Bloggers love contradictions. Also, they hate them. Whaaa?

I was reading the waste-o-bandwidth blog, otherwise known as Atrios's Eschaton, and came across a post from this rocket scientist:

They were discussing the Iraq war. O’Reilly in his usual abrasive way asked Letterman “do you want the United States to win in Iraq?” To my surprise (and dismay), Letterman appeared totally unable to answer the question and paused, as if really having to ponder the options. O’Reilly then added that “it’s an easy question.” Letterman, in what may have seemed like a good response to daily Kossacks but in my mind was rather pathetic, replied “it’s not easy for me because I’m thoughtful.”

I’m all for nuance and embracing complexity since most things in life are not, in fact, black and white. But, come on! Do you want the US to win in Iraq? What answer could you possibly give but “yes.” Letterman’s response captures all that is wrong with the hard left’s approach to foreign policy. It’s reactionary, simple-minded and all too often descends into laughable self-parody.

I think Jonny McDumbass, who wrote the post, doesn't completely comprehend English. Letterman pondered O'Reilly's questions, didn't answer immediately, then said it was difficult to answer because he's "thoughtful". And how does Sammy VonRetard describe Letterman's response? "reactionary, simple-minded..."

Quick vocabulary lesson: A reactionary and simple-minded answer would've been an immediate "yes". In other words, what YOU think he should've done.

The fact is, you CAN NOT WIN IN IRAQ. There is NO winning. Sure, one side could come out with more points, but it won't end the game. The only way the US could truly "win", is if Iraq becomes a full democracy, Islam completely changes its beliefs so that they no longer resent our presence in the Middle East, and Osama bin Laden starts farting daisies.

Josh Marshall makes some sense

It's not often that bloggers actually write something that's thoughtful and not just a "knee-jerk" response. At Talking Points Memo, that seems to happen a lot more than at other blogs. Of course, writing two insightful posts would make a blog more thoughtful than every other blog.

Take this TPM post for example:

I agree to the extent that the dangers we face because of the Iraq catastrophe are so great and the long term consequences so vast that we can't afford score settling and jockeying for advantage. This isn't rhetoric. Completely setting aside the lives we've lost and the money we've squandered I don't think this country has really taken stock of the damage we've done to ourselves or the prices we're going to pay for this folly for decades to come. As it is with a family so to with a country, when catastrophe strikes everyone has to pull together to help find a way out, a way back.

But that's not where we are. A faction in this country, and it doesn't merit a loftier label given its quickly diminishing size and its focus on loyalty to a single man, is still focused on perpetuating the catastrophe -- continuing it, expanding it and perhaps most importantly denying its very existence.

Exactly. At this point, if you think Dubya is doing a good job with Iraq... you deserve to be hit by a bus, have the bus driver get out, defecate on your flattened remains, then left to rot in the blazing sun. The Iraq war (which still isn't a "real" war) has gone way beyond labels like Liberal or Conservative or Democrat or Republican. There are exactly two sides: people looking for real solutions to get us out and morons.

I think the President should sign an Executive Order that states "anyone who thinks the war is going in any other direction except 'poorly' is required to spend 12 months fighting in Iraq". It would take approximately 2.6 seconds for the pro-war cowards to change their tune.

Pointless Posturing in the Senate

You know what's worse than the idiotic "games" the Democrats are playing in the Senate? The idiots commenting on those games.

For example, from head-idiot Michelle Malkin's blog, we get these pearls of wisdom from "TacitEagle":

Dhimmicrats are BAD for America, BAD on the defense of freedom, and on the WRONG side of the fight for justice for all.

First, notice the mis-spelling of Democrats, done for humorous effect. Republicans are original that way. But let me address the issues raised in the comment: NO they're not, NO they're not, and NO they're not. Actually, it's small-minded morons that are BAD for America. Speaking of... her "PBoilermaker":

For those that think AQ aren’t watching the treasonous MSM and the Dems without getting motivated to just keep it going a bit longer, you are dangerously naive.

Yes, because as we are all aware, they hate us because of our "freedoms". And by the Democrats and main-stream media actually practicing those freedoms, they're only serving to embolden the enemy. I'm guessing that PBoilermaker's solution for all this is to take away ALL of our freedoms, so that Al Qaeda won't hate us anymore. It makes sense when you think about it.

And finally, the idiot to end all idiots "Dersu":

Do these idiots really believe that the way to protect and defend the Constitution is to protect our troops from danger?

I say just the opposite is true, we must send our treasured loved ones to the front
of the fray. How else will our future be assured?

If you were listening to this, I'd be speechless. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like Dersu is saying that the ONLY way to defend the Constitution, is to have our troops get killed. From my reading of the comment, it doesn't matter WHY they're fighting, just as long as they're DYING while doing it.

The problem with these sheep commenting on Malkin's blog, is that they can't seem to comprehend that it's GOING BADLY in Iraq. I personally think that going into Iraq and getting rid of Saddam was a fine idea, but almost immediately Bush started f**king it up... and he hasn't stopped f**king it up. Maybe a full withdrawal isn't the best idea, but what other alternatives are there? Continue to let Bush keep f**king it up? Let it just coast until January 2009, so the next President can deal with it? That seems pretty heartless to me.