Comments on: Smart

By: Anne Laurie

Anne Laurie — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 00:13:53 +0000

Great image, Otto Man! And in this Repub Theatre production, the part of Tinkerbelle (usually “played” by a spotlight, an empty twinkle darting about the stage) goes to — the Oval Office Resident.

By: Otto Man

Otto Man — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 20:21:07 +0000

But if we issue a no confidence vote, then Tinkerbell will die!

By: steve_e

steve_e — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:09:14 +0000

Actually, the administration tipped its hand long ago. It took me a while to figure out who the “enemy” in the phrase “embolden the enemy” is supposed to be. They see the American people as the enemy. We will be emboldened if the administration responds to the public. It would show that we can affect the decisions of the people who governs us (outside of “accountability moments”, i.e. elections). So of course they want to prevent that.

By: Dan Someone

Dan Someone — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:02:54 +0000

How much more emboldened could the enemy be? They attack pretty much at will already. I guess Garypublicans think that if Rummy gets a no-confidence vote, what, the insurgents will start swaggering out in the middle of the street, taunting troops? Terrorists in airports will begin announcing their intentions while boarding? I don’t get it. Nor do I see how slavish, unwavering, unthinking devotion to BushCo policies and personalities has struck much fear into the hearts of “the enemy.”

Seriously, Garybot, what concrete, measurable things do you think will happen to demonstrate the “emboldening” of the enemy if Congress dope-slaps Rumsfeld?

By: GoatBoy

GoatBoy — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:31:07 +0000

I love the smell of desperation in the morning. Smells like…DolchstoÃŸlegende!

By: JK47

JK47 — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:20:24 +0000

ok, waitaminute. This â€œmorale of the troopsâ€? line is worse than a red herring, itâ€™s just silly.

The RePugs have nothing left but their hoary cliches about “emboldening the enemy” and “supporting the troops.” The enemy is already pretty fucking emboldened. When Rumsfeld failed to guard Al Qaqaa and the insurgents walked away with 380 tons of explosives, that was all the emboldening they needed.

By: fabbo

fabbo — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:52:04 +0000

Oh, and mikey, I’ve had it up to here with your “facts” and “empirical evidence”. We’re creating our own reality here, and it’s full of tasty nougat.

By: fabbo

fabbo — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:50:04 +0000

It’s quite obvious this is a bad idea. Pointing out that the bus driver is driving us off a cliff will only undermine the morale of the passengers.

By: hal

hal — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:44:18 +0000

Nobody in washington, or even outside of the immediate AO has any impact at all.And Gary? If youâ€™d served your nation youâ€™d know thatâ€¦

I think we’ve just found out why the military tends to vote Republican – because they can’t make the mental link between their being in a ME shithole with no clear mission, and the idiots in Washington who sent them there.

By: Brad R.

Brad R. — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:51:34 +0000

Troops deployed overseas donâ€™t give two shits who the SecDef is.

Actually, a lot of them would be pretty happy to see Rummy get canned.

By: mikey

mikey — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:44:12 +0000

ok, waitaminute. This “morale of the troops” line is worse than a red herring, it’s just silly. Troops deployed overseas don’t give two shits who the SecDef is. Unit morale comes from three things. Immediate Leadership, the LTs and Captains and Sergeants who lead and “manage” the troops day to day. Unit composition. Squads, Platoons and Companies tend, like other organizations, to take on a particular character. If you happen to be in a unit that has it’s shit together, isn’t too hung up on military discipline but still everyone understands their place and their role, you’ll be in a good unit. If you’ve got a bunch of fuckups, shit disturbers and whiners, morale is gonna suck. Last is what you’re doing. If you’re on patrol in Anbar or working a Sunni neighborhood with a lot of ambushes and IEDs, your life is going to suck much worse than if you are doing civil affairs in a relatively peaceful area or even better doing admin crap in the green zone. Nobody in washington, or even outside of the immediate AO has any impact at all. And Gary? If you’d served your nation you’d know that…

mikey

By: Anne Laurie

Anne Laurie — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:35:05 +0000

Gary, keeping a raving lunatic as Secretary of Defense is what “emboldens the enemy”. If you were an Islamocommiefeminazifascist, which would you prefer: Having your opponent’s army at the beck and call of a man who’s made nothing but disastrous military decisions for the last six years?

Or having that tin-plated disaster replaced by someone who might possibly have some strategic idea beyond “send too few troops into a a realm of ‘known unknowns’, and blame whatever happens next on an illusory fifth column”?

By: Brad R.

Brad R. — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 13:53:50 +0000

Gary- quite the contrary. Getting rid of Rummy would be one of the biggest morale boosters the troops have had in years.

By: Mitch

Mitch — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 13:24:20 +0000

I think that’s the wrong play. Dems need to take their cue from campus comedies and treat Rumsfeld like the stodgy dean: pantsing, pies in the face, bra bombs at state functions…

By: Notorious P.A.T.

Notorious P.A.T. — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 13:18:34 +0000

Did it embolden the enemy when Rumsfeld said we’d only be in Iraq six months and it turned out to be six years? (counting from when we invaded to the end of the Bush presidency)

By: Gary Ruppert

Gary Ruppert — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 13:06:52 +0000

That idea shouldn’t come up for a vote because it would undermine the morale of the troops and embolden the enemy.

But it doesn’t stun me that the Democrats would consider such an idea.