Finally? Like maybe two years ago? What’s up your ass? **Doors **was one of the first Bush supporters to state that he no longer believed in the war, IIRC.
He is not aploogizing for anyone, merely opining that perhaps the OP is an exercise in futility.
Just to pop back in for Doors, before we get back to lionizing him for his tardy sagacity, for another cite: How about “saddamite”? Is that sufficient for you?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4869641&postcount=22
I mean, I know that it is remarkable for someone who supported Bush to a) change his mind, and b) not skulk away like a coward, so I don’t mean to dismiss that fact.
Tucker,
Perhaps you’ll get a bit of solace by reading this scathing piece by Keith Olbermann on precisely the topic of your OP:
Olbermann: Special comment about ‘sacrifice’
BBC reports Bush will reveal troop surge plan in sacrifice-themed speech
For my money, Keith has become, by far, the best pound for pound political pundit on the airwaves. he holds no punches and always, always goes for the political KO. As he does in the aforelinked article.
Too bad they won’t let him in a real ring with some of these murderous bastards. Starting with The Decider of course…
I love the sarcasm. Love it.
As for “lionizing for tardy sagacity”, first of all it’s important to say that it’s better late than never. Second of all, if I post a roll call cite of all the people that voted for the Authorization for Use of Force, can I expect you to savage by name the 29 Senate Democrats that voted for it? After all, aren’t they the very definition of “tardy sagacity”?
Inasmuch as that is not particularly offensive and scarcely rises to the level of the word “treason”, I will say that insults flowed freely at that time, and that one wasn’t particularly egregious. Nonetheless, it wasn’t appropriate, so you have my sincere apologies.
kanicbird’s comment (which I missed, thank you for bringing it to my attention) was beyond the pale. There are two things that you never call someone unless it’s true, IMO: treasonous or a murderer. You don’t throw words like that around just to score points.
Sure, late is better than never. While I could kinda imagine why folks would not oppose the war at the time, I have no way of getting my mind around someone who at this time does not think it was an unnecessary colossal fuck-up in all respects.
Regarding the Senate Dems, I have been and continue to be extremely critical of them for failing to do anything other than “go with the politically expedient flow.” And I have the utmost respect for anyone who loudly opposed it at all times. Was very difficult at the time, as anything other than full support bore the risk of getting you branded as “unpatriotic.” Hell, Kucinich was broadly painted as a joke for his vocal and singleminded opposition. I considered him heroic.
But you don’t hear many incumbents currently saying, “I screwed up. I was wrong - and thousands died as a result.” Instead, they strike me as primarily posturing for political advantage. And you have folks offering their own versions of Kerry’s inane weaselly “I was against it, before I was for it…” bullshit.
Then it makes them fuckin’ cowards. If they’ve got the cojones two years ago to stand and crow about how all of us who didn’t buy Bush’s bushit were traitors and cowards, then the least they can do is stick around and 'fess to their errors when they were proven wrong.
(Note that this is not to be interpreted in any way as a slam against Airman Doors, who – despite whatever disagreements he and I may have – was one of those willing to admit the errors of his earlier position.)
I do agree, and I was perhaps a bit too testy when I wrote that earlier. I was irked that you were denying that people on this very board ever called others traitor (or words to that effect), and asserting that no such evidence was offered in the other thread.
You still seem to be overlooking the quote from Scylla that Kimstu found. I’m sure that there are many more out there.
By the way, I’m quite happy to lump “saddamite” in with accusations of being a traitor, since suggesting that one sided with Saddam Hussein if they didn’t agree with Bush is close enough for me. I don’t feel like another debate about the semantics of “immenent” versus “grave and gathering.”
Sure, for that vote, they earned whatever scorn and derision is heaped upon them. I’ll go you one better and point out that most, if not all, of them haven’t had the sack that you showed to stand up and say, “Hey, I fucked up.”
A better title for this thread might be "Trolling for Conservatives"
Hey Tucker, is that what you meant by this?
*“If you’ve got the balls to stand behind the President, then now’s the time to show 'em.”
*
Like Barney Frank said on Olbermann tonight, it would be real hard to find another Admin that has gotten something as completely wrong as consistently over time on a major policy question as the Bush Admin has with Iraq.
They just managed, incredibly, to fuck up the Saddam execution, turning that into a sectarian provocation. Pretty amazing.
So, this surge/sacrifice/whatever-the-fuck-these-congenital-lying-pigs-are-calling-it-now is just another brick in their wall.
Was that an argument that conservatives and Bush supporters were the same thing? 
Well, there’s a typo which could result in snark. I meant are, and not were. :smack:
That seems to me to be the definition of cowardice. (Airman, I know that you have acted responsibly, so this doesn’t apply to you.)
If you believe in something, you should stand up for it. Here you will be beaten only with words. No one can run you off. Only your own misbehavior can do that. (So don’t blame the Big Conservative WimpOut on the Liberal Democrats at the Dope.) The wounds that you have from your so-called “beating” will be having to admit to yourself (and maybe to us) that you were wrong and having to live with whatever guilt that causes you.
At the moment, I feel also responsible because it is my country that is torturing people and has wrecked Iraq. And 3,000 more Americans and an unknown number of others are dead. And I feel like I should be doing something about it.
If you think you are right, then speak it. If you were wrong and you know that now, then be a grownup and say it. If you still think that you were right all along, have the courage to speak it again.
And, for heaven’s sake, don’t claim it just out of stubbornness.
I don’t think there was anything conservative about starting this war. Trolling for idiots might be a better title.
Do you prefer a Brutus or Scylla driveby?
-Joe
He could have watched The Fog of War.
Oh look! Such a tasty worm!
Except you’re not quoting me. And revealing the names of those who’ve served would be wrong.
Given that I can think of at least one conservative poster on this board who has come out soundly and repeatedly against this war, and the Toe Jam In Chief, I’m going to have to say that you’ve obviously had your grey matter consumed by the ghosts of the Nazi Groundhogs you dispatched from your former residence. Assuming that because someone is a conservative automatically means that they’re in favor of the war is as foolish as assuming that because someone’s a conservative that they agree with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Or believing that because one’s a liberal they think that Michael Moore knows what he’s talking about or that they agree with gun control.
Another thing that occured to me tonight about this whole troop surge business: What the fuck is the point of doing it after Bush has been babbling about it in public for a month? Forget the element of surprize. That’s completely gone. Is Bush so stupid as to think that Ackbar the Insurgent[sup]TM[/sup] going to hear him talking about it (since even if they can’t get CNN, they can get Al Jazeera) and say, “Gee, Akmehd, we’d better give up.”? It’s more likely that Akbar’s going to turn to Akmehd and say, “See! I told you the Americans would never leave! Now, help me strap these suicide vests on to the latest martyrs to be, and then we’ll go out and recruit more of them.”
Missed this. Yeah, I did simplify your comments a bit, so sue me. And why would revealing the names of those who’ve served be wrong? IAC, you still haven’t backed up any of the assertations you made in that thread that the media was distorting the events in Iraq. More of the same old shit: Vague, handwaving that it’s all lies and if we just follow the President blindly everything will be okay. :rolleyes:
No, supporters of the war cannot be called “conservatives”. A better title might be “Flushing Out Half-wits That Still Support a War That Was Immoral And Started Under False Pretenses And Managed With Extreme Incompetence That Has Made The World Less Safe From Terrorism And Are Still Stupid Enough To Think It Will Somehow Work Out Because Of The Incredible Wisdom Of George W. Bush”