the level of violence in Baghdad. The only...
SCARBOROUGH: And you`re just going more -- you`re only going to get more American kids killed...
(CROSSTALK)
BARNICLE: You`re going to get more Americans both killed and captured. And the only services that we will have ended up improving in Baghdad are funeral services.
SCARBOROUGH: No doubt. And Mike, I want you -- once again, I want to put this "L.A. Times" poll up again just briefly. Look at these numbers again. Only 12 percent of Americans support this president`s plan to send more troops to Iraq. His Joint Chiefs all oppose him. General Abizaid opposes him. Mike, let me ask you, historically, has a president ever been so alone in his determination to fight a war, even when his generals and the American public oppose it? I mean, there`s not a more significant decision a president makes than war.
BARNICLE: You know, the last...
SCARBOROUGH: Have you ever known of any president being this alone?
BARNICLE: No. The last great -- the most recent epic that this country has been through, a cultural and social epic that shattered the country, Vietnam, the president of the United States, Lyndon Johnson, as obstinate as he was for as long as he was, going down to the White House Situation Room, monitoring bombing runs, both strategic and tactical bombing runs over North Vietnam and South Vietnam, at least finally, at the end, toward the end, he listened to Clark Clifford and withdrew, withdrew himself from the presidency, a noble gesture in retrospect.
This president -- this is dangerously close to a delusion that is going to result in death and carnage for years to come in the Middle East, too many Americans and too many people in the Middle East.
SCARBOROUGH: And you talk about LBJ, but as Pat Buchanan told us last night, at no time was Richard Nixon or LBJ ever so isolated. You know, Nixon, at least, even to the end, had 30, 40 percent of the country supporting him on Vietnam, had his generals supporting him, only one or two dissenters there.
Michael Crowley, I want us to do a little exercise here. I want you to take a look at what President Bush used to say about military advice and what he`s telling us now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters, the sober judgment of our military leaders.
QUESTION: Would you overrule your military commanders if they felt it was not a good idea?
BUSH: That`s a dangerous hypothetical question.
If they want more troops, they get more troops! If they want less troops, they get less troops!
They are bright, capable, smart people whose opinion matters to me a lot.
Absolutely, we`re winning.
People now understand the stakes. We`re winning, and we will win!
QUESTION: Why did you drop your confident assertion about winning?
BUSH: We`re not succeeding nearly as fast as I wanted.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: Michael, it`s stunning, isn`t it? I mean, talking about the advice that he would follow, and now he`s just -- just passing it by because they disagree with him.
CROWLEY: Yes. And Joe, you know, one point I`d like to add. I`m glad you reminded me with that flashback. At the time when he said, I was taking advice from the troops and they set the lead, I think we now see evidence that -- he was taking advice from the commanders -- that people on the ground in Iraq were saying months ago, Send us more troops, we don`t have enough guys. And in public, he was saying, No, no, no, we don`t need it, they`re not asking for it. But I think we`re seeing evidence that they were actually asking for it.
And so he`s been doing this exactly backwards. At a time when they did need more troops, he wasn`t giving them. And now they`re saying it`s too late, the window is closed, we don`t need them, we don`t want them, he`s going to force them on them. And there is just something very alarming about this. I mean...
SCARBOROUGH: Well, Michael Crowley, that`s what`s so fascinating about it. We showed you those clips. We could have gone back to February of 2003, before this war began. Military leaders that claimed we needed more troops over there were mocked and ridiculed. People that said it was going to cost more, mocked and ridiculed by the president, by Dick Cheney, by Don Rumsfeld. So you`re exactly right. When our military men and women needed more troops, this administration didn`t give it to them, and now that they`re saying it`s too late, don`t send the troops, they`re ignoring them again.
CROWLEY: Yes. I mean, you know, it`s -- now he finally comes around, but it`s too late. And look, unfortunately, it`s a tragedy of this administration, but they`re just -- you get the feeling that the guy lives in a little bit of a bubble. He`s too slow to realize the realities on the ground. He buys into his own rhetoric, which is just too idealistic and too out of touch with what`s happening, and he`s just too slow to respond. So now he`s finally coming around, and it`s too late. And it`s very sad.
And again, there`s just something unnerving. I didn`t like his answer to that question about it being a "dangerous hypothetical," that we were treading into dangerous territory. It`s just a very sensitive, scary subject when you start talking about the commander-in-chief and the generals being in conflict. And I have to say, it kind of gives me the heebee-jeebees.
SCARBOROUGH: And Again, I think you`re being -- I think you`re being very cautious in the language you`re using. I think this is very frightening, again, and I`m speaking as a guy who supported this war from the very beginning and supported this president twice.
Josh Green what do you make, though, of the president finally saying we`re not winning in Iraq?
GREEN: Well, you know, I think it`s the rare concession to reality. I mean, you know, Bush has been so out of touch for so long. You know, and the important thing in the comparison with Lyndon Johnson is that Bush isn`t accountable to voters anymore. He`s not going to run for reelection in two years from now, so he really doesn`t have to listen to anybody and hasn`t been listening to anybody.
And I think that part of this concession that we`re not winning the war in Iraq is simply admitting the obvious and trying to stanch the tide a little bit of criticism that he`s getting for being out of touch, for you know, insisting as recently as a month or two ago that we`re winning the war. And I think what he`s doing here is trying to tamp down the alarm a little bit and figure out some way to move forward.
SCARBOROUGH: Mike Barnicle, do you take any comfort from the president finally admitting we`re not winning in Iraq, or are you disturbed that it took him so long?
BARNICLE: Joe, I don`t think he knows what he`s saying. I don`t think he comprehends what he`s saying. I don`t think...
SCARBOROUGH: You really think he is delusional?
BARNICLE: I do. I don`t think he could explain to us tonight what he meant by what he said today. At one point, he said we`re not winning, but at another point, he said, you know, we`re going to win a victory there. He can`t define victory.
The deaths in this war right now, at this stage in our life, our political life, our national life, and especially if there`s a surge in troops in Baghdad -- the deaths of American soldiers verges now on the criminal. And I don`t think that`s too strong a statement. It verges on the criminal. There`s no plan. There`s only this poppycock that you get from the president of the United States, who says one thing one moment, another thing the next moment, and he can`t figure out what he is saying.
SCARBOROUGH: So what`s going on there, Mike?
BARNICLE: What is going on there? I think you have a president totally isolated from reality, totally delusional, kind of paranoid, figuring that everyone`s against him, including his own Joint Chiefs of Staff, figuring that history 30, 40 years from now is going to prove him correct. And he`s going to have to weather this storm in the interim. He`s going to have to take the abuse, look at the polls plummeting down to 5 and 4 percent. He`s going to have to live and endure the casualties, which clearly affect him. Clearly affect him. That`s the humanizing aspect of George Bush today. But I think he`s intent on riding out this storm, thinking that somewhere down the road, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., 30 or 40 years from now, that that version of Arthur Schlesinger will say he saw it correctly when nobody else did.
SCARBOROUGH: But Mike Barnicle, thought, again, here we are. This is a critical question for us to ask. What can the Democrats do? What can Republicans do? The guy is at 12 percent -- listen, this is what scares about the situation. You`ve got a president whose legacy is obviously wrapped around Iraq. So he has an interest in seeing this -- playing this card -- playing this hand out until the very bitter end, come hell or high water, while the rest of us aren`t as invested in it and we can say it`s not working. So what do we do? What do Republicans do? What do Democrats do?
BARNICLE: I think one of the things that people in Congress on both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat -- Michael Crowley alluded to this in terms of troop levels. This president and this Joint Chiefs of Staff were asked to increase troop levels years ago, months ago, from the inception of the war in Iraq -- which is no longer the war on terror, it`s just a miserable civil war. This is not the war on terror in Iraq.
We can have Foreign Relations Committee hearings by Joe Biden, find out exactly who wanted the troops and when they wanted them. And if any commander who has been in Iraq or is in Iraq right now says that he does not need any more troops, there, I would submit, is a commander who needs to be relieved of command.
SCARBOROUGH: All right, Mike Barnicle, thank you so much for being with us. Michael Crowley, thank you. Josh Green, stick around. It is a disturbing situation. We`ll be talking about it more.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
...just keep saying it and sa
December 21, 2006 - 10:36 ET by TruthMonger...just keep saying it and saying it AND SAYING IT over and over and over til it's all true, scarboro - even if IT TAKES CENTURIES : ) !
The sickest part of this is t
December 21, 2006 - 12:38 ET by mattmThe sickest part of this is that their characterization of Bush is based solely on their pre-conceived and prejudiced opinion of him, NOT on any actual events.
That's how the Left works. Their prejudiced views dictate how they interpret events, actions and words. If they were reasonable people they would look at the events, actions and words and then interpret.
They don't do it that way because it just might force them to admit they had been wrong. This is why Clinton, the scandal-ridden rapist, could do no wrong, whereas Bush was a failure in their eyes even before he even took office.
Just think, now MSNBC has thr
December 21, 2006 - 10:40 ET by Chris NormanTa-da, now MSNBC has three whole hours, five nights a week, of Bush bashing - when Keith isn't off having his medication adjusted, Chris ain't sick, and Joe's not in traction...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
...found this BEGRUDGINGLY AT
December 21, 2006 - 10:52 ET by TruthMonger...found this BEGRUDGINGLY AT THE END of a Yahoo report:
"Bush has been seeking advice about a new plan for Iraq from military officials, the State Department and others in and out of government.
The Post quoted a senior administration official as saying that it was "too simplistic" to say that the surge question had broken down into a fight between the White House and the Pentagon. But the official acknowledged that the military has questioned the option but has not directly opposed it, the newspaper said.
"I've never heard them be depicted that way to the president," the official told the newspaper.
"Because they ask questions about what the mission would be doesn't mean they don't support it," the official said. "Those are the kinds of questions the president wants his military planners to be asking."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061219/ts_nm/usa_iraq_paper_dc
It took me just a few mouse clicks to do this scarboro...without any journalism training whatsoever - how the hell did I do it?!?!?!
UNDENIABLE CONCLUSION:
YOU'RE LYING YOUR ASS OFF ON YOUR PATHETIC BULLSH*T PROGRAM...
Olberman must leave bad air b
December 21, 2006 - 15:40 ET by Andrew H.Olberman must leave bad air behind him.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
transparent
December 21, 2006 - 10:47 ET by iveseenitallHow transparent! The liberal baby boomers are obsessed with Richard Nixon Syndrome. They've never gotten over their glory days of overthrowing a popular President. For decades,through movies, books, and panel discussions, they've degraded a man they hated for his exposing of A.Hiss and his commie pals in the state department. Now they're trying the same thing with a courageous man who wants to do what is best for the country. Liberals are the most repulsive, sickening hypocrites on the face of the earth. As for Scarborough, why not have a panel motivated by a desire to help the country, not simply bash President Bush? No, he'd rather go over to the dark side too. BTW, I just watched the video. I want to puke. Vietnam media all over again!
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
What's your plan for winning
December 21, 2006 - 11:11 ET by Right Wing Attack DogWhat's your plan for winning the WOT Joe? Apparently you've joined those that are more comfortable sitting back carping, complaining, and being critical of anyone that thinks it's a good idea to fight cowards that have sworn that their mission in life is to murder Americans and destroy our country. You claim to be conservative, I don't think you would make a pimple on a real one's behind.
Scarborough is a wanabe Pat B
December 21, 2006 - 11:21 ET by buddycScarborough is a wanabe Pat Buchannan. He is snarley looking, nasty, negative. he reaffirms their image of a nasty negative backstabbing conservative. He is all the liberal MSNBC desires in their token conservative. That is what he is. A token conservative on a univerally liberal network. I wonder if Scarborough knows this? I think he must.
So, I guess President Bush
December 21, 2006 - 11:25 ET by Red JeepSo, I guess President Bush is more isolated, more delusional, more nefarious than the most eeeevil President, until now, Richard Nixon, according to Joe and his panel, West Point grads, all. S/off.
I feel like I am in some sort of la-la land. Do these MSM people think we have no memories? All we heard for months out of every administration critic was: we need more troops. It was as if we had increased the troop levels to just the right point, seasoned it just right, we would win! It was the mantra, the main talking point of every critic. But no, President Bush is too stubborn/stupid to do that they implied.
Now the President wants to raise troops levels but now it is an awful thing to do. Terrible. More troops will be killed and kidnapped says Barnicle. “And the only services that we will have ended up improving in Baghdad are funeral services.” (That is so cute Mike. Stay up all night thinking that up or did you “borrow” that?)
I am so annoyed that this non-elected collective group wants our country and this President to fail so badly. Why? Do they get paid more? A bonus for every president impeached? What? Socialist Heaven?
Maybe Mrs. Laura Bush, the First Lady, should run in 08 and really get the MSM’s knickers knotted.
Republicans
December 21, 2006 - 11:34 ET by iveseenitallAnd where are the Republicans? They should be on the floor of Congress denouncing this treason. As usual, the Rinos disappear into the woodwork instead of outwardly supporting this man of courage. Whom do they represent? This is frustrating.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Goodness...yet again the medi
December 21, 2006 - 11:43 ET by slvrwlfGoodness...yet again the media is making stuff up to further their own purposes. If Mr. Scarborough and his panel had bothered to actually listen to or read the president's speech, they would know that he did not call for an increase of troops in Iraq. The president called for an increase in the permanent end-strength of the Army and Marine Corps., a position that is supported by both GEN Pete Schoomaker (Army Chief of Staff) and GEN James Conway (Commandant of the Marine Corps).
And second, GEN Abizaid did not abruptly quit. The man has been in charge of CENTCOM for over 50 months, far longer than any previous combatant commander. And Donald Rumsfeld had asked him to stay in his position until Spring 2007. And wouldn't you know it, GEN Abizaid is retiring Spring of 2007.
Joe Scarborough and his panel make me sick by ignoring the documented facts and injecting their own bias in yet-again trashing the president. Mr. Scarborough needs to spent more time fact-checking and less time claiming he voted for the president.
Slvrwlf
December 21, 2006 - 13:15 ET by Noel SheppardSW et al,
There's another issue here that conceivably is the most disturbing: why isn't one of these "experts" concerned about the humanitarian disaster that would be precipitated by our withdrawal? Shouldn't someone be bringing this up in every discussion about this issue?
Instead, these geniuses -- as well as someone at this board last evening -- are claiming that this is the worst national security crisis in this nation's history. Really? The situation now is worse than World War II or World War I? This is more threatening than our own civil war? Or the Cuban Missile Crisis? Furthermore, will national security improve if we leave and a real civil war ensues with conceivably millions of Iraqis killed in the months to follow?
Where is the liberal concern for the humanitarian disaster that follows our departure? Also, when people talk about our national security crisis, do they forget that there hasn't been a follow-up attack on our mainland since 9/11?
Where is the logic in the positions being espoused by these folks and others in the media today apart from a focus on mistakes made that we should now run away from as quickly as possible? Since when are mistakes rectified by running from them?
I didn't hear one contrary solution espoused by these geniuses, nor did I hear anyone say that the Baker-Hamilton commission also recommended a troop surge. Why has that suddenly been forgotten when these same people were praising the ISG report two weeks ago? ns
Noel,My sentiments exactly.
December 21, 2006 - 14:33 ET by slvrwlfNoel,
My sentiments exactly. In retrospect, here's one of the things I truly am lost to understand: the media beat up Donald Rumsfeld for not listening to GEN Eric Shinseki (former Army chief of staff) when he recommended more Army troops for the Iraq campaign. But in GEN Tommy Franks' (former CENTCOM commander) own testimony before Congress, he said this:
“There has been [the] suggestion that perhaps there should be more troops. And in fact, I can tell you, in the presence of [Secretary Rumsfeld], that if more troops are necessary, this secretary’s going to say ‘yes.’ I mean, we have talked about this on a number of occasions. And when the tactical commanders on the ground determine that they need to raise force levels, then those forces in fact will be provided.”
So the media beats up Donald Rumsfeld (and the president) for listening to the combatant commander against the advice of the Army chief of staff. Now, the Army chief of staff has recommended increasing end-strength and the media is going to beat up the president for that? It just goes to show that the media is indeed biased against George Bush, that regardless of what he does, he will always be wrong in their eyes. These cherry-picking media fools serve no purpose but their own and I'm tired of it.
For their own fractured self-esteem, the media and their liberal sycophants want America to lose simply because a Republican is in the White House. Abraham Lincoln won the Civil War, Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, George H.W. Bush won the Gulf War, and George W. Bush toppled Saddam Hussein. The Democrats only have Jimmy Carter and his failed foreign policy and Bill Clinton and his confused foreign policy to talk about. Not since FDR and Harry Truman won WWII can the Democrats honestly say they waged a successful military campaign. And even Harry Truman messed up Korea, JFK and LBJ haphazardly went into Vietnam and left a mess for Richard Nixon to deal with. The Democrats and the liberal media are searching for their "military president", but those days are gone with their Party swinging more towards the radical left.
Turncoat
December 21, 2006 - 11:44 ET by PeacolaScarborough used to be my congressman. In the 1994 election. he ran as a stealth religious right consevative, who had recently switched party affiliation. He servered as a conservative, no new taxes representative, who even opposed Newt on a tax increase.
Then, after retiring from office for family reasons, he went to work for the most liberal law firm in Pensacola. From there he went to Scarborough Country.
So, will the REAL Scarborough please stand up? I don't have a clue.
Scarborough
December 21, 2006 - 11:55 ET by iveseenitallDidn't Scarborough serve on the panel which found "no problems" with the 2000 election being called early for Gore in ignorance of Northern Florida? The man's a sneak and a turncoat. Nothing is as disgusting as a liberal who hides it and claims he's a conservative. I don't even believe his lie that he voted twice for President Bush.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
MSNBC is demonic trash from t
December 21, 2006 - 13:00 ET by sembyMSNBC is demonic trash from the pit of hell!
you are way too kind. they
December 22, 2006 - 17:01 ET by buddycyou are way too kind. they are worse than that.
Let's see, Colin Powell is no
December 21, 2006 - 11:55 ET by InfomanOhioLet's see, Colin Powell is no longer Secretary of Defense and George Bush is the Commander-in-Chief of all United States armed services, which means he outranks all of the whining generals...guess that means he can do what he wants as far as the military is concerned, with or without consulting a bunch of liberal cowards.
Send in more troops, Mr. President, and let them do the job right this time.
The truth may be ugly, but it is still the truth.
Well, the troops that new Sec
December 21, 2006 - 11:56 ET by SMGalbraithWell, the troops that new SecDef Gates met with in Iraq supported plans for more troops. Reportedly, they said that it would help them complete the mission of training Iraqi troops and security easier. McCain, too, supports the increase.
I guess they're delusional too? Doesn't mean that they're right, of course; but it certainly makes the Scarborough et al. little "delusional" charge more problematic.
I wonder if he'll mention that this evening?
SMG
Do you think that someone has
December 21, 2006 - 11:59 ET by CaringwhiteguyDo you think that someone has photos of Joe and that other former Republican Congressman from Florida?
La'joei'z
December 21, 2006 - 12:03 ET by foolnomorewow!! the french have taken over this news outhouse,treason,runaway,get out,these chicken-squeezer's are working overtime to sell the U S A out.
say it long enough and you'll believe it too. I'll never ask this piece of crap to back me up in bar fight. he may of had his lunch money taken from him more often than not, but that was from a girl. (girl'ie man)
Bless and support ALL the troops-LIBERALISM is a mental disorder!
So the high crimes and misdem
December 21, 2006 - 12:36 ET by rimskySo the high crimes and misdemeanors are ignoring the Joint Chiefs? Is that considered a high crime? Scarborough says, "It's a disturbing Situation." And of course, that's ONLY because he says so. What's DISTURBING is just how stupidly bent they are on this. Where is the EVIDENCE of ANY high crime?
rimsky.."Where is the EV
December 21, 2006 - 12:48 ET by ww thumperrimsky.."Where is the EVIDENCE of ANY highcrime? THERE IS NONE!! It just makes for another phooony "news" story .... It's just "harrassment for the President and his supporters... ...MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL, GOD BLESS YOU AND YOURS :-) WW
Thumper.. Merry Christmas t
December 21, 2006 - 13:29 ET by rimskyThumper.. Merry Christmas to you and yours as well. Best Regards, R
Joe Scarborough and Tucker
December 21, 2006 - 14:29 ET by mlongJoe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson are neutered conservatives who are only MSNBC to prove they have "balance" to Chrissy Matthews and KO ...but they still have to deliver the same Bush bashing and FOX news hate fest everyone else there dose.
Joe Scarborough, the perfect
December 21, 2006 - 16:00 ET by bigtimerJoe Scarborough, the perfect definition of a RINO with a yellow streak down his back for all to see....
Sold himself to the devil for monetary reasons and fifteen minutes of fame. I despise the human piece of tripe, I can barely listen to the show anymore, I started to last night and couldn't take it, anymore than I could when I tried the link again here today. He and all his ilk are despicable.
He calls himself a conservative...yeah right, and I'm the Queen of England. Talk about a man changing his stripes right before your eyes....he will have some answering to do, that will be between him and his maker, if I were him I would make sure I took up some serious praying and asking of forgiveness on down the line, he is going to need it.
"Once the coffers of the federal government are opened to the public, there will be no shutting them again." - Grover Cleveland
Don't let the impeachment tal
December 21, 2006 - 16:25 ET by Archibald CoxDon't let the impeachment talk get to you. The Dems are smart enough not to impeach Bush, because they know Cheney would be worse. And if they did want to impeach him, it'd be easier to go after him for dereliction of duty over the (non)response to Katrina than for Iraq. But that's another story.
That said, it would be nice if our commander in chief had a clue as to how to conduct the war in Iraq. Hasn't been going real great so far - I don't hear anyone arguing that it has. And I'm not hearing much in the way of a real plan out of Bush thus far. But I'm used to that, sadly.
AC...I'm not sure that any CI
December 21, 2006 - 16:34 ET by Clear thinkerAC...
I'm not sure that any CIC would know what to do. What do you do when a country doesn't want freedom?
Leave them alone? That migh
December 21, 2006 - 17:24 ET by Archibald CoxLeave them alone? That might've been a good idea, off the top of my head.
A bit too good for the savages?
December 24, 2006 - 16:50 ET by UnsaneIs democracy only good enough for people like you?
If the Iraqis didn't want freedom, perhaps you can explain the last two elections they held.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Prepare for comparisons to
December 21, 2006 - 16:34 ET by JasonCPrepare for comparisons to WW2, Re: length of time to "victory", commitment of troops post-combat, etc. Because Iraq and WW2 are so similar (cough).
"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:18
Vittles
December 24, 2006 - 16:55 ET by UnsaneSo no parallels can be drawn anywhere in history between two events then?
OK, let's NOT talk about WW2. Let's talk Vittles. There wasn't much anti-Truman talk over that, even though Vittles and the need for that operation was not anticipated by ANYBODY when the French, British, and American zones of occupation were economically unified under a common currency. No talk about how 70 U.S. and British lives were lost for the lack of planning, incompetency, and so on. Yet that is exactly what happened.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
if those polls Joe talked a
December 22, 2006 - 06:30 ET by troublemakerif those polls Joe talked about are to be believed... and even the election results. A LOOOOOOOT of people need to be praying.
It is time to have Bush submi
December 22, 2006 - 00:38 ET by joe conservativeIt is time to have Bush submit to a drug test. It appears the man is breaking down fast, be it drugs booze or just the stress of lying so much it would not surprise me if he had a medical 'event' that left him incapacitated.
joe(who is not)conservative..
December 22, 2006 - 00:55 ET by ww thumperjoe(who is not)conservative...You need to stay out of the woods son the squrrles will eat you
your NUTS! ...MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL, GOD BLESS YOU AND YOURS :-) WW
Sorry joe "con"..
December 22, 2006 - 01:55 ET by JerrySorry joe "con"...The only lying Bush is doing, is lying in bed with his OWN wife. Unlike the perjurer in chief Clinton, who lied to a federal judge, lied to a grand jury, lied to Congress, and lied to the American people. Who had a proven liar of a wife (billing records), and a lying, stealing, National Security Advisor (national archives documents). In fact, the only people in the Clinton administration that aren't proven liars are the dead ones.
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment
vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any
President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
SW et al, There's anothe
December 22, 2006 - 03:51 ET by entThe answer to this one is simple. They *want* a humanitarian disaster of huge proportions so that they can blame that, too, on Bush. After all, he would have given the order to pull out.
Regardless of what happens, they will give it the most negative possible spin. But a dramatic collapse of Iraq would give these sharks all the more to feed upon.
ent
December 22, 2006 - 10:04 ET by Noel Sheppardent,
I mostly agree, except wonder why virtually nobody is expressing such a concern. I mean, say what you will about Scarborough, he isn't a total moron. This issue seems quite obvious to me, and should be in every discussion about Iraq. Anything less is totally disingenuous. ns
I used to enjoy Joe. What h
December 22, 2006 - 10:58 ET by doctadaveI used to enjoy Joe. What happened? I stopped watching when he was out so much with back trouble. When he came back, he was different.
Liberals are free to spout their views because the rest of us allow them to do so. What will they do when we decide not to do that anymore?
ouchs doc/dave
December 22, 2006 - 11:12 ET by foolnomorejust one word: "gelding"
Wake up and smell the bloodsh
December 22, 2006 - 11:22 ET by Archibald CoxWake up and smell the bloodshed. We already *have* a humanitarian disaster: 3,000+ U.S. troops plus tens of thousands of Iraqis have already died. So that's a given. Of course, you don't often hear the administration talking about the vast numbers of Iraqis who have been killed or simply fled the country, creating a massive refugee problem - another humanitarian disaster. How many more lives do you suggest we sacrifice to give Iraq this democracy that it isn't at all clear they are ready or willing to accept?
Archie
December 22, 2006 - 12:22 ET by Noel SheppardArchie,
With all conceivably due respect, it is you that should stop hitting the snooze button. It's not going to be thousands that die when we leave. It will likely be millions. Up to three million Cambodians, Laosians, and Vietnamese died in that region after we left in 1975. At the time, there were only 7 million people in Cambodia. That's quite a slaughter, yes?
As I predicted in an op-ed over three weeks ago, if we capriciously leave Iraq, it will become a Sunni versus Shia civil war. As you may have heard -- although maybe not, because it received very little media focus -- Saudi Arabia has already made it clear that it will send in forces to prevent a Sunni bloodbath at the hands of Shia if we leave. As there are currently 25 million people in Iraq, and obviously millions more in the surrounding countries, the ensuing bloodbath will be in the millions, not thousands.
Is this a humanitarian disaster now? Well, one could argue that whenever people are dying of unnatural causes anywhere, this characterization is appropriate. Alas, this disaster becomes significantly greater if we leave this nation in its current tenuous position.
How many Americans should we risk to prevent this? Well, as Americans will likely be sent back in as part of a UN peacekeeping force later -- and in much more hostile conditions than today -- that question seems somewhat moot, dontcha think? ns
If you look at the history of
December 22, 2006 - 17:03 ET by entIf you look at the history of warfare, the US casualty rate in Iraq is amazingly low. There are something like 300,000 troops over there. 3,000 killed out of 300,000 over a period of three years is about 1/3 of one percent per year. Obviously a tragedy for the solders and familes of the soldiers who die, but hardly a disaster of epic proportions, historically speaking.
Do you know that in World War II, there were over 400,000 Americans killed in the same period of time? Do you know that there were bomber squadrons where 100% of the original flight crews were killed by the end of the war?
We have lived in relative peace for so long, our schools have been so deficient at teaching history, and more recently, our military ventures have been so stunningly successful that we have acquired a skewed notion of what war is like. We seem to think that it can be neat and tidy and certain to be won by us, if only we make the right decisions. A dangerous illusion that causes us expect instant gratification, and to cut and run if we don't get it. Millions of innocent lives hang in the balance worldwide, but liberals would have us ignore the terrorist threat.
Noel: So your argument is th
December 23, 2006 - 22:04 ET by Archibald CoxNoel: So your argument is that, had the U.S. prevailed in the Vietnam War, the Khmer Rouge would have ceased to exist and never undertaken its murderous campaign in Cambodia? I'm not sure how you make that connection. Nor am I sure how we would've won the war - we certainly tried. Yes, had we won, there would presumably have been fewer Vietnamese casualties following the war. But we didn't - and I don't think anyone will argue that we didn't try long or hard enough. Iraq does seem to be a similar situation in that it's not at all clear how we will ever be able to claim victory, no matter how long we try and how many lives it costs.
ent: The terrorist threat came chiefly from Afghanistan, where we have far fewer troops on the ground than in Iraq, which only became a magnet for terrorists *after* we invaded. And the reason for the invasion, lest you forget, was to find weapons of mass destruction. Only after we didn't find them did the rationale change to fighting terrorism. Meanwhile, Osama remains on the loose. So how is it that liberals are the ones ignoring the terrorist threat?
Apparently you won't be impressed till the Iraq war sees as much loss of life as WWII. I'm already impressed and have had quite enough, thank you.
Archie
December 23, 2006 - 23:10 ET by Noel SheppardArchie,
No, that wasn't the point. Instead, that we should learn from history rather than repeat that which is clearly repugnant. If we can recognize thirty years later that our expeditious retreat from Vietnam in 1975 resulted in millions of innocent deaths, we should today do our best to not allow a worse fate for Iraq.
Doesn't that seem reasonable given our entrance to this nation in March 2003? If we can easily foresee a cataclysm subsequent to our departure, shouldn't we, as intelligent, compassionate beings, do our utmost to prevent it even if it means more American casualties? Should we not take responsibility for the condition we have created rather than just wash our hands of it in our current state of discontent?
Will history look favorably upon is if we leave this nation in its current condition only to be ravaged in a much more deadly civil war than what exists today? ns
Another point...
December 24, 2006 - 01:26 ET by UnsaneAnother point, since you brought up the possibility of Saudi intervention if the United States were to cut and run as Archie so desperately wants (does he even want a U.S. military, I wonder?): do you think that Iran will sit idly by as that happens? Would they really stand by and watch a Shi'a population get potentially oppressed by the Sunni, even if both sides in the fight are Arab and not Persian?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Uns
December 24, 2006 - 01:35 ET by Noel SheppardUns,
Well, therein lies the real cataclysmic potential that the disingenuous morons in the media and on the left side of the aisle are ignoring. Conveniently, I already wrote about this. So as not to be redundant: http://newsbusters.org/node/9322. ns
Thoughts for Archibald Cox
December 24, 2006 - 01:22 ET by UnsaneI know this will sound redundant, but as long as these Leftists keep bringing it up...
My first point is a simple one. We aren't looking for OBL? I'll be sure to tell some friends of mine currently deployed to Bagram, Kandahar, and Bishkek this. They sure would be surprised to hear this.
Second point: what specifically will finding OBL SOLVE beyond bloodlust? You DO realize that someone else who hates America as much as he does WILL take his place, correct? No, you don't. You want OBL caught so that you and your Leftist fellow travelers can loudly declare "WORLD PEACE! Rose gardens are spontaneously bloming EVERYWHERE! I guess we don't need a military now! Let's build the biggest, nicest Nanny State the world has ever known!!!"
Third point: Where were all you Leftists in the 1980s when Abu Nidal was out and about? Were you guys all demanding we stop the Cold War, withdraw from Europe, and invade the Middle East to find Abu Nidal? (Nah. But Leftists WERE demanding we unilaterally withdraw from Europe to show the Soviets just how super-nice we were in the United States.)
I wait with baited breath as you address these issues.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)