Gary Wins One! No, wait…
Gary Ruppert said,
June 18, 2006 at 18:30I wonder what the leftist blogs will mention first
a) That Jerome Armstrong is a crook who shilled worthless stocks
b) That John Murtha advocated cutting and running from Somalia, which emboldened Bin Laden, and he says that running from Somalia was a good thing. Just imagine what would happen as a result of America adopting the Murtha plan to run from Iraq.
A good question, and one we’re happy to answer.
We’ll downplay the New York Post hit piece on Jerome, mentioning in passing that his offense, some years ago, seems to have been posting things in comments at websites without mentioning that he was being paid for doing so. This juxtaposition of recent stories will afford a measure of snark, which we’ll wring from the topic as vinegar from a sponge.
Otherwise, honestly, we don’t know Jerome. Maybe he’s a super-villain bent on world destruction, like Aravosis. But it looks like he got caught up in a petty stock-trading thingo back in the loose, zesty ’90s; and honestly, if we had to choose, we’d rather be in Jerome’s shoes today than those of certain other people.
Re: Murtha and Somalia, and that cunning rutting, rut-and-cunning cut-run business, which boings up like a jack-in-the-box every few weeks or so: Don’t make us get up out of this chair.
Immediate withdrawal from Somalia was the official Republican policy. If Bin Laden was ’emboldened’ by it, then you’d have to be a pretty big dummy indeed to ignore the howls and denunciations of the intervention by the GOP, which are all over the public record, and instead try to pin it on Murtha for supporting a GOP-sponsored Foreign Affairs Committee resolution.
[headdesk headdesk] [pulls t-shirt over head] [moaning piteously]
Whatever they pay you, Gary, it ain’t enough!
“Immediate withdrawal from Somalia was the official Republican policy”
No it wasn’t.
Bob Dole, the Senate Republican leader, was against an early withdrawal, as were a lot of Republicans.
There are a lot of differences between Iraq and Somalia.
For example, Clinton didn’t have a clear goal in Somalia and the US troops were being ordered around by the UN in
Somalia.
In Iraq, there are clear goals and clear objectives, and US troops are being commanded by US generals.
Victory in Somalia was a pretty big achievement for the terrorists.
But a terrorist victory in Iraq would be 10 times as big for the terrorists.
The terrorists will have a victory if we cut and run.
And the shockwaves of an abandonment of Iraq will be felt when the terrorists attack America.
I don’t get why Liberals think appeasing terrorists works. It didn’t work in Somalia, it didn’t work in Beirut when the liberals pressured Reagan to withdraw, It didn’t work then and it will not work now.
The enemy is one that seeks to destroy the foundations of our constitution.
Why can’t you all understand the importance of winning the War on Terror?
As for the Armstrong piece. It should figure that you want to cover it up.
But what Armstrong was doing was clearly a crime, as could be seen by the SEC taking action against Armstrong.
It’s not a hit piece if it reports the truth.
Okay, who here wants to wager on whether or not Gary would be able to explain in under a hundred words what “winning the war on terror” would look like?
How ’bout in under a million words?
I don’t get paid again until school starts in August, and I could use a little extra pocket money.
The fact is that “as they stand up, we shall stand down” is a coherent, achievable unambiguous strategy same as “fighting for democracy” or “war on terror” complete with its own five point plan:
1. Invade Iraq.
2. Fight the terrorists
3. Spread democracy* throughout the Middle East**
4. (*Something magical happens *)
5. Peace in our time
*Note: By spreading democracy we mean bombing lots of people
**Other Note: Offer void in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, UAE and Pakistan.
The fact is that the ties between the terrorists and Iraq are undeniable.
The War on Terror will be won when the forces of terrorism are crushed. That is what President Bush is working his hardest to do.
Statement of Republican Policy on U.S. Armed Forces in Somalia, Adopted April 1, 1993
U.S. military forces in Somalia have fulfilled the mission given them by President Bush. Republicans therefore call on President Clinton to bring our troops home.
[…]
President Bush sent U.S. Armed Forces to Somalia to restore order and permit food to reach the people. He made a commitment to withdraw our troops when the mission was completed and return the operation to the U.N. This process was begun before he left office. The mission has been accomplished, but our troops remain, and it appears President Clinton has no intention of bringing them home.
[…]
The United States is the world’s only superpower, but this does not mean we are omnipotent, nor that our obligations are universal. Republicans believe that President Bush’s commitment to pull our forces out of Somalia should be fulfilled.
The fact is that the ties between the terrorists and Iraq are undeniable.
Do you mean in 2001, or now? Because, yeah, although there were no links between Iraq and the September 11 attack, there are a lot of jihadis in Iraq at the present time.
The War on Terror will be won when the forces of terrorism are crushed. That is what President Bush is working his hardest to do.
$300 billion to kill al-Zarqawi! Freedom is on the march! Bring it on!
The enemy is one that seeks to destroy the foundations of our constitution.
Really? You’re saying that if we had dealt with other nations in the mid east in a fair even-handed fashion, if we had called political violence by Israel terrorism and denounced it as quickly as we do polictical violence by the palestinians, if we had helped the arab people out of the grinding poverty and hopelessness they live in instead of exploiting their resources and enriching their elites who conspired with us to exploit them, if we had avoided meddling in the political affairs of, say Iran in 1953, even if we had been a good global citizen, al Quaida still would have chosen to attack us because of our constitution? You’ll forgive me if I have trouble with the logic of that. To paraphrase bin Laden himself, you don’t see them attacking Sweden.
Why can’t you all understand the importance of winning the War on Terror?
I’m with Jillian here, Gary. While you’re visiting, please explain to me just what the FUCK that means. I mean, I’m pretty sure you don’t think that we could prevent every single person in the world everywhere forever from utilizing terror as a tactic in political struggles or asymetrical warfare. I think we can all agree that’s not possible. So do you mean protecting America and all her citizens from ever being the victims of a terror attack again? Hmm, doesn’t seem like that’s a likely outcome either. If you mean a thinly disguised code word for an eternal conflict between christian America and the islamic world that will allow America to be run as a police state dictatorship while increasing the military budget and killing as many brown people as possible, then I think you are not serious about winning it, as it is this “war” itself in which you revel, not it’s end…
mikey
In Iraq, there are clear goals and clear objectives
Really?
“Defeating the insurgency and setting up a democratic Iraqi government” is may be a fairly clear objective for a public that doesn’t give two shits about details,, but there is absolutely nothing outside of “train the security forces” (which is a good policy… and we aren’t doing a very efficient job of).
Somalia had fairly clear objective by that standard as well: break up the militias and restore some semblance of order. To that end, the UN attempted to break the militia control over the food supply (an attempt crippled by an overly paranoid ROE set), and eliminate the leadership of the militias. The latter lead to the infamous “Black Hawk Down” engagement. Neither is a shining example of coordination and consistancy, but you are insane if you don’t recognize that the primary pressures for withdrawing in Somalia came from the paleoconservatives in the Republican party, for whom isolationism is a key ideological point (see “Pat Buchanan [batshit commenter]”+ “conservative Iraq war detractors”).
As far as Armstrong– if he’s guilty of a chargable offense, then have at him for all I care (but don’t bitch if we were to say the same for Repulican commentators/pols in the future). I must dispute your definition of “hit piece”, however– intention is the sole definitory piece of what constitutes a hit piece, whether it tells the truth or not, and I believe that we can safely say that the piece was intended to fuck with ol’ Jerome’s credibility.
Why can’t you all understand the importance of winning the War on Terror?
But you see, Gary, we do. We just don’t think of it in terms of going ape-wild trying to conquer Iraq (and totally fucking it up in the process), while Bin Laden hangs out drinking mint tea in the hills of Pakistan.
Five years after 9/11, the blundering and propaganda ought to be fairly evident.
For instance, that forestalled poison-gas attack in the NY subway that we’ve heard about. If that story is true, then why did Homeland Security slash the budget for NYC by 40%?
Is it a lie, or is it gross incompetence?
Are we sure that this is the “real” Gary, or one of the many fake Garys?
Are we sure that this is the “real� Gary, or one of the many fake Garys?
We’re pretty certain this is the Real Gary, ma’am. If you spot the Real Gary in your neighborhood, do not attempt to apprehend him. He is armed with Republican Talking Points and is likely to draw you into a pointless discussion that will leave you stupider than you were before. Leave apprehension of the Real Gary to logic enforcement professionals. That is all.
Speaking of banging heads on desks…
Gary sez: “Clinton didn’t have a clear goal in Somalia…”
It wasn’t Clinton who sent U.S. troops into Somalia in the first place, it was George Herbert Walker Bush on December 8, 1992.
Read all about it here: http://www.army.mil/cmh/brochures/Somalia/Somalia.htm
Unable to explain to the world why the United States, the “sole remaining superpower” and leader of the “new world order,” was not able to stop the starvation, President Bush ordered U.S. forces to deploy to Somalia. Their mission was to ensure that relief supplies reached the people who needed them and thus to “break the cycle” of starvation and save lives.
The operation, code-named RESTORE HOPE, began on 8 December 1992 under the direction of a Unified Task Force, or UNITAF. The I Marine Expeditionary Force from Camp Pendleton, California, formed the bulk of the headquarters, with augmentation from all the services. Commanded by Marine Lt. Gen. Robert B. Johnston, UNITAF included U.S. and allied troops working together in one task force, but under U.S. and not UN direction.
Note the date of deployment: December 8, 1992. Clinton took office in January 1993 — he inherited the mission, he didn’t initiate it!
The War on Terror will be won when the forces of terrorism are crushed. That is what President Bush is working his hardest to do.
Now for the bonus question…..
Can anyone name me a consecutive ten year period in history when the “forces of terrorism” were not operating somewhere in the world?
A “war on terrorism” is bound to be about as effective as a “war on masturbation”.
“Note the date of deployment: December 8, 1992. Clinton took office in January 1993 — he inherited the mission, he didn’t initiate it! ”
I am reminded of this every time some wingnut talks about how Clinton didn’t respond to the USS Cole bombing.
The Cole bombing happened on October 12, 2000. We were half a month away from an election. After which we went through — well, you know what happened.
George Bush was inaugurated before it could conclusively be determined who did the bombing.
So which president didn’t respond to the Cole bombing?
The fact is that the President will triumph against the forces of manual arousal and spread the joys of marital bliss amongst the axis of tissues.
I am reminded of this every time some wingnut talks about how Clinton didn’t respond to the USS Cole bombing.
The Cole bombing happened on October 12, 2000. We were half a month away from an election. After which we went through — well, you know what happened.
It’s worse than that. In Richard Clarke’s book, he mentions how the investigation into the Cole bombing wrapped up in January 2001. With the new administration taking office in a couple of weeks, the Clinton Administration forwarded the report to the Bush team, with recommended military/law enforcement responses against the identified perpetrators and offers of assistance, fully expecting them to respond militarily once they took office.
The Bush administration did nothing. They threw the report in a drawer, while their crack terrorism czar Oily Dick Cheney concentrated on Star Wars and writing industry-manipulated energy policy. While the Clintonites held anti-terrorism meetings every week, Cheney did not hold a single meeting on anti-terrorism in the eight months before 9/11.
The rest is unfortunate history. Despite the 8/6 PDB, despite many warnings from foreign intelligence, the entire administration went on vacation in August 2001. This is criminal negligence.
Dammit, Ruppert. Come back to ThinkProgress.
We miss your audioanimatronic “Clockwork Republican” shenanigans. None of our current trolls can lob-up a deadpan howler with that same wonky “I-failed-the-Turing-test” simulacrum of weary earnestness.
Recommendation to the Sadly, No! gang: I’m not sure why it works, but reading Ruppert’s posts is an absolute scream with an old ’50s test-track of theremin music as background audio.
The phrase “War on Terror” makes my English-teacher skin crawl. You are declaring war on an emotion? OK, but you’ll do better if you use therapy instead of military force.
“War on Terrorism” is not any better: it is impossible to even *wage* a “war”–much less “win” one–against a *tactic*. Would it make any sense to declare a war against arial dogfighting? Or tactical defoliation? Or blowing up bridges? Or flanking maneuvers? No, those would be stupid wars, because there is no actual *enemy* to fight. See, any military or paramilitary force might, at any moment, elect to use one of those tactics. We can “stomp out” or “crush” any group that has used those tactics in the past, but we cannot do a dmned thing to prevent those tactics from being used in the future. The “war” cannot actually ever be considered “over”. Why don’t the Bushites see that?
Oh, wait, they do see it, don’t they?
Gee, the Garybot is really pumping out the Industrial-Strength Crazy Raysâ„¢ today. As usual. Carry on!
My favourite bit was when Gary hightailed it from this thread after his assertion that withdrawal wasn’t official Republican policy was rebutted with quotations from the official Republican policy. How’s it feel to be humiliated, Gary? Does Jesus get disappointed with you every time you’re too stupid to hold your own in a debate? Do you die a little inside every time you have to run away from a thread with your tail between your legs like a little bitch? Hehehe. Have fun crying yourself to sleep tonight, Gary, it’s the least that you deserve.
The enemy is one that seeks to destroy the foundations of our constitution.
by this, you mean the Bush,/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Gonzales junta, yes?
“war on masturbation�.
Gawd, Jillian – don’t give them any ideas!
What, it’s not enough for you libruls to be hating on America?
You have to hate on kittens, too?
You guys ARE evil!
In Iraq, there are clear goals and clear objectives, and US troops are being commanded by US generals.
Victory in Somalia was a pretty big achievement for the terrorists.
You’d have a much easier time convincing people that there are clear goals in Iraq if you could identify who your ‘terrorists’ are.
The 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals, following Wahhabism, a radical Saudi sect of Islam, using Saudi money, with a Saudi billionaire for a boss, and using Afghanistan as a summer home.
Of course, after 9/11 Saudi Arabia threw open its doors to American investigators who were quick and brutally efficient at rooting out everyone connected to the attacks, who then received fair trials in public and were denounced by their own countrymen and the world as unforgiveable. Giving in to international pressure, Saudi Arabia enacted a host of human rights reforms and stands now as a beacon of Western-style tolerance and Democracy in the Middle East.
*sigh* Well, we can dream, right?
“The enemy is one that seeks to destroy the foundations of our constitution.”
I believe Gary, whether he is the FAUX or Sadly, No! Gary, has made it quite clear who the enemy is.
The Cheney Administration.