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

March 14, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

YET MORE LEAKED BRITISH MEMOS....Based on the evidence presented here, John Sawers appears to be a fairly perceptive and clear thinking sort of person. Unfortunately, the very evidence that demonstrates these qualities has probably also scuttled his chances of being named Britain's new ambassador to the U.S. Win some, lose some.

POSTSCRIPT: You really ought to click the link, but if you're just too lazy to do it, here's Shorter John Sawyers on May 11, 2003: Nobody in America has any interest in the aftermath of the Iraq War. They mostly seem to be a bunch of clueless and incompetent twits.

Kevin Drum 2:08 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (267)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

"Sawers" or "Sawyers"?

Posted by: bad Jim on March 14, 2006 at 2:19 AM | PERMALINK

Broad generalizations aren't fair. Lots of people in America were interested in the aftermath of the war in Iraq. Regrettably, none of them were in the Bush Administration or in the Republican-held Congress, or even in the punditocracy.

Posted by: Linkmeister on March 14, 2006 at 2:22 AM | PERMALINK

Given that most of our troops still believe that Iraq was responsible for 9-11, was there ever a chance that they would have good intentions when dealing with its people? It's got to be confusing when you're "liberating" the enemy, particularly when they're shooting back.

We shouldn't have been surprised by the inept response to Katrina. Our handling of Iraq has been far, far worse, but it's been easier to avoid seeing than New Orleans was.

Posted by: bad Jim on March 14, 2006 at 2:33 AM | PERMALINK

"He accused its troops of being reluctant to leave their heavily armoured vehicles to carry out policing and cites an incident in which British Para"

Weren't liberals screaming because troops weren't given enough heavily armored vehicles?

Posted by: McA on March 14, 2006 at 2:33 AM | PERMALINK

Weren't liberals screaming because troops weren't given enough heavily armored vehicles?

He's a British diplomat not an American liberal, you ninny.

Posted by: Calton Bolick on March 14, 2006 at 3:27 AM | PERMALINK

Shorter John Sawyers on May 11, 2003: Nobody in America has any interest in the aftermath of the Iraq War.

And this is a surprise to who?

Posted by: dr sardonicus on March 14, 2006 at 3:52 AM | PERMALINK

"Weren't liberals screaming because troops weren't given enough heavily armored vehicles?"

Oh, and that would make not armoring them okay? Bizarro World strikes again.

Posted by: Kenji on March 14, 2006 at 4:33 AM | PERMALINK

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz f'd everyting up. Went against the generals, everybody. Installed their own idiot, Bremer, and then went against him. Neoconservatives in their circle had predicted the insurgency and chaos following an invasion, years before, so they were aware of it. Their plan all along was likely to allow the chaos to unfold so that Chalabi could be installed as the savior. The jig is almost up. This has been your late night update.

Posted by: Jimm on March 14, 2006 at 5:27 AM | PERMALINK

Rumsfeld has never stopped being a realist. A strongman in Iraq is what he's wanted all along.

Posted by: Jimm on March 14, 2006 at 5:28 AM | PERMALINK

As Cheney, who's really in charge. The way they carried this out is the essence of clusterfuck and unintended consequences, however, as the saner realists seem to be aware.

Posted by: Jimm on March 14, 2006 at 5:31 AM | PERMALINK

I mean this guy is criticizing the 'heavy metal' approach of American policing instead of foot patrols.

But footpatrols cost your men more lives. Less collateral damage, and possibly faster local acceptance of the troops but at the short term cost of more lives.

As always, you are just jumping on anything that can be given a anti-Bush spin...ignoring negatives or trade offs.

And the end of the day, Liberalism looks more and more like a shrill, shrill, party of negativity. When you couple that with a weak platform with no specifics - you are just positioning yourself for another loss.

Posted by: McA on March 14, 2006 at 5:34 AM | PERMALINK

No, McA, Republicans look increasingly like brutal sadistic thugs who on one hand, argue we have to stay in Iraq or civil war will break out and then turn around and say American forces will not intervene when civil war begins. Your positions are ludicrous and self-contradictory. You may win elections through fraud and treachery, but you have forever sullied America's reputation as a moral country.

As for the article, dont be fooled by the Karl Rove propaganda machine, Iraq is an open sewer, thanks to George W. Bush and his merry band of war criminals. You wont read this sort of story in the American media, thanks to CIA and psy-ops plants in the press and state propaganda organs like FoxNews. The sooner we get out of this poor, tortured country, the better. Then, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al, need to be put on trial for war crimes.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on March 14, 2006 at 6:06 AM | PERMALINK

No, McA, Republicans look increasingly like brutal sadistic thugs who on one hand, argue we have to stay in Iraq or civil war will break out and then turn around and say American forces will not intervene when civil war begins. Your positions are ludicrous and self-contradictory. You may win elections through fraud and treachery, but you have forever sullied America's reputation as a moral country.

As for the article, dont be fooled by the Karl Rove propaganda machine, Iraq is an open sewer, thanks to George W. Bush and his merry band of war criminals. You wont read this sort of story in the American media, thanks to CIA and psy-ops plants in the press and state propaganda organs like FoxNews. The sooner we get out of this poor, tortured country, the better. Then, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al, need to be put on trial for war crimes.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on March 14, 2006 at 6:10 AM | PERMALINK

Key Phrase: "Strategic Failure"

Repeat. repeat. repeat.


Posted by: BroD on March 14, 2006 at 7:04 AM | PERMALINK

John Sawyers: Nobody in America has any interest in the aftermath of the Iraq War. They mostly seem to be a bunch of clueless and incompetent twits.

KD: Unfortunately, the very evidence that demonstrates these qualities has probably also scuttled his chances of being named Britain's new ambassador to the U.S. Win some, lose some.

They should make him ambassador to the U.N. I'd like to see him and Bolton get into a good scrap.

Posted by: tripoley on March 14, 2006 at 7:12 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry for the double post, something was hosed with my connection...

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on March 14, 2006 at 8:06 AM | PERMALINK

What's interesting is the role that Gen. Franks played in all of this. It's becoming increasingly clear that he may be as much of an idiot as the rest of the Bushies.

Remember when Franks commented that Feith was one of the fucking stupidest guys on the planet, or something to that effect? It now seems clear that Franks himself is vying for the gold (and he's got lots of competition, when you throw in Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Feith, Perle, Powell, Rice, and on and on).

Posted by: Wonderin on March 14, 2006 at 8:08 AM | PERMALINK

You need to finish the quote McRepublican:

The British diplomat is particularly scathing about the US Third Infantry Division, which he describes as "a big part of the problem" in Baghdad. He accused its troops of being reluctant to leave their heavily armoured vehicles to carry out policing and cites an incident in which British Paras saw them fire three tank rounds into a building in response to harmless rifle fire.

What heroes!
What sissies!
What repugs!

Posted by: koreyel on March 14, 2006 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK

"We may have been seduced into something we might be inclined to regret."

Gotta love that British understatement.

Posted by: Lucy on March 14, 2006 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINK

In the Washington Post:

President Sets Timeline For Transition in Iraq

In new campaign to rally Americans behind effort, Bush vows for the first time to turn over most areas to Iraqi troops by the end of this year.

This headline might as well read Bush admits defeat in Iraq.

All that wasted bloodshed for big oil - at least now we know that oil in the mideast is only ours AFTER we pay whatever price the Mideast wants for it.

Posted by: Cheryl on March 14, 2006 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINK

What's interesting is the role that Gen. Franks played in all of this.

Yeah I have to agree with that.

Sort of like the role people take by not voting on election day:

"...Whitley, who says that while Gen Franks took credit for the fall of Baghdad, he showed little interest in the postwar period. "I am quite sure Franks did not want to take ownership of Phase IV," Gen Whitley wrote."

So I guess we can say he voted by not voting?

Tommy Franks is just another worthless American republican hotdog.
Strutting around with a chest full of medals...
As if... that and a codpiece make a man.


He too... would be best employed clearing brush.

Posted by: koreyel on March 14, 2006 at 9:09 AM | PERMALINK

Yes it is sad but most of our troops still think Iraq was responsable for 911.

Add that to the fact that Bush Admin placed the building of many large Permenant U.S Military bases ahead of restoring basic need issues of the people. Clean water and sewage have become a health problem.
All this added up to Invasion not Liberation in the minds and hearts of those who once saw us as
hope.

Posted by: Honey P on March 14, 2006 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

Real people, thousands and thousands of them, have died for no other reason that Bush incompetence.

When will people see this simple fact?

This is not just a failed war, it is a human tragedy perpetrated by uncaring ideologues.

Every family that lost a soldier ought to march on DC and demand Bush's head.

Posted by: lilybart on March 14, 2006 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

The Guardian says Sawyers accuses Americans of "squandering the initial sympathy of Iraqis."

The Bush administration has earned the diamond encrusted platinum medal in the Squandering category. They'll probably sell it and use the money to pay Halliburton for building a dam in Death Valley.

All the global good will toward America after 9/11--squandered with our invasion of Iraq. Millions of dollars that could have been used to set up a sane Medicare plan--squandered to enrich drug manufacturers. Millions of dollars squandered to thwart the will of the people who voted to allow medical marijuana and physician assisted suicide in various states. Squandering the CIA resource Valerie Plame to make petty political points. Squandering important posts like head of FEMA and head of Homeland Security on incompetent cronies, leading to thousands of lives lost and billions in lost property.

I had no idea that living like this was the conservative lifestyle.

Posted by: cowalker on March 14, 2006 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

Could it be that McA is indeed the Five-Pound Monster Mango?!

http://tinyurl.com/h7gpn

It might explain why he sinks to the bottom of the Pool of Tears.

Posted by: Lucy on March 14, 2006 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

Tommy Franks - But, but, but he went to the same high school as Laura Bush.

Still do not understand how Gary Berentz can put Franks on a pedestal in his book, "Jawbreaker", when Franks stopped Berentz's request to send in 1,600 Rangers to block bin Laden at Tora Bora.

When Franks came back from Nam as a grunt, he went through OCS at Ft Sill - At that point, someone in the Republican Party from Texas "fast tracked" him. His rise to power came more from political pull than his military prowess. Even though he was from the wrong side of the tracks in Midland, some Repug made his career.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 14, 2006 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

McAnus: Weren't liberals screaming because troops weren't given enough heavily armored vehicles?

No lie too big for you to proffer, eh, McA?

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINK

Sawers may or may not get to be British Ambassador to Washington, but he was promoted, not sidelined: political director in the Foreign Office is another plum job. What sort of advice do you think he will be giving on US plans on Iran and the UN?

Posted by: James Wimberley on March 14, 2006 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

McAnus: As always, you are just jumping on anything that can be given a anti-Bush spin...ignoring negatives or trade offs.

You are just jumping on anything that can be given a pro-Bush spin . . . ignoring the negatives or trade-offs.

And the end of the day, Liberalism looks more and more like a shrill, shrill, party of negativity.

You mean like the GOP during the Balkans War?

Where was your criticism of the GOP for that, McAnus?

At the end of the day, conservatives look more and more like a shrill and defensive party of fubar'd foreign and domestic policy that overplayed their domestic political hand and their international foreign policy hand, despite being given 9/11 as an ace card in the hole.

Pathetic.

But not as pathetic as your defense of these corrupt, inept, incompetent, and immoral boobs.

When you couple that with a weak platform with no specifics - you are just positioning yourself for another loss.

GOP platform: the insurgency is desperate, desperate we tell you and on the brink of defeat - if you will just give us another 10-20 months, er, years, we will have Iraq under control, democracy will be blooming, and the US economy will be smoking (something other than the dope we're smoking and asking you to smoke).

Clap harder, McAnus, and quit giving us crocodile tears and false advice.

Bush 36% approval rating; 57% disapproval.

Smokin' !

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

Ah. yes!

So good to have things return to normal levels of acrimony and troll-thwacking around here.

"In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence, and irresponsibility; at worst, lying, incompetence, and corruption," Retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni

"It is our patriotic duty to speak out when egregiously flawed policies and strategies needlessly cost American lives."
-William A. Whitlow - Retired major general in the Marine Corps

Posted by: CFShep on March 14, 2006 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

Given the number of leaked British documents warning Downing Street about the consequences and the obvious fact that Blair and (the majority of) his cabinet ignored them, I wonder why Blair went along with the plan to invade and continued going along when it was obviously going to turn out badly? Is Blair as incompetent as Bush? What does he expect to gain?

Posted by: anon c. on March 14, 2006 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

"There was a blind faith that Phase IV would work."

But but didn't God speak to George and Tony directly, according to their own words?

I thought we agreed we were going to leave aside these examples of religious delusion contributing to the current disaster.

Posted by: melior (in Austin) on March 14, 2006 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

Ah, yes: May 11, 2003.

That was the day Bart Gellman, on the front page of the Sunday WaPo, exposed the fact that the Bush war plan gave a low priority to...(drumroll)...securing the WMDs that we supposedly fought the war to interdict.

In that article, he documented that many prospective WMD sites were looted to the ground, AFTER our troops initially took control of the sites, and BEFORE we had a chance to verify whether or not any WMDs were there.

Gellman's article went largely unnoticed. But I've regarded the article as a legitimate basis for impeachment ever since.

Posted by: RT on March 14, 2006 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

Is Blair as incompetent as Bush? What does he expect to gain?
A couple of things to keep in mind. First, the US Armed Forces is the king of doing what armies do: killing people and breaking shit. Second, the British (and the Romans, but that's a little ancient for this) are the king of dealing with conquered people (they conquered enough in their time). These 2 are not the same thing.

I think the appropriate question is: Did Blair pass along the necessary information or did Bush ignore it?

Blair may have made the assumption that being civilized people, we knew what to do. Being in a minor role he may have felt it wasn't his place to give orders. Or since this wasn't exactly a conquest he may have felt his input was not valid. Lots of things. Or Bush may have ignored him out of arrogance, or out of reliance on his advisors.

There are a couple of lamentable things on the post war activity. First, we had the British there and did not lean on their expertise. Second, that you useless lefties chose to pitch a fit instead of lending a hand.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

Gellman's article went largely unnoticed. But I've regarded the article as a legitimate basis for impeachment ever since.
Posted by: RT

Sign me up. 'Cause I damn sure read that article, too. Outrageous.

Posted by: CFShep on March 14, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

Mca said: a weak platform with no specifics

Sounds like the Bush plan for invading Iraq.

Posted by: Stephen on March 14, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

Gotta love that British understatement.

I know. "Seduction" and "regret" go well together.

The more pieces of the puzzle we have the more it is clear that Iraq is a project-war initiated by a tiny political faction doing mouse kabuki. They have seduced, manipulated, and bullied the bureaucracy, from Capital Hill to the Pentagon and beyond to Westminster, into a war whose goals can only be understood in their narrow ideological framework. The apathy Americans feel toward Iraq is turning into dread because Iraq was never Americas war. They dont even have enough true-believers to keep the flag waving and the mighty Republican wurlitzer spinning. Especially since all the money has been spent.

Coming out of this is like waking up after a bender and realizing you are not beautiful and the world is your clam.

Posted by: bellumregio on March 14, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

here's Shorter John Sawyers on May 11, 2003: Nobody in America has any interest in the aftermath of the Iraq War. They mostly seem to be a bunch of clueless and incompetent twits. Kevin Drum

Tell us something we don't know.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 14, 2006 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

Weren't liberals screaming because troops weren't given enough heavily armored vehicles?Posted by: McA

He's a British diplomat not an American liberal, you ninny. Posted by: Calton Bolick

Sir, I'm a ninny. McA is asshole.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 14, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

I know that we shouldn't tackle the trolls but this blame shift is just TOO beautiful:

"Second, that you useless lefties chose to pitch a fit instead of lending a hand."

What chance were any of the lefties given to "lend a hand"? This was a GOP party all the way. They ran it and ignored everyone in the world's counsel. And now it's the fault of all those people who were ignored?

This is a huge tragedy, BTW, no-one thinks this is good. And certainly no-one is celebrating this colossal disaster.

Posted by: Samuel Knight on March 14, 2006 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Second, that you useless lefties chose to pitch a fit instead of lending a hand.

No, the hand proffered was bitten off.

It was hard to lend after that, being gone and all.

Besides, as I recall, the conservative meme has consistently been that liberals, being the minority party, have no rights and should have no input into the process.

Now, you are crying because we allegedly didn't help Bush with his fubar policies and plans.

Gee, I bet Hitler would have been more successeful if liberals had just leant him a hand.

You see, cn, you don't lend a hand to someone who wants you to commit crimes, incompetencies, and immoralities with that hand.

Would conservatives have leant Kerry a hand, if they disapproved of his policies and actions?

Uh, no.

They proved that with Clinton.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 10:58 AM | PERMALINK

ignored everyone in the world's counsel
You loony lefties gave no counsel. It's kind of hard to claim you were ignored when you offered nothing to ignore.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

"Real people, thousands and thousands of them, have died for no other reason that Bush incompetence."


What Bush did, and is doing, in Iraq does not rise to the moral level of incompetence. What he's doing over there is somewhere between unalloyed racist evil and stupid greed.

Posted by: Ace Franze on March 14, 2006 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

Gee, I bet Hitler would have been more successeful if liberals had just leant him a hand.
Whoops, Godwin's Law, I win.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 11:03 AM | PERMALINK

"Second, that you useless lefties chose to pitch a fit instead of lending a hand."

Why did the New York Times apologize again? It must have been for pitching a fit.

Posted by: Lucy on March 14, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

AforG: No, the hand proffered was bitten off.

It was hard to lend after that, being gone and all.

Only in the reality based world. In NeoCon Fantasy World anything is possible:

GWB: "I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein."Washington, D.C., May 25, 2004

Prejudices are what fools use for reason.
- Voltaire.

Posted by: CFShep on March 14, 2006 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Second, that you useless lefties chose to pitch a fit instead of lending a hand.

Shorter conspiracy nut: Clap harder!

Posted by: Stefan on March 14, 2006 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

Why did the New York Times apologize again?
I don't know. This is the looniest place I visit. It's of limited use due to it's far left tilt, but the NYT and LATimes are too far left to be of any use whatsoever. (And given the direction of their circulations and stock prices, I'm not alone in thinking that.)

Why did the New National Enquirer apologize?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: You loony lefties gave no counsel.

This is a lie, as even you must know.

The GOP heavily criticized liberal counsel.

If liberals hadn't given any, there would have been nothing to criticize, unless you are claiming that Bush et al. made up liberal counsel in whole in order to abuse a strawman for public consumption, i.e., he lied.

Are you saying Bush et al. were lying when they held up liberal counsel for partisan ridicule?

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Whoops, Godwin's Law, I win.

You even lie about Godwin's Law.

Is nothing sacred to you?

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

It's nice to see the loony conspiracy nut back with his wild-eyed delusions. We had a lot of fun with him yesterday on the Milosevic thread where he was claiming that there is an ongoing genocide in the Balkans between the Bosnians and the Serbs. Apparently he can't quite tell the difference between 1994 and 2006. Hilarious!

Mind you, this is the same guy who believes the Republican Party is part of a world-wide socialist conspiracy.....

Posted by: Stefan on March 14, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

Tommy Franks - But, but, but he went to the same high school as Laura Bush.Posted by: thethirdPaul

Is that who sold her pot for the first time?

Posted by: Jeff II on March 14, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: It's of limited use due to it's far left tilt . . .

Translation: anything that remotely touches on reality is "far left" and therefore of limited use.

Meaning: reality is of limited use to conspiracy nut.

Example: cn's misapplication of Godwin's Law above.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

You libs just don't get it. The trolls are right. Everything, from the decision to go to war, to its botched execution, to the criminally mismanaged aftermath, is the fault of the Democratic minority who failed to use their stranglehold on government power to stop George Bush from carrying out their desired wishes.

If the Democrats wanted a horribly mismanaged war based on lies, what was poor little Georgie to do?

Posted by: brewmn on March 14, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

An egregious war engineered by a coterie of fantasists who had been plotting against Saddam for a full decade before 911 has failed because: "you useless lefties chose to pitch a fit instead of lending a hand."

hahahahahaha

Get out of town.

Posted by: Lucy on March 14, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

"The cost of the war will be small. We can afford the war, and we'll put it behind us."

--Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, New York Times, 3/9/03

Yep, a 'cakewalk'.

$100,000/minute

Posted by: CFShep on March 14, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

where he was claiming that there is an ongoing genocide in the Balkans
Don't worry Stefan, I'm used to poor reading comprehension around here. I realize that our public education system isn't up to snuff, and the inability to read is a natural result.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

You know nut, I was right with you there, until the last sentence. "lend a hand" how, exactly? I don't see any of the 101st Keyboarders in there doing any street patrols, so what kind of "hand" is it that you require?

And if the answer is "blind obeisance", then good luck with that political strategy.

Posted by: craigie on March 14, 2006 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

brewmn: If the Democrats wanted a horribly mismanaged war based on lies, what was poor little Georgie to do?

Damn those Democrats made mad by the enormous power the GOP has handed them!

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

Even with his parting shot at "useless lefties", CN is finally admitting that W f'd up and Iraq is a total mess.

How soon before the rest of the trolls come around?

The time now, CN, is for you to move just a little further along and concede that people with sound judgment aren't exactly useless.

Posted by: exasperanto on March 14, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

Just substitute jews for liberals when the trolls start to bitch and they will all sound like who? Say what? A little Louder?

Posted by: Mc Mullah on March 14, 2006 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: I'm used to poor reading comprehension around here.

Then why don't you leave instead of constantly subjecting us to your poor reading comprehension?

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 11:25 AM | PERMALINK

"You loony lefties gave no counsel. It's kind of hard to claim you were ignored when you offered nothing to ignore."

"Contemptuous of the State Department's regional experts who were seen as too "soft" to remake Iraq, a small group of Pentagon officials ignored the elaborate postwar planning the State Department had overseen through its "Future of Iraq" project, which had anticipated many of the problems that emerged after the invasion. Instead of preparing for the worst, Pentagon planners assumed that Iraqis would joyously welcome U.S. and international troops as liberators. With Saddam's military and security apparatus destroyed, the thinking went, Washington could capitalize on the goodwill by handing the country over to Iraqi expatriates such as Ahmed Chalabi, who would quickly create a new democratic state. Not only would fewer U.S. troops be needed at first, but within a year, the troop levels could drop to a few tens of thousands."

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040901faessay83505/larry-diamond/what-went-wrong-in-iraq.html

"Most Middle East specialists in the United States could have predicted -- and often did -- the high levels of prolonged resistance American forces have encountered in Iraq. The Bush administration not only didn't ask them, it has frequently sought to belittle the scholars who know the region best, or to impugn their patriotism. So said Columbia University historian Rashid Khalidi in a May 27 talk at UCLA for the Center for Near Eastern Studies."

http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=12443

Yep, those loony lefties in the State Department should have fought their way into the Coalition Government at gunpoint if necessary, and forced their policies onto Garner and Bremer. They should have known those guys weren't accountable for their actions, being totally out of touch with reality. It's all the fault of the lefties.

Posted by: cowalker on March 14, 2006 at 11:26 AM | PERMALINK

Standard wingnut strategy: we broke it, but we blame the moonbats for not fixing it.

Posted by: alex on March 14, 2006 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

Don't worry Stefan, I'm used to poor reading comprehension around here. I realize that our public education system isn't up to snuff, and the inability to read is a natural result.

conspiracy nut yesterday: The Serbs and Bosnians are currently killing each other about as fast as they can.

Of course, that depends on the meaning of what "currently" is...if by "currently" he means "twelve years ago."

Posted by: Stefan on March 14, 2006 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

anon c., cn:

Isn't it odd that Blair's all-time hero is Trotsky, the ultimate "Leftie", surely. What price the attack on the Lefties, huh, cn? But there is v. little difference between a Fascist dictator and a Marxist one, is there?

anon c. --- the same sort of people were bleating in Blair's ear back in the 90s and early 00s as they were in Bush's. Look at the PNAC and who were/are its pals in the UK. One is still Foreign Secretary, another is V important at the EU in Brussels, the others ???

The British Charge d'Affaires in Baghdad back when GHW Bush was A-comin' had interesting things to say too, just like Mr Sawers.

It is time for the US to get out of the colony business and to do what we do best, sell things to people! The most important colony to get out of is Israel; the US would be amazed to see how quickly Israel would make peace with its neighbors if we stopped giving them money!

Posted by: maunga on March 14, 2006 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

I love the smell of wingnuts screaming were all victims it's your fault.

Posted by: not jenna on March 14, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

You know nut, I was right with you there, until the last sentence.
I planned it that way. I love it when I write a comment with a single gig at the end. You've no doubt noticed that not a moonbat one has responded to the comment, only the gig. You included. You guys are great.

so what kind of "hand" is it that you require?
Obviously the US Armed Forces doesn't need any assistance in brute application of force. A good example of this was the lobbing of a few tank rounds into a building because of a sniper. The Army can apply force.

But the direction and intensity that application of force takes is not always the same. There are times to level a building because of a sniper, and there are times not to. But there are trade-offs to be made. For example, in the article the British complained of patrols in armored vehicles rather than on foot. Foot patrols are more conducive for people contact, goodwill; but more deadly for the soldiers.

I'm of the opinion that we pushed a national government when we should have pushed local government as rapidly as possible. It seems to me that the Iraqi people would be most interested in local things (most people are), eating, jobs, schools, law enforcement. I believe a national government could, and should, have waited. I have no doubt a substantive counter-argument could be made.

There are all kinds of things that could have been reasonably discussed, both from a larger viewpoint and from the detail level. But you lefties choose to start screaming "Quagmire" during the 3 weeks it took us to knock off Saddam's government. It was clear you had no interest outside of causing as much damage to the United States as possible.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

Who's this "we," Kemosabe?

Posted by: Lucy on March 14, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

It is time for the US to get out of the colony business and to do what we do best, sell things to people! The most important colony to get out of is Israel; the US would be amazed to see how quickly Israel would make peace with its neighbors if we stopped giving them money! Posted by: maunga

Yep. The Cold war is over, and the illegal colony of Israel (the U.S. 53rd state, after Puerta Rico and Guam) has no oil. Therefore, why do we continue to prop it? Let's get back to the sphere of influences school of foreign affairs. If we're going to throw good money after bad, it should at least be in the Carribean Basin and Olde Mexico. They've at least got oil and nice beaches.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 14, 2006 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

But nut, Are you guys not in charge of everything? Have we lefties not been reduced to a screaming mass of moonbats? Didn't the Bush team recruit the best and brightest from the Heritage Think Tank to run operations on the ground? Were the ammo dumps secured as US forces rolled through Iraq? Isn't GOD on your side?

Posted by: Neo on March 14, 2006 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

"It was clear you had no interest outside of causing as much damage to the United States as possible."

OK, I'm done with you.

Posted by: Lucy on March 14, 2006 at 11:44 AM | PERMALINK

There are all kinds of things that could have been reasonably discussed, both from a larger viewpoint and from the detail level. But you lefties choose to start screaming "Quagmire" during the 3 weeks it took us to knock off Saddam's government. It was clear you had no interest outside of causing as much damage to the United States as possible.

If you would take off your helmet, and think back to those halcyon days of the early invasion, you would recall that the purveyors of this "war" installed people in Iraq based on their blind loyalty to the GOP cause, not on any actual skills they may have had. So we got Young Republicans with good Rovian resumes running things in Iraq. Meanwhile, NGOs with actual, you know, experience at this sort of thing were shunted off to the side, ignored, and/or encouraged to leave. Because the mighty GOP had it all in hand.

This complaint of yours now sounds a bit like "why didn't you guys catch me before I murdered again!? It's all your fault!"

Posted by: craigie on March 14, 2006 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

How, exactly, did liberals complaining about the lack of a Bush plan prevent Bush from implementing his plan? Was he just too scared of those big bad lefties and the mean things they were saying? Too thin-skinned and sensitive of other people's opinions?

The fact is that Bush has had an unlimited free hand in dealing with Iraq -- he's gotten all the men and all the money he's asked for. To now blame his abject failure on the excuse of "you liberals didn't clap loud enough -- don't you know I can't do my best work unless I hear people clapping for me!" is beyond pathetic and more than a little crazy -- which, come to think of it, is a fair description of Republicans today.

Posted by: Stefan on March 14, 2006 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

Neo's answer is shorter and better than mine.

Posted by: craigie on March 14, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

"There are a couple of lamentable things on the post war activity. First, we had the British there and did not lean on their expertise."

I was amazed to see the US in Iraq make similar (but bigger in magnitude) screw-ups as did the Brits in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s. It was tragic.

"Isn't it odd that Blair's all-time hero is Trotsky, the ultimate "Leftie", surely."

Hero? You're smoking crack. Blair rose in the Labour Party during the internecine intra-party warfare, when the Laboru Party was kicking out Trotskyists out of its ranks. (I remember people walking around national meetings of Labour Students with "Ramon Mercador Fan Club" at the time.)

He may have enjoyed Isaac Deutscher's biography of Trotsky, but that's a pretty different kettle of fish than admiring Trotsky himself. Just 'cos one enjoys, say, Milo Djilas' "Conversations with Stalin" doesn't make one a Stalinist.

Posted by: Urinated State of America on March 14, 2006 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

not jenna: love the smell of wingnuts screaming were all victims it's your fault.

Clearly, it is the smell of desperation.

Not the fake desperation attributed by Dickless to the insurgency, but the real desperation that is informed by 36% approval for the president and a one-point deficit to the Dems on national security.

conspiracy nut: A good example of this was the lobbing of a few tank rounds into a building because of a sniper.

And if that doesn't work, we can simply nuke the next building.

After all, if dozens, hundreds, thousands, or even millions of innocent people get killed, it's all okay as long as we get one bad guy!

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks Craigie, I'm honored. Hey group hug.

Posted by: Neo on March 14, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

Obviously the US Armed Forces doesn't need any assistance in brute application of force. A good example of this was the lobbing of a few tank rounds into a building because of a sniper. The Army can apply force.

Yeah - those toddlers should know better than to be in their homes when their big brothers decide to take a few shots at a US Army tank. And the most effective strategy for responding to small acts of violence by local rowdies is to incinerate their entire block. That's been proven by our successful pacification of Iraq.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 14, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK
Weren't liberals screaming because troops weren't given enough heavily armored vehicles?

So? Even if this British diplomat were somehow a representative of the Grand Liberal Hive Mind, there is no inconsistency between arguing both that troops need to have more heavily armored vehicles, and they have to be more willing and ready to come out of them and do policing when appropriate.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 14, 2006 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, so our kvetching that the Iraqi adventure was a bad situation, actually turned it into a bad situation? Damn, that's some mighty powerful magical thinking.

(it's really scary to consider that some people might really believe this propaganda. Bush would have done everything perfectly if only it weren't for the nefarious snivelling of liberals!)

Posted by: Librul on March 14, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

Obviously the US Armed Forces doesn't need any assistance in brute application of force. A good example of this was the lobbing of a few tank rounds into a building because of a sniper. The Army can apply force.

Yeah - those toddlers should know better than to be in their homes when their big brothers decide to take a few shots at a US Army tank. And the most effective strategy for responding to small acts of violence by local rowdies is to incinerate their entire block. That's been proven by our successful pacification of Iraq. Posted by: brooksfoe

Yeah. We learned that from the Israeli army's great work in the Gaza. Look how effective it was for them. Nothing quite like the ol' stick in the beehive school of tactical warfare.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 14, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: It was clear you had no interest outside of causing as much damage to the United States as possible.

Yep. Liberals are responsible for the 2000+ American soldiers that have been killed in Iraq.

It wasn't Bush and the GOP putting tax cuts ahead of body and vehicle armor.

It wasn't Bush and the GOP rejecting the State Department's more comprehensive plan for post-War Iraq in favor of no plan by Rumsfeld and the Pentagon.

It wasn't Bush and the GOP putting a poorly trained force into Iraq.

It wasn't Bush and the GOP playing into the hands of the insurgents and terrorists by invading a country that was not involved in 9/11 and not a threat to the US.

It wasn't the fault of Bush and the GOP playing into the hands of the insurgents and terrorists by failing to secure weapons depots and allowing them to be looted.

It wasn't the fault of Bush and the GOP playing into the hands of the insurgents and terrorists by torturing and imprisoning innocent people and threatening the families of the incarcerated.

It wasn't the fault of Bush and the GOP that the war didn't pay for itself.

It wasn't the fault of Bush and the GOP that Bush declared victory by proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" prematurely.

It wasn't the fault of Bush and the GOP that Bush egged the terrorists on with "bring it on" language.

No, it was liberals who through sheer force of will pushed Bush and the GOP to do all these things.

LOL, cn, LOL.

Your lies are as transparent as your head.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

Also considering the armed forces have censored the information going to the troops (for instance Rush Limbaugh is o.k., but Air America isn't). It's pretty damn obvious that we "lefties" could not have demoralized the troops because they could hear, see, or read anything from the left.

So how is it CN that we "lefties" lost this war? Bush was given all the money and manpower and secrecy he asked for and yet it's somehow our fault?

Maybe your tiny little pea brain is slowly figuring out it's actually Bush's fault.

And maybe that's what's causing those nightmares.

Posted by: Dr. Morpheus on March 14, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

Please bear with me - having a senior moment.

First, we need to keep troops in Iraq to ensure against civil war.
However, if civil war breaks out, we will not take sides.

Thus, why the hell do we need to keep troops in Iraq????? Can envision a Marvelous ticker tape parade down Pennsylvania Avenue the first of November.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on March 14, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

Reads like a hit job on Garner and Franks. I'm sure they deserve it, but somehow I don't think Paul "Fire the Iraqi Army" Bremer deserves the light touch the article gives him.

Posted by: Boronx on March 14, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

Yep, those loony lefties in the State Department
First, I'm glad to see you recognize that the State Dept is loony. I consider that a huge step forward.

Second, your first article was a fine example of one-sided reporting (there was debate over the troop levels, which means there were also people arguing we had enough troops) and 20-20 hindsight. And since the sum total of the complaint about planning (that did not rely on hindsight) was that "the State Department's regional experts who were seen as too "soft" to remake Iraq, a small group of Pentagon officials ignored the elaborate postwar planning the State Department had overseen". It's real likely that, coming from the State Dept, it was too soft. But that one unsupported line from a one-sided article like that is not what is called a powerful argument.

Columbia University historian Rashid Khalidi
Ya, let's talk about Rashid Khalidi. link
Why not just get some Arafat quotes? I bet he had nasty things to say, too.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK
I mean this guy is criticizing the 'heavy metal' approach of American policing instead of foot patrols.

But footpatrols cost your men more lives. Less collateral damage, and possibly faster local acceptance of the troops but at the short term cost of more lives.

The key phrase, here, arguably being short term. It is, clearly, a cost that comes along with doing that kind of policing, but it is, or at least Sawer seems to think and other experts have said similar things, a necessary cost if you are going to build the trust and local relationships (and, frankly, sense of shared sacrifice with the population) that is going to let the local population see you and themselves as being on the same side, and produce cooperation and intelligence and allow you to acheive your strategic objective of turning the population sufficiently against the insurgency that they can be strategically defeated rather than beaten tactically in a series of battles while the population turns further and further against you, renewing the insurgency after each defeat.

Now, of course, if the objective is unattainable from the outset, your troops shouldn't be there at all. But if it is attainable, then to save lives in the short-term by sacrificing essential elements of mission success is to ask for a strategic failure, where the short-term savings in lives will be paid back, with interest, in long-term costs of occupation in a country whose population won't provide the trust and cooperation that you need to succeed in defeating an insurgency.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 14, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

The lack of interest in what went wrong just doesn't surprise me. Those who supported the invasion of Iraq will go on insisting it was the right thing to do while finding someone else to blame. There's a complete and total unwillingness on the right to look backward. They are driven by a deadly combination of strong individualism and anti-intellectualism that contributes to the right's conviction that they are right because they are well, just right and anyone who says different is unpatriotic. The political atmosphere here is unique and there's nothing like it anywhere else in the world. Maybe Australia comes close, but there isn't the same paranoia towards government. I fear it will not come out well. I've had conversations with intelligent people here who don't support the war, but still cling to the notion that this country veers in one direction for a while then self-corrects. So there's complacency or cynicism on the left, and on the right, well, there's just jingoism. It's a pretty lethal brew.

Posted by: ExBrit on March 14, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

Yep. Liberals are responsible for the 2000+ American soldiers that have been killed in Iraq.
Posted by: Advocate for God

Actually, they are. If the Dems in Congress weren't a bunch of losers, they'd have told Bush & Co. to go fuck themselve on the Iraq thing. Afghanistan was okay. But anyone with more that five brain cells to rub together would have remembered that overthrowing Saddam, regardless, had been Wolfie's wet dream since 1992.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 14, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

craigie
Neo's answer is shorter and better than mine.
Damn craigie, if that's all you got... But then tell me, if you moonbats have no power to oppose, why the hell are you opposing everything?

No, you and me both know that you lefties have wanted Iraq to fail from the beginning. Why else be screaming "Quagmire!" during the 3 weeks it took to take down Saddam's government?

Lucy
OK, I'm done with you.
I wasn't aware you had ever started.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

but somehow I don't think Paul "Fire the Iraqi Army" Bremer deserves the light touch the article gives him.
Posted by: Boronx

Got that right. When I read that he'd disbanded the Iraqi Army I remarked that he had to rank up there with Cardigan and the Charge of the Light Brigade. Later, I realized that was grossly unfair to Cardigan.

But they both got medals, right? Don't think Cardigan had to come back and report that he couldn't account for mountains of cash which had disappeared though.

Led around by Chalabi. Paid that asshole $30M or so...

'De-Baathification' worked so well, too. Fire all the mid-level civil servants who made the deteriorated infrastructure sort of work...brilliant.

Posted by: CFShep on March 14, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK
If the Dems in Congress weren't a bunch of losers, they'd have told Bush & Co. to go fuck themselve on the Iraq thing.

Which, of course, wouldn't have stopped the war, or stopped anyone from dying, but they should have done it anyway.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 14, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan
did liberals complaining about the lack of a Bush plan prevent Bush from implementing his plan?
Complaining about someone else's plan would be much more effective if you had a alternate plan. You are attempting to counter something with nothing.

To now blame his abject failure on the excuse of "you liberals didn't clap loud enough
Oh, there's plenty screwed up, and Bush will get to take his lumps. But you moonbats have no standing to deliver those lumps. Now this British article, the British have standing to do so. They actually tried to help, lefties didn't.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK
No, you and me both know that you lefties have wanted Iraq to fail from the beginning. Why else be screaming "Quagmire!" during the 3 weeks it took to take down Saddam's government?

There is a difference between having a brain and seeing where things are likely to head and wanting them to turn out that way.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 14, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

Nut that's just a mountain of pure Missisippi bullshit. Saying the left wants this or that is nonsense. I'd like to sleep with Paris Hilton what do you think my odds are?

Posted by: Neo on March 14, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

No, you and me both know that you lefties have wanted Iraq to fail from the beginning.

Huh. My recollection was that I asked all of us lefties to vote on what we wanted, and the consensus was "pepperoni." There were a couple of holdouts for "mushrooms only", but we took them out back and shot them. Because if there is one thing we lefties are, it's all completely in sync with each other.

Not like the vibrant policy debates that we saw when King George announced that we would be boldly remaking the world into lollipops and ice cream for all (oh, and by the way, getting rid of chemical weapons and fake nukes).

Posted by: craigie on March 14, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

So there's complacency or cynicism on the left, and on the right, well, there's just jingoism. It's a pretty lethal brew.

I think there's less complacency on the left than there used to be, but perhaps not less cynicism. We have to work on that one.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 14, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

They actually tried to help, lefties didn't.

The "they" in that sentence is the British Labour Party government, a government tha, if it were in power in the US, would be seen as leftwing beyond any actual understanding, by the US Right. Their heads would explode if the Labour party were in charge of the Federal government.

Ah, the irony.

Posted by: craigie on March 14, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely
There is a difference between having a brain and seeing where things are likely to head and wanting them to turn out that way.
Nice try, you attempting to convince me, or you? What about all those fine, guaranteed to work plans from the State Dept I've heard about today? What about all those fine, guaranteed to work plans from lefty acadamia that I've heard about today? If all that guaranteed to win information is out there, what makes failure a foregone conclusion?

craigie
Not like the vibrant policy debates that we saw when King George announced that we would be boldly remaking the world into lollipops and ice cream for all Seems to me that you're having trouble recognizing an actual progressive goal when it gets put in front of you. And when that progressive goal gets put in front of you, you behave in a reactionary manner. What's up with that?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Better than mine, neo.

Posted by: Ace Franze on March 14, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

Their heads would explode if the Labour party were in charge of the Federal government.
Sure would, but that doesn't keep me from realizing that they would have accomplished the post war much better than Bush did.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

Complaining about someone else's plan would be much more effective if you had a alternate plan. You are attempting to counter something with nothing.

Oh, we had plans, as everyone knows: don't invade Iraq, but destroy Al Qaeda first. If you do invade Iraq, do it with enough allies. If you do invade Iraq without enough allies, do it with enough men so you can provide security. If you do invade Iraq without enough allies and enough men and don't provide security, at least be serious about reconstruction. If you do invade Iraq without enough allies and enough men and don't provide security and aren't serious about reconstruction, at least don't disband the Iraqi Army so tens of thousands of embittered and armed men will have nothing to do but join the resistance...ad nauseum.

Oh, there's plenty screwed up, and Bush will get to take his lumps. But you moonbats have no standing to deliver those lumps. Now this British article, the British have standing to do so. They actually tried to help, lefties didn't.

First, I'm glad to see you recognize that Bush screwed up. I consider that a huge step forward.

Second, ah, I see, the people who were right all along have no standing to claim they were right all along, (presumabley because they were right all along?) but the people who went along with the huge screwup do have standing....If conspiracy nut had drunkenly driven his car in a ditch he'd be saying "those of you who didn't get in the car with me because they knew I was drunk have no standing to criticize me for crashing. Only the guy who got in the car with me knowing I was drunk has standing."

Third, what's Bush's plan for ending what you claim is the ongoing genocide in the Balkans between the Bosnians and the Serbs? Seems to me that if there was such a genocide Bush might want to do something about it....


Posted by: Stefan on March 14, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

If all that guaranteed to win information is out there, what makes failure a foregone conclusion?

The fact that Bush and the Republicans are in charge.

Posted by: Stefan on March 14, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, we had plans, as everyone knows
Everything you listed was given in hindsight. That not a plan, that's a review. It's easy to be right when you're looking backwards.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: First, I'm glad to see you recognize that the State Dept is loony.

That's cn for you.

The only department to actually come up with a detailed plan for post-war Iraq was "loony".

. . . you and me both know that you lefties have wanted Iraq to fail from the beginning.

We don't know lies.

You know lies.

We don't.

Telling them over and over won't get us to know your lies as truth.

But keep trying and keep clapping.

It's all you got.

Bush's 36% approval rating, along with other polling numbers on the war in Iraq and the so-called GWOT, is proof that the vast majority of Americans are of the opinion that the Bush policy is a failure, both in intent and execution.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK
Nice try, you attempting to convince me, or you?

Neither; I'm stating a fact. You, of course, are a mindless partisan troll, so are incapable of being convinced of anything.


What about all those fine, guaranteed to work plans from the State Dept I've heard about today? What about all those fine, guaranteed to work plans from lefty acadamia that I've heard about today?

What "fine, guaranteed to work" plans? I think you are confusing "better than the complete absence of a plan" with "fine, guaranteed to work plan".

Posted by: cmdicely on March 14, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

So if I told you not to stick your hand under that running lawnmower and you did would it be your fault or mine. That's a parable son. And thanks Ace.

Posted by: Neo on March 14, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: What about all those fine, guaranteed to work plans from the State Dept I've heard about today?

See, there you go lying again.

Nobody said "guaranteed to work" about the State Department plans.

As typical of your comments, you insert additional context not originally present to present a false picture of what has been claimed and then try to demolish the resulting strawman.

Let's break it down: you lie, constantly, about the facts in evidence, about the statements liberals have allegedly made, about what the Bush administration has accomplished, and about the historical record.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

Complaining about someone else's plan would be much more effective if you had a alternate plan. You are attempting to counter something with nothing.

We keep letting this line slide because it's just too tedious to respond with all of the voluminous suggestions and ideas which Democrats, leftists, and non-Americans begged the Administration and CPA to take up throughout the entire invasion and occupation, but which were completely ignored.

Let us start with: Do not invade.

Then we move on to: Implement the State Department plan, which relied greatly on broad consultation with a wide array of forces in Iraqi society. It was shelved in favor of...nothing - a couple of memos thrown together in 6 weeks when the Pentagon realized "oh, shit, we're gonna have to run the country - duh!"

Then we come upon: Send more troops, not less - i.e. follow the Powell Doctrine. Who, incidentally, was the guy in charge at State, which you think was "too soft". (More troops = too soft. Conservatives have rotorooters for brains.) He was also the most intensely popular SecState WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT in decades - and I say this as someone who knows a lot of people at State. Your notion that State is "soft" is drawn I believe from comic books, or watching Lethal Weapon, or something?

Then we get to: contract rebuilding jobs quickly to Iraqi contractors, NOT American ones. Liberals were screaming about this idiocy from Week 1. It took Halliburton months to ramp up; they charged ten times as much as local contractors; they had to employ massive security on every job, where local contractors didn't, again slowing things down and raising costs. Not getting electricity up = popular disillusionment with US = US soldiers die, country sinks towards civil war.

Then we have: hold elections quickly. Liberals and Al-Sistani both denounced the ridiculous Bremer plan to set up a US puppet gov't through bogus caucuses. The Bush Admin kicked and screamed as Al-Sistani dragged them into finally holding free elections six months after they should have been held. Then Bush claimed credit for them.

Next we come to: do everything with the maximum possible participation of the UN at all times. Do not bypass genuine international structures, because you will need them to ensure the legitimacy of the regime you put in. But we stiffed the UN, and as a result the regime we put in was illegitimate. We also lost a lot of NGO participation that way.

But finally, a lot of the mistakes the Bush Admin made didn't get sustained suggestions from liberals because no liberals imagined they would ever do anything so stupid as, e.g., putting a bunch of recent college grads with no experience in development work in charge of massive development budgets. The Bush Admin just threw out the rulebook of how to do pacification, reconstruction and nation-building - because it had all been developed by liberals, one supposes, over the course of humanitarian interventions from Biafra to East Timor, and was thus all too "soft" or something.

In every liberal critique I have seen of Bush Admin performance in Iraq over the last 3 years, all of the above proposals and many others were brightly in evidence. Conservatives denounced them all, and the Bush Admin ignored them. And now ye reap what ye have sowed. Poor Iraq.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 14, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

ExBrit,
You are not the only one who is awestruck. It is a real question how a nation so historically dedicated to pragmatism, a nation that was able to, at once, supply the global effort to defeat the Nazi machine, crush the Japanese empire by chasing it across the Pacific, and to provide the resources to rebuild Europe, and set the stage for post-war prosperity, could have been so blindly led into Iraq and so incapable of even properly responding to a natural disaster like Katrina. And after these failures, no one seriously addresses the question of leadership and government. It is just wallpapered over.

Posted by: bellumregio on March 14, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

It's easy to be right when you're looking backwards.

Not so easy for you, apparently.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 14, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK

There is a difference between having a brain and seeing where things are likely to head and wanting them to turn out that way.

Just as, for example, when people warned Bush before Katrina hit that the levees would break it was because they wanted them to break....

Posted by: Stefan on March 14, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan: Just as, for example, when people warned Bush before Katrina hit that the levees would break it was because they wanted them to break....

Or when conservatives warned that many US deaths would occur in Bosnia and Kosovo because they wanted a lot of American soldiers to die there . . .

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

What about all those fine, guaranteed to work plans from lefty acadamia that I've heard about today?

All those fine, guaranteed to work plans always started out "Do not invade! It's too risky!" Then, if anyone were so dumb as to go ahead and invade, they'd made some recommendations for how to at least try to make the best of it. But what the hell, ignore those too - how bad can it get?

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 14, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Everything you listed was given in hindsight. That not a plan, that's a review.

No, it was all predicted well ahead of time, as is amply demonstrated by the historical record.

It's easy to be right when you're looking backwards.

Then why can't you do it? C'mon, it's easy!

Posted by: Stefan on March 14, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Beatcha by 7 minutes, Stefan.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 14, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

There is a difference between having a brain and seeing where things are likely to head and wanting them to turn out that way.

Sorry, but if someone figured out a way to get electricity from harnessing the Schadenfreude generated by the Left at every setback in Iraq, we wouldn't need to import oil. I get a lot of indignation when I say that many liberals are hoping for a loss in Iraq. Still, if you actually paid someone to root for the other side, what would they say that was one bit different?

BTW, I don't remember a lot of liberals predicting that our main problem would be a long-term insurgency during those first three weeks. As I recall, we were going to be tied down in Baghdad for months by the Iraqi military.

Dr. Morpheus:

Armed Forces Radio plays one hour of Rush. NPR plays 24 hours a day. I think they get all the news they want to hear, and most of them have a pretty dim view of how what they're doing is presented.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 14, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

brooksfoe
all of the voluminous suggestions and ideas which Democrats, leftists,...
Ya, I remember all those devastating arguments that were made against the war. They were able to persuade all the Democrats and a majority of Republicans to vote against the authorization for war... Oh wait...

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

Damn you, brooksfoe! *shaking fist* You're always one step ahead!

Posted by: Stefan on March 14, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

Beatcha by 7 minutes, Stefan.
You're proud of your headlong rush to display an abysmal ignorance of what was actually said before the war?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: Sorry, but if someone figured out a way to get electricity from harnessing the Schadenfreude generated by the Left at every setback in Iraq, we wouldn't need to import oil.

Then again the electricity that could be harnessed from figuring out a way to get it from tbrosz comments every time governmental programs suffer a setback would dwarf the energy generated by the Left from all sources combined.

As I recall, we were going to be tied down in Baghdad for months by the Iraqi military.

Ahhh, tbrosz seems to be experiencing the first signs of Alzheimers too.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

All those fine, guaranteed to work plans always started out "Do not invade! It's too risky!"

Unfortunately for the wingnuts the anti-war crowd had it right -- and if they were to admit this to themselves their heads would explode.

Barring that, we're left arguing a world of wingnut talking points versus what happened in reality, two radically different narratives which skew away from one another.

Posted by: Windhorse on March 14, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: They were able to persuade all the Democrats and a majority of Republicans to vote against the authorization for war... Oh wait...

Oh, wait, the so-called authorization for war was predicated on certain conditions that Bush ignored, making conspiracy nut a liar by omission . . .

What a surprise that cn would misrepresent a situation, action, or comment by deliberately ignoring, misstating, or omitting necessary context!

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

so are incapable of being convinced of anything.
Hey, you convinced me the other day. That was the first convincing argument you've made. This one is not.

Here be the facts: The left was largely silent prior to the war. As soon as the war started the left started screaming every bad thing they could think of that could happen.

Sure, some of those bad things were right. But don't be pretending the left ever tried to do anything useful.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

Come on, people! There's light at the end of the Iraqi tunnel! Help is on the way! Democracy is on the March! Now More Than Ever! The lift of a Driving Dream! Damn the Torpedos! We'll Fall Down When the Iraqis Sit Up!

Posted by: Doofus on March 14, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

AfG
Ahhh, tbrosz seems to be experiencing the first signs of Alzheimers too.
You're too stoopid to reply to, but it doesn't take much work to find reams of article like this.

Precision bombing and lightning-fast tank columns got US-led forces within kilometres of Baghdad, but now they are days - perhaps hours - from the hardest task: brutal combat measured block by block in a maze of city streets.
Want me to find some previous articles where lefties were claiming that those "lightning-fast tank columns" were bogged down in a quagmire?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

I get a lot of indignation when I say that many liberals are hoping for a loss in Iraq.

And rightly so, tbrosz. Shame on you.

Still, if you actually paid someone to root for the other side, what would they say that was one bit different?

Okay, tbrosz, I call. What comments exactly do you claim "root for the other side"? Put up or shut up.

Posted by: Gregory on March 14, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

"The left was largely silent prior to the war" -- Conspiracy Nut."

Utter, unadulterated horse manure. The left was very outspoken in its opposition. Why didn't the American public hear about it? Because the "librul" "main stream media" didn't deign to cover it. Too busy covering missing white women and Michael Jackson.

Posted by: Doofus on March 14, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

You're proud of your headlong rush to display an abysmal ignorance of what was actually said before the war?

Oh, if only I could forget the things that were said before the war. "It'll be a cakewalk", "our troops will be greeted as liberators", "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"...

The voluminous and ultimately correct arguments of numerous Democrats, liberals, and non-Americans that the war was a bad idea were unfortunately unable to convince every Democratic Senator to vote against the war, because those Senators were naively committed to giving the President what they felt was the bargaining power he needed to maneuver against Saddam. Had they known that the President had no fickin' clue what he was doing, pehaps they might have reconsidered. They were also concerned that voting against the war would be seen as being "weak on national defense". What a laugh that turned out to be. Who got 2300 American troops killed for nothing?

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 14, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Oh...almost forgot.

BTW, I don't remember a lot of liberals predicting that our main problem would be a long-term insurgency during those first three weeks.

Well, I wouldn't call Colin Powell or GHWB liberals, but by 2001 they had sure convinced me that invading and occupying Iraq did indeed pose the risk of local insurgency, not to mention the difficulty of holding together the disparate factions in Iraq.

I wouldn't like to speak for all liberal, of course, but I can say for the record that not even I imagined Bush and Company would screw up the occupation quite as thoroughly as they have.

Still and all, tbrosz' use of his loathsome Dolschtoss argument is yet another indication that all his clapping and faith in the incompetent, mendacious and corrupt Bush Administration was for naught, and he now seeks to cast blame for what he perceives, even if he isn't quite ready to admit it yet, as a failure.

Shame on you, tbrosz.

Posted by: Gregory on March 14, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

The left was largely silent prior to the war.

OMG! How you can even write that without falling onto your keyboard struck dead and flattened by the total weight of bullshit is a mystery to me. This is a perfect example of what I said upthread "Those who supported the invasion of Iraq will go on insisting it was the right thing to do while finding someone else to blame." Now it's the fault of the left for not speaking up sooner or loudly enough. There is more than ample evidence to testify to the fact that the left spoke loudly and often, but were shouted down by jingoistic rightwingers screaming about being unpatriotic after 9/11. You know this, cn. I know you do, and you need to get over your unwillingness to deal with it.

Posted by: ExBrit on March 14, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

Utter, unadulterated horse manure.
Ya, I still remember the persuasive arguments that caused the authorization for use of force to be defeated soundly in Congress.

I just can't get that memory out of my head.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

OK, clowns.

Explain to me the vote for authorization of use of force since there were so many compelling arguments against out there.

Go ahead.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, I don't remember a lot of liberals predicting that our main problem would be a long-term insurgency during those first three weeks. As I recall, we were going to be tied down in Baghdad for months by the Iraqi military. Posted by: tbrosz

Actually, the prediction of this was within the State Department and military intelligence. That their cautions went unheeded is well-documented.

See the following:

Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb 2003
An Unnecessary War
John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

In Rumsfeld's Shop
A senior Air Force officer watches as the neocons consolidate their Pentagon coup.

By Karen Kwiatkowski

This article first appeared in the 01 December 03 issue of American Conservative. Reprinted by permission.

The Atlantic Monthly | January/February 2004

Blind Into Baghdad


The U.S. occupation of Iraq is a debacle not because the government did no planning but because a vast amount of expert planning was willfully ignored by the people in charge. The inside story of a historic failure

by James Fallows
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200401/fallows
http://militaryweek.com/kk120103.shtml

Posted by: Jeff II on March 14, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

Here be the facts: The left was largely silent prior to the war. As soon as the war started the left started screaming every bad thing they could think of that could happen.

You must be fucking kidding me.

All over the planet the largest anti-war marches and protests collectively in history took place. Literally millions of people took to the streets around the world in the months prior to the invasion. New York, DC, LA, London, Tokyo, Melbourne, Berlin, Rome, Madrid, Halifax, Paris and much of France -- and on and on and on.

Not only did we talk about how the invasion of Iraq was immoral -- a view shared by Pope John Paul II, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Desmond Tutu, and just about every major religious leader on the planet -- we also had far beyond the second grade knowledge of the country needed to accurately predict that it would dissolve into sectarian chaos once its government was overthrown and that the people of Iraq would suffer greatly for it.

Which is tragically exactly what happened.

No more base revisionism. It's insulting to the Iraqis more than anything else, and only heaps insult upon their injuries.

Posted by: Windhorse on March 14, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Want me to find some previous articles where lefties were claiming that those "lightning-fast tank columns" were bogged down in a quagmire?

Now, really, I wouldn't claim too much credit for realizing that urban combat -- through which, of course, the insurgency has created the current quagmire -- was much more difficult and risky than destroying outdated columns of Soviet-model tanks. Sun Tzu cautioned against extended campaigns of occupation centuries ago.

It is, of course, a reflection on the Bush water carriers that they flaunt their stupidity, and the Administration's, in not recognizing or preparing for that difficult task. Even after GHWB and Colin Powell warned against exactly that following the first Gulf War.

Posted by: Gregory on March 14, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

You know what I can't get out of my head, "Conspiracy Nut"? Idiot trolls like you carrying water for the most corrupt, criminal, and incompetent administration in American history, seeing no fault even where the corruption and crimes are self-evident. And yet, when Bill Clinton was the president, he couldn't sneeze without provoking appointment of a special counsel by the Rethugs and multiple, coordinated press conferences and public relations offensives condemming his "inappropriate" actions. You're pathetic. And I think that, deep down, you know it.

Posted by: Doofus on March 14, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: You're proud of your headlong rush to display an abysmal ignorance of what was actually said before the war?

Apparently you at least are proud of such an accomplishment, although in your case I suspect it's not so much ignorance as dishonesty about what was said.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

The rush to war - a play in two acts

Act I
"We have to invade Iraq! They have Nukes (wink wink)!! Lookee here, inspections aren't working! We are going to be attacked by model airplanes that fly 8 billion miles to Manhattan and nuke us! If you don't vote for this, you are a traitor and are guilty of treason and let's go go go!"

Act II
"Hey, why didn't you treasonous, traitorious lefty commie bastards help us out? We hate you and everything you have ever said, done, or stood for, but we would have loved your help. Honest. Right after we finished calling for your executions. Hey buddy, don't you know gentle kidding when you hear it? Where are you going? Why didn't you tell us we were making a mistake? THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT, YOU BASTARDS! YOU KNOW HOW WEAK WE ARE WHEN IT COMES TO SOLVING ALL PROBLEMS THROUGH VIOLENCE! You shoulda coulda woulda, you fuckers..." (repeat ad nauseum, and I do mean nauseum)

Posted by: craigie on March 14, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Want me to find some previous articles where lefties were claiming that those "lightning-fast tank columns" were bogged down in a quagmire?

You haven't found one yet.

Quoting an article from Australia provides no evidence of statements by American liberals.

Try, try again . . .

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory
As soon as troops crossed the border the left was screaming quagmire. The troops were going to be bled as they worked their way to Baghdad. Wrong.

The troops stopped for a sandstorm outside of Baghdad and I thought the left was going to blow a collective gasket. Oh my God, they were screaming, it's all over, we can't do it. Wrong again.

Then we get to the time frame of that article. Wailing and chest beating that we would be months in a bloody building to building street fight that would bleed our army. Wrong again.

When I say that the left hollered about every potential problem that they could think of, I mean the left hollered about every potential problem they could think of.

Now, since the left pissed and moaned about the miserable execution and dire consequences of the assault on Baghdad (which in retrospect has to be one the all time best waged campaigns in the history of campaigns), why am I supposed to agree that the pissing and moaning about the post war was serious?

No, I'm afraid it was pissing and moaning just to piss and moan.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Explain to me the vote for authorization of use of force since there were so many compelling arguments against out there.

It was a dumb mistake. It's sort of like trying to explain why your buddy got taken for $50 playing three card monte, when there are so many compelling arguments against playing three card monte out there. It doesn't reflect particularly well on the card sharp who's running the three card monte grift though.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 14, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

cn is outgunned, undermanned, ill-informed, and self-delusional. This thread for him must be just like the war--an ongoing, slowly unfolding disaster. He may yet reach the same end as Bush will--an organized retreat.

Where are his reinforcements? They appear to have taken the day off.

Posted by: kaptain kapital on March 14, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

Idiot trolls like you carrying water for the most corrupt, criminal, and incompetent administration in American history
That's funny, where do you see me doing that? You moonbats happen to be more wrong than even Bush (congratulations on that, by the way, that's no mean feat).

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Explain to me the vote for authorization of use of force since there were so many compelling arguments against out there.

Because within that authorization was the promise and recommendation to use other means first.

Bush cut short those efforts, not to mention that he misled Congress with false or incomplete data concerning Iraq's WMDs and programs, so the vote, even if it had been for what you say it was for, was based on a fraudulent set of information presented by the administration - Congress, at least many of the Dems, was conned, something you continue to ignore in your mendacious attempt to use the resolution vote as some kind of evidence in support of your argument.

Once again, you deliberately remove context and misrepresent the evidence.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

It was a dumb mistake.
Your explanation is that Democrats are dumb? OK, I can actually accept that argument. But that also means that we've got no business relying on them for anything. And no reason to pay attention when they tell us there has been a mistake.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: As soon as troops crossed the border the left was screaming quagmire. The troops were going to be bled as they worked their way to Baghdad. Wrong.

Saying something is a possibility, even if you were to prove your claim which you haven't, is not the same as asserting a certainty, which is what you are claiming liberals did.

Wrong again; try again.

Then we get to the time frame of that article.

From Australia.

From a news organization IN AUSTRALIA.

Not from American liberals.

Quit peddling it - no one is buying.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

I would laugh over our trolls having nothing better to do than complain about our complainings. Instead of posting here, you could be taking steps to right the situation in Iraq -- demanding Rumsfeld's resignation, for instance. Or calling for U.S. officials administering aid in Iraq to be hired on the basis of competence rather than loyalty to the Bush administration. I say YOU since liberals are blocked from power, at least until the next elections.

However, there's nothing humorous about gross incompetence and corruption causing death and suffering in Iraq. Nothing funny about the diminishment of our nation either.

Posted by: Librul on March 14, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

(which in retrospect has to be one the all time best waged campaigns in the history of campaigns)

....against an utterly insignificant foe, akin to the "brilliance" exhibited by the schoolyard bully taking down the 98 lb. weakling. Even in "retrospect" your vision is clouded by your overweening jingoistic hubris.

Posted by: kaptain kapital on March 14, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

AfG
It's no problem that the article is from a lefty in Australia. All you moonbats share the same brain.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

It's almost impossible to keep track of the daily scandals of the Bush Administration, but here's yet another one:

Corruption among Bush appointees at the CIA?

by Mark Kleiman
Category: Corruption in Washington

Looks as if one of the political cronies Porter Goss brought in to help him make the CIA a BushCo lapdog was involved in giving a big contract to an old friend of his who happens to have been one of the bribors in the Duke Cunningham case.

The Bush Machine corrupts everything it touches. And nothing not even the war effort is exempt.

Hat tip: The Huffington Post.

Written on March 13, 2006 12:59 AM PST
TrackBack (0) | | Other blogs commenting on this post

Posted by: Town Crier on March 14, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

against an utterly insignificant foe
Then why all the carping from the left about the difficulty of the task? The quagmire that we were facing?

You guys are too much fun.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: All you moonbats share the same brain.

Since we don't except your theory as true, we don't accept an article from Australia as proving your point that the Dems specifically, and American liberals generally, proclaimed the war a quagmire, even if that were in fact what the article from Australia even said.

BTW, the article does not include the word "quagmire" so, applying the same conservative standards used to defend Bush from claims he proclaimed the threat from Iraq to be imminent, it cannot be used to show any liberal anywhere proclaimed anything to be a quagmire.

Feel free to play again.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

All you moonbats share the same brain.

Brilliant rhetorical reply, cn!!! Which allows one to respond in kind: "At least we moonbats have a brain to share".

What next? Spitwads at twenty paces?

Grow up.

Posted by: kaptain kapital on March 14, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

"Then why all the carping from the left about the difficulty of the task?"

Then shut us up. Show how the task was accomplished easily.

Posted by: kaptain kapital on March 14, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, we wouldn't be having this discussion if Iraq was more the right's predictions of a "cakewalk" than the quagmire -- and, oddly enough, a quagmire based on bloody, inconclusive urgan combat at that -- it currently is.

George H.W. Bush, Colin Powell, and many on the left all recognized that defeating Saddam's military would be relatively easy; after all, his armor and mechanized forces had been routed back in '91, and the balance of power had only shifted in the US's favor. They also recognized that defeating Saddam's regular forces would only lead to a risky occupation fraught with risk to American loves, treasure, and security. Risks, of course, the the mendacity, incompetence and corruption of the Bush regime only compounded.

It's notable that some of our more reliable trolls are still pushing their dishonesty, when all but the purest Kool-Aid drinkers have realized that Bush has screwed the pooch in Iraq. Indeed, as I pointed out, the very nature of their dishonesty indicates that they know, and are now desperate to pin the blame elsewhere. I only chuckle at their desperation, while marveling at their dishonesty and self-delusion in pushing a line not even they seem to believe.

tbrosz isn't clapping any more.

Posted by: Gregory on March 14, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

Windhorse
Literally millions of people took to the streets around the world
Sorry, missed this earlier.

The numbers in those marches was universally overinflated. Were you around for actual anti-war protests in the '60s?

And given the involvement in the OfF payola, I'm not inclined to worry about protests from people that we were about to hit in the pocketbook.

But I still ask the same question: Why did the vote for authorization of use of force pass overwhelmingly?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

As soon as troops crossed the border the left was screaming quagmire. The troops were going to be bled as they worked their way to Baghdad

Kind of like "Mission Accomplished" ?

Or the right telling us that the troops would be greeted as liberators with flowers ?

Or that the war would only cost a couple of billion ? Would pay for itself with Iraqi oil ?

Or that it wouldn't require many troops ?

Democracy sweeping through the middle east ?

Three years later, who was closer to being right ? The people who predicted a quagmire or the people who thought it would be measured in "weeks not years" ?

When does anybody on the right take responsibility for anything ? This is the biggest "pass the buck" administration in history- always blaming somebody else.

As far as the "Resolution of Force" goes, I guess the left's biggest mistake was trusting that Bush knew what he was doing.

Posted by: Stephen on March 14, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

News flash Rush says were losing.

Posted by: Neo on March 14, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: You guys are too much fun.

Not as fun as you!

Since American generals were making virtually identical statements about the possibilities of heavy urban fighting and heavier casualties than during the initial phases of invasion, then American generals, all of whom you claim are conservatives (except when they disagree with you in which case you arbitrarily proclaim them to be liberals), were also calling it a "quagmire" in the early days.

So, based on your own interpretive standards, conservatives were proclaiming the situation a "quagmire" and therefore clearly wanted America to lose in Iraq.

Who would've though it - American conservatives in the military hate American and are allied to American liberals not in the military!

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

Here's some really good news for the ever-shrinking cadre of morons supporting our fearless Conniver in Chief: Chimpy's approval rating is stuck at 34% Even better news: 70% -- that's right, 70% of Americans now say that it was NOT worth the cost to invade Iraq.

Posted by: Doofus on March 14, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Well, it's a Republican war, honey, and that's just the way it is. You can wriggle and squirm, but this was George W. Bush's baby from start to finish, his unprecedentedly united party fell into goosestep behind him, and they all marched off to lose the war on terror on the IED-laced roads of Anbar. You got us into a war we had no business fighting, and you all deserve to be swinging from lampposts by your ankles.

But what's going on now in conservative ranks, among those who've gone down into the bunker, is pretty familiar behavior from the kinds of people who launch stupid wars: as they're going down to defeat, they find increasingly hallucinatory ways to insist that victory is still there to be grasped, that they've been stabbed in the back, and that the victims of their insane campaigns actually welcomed them with open arms. Same thing happened to the pro-war right over Vietnam in the mid-70s. Unfortunately, these kinds of bitter, psychotic reactions often live on in the political unconscious and wreak their idiotic revenge, rather than extinguishing themselves as they should. Insane rage that we had been wrong in Vietnam, and lost, got Reagan elected in 1980; insane rage that Germany had been wrong to launch World War I, and lost, got Hitler elected in 1933. Wonder what we'll get in 2012.

Posted by: brooksfoe on March 14, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

I know that engaging the intrinsically dishonest c.n. in actual debate is a mug's game, but this is such low hanging fruit:

Then why all the carping from the left about the difficulty of the task? The quagmire that we were facing?

Because the US military is excellent at fighting conventional wars and not so much at fighting insurgency. Duh.

Furthering my foolishness in expecting honesty from c.n., one can't help but wonder if he/she/it thinks that the predictions by GHWB and Colin Powell in justifying not taking Baghdad in '91 were wrong.

Posted by: Gregory on March 14, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Why does Great Britain hate America?

Posted by: eponymous coward on March 14, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory -

No, you missed the shift. They realize that the game is up. So the new meme is "it's all your fault".

If "the left" (whatever that is) had either:
1. Jumped in to help - nevermind that the only people allowed anywhere near Iraq were Young Republicans out to polish their resumes
2. Warned everyone that Bush is/was an idiot, or whatever

then it would all have turned out differently.

This might actually work, too, since "the left" feels guilty about almost everything, whereas conservatarians feel no guilt at all about anything - so a few more years of this, and we'll all be reading about how Michael Moore snatched defeat from the jaws of Rush Limbaugh, or something.

Posted by: craigie on March 14, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: The numbers in those marches was universally overinflated.

Yet, nearly not as overinflated as the egos of Bush and conspiracy nut, not to mention the vast overinflation that infects their political, social, and historical claims!

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Why did the vote for authorization of use of force pass overwhelmingly?

And still I answer: because they were given false information by Bush.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

kaptain
Show how the task was accomplished easily.
I recommend that you catch up on the reading here before you jump in. You might actually learn what task is being talked about there.

Gregory
realized that Bush has screwed the pooch in Iraq
Sure he has. And I've pointed out several reasons why. But that doesn't mean the left had any viable input at any time. The mere fact that some of their doomsaying was correct is meaningless. That is because everything was doom and gloom. They would like to ignore every time they were wrong, and claim they were right all along.

Hell, if you ignore all of Bush's mistakes he's been perfect, too.

Stefan
You actually brought up a couple of good points, and they'd be fun to pursue if you could learn to breathe through your nose. Other than those, ditto what I said to Gregory.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

craigie --

Obviously, I agree. My most recent post said:

It's notable that some of our more reliable trolls are still pushing their dishonesty, when all but the purest Kool-Aid drinkers have realized that Bush has screwed the pooch in Iraq. Indeed, as I pointed out, the very nature of their dishonesty indicates that they know, and are now desperate to pin the blame elsewhere. I only chuckle at their desperation, while marveling at their dishonesty and self-delusion in pushing a line not even they seem to believe.

I've also been calling tbrosz on his loathsome Dolschtoss argument for months now, as well as noting that his dusting it off indicates a tacit admission that Iraq is, in fact, lost.

Posted by: Gregory on March 14, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

Because the US military is excellent at fighting conventional wars and not so much at fighting insurgency. Duh.
No answer, Gregory. Why the carping and moaning about failure during the conventional portion?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: But that doesn't mean the left had any viable input at any time.

It doesn't mean that they didn't either.

There is plenty of evidence that the "Left" offered a number of alternatives.

You just didn't like them or think they were viable.

But that's not the same as "they weren't offered" or that they "weren't viable".

Your opinion on the former is a lie; you opinion on the latter has no credibility, particularly since you supported option that have now been clearly proven to be nonviable.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Why the carping and moaning about failure during the conventional portion?

We are not constrained by your hallucinations.

We cannot answer questions that are based on a false rendition of history.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

"Why the carping and moaning about failure during the conventional portion?" -- Conspiracy Nut

Nut, you are an accomplished practitioner of the straw man diversion, the red herring. My compliments. Because you know that the REAL reasons for the Left's opposition to the war included the following: (1) it was unprovoked; (2) the Afghanistan situation hadn't been closed out, and OBL hadn't been captured; (3) Bush and his fellow thugs were already using war and "terrorism" as a political bludgeon; (4) diplomacy, including the efforts of U.N. weapons inspectors, was far from being exhausted. But keep throwing those straw men at us, okay? At least you'll earn your RNC paycheck.

Posted by: Doofus on March 14, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

It's not very complicated.

Bush wanted a war and he made sure he got one. Mostly he used fear to freeze out the opposition.

Why? WMD's? Saddam? Halliburton? permanent bases? oil? rewarding friends? remaking the Middle East?

IT NO LONGER MATTERS.

What we have is one country destroyed (Iraq), another one entirely diminished in the eyes of the world (U.S.A.), and in the U.S.: huge misallocation of moneys to misbegotten government programs, effective one-party rule, a non-existent press - in the usual sense of the word.

And perhaps worst of all: a complete collapse of moral authority everywhere. Public officials lie repeatedly with impunity, so-called government effectively accomplishes nothing useful and what it does accomplish is completely botched and hopelessly out of control budget-wise, established laws that the Administration blatantly flouts are casually referred to as 'unconstitutional' (Specter, A, United States Senate).

I would be fascinated to know what grade-school teachers are currently telling their students about the wonderful U.S. Constitution and the Bill or Rights.

I suggest the so-called Democrats rename themselves 'Spineless-ocrats'. At least they would have a name that describes them well.

Posted by: JB (not John Bolton) on March 14, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

Doofus
Nice try, but you left out all the reasons the left gave us that were proven wrong (plus a few barking mad moonbat things you threw in for, I assume, entertainment value).

You forgot the 10s of thousands of US soldiers that were going to die, the 100s of thousands of Iraqi civilians that were going to die. I'd need to do some research to find the rest of the outrageous claims that were made.

When you cast your doomsaying net as wide as the left did, you're bound to catch something.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

http://icasualties.org/oif/
Her's the short version of casulties not including wounded and current news tidbits.

Posted by: Neo on March 14, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

"I'd need to do some research to find the rest of the outrageous claims that were made." -- Conspiracy Nut

Nut, here's a modest proposal, and perhaps some career advice to boot: How about doing your "research" BEFORE shooting your mouth off here in this, and maybe other, public fora? Is that asking so much? Or do you think it makes more sense to open your maw, let fly, and see what sticks? Because what we're mostly seeing here is rancid upchuck sliding down the walls and covering the floor. It ain't Truth, and it sure as hell ain't pretty.

Posted by: Doofus on March 14, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

You forgot the 10s of thousands of US soldiers that were going to die, the 100s of thousands of Iraqi civilians that were going to die.

That's pretty shallow. So "the left" predicted tens of thousands of US deaths, and instead there were "only" 2.5K and counting. This is a failure for the anti-war crowd?

Ditto on the civilian casualties, with the added rider that we actually don't know how many innocent people we killed, just to make W's codpiece bigger. Er, I mean, to protect us from model airplanes armed with nukes. Whoops, to bring the flower of democracy to Saudi Arabia, I mean, Iran, sorry, Iraq.

Posted by: craigie on March 14, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

The liberals owe an apology to George Bush for claiming even before the war started that it will be a screw up.

Posted by: lib on March 14, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

Ned Flanders: BTW, I don't remember a lot of liberals predicting that our main problem would be a long-term insurgency during those first three weeks.

Well, there was this guy's prediction:

"I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

"What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

"I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view...that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."

Oh, but wait, that wasn't a liberal -- that was Dick Cheney speaking in 1991, right after the Gulf War. Well, as long as a Republican said it it must be right....


Posted by: Stefan on March 14, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Urinated States of America

Straw was the Trot President of the Nat Union of Students of England when Blair was fellow-travelling at Oxford. Blair announced last week that Trotsky is his all-time hero.

Posted by: maunga on March 14, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

This is a failure for the anti-war crowd?
Yep. The left was doom and gloom all the way. And because of that, there is no reason to put any credence in the things they got right. If you call "Fire" in enough theaters, one of them is bound to be burning.

The left was unable to gin up a credible argument before the war; and when the vote inevitably went against them, they threw what can only be described as a temper tantrum. They were unable to provide a persuasive counterargument beforehand, and did everything they could to subvert the war after it started.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

and did everything they could to subvert the war after it started.

Ah yes, it was so satisfying to wield those levers of power to get in the way of Shrub's war...

Posted by: craigie on March 14, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

I think that all C Nut wants is to have the last word.

That's the only possible explanation for the stream of laughable nonsense that issues from his keyboard.

There. is. no. point. in. acknowledging. C Nut's. existence.

Posted by: JB (not John Bolton) on March 14, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, I chastise myself for even discussing the "war." The "war" is over - it ended a few weeks after it started, and we "won."

What we've been losing ever since, is the occupation.

So congratulations - you guys were right about the "war" - we "won." You've controlled "reconstruction" ever since, and hey - it's not going so hot. Speaking not just for myself, but for all lefties everywhere in all time and space, as I do, I say "I'm so sorry it's gone badly. Better luck next time."

And, as my dad might have said in a different context, "Did you learn anything?"

Posted by: craigie on March 14, 2006 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

Nut looks like your the lone ranger on this one. 101st Keyboarders have packed up their tents and are heading out. You have lost.Turn out the lights.

Posted by: Neo on March 14, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

There. is. no. point. in. acknowledging. C Nut's. existence.
And apparently no ability to address his arguments.

The only reason I ever got for the results of the authorization for use of force was that Democrats were dumb.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

cn ---- Where was the last "conventional war" where the US excelled? Viet Nam? Grenada? BTW, what is a "conventional war" by your definition? It used to be any sort of fighting which did not involve nuclear weapons.

Posted by: maunga on March 14, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

I took from context that "conventional war" was the portion of the Iraq war that involved toppling Saddam. As opposed to since then, when we've been fighting an insurgency.

And from a combat standpoint we won Vietnam. Although war is a political tool and so the distinction cannot be complete. Since I remember no details about Grenada I assume we ran through there fairly quickly. Also Noriega in Panama.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

And, as my dad might have said in a different context, "Did you learn anything?"
I sure hope so. I imagine we did, we learned a lot from Vietnam.

It is vitally important that we do learn from this. We don't currently have a military peer, so full on war isn't foreseeable, but things along the line of Afghanistan and Iraq are. It would be nice to be able to deal with them better than we have in Iraq.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

"The only reason I ever got for the results of the authorization for use of force was that Democrats were dumb." -- Conspiracy Nut

Speaking of dumb . . . that sentence really makes no sense, Nut. It's not enough just to string a bunch of words together; they have to come together and express a clear, coherent point. And you're point here is awfully oblique, at best. At worst, I'd say you do not know what you're trying to say. Maybe time for some more research

Posted by: Doofus on March 14, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

Blair announced last week that Trotsky is his all-time hero.

Ol' Leon's spinning so fast in his grave, even the mummified corpse of Lenin sat up and went "What the fuck, comrade?"

Posted by: Dustbin Of History on March 14, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

And from a combat standpoint we won Vietnam

How does the song go?

"The lunatic is on the grass
The lunatic is on the grass
Remembering games, daisy chains and laughs
Gotta keep the loonies on the path"

Posted by: The Media on March 14, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

The only reason I ever got for the results of the authorization for use of force was that Democrats were dumb.

Good going, guys. You completely broke marie antoinette nut. Now we'll have to deal with McMao or Ayatollah Chuckles while Karl repairs the logic circuits again.

Posted by: Dustbin Of History on March 14, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

Viet Nam. don't be daft Boy, or have you been drinking the Jonesy Cool-Aid again? We were flying choppers off the Embassy roof Sunshine, madly scrambling to escape, with a tiny rear guard desperately holding the perimeter. We won? Dream on! Ah, of course, along with your Beloved Leader you learnt all about it from watching movies and video games, silly me. Sadly for you, the victors write the history, and we aren't doing the writing.

Posted by: maunga on March 14, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of dumb . . . that sentence really makes no sense, Nut.
I've looked it over and it parses just fine. Your inability to do so is not my problem. However, the question was originally put here:
Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 1:20 PM

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

CN, are you still banging around in here? Then here is some more non-supportive behaviour by lefties you might be interested in.

Posted by: craigie on March 14, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

"Explain to me the vote for authorization of use of force since there were so many compelling arguments against out there.

Okay, at least that more or less makes sense. Two reasons: (1) Bush/Cheney/Rove used the vote primarily as a political weapon to attack and smear the Democrats right before an election; and (2) too many Democrats were too spineless to vote their consciences. Chimpy's father, by contrast, held off seeking a vote on the first Gulf War until AFTER an election, precisely so it wouldn't be a partisan political decision. He may have been an mediocre president, but at least he had some sense of responsibility and decency when it came to partisanship.

Posted by: Doofus on March 14, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

The lunatic is on the grass
At least you quote good music.

The Tet Offensive resulted in a crushing operational defeat for the Vietnamese, crippling the PLAF. The Tet Offensive is widely seen, though perhaps incorrectly, as a turning point of the war in Vietnam, in which the NLF and PAVN won an enormous psychological and propaganda victory leading to the loss of popular support for the War in the United States and the eventual withdrawal of American troops. Neither the NLF nor PAVN achieved any of their strategic goals, and the operational cost of the offensive was dangerously high.
In other words, what is seen by you lefties as huge loss by the US in Vietnam was a crushing defeat for the North. After the Tet Offensive the worry was the North was so beaten that the Chinese would have to intervene.

You guys have a real tendency to rewrite history to your liking. Despite some taste in music.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

And from a combat standpoint we won Vietnam.

Hilarious! I love the deluded alternate reality which conspiracy nut inhabits, the world in which the Serbs and the Bosnians are currently killing each other as fast as they can, the Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, and the G-8 are members of the international socialist conspiracy, liberals never complained about the Iraq war before we went in and the US won the Vietnam War.

Grasp...on...reality...slipping...fingers...getting...tired...can't hold...on...much...longeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!

Posted by: Stefan on March 14, 2006 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

And from a combat standpoint we won Vietnam.

You know, from a combat standpoint Germany won WWII. After all, Germany won more battles than its foes did, inflicted tens of millions more casualties, conquered more territory, and had a higher per soldier kill ratio than the Allies. The fact that Germany lost the war itself is a mere technicality....

Posted by: Stefan on March 14, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: The left was unable to gin up a credible argument before the war; and when the vote inevitably went against them, they threw what can only be described as a temper tantrum. They were unable to provide a persuasive counterargument beforehand

That's it! It's the left's fault for not doing a better job convincing people just how bad an idea the Iraq invasion was.

GW (Party of Responsibility) Bush: don't blame me, the opposition should've stopped me from fucking up two countries. Their fault, not mine.

The left was doom and gloom all the way. And because of that, there is no reason to put any credence in the things they got right.

To the left's credit though, they actually did get something right. 1-0.

If you call "Fire" in enough theaters, one of them is bound to be burning.

Yeah, if we invade enough countries we're bound to find some WMD's.

Posted by: alex on March 14, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

Doofus
So, the Democrats were forced to vote in a manner that would prevent their constituents from throwing them out of office, instead of them voting their conscience.

Damn that representative democracy, anyway.

But it is at least a better argument than "Dems are dumb". There is still a little difficulty for your position, though. The Democrats that voted for the war were elected in Democratic districts. It's not like us red staters were going to vote them out of office. So that means that you lefties were not even able to persuade Democrats as a whole.

So the question would have to rephrased slightly, but the main idea is still intact. Why were you unable to convince Democrats as a whole if you had such wonderfully compelling arguments?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

alex said
GW (Party of Responsibility) Bush: don't blame me, the opposition should've stopped me from fucking up two countries. Their fault, not mine.

I prefer the Condi Rice excuse line, applicable for any situation...

"I don't think anyone could have predicted people would use airplanes as weapons..."

Just remove a few choice words, and you are off the hook!

I just dont think anyone could have forseen the levees breaking

I just dont think anyone could have forseen an insurgency

I just dont think anyone in my staff would leak classified info to a reporter

I just don't think too much....

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Posted by: The Media on March 14, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

The Tet Offensive resulted in a crushing operational defeat for the Vietnamese, crippling the PLAF. The Tet Offensive is widely seen,though perhaps incorrectly, as a turning point of the war in Vietnam, in which the NLF and PAVN won an enormous psychological and propaganda victory leading to the loss of popular support for the War in the United States and the eventual withdrawal of American troops. Neither the NLF nor PAVN achieved any of their strategic goals, and the operational cost of the offensive was dangerously high.

Uh, if Tet led to "the loss of popular support for the War in the United States and the eventual withdrawal of American troops" then the North Vietnamese and Vietnamese Communists did achieve their strategic goals, since their ultimate strategic goal was precisely the withdrawal of those American forces.

But I suppose what he's really saying is that the Democrats led by Johnson won the Vietnam War in 1968, and that the Republicans led by Nixon then lost it by withdrawing even though we we were winning. Kind of an odd argument for him to make, but OK....

Posted by: Stefan on March 14, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

It's the left's fault for not doing a better job convincing people just how bad an idea the Iraq invasion was
If you don't think you ought to be an opposition party, fine, quit opposing shit. If you do think you ought to be an opposition party, then yes, it was your job.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, who cares about Iraq? This is yesterday's news already. On to Iran.

Iran's getting nukes soon, if we don't stop them. Let's start bombing as soon as the UN "process" bogs down, which should be right around the time when it starts.

Posted by: clock on March 14, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

Uh, if Tet led to "the loss of popular support for the War...
Don't worry, you guys are going to catch up. I have faith in you. I said earlier that from a combat standpoint we won, I also pointed out that war is a political tool so that distinction cannot be made completely.

The North lost the battles but won the war. Does it make you proud that the left helped them? Does it make you proud that the left is helping the insurgency in Iraq? Are you still wondering why the left is frequently accused of being anti-American?

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter conspiracy nut: "Stop me before I kill again!"

Posted by: Stefan on March 14, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Ve vould've von ze var, if it weren't for ze international jewish- er- MEDIA conspiracy and ze Bolsheviks- er- liberals!

Vote for us and ve vill make sure ve vin the next time!

Posted by: dolchsto nut on March 14, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

What would have changed if Viet Nam was"won". We get to put ten thousand military bases over there so the brass has some place new to vacation on the taxpayers dime. You wingnuts are such hypocrites.

Posted by: Neo on March 14, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: If you do think you ought to be an opposition party, then yes, it was your job.

Translation: You fucked up! You didn't save us from our own stupidity!

Posted by: alex on March 14, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

"Straw was the Trot President of the Nat Union of Students of England when Blair was fellow-travelling at Oxford."

Err, no. Jack Straw was then elected on a "Broad Left" slate: he'd have been closer to the CP than the Trots.

"Blair announced last week that Trotsky is his all-time hero."

No he did not. He said that a biography of Trotsky had had a profound influence on him. Big f'ing difference. See my analogy to Djilas' "Conversations with Stalin" above.

Does liking a biography of Garibaldi make you an Italian Nationalist?

Also, frankly, if you wanted to debate with a Trot (as one had to during when the Labour Party was purging them out of its ranks in the 1980s), you had to have read Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, because that was the only way you could understand their position sufficiently to refute them.

Posted by: Urinated State of America on March 14, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

Does it make you proud that the left is helping the insurgency in Iraq

How is this possible? I mean, sure, last night I held a giant Farenheit 9-11 fundraiser/screening to raise money for the insurgents in Iraq (they take Paypal, you know) and we had to turn people away there were so many. I tell you, the wonderful hatred every liberal I know has for America just gives me a nice warm feeling all over. We even got a special video taped message from Michael Moore and Howard Dean, both in Iraq right now funneling money and weapons to the resistance. They wanted us to know that every America hatin' liberal is a brother in arms to the freedom fighters in Iraq.

And next week I can't wait to email the resistance all the secret maps and communications intercepts I obtained from the DNC. It even had Pelosi's signature on it.

Gosh, hating America is such hard, but ultimately satisfying work. I can't wait until it all falls down, there's nothing more I'd like that to have cannibal marauders roaming the streets, raping and pillaging and violating our purity of essence and our precious bodily fluids.

Posted by: The Media on March 14, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK
And from a combat standpoint we won Vietnam.

This sentence doesn't even make sense. The only purpose combat serves in war is acheiving political ends. If the combat fails to lead to the political ends at which it is aimed, it is not "winning" from a "combat standpoint", or any other standpoint, except perhaps a delusional one.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 14, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK


alex: good job....


so....its the dems fault they bought the hyped up intell the downing street memo is referring to?


as liddy said....deny everything and after your convicted allege fraud....


Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 14, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

How is this possible?

We didn't clap hard enough and the Iraqi Tinkerbell died.

Posted by: Dustbin Of History on March 14, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Are you still wondering why the left is frequently accused of being anti-American?

Conspiracy nut in 1933 Germany: "Germany won the battles but lost the war. Does it make you proud that the Jews helped the Allies? Does it make you proud that the Jews are helping the Allies in the Rhineland? Are you still wondering why the Jews are frequently accused of being anti-German?"

Conspiracy nut in 1925 Russia: "Does it make you proud that the kulaks helped the capitalists? Does it make you proud that the kulaks are helping the saboteurs in the Soviet Union? Are you still wondering why the kulaks are frequently accused of being anti-Soviet?"

Posted by: Stefan on March 14, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK


cn: If you do think you ought to be an opposition party, then yes, it was your job.

its not the liars fault.....

its the listener's?

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 14, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Are you still wondering why the left is frequently accused of being anti-American?

Let's see...

Supported WWII as being important to the defense of the United States.

Opposed the Vietnam war because it had nothing to do with the defense of the United States and was started based on a pack of lies.

Supported the Afghan war as being important to the defense of the United States.

Opposed the Iraq II war because it had nothing to do with the defense of the United States and was started based on a pack of lies.

I can't help but think that there's some kind of pattern there, but I just can't figure it out ...

Posted by: alex on March 14, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

Are you still wondering why the left is frequently accused of being anti-American?

Well, no. We're not wondering why you frequently accuse us -- we know it's because you're a lying loathsome scum whose pathetic delusions and lack of responsibility require him to blame others for his own evil deeds.

Posted by: Stefan on March 14, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

It seems likely that we have truly moved beyond the era of Clausewitzian warfare. Nuclear weapons make war between great nations unwinnable. Nationalism makes military domination of weak nations untenable (which is what we have in Iraq since we cannot kill the entire male population). In this new world, economics and coalition building will determine the dominant powers.

Republican efforts in Iraq have been pathetic. From the concocted and delusional threat of weapons of mass destruction to the very real sadistic display at Abu Ghraib, to the war profiteering, and the lack of a coherent post-war plan, run by newly minted college grads, and without any objective besides the nebulous goal of victory. The Americans live in Iraq in a bubble, they do not understand the people, the region or the nature of the conflict nor do they want to. Power and propaganda, they think, is the solution, even as it fails. Unfortunately only the US can hold the Middle East together and protect the oil. Maybe it all can be contained as Iranian power increases and Iraq slides into chaos. Hopefully someone, maybe the Japanese, can pay the bills or the Gulf States.

Posted by: bellumregio on March 14, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

Why were you unable to convince Democrats as a whole if you had such wonderfully compelling arguments?

oh, oh, pick me! Is it... because the Democrats are not actually liberals?

Do I win?

Posted by: craigie on March 14, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: The only reason I ever got for the results of the authorization for use of force was that Democrats were dumb.

That wasn't the only reason, so of course you are lying and saying ti was, because it's so much easier to demolish strawmen.

Does it make you proud that the left is helping the insurgency in Iraq?

Can't be proud or unproud of something that is not happening.

Bush himself is doing more to help the insurgency than all of the world's liberals combined could even if they tried.

Are you still wondering why the left is frequently accused of being anti-American?

No, we know the answer to that: conservatives lie about and defame their political opponents, both within the party and without.

Their particular specialty is to accuse their opponents of saying things they haven't said and then pointing to irrelevant webpages to "prove" their point.

It's GOP SOP.

It's rdw SOP.

It's conspiracy nut SOP.


Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

By the way, The Media at 3:48 is my kind of sarcastic smarty pants. Nice one.

Posted by: craigie on March 14, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Weren't liberals screaming because troops weren't given enough heavily armored vehicles?

Look! It tries to think!

Posted by: ogmb on March 14, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

Republican efforts in Iraq have been pathetic. From the concocted and delusional threat of weapons of mass destruction to the very real sadistic display at Abu Ghraib, to the war profiteering, and the lack of a coherent post-war plan, run by newly minted college grads, and without any objective besides the nebulous goal of victory. The Americans live in Iraq in a bubble, they do not understand the people, the region or the nature of the conflict nor do they want to. Power and propaganda, they think, is the solution, even as it fails. Unfortunately only the US can hold the Middle East together and protect the oil. Maybe it all can be contained as Iranian power increases and Iraq slides into chaos. Hopefully someone, maybe the Japanese, can pay the bills or the Gulf States.

A very good summary. And so tragic that all this is the fault of some scraggly guys in sweatshirts, carrying anti-war placards and wandering around in the street. I'm so ashamed for my fellow lefty conspirators.

Posted by: craigie on March 14, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks cragie, I appreciate that.

I don't get pissed at the idiotrolls anymore, I just mock them. In a forum like this, that's the best repsonse I can offer.

Posted by: The Media on March 14, 2006 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

A very good summary. And so tragic that all this is the fault of some scraggly guys in sweatshirts, carrying anti-war placards and wandering around in the street. I'm so ashamed for my fellow lefty conspirators.

Never underestimate our awesome power!

Although, for the record, I wore a suit and tie to the anti-war protests.

Posted by: Stefan on March 14, 2006 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

In other words, what is seen by you lefties as huge loss by the US in Vietnam was a crushing defeat for the North. Posted by: conspiracy nut

Nope. Wrong again. The Tet Offensive, while organized by the North, was a crushing defeat of the Viet Cong in the South. The NVA weren't really involved. In fact, it has been suggested that the NVA was willing to sacrifice the VC in order to diminish any competition it might offer to the government of the North when the U.S. eventually pulled out.

As the war progressed, particularly after the process of "Vietnamization" began, Vietnam came to resemble Korea after the Chinese entered the war: when the U.S. began its pull out, the NVA began its push knowing that ARVN was no match for it, with or without the help of the VC.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 14, 2006 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

And from a combat standpoint we won Vietnam.

Brilliant strategy, ignore the parts of reality you don't like...Its that kind of thinking that got us stuck in Iraq in the first place.

How about this:
Seattle beat Pittsburgh if you ignore the scoreboard.

Posted by: Stephen on March 14, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

How about this:
Seattle beat Pittsburgh if you ignore the scoreboard. Posted by: Stephen

Close. Seattle beat Pittsburgh, period. It's the officiating we lost to.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 14, 2006 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

The Media
there's nothing more I'd like that to have cannibal marauders roaming the streets, raping and pillaging and violating our purity of essence and our precious bodily fluids.
I realize that's not your actual goal. Your actual goal is here.

cmdicely
The only purpose combat serves in war is acheiving political ends.
We've already been there.

alex
Opposed the Iraq II war because it had nothing to do with the defense of the United States
See, shallow views like that are the reason that lefties aren't trusted for national defense.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

BTW Jeff
Not bad. It's good to see a lefty looking up some actual facts.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK
We've already been there.

Yeah, and yet you keep repeating the same nonsense.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 14, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, and yet you keep repeating the same nonsense.
When in Rome...

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

Opposed the Iraq II war because it had nothing to do with the defense of the United States

cn: See, shallow views like that are the reason that lefties aren't trusted for national defense.


"We are not killing them faster than they are being created." - Brig. Gen. Robert Caslen, the Pentagon's deputy director for the war on terrorism. 3/2/06


wonder whose fault that is?

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 14, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

Why cant the Republicans show some moral strength and take responsibility for their failures? Seems like they blame anyone- Democrats, movie stars, victims of Katrina floating dead down the streets of New Orleans (they should have gotten out!), anybody who isn't a Republican. Not one. Not even heck-of-a-job Brownie is held responsible. Why do they look outside themselves for someone to blame? They are drunk on power. It prevents them from showing real leadership in the most difficult of times.

Posted by: bellumregio on March 14, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: See, shallow views like that are the reason that lefties aren't trusted for national defense.

See, mendacious views like the above are why Bush and the conservatives are trusted for national defense and why a significant majority of the American public believes they've fubar'd the "GWOT" and Iraq.

When in Rome...

conspiracy nut is now hallucinating that he is in Rome.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK
See, shallow views like that are the reason that lefties aren't trusted for national defense.

I dunno from "lefties" or other vague terms, but on the specific question of Iraq, Democrats are at least as much, and often more, than Republicans in most recent polls, and indeed, the perceptual advantage that the Republicans had on security issues seems to have largely eroded across other issues as well.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 14, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

the perceptual advantage that the Republicans had on security issues seems to have largely eroded across other issues as well.
Well sure, with behavior like Bush and Congress have been exhibiting, what else do you expect?

But Republicans still have one great advantage: they run against Democrats.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 14, 2006 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

But Republicans still have one great advantage: they run against Democrats.


and when given that over holding liars accountable...


winning elections comes in first...

hope the troops dont mind...

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 14, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: But Republicans still have one great advantage: they run against Democrats.

Oops.

Advantage lost.

Posted by: Advocate for God on March 14, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

BTW Jeff Not bad. It's good to see a lefty looking up some actual facts. Posted by: conspiracy nut

Yes, dramatically different from ill-informed and fact-resistant gas bags on the right who harbor odd notions that there is still a genocidal war taking place in the Balkans.

Let me guess, you listen to an "oldies" station.

Posted by: Jeff II on March 14, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

Shock and Awe.

It's like we thought the Iraq War II was going to be a cakewalk.

But someone always has to pick up the pieces after a war. Killing's easy. Rebuilding infrastructure and political stability is not.

Bush was keenly interested in Shock and Awe. You can do your own search to dredge up references attesting to this fact; he closely monitored the advance of our troops across the desert as they raced towards Bagdhad.
Too bad he's lost interest since.

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on March 14, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

Urinated etc ---- Concerning the aptly-named Straw Man, and Bliar.

I wonder how old you are and whether you were there? I was......... Young Jack talked an awful lot about Trotsky but I am sure he was really CP of Great Britain or was it the British Communist Party? There were two parties at that time, each claiming to be The One!!

Bliar ---- The Beeb said it was quoting Blair about the Sainted Leon, but then I am sure you know best.

Posted by: maunga on March 14, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

On Tony Blair & Trotsky: Never, ever, debate a Trotskyist unless you view debates as mortal combat. Ever talk to a LaRouchie? Now you know.

Posted by: kaptain kapital on March 14, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

Urinated etc

I must be more accurate: Bliar claims Trotsky as "My political inspiration". That sounds not unlike a hero to me, and in cn terms it is a slam dunk.

Posted by: maunga on March 14, 2006 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

cn: let's pile up all the left's silly prognostications prior to the war, and then pile up all the right's and see which pile is higher.

But it's pointless--you guys sold the war like a used car salesman taking a mark, you prosecuted the war like a bunch of out of touch 19th century British officers who bought their commissions, and you most likely will lose this war, because "going shopping" is not an effective war policy.

Your side needs this war to fail worse than the left. With this failure you can harbor your fantasies about the "stab in the back" for decades, and return to the usual smear and innuendo that has been a GOP hallmark since the end of WWII.

It's your war, and you are welcome to it.

Posted by: kaptain kapital on March 14, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

you prosecuted the war like a bunch of out of touch 19th century British officers who bought their commissions,

Well, except that those British officers usually won. If the Bush team had been in charge of the British Empire at that time Britain would have been reduced to its holdings on the Isle of Wight in no time....

Posted by: Stefan on March 14, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK
And from a combat standpoint we won Vietnam.

Translation: We had the firepower to kill every independence-minded Vietnamese in the country and I wish we had.

Why stop at 2 million?

Posted by: obscure on March 14, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK
With unusual frankness, he described the US postwar administration, led by the retired general Jay Garner, as "an unbelievable mess" and said "Garner and his top team of 60-year-old retired generals" were "well-meaning but out of their depth".

Sounds like a place conspiracy nut could call home.

Posted by: obscure on March 14, 2006 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

stefan, Whaddya mean "usually won"? They lost a few lads at Isandlwana (?spelling), and the Fundamentalist Loony Chinese Gordon at Khartoum, but not any whole war, I think, not a one!

But seriously, have you read the extraordinary book about the young men put in charge of state-sized areas of what was then India's North West Frontier before the Indian Mutiny? I cannot remember its name. It should have been required reading for every officer all the way down before going into Afghanistan. Then before Iraq they should have been required to read "Revolt in the Desert" too, Seven Pillars probably being intellectually beyond them.
Your man Burkhardt could have helped too!

Posted by: maunga on March 14, 2006 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

If the Bush team had been in charge of the British Empire at that time Britain would have been reduced to its holdings on the Isle of Wight in no time....

Ah, the pure joy of laughter... Very, very funny.

Posted by: craigie on March 14, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

Since the Iraqi army is mostly Shiite and Kurd, and the resistance is mostly Sunni, our plan is that when the Shiites can hold their own in the civil war, our work is done, and we can declare victory and withdraw to our permanent bases, letting the Iraqis fight it out for power in the rest of the country.

Posted by: anandine on March 14, 2006 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

CN forgets that while Tet gutted the Vietcong, the US military had been claiming that the Vietcong were incapable of launching an offensive, because--according to their data--the Vietcong had already been fatally weakened. When Tet proved that this was manifestly false, the US military--and the politicians who supported them--had a major credibility problem.

Posted by: Wombat on March 14, 2006 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

He added that Phase IV "did not work well" because the concentration was on the invasion. "There was a blind faith that Phase IV would work. There was a failure to anticipate the extent of the backlash or mood of Iraqi society."

There was no "failure to anticipate". Cheney and Rumsfeld never really bought the neoconservative hype - they just wanted Saddam out, and Chalabi in. Chaos served that agenda. There is documentary evidence that neoconservative analysts were predicting an insurgency in Iraq after an invasion several years before 2003.

Posted by: Jimm on March 15, 2006 at 1:39 AM | PERMALINK

If the Bush team had been in charge of the British Empire at that time Britain would have been reduced to its holdings on the Isle of Wight in no time....

No necessarily a bad thing in and of itself actually.

As a decendant of the survivors of England's lovely little ethic cleansing in Acadia I have a slightly less than admiring POV about the British Empire generally.

Try this: 'A Great and Noble Scheme - The tragic story of the explusion of the French Acadians from their American Homeland" John Mack Fraser.

Posted by: CFShep on March 15, 2006 at 8:09 AM | PERMALINK

cn: let's pile up all the left's silly prognostications prior to the war, and then pile up all the right's and see which pile is higher.
Those would be interesting piles, and neither side is going to look very good. Not sure what good it's going to do you, because at the end of piling we are left with 2 facts:
1) Everybody is going to look pretty stoopid(your slogan on this one is a tough sell:
Democrats: We're as dumb as the next guy!)
2) The Republicans still chose to do something and the Democrats still chose to oppose doing something.

Your side needs this war to fail worse than the left. With this failure you can harbor your fantasies about the "stab in the back" for decades
The good news is, you lefties have already stabbed the country in the back. If the war fails it will be because of that stab, if the war succeeds in will be in spite of it.

In your infinite wisdom, the left has managed to screw itself regardless of the outcome. Remember opposition to Vietnam? For 30 years prior to Vietnam, 22 of those years had Democratic presidents (and a Dem in office going into that period). For 30 years after Vietnam there were 12 years of Democratic presidents (and a Republican in office going out of that period). Speaking of winning the battle but losing the war...

But I am heartened that if you can hurt yourselves as badly as you did with the Vietnam War, I can look forward to only 2 years out of the next 30 with a Democratic president.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 8:58 AM | PERMALINK

cn: Praise the Lord and pass the biscuits. .... This threasd will die of old age shortly, you poor delusional boob, and we shall be spared your idiocy for at least a minute or two. BTW, when will you be 21?

Posted by: maunga on March 15, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINK

Too bad Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Garner couldn't spare enough time to appoint a intern to read the State Department's Future of Iraq loony, "soft" plan and report some of the high lights.

On justice:
"To foil people seeking revenge and the potential acts of common criminals, it is necessary to take a host of decisive measures, including:

1. Impose a 24-hour curfew on the first day to be gradually relaxed according to the extent of security and order established.

2. Order all police forces to be on their guard and arrest all offenders.

3. Organize military patrols by coalition forces in all major cities to prevent lawlessness, especially against vital utilities and key government facilities.

4. Instruct tribal and clan leaders to use their authority to control rural areas."

"The Saddam regime has politicized culture and turned the media into a propaganda machine serving its own purposes. That is why it is imperative for the future Iraqi media to be independent and unfettered, promoting freedom of expression and transparency."
http://www.thememoryhole.org/state/future_of_iraq/future_justice.pdf, pp 32-33

On oil:
"Iraqis look to the Coalition to provide physical security in the aftermath of transition, but not to run the Iraqi oil industry."
http://www.thememoryhole.org/state/future_of_iraq/future_overview.pdf p 19

"Privatization will be an issue for a future sovereign Iraqi government."
http://www.thememoryhole.org/state/future_of_iraq/future_overview.pdf p 21

Ha, ha, ha. Those crazy moonbats at the State Department. So unrealistic about the gritty truths of occupation. I bet they even wanted more Coalition troops on hand.

Posted by: cowalker on March 15, 2006 at 11:11 AM | PERMALINK

Mauga wrote"

"I wonder how old you are and whether you were there?"

Before my time, I'm afraid. I'm going by that definite work "As Soon As This Pub Closes", an lore from when I was involved in the NUS in the late 1980s.

"I was......... Young Jack talked an awful lot about Trotsky but I am sure he was really CP of Great Britain or was it the British Communist Party?"

I see. That's why you called him the "Trot President of the Nat Union of Students of England".

Accounts of the time say that Straw got up the noses of the Trots by mocking them for how humorless they were. (Well, they are humorless bastards, aren't they.)

"Bliar claims Trotsky as "My political inspiration"."

No, the Torygraph wrote a headline saying that Trotsky was Blair's inspiration. Not the same thing. What Blair said was:

'It was a trilogy, a biography of Trotsky by Isaac Deutscher which made a very deep impression on me and gave me a love of political biography for the rest of my life.'

Making "a very deep impression" is a different thing from 'turned me into a scruffy seller of piss-poor polemical newspapers'.

"That sounds not unlike a hero to me, and in cn terms it is a slam dunk."

CN would believe that hydrofluoric acid was a good dietary supplement if it was a GOP talking point, for Christ's sake.


Posted by: Urinated State of America on March 15, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Urinated
You seem to be confused, opposing Bush and opposing moonbats are not mutually exclusive. It's possible to do both.

Like I said earlier, you lefties are worse than Bush (and that's sinking mighty low). The occupation under Bush has been a travesty, and it's still preferable to the moonbat plan of run and hide.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on March 15, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK

cn: The occupation under Bush has been a travesty, and it's still preferable to the moonbat plan of run and hide.


by what measure?

the death toll is higher..and the financial cost has pushed the fed. debt to 8.2-trillion...

by the way..

there weren't any al-q attacks inside the u-s in the 4.5-years before 9-11 either....

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 15, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

In case CN and the rest haven't had enough abuse, Memory Hole has posted a number of Department fo State documents about what a post-invasion Iraq may be like.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/state/future_of_iraq/

Posted by: Jeff II on March 15, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

So, conspiracy nut, what is your plan?

Posted by: jeroen on March 16, 2006 at 6:23 AM | 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