Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 22, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

IRAQ ON THE EDGE?....Dan Murphy of the Christian Science Monitor says that the bombing of the al-Askari shrine in Samarra is very bad news:

As citizens deserted the streets of Baghdad in the wake of the attack, many said they feared this could be a seminal moment in Iraq's low-intensity civil war.

"The war could really be on now,'' says Abu Hassan, a Shiite street peddler who declined to give his full name. "This is something greater and more symbolic than attacks on people. This is a strike at who we are."

...."This could be a tipping point,'' says Juan Cole, a historian of Shiite Islam at the University of Michigan. "At some point, the Shiite street is going to be so fed up that they're not going to listen any more to calls for restraint."

The BBC rounds up reaction in the rest of the country:

  • In Baghdad, a Sunni mosque in Baladiya district is raked with gunfire, while black-clad militiamen of the Shia Mehdi Army demonstrate in Sadr City; six Sunnis die in violence

  • In Basra, gunmen attack Sunni mosques and exchange fire with guards at an office of the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party

  • Businesses shut down in Najaf and about 1,000 march through the streets, waving flags and shouting slogans

  • Markets, shops and stalls close in Diwaniya, AP says. A Mehdi Army militiaman is killed in clashes after gunmen from the faction attack Sunni houses, Reuters news agency reports

  • About 3,000 people demonstrate in the Shia city of Kut, chanting anti-American and anti-Israeli slogans and burning US and Israeli flags, AP says.

Is this the incident that will finally turn Iraq into the West Bank writ large? If Iran succeeds in convincing people that American and Israeli forces are to blame for the bombing, it might be.

Kevin Drum 5:33 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (262)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Well hopefully we also managed to paint a school or two while all of this was going on.

Posted by: brent on February 22, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

When is God going to apologize for the chaos that goes on in His name?

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on February 22, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

Thousands in the street? They must be throwing flowers at the American troops, no?

Posted by: NYCBilly on February 22, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

typical liberal. why don't you talk about all the mosques that weren't bombed, all the jihadis that weren't created, the civil wars that weren't started by our glorious experiment in democracy?

Posted by: an al on February 22, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, but There's Light at the End of the Tunnel . . .

Posted by: Doofus on February 22, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

If Iran succeeds in convincing people that American and Israeli forces are to blame for the bombing

As opposed to the self-evident fact that the lousy security situation, flaring sectarian violence and growing insurgency are the direct result of the US invasion?

I sometimes wonder what George H.W. Bush thinks when he sees stuff like this on the news and realizes that his justification for not nvading Baghdad in '91 was exactly correct.

Posted by: Gregory on February 22, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

Alright Kevin, since you didn't confront this point down below when you implied that anyone seriously interested in this port story beyond its political usefullness was a xenophobe, I want to see you address it here. The Dubai company is a state owned company. The UAE royal family (the state) is good friends with OBL. This deal would allow good friends of OBL to have footholds in several of our ports. So, why, in your mind, is anyone concerned with this a xenophobe? You should be more careful with your language.

Posted by: Doug on February 22, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

Who benefits from this destruction?

Posted by: theAmericanist on February 22, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

How much longer can the apologists gain traction with their favorite refrain: "Hey, things are still a lot better than they were under Saddam."

Posted by: Jones on February 22, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

I assume that Rumsfeld understands that if the Shiites decide to attack the US occupation forces that there is nothing that can stop them, firepower or no, and that the US has only been holding on on Shiite sufferance. But does Bush know that? Does he have any inkling of the danger he is in? Not to mention the danger we are in.

I am guessing he does not.

W

Posted by: George W Bush on February 22, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

But the mail is being delivered on time in Baghdad.

Posted by: lib on February 22, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

My money's on al-Zarqawi's guys (and probably al-Qaeda) being the culprits here. After all, who else has such a vested interest in Iraq becoming a completely fractured series of sectarian states that are constantly warring with each other?

Posted by: Mnemosyne on February 22, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

The UAE royal family (the state) is good friends with OBL.

This point is non-sensical. There is no "UAE royal family". The UAE consists of individual emirates (the "E" in UAE). Each emirate has its own royal family, each of which is quite large. Some members of one of the families may have been at a camp which OBL may have been near (according to the 9/11 report). "Slam Dunk" Tenet grossly mislead the committee in his testimony by saying half the UAE royal family could have been killed. This ignores the fact that there is no "UAE royal family" (see above) and that it is not likely, that half of the combined emirate ruling family members were in Afghanistan.

It may not be xenophobia that is driving people like you, but it certainly is not intellectual rigor.

Posted by: Just an American Boy on February 22, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

Helluva final throe ya got there

Posted by: Martin on February 22, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

Blowing a Hole

No Civilian casualties? Swopa sees some evidence (in updates) this might have been done by the Shia themselves, specifically Moqtada Sadr.

Posted by: bob mcmanus on February 22, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

Just an American Boy - don't be a semantic git. Royals in the UAE.

Posted by: Doug on February 22, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

Nobody could have predicted that sectarian violence would erupt in Iraq after the removal of that terrible dictator Saddam.

Posted by: Typical Administration Flack on February 22, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

JAAB - demanding exactitude in a blog comments section does not undermine my point.

Posted by: Doug on February 22, 2006 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

I think it will turn Iraq into Lebanon circa the early 1980s writ large; with the US Army and our allies' troops playing the role of the marine corp barracks in Beirut.

I wonder what I will read in the paper in the morning...

Posted by: Ugh on February 22, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

"
No Civilian casualties? Swopa sees some evidence (in updates) this might have been done by the Shia themselves, specifically Moqtada Sadr.
"

Bush copies the Reichstag fire, then gets burned when someone else realizes two can play that game. Damn, strategisticalistic thinking is *hard*.

Posted by: Maynard Handley on February 22, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, but There's Light at the End of the Tunnel . . .

Unfortunately that light is the flash from an exploding car bomb in the tunnel.

Posted by: Stefan on February 22, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

And yes, I think 'exactitude' is a fine word.

Posted by: Doug on February 22, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

JAAB - demanding exactitude in a blog comments section does not undermine my point.

If you are going to make sensationalistic claims about a country, it wouldn't hurt to know a little bit about that country. What kind of hard evidence can you show to support your contention that "Royals in the UAE" are good friends with OBL? I've seen a lot of unsupported drivel, but not much that stands up to scrutiny.

Posted by: Just an American Boy on February 22, 2006 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

Businesses shut down in Najaf and about 1,000 march through the streets, waving flags and shouting slogans

Ah! The freedom that we hear so much about, marching!

Posted by: craigie on February 22, 2006 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

Bush copies the Reichstag fire

err.. WTF ?

Posted by: cleek on February 22, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

How come Fox news doen't send Hannity to Iraq so we can see all the great things that are going on in Iraq.It can't be because he is a coward is it?

Posted by: Ahmadd Bacrad on February 22, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK
If Iran succeeds in convincing people that American and Israeli forces are to blame for the bombing

Okay, the Israeli forces aren't, but since when aren't the US forces responsible for the invasion and ensuing and still ongoing chaos if its not the American forces?

Sure, whoever did the bombing bears more responsibility, but the ensuing chaos is a reasonably anticipated result of the crime of aggression committed by the United States.

If we in the US didn't to be seen as responsible for things like this, maybe we shouldn't have a waged a war of aggression and, on top of that, neglected the post-invasion security planning to produce this result.


Posted by: cmdicely on February 22, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

How come Fox news doen't send Hannity to Iraq so we can see all the great things that are going on in Iraq.It can't be because he is a coward is it?

That's such a good idea, that I promise to watch if they send him. Hell, I'll pitch in $25 to help get him there.

Posted by: craigie on February 22, 2006 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

Is this another Rove plot to get Portgate off the front page news? Another little boom to scare the American public back into the fascists' arms? The timing is just a little too perfect, no? Coincidence?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on February 22, 2006 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

Am I a bad person for having as my first thought: "Gosh, it's a shame they did that to such a pretty building."

Posted by: S Ra on February 22, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

I see Bill Oreilly says we should get the hell out of Iraq as soon as possiable.He says there is to many crazies over there and America underestimated them.

Posted by: Ahmadd Bacrad on February 22, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

Just a heads up:

Mohammad's father is buried at this shrine. This is an extremely sacred site and is one of the principle symbols differentiating Sunnis and Shia (Shia consider it immensely sacred, Sunnis don't).

Posted by: Saam Barrager on February 22, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

Yes JAAB, I understand you've had a bug up your ass about this UAE royal family thing since earlier in the day at Eschaton...

Posted by: Doug on February 22, 2006 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

More evidence that the decision to invade Iraq is one of the largest strategic mistakes in U.S. history.

Posted by: Ugh on February 22, 2006 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

Craige,A reporter from the NY times is taking donations to send Bill Oreilly to Darfur.That should count for somthing.

Posted by: Ahmadd Bacrad on February 22, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

at this stage, it's sad to note that there's really only one thing left to say: millions of us told you so.

i certainly hope that among the many pentagon contingency plans we're always hearing about is the one to get american troops to safety quickly if things really break down....

Posted by: howard on February 22, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, have we found those weapons of mass destruction yet? Can we redeploy the troops soon?

Really? No threat to the US, and now Civil War? Well, who could have seen that coming? There were reports of flowers, and certainly no history of ethnic strife...

Posted by: theorajones on February 22, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

.... and JAAB, as it was pointed out on that thread, the reference to royals of the UAE and their connection to OBL starts on page 138 of the 9/11 report. We've all enjoyed your discussion of the multiple Royal families of the UAE, but you need to bring more to the fight.

Posted by: Doug on February 22, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

Craigie,A reporter from the NY times is taking donations to send Bill Oreilly to Darfur.That should count for somthing.

Close enough. I'll supply the loofahs

Posted by: craigie on February 22, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

Just one more sign that the insurgency is in its last throes.

Posted by: patrick on February 22, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

Looking forward to learning how this is all really the Dem's and/or MSM's fault. Or how civil war in Iraq is part of Bush's grand plan to protect us ("If they're killing each other over there, they can't kill us over here.") Redstate.com, do your thing!!

Posted by: Ugh on February 22, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

Any word on the 7th century tomb of Talha bin Obeid-Allah? Last I heard this Sunni shrine was on fire.

Posted by: ranaaurora on February 22, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

I would be really surprised if Iraqis blew up this mosque. Seems like something foreign Wahabis might pull off because they consider The Shia to be heretics.

Which is kinda true by the way.

Posted by: enozinho on February 22, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK
Is this another Rove plot to get Portgate off the front page news?

I doubt it. Irational as the wingnut opposition on the ports deal is, I can't imagine Arabs blowing up Muslim holy sites is going to make the angry parts of the base any less upset about Arabs running operation of US ports.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 22, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

Has the mullah of the mosque apologized to Cheney yet for the trouble he and his cohorts have caused the VP?

Posted by: lib on February 22, 2006 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

lib: Has the mullah of the mosque apologized to Cheney yet for the trouble he and his cohorts have caused the VP?

Good one!

Didn't you used to be DemsinDenial? Did I miss something? More than usual?

Posted by: shortstop on February 22, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

7/2/2003:

"There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. "My answer is bring them on," Bush said. "We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation."
Posted by: George on February 22, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

I tire of the loony Sunni. I am having a hard time generating much sympathy for them when the Shia go on a rampage.

Stalemates rarely work and maybe it is time for total victory over the Sunni, though the U.S. seems to be giving them lots of support.


Posted by: Matt on February 22, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

Rwanda anyone? This sounds eerily familiar, but in a global sense, there's a lot more at stake.

Posted by: Doug-E-Fresh on February 22, 2006 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

When you've lost Bill O'Reilly, you've lost America.

Posted by: Irony Man on February 22, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

The perversity in all this is that it's actually plausible some faction of Shiites did this to themselves to being on the apocolypse.

Posted by: cld on February 22, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

Stalemates rarely work and maybe it is time for total victory over the Sunni

Worldwide, the Shia make up about 20% of the Muslim population. It aint going to happen.

Posted by: enozinho on February 22, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, it really has al-Qaeda written all over it.

Posted by: cld on February 22, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

It could be al Qaeda, more likely it was Sadr, who "rejected" the constitution last week, accepting Zarqawi's invitation to dance.

Why don't you guys wait until the civil war actually materializes before celebrating?

As the Iraqi govt gets stronger, it is inevitable that the remaining strongmen make their play for power. This is one of them.

Posted by: tool of some sort on February 22, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

The main thing is that this could hurt the Bush Administration. Who cares how bad it might be for the future of the Iraqis and the Middle East? Right?

Posted by: Brian on February 22, 2006 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

.... and JAAB, as it was pointed out on that thread, the reference to royals of the UAE and their connection to OBL starts on page 138 of the 9/11 report. We've all enjoyed your discussion of the multiple Royal families of the UAE, but you need to bring more to the fight.

Have you read that Doug? Why not quote it here for us. It basically says that an unidentified airplane that might have belonged to the UAE and might have been used by members of one of the emirate's royal families was spotted near a hunting camp. Further, Bin Ladin might have been near that camp. This is pretty speculative.

Do you know why wealthy people from the UAE hunt in Afghanistan Doug? Do you know their weapon of choice (hint, it has two wings and Dick Cheney might mistake a lawyer for it)?

If this is the best you can offer, you probably don't want to be stalking Kevin and demanding he answer your questions.

Posted by: Just an American Boy on February 22, 2006 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

Just wanted to point out that if you go to CNN's website right now (3:45 PST), this story is nowhere to be found. Kinda suprising given how big an event this is. Just proof that the media is not doing their job. I mean it's not even one of the top three stories under the "World" heading, for crying out loud.

Does CNN have their heads stuck in the sand, or is someone trying to supress the story?

Posted by: MattW on February 22, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

I love it. In true Western fashion we're busy trying to figure out who actually did it. Here's the news folks, it doesn't matter who actually did it, the only thing that matters is the Shia perception of who did it. This is a case where perception trumps reality, and anybody expecting the Shia militias to sit back and listen to reasoned arguments about how maybe it wasn't really the fault of their Sunni neghbors is clearly out of touch. That's just like saying that if we would have explained to the Germans that the Jews weren't really the cause of all of Germany's economic problems, maybe the holocaust would not have happened. What we have now is group victimization thinking writ large.

Posted by: Doug-E-Fresh on February 22, 2006 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

I just don't think Sadr would blow up something so historically important as this particular building.

Could easily be wrong, though.

It seems to me that the meanness of it and the timing and, really, how well-done the explosion was, suggest Al-Qaeda more than anything else.

Posted by: cld on February 22, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK
Why don't you guys wait until the civil war actually materializes before celebrating?

If you have a moderately large third world country that requires much of the combat power of the US military to (fail to) suppress a largely domestic insurgency, then I think that is irrefutable evidence that there is, in fact, a civil war taking place.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 22, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

How historically important would Shia theocratic control of both Iran and Iraq be?

Posted by: tool of some sort on February 22, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK
It seems to me that the meanness of it and the timing and, really, how well-done the explosion was, suggest Al-Qaeda more than anything else.

I dunno. It could be lots of people, but my initial thought -- given the recent escalation in US rhetoric -- was Iran. Complicating the security situation in Iraq makes an attack on Iran less viable.

That being said, Doug-E-Fresh's point about perception being paramount here is well put; who did it is largely irrelevant to the effects it may have.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 22, 2006 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

So cmDicely asserts that it is OK to celebrate. Thanks for clearing that up.

Posted by: tool of some sort on February 22, 2006 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely beats me to the punch, but really, tool: the only question is whether the civil war will remain low-grade or whether it will spiral into something truly ugly.

and you are welcome to identify any comment on this thread, tool, that "celebrates" this sad reality. i mean, for crissake, as i noted above, millions of us - millions - said the threat assessment was overstated, the war would be easy and the postwar difficult, and that a civil war was the likely outcome.

so some of us are bitter, some are angry, some sad, but not one of us is happy that george bush and dick cheney led us down this path, and not one of us is celebrating that we knew what we were talking about and the pundits and the president didn't.

Posted by: howard on February 22, 2006 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

congrats, tool: your 7:01 posting makes you eligible for the idiot commenter hall of fame here at political animal. you can join such icons of brilliance as norman rogers, patton, and alice. what a nitwit.

Posted by: howard on February 22, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

I would have to agree with dice though on the possibility that it is Iran behind it, through their pawn Sadr.

Posted by: tool of some sort on February 22, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK
So cmDicely asserts that it is OK to celebrate.

Er, no.

Cmdicely asserts that suggestions of holding off on something (whether celebrating or anything else) until a civil war in fact exists are nonsense, as a civil war, in fact, exists.

The celebrating thing is sheer insanity.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 22, 2006 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

"not one of us is celebrating that we knew what we were talking about and the pundits and the president didn't."

OK, well the "I told you so"s are a bit premature too. You want to deny their celebratory conotations, fine. Whatever.

Posted by: tool of some sort on February 22, 2006 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

tool, it's quite evident that not only are you a nitwit but a well-trained propaganda robot, unable to deal with reality without your talking points springing to mind. you're not impressing anyone.

there is nothing premature about the i told you sos: they are, as i said, all that is left to say. which i told you so is wrong, you numbskull?

the notion that the wmd threat was overstated?

the notion that the war would be easy and the postwar hard?

the notion that civil war was the likeliest outcome?

c'mon, big mouth: tell us which one is premature, much less wrong?

and then go ahead and actually show us someone celebrating.

otherwise, stfu, you pathetic little slimeball.

Posted by: howard on February 22, 2006 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

But of course we must celebrate as this can only be part of our protector's grand plan. To paraphrase a wise crustacean, in our limited perception an all-out, full scale civil war that leads to the deaths of thousands upon thousands of Iraqis and possibly hundreds upon hundreds of US and coalition troops appears to be the worst of all possible worlds, in our limited perception. But in truth we must celebrate.

For the truth is in the perception of the all wise and knowing President, a being with superior knowledge from beyond space and time, much like the crustacean. In his perception this is all part of a plan, closely modeled after those put in place by the likes of Hannibal, Faceman, B.A. Baracus, and Murdock, to make those parts of the world who currently hate us, love us, through the simple steps of invasion, assorted mayhem, senseless mass slaughter via civil war, ______, peace on earth.

Posted by: Ugh on February 22, 2006 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

The photos are interesting. The extent of the damage confined to the dome implies explosives that were carefully planted at the upper sections, not just somebody wandering in and setting off a bomb at floor level. Who would have time to do that?

Posted by: tbrosz on February 22, 2006 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know... I'm with tool. A civil war is progress! Come on, David Ignatius said it would take 15 years for Iraq to be stable. Now I would say you are looking at 9 years tops! We are totally ahead of schedule.

Silly liberals

Posted by: enozinho on February 22, 2006 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK
I would have to agree with dice though on the possibility that it is Iran behind it, through their pawn Sadr.

SCIRI and the Badr Brigades have stronger ties to Iran than the Sadrists, as I recall, though just about every Shi'a group in Iraq, in and out of government, has been sponsored by Iran in the past and has ties to Iranian intelligence.

So I wouldn't single out the Sadr organization, at all, as the likely tool if Iran was behind it.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 22, 2006 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz, that is interesting: i hadn't really thought about that aspect of it. it's true: the extent of the damage does suggest some rather extensive (as these things go) prep work....

Posted by: howard on February 22, 2006 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

"the notion that the wmd threat was overstated"

Have you been following this hallowed tennet of the Left recently or has recent news on this front not penetrated the liberal cocoon?

I point you to another post on another blog I made.

http://www.rantingprofs.com/rantingprofs/2006/02/burying_the_led.html That's me, moptop.

"the notion that civil war was the likeliest outcome?"

While there is conflict, and certain parties are trying to start a civil war. I just don't see one. When the Iraqi govt loses control of territory to a Shia faction, you let me know. Meanwhile, mop up of the Sunni and al Qaeda insurgency continues.

"the notion that the war would be easy and the postwar hard?"

This is a complete straw man. Did anybody in the administration say the war would be hard and the postwar easy?

Posted by: tool of some sort on February 22, 2006 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

No matter what you think of Bush and our involvement in Iraq, the people behind these bombings are pieces of shit.

Posted by: Paul on February 22, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK
When the Iraqi govt loses control of territory to a Shia faction, you let me know.

The Iraqi government largely is the Shi'a faction.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 22, 2006 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

Just read Riverbend.

Posted by: enozinho on February 22, 2006 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

"otherwise, stfu, you pathetic little slimeball"

Little?

Posted by: tool of some sort on February 22, 2006 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

Some of us celebrated months ago,He put on a flight suit and paraded around on a flight deck with a Huge sign that said Mission Accomplished.So yea some have celebrated.(told you so).

Posted by: Ahmadd Bacrad on February 22, 2006 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

With Iran there is the same objection as to Sadr. This is just such a uniquely historical Shiite place that I don't think any Shiite would blow it up, even to bring back the Mahdi.

And I think, we could eliminate any local Sunnis, who would necessarily respect this place and understand the interminable shit storm that would erupt if it were damaged.

Which leaves external forces, and the only external forces that might want to indulge themselves are Al-Qaeda, who have been almost openly craving some headline to remind everyone who the biggest jerks in town really are.

Posted by: cld on February 22, 2006 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

"The Iraqi government largely is the Shi'a faction. "

The injustic of it. I mean, I remember clearly the gnashing of teeth on the Left when the rights of the white South Africans were trampled on in that country, and the "black faction" took over.

The reason I think of Sadr was his recent rejection of the constitution.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5c02%5c20%5cstory_20-2-2006_pg4_1

It just seems like he is out to stir up trouble.

Posted by: tool of some sort on February 22, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK
The injustic of it.

Never said it was unjust; just that it was ludicrous to set as a standard for their to be a "real" civil war that the government should lose control of territory -- to the faction controlling the government. And that suggesting that standard revealed a deep ignorance of the situation in Iraq.


Posted by: cmdicely on February 22, 2006 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

Ahmaad, the election is over, you lost. Get over it.

Posted by: tool of some sort on February 22, 2006 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

Mission Accomplished!

The one bright spot in this dreadful situation is that it may quell the conservative's imperialistic ambitions for a while, seeing how desperately and completely their plans for muscular domination of the Middle East have failed.

I fear for the safety of all Americans in that riven country....

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on February 22, 2006 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK
With Iran there is the same objection as to Sadr. This is just such a uniquely historical Shiite place that I don't think any Shiite would blow it up, even to bring back the Mahdi.

The suggestion of Iran is based on the assumption that at least a sizable faction of the ruling clique of Iran are cynical opportunists using religion as a tool to control the masses, not actual religious fanatics. Since you see that in most notionally ideological autocracies, whether "religious" or, e.g., "Communist", I don't think its unreasonable, though Iran could be exceptional.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 22, 2006 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

ah, pathetic little tool: the wmd threat wasn't "someday if we aren't paying attention saddam still wants to get wmds." the wmd threat was "we know that saddam has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program," "we can't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud," and similar remarks. so yes, the wmd threat was vastly overstated, and your silly little posting doesn't change that.

your assessment of the facts on the ground is consistent with the rest of your misguided propaganda process: the insurgency is not being "mopped up," and low-grade civil war is the current reality.

actually, insofar as the administration discussed the postwar at all, it was to say that we would be "greeted as liberators," to note that the "oil revenues" would pay for the reconstruction, and to testify to congress (after the war started) that our expectation was to be down to 30K troops by september, '03. in addition, you can scan the speeches of bush on iraq prior to the war up and down - while he paid, at the end, a tiny bit of lip service to the "work" of reconstruction, he essentially spent no time at all preparing the American public for the difficult (and potentially impossible, given that it isn't even defined) mission upon which we were embarking.

Even now, the Iraq war is still being treated as an "emergency" appropriation.

all of which was part and parcel an attempt to convince the American public that the postwar would be a bed of roses.

so yes, you're a propaganda robot, and a pathetic little slimeball, pretending, in the face of the enormous expenditure of american blood and treasure that something positive is going to come out of this little piece of adventurism.

Posted by: howard on February 22, 2006 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINK

Dice, funny that you redefine the govt as a Shia faction, then use your newly coined definition to change the meaning of my post, then call me "deeply ignorant" for saying something other than what I did. But those are the rules on a Lefty site where logic takes second place to name calling and sophistry.

So then where is the civil war? I see the Iraqi govt and the US quelling an insurgency and fighting al Qaeda. I see the Kurds pretty much keeping order in their new country. I just don't see a civil war. Where is it? A bomb went off. People protested in the streets.

Posted by: tool of some sort on February 22, 2006 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK

from Riverbend,

"No one went to work today as the streets were mostly closed. The situation isnt good at all. I dont think I remember things being this tense- everyone is just watching and waiting quietly. Theres so much talk of civil war and yet, with the people I know- Sunnis and Shia alike- I can hardly believe it is a possibility. Educated, sophisticated Iraqis are horrified with the idea of turning against each other, and even not-so-educated Iraqis seem very aware that this is a small part of a bigger, more ominous plan"

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

Posted by: cld on February 22, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

"someday if we aren't paying attention saddam still wants to get wmds."

Uh, where did you pull that statement out of? Let me go wash my hands after cutting and pasting it because I am pretty sure it was your ass.

Posted by: tool of some sort on February 22, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

Tool. You rightwingers are so full of shit. Please quit the charade of giving two shits about the Shia being oppresses by a Sunni minority.

It's utter bullshit. All the Iraqis were hurt by Saddam. I worked for a charity that fed and provided medical attention to Iraqis under Saddam. You fuckers didn't support the war to save anybody.

You hate Muslims? fine. say it. You thought it would be easy? fucking say it. You're a bedwetter scared of your own shadow? Please, let us know.

Just stop fucking lying. No one with a heart would wish death and mayhem on people they cared about, whether or not they thought it would be good for them in the long run.

Posted by: enozinho on February 22, 2006 at 7:54 PM | PERMALINK

I see the Iraqi govt and the US quelling an insurgency

Oy vey. Whose crystal ball are you gazing into, Nostradamus?

Posted by: SED on February 22, 2006 at 7:54 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know how much prep work would be needed for that kind of demolition. It does not automatically imply an "inside job." Materials could be smuggled in and hidden in small amounts over a large period of time. I don't know how much access the general Muslim public has to this place, or what the security arrangements are. I smell a rat as far as whatever guards might have been in place.

I'm hoping a professional investigation (assuming one is allowed) reveals more information.

Iraq the Model has a report here.

Ali, in his blog, almost seems to think that a limited civil war will help let the pressure off. I don't think that's the case.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 22, 2006 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

SED,
At least I am commenting on things I can reasonably believe that I know based on available evidence.

Look at enozino, he has delusions that he can see into my very soul, discerning my deepest motivations. I mean, wow. Nostradamus was a piker compared to that guy.

Posted by: tool of some sort on February 22, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK
Dice, funny that you redefine the govt as a Shia faction

I didn't "redefine" it, I pointed out that, in fact, the main Shi'ite faction is the government, and that while their are minor dissident shi'ite factions -- such as Sadr's group -- the main resistance is Sunni, so it is ridiculous to say that there is no civil war until the government loses territory to a Shi'a faction.

So then where is the civil war? I see the Iraqi govt and the US quelling an insurgency and fighting al Qaeda.

When a government is fighting a substantial domestic insurgency, that's what a "civil war" is.

I see the Kurds pretty much keeping order in their new country.

The Kurds don't have a "new country".

I just don't see a civil war. Where is it? A bomb went off.

The third large scale attack on Shiites in 3 days in Iraq (link).

People protested in the streets.

And there was substantial armed retaliation attacks against Sunni targets, including at least 17 Sunni mosques in Baghdad alone targetted by the Mahdi Army (and perhaps 29 mosques nationwide), attacks by the Mahdi Army in Basra on the Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 22, 2006 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, I've seen more pictures of the damage now. Those were placed charges, set somewhere near the base of the dome to specifically blow up the dome itself. The inner dome structure is still largely intact.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 22, 2006 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINK

tool, in good faith i go to your pathetic little posting, which says that saddam wanted to restart his weapons program the "moment" sanctions were "raised," which is to say, yes, "someday, if we aren't paying attention, saddam still wants wmds." you may think you've outhought charles duelfur or anyone else, but you haven't: you've noted what we all know. big deal.

that wasn't the case that the administration made, which was overstated in extreme.

your dipshit remarks about what's actually going on in iraq barely deserve the contempt i'm giving them: there is a great deal of bitterness between shiites and sunnis, manifested in all kinds of actions, from murders to bombings to torture. meanwhile, the kurds would be just as happy to be on their own, with their part of the oil.

that's a low-grade civil war to any sentient being.

really, nothing makes me more concerned about the state of american education that the moronic twaddle of the right-wing propaganda robots we're forced to endure every time iraq comes up.

Posted by: howard on February 22, 2006 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz, btw, all is forgiven! in comparison to today's moron, tool, you are a beacon of sanity, actually trying to think about what's really happening....

Posted by: howard on February 22, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

With respect, howard, granted that tbrosz is wearing his "tweedy reasonable libertarian" suit today -- no postings (yet) about Bush critics "rooting for America's defeat" in Iraq -- and granted that next to tool even tbrosz is a beacon of honesty, but you should check this thread for a hefty dose of tbrosz' usual intellectual dishonesty on parade.

Posted by: Gregory on February 22, 2006 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory, i know, i know: it's just that when you meet the tools of the universe, you're reminded that it's better to have no shoes than no legs....

Posted by: howard on February 22, 2006 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

Howard,
OK, you got me. I guess your reading comprehension over-rides my writing comprehension. But all irony aside, my post referred to the comment section, which I didn't really feel like reproducing here. The comment by me -- 'moptop' as I said in my previous post. But why do I explain stuff to you using a written form that you are obviously incapable of understanding? But your command of schoolyard insults is, well, err, I am sure it is impressive in the schoolyard.

For dice, I propose a little test. Why don't we come back next week and see if the fledgling Iraqi govt can withstand this crisis or not? We are not going to settle this now anyway.

Posted by: tool of some sort on February 22, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

Who benefits from this destruction?

[ raises bloody hand ]

Posted by: the sauds on February 22, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

Look at enozino, he has delusions that he can see into my very soul, discerning my deepest motivations.

It doesn't take a mind-reader. Just a little honesty. Look at Al, or Freedom Fighter or Alice. You at least know where they stand. They want to convert us and get lapdances from our women.

But you? You're going to lecture us on who cares about the Iraqis as human beings? You wank off to Fox News' "Sights and Sounds from Operation Iraqi Freedom".

Just be honest about it. You'll feel better.

Posted by: enozinho on February 22, 2006 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

After all, who else has such a vested interest in Iraq becoming a completely fractured series of sectarian states that are constantly warring with each other? - Mnemosyne

I can think of at least three countries that would like to see Iraq this way and that also have a long history of using terrorism to achieve their political objectives. The US, the UK and Israel.

As to the comments about Iran being in the frame, would the Pope bomb the Sistene Chapel?

Posted by: blowback on February 22, 2006 at 8:30 PM | PERMALINK
For dice, I propose a little test. Why don't we come back next week and see if the fledgling Iraqi govt can withstand this crisis or not?

Um, what does that prove? I don't think anyone's argued that the Iraqi government will not survive the week.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 22, 2006 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINK
Okay, I've seen more pictures of the damage now. Those were placed charges, set somewhere near the base of the dome to specifically blow up the dome itself. The inner dome structure is still largely intact.

What's your point? Or is this just some kind of engineering-oriented public mental masturbation?

Posted by: cmdicely on February 22, 2006 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

Today, we saw the start of Bush's Civil War, which will follow the current war, Bush's War to Avenge the Insult to Bush's Dad.

By the time this is all done, the number of Iraqis killed directly, indirectly or somehow related to KING TURDBOY, George W. Bush, will be 10 times those killed by Saddam.

Am I sorry? For the Iraqis, yes. But this is the nail in the neo-con coffin. And for that I will celebrate.

Posted by: dataguy on February 22, 2006 at 8:37 PM | PERMALINK

It could have been very different!

How Neo-Cons Sabotaged Iran's Help on al Qaeda

Posted by: blowback on February 22, 2006 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

Good work, George. Can we expect another we-wuz-right column from Krauthammer over this one? Are you righties who read this blog finally going to apologize to us for backing that crowd in Washington? Against the advise of the smartest people in the world, the gang that cant shoot straight set this thing in motion. I hope, I pray, that their massive mistake consigns them and their supporters to eternal oblivion.

Posted by: James of DC on February 22, 2006 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK

注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,注册香港公司,

[url=http://www.rfhk.com/]注册香港公司[/url],[url=http://www.rfhk.org/]注册香港公司[/url],[url=http://www.rfhk.net/]注册香港公司[/url],[url=http://www.rfhk.cn/]注册香港公司[/url],[url=http://www.hkfor.com/]注册香港公司[/url],[url=http://www.hkfor.org/]注册香港公司[/url],[url=http://www.hkfor.net/]注册香港公司[/url],[url=http://www.hkfor.cn/]注册香港公司[/url],[url=http://www.cegcr.cn/]注册香港公司[/url],[url=http://www.bvicr.cn/]注册香港公司[/url],

[[http://www.rfhk.com/ 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.rfhk.org/ 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.rfhk.net/ 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.rfhk.cn/ 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.hkfor.com/ 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.hkfor.org/ 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.hkfor.net/ 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.hkfor.cn/ 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.cegcr.cn/ 注册香港公司]],[[http://www.bvicr.cn/ 注册香港公司]],

Posted by: 注册香港公司 on February 22, 2006 at 8:52 PM | PERMALINK

What's your point? Or is this just some kind of engineering-oriented public mental masturbation?

Fristian diagnoses are in vogue these days, didn't you know?

Posted by: Irony Man on February 22, 2006 at 8:56 PM | PERMALINK

James, are you blaming the administration for the bombing of the Mosque?

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 9:03 PM | PERMALINK

Could the fact thay we went straight to building
permenent military mega bases have anything to do
with the fact we are no longer viewed as liberaters?

This should also confirm that democracy is not
what these people want. They only wish to
vote in the religion they subscribe to.
It is like putting two religious parties in charge
of America. Lets say Jewish against Catholic.
They both worship God but one goes through Jesus
and one is still waiting for the son of god to show up.
They are both good people but they would fight about how to pray
and fail to take care of goverment. In Iraq
a Theocracy is all they will ever vote on.
They have no concept of democracy and they
do not have lobbyist to buy the vote away
from the religion that they have fought over
for thousands of years.

Its time to leave it for them to sort out.
But that would mean leaving them Billion
doller Military Bases so I guess we are
there forever.
May God (I do not care whos) Watch over our troops.
Bush is to busy watching the family portfolio.

Posted by: Honey P on February 22, 2006 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINK

The photos are interesting. The extent of the damage confined to the dome implies explosives that were carefully planted at the upper sections, not just somebody wandering in and setting off a bomb at floor level. Who would have time to do that?
Posted by: tbrosz on February 22, 2006 at 7:19 PM

Not necessarily. I'm not even remotely trained in munitions, but a friend -- former military -- is. On the phone awhile ago, we were discussing it (both of us looking at the images on our computers). I made almost the same observation, the the damage from inside looked like it had been caused by explosives carefully placed around upper levels of the dome.

He replied that while that was entirely possible, a shaped charge -- assuming sufficient power -- placed directly below the dome could also have done it. That becomes even more likely, he said, considering the strength of the outer rim of the dome (the outer rim at floor level is probably extremely thick and heavy, and indeed might have effectively acted to shape the direction of the blast all by itself).

Again, I personally know nothing about explosives. In this case, I simply report; you decide.

Another poster upthread wondered if it makes him a bad person to have thought how awful for such a beautiful building to have been destroyed like this. I don't think that's a bad thought at all: it WAS a gorgeous structure, and I gather an ancient one, and so that in itself is just one more aspect of tragedy about this attack.

Posted by: Roger Keeling on February 22, 2006 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINK

Some general thoughts, since I don't have a blog yet:

#1: This will benefit Sadr in the short run, but this was not Sadr. Not only is his dad emtombed there, but Iraq is too fluid an environment for that sort of self-dealing to be safe. It's very unlikely he could find any of his own followers willing to do something like that. It would not stay quiet.

#2: I wouldn't rule out Iran's involvement. I'd say it was stupid if so - not the strategy, but the timing - I expect the Iraq gambit to be coordinated with the nuke one, and this is pushing the Big Red Button early. If Iraq becomes a full-scale civil war, Iran has nothing to threaten us with and no leverage.

#3: This really is the end of any chance of any form of Shiite-Sunni unity government. The facade will limp onward, and it all the signs were already bad, but this is a seminal crash. You can't make peace in a blender. Zalmay could essentially pack up and go home.

#4. It's time to cave to the Shia. Give them half of what they're asking for from us right now, whatever it is, and try to use that as leverage to get them to refrain from the worst half of what they're planning to do to the Sunnis. A truly mass-scale revenge campaign here could start mass Sunni-Shiite violence across the middle east, and that would set democracy back another generation.

#5. Very rarely do violent regime changes imposed on dictatorships by external forces bring any form of stability afterwards.

Posted by: glasnost on February 22, 2006 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

Forgot the Pledge:

[No insulting language]
[No responses to insulting language]

Posted by: glasnost on February 22, 2006 at 9:15 PM | PERMALINK

Gauging the reaction to the bombing this is most certainly a tipping point in this conflict. If the Sunni's are proven to be behind this, it could easily to an all out civil war which could be disastrous and if that, I am in agreement with Honey P; maybe it's time to get out and let them fend for themselves. However, if Al Qaeda is behind this, it could be a replay of the Hotel bombing in Amman, Jordan and rally the populace against AQ. I hope it's the latter.

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely: What's your point? Or is this just some kind of engineering-oriented public mental masturbation?

Give it a rest. I think it's an interesting observation.

Posted by: alex on February 22, 2006 at 9:20 PM | PERMALINK

ok, tool, i went strolling back one more time to see what you meant by "moptop" (surely you jest in giving a link, saying that's me, moptop, and thinking that means: read comments). you're stupider than i thought.

once again, the case for wmds isn't whether there were some pesticide precursors to chemical weapons. the case for wmds was "we know that saddam has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program," "we can't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud," and similar blood-curdling tales. it was overstated in extreme: in fact, there were no wmds, period, case closed.

as for come back next week, as cmdicely has admirably noted, why? this is not some game. we have a low-grade civil war. maybe we'll all be lucky and it won't become a virultent civil war. meanwhile, what will certainly be true is that the iraqi and us governments aren't "mopping up" anything other than blood.

Posted by: howard on February 22, 2006 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

i have said many critical things of and to Jay in recent days, but my god, in comparison to tool, his 9:16 posting is a beacon of sanity....

Posted by: howard on February 22, 2006 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINK

TV news is mostly useless. There's been no in depth reporting of any kind about what's going on in Iraq, much less any kind of contextual reporting.

The plain fact is that, if the war was at all about establishing a stable country under a stable, normative government, we lost. (More to the point, so have the Iraqis.)

We probably lost it long ago. The reasons the war started are forever shrouded in lies, and the end goals kept changing to accommodate the Lie of the Day.

The US started a war it didn't have to; a war for which it had no plans and no strategies; a war that's led to nothing but more terrorism, more death, more destruction; a war that made enemies of one-third of the world; a war that we and the rest of the world will be paying for for a long, long time.

The only people who came out of the war with anything to show for it are Bush, Cheney and their cronies at Halliburton.

It's quite possible that putting Bush, Cheney and their cronies at Halliburton at the top of the political and economic food chain were in fact the only true reasons for the war at all.

Posted by: CaseyL on February 22, 2006 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

howard, if you were honest you would admit that the case for WMD's is far from closed. Granted none have been found but did you expect to find a warehouse with a big sign that "WMD's located inside"? Recent tape recordings are proving to be interesting and could shed a lot of light on Saddam's days leading up to the war. Also, the person that convinced me that there WMD's was Sen. Jay Rockefeller, his speech in October of 2002 was convincing.

Oh and btw, it's "more stupid" not "stupider"

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

Stalemates rarely work and maybe it is time for total victory over the Sunni... Matt

Well yeah, I'm thinking it's time for me to get elected PM but that won't make it happen.

'Total victory' over the Sunni? We tried that, remember. Maybe we should hand over overt, as well as covert, control to Iran? I'm sure they'd succeed where the US military has failed.

Posted by: floopmeister on February 22, 2006 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINK

Jay, if i were honest, i'd say that the Duelfur report, representing months and months of effort, settled the matter.

wait, i am honest, and the duelfur report did settle the matter.

the tapes don't change anything.

if i were honest, i'd say that i don't care what convinced you, since you were wrongly convinced.

wait, i am honest, so i don't care what Sen. Rockefeller said in october, 2002 to convince you: he was wrong, too.

if i were honest, i'd say that the bush administration acted like it expected big warehouses saying "wmds" on them, since rumsfeld claimed, at the war's start, that we know where the wmds "are."

wait, i am honest, blah, blah, blah.

if i were honest, i'd say that regardless of what convinced you, by the time we went to war, it was clear to anyone who wasn't already blinded by whatever it was that caused people to support this misbegotten adventure that the wmd was extremely overstated.

wait, i am honest - you can figure out the rest.

and as one more note of honesty, i thought that saddam probably did have some degree of chemical and biological materials, perhaps in weaponized form, perhaps not yet past their sell-by date. that didn't justify this war, and didn't justify the overstatement of the case by bush, cheney, and the rest.

Posted by: howard on February 22, 2006 at 9:44 PM | PERMALINK
howard, if you were honest you would admit that the case for WMD's is far from closed.

The case on the dishonesty of the Administration's presentation of the intelligence on WMDs is closed. They lied. They lied and hoped that, after the fact, it wouldn't matter, either because of military success or they'd get lucky and find real WMD despite the lies about the intelligence.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 22, 2006 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINK

Certainly an interesting opinion CaseyL. First of all though Bush and Cheney were already at the top, the war did not put them there. Also, what exactly did Bush/Cheney get from all of this except daily haranguing, second guessing and name calling. What did Halliburton get for this except a few dead employees and a hell of a workload. Nobody really benefits from war, especially a war in which the opponent has no qualms of killing their own people to make a point or undermine their enemy.

I am not sure whether we have lost this or not, I am surprised that the majority of Arabs, who want peace, have not stepped up. Irrespective of what the results are from this Mosque bombing, we need to start bringing troops home next year.

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

Jay. Even the President now admits there was no WMD. Jay? Jay? Hello? And the CIA. Jay? And those latest "interesting" tapes. Translated by discredited whacko Bill Tierney? Jay? Jay? Yoo-hoo, Jay??

And now, ladies and gentlemen, the lucky winner of the "Let's Invade Iraq" contest of the mid-2000's: IRAN! Come on up and get your prize, Iran. You are the BIIIIIIIIIIIG winner!

Posted by: Pat on February 22, 2006 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

Jay the racist shill,

howard, if you were honest you would admit that the case for WMD's is far from closed. Granted none have been found but did you expect to find a warehouse with a big sign that "WMD's located inside"?

No, just the supposed WMD's listed and catalogued by the people who fed us the information used to justify the war. You know, Chalabi. Curveball. Whoever else, including the nephews of Saddam Hussein, who left the country, spilled the beans, were lured back and then executed.

You know, the ones who lied. Yeah. Acquainting Jay Shaver with the truth is like introducing the whore to the whorehouse mattress for the first time--they know each other in the Biblical sense but do they really 'know' each other?

Stick with the lies, Jay. They'll keep you from wetting the bed every night.

Recent tape recordings are proving to be interesting and could shed a lot of light on Saddam's days leading up to the war.

Yes, those recordings were all the rage at the Washington DC Intelligence Summit, held here in the DC area over this past weekend.

Sorry--couldn't go. Members of the intel community were warned to stay away under penalty of losing their security clearances due to the linkage of the organizers of the Intel Summit to Ukrainian and Russian intelligence agencies.

But thanks for the laughs, Jay. Can you lift your right elbow and read off more of those statistics about how so few African Americans died in Hurrican Katrina, much to the chagrin of the John Birch Society members like yourself who were praying to your Jesus statue to see more blacks washed over the levees? We'd really like more 'statistics' out of you, if would be so kind to share them.

Much appreciated, dawg.

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 22, 2006 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

btw, Jay, i realize that i forgot: "stupider" is somewhat controversial. there are those who accept it and those who don't. i happen to like it, especially when it comes to political invective, but de gustibus non est disputandum.

Posted by: howard on February 22, 2006 at 9:53 PM | PERMALINK

What did Halliburton get for this except a few dead employees and a hell of a workload.

No bid contracts, record profits...but hey--if the lies quit working for you Jay, paste a picture of John Stamos on the monitor and keep flanging on yourself til you feel something.

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 22, 2006 at 9:54 PM | PERMALINK

howard, by your own admission, Saddam more than likely possessed some biological or chemical weapons. This was also the firm belief of nearly every country on the planet and I believe the Kurds could attest to it. Now, suppose those weapons had found their way to US soil and killed three times the amount of people on 9/11. What would the reaction be to the administration then knowing that they had that inteeligence and did not act? It's damned if you do and damned if you don't. BTW, I don't recall anyone calling Sen Jay Rockefeller a liar.

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK

Pale, you got a thing for John Stamos?

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 9:57 PM | PERMALINK

As much as you guys throw the invective's back at me, I must be hitting the right buttons. When the liberal echo chamber is purely liberal lock step thought all is well, yet the minute a conservative is on the scene, your feathers are ruffled and the expletives fly. Is that anyway to support freedom of speech and thought? And I thought you guys championed that?

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 10:02 PM | PERMALINK

Saddam more than likely possessed some biological or chemical weapons.

Jay, shilling for your white masters is such degrading work. Perhaps educating yourself is too much of a stretch.

No one disputes that the Iraqi regime had anthrax, blister agent, mustard gas, sarin and VX--they used those weapons against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88.

What was disputed--and what was lied about by the Bush Administration--was the possibility that Iraq had restarted its nuclear weapon program, had purchased or was trying to purchase yellowcake uranium, had developed a system of delivering a nuclear weapon through a long range SCUD missile, and a host of other now proven false pieces of blatantly manipulated intelligence.

The Congress was shown selected elements of the intelligence but were prevented from seeing analyst comments that cast serious doubt on the veracity of these 'developments' in Iraq.

Since you are merely a shit-eating racist troll, you cannot possibly fathom the differences and the details presented herein; I will leave you with one thought:

Everything you believe in is a lie that will consume you in fire and horror.

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 22, 2006 at 10:02 PM | PERMALINK

As much as you guys throw the invective's back at me, I must be hitting the right buttons.

Nah, your fifteen minutes is up.

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 22, 2006 at 10:04 PM | PERMALINK

Pale, I have actually done business with John Stamos and I could let him know you're interested if you'd like.

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 10:04 PM | PERMALINK

Jay, you can relive the glory days of the propaganda robots, before the idealized war in iraq turned into the real one as much as you want: the rest of us have been there and done that.

there was an honest case to be made for the war: not one that i would have supported, but an honest one, nonetheless, that went like this: "saddam has a bad track record. we have no nindication that he will ever give up his desire for dangerous weapons, including the most dangerous of all, nuclear weapons. While we haven't had any new information on the ground since the inspectors were withdrawn, all indications are that he still possesses at least chemical and biological weapons. He may indeed be pursuing nuclear weapons in secret laboratories - we can't be sure. we were, after all, surprised in 1991 at the extent of his efforts. In addition, a dictatorship like saddam's is inherently unstable and better we should change it at a time of our choosing rather than trusting to events."

as i say, that's not a case i would have supported, but it would have been an honest statement.

that's not what we got, as i'll now note for the third time: what we got was "we know that saddam has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program," "we can't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud," and all the other crap.

as for senator rockefeller, i swear, you are such a little nitwit propaganda robot: senator rockefeller is a senator. george bush is the president. other than you, no one remembers what senator rockefeller said whatever he said (i'm not even going to bother to find out). regardless, what we suspected in october, 2002, was susceptible to evidence on the ground, which we had by march, 2003.

the case is closed: the threat assessment was overstated. it's quite silly to take the possibility that saddam had chemical and/or biolgoical materials, maybe in weaponized form, conceivably not past their sell-by date, and twist that into the equivalent to the case the administration made.

you'd have to be more stupid than i think you are to believe such a thing....

Posted by: howard on February 22, 2006 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

I have actually done business with John Stamos

It's good to hear that you got past denial; now embrace your love of shillery and buggery.

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 22, 2006 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

"Fire and Horror" WOW! That is some kind of brimstone speech there Pale. Are you a religious man?

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

Jay, you're so frickin' predictable it's pathetic. we toy with you because we find it entertaining - it's really no more complex than that, try as you will to claim that it is.

i'd enjoy it if you were a real conservative. real conservatives aren't racists, champion facts, respect traditions and institutions, have a healthy respect for the limitations of human endeavor, and certainly don't believe in grandiose utopian endeavors in foreign countries based on misleading case statements.

you're simply a little right-wing college republican. you hit a good moment in your response to today's horrific news, but hell, even george bush had a few good months....

Posted by: howard on February 22, 2006 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

Fire and Horror

Yep, Jay will be freebasing and will no doubt ignite the lighter fluid on his sleeve and burn himself beyond recognition. Jay will be forced to turn to drugs after realizing his life is a lie, everything he has ever believed has been revealed to be a scheme to get him to vote for people who laugh and sneer at his ignorance and when his own dog piddles on him.

Just a hint, Jay--

Your fifteen minutes ran out and you're using up rdw's time.

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 22, 2006 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

howard, you used "more stupid" in the proper context, well done. First of all what you paraphrased as GW's reason for ward was just about spot on to what GW actually advocated. I agree the reconstitution of the nuclear program was way over exaggerated yet GW stated precisely that his regime was unstable and dangerous and that we could not afford to sit by and wait to see what happened considering he had already violated 17 UN resolutions. stemming for the Gulf War. Secondly, Jay Rockefeller is the Chairman of the SIC, not just "some" senator. The SIC was in on top secret briefing with the CIA, NSA and Pentagon and was aware of every bit of evidence there was on Saddam. Saying he was "just" a senator is a bit mis-leading.

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 10:14 PM | PERMALINK

howard, that's fine defintion of conservatism. Are you a conservative? And if not why not, don't you embody those fine qualities?

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 10:16 PM | PERMALINK

I think I have more fun than you two do, howard and Pale. Considering the pure personal invective and hatred thrown at me I can sense the blood pressure peaking. I, though have a lot of fun inciting that. My bad.

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

actually, Jay, my version deliberately used some Bush-isms to make it credibly Bush-like. But the difference between my version and the Bush version, to use your term, is that mine represents what Bush would have said if he were "honest." Sadly, he isn't, so he revved up the case to make it a better sell, with his typical disregard for the truth.

and nice of you to acknowledge that he, uh, "way overexaggerated" the nuclear threat, since, to be, uh, "honest," what started this whole discussion with tool was my point that the wmd threat assessment was "overstated." now you go straighten that out with tool, why doncha?

as for senator rockefeller, no, he did not have access to all the same information as the white house. no senator does and it's silly to claim otherwise. as to his power and position, there's a famous line about george steinbrenner's limited partners with the yankees, namely "there is nothing so limited as a limited partner of george steinbrenner." there is nothing so minority as a minority leader of a senate committee in the rove era.

but the point is, the reason no one knows or cares or bothers with whether rockefeller "lied" is because in this context, he's irrelevant. the only voice that mattered is the voice of the executive.

as for conservatism, i am a Left Conservative, a term i stole many years ago from Norman Mailer. It means, in brief, that i believe in the preamble to the constitution and markets. that's why i get along with real conservatives: we understand each other.

but really, my sweet, you have a grandiose view of yourself: it is perfectly clear that you spout predictable college republican propaganda robot piffle. it's fun and entertaining to swat you. my blood pressure, thank you, is quite low....

Posted by: howard on February 22, 2006 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

You only believe in the preamble and markets and that's why you get along with "real" conservatives? Fairly limited wouldn't you say? Do you believe in small government, low taxes, strong defense? Do you believe in cutting back on entitlements, supporting states rights, and school vouchers? How about abortion, late-term, or partial-birth? Do you believe in public display of religious symbols? These are just a few things howard that I think you might not get along with "real" conservatives on.

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 10:36 PM | PERMALINK

And what is it with you and Pale? You're calling me "sweet" and Pale is dreaming of John Stamos. It's starting to freak me out.

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 10:37 PM | PERMALINK

let's see, jay: what do the words "in brief" mean to you? to me, they mean, like, "short form." this is not a thread about personal political philosophy and i'm not really interested in pursuing the discussion with you (you're rather confused in some of your characterizations of real conservative thought), other than to note that "i get along with real conservatives: we understand each other" does not mean that we "agree with each other."

you do understand that, doncha? or are you more stupider than i fear?

Posted by: howard on February 22, 2006 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINK

How much longer can the apologists gain traction with their favorite refrain: "Hey, things are still a lot better than they were under Saddam."

As long as it remains true. this is possibly a turning point, and possibly the last violent act that the Sunnis will permit the jihadists to undertake, or possibly just the latest in a long line of bombings.

This year saw the first peaceful pilgrimmage of millions of Shi'ites to holy shrines in Najaf and Nasiriyah in decades. That the attack on this mosque occurred jast a couple weeks after the end of the pilgrimmage may have some significance.

People are forever reacting to the latest disaster. but in 2005 and 2004 dozens of people died in attacks on the pilgrimmages, and this year there were no deaths. It is at least as newsworthy as the attack on a mosque.

Compared to the Saddam Hessein era, death rates are down and economic growth is up. Both by wide margins.

I expect Iraq to split into 3 parts. Czechoslovakia split peacefully in twain and Yugoslavia has split into about 5 parts, much less peacefully. As a proportion of the total populations, I expect the separation of Iraq to be much less costly than the separation of British India into two and then three parts.

but who knows? There's always a possibility that the doomsters are correct.

Posted by: republicrat on February 22, 2006 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINK

oh, mon cheri, homophobic too?

Posted by: howard on February 22, 2006 at 10:41 PM | PERMALINK

As a proportion of the total populations, I expect the separation of Iraq to be much less costly than the separation of British India into two and then three parts.

And anyway, who cares - because they're foreigners. Right? 4 million; 8 million; half a million; whatever.

but who knows? There's always a possibility that the doomsters are correct.

So let's just invade anyway and keep our fingers crossed, hey?

Posted by: floopmeister on February 22, 2006 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINK

Au contraire, I have no problem with gay men, I am just not sure you qualify as a man.

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

I am just not sure you qualify as a man

Well, I guess that's because you have no basis on which to make the judgement.

Posted by: floopmeister on February 22, 2006 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

ok this discussion is spiraling downward, but why am I surprised.

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINK

howard,

Totally agree with you. I am from the conservative wing of the Democratic Farm-Labor party of Minnesota.

We're rare, often misunderstood, but realize a simple fact:

Modern conservatism has been hijacked by fools like rdw and Cheney and Jay and has been used to loot the treasury, ruin our military, and steal from our children.

Socially, very liberal. Fiscally--conservative. I would love to see the US dept of education and the HUD eliminated. The size of our government is bloated and huge and needs to be seriously downsized.

And term limits--I wish they were the law of the land.

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 22, 2006 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, good dodge howard.

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, Jay--

We wish you'd leave so we could have a polite conversation.

You don't bring anything to the table. It's kind of like, you know how you throw things at someone you don't like to get them to leave the restaurant so you and your pals can eat in peace?

That's you. We're just throwing things at you to get you to leave.

So...could you...just...leave?

Thanks

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 22, 2006 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINK

Jay, I think your WMD arguments are worthless, but I'd be tempted to be sympathetic to you on this thread anyway.

The problem is every other thread you've posted on. You're being more constructive then the liberal partisans on here tonight. 100 more tries, and you may break even. So, really, why would you expect evenhandedness from this place? What have you done to make that likely?

PLEDGE
[No insulting language]
[No responses to insulting language]

Posted by: glasnost on February 22, 2006 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider, that's why we must get along.

Jay, if you're cool with gay men, why would you be "freaked out" at being called "my sweet?"

glasnost, excellent point....

Posted by: howard on February 22, 2006 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINK

You actually throw shit at unwanted guests to get them to leave? Is that any kind of example of liberal tolerance for free speech? Isn't that what you're blaming Bush of? Not listening to other people? Are you a republican?

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 11:01 PM | PERMALINK

Most other guys calling me sweet, no big deal. You, creepy.

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 11:02 PM | PERMALINK

Just to return to the topic at hand--

22 February 2006

Write it down.

This will be the day when the Iraqi Civil War began in earnest, and it will end with *no* US troops stationed anywhere within the current borders of Iraq, separate and autonomous regions divided along sectarian lines and a ruined infrastructure that will leave Iraqis wondering what they did to be sentenced to living in hell.

But, hey--when you go to war based on lies, you can do whatever you want because the guy who comes in after you will have to clean up the mess.

The Democratic Party: Un-fucking Republican Screw-ups for just about a hundred years and counting.

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 22, 2006 at 11:03 PM | PERMALINK

You actually throw shit at unwanted guests to get them to leave? Is that any kind of example of liberal tolerance for free speech?

Yeah, when they're stupid enough not to get the hint...

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 22, 2006 at 11:04 PM | PERMALINK

Why bother trying to change Jay's point of view? He's in the minority now anyway.

Posted by: floopmeister on February 22, 2006 at 11:05 PM | PERMALINK

Exactly Pale, just like when Democratic President Reagan cleaned up after the disastrous Republican President jimmy Carter......oh wait. Nevermind.

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

We're provoking them to fight eachother over there, so we don't have to fight them over here.

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on February 22, 2006 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

jay reveals an unexpected sense of humor at 11:01, on top of an unexpected moment of sanity at 9:16. who knows? maybe there's hope for him yet; stranger things have happened.

Posted by: howard on February 22, 2006 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

Right, Jay--

Except it took President Carter to convince people their government wasn't staffed with hacks and criminals after Nixon--

Except it took Clinton to restore fiscal sanity after Reagan/Bush--

Except it took Kennedy to engage Khruschev during the Cold War after years of feckless dithering by the Eisenhower administration--

Except it took Roosevelt to fix the country after the ruination of Hoover--

But live with those comfortable delusions--they'll keep you warm at night after you wet the bed worrying whether or not President Hillary Clinton has dispatched NSA wiretap agents to infiltrate your mobile home and tap into your communications with your butt buddies on LGFootballs...

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 22, 2006 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK

Actually Carter followed Ford and Carter was definitely the "King" of hacks. Horrible economy and a year and a half hostage crisis. Clinton reaped the rewards of Reagans fiscal sanity and prevailing stance on the cold war. Kennedy and the "Bay of Pigs" and all of that "domestic spying" on MLK and Vietnam, didn't work out well. In fact it took Trickie Dick to get us out of that. Although Jack Kennedy was the last great Democratic President and resembles nothing of the current party.

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 11:25 PM | PERMALINK

So - just a hypothetical question.

If a Civil War begins, and ex-Baathist military assets start resurfacing, and are used on Shiites, would Iran be justified in defending their Shiite bretheren? Would that be awkward for the US?

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on February 22, 2006 at 11:27 PM | PERMALINK

Clinton reaped the rewards of Reagans fiscal sanity ...
Posted by: Jay

My imagination was inadequate.

Posted by: George Orwell on February 22, 2006 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Orwell, what a pleasure. Clinton was able to cut back on the defense spending that helped win the cold war and enjoyed the benefits of the technology boom which was a result of huge corporate tax incentives for R&D in the 80's. You remember those corporate tax incentives don't you, the ones you opposed.

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 11:38 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

What's your point? Or is this just some kind of engineering-oriented public mental masturbation?

There are questions about what happened, and who did it. I'm speculating on the technique used, and how that might relate to the people who did it and how it was accomplished. I will be interested in seeing how my conclusions match those of any investigation.

It's called "thinking," and I find it more enjoyable than the bile-flinging that seems to occupy most of the other people here.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 22, 2006 at 11:43 PM | PERMALINK

Osama, that is the million dollar question.

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINK

If this turns out to be the Sunni's, all hell could break loose. If it turns out to be Al Qaeda, it could be a repeat of Amman, Jordan and might finally wake up the majority of peaceful Muslims.

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINK

I will be interested in seeing how my conclusions match those of any investigation.

I think I speak for almost everyone when one I say:

you will be the only one.

And you fling plenty of bile, you just attempt to mask it by trying to color your remarks with a sense of objectivity, detachment and superiority that you do not, in fact, possess.

Posted by: Windhorse on February 23, 2006 at 12:04 AM | PERMALINK

I would like to extend my deepest sympathies to the Shiite people, especially the Shiite's of Samarra. I regret ever saying idiotic inflammatory rhetoric about burning down churches or temples or mosques. Idiodic? Fucking idiotic. I am deeply saddened and shamed for ever using violence in my rhetoric and I am deeply saddened and shamed for being an American, who's nation/state has brought this trauma to Iraq.

I do not think this is an appropriate reason to accuse Iran of making Iraq a terror society. Clearly America has already reduced Iraq to civil war and daily terror. This incident is just a moment in the civil war. If it is a tipping point, it just means escalation of an already brutal war.

Posted by: Hostile on February 23, 2006 at 12:11 AM | PERMALINK

I'll have to say even Baghdad Burning is terrified. Too bad she spent several million other posts defending the Sunni insurgency.

I think the Sunni population is about to learn a short, sharp lesson on "an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind" and the consequences of hosting out of control, Al-Qaeda nut jobs is that they poke lots of eyes.

On the upside, the Americans could retreat to bases/Kurdistan and watch the Sunni's and Shiite's use up every spare bullet & bomb in the country on each others religous sites.

It'd be great if Iran got involved. A Sunni-Shiite split in Islam might be the equivalent of a Russia-China split in communism. The Sunni states would have to get involved and the religous nuts would be too busy with killing their neighbour to bother South East Asia and the West.

We could even give the Sunni militant's of Iraq a Darwin award.

Posted by: McA on February 23, 2006 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINK
I'm speculating on the technique used, and how that might relate to the people who did it and how it was accomplished.

Well, except that you hadn't posted any speculation about the middle part (the "how that might relate to the people who did it"), only on the technique used and how it was accomplished, when I wrote that question.

For that matter, you haven't gotten to the middle point -- the only really salient point -- still, AFAICT. I'm not saying that there is no value to the other aspects if it leads somewhere on that middle point, I'm saying without that, it just seems kind of pointless noodling.

It's called "thinking,"

Yeah, some of us have advanced to the point we can think without typing it up and posting; my point was merely that your repeated speculations on the technique seemed somewhat pointless in isolation without some kind of salient conclusion (or at least speculation) being attached to them.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 23, 2006 at 12:16 AM | PERMALINK

Really, every one wonders why Moderate Islam fails to confront radical Islam? Its because when radical Islam blows off steam by exporting terror, it does so overseas. Moderates imitate the American left and make excuses.

Not any more.

Post War on Terror, Islam is beginning to shit on its own turf and moderates are learning a lesson.

The shock in all of this is that the Arab world has finally produced a significant religous figure (Mr. Sistani) who actually condemns violence and calls for peaceful protest given the amazing provocation.

If I were the Sunni's, I would really hope that Mr. Sistani's personal bodyguard is good. Al-Sadr, Iran and Al-Qaeda must all be thinking about targeting him.

Posted by: McA on February 23, 2006 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK
I'll have to say even Baghdad Burning is terrified. Too bad she spent several million other posts defending the Sunni insurgency.

The blogger's handle is "Riverbend", the blog is "Baghdad Burning". And the total number of posts in which she has defended the Sunni insurgency is zero.

But you know, making up false characterizations is a lot easier than dealing with the actual issues, isn't it?

Of course she's criticized the government and the Americans a lot, but that's not the same thing.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 23, 2006 at 12:26 AM | PERMALINK

Just the Iraqi way of celebrating diversity.

Posted by: Myron on February 23, 2006 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK

It'd be great if Iran got involved. A Sunni-Shiite split in Islam might be the equivalent of a Russia-China split in communism. The Sunni states would have to get involved and the religous nuts would be too busy with killing their neighbour to bother South East Asia and the West.

What's it like worshipping Moloch? Is he pretty cool? Any good perks? Have you graduated to full minion status yet?

Posted by: Windhorse on February 23, 2006 at 12:37 AM | PERMALINK

Riverbend", the blog is "Baghdad Burning". And the total number of posts in which she has defended the Sunni insurgency is zero.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 23, 2006 at 12:26 AM | PERMALINK

She's always parroting Sunni insurgent propaganda. The Shiite's are Iranian pawns, the security forces are torturers as bad as Saddam, etc. Not one word on Sunni atrocity.

Now the Sunni's have gone too far. The Shiite's may calm down after a while, but idiots like her to confuse restraint with weakness should bear the consequences of their actions.

Posted by: McA on February 23, 2006 at 1:04 AM | PERMALINK

Moloch? The child sacrifice demon? People burnt babies alive at his temple.

Or as the West calls it, choice.

Posted by: McA on February 23, 2006 at 1:06 AM | PERMALINK

No babies are burnt alive in the West.

But if your desire for wholesale death and destruction in the middle east comes true, I'm sure there will plenty of deaths to satisfy your bloodlust, even babies.

You look a lot less like a total waste of a human being when you keep sentiments like these to yourself.

Posted by: Windhorse on February 23, 2006 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINK

about asbestos cancer and prostate cancer,asbestos Cancer also called malignant prostate Cancer
mesothelioma is a disease in which
asbestos cancer (malignant) cells are found in the sac lining the chest (the pleura) or abdomen (the peritoneum).

Posted by: david on February 23, 2006 at 1:57 AM | PERMALINK

No babies are burnt alive in the West.

Posted by: Windhorse on February 23, 2006 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINK

Really? I guess you make to with the partial birth and brain sucking then.

Then again abortion by injection of saline solution into the amniotic fluid sac, kills by causing caustic burns on the fetus's body.

Gianna Jessen, was a third trimester (7.5 months)abortion survivor by this means. The abortionist had to sign her birth certificate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4500022.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Jessen

Funny how liberals don't mention things like this?

Posted by: McA on February 23, 2006 at 2:08 AM | PERMALINK

She's always parroting Sunni insurgent propaganda.

Specific examples?

The Shiite's are Iranian pawns,

Actually, usually her references to pawns and puppets are to US pawns and puppets (heck, she even plays Chalabi's CIA connections more than his Iranian ones). Though she did refer to Sadr's public pledge that his movement would serve Iran if Iran was attacked. But I'm not sure repeating Sadr's own public statement is, exactly, Sunni propaganda, insurgent or otherwise.

And she rarely does broad-brush characterizations of the Shia at all. She characterizes particular parties and factions (SCIRI and Da'wa particularly) as fundamentalists with various worrisome features -- though rarely playing up their rather open and well-known historical ties to Iran' -- but that's true, and the US knew it when it recruited them (like SCIRI, Iran's principal tool in Iraq prior to the invasion) to help run the country.

the security forces are torturers as bad as Saddam,

She's certainly made reference to the torture that the security services have been caught in, and their bizarre statements about it. I've never seen her say they are as bad as Saddam.

Not one word on Sunni atrocity.

She speaks out against sectarianism and group-identity-politics on all sides (e.g. "It is utterly frustrating to talk to someone about the referendum- whether they are Sunni or Shia or Kurd- and know that even before theyve read the constitution properly, theyve decided what they are going to vote."

She spoke out about the convenient Saudi protests about foreign involvement when Saudi-favorite Sunni politicians were sidelined. She's condemned extremist Sunni and extremist Shia, as well as the American journalists who tend to leave the "extremist" off when describing each of those.

But, you know what, I don't even know why I bother. You've invented your nice little mental image, and the facts have nothing to do with it.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 23, 2006 at 2:19 AM | PERMALINK

Read her posts. In a three year period, she avoids ALL mention of Sunni insurgent atrocity (how many Shiite mosques have been bombed) while dwelling on accusing every Shiite party of being an Iranian pawn and carrying out atrocities and calls everyone poltician a puppet.

Now its all gone too far but she's not an innocent party - she's been cheering the idiots on 'cos she assumed everyone would always balme the occupation instead of the actual attackers.


Posted by: McA on February 23, 2006 at 2:35 AM | PERMALINK

floopmeister on the unimportance of people:

And anyway, who cares - because they're foreigners. Right? 4 million; 8 million; half a million; whatever.


So let's just invade anyway and keep our fingers crossed, hey?

Not to mention the unimportance of thinking. really, floopmeister, that was pretty stupid.

People are writing as though the upcoming events in Iraq are likely to be unusually ghastly; they are likely instead to be much less awful than other events that have happened in my lifetime, certainly less ghastly than the ongoing humanitarian crises in many parts of Africa, and less ghastly than the Indonesian civil war of the mid-60s. This mosque attack, and the retaliatory attacks, came shortly after the completion of the largest pilgrimmages of the Shi'ites to their most sacred shrines in decades. the mosque attacks are as bad as they are, but it is foolish to ignore the peaceful pilgrimages as though they are of no importance.


The Sunni attack on the Shiite mosque also highlights the depravity of the many staged and spontaneous demonstrations protesting the Danish cartoons. There is a fatwa and a reward of $1M for the Danish cartoonists; who will issue the fatwa to arrest and try the perpetrators of the mosque bombings? The leaders of the Moslem world want to arrest the cartoonists but take no action against the terrorists of Iraq who routinely bomb innocent people on the pretext of fighting against American soldiers. It's as if they don't care how many innocent Moslems are killed as long as the pile of dead Moslems is sufficient to discourage American persistence.

Posted by: republicrat on February 23, 2006 at 2:41 AM | PERMALINK

Read her Monday, December 05, 2005 on Saddam;s trial. She says all the witnesses are not credible then compares the mass graves to the burning of orchards....

Her conscience got burned out along time ago.

Hope the Shiite's calm down before too many people die. But the Sunni's deserve what they get for not confronting their own extreme factions.
Serve them right for assuming that everthing would be blamed on the Jews and the Americans as usual.

How many bombs have been set off at Shiite mosques? The numbers must be in the double digits by now - a little payback may be necessary before people like Sistani can restore order.

It shames me that I wouldn't try under the circumstances and a heathen would.

Posted by: McA on February 23, 2006 at 2:42 AM | PERMALINK

Read her posts.

I've read quite a lot of them, though not every post in the last three years.

In a three year period, she avoids ALL mention of Sunni insurgent atrocity

Really? Heck, her mention of the kidnapping of Jill Caroll is still on the front page. Of course, to her, the important thing was the people harmed -- Caroll and her translator, not the "Sunni" identity of the attackers. Just as when she criticizes Da'wa or SCIRI or Sadr, its not as Shia, but for more particular actions or traits.

Because, to her, living in Iraq, its not about "Shia" and "Sunni" as opposing forces, but people trying to live, and extremists and foreign and domestic opportunists making it miserable for them.

Now its all gone too far but she's not an innocent party - she's been cheering the idiots on 'cos she assumed everyone would always balme the occupation instead of the actual attackers.


Again with your delusional fantasies. Wher has she been "cheering the idiots on"?


Posted by: cmdicely on February 23, 2006 at 3:06 AM | PERMALINK
How many bombs have been set off at Shiite mosques? The numbers must be in the double digits by now - a little payback may be necessary before people like Sistani can restore order.

Since the number of attacks on Sunni mosques, in Baghdad, by the Mahdi Army alone is already well into the double digits, there has already been more than a little payback.

Maybe you should pay better attention to the news reports than you have to Baghdad Burning.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 23, 2006 at 3:08 AM | PERMALINK
She says all the witnesses are not credible then compares the mass graves to the burning of orchards....

Er, no, idiot, she compared an account of the razing of orchards by Saddam's Mukhabarat because they thought people were hiding there, including someone who had tried to shoot Saddam, to the razing of orchards by Americans in Diyala because they believed insurgents were hiding there.

And compared accounts of mass detentions under Iraq to accounts of mass detentions under the occupation.

Nowhere does she compare accounts of mass graves to destruction of orchards, you mindless buffoon.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 23, 2006 at 3:11 AM | PERMALINK

Read her Monday, December 05, 2005 on Saddam;s trial. She says all the witnesses are not credible then compares the mass graves to the burning of orchards....

Contrary to your characterization, she actually expresses confusion and dismay that the only witnesses against Saddam are not eyewitnesses but people just repeating stories they've heard.

She doesn't even mention mass graves in that post, and the orchard reference is her observation that the episodes of mass violence, detention and torture under Saddam are being repeated under the occupation.

It's pretty galling that you would mischaracterize her comments just to suit your casual slander. Do you really think Jesus thinks it's OK when you lie? When you wish for whole sects, countries, and religions to experience suffering and death?

What stories do you tell yourself about this?

Posted by: Windhorse on February 23, 2006 at 3:12 AM | PERMALINK

This may seem far-fetched, but if we're actually planning a strike against Iran, we're going to want to have an excuse to get the hell out of Iraq if stuff gets crazy, as it likely would if we attacked Iran unprovoked.

Posted by: Jimm on February 23, 2006 at 4:26 AM | PERMALINK

She doesn't even mention mass graves in that post

Posted by: Windhorse on February 23, 2006 at 3:12 AM | PERMALINK

I watched the trial and I know what she dismissed.

Throughout her whole blog. She ignores the Shiite victims of Sunni Terror and tries to play up the Iraqi security forces as equal to Saddam's regime.
Lying by ommission is also lying. I didn't see even one Mosque bombing discussed.

I don't wish her death, but I can't say that my heart bleeds for her.

Sometimes when you cry wolf, you hurt yourself in the long run. And if the Shiite's decide to show her people what Saddam used to be like for a few weeks....So what? She's already accused them of exactly that.

Posted by: McA on February 23, 2006 at 4:27 AM | PERMALINK

Since the number of attacks on Sunni mosques, in Baghdad, by the Mahdi Army alone is already well into the double digits, there has already been more than a little payback.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 23, 2006 at 3:08 AM | PERMALINK

Actually I watch the news, and there's been a whole stream of attacks on Shiite mosques with deaths in the high double digits prior to this. The Shiite's have been remarkable even by non-Muslim standards.

Forgiveness is one thing, but liberalism kept making excuses this shit until the straw broke the camel's side. Both sides will suffer but the Sunni's will suffer more being outnumbered.

The strong must not persecute the weak, but the weak cannot persecute the strong and expect infinite patience - that's not a human characteristic.

http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2003/08/30/iraq30.htm
Najaf -85 Shi'ites

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/16/AR2005071600293.html
Baghdad -54 Shi'ite mosque

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1674635,00.html

Mosul -17 Shi'ite funeral bombed

Posted by: McA on February 23, 2006 at 4:35 AM | PERMALINK

I think the US should openly say, "We haven't heard from the new elected government on their views, the Shiite's don't want us near their holy places and certain Sunni's are shooting at us while help. We're going to protect the following areas who have been cooperative in not hosting insurgents. The rest are at a lower piority. Districts that shot at us and the association of Sunni scholars can reap the whirlwind ".


Posted by: McA on February 23, 2006 at 4:49 AM | PERMALINK

There are a lot of posts here since last night. Most of them regarding WMD confidently assert a negative. That there were no WMD, "case closed, period." is how you put it.

Minds may close but the case is NEVER closed on asserting a negative until it is disproven, or proven by exhaustion (which has a precise meaning, and does not mean we got tired of looking, or had other priorities. This explanation is for the logic challenged howard, sorry to bore the more informed among you) Philosophy 115. It's a fundamental rule of logic.

If the translator has been discredited, the tapes are available, do you have an alternative translation which shows where he misrepresented it?

"Even the President now admits there was no WMD. Jay? Jay? Hello? And the CIA"

Why don't you read this link from the CIA regarding those mobile weapons labs.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraqi_mobile_plants/#06

And to save you time, here are the links posted by lefties most commonly posted here.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12821361&method=full

If you are going to offer up a 'refutation', please quote the particular sentences that you feel back up your point in whatever link you cite.

But I fully expect the "closed mind" response, which is, "I don't have to respond to the moron, I know he's one because I called him one, eveybody knows I am right," or words to that effect.

Posted by: tool of some sort on February 23, 2006 at 7:51 AM | PERMALINK

Despite the usual infestation of the thread by, in this case, three Persistent Idiots and their thousand-and-one moronic comments, I heard some interesting information on NPR this morning which I wished to share:

The shrine in question is in Samarra, which is a majority Sunni town. Although a Shi'ite shrine, the Sunnis refused to allow any Shi'ite group to place any sort of real guard at the shrine, claiming that they would keep it safe.

So in addition to the bombing, which could have been by some minor splinter group (although the earlier posts speculating that it was done by some Shi'ites, such as al-Sadr, border on the preposterous), you have the fact that the Sunni who were ostensibly guarding the shrine not only failed to do so, but were quite probably complicit in its destruction.

That, much more than the attack itself (which could have been performed by a splinter group), is really enraging the Shi'ites against the Sunnis as a whole, and leading to the widespread sectarian violence.

Posted by: S Ra on February 23, 2006 at 8:35 AM | PERMALINK

S Ra,

That is an interesting fact, and does change the aspect of things. It also is probably the reason the administration has been calling it al Qaeda all along.

As for the directly previous post of mine, uh thanks for the trenchant analysis, did you go to school with howard? ...

If you had a decent response, you would use it.

Posted by: tool of some sort on February 23, 2006 at 8:48 AM | PERMALINK

tool of no particular use,

Yeah, the whole WMD is pretty much a dead horse. I'm sure you and your butt buddy Rummy are hoping to find the secret warehouse full of nuclear weapons somewhere West of Baghdad, but I suspect it isn't going to happen.

Stick with delusions of adequacy, note that we've come to a consensus on an issue that's been dead for over a year, and read the history of the Iran-Iraq war, the first Gulf War, and the subsequent falsification of intelligence that was used by this administration to lead us into an unnecessary war.

Enlightment shall follow, and like a good Republican, you will no doubt get down on bended knee to worship your Sovereign King.

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 23, 2006 at 8:54 AM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider chimes in with his "my mind is closed" statement. Got it. Circulez, il n'y a rien a voir

Groupthink consensus does not amount to "case closed." I would think on simple logical grounds you would be worried about basing so much of you belief system on the precarious proposition that Saddam had no WMD. What astounds me is that your belief is so secure that you can confidently disregard any new evidence on the subject. Actually, it doesn't astound me, admitting the possibility that you might be wrong on an issue as dear to your heart as "Bush is a liar" would require an extrordinary act of courage.

Posted by: tool of some sort on February 23, 2006 at 9:04 AM | PERMALINK

What is funny is how similar the "case closed" crowd on WMD is to the Creationist crowd. Both base their beliefs on asserting a negative. In the case of the creationists, it is that life has "irreducable complexity." In their mind, it is not possible that certain organs, like the eye, could have evolved without a designer. Of course, like all hugely complicated negatives, this can never be proven. It doesn't stop them from creating the most exquisitely contorted arguments to avoid that simple logical fact. They too will dance around the facts, name calling and Bible thumping, rather than engage in logical argument.

Of course you guys are their intellectual superiors, so you would never fall into that trap.

Posted by: tool of some sort on February 23, 2006 at 9:13 AM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider chimes in with his "my mind is closed" statement. Got it.

Nah, Pale Rider actually learned something while tool of no particular use was on his knees servicing his Republican masters.

You brought up the 'mobile labs.'

Totally false. Everyone who is anyone completely accepts the post-Iraq war fact that these mobile labs were a creation of people who wanted to lead us into a unnecessary war.

Which logical argument are you trying to ignore? The one where you believe your masters or the one where empirical evidence proving an assertion simply withered away once exposed to the light of day?

You do realize that the two main personalities in this discussion are Ahmed Chalabi and a source called 'Curveball' who have been proven to be opportunistic liars, right?

Another proven lie of the Bush Administration was the notion that Iraq was going to use drone aircraft with specialized compartments to deploy nerve agent over American cities. This was proven to be conclusively false by the Defense Intelligence Agency. DIA provided dissenting information to the administration that the drone aircraft in question contained specialized compartments for SURVEILLANCE cameras, not nerve agent dispersal units.

How many more do we have to knock down? Which set of delusional lies are you going to trot out yet again?

I mean, Col. Larry Wilkerson seems to have done a pretty good job explaining how Colin Powell was lied to by this administration and tricked into carrying their water--perhaps you should read something about him.

Of course you won't--damn lies! you'll scream and stick your head in the sand.

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 23, 2006 at 9:20 AM | PERMALINK

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraqi_mobile_plants/#06

I'll see your CIA link and raise you another:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap6.html#sect0

Hey looky! Mine's more recent!

Please note this key finding:

"ISG thoroughly examined two trailers captured in 2003, suspected of being mobile BW agent production units, and investigated the associated evidence. ISG judges that its Iraqi makers almost certainly designed and built the equipment exclusively for the generation of hydrogen. It is impractical to use the equipment for the production and weaponization of BW agent. ISG judges that it cannot therefore be part of any BW program."

Posted by: Irony Man on February 23, 2006 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

tool of some sort: You are a troll.

Your first post in this thread contained the line: "Why don't you guys wait until the civil war actually materializes before celebrating?", which is both puerile and insulting.

Since then you have posted sixteen times, mostly repeating right-wing talking points which have been thoroughly debunked here and elsewhere, attempting to "win" whatever debate you feel yourself in through volume of verbiage rather than intelligent discourse, or possibly by getting the last word.

In short, your conduct is atrocious.

Although you are marginally better spoken than McA and other trolls, "I don't have to respond to the moron" is precisely the reaction you deserve, and should expect.

Posted by: S Ra on February 23, 2006 at 9:46 AM | PERMALINK

Think you spoke too soon, Howard.

i have said many critical things of and to Jay in recent days, but my god, in comparison to tool, his 9:16 posting is a beacon of sanity....
Posted by: howard

I'd say the odds are pretty good that 'tool' is just another Hydra head of Jay/Conspiracy Nut et al. Notice that 'Jay' immediately pops up to support 'tool'?

How long before Jay and tool begin praising each other in perfect harmony?

Posted by: CFShep on February 23, 2006 at 9:50 AM | PERMALINK

There are a lot of posts here since last night. Most of them regarding WMD confidently assert a negative. That there were no WMD, "case closed, period." is how you put it.

In the run up to the war, Saddam was asked to prove that he didn't have any WMD (a negative assertion).

I guess the die was cast.

We've been in Iraq for over two years and we haven't found any WMD or facilities for creating WMD or any evidence of an active program. Many Iraqi scientists, engineers, etc involved have said that there wasn't any serious program.
Does that count as "proven by exhaustion" ?


Posted by: Stephen on February 23, 2006 at 9:53 AM | PERMALINK

The WMD's argument, specifically the "reconstitution of the nuclear program" were way over exaggerated and have proven to be false which is contrary to every intelligence report of nearly every country on the planet. However, it is certain that Saddam had possessed biological and chemical weapons, which even the Kurds can attest to, and considering 17 UN resolution violations, I don't feel that we had the luxury of waiting to see what might happen with Saddam which was also a main component of the argument leading into the war.

The findings of mass graves would lead one to believe that Iraq was no picnic with Saddam and is proving to be less of a festival with him gone. When people have no qualms of killing over a cartoon, it suggests a mentality so foreign to ours that we might now want to re-evaluate our mission. We have accomplished much: Saddam is on trial, there is an elected representative government, and the military and security forces are getting stronger. IMHO, it's time to start coming home and let them fend for themselves. At the very least, it may take them years or decades to get back to the threat that Saddam posed, and hopefully we won't have to do it again.

Posted by: Jay on February 23, 2006 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

In other news from Baghdad this morning, Mohammed van der Lubbe, an unemployed Dutch immigrant brick layer with ties to the Sunnis, is under suspicion for the bombing of the mosque.

Posted by: stupid git on February 23, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

It's those damn Dutch again? Hopefully he didn't sketch a cartoon depicting it all.

Posted by: Jay on February 23, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

van der Lubbe said that he had always wanted to emulate his great departed uncle, Marinus.

Posted by: stupid git on February 23, 2006 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

In other news from Baghdad this morning, Mohammed van der Lubbe, an unemployed Dutch immigrant brick layer with ties to the Sunnis, is under suspicion for the bombing of the mosque.
Posted by: stupid git

Hot damn. And here I thought it would most likely turn out to be Jimmy Hoffa...

Posted by: CFShep on February 23, 2006 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

IMHO, it's time to start coming home and let them fend for themselves.

Cut and Run!!!

Jay says we should cut and run!!!

That's the funniest shit I've read in months.

Cut and Run!!!
Cut and Run!!!
Cut and Run!!!
Cut and Run!!!
Cut and Run!!!
Cut and Run!!!
Cut and Run!!!
Cut and Run!!!
Cut and Run!!!

Jay now says we should cut and run!!!

Priceless. Just when you think these trolls can't find the bottom of a bottomless pit of stupidity, they shove dynamite up their ass, sit down, and blow themselves a hole so they can crawl down further into the muck and the filthy and sink some more.

Jay, you're now Cut 'N Run Jay.

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 23, 2006 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

Oh Pale, it's called tactical evaluation because conditions on the ground are fluid. I could come out with pictures and diagrams on this for you if those words went over your head. BTW, our strategy from the beginning was to "stand down when the Iraqi's stand up" remember? Well, IMHO, the Iraqi's have stood up, as best they can. You may have missed the part where I stated "we have accomplished much", which is a hell of a lot more than anyone from the left side of the aisle would have done.

Posted by: Jay on February 23, 2006 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

The name calling is befitting of you though Pale, you must have been quite a cut up at recess. Incidentally, name calling has become quite the trademark of the left when bereft of argument and you wear the badge well.

Posted by: Jay on February 23, 2006 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

Cut 'N Run Jay says:

Hold this bag while I run away!!!

"we have accomplished much"

Uh huh. Over 2,200 dead Americans and the Iraqis still can't secure their own borders, stop the violence and live in peace.

But thanks for playing. Thanks for finally admitting what all of us have known for years--this administration had no intention of bringing 'democracy' to the Middle East. They went there to get the oil and now, because there is no security in the country, the oil producing infrastructure is wrecked.

Cut and run!!!
Cut and run!!!
Jay says we gotta cut and run!!!
Oh, the job ain't done
That fella has a gun
Things are hard
Jay's a tard
Gotta cut and run!!!
Gotta...
Cut
And
Ruuuuuuuuuuuun!!!

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 23, 2006 at 11:06 AM | PERMALINK

We have accomplished our mission, the Iraqi's have stood up and now is the time we start to come home. That is a far cry from the left position of a lost war and a defeated military. I know it's impossible for the left to understand that and I wouldn't expect it. That would be like expecting Cindy Sheehan to appear as an attractive woman: IMPOSSIBLE. Or expecting the left to have sympathy for the unborn; or to expect the left respect Christian traditions; or to expect the left to respect someone's funeral without using it as a political forum; or to expect the left to acknowledge hitorically low unemployment and a growing economy; or to expect the left to acknowledge that there might be a problem with SS. Some things are just over the head of the intellectually superior.

Posted by: Jay on February 23, 2006 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider: Jay, you're now Cut 'N Run Jay.

Cut 'N Run Jay: Oh Pale, it's called tactical evaluation because conditions on the ground are fluid.

You know, calling him "Tactical Evaluation Because Conditions on the Ground Are Fluid Jay" does have a certain ring to it, but I think I'll agree with Pale Rider and stick with Cut 'N Run Jay.

Cut 'N Run Jay: He Retreats, We Deride.

Posted by: Stefan on February 23, 2006 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK

It's actually hard to believe that the left is now poking fun at their own strategy. I am advocating the systematic withdrawal from Iraq based on military accomplishments of conducting three successful elections, an elected representative government and a 200,000+ security and military and you guys are mocking it. Do you really understand that, I mean can you wrap your little minds around that one. What the hell is your position if in fact you have one. This is exactly why you continue to lose elections and will again '06 and '08. Trust me on that one. Completely bereft of any coherent position on the ME. Well done once again by brain trust of the left.

Posted by: Jay on February 23, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

Cue the coconut shell 'hoofbeats'

"Run away! Run away, Brave Sir Robin!"

Enter stage left: The unborn...

Posted by: CFShep on February 23, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Cut 'n Run Jay bleats:

We have accomplished our mission,

Really? Is that why the country has dissolved into civil war? Our mission was to bring full scale sectarian violence to Iraq so that the Green Zone could be turned into a fortress? Our mission was to leave these people with insurgents everywhere, bombs killing children and al Qaeda--of all frickin' people--in charge of the battlefield?

You seriously want to pull US troops out of Iraq and leave al Qaeda in charge of the field of battle after over 2,200 Americans have died?

That, or so I am told, is cutting and running and it simply has to gall the living shit out of you that someone is calling you on your miraculous flipflop.

the Iraqi's have stood up

They keep trying to force flowers and gifts into the hands of our soldiers and give them free cars but, doggone it, they keep exploding for some mysterious and unexplainable reason.

and now is the time we start to come home.

Well, there were quite a few of us who wanted that to happen over a year ago, but thanks for finally coming around to reality.

Cut and Run Jay
Cut and Run Jay
When the cat's away
The mouse will play
Oh, al Qaeda's all over Iraq
And Jay is Bush's preening flack
Get down on your knees
It's him you gotta please
Cut and run
Cut aaaaaaaaaaaaand...

...rrrrrrrrun!

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 23, 2006 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: "Or expecting the left to have sympathy for the unborn; or to expect the left respect Christian traditions; or to expect the left to respect someone's funeral without using it as a political forum"

I can picture Jay writing this with tears streaming from his eyes.

Posted by: Botecelli on February 23, 2006 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

PR,

Eyes are kinda blurry - Was that a j or a v in the e acu ation part? And was a l missing?

Posted by: stupid git on February 23, 2006 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

Oh Pale, it's called tactical evaluation because conditions on the ground are fluid. I could come out with pictures and diagrams on this for you if those words went over your head. BTW, our strategy from the beginning was to "stand down when the Iraqi's stand up" remember? Well, IMHO, the Iraqi's have stood up, as best they can. You may have missed the part where I stated "we have accomplished much", which is a hell of a lot more than anyone from the left side of the aisle would have done.

Where's Jay getting his Kool-Aid ?

Posted by: Stephen on February 23, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

However, it is certain that Saddam had possessed biological and chemical weapons, which even the Kurds can attest to, and considering 17 UN resolution violations, I don't feel that we had the luxury of waiting to see what might happen with Saddam which was also a main component of the argument leading into the war.

Where are they ? Where are the labs capable of producing those weapons ? Where are the weapons systems capable of delivering these weapons ?

The Kurds were gassed before the first Gulf War.
Iraq hasn't been a serious threat to anyone in a long time.

Posted by: Stephen on February 23, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

And meanwhile, in other news:


Bodies pile up after Nigeria riot
Policeman in Onitsha
Police have struggled to keep a lid on the violence
The city of Onitsha in south-eastern Nigeria is calm after two days of anti-Muslim riots left many dead.

Nigerian human rights workers say they have counted 80 bodies following two days of reprisal attacks by crowds of Christians armed with machetes.

They went on the rampage after the killing of more than 30 Christians in riots in two mainly Muslim towns in northern Nigeria at the weekend.

Posted by: CFShep on February 23, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

If the left had a modicum of political savvy they would carpe diem and put forth a coherent strategy of advancing peace and attempting to soothe the sensitivities of the irrational Muslims. If the left had any political back bone they would acknowledge that our military has accomplished a great deal and blame the current up-rising on the groups that are actually responsible for it. If the left had any desire to win the next election they would begin to recognize the threat the civilized world is under and put together a platform and position that address's that threat in a strong and compassionate manner. That is a HUGE IF though but the left has never been in a better position to do just that.

BTW, CF why wouldn't the unborn be the stigma of the left when the only criteria of a potential SC nominee is to provide a rubber stamp for abortion?

Posted by: Jay on February 23, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK

I'm just ignoring him since I can't imagine that anyone could really be this dense.

Posted by: CFShep on February 23, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

If the left had a modicum of political savvy they would carpe diem and put forth a coherent strategy of advancing peace and attempting to soothe the sensitivities of the irrational Americans. If the left had any political back bone they would acknowledge that our military has eaten a great deal of juvenile liver and blame the current up-rising on the groups that are actually responsible for it - the Americans who voted for Bush. If the left had any desire to win the next election they would begin to recognize their country is a threat to the civilized world and put together a platform and position that address's to reduce that threat in a strong and compassionate manner.

Posted by: Cut ' n Run Jay on February 23, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

That would be like expecting Cindy Sheehan to appear as an attractive woman: IMPOSSIBLE.

Ladies and gentlemen, the face of your Republican Party: if you decide to enlist in the military to defend your country and, while serving in a war, are tragically killed, you can rest easy knowing that some little Republican shit will piss on your grave by insulting your grieving Gold Star mother's appearance.

Posted by: Stefan on February 23, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Pale, isn't this the time you start to throw shit at people. And Stefan, I sense your crocodile tears. You have such a strong emotional tie to our military, it really is heartening.

Posted by: Jay on February 23, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Pale, maybe you may have missed my earlier assertion that this is a great opportunity for the left. And lo and behold it went right past the intellectually superior who can not seperate themselves from personal attacks and blaming America for all the ills in the world. There is zero chance the left wins any election this year or in '08 if they follow your lead. And I hope they do.

Posted by: Jay on February 23, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

And Stefan, I sense your crocodile tears. You have such a strong emotional tie to our military, it really is heartening.

Thanks, yes, I do. It comes from my father, who was a captain in the Army.

Posted by: Stefan on February 23, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

Again, blood pressures rising and feathers ruffles here by the left. Are you sure you guys can handle free speech?

Posted by: Jay on February 23, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

Pale, isn't this the time you start to throw shit at people.

...as you insult Cindy Sheehan. Amazing, isn't it? Since she isn't here to defend herself. I wonder how many brave Republicans like Jay are willing to go right up to the woman and do what they've been longing to do for months and just spit in her face. Isn't that what the new America is all about, Jay? Spit in their face if they take a different position on an issue.

We were insulting you, Jay, literally to your face since you are here to defend yourself.

And lo and behold it went right past the intellectually superior who can not seperate themselves from personal attacks and blaming America for all the ills in the world.

America isn't to blame for the ills of the world. The leader of America who decided to make a series of huge tactical blunders and get us involved in a massive sectarian civil war halfway around the world does deserve some blame. I mean, he is a war time President, right?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but he did win the 2004 election by running as a war time President, right?

And how is that war he chose to start going anyhow?

Can we get an answer from Cut 'N Run Jay?

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 23, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Again, blood pressures rising and feathers ruffles here by the left. Are you sure you guys can handle free speech?

Huh? My resting heart rate is...hold on.

52 beats per minute.

Seriously, you're the one wetting his pants and running around with his hair on fire. Stefan and I are here for the laughs.

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 23, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

I know, your always there for the laughs while elections to continue to slip from your grasp. Again, are you really sure you can handle free speech? It does require tolerance and maturity which maybe beyond the pale (no pun intended).

How wonderfully ironic to pale accusing me of being part of the "new" America and spitting in the face of someone who disagrees with me yet at the same time upholding that same tradition himself. Again, right over the head of the intellectually superior. ROTF. BTW, I would love to tell Cindy what a joke she is right to her face, if anyone can set that meeting up please let me know. Also, I am not sure if you remember but her entire family denounced her actions and stated that Casey would have been embarrassed.

Posted by: Jay on February 23, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

yet at the same time upholding that same tradition himself.

I wouldn't take the time to spit on you, Jay. Regardless of how much you think of yourself, you're just not worth the trouble.

I would love to tell Cindy what a joke she is right to her face, if anyone can set that meeting up please let me know.

...said the cowardly Cut 'N Run Jay in his best cowardly lion voice.

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 23, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

The most recent zogby poll does not bode well.

www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1074

Ouch. Do you guys realize that you are very small representation of the minority party. 6% to be precise. 6% of the minority party. If you are all sincere in the Dems regaining power, you might want to get out of the way.

Posted by: Jay on February 23, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

Did anyone else notice that Cut 'N Run Jay had a real spike in his confidence and courage levels when the opportunity to take on a bereaved woman presented itself?

Jay's Silver Star for gallantry will no doubt read that he displayed

"...bravery in the face of a Gold Star mother"

Cut 'N Run Jay: I'll speak rudely to a woman to save America!

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 23, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Again, blood pressures rising and feathers ruffles here by the left. Are you sure you guys can handle free speech?

Aaarrghhh! Blood presssure...rising...feathers...ruffling...slight headache...loss...of...appetite....must...turn off...free speech...can't handle...it...everything...turning...black...fading....fading...fadi.....................................................................

Posted by: Stefan on February 23, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

I would love to tell Cindy what a joke she is right to her face, if anyone can set that meeting up please let me know.

Because that is what makes Jay feel like a man, telling grieving mothers who's sons have been killed in action that they are a joke.

And that they are not "attractive" and never will be.

Given his self-imputed reputation as a huge champion of free speech, how "wonderfully ironic" for him to want to spit in the face of a woman disagrees with him.

Jay, why don't you come on back when your balls drop. Until then you can play in the kiddie blog next door.

Posted by: Windhorse on February 23, 2006 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, I would love to tell Cindy what a joke she is right to her face, if anyone can set that meeting up please let me know.

Hmmm, Cut 'N Run Jay mano a mano versus the grieving Gold Star mother Mrs. Sheehan, who must be about 110 pounds all in all.

Tell you what, my money's on Mrs. Sheehan.

Posted by: Stefan on February 23, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Has anyone told Jay that Bill O'Reilly now agrees with Cindy Sheehan? Maybe Jay should spit in his face too.

But then, Jay might get a mouthful of loofah in return.

Posted by: Irony Man on February 23, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Did anyone else notice that Cut 'N Run Jay had a real spike in his confidence and courage levels when the opportunity to take on a bereaved woman presented itself?

Yeah, he's never quite that bold when we ask him to enlist and ship on over to Iraq. Somehow I can't imagine him saying "BTW, I would love to tell Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi what a joke he is right to her face, if anyone can set that meeting up please let me know."


Posted by: Stefan on February 23, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Cut 'N Run Jay was FOR spitting in Cindy Sheehan's face before he was AGAINST spitting in Cindy Sheehan's face because that's the kind of tought guy that he is.

I envision Cut 'N Run Jay in his yellow-belt Karate outfit, trying to punch his way through a wet paper bag while his fellow Karate students stand uncomfortably and try to look away from the spectacle.

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 23, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

This is awesome, the minority fringe of the minority party is all up in rancor. I have been bashing Cindy for the past year yet when bereft of any further coherent argument, the minority fringe of the minority party gloms onto it as an issue. Let's re-focus shall we on the real threat out there, you know the UAE as currently identified by the left. ROTFLOL

Posted by: Jay on February 23, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, here is an issue to discuss; the recent arrests of three alledged terrorists in Toledo. Jeez, I hope we didn't violate their civil rights and listen to their phone calls. That would really be disturbing.

Posted by: Jay on February 23, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

You are unable to bash Ms. Sheehan properly. It would be proper to blame the illegal invasion and occupation on the mothers of the soldiers that enabled the War Pig President to wage illegal war. These mothers raised children to be automatons to monsters like Bush and Cheney. They should be villified and held responsible for their role in causing unjust war.

Ms. Sheehan has at least recognized the war is wrong and is trying to rectify her mistakes, and her son's, by doing the right thing and demonstrating against the war and calling President Bush out for his terrible crimes. Bashing her for being against the war only belies you inhumanity.

The people you are comment flamming with are not part of the fringe of the minority party, but members of the future majority party. You, on the other hand, represent the majority of sinners throughout the world who delight in making crimes against humanity.

Posted by: Hostile on February 23, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Hostile, no bashing of people here without them present to defend themselves, remember, that now is the standard bearer of this thread as vociferously advocated by Stefan and pale. Does that include Bush? Afterall, he is not in this forum to defend himself, right? I just want to be fair.

Also, I love how the left wants lawyers to represent the accused in Gitmo yet have no hesitation to convict Bush without due justice. ROTFLOL, this is so fun.

Posted by: Jay on February 23, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

It would be proper to blame the illegal invasion and occupation on the mothers of the soldiers that enabled the War Pig President to wage illegal war. These mothers raised children to be automatons to monsters like Bush and Cheney.

Give it a rest, Hostile. You and your freeper friends just aren't entertaining anymore.

Hmmm...funny how Hostile expressed a strawman Jay was so eager to knock down while everyone had wandered off...

Oh, and Jay--remember, Bush has a lawyer. Her name is Harriet Miers. How did that work out for him? Did it work out as well as the war did?

Posted by: Pale Rider on February 23, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

I think we need to revise the Periodic Table because we've obviously discovered a new element of unsurpassed density:

JayBlackHolium

I'm open to suggestions for alternate names.

heh

Cue Tom Lehrer.

Posted by: CFShep on February 23, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

War Pig President

Too confusing. I thought he meant Pig War president James Buchanan.

Posted by: alex on February 23, 2006 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the historical tidbit, Alex.

Posted by: Hostile on February 23, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the historical lesson, Alex.

Posted by: Hostile on February 23, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider, you only call me a freeper because you know how deeply it hurts me.

Posted by: Hostile on February 23, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

Just wondering if this bombing is Iraq's equivalent of the bus bombing in Beirut oh so many years ago that presaged the sectarian and civil strife in what used to be Yugoslavia...

Posted by: Marc in Denver on February 23, 2006 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly