Rightbloggers Denounce the End of the Iraq Occupation and the "Horrific Murder" of Gaddafi

tomt200.jpgThe American people have long been sick and tired of our occupation of Iraq, and on Friday President Obama called ally-ally-in-free.

You'd think there'd be little cause for dissension; as Glenn Greenwald noted, the deadline was agreed to in the Bush era.

But you know how it is with rightbloggers and Obama; anything the President does must be portrayed as nefarious. And the Iraq War -- why, that had to be defended; democracy, whiskey, sexy and all that!

So they pulled their old warblogging armor back on, and tried once again to rally America to the cause of Operation Eternal Occupation.

Key Republicans, as you might expect, also denounced the decision in their traditional reflexive and incoherent way (e.g Mitt Romney, "unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice blah blah blah"). Rightbloggers, being the intellectual shock troops of the conservative movement, had to at least make up something that sounded like reasons.

For example: it became known that, before the announcement, the Obama Administration had asked the Iraqi government for U.S. troop immunity from prosecution after 2011, which was not granted. (Whether the Administration asked out of real eagerness to stay in Iraq, or to demonstrate to the world the Iraq government's resolve to have us gone, we must leave to the reader's judgement.)

The less nuanced among the brethren were pissed that we actually let the Iraqis decide whether we should be in Iraq. "A DEFEATED ENEMY TELLS US WHAT IT WILL AND WON'T DO!" hollered the Blogmocracy. "Way to go America!" "

Hot Air's Ed Morrissey, carefully misreading a New York Times story, claimed neither side really wanted us to leave Iraq, but Obama's "incompetence" made it impossible to achieve the mutually-desired status quo -- sort of like when two people don't want to run into each other at a party, so they both skip it, or something.

Morrissey also said, "I find it difficult to believe that Obama will send troops back into Iraq in the middle of an election cycle," as if that were a bad thing.

"This is not the Obama administration's own decision," said Patrick Brennan at National Review. "...The U.S. had little choice but to abide by the existing Status of Forces Agreement ratified under the Bush administration and by the Iraqi government..."

Having thus explained that it wasn't Obama doing, Brennan explained that it was nonetheless his fault: "it seems that the Obama administration's prodigious reputation for negotiation and diplomacy has failed, again, to protect the security interests of America and her allies." Well, maybe "explained" is the wrong word.

abubyebye.jpg
Goodbye to all that.
"I must have been absent in strategy class the day they taught that you can declare a war over unilaterally," said Longtabsigo at Blackfive, and asked, "Will the President at least allow our returning forces the honor to walk up 5th Ave in NYC in a victory parade?"

Obviously not, because Obama hates our fighting men, just as Jerry Ford hated the victorious soldiers of the Vietnam War and refused them their parade.

And you know how much Obama hates soldiers? While he "fulfilled his campaign promise to pull U.S. forces from Iraq" in a "subdued briefing" held in the equally subdued "dark blue White House press podium," reported the Daily Caller's Neil Munro, "less than two hours later" Obama celebrated some pencil-necked geeks -- winners of the National Medals of Science, whatever those are -- in "the bright and gilded East Room of the White House."

Dark, bright -- get it? Also Obama had the nerve to be cheerful about the scientists! "The president's tone was markedly different as he announced the troop withdrawal," said Munro, "focusing more on regret than on victories won."

True, Obama had said in his Iraq remarks that "The last American soldier[s] will cross the border out of Iraq with their heads held high, proud of their success, and knowing that the American people stand united in our support for our troops." But he was subdued! If he'd been smiling and laughing when he announced the end, you know rightbloggers would have loved him for it. Water's edge and all that.

The schoolier rightbloggers took more and bigger words to get to the same place.

At the American Enterprise Institute, Fred Kagan went with the usual AEI laugh-lines -- the move "effectively throws Iraq into the arms of Iran," there is "an elaborate Iranian plot to conduct attacks on American soil," "How can we claim to be taking a firm line against Iran while giving Tehran the single most important demand it has pursued for years" -- in brief, without the Iraqi toehold, how will we get that war with Iran of which the AEI has been dreaming for years?

"While every American shares the conviction that we don't want any U.S. troops stationed in a Middle East country a day longer than they need to be," said James Phillips of the Heritage Foundation... wait for it... "it is tragic to see a premature exit of U.S. troops that might jeopardize the progress that has been made in Iraq." We remind readers that America has been in Iraq for eight years.

"In part," continued Phillips, "Obama and his Obama Doctrine are to blame for the Iraqi government walking away from U.S. support," because "Iraqi leaders, sensing the Obama Administration's eagerness to head for the exit, are reluctant to take political risks to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution... by Iraq's politicized police and judicial authorities."

A reader not fully initiated into the Heritage worldview might wonder why, if we have made such great "progress" in Iraq, its officers of justice hate us so much.

Phillips also told us that the Iraqi Prime Minister "timidly" refuses to stick up for us, and indeed "many Iraqi leaders are also unwilling to raise Iran's ire, apprehensive that they could be targeted for political retaliation or even assassination." We seem to have made quite a hit over there. Also, we are let to know this will embolden "Iran and al-Qaeda," etc.

"If there is one constant of American military history it is that the longer our troops stay in a country the better the prospects of a successful outcome," said Max Boot at Commentary. "Think of Germany, Italy, Japan or South Korea." Again, the U.S. has been in Iraq eight years. We have only cursorily reexamined our postwar histories, but can't find anything about German intransigents launching fatal rocket attacks on American soldiers into the 1950s.

Anyway Boot found the drawdown "shameful," and predicted that "the broad majority of Iraqis who fear Iranian influence and who want their country to become a democracy will come to rue this day, however big a victory it might appear in the short term for the cause of Iraqi nationalism." One imagines they're too busy figuring out how to get more than a few hours of electricity a day to think about that very much. One invasion at a time, after all.

Also, "the issue of immunity could have been finessed," he claimed, "if administration lawyers from the Departments of State and Defense had not insisted that Iraq's parliament would have to vote to grant our troops protections from Iraqi laws." Imagine, trying to get the consent of the governed! Good thing they don't try that kind of thing here.

All is not lost, though, Boot said: "Once U.S. forces pull out by December 31," he speculated, "negotiations could and should be reopened to bring back a sizable contingent -- I would argue for a bare minimum of 10,000 troops..."

Indeed, Boot thought, we could be re-greeted as liberators -- "By showing our willingness to pull out our troops," he added, "the U.S. can show the Iraqis that we are serious about respecting their sovereignty and not bent on a long-term occupation of their country."

Perhaps contemplating the ungrateful reception Iraq III would surely get from the war-weary folks back home, Boot thought better of it: "But of course pulling out all U.S. troops and then bringing some back would be costlier than simply keeping them there." Now it's too late to force them to accept us. Curse you, Obama!

At the PJ Tatler, Zombie brushed off the whole thing, saying "we already won the Iraq War almost three years ago" -- which was, he hastened to remind readers, "before Obama even took office."

Three years ago? How'd Zombie figure that? Because he'd declared so himself, in November 2008 -- you can look it up! At that time Zombie urged readers to "make a post on your blog announcing that the war is over, and declaring Saturday, November 22 to be Victory in Iraq Day. That's it."


Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
13 comments
ripconstitution
ripconstitution

As (insert adjective here) as Longtabsigo's stream-of-consiousness/recipe for pumpkin pie is, I gotta commend this commenter :"We were always going to get to the point when the Iraqis had to sort the rest out on their own. The reason the negotiations have bogged down for so long is just this: they knew that letting us stay longer was the responsible thing, but deep down they want to be on their own. It's going to be hard, but they'll get it done. I wouldn't worry about them becoming a vassal state of Iran. They'll side with Iran sometimes, and sometimes with us: but the Iraqis I met were deeply suspicious of Iran to a man. They want to be free and independent, and that means of Iran and of us as well. And as for 'the post-Civil War South'! If there's a better spot on earth, I've not found it -- and I've been a few places. Maybe I've just missed all the nice ones."This is the difference between the mouthbreathers and the genuine decents in this modern "patriot movement"- a few still know how to form a truly independent view of reality. I know it skirts the scotsman fallacy, but from experience, there is indeed a difference between thoughtful conservatives and the deep righties. If only they'd see it.

Tokhtamysh
Tokhtamysh

Asuristan and beloved Nineveh are still occupied by the Arabs and Kurds and Turkmen, but no one seems to give a shit about Iraq's indigenous non-Islamic people.

StringOnAStick
StringOnAStick

You know, I really figured that once it became common knowledge that the withdrawal date had been agreed to by the Shrub administration that there wouldn't be much of this crap written by the reichbloggers.  Silly me. 

I should know by now that reality has fuck-all to do with the reichblogger marching orders, which are now and will always be "anything Obama does is a horrific attack on all that is right n' white about the USA! USA! USA!".  It would be laughable if it didn't reek of pure, grade AAA mendacity. 

Roger Ailes
Roger Ailes

"I must have been absent in strategy class the day they taught that you can declare a war over unilaterally," said Longtabsigo at Blackfive. OMISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

visitor
visitor

I don't see why you claim in this post's headline that rightbloggers "[d]enounce... the '[h]orrific [m]urder' of Gaddafi" when you mention only one who does so and while the Obama administration, the U.N and Human Rights Watch (none of which are liked by rightbloggers) have called for investigations into his death.

Anarchaeologist
Anarchaeologist

Selected reactions, in no particular order:

"I must have been absent in strategy class the day they taught that you can declare a war over unilaterally," said Longtabsigo at Blackfive

Why yes, he must have been.  It was the day they talked about superpowers withdrawing troops from nations on other continents, which lack an air force or blue water navy.

"A DEFEATED ENEMY TELLS US WHAT IT WILL AND WON'T DO!" hollered the Blogmocracy. 

Little-known fact about the definition of "defeated:"  If you started the fight, and they're in a position to dictate terms at the end of it, they haven't been defeated.  You have. But we know what's going on: Your hard-on for the fight is gone, and now you got to deal with the blue-balls.  No one is fooled- we know your date got sick of you and bounced, and you're alone in there and fapping your brains out trying to forget the loneliness.

"Think of Germany, Italy, Japan or South Korea."

Hell, think of the CSA!  It's been getting on a century and a half since the unpleasantness, and look how well-behaved they are!  Not making any trouble for the old USofA at all!

McSalmon
McSalmon

Ugh - the foreign policy of the US is so mired in the BS political grandstanding and realpolitik of the past that it's nearly impossible to do anything useful in the world without screwing up something important, right or left. The difference is the left wants to change a fragile system of political quid pro quos as gently as possible, while the right will gladly charge in with a nuke and a flag on a drunken bet.

commie atheist
commie atheist

At the PJ Tatler, Zombie brushed off the whole thing, saying "we already won the Iraq War almost three years ago" -- which was, he hastened to remind readers, "before Obama even took office."

Three years ago? How'd Zombie figure that? Because he'd declared so himself, in November 2008 -- you can look it up! At that time Zombie urged readers to "make a post on your blog announcing that the war is over, and declaring Saturday, November 22 to be Victory in Iraq Day. That's it."

Nice to know that Zombie has been writing stupid shit since at least 2008 - although his Occupy Wall Street/Hitler Hashtag Conspiracy still stands as his crowning stupidity (at least until the next time he posts something).

Another Luke
Another Luke

Yes, Roy, it's shocking that your headline only accurately quotes one retarded rightwing blogger mourning the outrageous way Obama successfully led a coalition of the willing to kill our good pal Colonel Gaddafi!

edroso
edroso

Because it's hilarious. As is the brand-new concern of conservatives for the well-being of foreign belligerents.

Roy T.
Roy T.

Well, actually the CSA has been lobbing knuckle-dragging troglodytes and racist con men into the US Capitol for most of that century and a half. You can see the structural damage to this day in both the House and the Senate.

Ed Mix
Ed Mix

Zombie needs some brainz.

Now Trending

New York Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...