Nobody's Pitted Gen. John Kelly, that national disgrace? Allow me, then.

[ElvisL1ves]

@RTFirefly

Says the guy who claims without evidence (because that’s how he remembers it - his memory is his cite) that Cheney forced Republicans to go along with the Iraq war.

That’s practically a negative contribution.

Okay, before you try contributing, first try reading.

Damn, I thought you were better than this. Guess not.

[RTFirefly]

@ElvisL1ves

Okay, before you try contributing, first try reading.

OK, let’s try this again:

Remember how Cheney forced any Republican with a reputation for integrity to support his Iraq invasion plans?

No, I don’t. Cite?

Damn, I thought you were better than this.

[Mal Reynolds]Well, I’m all right. [/Mal]

[RTFirefly]

And a bump for Kelly’s latest:

Robert E. Lee was an honorable man who gave up his country to fight for his state," Kelly said. “One hundred and fifty years ago, that was more important than country — it was always loyalty to state back in those days. Now it’s different. But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War, and men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand.”

I may be a math geek, but I do know a little bit of history. And ISTM that the entire history of the United States from 1787 to 1860 was a series of compromises to keep the slave states in the Union, beginning with the Constitution itself, with electoral votes by state that counted each slave as an extra 3/5 vote for their owners, and running through the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, that I can remember off the top of my head.

Then along comes Lincoln, running on a somewhat different compromise platform - slavery continues in the 15 existing slave states, but no further expansion - and most of the slave states leave before Lincoln is even sworn in.

But saying “the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War” is classic early 21st century Bothsidesism applied to the mid-19th century. Only one side was refusing to compromise, the slave power.

And:

“There are certain things in history that were not so good, and other things that were very, very good,” Kelly said. “I think we make a mistake as a society, and certainly as individuals, when we take what is accepted as right and wrong, and go back 100, 200, 300 years or more and say, ‘What Christopher Columbus did was wrong.’”

“Five hundred years later, it’s inconceivable to me that you would take what we think now and apply it back then. I just think it’s very very dangerous. It shows you how much of a lack of appreciation of history and what history is,” said Kelly

OK then, Mr. Kelly, let’s get a viewpoint from that time, so we’re not applying the standards of one time to another.

1. Exit the White House.
2. Walk south a couple blocks to the Mall.
3. Walk west to the Lincoln Memorial. Up the steps. Stop in front of the statue of Lincoln.
4. Turn right. Walk until you’re between a couple of those big pillars. Look up.
5. In front of you, you will see the words of Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865. He has some thoughts about the origins of the war that differ from yours. Read them.

@Abraham Lincoln

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

[SteveG1]

@RTFirefly

Bill and 'luc, I’m not disagreeing with either of you. But Elvis’ point that I’m questioning here is whether Cheney forced Republicans to support the Iraq war, not whether they were lied into supporting it.

Some may have been lied to, but others were fully in on it.
"Project For The New American Century. The “neocons”. The draft dodging warmongers. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Kristol, Abrams, Bolton, Bork, brother Jeb Bush, Libby, etc etc etc etc. They had been waiting for an excuse, ANY excuse.

“Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

They wanted to grab control and oil. W’s White House was loaded with this type, and he played along with them.

11 September was their “Pearl Harbor” - even though Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attacks.

“We have no choice but to re-instill in our foes and friends the fear that attaches to any great power… Only a war against Saddam Hussein will decisively restore the awe that protects American interests abroad and citizens at home” - PNAC member Reuel Marc Gerecht

[RTFirefly]

Some may have been lied to, but others were fully in on it.

Agreed. Again, I was just challenging this apparent bullshit that any Republicans had to be strong-armed into supporting the Iraq war.

Plenty of Republicans were chomping at the bit, and the rest were either easily persuaded or persuaded by lies. But I’m still awaiting the first scintilla of evidence from Elvis that any GOPers’ support had to be squeezed out of them by force, threat, strong-arming, or anything along those lines.

[RTFirefly]

Ta-Nehisi Coates unsurprisingly does a far more thorough takedown of Kelly’s remarks about the Civil War than anything I could have pulled together.

It’s one of those things where summaries and excerpts really don’t do it justice. Read the whole thing.

[ElvisL1ves]

@RTFirefly

But I’m still awaiting the first scintilla of evidence from Elvis that any GOPers’ support had to be squeezed out of them by force, threat, strong-arming, or anything along those lines.

Here’s a pat on the head for a good lad.

[John_Mace]

@RTFirefly

Agreed. Again, I was just challenging this apparent bullshit that any Republicans had to be strong-armed into supporting the Iraq war.

Yeah, that makes no seen at all. Firstly, if those Republicans actually had an integrity, they wouldn’t have been receptive to being strong armed into supporting a war they didn’t actually believe in. And since no names are offered, the most favorable reading is that he said something he didn’t think through fully but, Trump-like, refuses to admit his error.

The only person I can think of who might remotely fit that bill would be Colin Powell, but I’m unaware of him having to be strong-armed by anyone, Cheney or otherwise. Here he is in 2008 still saying he made the right decision at the time:

Reporter: Mr. Secretary, there were a number of chinks in your own armor, actually, because of the lead-up to the Iraq war and the events. How much did that play into your decision about this? And will it be taken perhaps by some, because of your previous high-profile position, won’t it be taken by some as a repudiation of the Iraq war?

Powell: I don’t know why. The Iraq war is the Iraq war. We now see that things are a lot better in Iraq. Maybe if we had put a surge in at the beginning, it would have been a lot better years ago, but it’s a lot better now, and we can see ahead to where U.S. forces will start to come out. And so, my concern was not my past or what happened in Iraq, but where we’re going in the future. My sole concern was where are we going after January 20 of 2009, not what happened in 2003.

I’m well aware of the role I played. My role has been very, very straightforward. I wanted to avoid a war. The president agreed with me. We tried to do that. We couldn’t get it through the U.N. and when the president made the decision, I supported that decision. And I’ve never blinked from that. I’ve never said I didn’t support a decision to go to war.

And the war looked great until the 9th of April, when the statue fell, everybody thought it was terrific. And it was terrific. The troops had done a great job. But then we failed to understand that the war really was not over, that a new phase of the war was beginning. And we weren’t ready for it and we didn’t respond to it well enough, and things went very, very – very, very south, very bad.

And now it’s starting to turn around through the work of Gen. Petraeus and the troops, through the work of the Iraqi government, through our diplomatic efforts, and I hope now that this war will be brought to an end, at least as far as American involvement is concerned, and the Iraqis are going to have to be responsible for their own security and for their own political future. …

As for Kelly, with the latest bit about the Civil War he seems to have forgotten the first rule of holes: When you find yourself in one, stop digging!

[k9bfriender]

@RTFirefly

1. Exit the White House.

Seems you can stop right about there.

[Gorsnak]

@John_Mace

As for Kelly, with the latest bit about the Civil War he seems to have forgotten the first rule of holes: When you find yourself in one, stop digging!

To be fair, in the army a deeper hole can actually be better than a shallow one.

[RTFirefly]

@ElvisL1ves

Here’s a pat on the head for a good lad.

I have a pretty small and exclusive Ignore list. Just [del]two[/del] make that three of our board’s most worthless and idiotic posters.

[RTFirefly]

@k9bfriender

Seems you can stop right about there.

That would be for the best, wouldn’t it?

[ElvisL1ves]

Looks like somebody is going to get a rock in his Halloween bag.

[What_Exit]

Latest Kelly horrible stupidity.

White House chief of staff John Kelly spoke to the “good” and “not so good” parts of US history on Monday, speaking highly of Confederate general Robert E. Lee and attributing the origin of the American Civil War to a “lack of an ability to compromise.”

full story here: http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/31/politics/john-kelly-civil-war-fox-news/index.html

This asshole needs to go away. Lee was a traitor to his country and what compromise was suppose to have happened on slavery? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with this asshole?

[Max_Torque]

@RTFirefly

Agreed. Again, I was just challenging this apparent bullshit that any Republicans had to be strong-armed into supporting the Iraq war.

Plenty of Republicans were chomping at the bit, and the rest were either easily persuaded or persuaded by lies. But I’m still awaiting the first scintilla of evidence from Elvis that any GOPers’ support had to be squeezed out of them by force, threat, strong-arming, or anything along those lines.

Closest I’ve found, after about a minute of Googling: Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq. March 2002: “Cheney tells Republican senators that the question is no longer if the US will invade Iraq but when.” Which to me does sound like a “get in line, jagoffs, it’s gonna happen”, but I don’t see any record of what specifically was said or to whom. Still, at least we do have a month and year.

[Pippers]

@What_Exit

Latest Kelly horrible stupidity. full story here: http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/31/politics/john-kelly-civil-war-fox-news/index.html

This asshole needs to go away. Lee was a traitor to his country and what compromise was suppose to have happened on slavery? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with this asshole?

I liked this guy when he didn’t talk. Now I see why he gets along with dumpy-trumpy

[Richard_Parker]

What an embarrassment to our country.

I wonder how the military academies teach the civil war in 2017. Are they reading McPherson?

[running_coach]

@What_Exit

Latest Kelly horrible stupidity. full story here: http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/31/politics/john-kelly-civil-war-fox-news/index.html

This asshole needs to go away. Lee was a traitor to his country and what compromise was suppose to have happened on slavery? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with this asshole?

Just to be fair, Kelly claimed that loyalty to one’s state over loyalty to the country was normal at the time.
ETA: I have no idea if that’s true or revisionism.

[What_Exit]

@running_coach

Just to be fair, Kelly claimed that loyalty to one’s state over loyalty to the country was normal at the time.

Except he was a serving officer in the US Army, not just a private citizen. He betrayed his oath to the country. So Kelly’s logic was pretty much insane troll logic.

[BobLibDem]

No apology coming for lying about a Congresswoman.

Despite spewing a blatant lie about Democratic Congresswoman Frederica Wilson earlier this month, Donald Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly took a page from his boss and said he will “never” apologize.

In an interview scheduled to air Monday on the premiere episode of Laura Ingraham’s new pro-Trump propaganda hour, ‘The Ingraham Angle’, Ingraham asked Kelly if he felt he should apologize for accusing Rep. Wilson of something she never did.

The former general’s shameful response: “Oh, no. No. Never.”

“I’ll apologize if I need to, but for something like that, absolutely not,” Kelly added. “I stand by my comments.”

What a dick. Of course, if those patriotic Confederates had prevailed, Wilson wouldn’t have been allowed in Congress except to clean the snuff box.