Monday, December 04, 2006

Putz on Iraq: a timeline.

Since Putz has so generously offered to hold a symposium on what to do about the Great Victory in Iraq disaster, we thought this brief timeline would be useful for the participants.

9/11/01
Suggests attacks on WTC give Bush license to nuke Baghdad.

6/4/02

Suggests that Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence before 9/11 (and again on 8/4/02).

6/22/02
Promotes connection between Iraq and the Oklahoma City bombing.

8/13/02
Argues that invading Iraq is important for "psychological reasons", i.e., to humiliate the Arab world.

8/29/02
Pooh-poohs worries about Iraq as a Vietnam-style trap.

9/4/02
Promotes theory that Osama bin Laden is a puppet of Saddam Hussein.

9/6/02
Promotes Iraq-al Qaeda connection. Also once again promotes operational connection between Timothy McVeigh and Iraq.

9/14/02
Compares Scott Ritter, who was speaking out against a preemptive US invasion of Iraq, to surrenderist defenders of the Soviet Union and Pol Pot.

9/16/02
Suggests Saddam will have a nuclear weapon in three months.

9/28/02
Hypes Saddam's nuclear threat again.

3/26/03
Begins series of "they're not antiwar--they're just on the other side" posts.

6/1/03
Argues that things look "pretty good" in Iraq despite the press's "bogus looting stories" that were attempts to "hurt Bush."

7/11/03
Promotes connection between Saddam and Osama.

11/12/03
Insists that attacks in Iraq are akin to the Battle of the Bulge and not an indication things are going "badly." Claims that "anti-war types" want "America to lose" and "dance on our soldiers' graves" but doesn't name any.

4/6/04
Accuses Ted Kennedy of emboldening our enemies by comparing Iraq to Vietnam.

4/20/04
Accuses Michael Moore of giving "aid and comfort" to the terrorists.

7/19/04
Again promotes Saddam-al Qaeda connection.

3/23/05
Triumphantly announces that we're winning in Iraq and that the press is wrong. Predicts that it's only a matter of time before Ted Kennedy will be taking the credit for it. Also, brags that blogs like Instapundit helped "neutralize the psychological warfare" of the terrorists.

11/11/05
Accuses Democratic critics of the Iraq war of being unpatriotic and hurting our troops abroad.

12/18/05
Says Bush believes we're winning in Iraq and that he thinks it will be obvious by November 2006.

1/14/06
Calls John Murtha, who began publicly criticizing the war, a disgrace.

1/26/06
Announces that we're winning in Iraq again.

4/18/06
Calls generals who publcily criticized Rumsfeld "gutless."

5/9/2006
Says we're winning again, which you'd know if you were "paying attention."

6/8/06
On the death of Zarqawi, accuses the press of emboldening the terrorists.

6/26/06
Breathlessly promotes Rick Santorum's "discovery" of WMD in Iraq.

8/22/06
Compares Iraq to Iwo Jima.

8/26/06
Compares the violence in Iraq to the violence in Philadelphia. Says the war "isn't terribly bloody."

9/1/06
Promotes bogus data indicating that violence is down in Iraq. Has to post a correction shortly after.

9/17/06
Wonders why Bush doesn't invade Iran, since Iran is the cause of "much of the problem" in Iraq.

10/23/06

Calls Americans who are worried about Iraq "cranky."

12/03/06
Offers to run symposium about what to do about Iraq.

44 comments:

sal said...

Your brain must be close to melting having had to wade through that much putziness.

Braver man than I.

Ann Altmouse said...

Brilliant! I know you will be attacked for this, Glenn, but I'm glad you have explained things in such a clear, nonpartisan fashion.

Jeffraham Prestonian said...

Holy Shit. What a frickin' smackdown!

It that idiot ever appears on camera, we need a graphic that represents this site. I volunteer to design that graphic.
.

Liam said...

He is almost Krauthammeresque in his prescience.

Anonymous said...

Interestingly, the only reasonable thing ever uttered by Glenn was also on 9/11. Said Glenn, "Overreaction is the Terrorist's Friend: Even in major cases like this, the terrorist's real weapon is fear and hysteria. Overreacting will play into their hands."

Hmmm....now who do we know that has played into the terrrrists hands by promoting fear, hysteria, and over-reaction in relation to the war on terra? Why does Glenn hate America?

Rich said...

I followed one of the links, which led to another and then this:

The Psychology of Bush Hatred
Sunday, November 28, 2004
........

I thought of that insight today when I glanced at Maureen Dowd's column and read this sentence, "Maybe it's because George Bush is relaxing at his ranch down there (again) while Osama is planning a big attack up here (again)."

That is the voice of a petulant child, angry that she has a tummy ache while Daddy is at work or Mommy is visiting a friend, or the voice of a grouchy wife angry that she has a migraine while her husband is out coaching the kids' baseball team. You're upset that you're in pain (we've all been there), so you get mad at someone whose presence wouldn't make the pain any better. No mature student of politics believes the president of the United States goofs off on vacation. It's not the kind of job you escape. George Bush may be completely insane to voluntarily. spend July in Texas--as opposed to Bill Clinton's favored coastal retreats--but Osama bin Laden is no more or less a threat than in Bush were in Washington. But if blaming Bush makes people feel better, safer, or at least able to focus their anger on someone they can hurt, they'll blame Bush. "
-------------------
A bit less than a year before Katrina took down New Orleans, but as we can see, the liberal annoyance at Bush and his long vacations was very considerably more on the mark than our conservative putz and his "Bush Derangement" theories. Liberals weren't annoyed at where Bush took his vacations, we were annoyed at how long he spent away from Washington, from how long he spent away from doing his job. Problem with Katrina was how long it took for Bush to realize "Aw crap, vacation's over! I gotta come back to work." Clinton spent a week or two on his vacations, Bush spent at least a month on his, at least until Cindy Sheehan made Crawford a less relaxing place to be.

Micheal said...

...and why shouldn't Instaputz run the conference? Since all of the other Serious Thinkers who were completely wrong about Iraq every step of the way will be there. Just makes sense to have a fool preside over a conference of fools.

smiley said...

jesus christ, what a complete idiot. I know that NYT v. Sullivan relaxed the standards for libel, but maybe we need some kind of journalist's "3 strikes" law... if you're wrong three times, your access to the media is cut off to protect the public.

An Honest Man said...

Gwem Reynolds is a disgrace who will only understand his pathetic idiocy when he is suddenly and forcibly slapped across the lips by an honest man or woman.

Andy Ratto said...

thanks for doing this

Meteor Blades said...

You owe me for a new keyboard. My has been shorted out by the water I just spewed through my nostrils.

Kudos on this fine smackdown.

Matt O. said...

Check out this gem from 9/11/01:

THINGS TO WORRY ABOUT: Hysterical overreaction against American muslims and Arab-Americans.

Anonymous said...

Humph, Ann's just pointing out Putz's words. It's his deep links that are really so important to his thought. There's more, oh, so much more. Ann just can't do links like the Putz. She's more of thinker, not a linker. But, oh, what a thinker. What?
That loud sucking noise? Be careful, Jeff Goldstein might show up.

Anonymous said...

http://instapundit.com/archives2/2006/12/post_771.php

"ANOTHER UPDATE: Just to be clear, I want links to blog posts. I can't possibly run a whole lot of lengthy emails in their entirety; I need things I can link to."

Shorter Glen: "Fighting a war from the comfort of my backyard bomb shelter is hard work ... hard work ... hard work.

Anonymous said...

Reynolds isn't a putz he's a lying hack. Mind boggling to think that a university allows someone that openly dihonest teach law students.

owlbear1 said...

I'd lay odds that within the next few weeks he starts talking about how he has been saying all along there were problems.

hillbilly ragger said...

Now, if he wants to nuke Baghdad, there is nobody to say him nay -- and damned few who would want to. That's a danger if he goes off half-cocked, but I don't think there's much risk of that.

Nope. Not much risk of that, fer sure.

john said...

I think a plague of frogs would be very effective against the mullahs. You have to wonder why our Bible-reading President hasn't thought of this alrady on his own?

Jimmy Higgins said...

Now that's teh funny!

Interesting how, umm, resilient the human psyche can be. You'd think he'd want to change his name and move to New Zealand after compiling a record like that...

Anonymous said...

this is very unfair of you. could it be you haven't heard that history is dead? and so if history is dead what one said back in 02 or 03 or 04 or 05 or for that matter yesterday no longer exists and one can come to the game with a perfectly clean record and take a few swings in the batting cage with no sense of embarrassment...when will you lefties ever face unreality?

mojo said...

After the symposium, I can hardly wait to see the plan. Never mind Baker-Hamilton, we are in dire need of The Glenn Reynolds Plan.
In the nick of time!

Anonymous said...

You forgot 11/19/02 when Glenn suggests that the only way we can really win would be to commit genocide.

And then 4/2/06 when Glenn faults Bush for losing the war because he's not "willing to do whatever it takes to win, regardless of foreign or public opinion." (i.e. even more genocide)

fishbones said...

Thank you for reading his crap so I don't have to.

Realist said...

Shorter Insta-Putz: Reality is a leftist plot to make Bush look bad.

Libby Spencer said...

Brilliant. I just this minute found your blog and you are so going on my blogroll.

And I also thank you for reading that putz so I don't have to.

Libby Spencer said...

These new betas just defeat me. I don't know if this went through so I'll repeat the comment.

Brilliant. I just found your blog on you are so going on my blogroll.

I add my thanks for reading that putz so I don't have to.

Alex said...

By November 2008 (just 4 Friedmans), it's going to be especially obvious we're winning in Iraq, and then you'll be sorry.

Nice work.

Comandante AgĂ­ said...

Thanks for taking one for the team and reading Reynolds' work. My only concern is that you killed several brain cells in the process.

melior said...

Now that's a CV that a wanker can truly be proud of.

dpoledna said...

"Had I been present at the creation, I would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of ther universe."
Alfonso X [Alfonso the Wise] - Attributed

Alfonso lived from 1221-1284 and is now widely regarded as the first pundit.

FXQ said...

Could you list the time in Friedmans next to the date please?

Charles Giacometti said...

Great work, and nice to see all of the comments.

Bukko_in_Australia said...

Wow! Why does anyone listen to this guy? For that matter, WHO does? Not me, but I'm on the other side of the planet. (I'm American but I emigrated here last year to escape fascism.) I read the WaPo and NYT online, download podcasts of Air America Radio and Mike Malloy's show to keep up with what's happening in the sinking homeland, and read lots of blogs. Not righty ones, usually. I've heard Instapundit mentioned on Air America, but never had the displeasure of reading it. Thank you, Instaputz, for saving me from that task. I have to deal with enough human faeces already at my hospital job here.

bud don ellroy said...

Spectacular. Every time Instapundit says anything about anything, the response should include a link to this post. Accountability's a bitch.

Ariadne said...

Beautiful work! Thank you

Ariadne said...

Beautiful work! Thank you.

NessMonster said...

I have to disagree with your first observation. I don't think Reynolds was saying on 9/11/01 that the WTC and Pentagon attacks justified nuking Baghdad, only that given the shock and outrage that followed the attacks, Bush could have done it and few would have criticized him at the time.

Frankly, what you should have called him on was his assertion that there wasn't "much chance" of Bush going off half-cocked, or that the terrorists didn't realize the can of worms they'd opened. I don't give the 9/11 terrorists credit for that much prescience, but the response they inspired in President Half Cocked managed to provide an incredible recruiting tool for their cause. That, to my mind, is where Reynolds got it all wrong.

Basically, on 9/11 Bush got the United States's credit limit on goodwill raised by a factor of ten - but just because you have it to spend doesn't mean you'll do so wisely, or that there isn't a cost. Bush took the goodwill and sympathy of (much of) the world that followed 9/11, and proceeded to throw it away with an ill-conceived war. We should be glad (and I think your nemesis would agree with at least this much) that Bush didn't nuke Baghdad. He may have considered it.

Blue Texan said...

"I don't think Reynolds was saying on 9/11/01 that the WTC and Pentagon attacks justified nuking Baghdad, only that given the shock and outrage that followed the attacks, Bush could have done it and few would have criticized him at the time."

Monster, I actually wrote, "gave license to" which by itself doesn't imply justification, it just indicates permission. And I strongly disagree that "few" would've criticized him for nuking Baghdad, as it wasn't clear at all that Iraq was involved, and the use of nuclear weapons in any event would be controversial.

But, beyond that, the creepy part is that Putz, from the very beginning, was bizarrely connecting the 9/11 attacks with Iraq. Therefore, invading it in response a year later made perfect sense to someone like him.

It's pretty clear he had bought into the whole PNAC craziness, and his later efforts to link with Iraq with Tim McVeigh and Osama and every other evil in the world before the US invaded Iraq is revealing.

Anonymous said...

Isn't the irony all the more -er- ironic when we contrast the entire Democratic Party's shifting positions on Iraq from 1998 to 2003. Say, rather than a single center-right blogger. Oh, that's right, you're fixated on the "putz."

Smith said...

I don't know. I would be proud to have a blog dedicate an entire post to my blog. Bad publicity is better than no publicity. Maybe you are a "closet fan"?

Maxed Bandwidth said...

Anonymous @ 4:46 pm:
a single center-right blogger


"Center-right"? I thought we were talking about Glenn Reynolds?

Anonymous said...

I FEEL DIRTY, used and abused, only having had to read your brief PRECIS of each and every one of the putz's projectile pukeups of partisan propaganda.

(It's a weekend. Gratuitous alliteration allowed).

I now feel some kind of sense of "referred filthiness" I guess.

Does anybody have a cure? Is there a blogsite that documents somebody who got it presciently, entirely RIGHT all through the months/years...

(Apart from Billmon's final offering... sadly now down).

In the meantime.. off to take a shower. Yeaaachhh!

Anonymous said...

You actually make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this matter to be actually something that I think I would
never understand. It seems too complex and extremely broad for me.
I'm looking forward for your next post, I'll try to get the hang of it!
Feel free to visit my blog post ... under the skin

Grung_e_Gene said...

Properly understood Iraq was a wonderful, noble and just and inexpensive endeavor.