Yowza.

Left of center bloggers apparently got all the humor, the grammar skills, and the fun parties.

dens of Iniquity

so the terrorists are lonuging around in a boudoir, smoking opium and drinking moonshine?

lounging*

Kathleen- apparently. Seems out of character, no?

I love it when she writes things like “Way to go Dick.”

Oh, Marie:

At the drive-in
In the old man’s Ford
Behind the bushes
Till I’m screamin for more
Down the basement
Lock the cellar door
And baby
Talk dirty to me

Ahh, Marie, remember those days when you showed me your e-mail bage…baby come back.

Yeah I really miss those eight page copy and pasted screeds including whole pages full of stickman animations with their heads on fire alongside dancing sitcks of dynamite. Really helps the debate along.

Why did you block me from your *snicker* AOL account dear Marie? Why god, why?

What the fuck is she arguing? That the Iraqis’ future shouldn’t be in their own hands?

There the Democrats go again, threatening self-determination. Didn’t work for the blacks or the women, won’t work for the wogs.

What the fuck is she arguing? That the Iraqis’ future shouldn’t be in their own hands?

Of course the Iraqis’ future shouldn’t be in their own hands–they’re evil Islamofascists! Why, they might even adopt an official religion of Islam!!!

Over 50,000 thousand well “trained Iraqi troops� are taking out the dens of Iniquity from the terrorists, who are coming from out side of Iraq.

I don’t think I’m engaging in any hyperbole at all when I say that this sentence might represent the death of Western Civilization. She’s evidently entered into some kind of final reckoning with every facet with the English language — a death dance with meaning, grammar and comprehension. She’s out to obliterate it all. I picture her at home, shaking it in her teeth like a feral anti-grammatical dingo.

“50,000 thousand” is a lot. A wicked lot. A mother wicked lot. It’s not 5,000 thousand, it’s not 50,000, it’s 50,000thousand.

And well “trained Iraqi troops” feels suspiciously like a pull quote from a movie review that was cherry picked from a pan (something like “Stallone’s tired, incomprehensible portrayal of Rocky Balboa in Rocky XI was a genuinely depressing moment in the history of cinema.” — Merle Studds, Fake News. The ad: “Genuine” — M. Studds, Fake News).

I tend to think she got it from an American General who said something to the effect that, “Once we have trained Iraqi troops leading their own offensives against the insurgency without deserting back to their villages or joining secretarian militias, I’ll feel somewhat better about the future of this country.”

I can’t go on really. The misplaced comma. The nonsensical use of “dens of Inequity”. The capitalization of Inequity. The unexplainable space between ‘out’ and ‘side’. The unrivaled stupidity of the entire column. God, I’m tired.

Over 50,000 thousand well “trained Iraqi troops� are taking out the dens of Iniquity from the terrorists, who are coming from out side of Iraq.
50,000 thousand? Fifty-thousand THOUSAND? Holy crap! Iraq has 50 million well “trained” troops? How could they NOT take care of the insurgency?

Dernit. Beat me to it by seconds…

Jay B., I love you(I mean really, “feral anti-grammatical dingo?” *swoon*), but I have to say that you are wrong: “this sentence might represent the death of Western Civilization” is a teensy weensy bit hyperbolic. But only just.

The names they choose for operation get more and more bizarre. I mean Operation Moving Forward Together doesn’t have the same ring as Operation Cobra.

tigrismus,

I stand by my original statement.

I don’t use the word ‘hero’ often, but I think I can state without any exaggeration that you are the greatest hero in human history for swooning over my prose.

For the record, “Operation Moving Forward Together” was cribbed from a military Valentine’s Day card from the Camp Lejune PX.

That, or they let the Children’s Television Workshop people name it.

“How dare the Democrats point a finger at the Iraqi people?”

Don’t they know the nose of a smart bomb or action end of a rifle are the only two appropriate objects to direct at the Iraqi people? Pointed human digits, useless for killing without soaking previously in some kind of toxin, might only serve to enrage them further.

They’re gaining so much ground that the new government is considering pardoning insurgents who attacked American forces.

Ok, I’m sorry for wanting to address this point when we have Marie Jon with the funny little thang’s incoherent and inchoate ramblings to try to understand, but this is something I don’t understand.

Is The Left ™ really going to take the position that the Iraqis who fought to defend their country’s sovreignity against an aggressive and illegal invasion and occupation by an outside power much more powerful than them, these guys who did their job and what was expected of them, who fought the invader with the tools available to them, they somehow must be punished, imprisoned, detained, executed? What would you have them do? What would YOU do? Roll over? Hide? Collaborate? Fight? Look, I mourn the wasted American lives, but fighting our invasion was WHAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO!!! We can’t honestly be taking the postion that American troops ™ are somehow sacrosanct in warfare. Please tell me we aren’t going down that path.

There are museums in Vietnam dedicated to the brave fighters (and if you think they weren’t brave, you’re an idiot) who stood up to the American onslaught. We don’t think a thing about it. They display pieces of our shot-down jets, our military hardware, they still FLY our hueys.

This amnesty thing is horseshit. We can’t (please, we CAN’T) somehow demonize people for defending their own country against invasion and occupation. They fought well, and bravely, and sometimes not so well, and not so bravely. If you’re an Iraqi nationalist in an Najaf or Tal Afar, and you kill some American combat troops, can we really say that is a crime? This is war, and WE FUCKING STARTED IT. Get over yourself and try to start finding a way to heal. Christs tits in a mason jar, guys, they aren’t evil for fighting us in IRAQ!!! Maybe the enemy, but not evil, not criminals, and if you underestimate and demean your enemy, you will most certainly lose…

Ok, sorry, but I think it had to be said.

mikey

Ok, sorry, but I think it had to be said.

And very well said it was.

mikey,

Intellectually, there’s something to that argument. Politically, it’s disgusting — and foolish.

Right now, and until we get the hell out of there, we shouldn’t be granting amnesty to anyone, as long as American soldiers are still dying. I think its grotesque for our leaders to say that it’s OK to kill our boys, who, after all paying for the government’s folly to begin with (they kinda had to go, so it’s hard to say they started it, most of them are only doing their job as terrible as it may be.).

Amnesty right now will ensure a new generation of Tim McVeighs. In a way, it absolves Bush’s culpability for starting it, in the no-harm no-foul kind of way. But of course, it’s not just Iraqis who have been victimized by this fucking war, it’s the kids who were sent to fight it — and die. I know they’ve done some fucked up shit over there, but certainly not all of them, or even the overwhelming majority of them. Most were simply on patrol to try and keep the peace while some political solution was hashed out, and for that, they were blown up.

Moreover, amnesty doesn’t solve anything regarding the occupation and it will only ensure they’ll have to grant it again when we’re still there in a year, or two, or ten. It avoids a solution entirely.

After the war, after were gone, then it makes sense to grant amnesty. Not now.

mikey-
I basically agree with what Jay says. I would add, though, that it’s a clear signal we should be looking to get the fuck out of the country. It’s time to give the Iraqis their country back.

You are not trying to win the hearts of the Iraqi people, who are gaining ground every day.

I think part of the problem is that those hearts are buried with the Iraqi people in that ground they are gaining every day.

As well as the dens of iniquity, those well-trained troops should be taking out the low waterside dives and similar havens of vice. Pardon the alliteration. And when they’ve finished that, it’s their turn to take out the garbage.

“a feral anti-grammatical dingo” is totally swoon-worthy, even if tigrismus beat me to the swooning. I think Marie should make it her motto.

And while I agree with Mikey, in that people who defend their own home, even against us, are not the same as terrorists, it would probably be a good idea for us to get the hell out and then let the Iraqi government determine who the bad guys are without our help. As long as we’re there, we’re going to be part of that process and others, and aside from the obvious conflict of interest, we haven’t got a lot of credibility at the moment in pinpointing terrorists, criminals, insurgents, or much of anything else.

I agree with Mikey.

I’d go for amnesty for any *native* Iraqi. Any insurgent of extra-national origin, however, should have the book thrown at them.

It’s fine to assail Republican hypocrisy on this matter, and being pro-amnesty can’t keep one from doing so. But the anti-amnesty argument, I think, actually abets the slanderous assertion that Marie and every other wingnut, especially Christopher Hitchens, makes: that the whole insurgency is composed of people who do what they do because they are al-queda or murderous sectarians bent on killing non-Muslims.

They are not, and this is where Mikey’s argument comes into play. Some of the Iraqis who fought us fought us on penalty of death — they fought for Saddam against an invader, i.e. they were soldiers in the normal sense.

The others, later, the insurgents, fight against us because after ridding them of Saddam we have revealed ourselves to be OCCUPIERS, an Imperial presence with long-term designs on control of Iraq through the military base type hegemony, and through political puppetry.

Also, many fight because they are tribal and clannish with 90 percent unemployment. Now here’s an exercise. Imagine you invaded Appalachia in the 1930s, were far too gung-ho about it, and killed and tortured people. EVERY fucking male in that area would swear to avenge himself on you (you being, you and all your comrades).

Well, every person we killed, every family we bombed, every child we fucking murdered, every kid we raped in Abu Ghraib — they have relatives with the time weapons inclination and, I’d say, understandable moral reason to extract their pound of flesh in return.

It sucks that our troops have to reap what some of them (and all of their leaders) have sown, but that’s what’s going to happen as long as they are there. To not give amnesty will just make that many more of the Iraqis come after the troops. You know, you can’t jail all the insurgents much less all the people against the occupation and thus aid the insurgency (which would be 3/4s of the Shia, half the Kurds and all of the Sunnis) anymore than you can do Yoshi’s and Glenn Reynolds’s prefered tactic of murdering them all. The only thing to do is get the fuck out, and until then, give the Iraqis themselves as much benefit of the doubt as possible.

You can’t deny she’s a babe, though.

The fact is that I’d hit it.

To not give amnesty will just make that many more of the Iraqis come after the troops.

How do you figure? They’re not killing Americans at present because they’re worried about getting caught. Right now, I think most Iraqis, even most Iraqi insurgents, just think the Americans are in the way.

If your argument is that our boys are fair game, well, it is what it is.

But I support the troops in this very specific way: I don’t want them to die, nor do I feel like it’s OK for them to die because our leadership failed them and our country by going to war in a futile, hopeless, hapless way. Amnesty is like saying it’s OK to kill a cop if he stands in the middle of a gang war.

Do I blame an average Iraqi for seething about the occupation? No.

But as it’s impossible to determine, at present, whether the Iraqis killing Americans are just reluctant killers defending (or avenging) their families, or they are high-level Baa’thist mass murderers, or are cynical pimps taking advantage of the situation to make one side or another in this stupid secretarian proxy war that’s going on look bad, I can’t say I can romanticize their struggle either. Rarely is there anything heroic, or even justifiable, about flipping a switch to kill people remotely, which is what IEDs and Army technicians have done.

Step one: We should leave.

Step two: The Iraqis should figure it out.

Jesus save the little babies but I actually agree with Gary Ruppert.

There are so many Rupperts crawling around this place that you’re bound to agree with one or the other of them on occasion.

Careful…the Acme Law Firm of New york is watching…

Wait, the administartion’s been playing the “we’ll stand down when stand up” card for years, and now that a Dem is saying that maybe we should try actually PLAYING it, instead of waving it around like a prize Magic: The Gathering card, it’s controversal and slanderous to the Iraqis?
Must be nice to be able to make up your own reality as you go along.

Oh, I’m not rooting for our men and women to be attacked. I just need someboldy to explain to me how this is supposed to work. We roll into their country, tanks and air and shock and awe, and now WE think we have some kind of right to determine that the defenders of their nation are criminals? Somebody, accept the fact that I’m slow, and tell me in small words how that’s supposed to work.

If your argument is that our boys are fair game, well, it is what it is.

Let’s see. We rolled across the border, guns blazing. Can you say “Thunder Run”? I’m really curious now. How is it that we can sit here and think that we would NOT be “fair game”? You don’t have to love it, but war requires two sides. And if we’re one of them, we’re gonna take casualties. What, is that somehow against the rules ’cause we’re the fucking GOOD GUYS?? Come on, folks. What did you think war is??

But I support the troops in this very specific way: I don’t want them to die, nor do I feel like it’s OK for them to die because our leadership failed them and our country by going to war in a futile, hopeless, hapless way. Amnesty is like saying it’s OK to kill a cop if he stands in the middle of a gang war.

What, now WE’RE gonna play the false dichotomy game? Pay attention here, this is not hard. You do NOT have to relish the deaths and injuries to our team to recognize that the other team has a GODDAM RIGHT to shoot back. Kids, don’t believe the propaganda. Because we’re Americans doesn’t make us gods and godlets. We cross the line, we have to fight. And the guy fighting us in Saint Louis is a criminal, the guy fighting us in Sammara is a soldier under occupation. He didn’t sell out. He didn’t collaborate. He fought. In france in ’41 we honored that. In algeria in ’62.

My mind is actually open. If somebody can simply explain to me how the Iraqi’s fight against the occupier is somehow dishonest or beyond the pale, I’ll be right there with you. But I know this. I’d fight. I think you’d fight. I just don’t see why that’s wrong. If you don’t want to fight, don’t start a war. How hard is that?

I can’t say I can romanticize their struggle either. Rarely is there anything heroic, or even justifiable, about flipping a switch to kill people remotely, which is what IEDs and Army technicians have done.

Dood. There’s NOTHING to romanticize about war. It’s ugly and people get fucked up in the worst way. And I don’t declare them heros. But do you really believe that if they stood up and fought for the sovreignty of their nation against an occupying foreign military force, they have no standing on the battlfield???? This is beyond crazy!! What, you want to be able to invade other nations and not have them fight back? I ask again–what would you HAVE them do???

mikey

I’m sorry, but how do these stupid bitchez get these writing jobs? Who the hell is this moron? My neighbor’s cat does better political analysis than this. Is someone paying her to actually sit at a computer and write this pap-tastic bullshit? I’ve seen pithier writing in fortune cookies!

Her column actually works better if you end every sentence with “in bed”.

“Right now, and until we get the hell out of there, we shouldn’t be granting amnesty to anyone, as long as American soldiers are still dying. ”

Um, “we” aren’t going to grant amnesty to anyone. Obviously. The Iraqi government might.

mikey,

What, now WE’RE gonna play the false dichotomy game? Pay attention here, this is not hard. You do NOT have to relish the deaths and injuries to our team to recognize that the other team has a GODDAM RIGHT to shoot back..

There’s no false dichotomy. If it’s a war and its OK to shoot back, well then let the Iraqi government say that they’re at war with the US. Either that, or we can just sit back and watch as Americans, tired being shot at with impugnity, start making Haditha look like church. If we truly are at war, as you say, bad stuff happens. True. But since we have a heavily armed standing Army in Iraq, Amnesty is, in effect, asking for a massive escalation of the war — if the Army (which shouldn’t be there at all) is told that the Iraqi government has given people a pass for killing Americans (it is war, after all) then how can you not respond with a massive, indescriminate offensive? I think it’s unimaginably bad now, this is almost surely a way to make it worse.

I’m not saying that from an Iraqi viewpoint, they shouldn’t look at Americans as the enemy (there are now many, many enemies in Iraq), I’m saying that from an American viewpoint, it’s easy to see this as an insult (regardless of the intellectual merit of your argument) and will fatally cripple whatever restraint our soliders have left. Amnesty, as an open insult to the US forces (who, again, are there wrongly, at the behest of a criminally stupid administration), would result in an absolute bloodbath.

And I think there’s a large segment of the Iraqi resistance who is trying to provoke that very thing, rather than fighting for soverignty, so as their own muhjadeen can take over whatever remains of the population.

But do you really believe that if they stood up and fought for the sovreignty of their nation against an occupying foreign military force, they have no standing on the battlfield????

Are they ‘fighting for the soverignty of the nation’? Or are they opportunistic players taking advantage of, and sewing, the chaos for their own ends? Even this is a romantic notion, little different than our passive (and active) championing of the mujahdeen in afghanistan — we took joy in their bleeding the Soviets — some of them turned out to be those concerned with the soverignty of the Afghan people, others turned out to be the cretins who leveled the WTC (which, as a ‘guns blazing attack’ on our soverignty, unleashed the war machine to begin with). What was their motive again?

Amnesty is, in effect, the Iraqi government’s attempt at capitulation to this segment of Iraq society. Why would they make that deal? So long as the Iraqi government is seen as powerless, the more power they have. You can’t be so naive as to think that all of the Iraqis are simply fighting for the right of a country few of them actually identify with to exist.

Moreover, the logical end to your viewpoint — that it is an actual invasion, rather than an attempt (no matter how bullshit the rationale) to ‘liberate’ the Iraqi people — shifts the war’s aims and targets entirely. The fact is, the Americans have helped the Iraqis set up an independent government (after installing a viceroy, then a puppet regime) that the people chose and they have ousted Hussein while trying to build a fragile peace within a desperately divided, secretarian society — these aren’t the traditional ‘occupation’-style aims. However, if you interpret the motives of the Americans as a strictly offensive one against the Iraqi people (thus fully legitimizing their shooting at Americans), then you can only expect the Americans to respond as if the situation is total war.

They might have legitimate reasons to hate American soldiers. But, at the same time, they just might not like the pluralistic government the Iraqi people voted for and, as a result, look to kill Americans for helping to bring about elections. One is obviously legitimate, the other…I don’t know. You tell me.

Again, none of this, nothing, is an excuse for our behavior in Iraq, nor does it in any way condone the atrocities we’ve committed there — moreover, I’m sure we all want to see this end and end quickly. I just think amnesty is the absolute wrong way to do it, enraging the hornets who happen to be loaded to the teeth with stinger missles.

Operation Moving Forward Together

Operation MoFo!

we should try actually PLAYING it, instead of waving it around like a prize Magic: The Gathering card

as long as that card is protected by a hard plastic case, I say play it!!

I admit to being stunned at the stupidity of hearing republican senators discuss the idea of giving insurgents who’ve killed American soldiers amnesty. But my dismay is not at the idea of “amnesty” because, as mikey points out, when nations war, both sides get to shoot at one another. And when the war is “over” those who shot at the other side get a pass.

But my sweet Jesus! the timing! and the appropriate venue!

It should be the Iraqi established government introducing the idea of amnesty into the conversation. And it should be at a time when, with any luck there is a potential for peace, someone to negotiate with, leaders on either side willing to put down their guns.

But for Chrissakes, the Iraqi government’s committment to bring its conflicted people to peace is not a political trophy for Republicans to hold up and burnish on the floor of the senate while the guns are still firing and the bombs are still blowing people up.

It’s not their shiny bauble to play with. It’s not theirs. And they have done nothing to give them the right to it.

It would be like PW Botha taking credit for the new South Africa — BEFORE the release of Mandela.

How’ dare’ this’ skanky’ ho” talk’ ’bout’ my’ Senator’ that’ way’!’

BTW, is the “bold” tag stuck on in this thread? Well, it’s certainly novel, instead of a link tag or italics….

[…] Did you expect anything else? Democracy? It’s a bitch. Thanks, Marie Jon’, crack’ columnist’ of’ the’ day’! […]

As an American Indian, all I can say to the Iraqis is watch out when you hear the word reservations coming out of the mouths of the occupiers.

[…] So sure, you have Glenn Beck. Well, we have Adam Yoshida. You have “Libertarian” Neal Boortz. Ahh, but we have self-described “classical liberal” Jeff Goldstein. (And does Boortz threaten to slap people with his cock? Disadvantage: Media Matters!) You have Laura Ingraham? We have Marie Jon’, who’s ten times hotter and at least three times as goofy.* […]

[…] wing, ev’rything nut That’s what you are So dump Virgin Ben and Gaynor, and come with This […]