« Store Wars - May The Farm Be With You | Main | Media To Blame For Iraq Loss? »


March 5, 2006

There Will Be Recriminations

-- by John Emerson

From DarkSyde at Kos, regarding a rumored troop pullout from Iraq in early 2007:

Two observations if this does play out: 1) Murtha was right, 2) The Republicans Lost the War. Remember that last point when the GOP/Rove machine cranks up to blame the ensuing chaos in Iraq on Democrats or administration critics. It really says it all.

The Democrats have to be first out of the box on this -- they really need to start right now. Bush started an unnecessary war, lost it, killed tens of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans, and left the world in a much worse place than it had been when he started. END OF STORY.

There will be recriminations. We have to get our version out there first and loudest. We have the advantage of being right, but they're the ones with the big propaganda machine.

It'll be tough. We'll hear the "stabbed-in-the-back" whine again, with a vengeance -- worse than after Vietnam. We can't count on things staying legal. If you read the loopier far-right sites, a lot of them are hoping for civil war, and not all of those guys are wankers. Some of them are survivalist gun-collecters with military experience.

We can't be gentlemen about this. There must be blame and there must be recriminations. Bush's criminal associates should be jailed. His enablers in the press should be fired. His Republican enablers, the so-called moderates and honest conservatives who supported him for so long, should be skulking around shamefacedly, hanging their heads and begging for forgiveness. (And some of the Democrats too).

Someone is going to be punished, and if it's not them, it will be us.

(And also -- if you're able to get dual citizenship somewhere, do so. )

Update:

Instapundit: "The press had better hope we win this war, because if we don't, a lot of people will blame the media".

It won't just be the media that "a lot of people" will blame. I've never linked to Instapundit before, but he gives you a pretty good idea which way the fascist branch of the libertarians will fall when the chips are down.

Posted by John Emerson at March 5, 2006 9:19 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.seeingtheforest.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.fcgi/1674


Comments

DEAN was right. Murtha was, if anything, just LATE.

Posted by: Mark Spittle [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2006 7:49 AM

I'm sort of curious as to what far-right websites out there you're talking about. Last I check most of the far-right sites oppose our foreign interventions abroad. And I haven't seen any mainstream sites talking about civil war or revolution or anything like that.

Posted by: Arcane [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2006 12:03 PM

Hmmm, there's nothing on Instapundit talking about civil war or revolution or violence... what are you talking about?

Posted by: Arcane [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2006 12:12 PM

This , on the other hand, would result in a civil war... however, in this case, it's not people on the right advocating it.

And talking about unnecessary wars, I almost forgot about this one ): you guys advocating electoral imperialism by taking over Canada just so you can win an election! I mean, you guys want to fight and kill Canadians to win an election in the US!

Posted by: Arcane [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2006 12:27 PM

Instapundit has a way of throwing nasty shit up without openly endorsing it. Anyone who blames the press will blame a lot of other people. At a certain point accusations of treason and supporting the enemy have to lead to some kind of action, and if the war is lost there will be an intensification of that.

Right-wing sites: Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, for example. All of the more hard-core, raving war-bloggers. You probably think that they're moderate sites, hence the confusion.

I can't bull up the two blogspot pages right now, but I suspect that the second one is a joke.

Posted by: John Emerson [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2006 12:54 PM

Well, I don't read Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, but I know a few who do. Can you point me to a post on that site that calls for civil war or armed revolution in the US?

And seriously, one or two little bloggers on Blogspot that maybe three people read doesn't count. I don't go around posting links to Communist blogs calling for armed revolution in the US, because they simply aren't read by anyone.

Posted by: Arcane [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2006 1:03 PM

Oh, and Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler is right-wing, not far-right. Sites like Majority Rights and National Vanguard are far-right.

Posted by: Arcane [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2006 1:04 PM

Obviously, as I said, I draw the far-right line in a different place than you do.

I really don't research those places, I try to avoid them, but at a certain point those people are going to have back their intense rhetoric with actions, or else they look like ridiculous wankers (which many of them of course are -- but not all). Military defeat, even in an aggressive war with little really at stake, always leads to increased anger.

Posted by: John Emerson [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2006 2:59 PM

Obviously, as I said, I draw the far-right line in a different place than you do.

Well, then you're an ideological dirtbag who has no interest in any form of objectivity.

I really don't research those places, I try to avoid them

Bullshit. What did you say? You said there's right-wing sites out there promoting civil war. I asked you to back it up. Now you can't and you refuse to. You're a lying sack of shit.

Posted by: Arcane [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2006 3:33 PM

Seeing the Forest has a solid rule against personal insults. You got yourself banned.

Posted by: Dave Johnson [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 5, 2006 3:40 PM

I know you guys have been around for some time and have done some worthwhile blogging. But I can't understand why, of all times in the past 5 years, you would suggest that your readers attain dual citizenship.

The blood is in the water and you are urging the sharks to swim away? It makes no sense.

Posted by: davdetejas [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 6, 2006 1:27 AM

Davdetejas: It's really only me. I don't know what Dave thinks on that specifically.

If Bush respects legality, he's finished.

But will he? Has he so far? He has a lot of new powers, and he has defied the law many times during his term.

There are a lot of guys out there who think that Democrats are traitors. Some of them are well-armed and seem to be at the limit of their tolerance already. Will they peacefully accept a change of government? I'm not confident that they will.

Posted by: John Emerson [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 6, 2006 5:27 PM

came here from retardo's place.

creepy post, mr emerson. but glenny glenn glenn is not all that he is made out to be in my book. for example, it seems in his new book he notes that public parks being replaced by coffee houses is not such a bad deal. i guess he wants an increase in his chocolate rations.

btw, i think it's a very healthy habit to not read hate/rage-filled sites like the rottweiler place, or lgf or freeperland on any regular basis, or at all for that matter... they make the folks at the corner seem like stoned hippies.

Posted by: almostinfamous at March 9, 2006 9:53 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?



Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Return to main page