Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Preempting Charlie Brown For This?!?!?!

Barry, you bastard.


One of the traditions I was working on with the kids was the fun of watching Christmas specials.  And last night, the Charlie Brown Christmas special was scheduled, followed by a new Disney (with collaboration from some of the folks at PIXAR!!!!) special.  The kids were looking forward to this.  I was looking forward to it.  But instead of THE animated classic and some shiny new Christmas-y goodness, we get another speech, with West Point cadets standing in place of the Greek columns.  A 35 minute fucking speech when ten minutes would do, and it was something that didn't require a fucking speech to the nation from the United States Military Academy to say it.  More on the actual speech in a minute.


If you were going to pick a Christmas special to preempt, you could have tried one of these pieces of shit instead.  Instead, you crossed a line that really pisses on me, and on my children.  And my daughter did agree that you could by my dirty ass.  Trust me, I asked her.

(On a side note, I did buy it on DVD a couple years ago, so they didn't miss it all that much.  But there's something about watching shit live....)

And now, on to the speech (which I just turned on in replay).

Meh.

Let me get this straight.  We're sending fewer troops than the generals are calling for to stabilize things in the worst theater of operations on the planet, there's a timetable for the Taliban to wait for before we leave and they start killing like bastards again, and you seem to be working the economy and every other thing (like nuclear disarmament!?!?!?!) you could toss in into this.  And it took you months to figure this shit out.

And I'm sure you probably got a shot in at Bush somewhere in there, but I'll be honest, I tuned most of it out.  It looks like the cadets were doing the same as well.  Probably because I've seen too damned many of these speeches, and no ability to actually take decisive action when the time calls for it.  When it involves spending cash, no problem.

I sincerely hope that the strategy you've laid out in excessively verbose and minimally specific rhetoric actually works and we do stabilize the shit enough to get out with a win.  I really do.  Because success in this conflict is key in crippling the terrorist network for years to come.  And that is a goal that will help bring peace to the world.  In that, every American wants you to have military success there.  I'm just not optimistic it'll do it (see illustration as to the expected result below).




And fuck, I think you like to hear yourself talk more than I like to hear myself talk.  And I'm borderline insane on that point.

Finally, why do you pronounce Afghanistan as af-GAN-i-stan but Pakistan as POK-ee-ston?  Consistency in pronunskitations, dammit!!!.

22 comments:

Beth said...

I am actually surprised that Mr. Nobel Peace prize agreed to send ANY troops, but why does he feel it necessary to put his face on the TV every chance he gets? Is it his attempt to make us use less energy when we shut the TV off??

When it comes to military decisions, wouldn't it make more sense anyway for him to announce (to the world, not just the US)

"This is our plan: we're going to send A LOT more troops to take care of business and for as long as it takes, even forever! So, Mr. Terrorist, give up or plan on your life being a living hell!"

Then DON'T tell them how many more troops, make them sweat wondering exactly what he means! Maybe I don't understand the military strategy of telling the enemy our plans, is it me??

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
dmarks said...

Beth: About the President actually sending troops, Obama campaigned on ignorance of foreign policy and disdain for the military, but once he got into the Oval Office, he learned a lot about how things really work in the world. Now the hard-left of the Democratic Party in Congress dislikes him because he really has shifted from the the "nothing to do with the real world" views on foreign policy and terrorism to something a lot more pragmatic. And thankfully he has lost much of his "there's no need to fight back against the terrorists" views that he espoused before he was President.

And David Obey (D-WI) is still insanely wanting to make the US suffer instead of foreign terrorists, by wanting to punish American citizens during the war with a greedy and unnecessary tax. Someone needs to show Obey some footage of the 9/11 attacks to remind him who the real enemy is.
Patrick said: "a timetable for the Taliban to wait for before we leave"

The timetables and all are a bad idea. The only sane exit strategy is "completely defeating the terrorists". And that is the best way to avoid another Vietnam.

"Finally, why do you pronounce Afghanistan as af-GAN-i-stan but Pakistan as POK-ee-ston? Consistency in pronunskitations, dammit!!!."

Good point. Some things should be spelled as they are pronounced, or vice versa.

At least he did not call the country Pokemon (or Pakemon). That would probably be something Joe Biden does, once he learns what continent it is on, and that the people of Pakistan really don't have giant yellow heads and eat dots and ghosts all day. Biden's the blithering idiot that too many people falsely think Sarah Palin is, instead.

Joe Biden would be the one to answer at a press conference: "Pakistan? Yeah, my kids loved to play it. They liked Ms. Pakistan more."

Tom said...

I'm glad my favorite yearly Christmas show (How the Grinch Stole Christmas) was on Monday night, not last night.

He had to have a timetable, that's something he and the Democrats criticized Bush for. He couldn't do something he criticized Bush for.

This will go sour for Obama, because before he's through, he will be fighting in Pakistan.

Many over the centuries have tried to tame the warlords of this area of Asia, and have failed.

The best PR success he could get, is to capture Bin Laden and then withdraw.

dmarks said...

"He couldn't do something he criticized Bush for."

Well, he has criticized Bush for reckless wasteful spending many times.... and as President, he is many times worse at it than Bush was.

"The best PR success he could get, is to capture Bin Laden and then withdraw."

Add "Eliminate the Taliban and Al Qaeda" to that. Otherwise, it is a PR blunder: a retreat in the face of terrorist aggression.

Tom said...

Bush ran up a debt of 5 trillion dollars.

Obama is still working on Bush's last budget.

Obama will submit his first budget in a few weeks.

Please show me how Obama is many times worse in his deficit spending? He has only been in office for 10 months.

If Bush had done his job in Afghanistan, Obama would not have to be sending troops back in.

It's really irrational and false that everything is now Obama's fault.

Republicans should try taking responsibility for THEIR mistakes.

Patrick M said...

Tom: This is really about the insanity of a military disaster in the making (and the preemption of the most important of ALL Christmas specials (the Grinch is #2 (shit, I missed it))), not all the other shit that Obama tried to make last night's spectacle about, but since you asked:

Please show me how Obama is many times worse in his deficit spending?

Bush ran up a debt of 5 trillion dollars.

Yes, he did, over 8 years, the last and most disastrous two years with a Democrat Congress.

Obama's already racked up $1.5 trillion in debt so far.

He has only been in office for 10 months.

And that's not counting what will happen once he adds the massive entitlement of Health Care into the mix.

Republicans should try taking responsibility for THEIR mistakes.

I think that was the point of 2006 and 2008.

It's really irrational and false that everything is now Obama's fault.

True. However, it's more his fault each day. But I'll try to clarify exactly what is his fault (as it relates to this post).

It's his fault he pissed on the Christmas spirit this year (if I haven't beaten that dead horse enough). :)

It's his fault that he is perceived as both weak (for apologizing for American "transgressions" around the world after becoming President and therefore being the symbol of America, as well as the usual pulling away of the football as the military tries to kick it) as well as indecisive (for taking a few months to come up with this minimal "strategy" which is robbing Peter, robbing Paul (and probably Mary as well) and satisfies no agenda (and was designed to placate them all (big problem there))).

And it will be his fault if Afghanistan descends into Taliban madness by 2011.

Tom said...

Afghanistan is NOW Obama's problem.

Seems we want to forget that Bush blew Afghanistan by diverting to Iraq (a war of opportunity not necessity) after he told the American people that Afghanistan was liberated and the war there was done, even though he never got Bin Laden. Yet we heard this week he blew getting Bin Laden also.

Seems Bush pulled the military football on deciding the Afghanistan war.

All this debt (12 trillion now) was mostly built up between two Republican Presidents. Reagan 4-1/2 trillion, Bush 5 trillion.

The republicans have been dangerously negligent in national finances. Owing so much to China, is a national security issue. It's their fault future generations of Americans will be broke.

The health care bill hasn't even passed yet, and your counting the debt. I hope the bill fails, it's bad law. There's a good chance it will fail.

The comment was that Obama is many times worse at it than Bush. Really? How many more times 5 trillion has Obama spent?

President Bush told the nation we had to have a bailout, our the finances of the country would crash. And again, it was the republicans that brought us to that point.

Obama told Americans that we had to have another bailout, or the economy would crash. Obama is using Bushes economic people to make that judgment.

I don't think we should have had ANY bailouts!

Where do you get 1-1/2 trillion?

The republicans have been bankrupting this country for 30 years.

Do you think we never have to pay for that financial negligence?

When do we pay for the republicans pandering to voters on "No New Tax" pledge since 1980?

How can republicans continue to say "No New Taxes" when we are 12 trillion in debt?

How do we get our books balanced, if we don't pay off the debt?

By what right do we get to bankrupt future Americans?

What right did we have spending all that money and not taxing ourselves in order not to build up a 12 trillion dollar debt?

At least democrats tell us that they are going to raise taxes to pay for their programs. That's responsible governing.

Who was the only President NOT to run up a multi trillion dollar debt in the last 30 years? Clinton, a democrat.

Yes, it cost money to live in the greatest country in the World. Why do republicans refuse to pay that bill? Is that patriotic? Their debt is hurting America.

Obama will put his war costs in his budget, Bush never did. Which is more responsible?

Obama is listening to his generals. He is giving them what they asked for.

Seems Bush fired his generals, after telling us he would listen to them (Shinzecky-sp).

dmarks said...

Tom said: "Afghanistan is NOW Obama's problem."

NOW, and before, and into the near future. In fact, the current President took complete ownership of the US effort in Afghanistan on January 20th of this year.

"It's really irrational and false that everything is now Obama's fault."

US policy is now completely his "fault".

Later you said: "I don't think we should have had ANY bailouts!"

Average Americans who support this, on either the left or right, are rather rare. The bailouts were primarily the fault of the left/Dems in Congress.

"Who was the only President NOT to run up a multi trillion dollar debt in the last 30 years? Clinton, a democrat."

What counts as "multi"? Clinton ran it up about $1.6 trillion over his total presidency. This is the accumulation of the increase in debt he racked up during every single year he was in office. There was no surplus in any year of his Presidency: the debt got deeper during each year.

dmarks said...

And right on topic, I just now heard that least intellectual of the two vice presidential candidates from last year (the one who won office) was warning people today that Afghanistan now has nuclear weapons.

Tom said...

dmarks,

Your statements are so false, irrational, and extremist, there is no response possible.

dmarks said...

Tom: Your above comment is nothing more than a content-free insult.

I suggest you start to do some research next time before you let fly in pure emotion.

To summarize:

1) President Obama has been Commander-in-Chief for more than 10 months now. As of Jan. 20, earlier this year, the war in Afghanistan has been entirely his. You probably need to check into the powers of the office of "Comamnder in Chief".

2) The amount of debt Clinton ran up is non-controversial, and is part of the public record. As is the fact that he increased this debt every year he was in office (no surplus).Again, this is well-known. Is $1.6 trillion "multi-trillion"? It can go either way. It's far more than one trillion, for sure, and with rounding to the nearest whole number, it is indeed "multi-trillion".

3) Joe Biden DID indeed mention Afghanistan being a nuclear nation.

3) "It's really irrational and false that everything is now Obama's fault.". Due to the way the government and military actually works, US policy on Afghanistan and troop actions have been his "fault" for more than 10 months.

These statements are purely rational, factional, common knowledge, and well known. I stand behind them, as should anynone. Nothing contradicts them. Next time, think first. Insult later, if at all. Of course, if you have no idea what you are saying (as happend above), it might be better not to say anything at all.

(The only thing questionable that I said; the only thing open to interpretation, is that Joe Biden is less intellectual than Sarah Palin. That is a value judgement, I admit. Just like the statements that Palin is stupid).

Tom, your claims that my statements are "false, irrational, and extremist" are flat-out lies. Especially the "Extremist" claim. I think you might have a bit of a temper, and when people have tantrums, they forget what they say during them.

dmarks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom said...

It is irrational to say that Obama was responsible for Afghanistan BEFORE - before what? Before he was President? Claiming he was responsible on Jan. 20th, is just a party hack (you) trying to divert responsibility from where it belongs - President Bush. That's irrational, lacks critical thinking, and the sign of someone who does not accept reality.

Saying a President is responsible for everything the day he is sworn in, is irrational, false, and extreme. They are now his problems, but he made no decisions that make him responsible for the situation. He did not cause the situation by any action or decision on his part.

1 trillion, is not multi trillion and certainly is not near 5 trillion. An irrational argument and deceptive debate tactic.

Since I said nothing about Biden and nukes, your trying to make a point, that you just made up. I said nothing about Biden and nukes. You brought it up, and now you make it sound like I denied it. That's irrational.

Why don't you try and respond to what I DID say and not make up crap.

Since you are obviously a blog troll party hack, I see no reason to take you seriously, or be congenial. This is the second time you called me names on two different blogs. You apologized once, I knew it was not sincere. That's makes you an irrational, extreme, ass.

Tom said...

From: dmarks
To: jbm479@peoplepc.com
Subject: [Sane Political Discourse] New comment on Preempting Charlie Brown For This?!?!?!.
Date: Dec 5, 2009 9:41 AM
dmarks has left a new comment on the post "Preempting Charlie Brown For This?!?!?!":

Also, you stated "Seems we want to forget that Bush blew Afghanistan by diverting to Iraq (a war of opportunity not necessity)"

Well, that is a matter of opinion. So you aren't flat-out wrong like you were on most everything else. I have the opinion that fighting back against the terrorists is a necessity. I feel that letting the terrorists keep attacking us (including Saddam Hussein) was unwise.

In any case, Bush's policy in Afghanistan becomes less and less relevant, as President Obama has been running the show there for most of a year.

Post a comment.

Unsubscribe to comments on this post.

Posted by dmarks to Sane Political Discourse at December 5, 2009 10:41 AM


Why did you delete this comment? Maybe because it is truly total BS? It was a war of opportunity, not necessity. Iraq did not attack America. They were not responsible for 9/11. They did not act in partner with Bin Laden. Saddam did not attack us, your deluded. Why are we not attacking terrorists everywhere? They are all over the World, but Bush decided they were only in Iraq. There are many more terrorists in Saudi Arabia. Bush did blow Afghanistan, or we would not now have to be going back in. Just make stuff up, like a true extremist.

dmarks said...

Tom said: "Claiming he was responsible on Jan. 20th, is just a party hack (you) trying to divert responsibility from where it belongs - President Bush."

Actually, you have no idea what you are talking about. I already gave you links. Check again on what the Commander in Chief does, and check again to see the date that Obama became Commander and Chief. Yes, the date he became responsible for what went on there. From that date forward.

"1 trillion, is not multi trillion and certainly is not near 5 trillion. An irrational argument and deceptive debate tactic."

The argument was factual. Please read it again. I already described exactly how $1.6 trillion fits and does not fit in with "multi-trillion".You are using "irrational" without any regard for meaning. As if it means facts that you happen to not like. Also, I am not to blame for your poor reading comprehension skills.

"Since I said nothing about Biden and nukes"

You let forth a bellow of rage and insults and false accusations right after my Biden comment. Again, it is not my fault if you are too careless to point out which of the facts I stated that you had a problem with.

"Since you are obviously a blog troll party hack"

Temper, temper. I caught you in some lies, and now you fly off the handle even more.

"This is the second time you called me names on two different blogs."

I barely remember. You got all pissy and insulty when you made a "lets make up stuff and hope no one checks" comment where you blamed the bailouts on the Right, and I checked the actual voting record and found out it was mainly a problem of the Left instead.

"Well, that is a matter of opinion. So you aren't flat-out wrong like you were on most everything else."

I call you out on this false claim. Name one thing I was flat-out wrong on. I bet you can't. You are extremely careless.

"Why don't you try and respond to what I DID say and not make up crap."

I did. Name one instance where I am doing what you falsely accuse me of.

dmarks said...

Part 2....


"Bush did blow Afghanistan, or we would not now have to be going back in. Just make stuff up, like a true extremist."

I never said Bush didn't blow it. However, Obama has been blowing it there for more than 10 months.

"Just make stuff up, like a true extremist."

1) Name one thing I made up.

2) Check the meaning of "Extremist". You have no idea what it means and are flinging it about as if it means "someone I do not like or disagree with.

------------

"Why did you delete this comment? Maybe because it is truly total BS?"

Name one comment that was. I withdrew it because it diverted from the topic, and was likely to make you have another temper tantrum.

"It was a war of opportunity, not necessity."

An opinion, and it is quite reasonable to disagree with it.

"Iraq did not attack America."

They did, many times. You are flat-out wrong on this. Check into the number of times they targeted and fired on Americans in the no-fly zones.None of which was allowed under the cease-fire.

"They were not responsible for 9/11."

True. But I never said they were. Iraq, however, was responsible for a lot of other terrorism.

"and they They did not act in partner with Bin Laden."

I never said he did. You are making up things (Arguments I never made) and are attacking me for them. This is the "Straw-man fallacy.

"Saddam did not attack us, your deluded."

He did. See the facts about the aggression against the peacekeepers. I am informed, rather than deluded. It's really like I am doing the research on this stuff because you could not be bothered.

"Why are we not attacking terrorists everywhere? They are all over the World, but Bush decided they were only in Iraq."

Again, flat-out wrong. How can you make things like this up? Since you have no idea what you are talking about, I suggest you look up a list of the numerous nations involved in the war on terror. Afghanistan is just one. But the US fighting terrorists in Afghanistan alone puts the lie to "only in Iraq".

"Were There are many more terrorists in Saudi Arabia."

I call you on this one. Let's see the figures. The counts.

Well, I guess it was a war of oppuotunity, only if the "opportunity" was to strike back and stop the terrorists. Which was a necessity.

dmarks said...

By the way, in response to your "They are all over the World, but Bush decided they were only in Iraq." statement, here is a good link that contains an extensive list of the many nations on most of the continents where the Bush administration pursued terrorists through military and other means. A list of many nations, only one of which is Iraq.

The facts completely contradict your claim. At this point, the only way it could come out as true would be if you found a quote from Bush saying that the only terrorists in the world where in Iraq. This quote, even if it contradicted his actions, might make your statement true.

But we both know that you can't find anything to support your statement. Perhaps if you looked things up first, there would not be so many problems with you making statements that are so strongly contradicted by the facts.

Tom said...

It's useless to have a conversation with a lying, ass hole, extremist like you. Have fun living in your World of delusion.

I see other bloggers at other blogs have told you to go to hell. At least I know I'm not alone, or wrong.

dmarks said...

"It's useless to have a conversation with a lying, ass hole, extremist"

Probably, because you fling out accusations of lying, and can't name one lie. You fling out accusations of "extremism", but can't name one of my mainstream views which is extremist.

A-hole is a value-judgment. Quite subjective. While it shows a playground mentality, at least it is not completely baseless and unsupported as the other two accusations are.

"I see other bloggers at other blogs have told you to go to hell. At least I know I'm not alone, or wrong."

Only one, really. As for not knowing whether or not you are wrong, it depends on the assertion. You are certainly wrong on the several easily-disproven assertions made here.

Still waiting on the policy or speech statement where Bush said that the only terrorists were in Iraq. Better get googling....

TAO said...

dmarks,

"Axis of Evil" Which was Iran, Iraq, and North Korea...I didn't see where Bush expanded this axis?

Two nuclear and one not...

So, why go into Iraq?

Why go into Iraq when you had yet to capture Osama Bin Laden?

Why no "Mission Accomplished" Banner for Afghanistan....seems to me that 'first in first out' is the best way to fight wars when you are stacking them up...

While you are at it why not explain why for Gulf War I we mobilize 500,000 troops and for Gulf War II we only mobilize 150,000...

Then you go and force a general to retire who tells congress it will take 450,000 troops to invade Iraq...

A little hubris all the way around don't you think?

dmarks said...

You do raise some interesting points! (At least your aren't flinging careless whoppers like Tom is.)

In hindsight, it is easy to see many things that could have been done better to stop the terrorist regime in Iraq. Especially if one is an armchair general.

It does seem like the "surge" should have been done earlier. Looking back, it does appear that Bush was wrong to discourage it. As Obama was when he opposed it toward the end of the Bush years.