This is why I have big man-love for IowaHawk

May 3, 2011
By

Because nobody – and I mean nobody, in the confines of Al Gore’s greatest invention, the Internet, can slice, dice and julienne a huge chunk of pure snark into so many little jagged pieces like he can. Please read it all.

Who is to credit for this rebirth in American national unity? First and foremost, we must cite the leadership of President Obama. Like many Americans – and the Nobel Peace Prize committee – I naively feared he was actually serious when he initially proposed shutting down Guantanamo, trying detainees in American civilian courts, and prior consultation with the international community. Little did I know that this untested young Commander-in-Chief would muster the courage to read his weekly Gallup numbers and, in one daring unilateral extra-judicial targeted hit job, toss aside every single idiotic foreign policy principle of his election campaign. Perhaps most satisfyingly, it was a mission made possible thanks to information extracted by methods he previously banned as “illegal torture.”

But this triumphant new era in situationally-unified American bloodlust does not belong to the President alone; we must also cite Congress’s born-again waterboarders like Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and their newfound enthusiasm for what (at least until 9pm Sunday) they would have once considered illegal military murder squads. Neither can we forget the watchdogs of America’s press, who have shown unprecedented ethical flexibility in shedding their long-held Gandhi moralism and embracing their inner Rambo.

Thanks to leaders like these, American pride is temporarily back out of the closet. And I for one take great personal satisfaction in knowing that when I’m high-fiving a random fellow American and robotically chanting “USA! USA!” at the news that Bin Laden is finally shark chum, there’s a pretty good chance that the guy was, only a few years ago, denying his love for unauthorized secret CIA-planned assassinations. Welcome to the pride parade everybody!

Of course, I’m not naive enough to think our current wave of national unity will last forever. At some point, possibly after the next election, American troops will once again assume their traditional role of psychotic baby-killing objects of fear and pity. And, doubtlessly, those of us who still admire them must once again assume our traditional role as America’s flag-humping racist chickenhawks. But when that day comes, we can look back at the week of May 1, 2011 and realize that it isn’t personal. Hey, that’s just the way the chad crumbles.

115 Responses to This is why I have big man-love for IowaHawk

  1. Lyle on May 4, 2011 at 1:39 pm

    As a fellow utahan I would like to buy you a beverage of your choice at any of the truckstops where i70 and i15 come together. Let me know when is convenient.

  2. L. on May 4, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    When you’re telling the truth, the first time around, there is no need for clean-up duty later on.

    I hope that you aren’t criticizing the Pentagon and CIA, Jan, that would destroy the right wing narrative.

    • Scott Severin on April 30, 2013 at 7:54 am

      Swing and miss!!

  3. utahprez on May 4, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    Lyle: I really appreciate it. I live in Scotland now and even though I grew up in Mississippi, Utah is my home. I lived in Park City for 15 years and for the most part, reared my three kids there. I got my MBA from the U of U and I will actually be in Salt Lake next week to see my daughter graduate from the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the U.

    Warning to the Left. She was the president of the Federalist Society, was invited to Washington to work with Justice Thomas and is contemplating a career in politics.

    I am very familiar with where 70 dead-ends into 15 just below Cove Fort. Made that run to Zion National Park and St. George many times…

    Most people retire to Florida…been there done that. My eye is on a little spread out between Francis and Woodland at the foot of the Uintas.

  4. Rex Magnus Trollius on May 4, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    “That means that it had a role, especially for that to be in the NYT, a Democrat house organ that tried everything possible to damage Bush and the war on terror that they could think of.”

    Once again, fitting facts around Ideology.

    Ever hear of Judith Miller, Fool Slick? Saddam’s WMD? The invasion of IRAQ.

    Guess which paper dutifully reported the lies coming out of the WH that helped sell the public on a war IT DID NOT WANT, and still doesn’t.

    When you’re not outright lying like your hero Iowahawk I’m afraid you’re just woefully misinformed or confused about what has transpired in the recent past.

    Inhalation of too many petroleum fumes I guess.

    • Scott Severin on April 30, 2013 at 7:55 am

      More fodder from a mental eunuch.

  5. utahprez on May 4, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    Sure I remember Judith Miller. I also remember all the Democrats, going all the way back to Bush I that saw the same reports and intel and came to the same conclusion – Saddam had WMDs.

    “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” –Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

    “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” –Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton, signed by: — Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

    “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    “Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” — Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

    “There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by: — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

    “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.” — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

    “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

    “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

    “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

    “He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” — Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.” — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

    “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…” — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

    Ever hear of BDS?

    Just like with Obama today, you have to turn off reality to believe what you do. For your purposes of bashing the war in Iraq, history started in 2000 with Bush and today, it begins with Obama.

  6. Rex Magnus Trollius on May 4, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    NON SEQUITUR ALERT! DIVERSIONARY TACTICS ALERT! CUT AND RUN LIKE A COWARD ALERT!!

    Your comment:

    “NYT, a Democrat house organ that tried everything possible to damage Bush and the war on terror that they could think of.”

    Your reply:

    “Sure I remember Judith Miller. I also remember all the Democrats..”

    …blah blah blah.

    So much effort to argue a completely irrelevant point.

  7. Utahprez on May 4, 2011 at 5:07 pm

    You brought Miller up, moron. Lichtblau and Risen exposing the SWIFT monitoring program, the CIA intercept programs. All secret programs before they were outed. Running Abu Graib pictures for weeks on end. Seymor Hersh articles about the “executive assassination squads” – which is actually the JSOC that killed OBL, Hersh writing that the military was engaged in a “secret military crusade” against Islam, you know, just little shit like that.

  8. Rex Magnus Trollius on May 4, 2011 at 5:18 pm

    “You brought Miller up, moron.”

    NO SHIT SHERLOCK! That’s what I”m trying to tell you. Somehow this provoked you to go off on a tangent ranting about Democrats.

    Seymour Hersh writes for the NEW YORKER, not the NYT.

    Other examples illustrate nothing more than that quickly vanishing profession known as JOURNALISM.

    Which to those with Ideological political blinders like yourself of course looks like Opposition Tactics when applied to your side. I think you may even recognize the logical fallacy if you thought about it real hard or ask someone to explain it to you real. slow.

    • Scott Severin on April 30, 2013 at 7:57 am

      Hey asshat, you’re too dumb to recognize you lost the debate.

  9. utahprez on May 4, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    No tangent. You were talking about Miller writing about Saddam’s WMDs in the NYT and implying that those were done purposefully to support Bush. That was your point wasn’t it? It isn’t tangential to supply evidence that there were more than just Miller who believed the intel that was available at the time, and people in positions of authority that had seen even more detailed intel than Miller…and that intel, developed during both Democrat and Republican administrations said that Saddam had WMDs.

    That intel apparently was faulty…or Saddam did one hell of a job of fooling our assets and his neighbors to keep Iran from rolling in after Gulf I. Faulty or not, both parties believed it, Democrats were too weak to do anything about it, Bush wasn’t and that is why you guys can’t stand him – not because he was “dumb”, he showed that the Left is all talk and no action.

    That’s actually why you are viciously defending the Warrior King now, you desperately need to shed that “wimp/weak on national defense” image before the election. Just know this, and it is something that I noted in the new post, the image of conflict/contradiction/confusion that the PR brain trust at White House is allowing to happen isn’t what they need. Victory laps around Bush is one thing, taking those laps in a clown car is something else altogether.

    You are right about Hersh – he does write for the New Yorker – but I didn’t actually claim that he worked for the NYT – I should have been clearer. Hersh hasn’t worked for the Times since the Vietnam era. I was just using his article as an example of Bush bashing that the Times picked up and ran on the front page for 30 straight days.

    It is always “journalism” when it hurts the right. Risen and Lichtblau should have been tried for releasing operational secrets during a war. But you think it is “journalism” because it hurt the Bush administration. My question in one of the other posts was ” where is this curiosity about Obama?”. Where are the Lichtblau’s and Risen’s now? Andrew Breitbart is as close as we have and we all KNOW that he is just a right-wing propagandist, don’t we?

    There were proceedings against the lawyer who gave these two “journalists” the information but imagine my surprise when it was dropped by the Obama DOJ.

    I wouldn’t really be too concerned about my abilities with logic. The first step in a logical conclusion is assembling all the facts and then working to a conclusion from them, not starting with a conclusion as you have and making the facts fit.

    There is absolutely no question – none at all – that intel developed during the Bush administration set this up. Since it came from detainees captured prior to 2009, that is also impossible to deny. Try as you might, these guys were not captured during the last 2 years. We are arguing about the method by which the intel was obtained, not when, but we actually do know that enhanced interrogation played a role in this process over the years and there are people who should know (like Panetta) who are tacitly acknowledging it or at least not denying (which in government amounts to an acknowledgment) that it played a role in the intel that led to OBL.

    To get OBL, Obama 1) accelerated the process already in place or 2) got lucky, or 3) both.

    Maybe you should read a little slower…or get your information from more sources than Media Matters or Kos.

  10. Mad Dog on May 5, 2011 at 6:39 am

    …and once again the trolls have their heads handed to them on a plate by utahprez….when will they learn, when will they ever learn (with apologies to Peter, Paul and the late Mary Travers).

  11. The Country Philosopher on May 5, 2011 at 6:43 am

    You know, in 2008 I felt obligated to vote for Obama to prove I wasn’t a racist. Next year I’m going to feel obligated to vote for anybody except Obama–to prove I’m not stupid.

  12. Rex Magnus Trollius on May 16, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    Okay, I admit I didn’t have my A game ready. There will be another time!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *