Here's a thought, blame the killings on the people doing them!

this is an inevitability, and one of the many good reasons why we should not have gone to war in 2003. w's dad knew that. w thought he knew more.

GWB will, of course, take no responsibility at all. As rdw points out, he will blame "terrorists" or "dead-enders," as if he were an innocent bystander, rather than the "decider." I think he'll probably go to his grave thinking he did all the right things, and other people or events are to blame for his problems.

Does Juan Cole still stand behind this (a rewritten--and linked--version of his plan): http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/25/114525/632

RDW:

Complex problem, easy answer, take no responsibility for creating the situation. Republican philosophy in a nutshell.

Bush will blame it on "the naysayers": Anyone who didn't want the war, didn't like the way the war was started or executed, or recommended any kind of withdrawal or draw-down. Anyone who ever questioned a single policy or action by his administration is a traitor to our country and the noble cause that God wanted George W. Bush elected for.

Because nothing is ever W's fault. Nothing.

Greg VA is right as far as he went, but he left off the most important part - insider buddies make lots of money

The Decider will blame the suicider.

Simple.

Who will be the last man to die for a mistake?

See Doonesbury for details.

He'll blame it on Bill Clinton's cock, of course. And bloggers.

Bush will find a way to blame the Democrats, (esp. the Clintons). He'll insist that the whole thing is a result of Americans failing to be sufficiently obedient, and not unanimously heaping praise on his bold and decisive leadership.

Bush does not have to blame the Democrats.

Democrats will blame themselves, and apologize to Bush for putting him in such a difficult spot by voting for the war.

In his press conference with Tony Blair, I heard Bush lay the blame on a completely new group: "terror-ers."

Axis of Feeble in Iraq & Afghanistan

On the subject of the Bush/Blair press conference, Blair looked stiff and tired standing next to Bush at their public joint penance the other day.'Some mistakes have been made' ,apparently? You don't tell us. The two lame ducks are trying to save something of their miserable legacies from the ashes of what were quite promising careers at one time. Blair is the more culpable since he is at least an intelligent politician who should have known better than to handcuff himself to a dullard like Bush. Bush is that rarity in Western politics who could not make a correct decision or formulate an effective strategy even by accident. Blair is whistling for a wind in British politics now in the hope of catching a bandwagon which might be a winner for a change. Some hope. He needn't worry about the contibuting to the scrapbook of history, the scrapheap of history is where he is destined along with his Washinton mentors. I have never been surer about anything.

That's quite a legacy. I wonder who George Bush will try to blame it on?

The mighty Clenis(tm) of course.

Who's really to blame? The ADD aflicted american populace who can't be bothered to notice anything beyond their own selfish worldview. Most specifically I blame my fellow redneck ye-haw wwf lovin trailer trash brethern. They all universaly hate them there pointy headed inta-lectuals while lovin them some o those pointy-headed inta-lectual built noowkler weapons.

Baby murdering by crazed Marines? A-OK!

Wipe your ass with the constitution? Fine and dandy if yer a god fearin Republican!

I guess we gotta have Civil war 2.1v before the dumbass southern values crowd finally gets over themselves.

I say this as a native born Texan.

To get a feel for what human beings become during sectarian violence, read the novel, A Train To Pakistan, by Khushwant Singh.

I think Matt wrote something about this in TAPPED or TPM.

Matt argued that when US gets involved in internal conflict wars like the Balkans it has no choice but to take a side. At the end it will help one side defeat the other side. This is what happened in Kosovo where we ended up helping the KLA.

Unfortunately in Iraq there is no desirable "side" for us to help. We have alienated the Sunnis. They don't trust us. I am not sure it is in our interest to help the Shia since most of them side with Iran and would like to see an Islamist theocracy. It is damned if you do damned if you don't. And the Kurds? They just want to separate and build a "greater Kurdistan" which will mean war with Turkey. Whichever side we help we will end up regretting it.

Truth is all these various groups have legitimate ethnic grievences going back centuries. I don't see how the US military can resolve it.

We have already lost this war, at least if we go by the original objectives for the war; To create a pro US, pro Israel secular democracy. It is not going to happen. Not in our lifetime. If there is a democracy it will be an anti US, anti Israel, Islamist regime.

This war is not winnable. The question is how do we get out with the least catastophic outcome. Maybe we should try to create 3 separate ethnic enclaves. Each with its own militia. It looks like it is happening anyway. We might as well facilitate it.

The saddest thing of all, is that this was all predictable prior to the invasion. Anybody with a modicum of familiarity with the history of the region could anticipate this. In fact this is precisely the reason why I opposed the war as a doomed concept from the outset. The Deciders in the Bush administration are profoundly stupid, and deeply deranged. People will make their careers in the future teaching the lessons learned once we finally rescue ourselves from this monstrous Hydra that we alone have birthed.

He'll blame us, of course, we nay-sayers. They blamed us for the failure in Vietnam, and I'm old enough to remember being blamed for the Korean stalemate because we didn't endorse "Dugout Doug" McArthur's cockamammy plan for nuking China. If you say "No" to these war-mongering pricks they call you a traitor every step of the way into the quagmires they lead you into.

The answer is as simple as the president himself: the cut and run Democrats.

Now that might work if you force yourself to forget how we implored him to let the weapon inspectors do their jobs, but did he listen? Of course not. Like an errant child he put his hand on the stove burner and when we told him to take it off he stubbornly refused. When we pleaded with him to remove his hand, even as the skin crackled and the bone charred, he said no. When we demonstrated in the streets to convince him to take that hand away even when there was little left but a blackened stump, he arrogantly cried NO!!!

Unfortunately for so many families that hand was the U.S. Military and the lives lost or horribly altered was a price the president never even noticed because HE DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY IT! Bush is the mouthpiece for the people who are to blame for this debacle, this murderous tragedy. No matter their feeble attempts at misdirection, you KNOW who is to blame!

WE ARE for letting it go on this long without storming the whitehouse, pulling down the gates, and dragging those skeevie little fucks to justice! I mean what kind of adult lets an obviously retarded man-child keep his hand on the stove long enough to do permanent damage? You knock him away immediately then whip his stupid ass for ignoring your commands.

I'm sure I'll get crap from both sides on this but so what? Somebody needed to tell the truth. I do blame Bush but what can you expect from a pig but a grunt? He's an amoral sociopath, of COURSE he was going to destroy the country and everyone in it before setting his sights on the rest of the world!

Kevin's missed the elephant in the room: by relying on Iraqi translators, either Sunni or Shia, American forces are being co-opted into death squads.

The women and children were herded outside, walking past Sabah, whose nose was broken, and Walid, who had the barrel of a soldier's machine gun in his mouth. The soldiers beat the men with rifle butts, while the Shiite Iraqi translator accompanying the troops exhorted the Americans to execute the Sunnis.

As the terrified family waited outside, they heard three shots from inside. It then sounded to them as though there was a scuffle inside, with the soldiers shouting at each other. Thirty minutes later the translator emerged with a picture of Sabah. "Who is Sabah's wife?" he asked. "Your husband was killed by the Americans, and he deserved to die," he told her. At that he tore the picture before her face.

They're all hajis, after all, to the underprepared ignorant Americans with guns and no Arabic, no clue about the country that their idiot president sent them to 'liberate'. In a just world, the mark of shame would be upon the US for decades.

As already we've seen, right-wing apologists will approach the issue of civil war in Iraq from whatever side is necessary to absolve themselves and Dear Leader from any responsibility. We'll continue to see some variation on one of more of the following:

1. The Lateral Misdirection: It's not civil war, it's just plain old terrorism.

2. See No Evil: There is no civil war, and there will be no civil war

3. The Media Event: Civil war talk is an invention of the Media and a product of the liberal MSM rooting for anything to blame Bush and kill our soldiers.

4. The Dolschloss Theory: Civil war in Iraq is directly due to anti-war critics who objectively oppose the war only out of hatred for Bush, who objectively aim to undermine our efforts and present our enemies with a rabidly partisan divided front, which is exactly what they, our enemies and they, the left, want and... what was the question?

4. It's a Good Thing Baby: Okay, it's a Civil War. But isn't that good? Won't they just get it all out of their systems and then be good little Republicans?

5. Our Leader's Brilliant Strategy: Civil war was the plan all along and it's working!

Bush's other legacy.

Developing markets will crash because of overinvestment. The crash will spread around the world because of irrational hedge fund activities. The fed will drop interest rates back to dramatic lows to provide liquidity. massive inflation will result and I will kick myself in the ass for selling this piece of property I sit on.

I need a hedge fund that hedges the other hedge fund. I am beginning to believe that one wants to sit upon the topmost worthless paper in a pile of fake investments built upon fake investments.

Like a pyramid scheme built at the top, each fake paper covering the previous fake papers, collecting fake money in fake promissary notes. In this pyramid, our new fed chairman will realize that he has to turn the dollar into toilet paper to equalize the stack of fake papers.

Call me nervous.

In Withdraw From Iraq In Six Months James Kroeger says we should deal with the possibility of civil war by handing over the security of Iraq to a coalition of Muslim countries:

...Right now I’m thinking the best approach would be to arrange for some kind of Grand Coalition of Muslim Nations to take over the security duties. It’s the kind of challenge that a competent State Department would be able to pull off.
...
If a Grand Coalition of Muslim Nations is to succeed where we have failed, they may very well need to station [for a limited period of time] as many as 1-2 million troops in Iraq in order to crush all militia activity. That’s how you end the kind of violence that we are seeing today in Iraq. You can’t ‘pussy-foot’ around. The sooner we can establish a massive and powerful presence of Muslim occupation troops throughout Iraq, the sooner the sectarian fighting will be brought to an end.

If America wants to succeed in preventing civil war when it pulls out its troops, it must be willing to pay the expenses (within reason) of the cost of the Muslim occupation army as a sort of penance for creating the mess. We just might find that the EU would be willing to help us with the bills since they would no longer have to feel embarrassed to be associated with us.

Set up in the proper way, a Grand Coalition of Muslim Nations would likely be seen by all Islam as a great opportunity to demonstrate to the world that they can succeed where America failed in bringing peace to the Iraqi people. Our soldiers wouldn’t be dying there and we would finally be able to put this embarrassing part of our history behind us. Just think of how nice it will be to once again enjoy the respect of the rest of the world.

Obviosuly, the deaths are the responsibility of those comitting the murders. Regardless of whether or not the Iraqis choose to take advantage of it, one part of George Bush's legacy will be giving Iraqis the opportunity to have a republican form of government.

I don't think the American people understand the magnitude of the tragedy. The mass media, especially TV, anaesthetize them Brangelina, missing white women and of course the Clinton marriage. We are fed a daily dose of opiates by the media. It will take decades if not generations to undo the damage of this war, financially, morally, militarily.

The liberals, of course.

The dolchstoss myth is already being prepared for the 2008 elections. I would be happy to wager 1000 shares of Harkin Energy that it will be a centerpiece of the Radical '08 campaign.

Cranky

George Bush's legacy will be giving Iraqis the opportunity to have a republican form of government

"Opportunity"? Yes, that's exactly what the president had in mind, I'm sure. By the time the White House finishes making excuses for this fiasco, no doubt "opportunity for republican government" will be high on the list of what the president intended, now that WMDs have been forgotten.

Too bad "Republican government" isn't working too well in this country either.

I don't hate Bush, I merely despise him.

I looked up 'dolchstoss' in Wikepedia, as someone mentioned it above. To save others the time here is a part of the entry.
---------------------------------

In the latter part of the [WWI] war, Germany was practically governed as a military dictatorship, with the Supreme High Command (German: OHL, "Oberste Heeresleitung") and General Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg as commander-in-chief advising the Kaiser. After the last German offensive on the western front failed in 1918, the German war effort was doomed. In response, OHL arranged for a rapid change to a civilian government. General Ludendorff, Germany's Chief of Staff, said:

"I have asked His Excellency to now bring those circles to power which we have to thank for coming so far. We will therefore now bring those gentlemen into the ministries. They can now make the peace which has to be made. They can eat the soup which they have prepared for us!"

On November 11, 1918, the representatives of the newly formed Weimar Republic signed an armistice with the Allies which would end World War I. The subsequent Treaty of Versailles led to further territorial and financial losses. As the Kaiser had been forced to abdicate and the military relinquished executive power, it was the temporary, "civilian government" which sued for peace. This led to the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. Even though they publicly despised the treaty, it was most convenient for the generals - there were no war crime tribunals, they were celebrated as undefeated heroes, and they could covertly prepare for removing the republic which they had helped to create.

In 1919 the Reichswehr (National Militia) already began "educating" an impressionable Adolf Hitler about the causes of the war and the defeat, firmly placing the Dolchstoßlegende in his mind; it was Ludendorff who would lead the unsuccessful Beer Hall Putsch on November 8, 1923 together with Hitler; it was the Reichswehr which provided early funding to the Nazi Party and it was an 85-year-old Paul von Hindenburg who would appoint Hitler as chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933.

Richard Steigmann-Gall says that the stab-in-the-back legend traces back to a sermon preached on February 3, 1918, by Protestant Court Chaplain Bruno Doehring, six months before the war had even ended.[1] The official birth of the term itself possibly can be dated to mid 1919, when Ludendorff was having lunch with a British general Sir Neil Malcolm. Malcolm asked Ludendorff why it was that he thought Germany lost the war. Ludendorff replied with his list of excuses: The home front failed us etc. Then, Sir Neil Malcolm said that "it sounds like you were stabbed in the back then?" The phrase was to Ludendorff's liking and he let it be known among the general staff that this was the 'official' version, then disseminated throughout German society. This was picked up by right wing political factions and used as a form of attack against the hated Weimar regime, who were the exponents of the German Revolution.

The basis of charged complicity drew heavily upon figures like Kurt Eisner; a Berlin born Jew (by his own description) who lived in Munich. He was producing literature about the illegal nature of the war from 1916 onwards and he also had a large hand in the Munich revolution, from which the right wing counter revolution then took place. The Weimar Republic under Friedrich Ebert violently suppressed workers' uprisings with the help of the Reichswehr and tolerated the paramilitary Freikorps forming all across Germany. In spite of such tolerance of the extreme right, the Republic was viciously attacked. Many of its representatives such as Walther Rathenau were assassinated, and the leaders were branded as "criminals" and Jews by the right-wing press dominated by Alfred Hugenberg.

one part of George Bush's legacy will be giving Iraqis the opportunity to have a republican form of government.

Well I guess in 1970, after the US had supported the coup against Sihanouk, the Cambodians had a similar "opportunity". Unfortunately the Khmer Rouge easily thrust aside our guy (Lon Nol) and genocide ensued. But by AH's reasoning, I guess the Cambodians failed to seize the opportunity that the US so generously provided.

There's a piece in this month's Harper's (not online) about the history and future of the stab-in-the-back, ending with the suggestion that Americans just don't care enough about Iraq for it to work this time. I don't quite agree: it's easy to make Americans care about something for false premises when it's politically opportune. Remember the Maine?

Here's the REAL must read of the day, but you won't find it in the New York Times or the Washington Post -- even though they covered the speech I'm referring to. Yesterday, President Bush gave the commencement address at West Point. In that speech, Bush made the following argument for why we went into Iraq:

“When the United Nations Security Council gave him [Saddam Hussein] one final chance to disclose and disarm, or face serious consequences, he refused to take that final opportunity. So coalition forces went into Iraq.”

This is nothing less than surreal. Everyone knows Hussein had no WMD to disarm.

I submit that until we make the lying the focus of our critique of Bush and the Republicans, we will never make any progress, no matter how many brilliant analyses we write about this or that aspect of his policy.

You are getting warmer Kevin.

Here is how to know when you have arrived at the hot truth:

Bush and Blair
Rumsfeld and Cheney
Rice and Rice
(she's so smart I said it twice)
ARE ALL WAR CRIMINALS THAT NEED TO STAND TRIAL.

Until you get there...
You may have stopped sipping the kool aid...
But you haven't stopped sniffing the vapors.

"Here's a thought, blame the killings on the people doing them!"

rdw: who's the moral relativist now?

Preznit Vacuity will blame himself for not praying enough. This is far worse than blaming others, and will confirm for all just how ill this child remains.

Oh, it'll be John Kerry's fault, for winning the election and losing the war, just like George and Dick warned.

And Ray Nagin is responsible, too, for not driving more buses.

blame Canada!

"This is nothing less than surreal. Everyone knows Hussein had no WMD to disarm."

It's rule by bunkum, Chris. A complete divorce of desire from reality, where belief and desire trump everything else. Bush's last 29% are right there with him on the Tinkerbell Express, along with the entire GOP and most of the MSM.

Bunkum is the defining characteristic of US politics - and, gods help us, of our culture at large. As long as people aren't confronted immediately with the direct result of living by bunkum, they won't stop letting bunkum direct their thoughts and choices.

I don't see that changing soon. Even if, by some miracle, we get a hard-headed realist Democrat in the WH in 2008, one absolutely committed to cleaning out the Augean stable and restoring Constitutional law, that person will still have to deal with a lazy and dishonest MSM, an opposition Party dedicated to destroying everything America stands for, and a general populace that's collectively ignorant and apathetic.

I still think that the only option to bring about a successful Iraq is to attack the problem, Iran. Invade it soon before it creates more havoc.

I'd like to know where you guys get the idea that Iraqis are joined at the hip with Iran just because they are Shia. That's like saying Americans are joined at the hip to Italy because they are Catholic.

And while it may be true that American military black ops have succeeded in creating a fire between various groups, I'm not so sure it would be self-sustaining if we left.

Bottom line: get out.

Kevin: "I wonder who George Bush will try to blame it on?"

At this point in time, does it really matter?

The ignorant right-wing base that Bush cultivates has never had any collective grounding in reality, regardless of whether it's today or during the Vietnam War thirty-plus years ago. They can blame it on Britney Spears, as far as I'm concerned -- I and countless other Americans are just not going to listen.

Through their willful rejection of fact in favor of pop folklore's seductive embrace, the braying right-wing has mortgaged our future by betraying our country's ideals and promise -- and if they are allowed, its adhetrents will continue to do, no matter how tight they wrap themselves in the American flag.

The Bush administration has created a divisive political climate that threatens to tear our country apart along sectarian, racial, ethnic, gender and class lines. For that alone, the Democrats and their progressive allies must unite and force a decisive confrontation and final reckoning with a Republican Party that purposefully and maliciously inflicted these poisonous clowns upon our nation.

I'm ready to kick some rancid GOP ass into the dustbin of American political history -- and I'm not alone.

"I submit that until we make the lying the focus of our critique of Bush and the Republicans, we will never make any progress, no matter how many brilliant analyses we write about this or that aspect of his policy."

I agree with this. One of the WTF moments of the 2004 campaign was when Kerry was asked in one of the debates if Bush had mislead the country into war and he had the perfect opportunity to say WHY, YES! Instead he said no. He doesn't think Bush is a liar.

Can you imagine what the GOP would have done with a Dem president who had lied the country into a war? They would have lynched him, with the so called liberal media cheering on the lynching.

Another reason why Dems should make Bush's dishonesty the #1 issue. The GOP runs on "character". They portray their opponents as liars(Gore), flipfloppers(Kerry) and their nominee as steady straight talkers. This narrative has now been adopted by the corporate media. Ready to use for the 2008 election. Dems better get their shit together and change this narrative. Most people don't vote on issues. If they did Dems would win most elections. They vote on who they think is strong, honest, shares their values.

Unless someone's mentioned this earlier, and I haven't seen it, I don't hear too many people discussing another possibility: as David Wurmser has urged, part of the strategy may be to let Iraq dissolve into civil war. Chips fall where they may and all that.

Sure would be a lot easier to own the place, and keep Iraqi oil off the markets, if the place is in chaos and heading toward failed state status.

"the Democrats and their progressive allies must unite and force a decisive confrontation and final reckoning with a Republican Party that purposefully and maliciously inflicted these poisonous clowns upon our nation."

I agree. Unfortunately Democratic party is run by people who are into conflict avoidance. At any cost. Even if it means losing elections. Joe Liebermans, Joe Bidens would rather cut their throats than launch an all out assault on the GOP.

"Obviosuly, the deaths are the responsibility of those comitting the murders. Regardless of whether or not the Iraqis choose to take advantage of it, one part of George Bush's legacy will be giving Iraqis the opportunity to have a republican form of government.

--American Hawk"

Rubbish. Utter rubbish.
George Bush's legacy will be the blackened, smoldering ground that Iraq once was. And possibly Iran. Which would then have to include Israel.

Most importantly, though, Bush's most important legacy will be that he helped America see through the lies and deceit fostered upon us by the modern Republican party. In 2008 and on, America will be able to rebuild - we are, finally, aware and cognizant of your manipulations.

The failure of Iraq is also the failure of Conservativism.

Re: Civil War in Iraq

From Today in Iraq on May 27th:

The concept of civil war and sectarian strife is well-described by Iraqi Sami Ramadani, a political refugee from Saddam Hussein's regime and senior lecturer at London Metropolitan University:

"It is not withdrawal that threatens Iraq with civil war, but occupation...The occupation's sectarian discourse has acquired a hold as powerful as the WMD fiction that prepared the public for war. Iraqis are portrayed as a people who can't wait to kill each other once left to their own devices. In fact, the occupation is the main architect of institutionalised sectarian and ethnic divisions; its removal would act as a catalyst for Iraqis to resolve some of their differences politically."

Read more...

No one could have predicted that the Shiites and Sunnis would want to kill each other.

Vietnam reference - don't have the link, but read a couple days ago that newly released Henry Kissinger papers reveal that he told the Chinese in 1972 that the US could live with a Communist united Vietnam.

That was three years before our troops were evacuated.

How many thousands of US troops + of course Vietnamese died so that we didn't recognize reality earlier?

I wonder who George Bush will try to blame it on?

The Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, the New York Times, CNN, Hollywood, gays, immigrants, traitors in our midst, bleeding hearts and artists, and most especially, you Kevin Drum, you and all your disloyal blogospheric buddies.

Vietnam reference - don't have the link, but read a couple days ago that newly released Henry Kissinger papers reveal that he told the Chinese in 1972 that the US could live with a Communist united Vietnam.

That was three years before our troops were evacuated.

How many thousands of US troops + of course Vietnamese died so that we didn't recognize reality earlier?

Um, the pullout of US combat troops occured in the beginning of 1973 -- a mere few months after Kissinger's words to the Chinese, not "three years". You are confusing this situation with the fall of Saigon in '75. The US had an embassy in Saigon for some 2.5 years after the 1973 pullout, and therefore kept a small security contingent of marines in Vietnam (just as it does today for all US embassies).

Nut,

Your posting about 'dolchstoss' is chilling. The failure in Vietnam was never accepted as such by many in this country, including many of the military, who held that the effort was sabotaged by civilians at home.

Unless the issue of the responsibility for the failure in Iraq is fully, openly and fairly done, we will perpetuate this instability and the next version that will develop from the base of angry neo-cons and religious rights will be far worse than what we are experiencing at present.

Given the waffle corps that constitutes the present Democrats in power in DC, I doubt we have the backbone to do what needs to be done to finally rid ourselves of this insidious and rancid virus.

"I wonder who George Bush will try to blame it on?"

In a sane and moral world, we'd blame it upon those people who choose to use violence against others.

But we don't, do we? Instead we blame George Bush, even though he is trying to stop that violence.

Why is this? Is it because the relevant actors are small and brown, and that that's just their way and they know no better and cannot prevent themselves from acting so basely?

Or is it because we are partisan little shits who seek to exploit any tragedy if we think it'll help get our guys into power?

John Kerry, for being so unpatriotic as to campaign against a sitting president during an election year a time of war.

even though he is trying to stop that violence.

you're joking, right? Right? RIGHT?

What's the current, estimated tally of the number of 'unnatural' deaths on innocent Iraqi's since March 1, 2003? (the start of the U.S. Invation).

Perhaps we can get past the "Iraqis are better off today without Saddam than with Saddam" meme. I mean its plain to see that they are living in greater fear and less certainty then before the U.S. presence.

We can all set aside the notion that "Saddam used Chemical Weapons on his own people." This is a mendacious statement. He used Chemical Weapons on Kurds, not Sunni Arabs, and only Sunni Arabs are 'Saddam's own people', Kurds and Shiites are vastly different tribes that Saddam held control over, but not his own people. On top of that we know that American's have used Chemical Warfare on Iraqis so they cannot be better off.

Iraq's GNP was $50 billion a year. Its cost us nearly one third of a trillion dollars to invade and occupy and its not enough and out of control.

An objective analysis of the American presence is Iraq is that it is a failure on all material fronts. And what ever virtue maybe found, in the capture of Iraq, is miniscue to the vices the invasion has given rise to.

(Its like saying Prohibition was a good thing. Making it illegal that people couldn't practice the vice of drinking, but then look at vice's that policy gave rise to. It was so great that Prohibition barely lasted a decade).

Likewise the administration objectivley is a failure on every front. It has no material successes in any area. In almost everything Bush has done, has been ruinous or, at best clumsily done.

Bush, Nero for a Modern Age.

Iraq will melt back in time from whence it came and the people will rule as they did in earlier times , then Iraq will no longer exist ; and peace will fall over the land.

"I wonder who George Bush will try to blame it on?"

Er, that would be the Democratic 5th Column, of course.

:P

But he doesn't care about his legacy, as he told Bob "Lapdog" Woodward, "Because we'll all be dead."
Still don't know if that was a threat or simple pessimism. Either way, what an inspiring leader!

Maybe this is off-topic, but I dont think so. Ive noticed that BushCo has named a new domestic policy advisor to replace the fellow who was caught shoplifting at Target. The first media reports were puzzled about the choice of Karl Zinsmeister, a rightist pubdit who lives far from the Washington scene and hasnt been involved much in policy.

Their review of his Zinsmeister's accomplishments may give a hint on why the man was selected. He has written three (3!) books about the Iraq war that defend the BushCo policy. He has been in Iraq with US troops and has still written glowing books. It must be very hard to find a person in official Washington who is so gung ho about the war -- so much so that he would accept the fact that the costs of Iraq will pretty much de-fund any domestic policy initiatives for the rest of the second term.

It reminds me of the old story of how in the 1700s the English Parliament passed over a dozen Catholic-leaning royal descendants to settle on the closest protestant candidate, a german prince who became King George I.

"Either option will make clear to the world that the greatest military in the world is helpless."

ahhh kevin...it's already abundantly clear to the entire world except for deluded 'Murkans who just can't seem to tear themselves away from the mirror, that the US military is mostly useless for most of today's real-world problems, including protecting US territoy from terrorist attacks.

You want to incinerate all life on earth or poison the environment for an eon, have we got the military for you. You got a terrorism problem, or some other real-life problem this side of armaggeddon...not so much.
.

Blame it on Ralph Nader, Theresa LePore of butterfly ballot fame, Scalia, and all the pundits Somerby rails against who dissed Al Gore.

In a sane and moral world, we'd blame it upon those people who choose to use violence against others.

Saddam did not attack us on 9/11, so GWB chose not to use violence against him.

Saddam did not have any WMD, so GWB chose not to use violence against him.

At this point, I'm mostly worried about what happens when Iraq's low-level civil war turns into a full-scale, armies-on-both-sides-fighting-openly-in-the-streets civil war. Either we'll try to do something about it, which will produce enormous casualties and probably have no effect, or else we'll retreat to our "enduring bases" and hide. Either option will make clear to the world that the greatest military in the world is helpless.

So. When do you think that will happen?

We never get any reports from people who spent 2 out of the three years before OIF roving in Iraq. Nobody, for example, who lived among the Marsh Arabs, lived in Tikrit, lived in Basra, lived in Mosul, and lived among the Kurds.

right now, it isn't obvious that full scale civil war will break out in Iraq before it does in Iran. Nor is it certain that Iraq will take longer to achieve a healthy stability than Pakistan or Kosovo.

42(Clinton)

"I wonder who George Bush will try to blame it on?"

Don't worry. They'll not only lose Iraq, they'll run the '08 campaign, while they're losing it, as a referendum on "Who Lost Iraq?"

WARNING; SPOILER

The answer is Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and whatever poor bastard gets the Democratic nomination.

Obviosuly, the deaths are the responsibility of those comitting the murders. Regardless of whether or not the Iraqis choose to take advantage of it, one part of George Bush's legacy will be giving Iraqis the opportunity to have a republican form of government.

Posted by: American Hawk on May 28, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

Keep it coming there Hawk. Hilarious. First we went in for WMD. Then to spready democracy. Now it's to give them the OPPORTUNITY to have Democracy. Hill-arious. Unless your kid dies there, of course. And then it seems less funny somehow.

The fact is that these people have no cultural familiarity with democracy. There entire worldview, religion, and recorded history is at odds with the concept. They are tribes of largely uneducated individuals who live in a revenge culture not dissimilar to the one that existed 2000 years ago. Oh, there is one difference -- they have automatic weapons. And despite the simlistic prattle of the President, who seems to have gained all he knows about foreign policy by watching movies -- they ARE incapable of democracy. Bring the boys home.

It would also be good to hear reports from people who have spent two of the last three years in Syria and Iran. It would be good to have some comparisons for reference.

We know that all three of the last three years in the Kurdish areas have been the best of the last ten or so decades. They have peace, commercial development, and a democratic government. (they also host groups that are in armed rebellion against Turkey and Iran, so not all is perfect.) they actually are better off now than the Sunnis were under the Baathists. Perhaps not as much material wealth, but more freedom.

The Iraq adventure will be deemed a grand success if the Iraqis are determined to have the intention of engaging in Democracy related program activities.

bring back Saddam!!! He offered so much more hope for the Iraqi people. More than they have now, right.

republicrat -- I give Iraq 3-4 months. Based on past trends, summers are very bad. If the current government can't prove its worth in that time, it'll turn into a free-for-all.

As for Iran, don't expect a revolution anytime soon, at least anything involving violence. The scars from the war with Iraq are still very fresh. That doesn't mean they wouldn't fight if attacked--they would--but being up close and personal with war tends to make almost any alternative look good.

From reading this section...

During the first battle of Fallujah, in the spring of 2004, Sunni insurgents fought alongside some Shiite forces against the Americans; by that fall, the Sunnis waged their resistance alone in Fallujah, and they resented the Shiites' indifference.

But by that time, Shiite frustration with Sunnis for harboring Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the bloodthirsty head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, led some to feel that the Fallujans were getting what they deserved. The cycle of violence escalated from there.

It's clear that this was the least bad result the Bush administration could come up with, and they aimed for it as best they could. Better a divided Iraq killing each other than a united Iraq killing Americans.

Here's a thought, blame the killings on the people doing them!"

rdw: who's the moral relativist now?

Huh????

A moral relativist would try to find a way to excuse the actual killers by blaming it on someone else.

Menachim Begin had a great line after Ariel Sharon was blamed for the atrocities in a Palestine area. "Arabs kill Arabs and it's the Jews fault."

The left doesn't get it now and and will never get it. The blame for the killings in Iraq goes to the killers and it doesn't go to anyone else. The left will of course blame someone else. They will also remain untrusted and thus irrelevent.

I'm ready to kick some rancid GOP ass into the dustbin of American political history -- and I'm not alone.

So what happened in 2004, 2002, 2000, etc.? Were you still in the asylum?

Wow, what a dream world you live in, rdw. Guess the chickens in a cock fight are to blame for getting tossed in the same ring. By the way, when you signing up, tough talker?

Don't the politicians usually end up blaming the soldiers and the military for losing a war? Don't the Republicans blame soldiers like Cleland, Murtha, Kerry McCain and Gore for losing in Vietnam?

I wonder who George Bush will try to blame it on?

The librul media, the people who exposed his jim-dandy Terrorist Surveillance Program, the Clenis, Howard Dean -- there's a lot of blame to go around.

Murtha! I forgot him. We were winning big-time until he got all squishy.

Menachim Begin had a great line after Ariel Sharon was blamed for the atrocities in a Palestine area. "Arabs kill Arabs and it's the Jews fault."

Sharon knew exactly what would happen if those Phalangist entered the refugee camps, and was held as "personally responsible" for the massacre by an investigating Israeli Commission. Begin's line is most famous because it revealed the astonishing self-pity some right-wing Israelis were capable of.

We see the comparison today as some American conservatives are incredulous that anyone could blame them for current strife in Iraq after they clearly have been trying to bring the "gifts of civilization" to that nation. This kind of neo-imperialist shirking of responsibility is really creepy. Serious people had been saying for ages before the war how difficult it would be to impose democracy on the arab world, Iraq in particular, but were ignored. Now the right scratches it's head and absolves itself from blame.

Hawks can't even take responsibility for the repercussions of their own action. I guess Powell's "Pottery Barn" doctrine is really dead, if it ever existed aside from on paper.

Guess the chickens in a cock fight are to blame for getting tossed in the same ring. By the way, when you signing up, tough talker?

So the Iraqi people are just dumb chickens? You're not an elitist, nah!

You're comment about my service is equally lightwieght. I served longer than your mama. Does she get to vote? But for the record I served longer than Lincoln, Wilson and FDR COMBINED.

Begin's line is most famous because it revealed the astonishing self-pity some right-wing Israelis were capable of.

Begin's line had zero to do with self-pity. It was pure contempt. Begin was not a many given to self-pity.

The Kahan Commission concluded that direct responsibility rested with the Jemayel Phalangists led by Fadi Frem. Sharon was held personally resposible only because he sat at the top of the chain of command. He had nothing to do with it or previous knowledge of it. Quite obviously it did not prevent him from becoming PM and defeating Arafat and the infatada.

The killings in Iraq are the responsibility of the kilers. No one else. Just them. It's the same everywhere else. It's not even a little bit confusing.

手机铃声 和弦铃声下载 手机铃声免费下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 mp3铃声下载 下载手机铃声 三星手机铃声 手机铃声 免费铃声下载 铃声下载免费 搞笑铃声下载 搞笑免费铃声 铃声下载免费 搞笑下载铃声 下载铃声 三星铃声 免费铃声下载 MP3铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 MP3铃声下载 手机铃声下载手机铃声 免费铃声下载 免费铃声下载 搞笑免费铃声 免费铃声下载 手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 免费铃声下载搞笑下载铃声 下载铃声 mp3手机铃声 三星铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 搞笑手机铃声 手机铃声免费下载免费铃声下载 铃声下载免费 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 免费铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 和弦特效铃声下载 文秘写作 竞聘演讲稿 个人工作总结 八荣八耻演讲稿 中国文秘网 治疗牛皮癣,阴虱特效药 免费歌曲铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 mp3铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 mp3手机铃声 免费手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 免费铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 搞笑铃声 免费手机铃声 免费铃声免费铃声下载 mp3手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 免费铃声 手机铃声免费下载 mp3铃声 免费手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声 免费铃声下载 手机mmf铃声下载mp3手机铃声 手机铃声 手机铃声免费下载 铃声下载 免费铃声 手机铃声下载 免费手机铃声免费铃声 免费手机铃声 mp3铃声 mp3铃声下载 免费铃声

rdw 1:08 PM Here's a thought, blame the killings on the people doing them!

American Hawk1:47 PM Obviosuly, the deaths are the responsibility of those comitting the murders…

am 4:09 PM In a sane and moral world, we'd blame it upon those people who choose to use violence against others.But we don't, do we? Instead we blame George Bush, even though he is trying to stop that violence…

According to international law to which the United States is a signortory, it is the responsibility of the occupying power to keep and maintain the peace in the country it occupies. Bush is the Satrap of Iraq
In United States v. List [7] a military tribunal operating after World War II during the so-called subsequent Nuremberg proceedings affirmed:
"A commanding general of occupied territory is charged with the duty of maintaining peace and order, punishing crime, and protecting lives and property within the area of his command. His responsibility is coextensive with his area of command. He is charged with notice of occurrences taking place within that territory...dereliction of duty rests upon him...." [8]
As we see, ignorant minds use the same talking points. Of course, the Clentis ™ is again all the rage among our highly paid media whores.
Since Bush is against democracy in America, why do you think you can sell the ridiculous idea that he wants to install a Republic in Iraq? Snark and glibness is the RepubliConTarian response to all the problems you cause. They're spelled o-b-v-i-o-u-s-l-y and c-o-m-m-i-t-t-i-n-g.

republicrat 7:02 PM it isn't obvious that full scale civil war will break out in Iraq …

republicrat 9:11 PM …Perhaps not as much material wealth, but more freedom.

Menachim Begin had a great line after Ariel Sharon was blamed for the atrocities in a Palestine area. "Arabs kill Arabs and it's the Jews fault." …rdw 10:04 PM

Sharon was held personally resposible only because he sat at the top of the chain of command.

If you have served in the military, you should know this is not "a technicality". Sharon knew the animosity between maronite lebonese and muslims at that time and did nothing to keep armed men from slaughtering unarmed refugees in IDF-held territory.

We have occupied Iraq now for three years. We are responsible for keeping it stable until the government asks us to leave or we choose to do so ourselves. That we can't do so doesn't mean we aren't responsible.

If Iraq was something other than a basketcase you'd probably be giving Bush credit for our success. The buck should stop with him, regardless of whether he likes the results of his mess.

Concepts such as "duty" and "obligation" are lost on rdw. Collin Powell got one thing right: You break it you own it. While rdw remains as confused as ever, it's quite clear to anyone with a sense of duty and obligation that the responsibility for what has transpired in Iraq clearly rests with the US.

George Bush will hide himself in Crawford for the rest of his life because the rest of the world will consider him a war criminal that should be put on trial if he ever sets foot on foreign soil.

The stupid fuck was told that a war on the ground in the cities of Iraq were unwinnable by people who actually had some experience -- his own father and Colin Powell (who sold his soul by giving that deceitful speech at the UN) to name two.

The legacy of GWBush will be one of shame. One of ineptitude. After he is gone, uncovering his crimes will be like peeling an onion -- it will be layer after layer after layer -- and yes, we will probably be reduced to tears!

And the people who supported this mindless thug will melt into history, denying they ever heard of his crimes.

Here's a thought, blame the killings on the people doing them!

Really lame analogy time. Suppose you hired a security guard who promises you that he will not only will keep your business be safe, but that thieves will shower your business with rose petals. However, while on-duty, your business is not only robbed, but a full-scale civil war erupts in the lobby.

Sure, you should blame the perpetrators, but you also need a new security guard.

And the people who supported this mindless thug will melt into history, denying they ever heard of his crimes.

Hey, that or come back to power in some GOP administration 25 years from now.

Their flicker may be fading for the next few years, but the conservative message is timeless. Some jerk in high school right now has just picked up his first copy of the National Review and is thinking "Hey! Demand accountability from everybody else for their actions while completely shirking it for mine? Sounds pretty good to me!"

So the Iraqi people are just dumb chickens? You're not an elitist, nah! - rdw

That was dumb even for you rdw. apparently we can add analogy to the long list of things Republicans just don't get.

Any Jackass can kick down a barn.

But it takes a carpenter to build one.

I'm a kicker-downer, not a builder-upper.

And my friends in the military contracting business find kicking things down to be rather profitable.

So withdrawal will now cause a civil war that Bush takes blame for?

And all those Murtha-f*ckers calling for withdrawal even faster when Iraq was less ready have no responsibility?

As always, Lefty foreign policy is about dodging blame.

Guys,

you can try to pin this on Republicans as much as you want...forget it, without the help of the bend over boys...Biden, Lieberman & associated suck ups it wouldn't have happened.

Who will Bush blame it on? That question underlines the reasons why he had to elected again and why, in the long run, it is in the best interests of the nation. If Kerry had been elected there would be a vast chorus of blame coming from the right. The waters would be so muddied that lessons could not be drawn. As it is, the policy failures of the right are starkly illuminated. They will try to blame others, but it won’t stick. The ideas of the right have been bedeviling this country for a half century. At last we can put them behind us and step forward into a progressive 21st.

So withdrawal will now cause a civil war that Bush takes blame for?

Well, yeah. You start a war, you take responsibility for the aftermath. Is there a more fair way of doing it?

you can try to pin this on Republicans as much as you want
I will, thanks. I'm not happy with most of the politicians who supported the war, either Dem or GOP, Joe or Joe. But you're kidding yourself if you think this wasn't a Republican war. And Republicans get their marching orders from the White House.

They did before Bush's job approval ratings dropped below 40%, anyway.

WONDER AWAY...I'm thinking the birdbrain Bush supporters who post here will blame: Clinton, Kerry, and Jane Fonda! And, sadly, I fear that Iraq WILL disentegrate into decades of infighting within their population...but let's remember, "The road to Democracy is a difficult one"...and we all know that's what ALL IRAQIS really want. Right? What I can't understand is why these "end days" Christians aren't giving all their worldly goods to the poor and preparing for the great "UPRISING"...

McA is a silly chink.

>one part of George Bush's legacy will be giving Iraqis the opportunity to have a republican form of government.

Opportunity for democracy is on the march !!

The spin is beginning.

I think it is inevitable that Bush and Cheney go at it and blame each other:

Cheney will argue that Bush was an incompetent fool

Bush will argue that Cheney was a deceitful manipulative out to line his pockets.

Of course they will both be right

Rdw, you are being an idiot and even you should realize it. Of course the enemy is directly responsible for fighting us, but when the war is screwed up we want to know who failed on *our side* to do his or her job executing. I think your dopey remark is a characteristic example of the simple-minded or fallacious right-wing mindstyle. You can't imaging multiple causes or complexities, and I mean *basic* stuff not "nuances." I mean not understanding e.g. that we can blame the security guard for leaving the door open and letting crooks get in, *and* blame and punish the thieves as well. (How far do you think you'd get using the excuse that "the thieves are to blame" if you did a dumb thing as a guard? Would you forgive a guard like that? Would your business buddies in the GOP let that be an excuse?) Where are the vaunted "accountability" values of the right here?

PS - I think I know where rdw-style "reasoning" comes from. The right-wingers are mostly, or controlled by, a mix of business interests and religious cranks. Hence, they are used to using advertising and revival-tent psychology in lieu of genuine reasoning as necessary to the vocations of say law and science, where liberals are more highly represented.

Two points: Menachem Begin was the head of a Zionist terror group, Irgun; and; as such, he was a terrorist.

could be but it has nothing to do with his point. Arabs kills arabs and the left blames the jews. Whatever he did before 1982 he had zero to do with this episode. It was arab killing arab.

Secondly, Israel is the occupying power in Palestine and was also the occupying power in Lebanon during its invasion in 1982 when Ariel Sharon committed war crimes. As such Israel was responsible. Republicans don't get it: you occupy a country for no reason; you have a duty and obligation. Shirking your duty doesn't make you right and someone else responsible.

Conservatives get it. Arabs killed arabs. Those how pulled the trigger are responsible. Ariel Sharon wasn't there and had no knowledge of the events before or during. History has proven him to be a great man. He esposed Arafat as a murderous fraudm defeated him and the infatada. We now have a situation where the Israeli economy is booming, they are building a secure fence on their borders to provide both the Israeli's and Palestinains a safe state.

It's very questionable the Palestinains are capable of self rule. Their side of the fence will remain a war zone as they kill each other. But Israel can defend themelves much more effectively now and moreso when the wall is completely finished.

Ariel Sharon is, was and will always be a giant in Israeli history.

We have occupied Iraq now for three years. We are responsible for keeping it stable until the government asks us to leave or we choose to do so ourselves. That we can't do so doesn't mean we aren't responsible.

We are not responsible for sunni terrorists killing shia or shia terrorists killing sunni. They chose their path. It is 100% their choice. They could have traveled the prosperous road favored by the Kurds. THEY chose not to do so.

There may be a full scale civil war but the odds the Sunni would survive such an event are extremely small. Far more likely is they get wiped out. Even in this war of attrition theyy are losing. Once they were nearly the same size as the Kurds. But the Kurds have added over 1M citizens and will add many more.

The USA is creating an Iraqi army capable of restoring the peace. At some point the sunni will choose life or death. They will get their wish either way and this will end.

NONE of it is the fault of the USA. ALL of it is the fault of those on the gorund in Iraq.

Neil,

The war is not screwed up. The military is doing a fantastic job and succeeding against incredible odds. History is going to give these professionals the highest marks of any military in history. Just the act of creating a 300,000 professional army from scratch in Iraq is a stunning achievement. Doing it under such dangerous conditions makes it all the more incredible.

BTW: The analogies about security guards are braindead stupid. They make no sense.

Hence, they are used to using advertising and revival-tent psychology in lieu of genuine reasoning as necessary to the vocations of say law and science, where liberals are more highly represented.

Nothing like blowing smoke up your own ass. But you have it 100% correct. Liberals are smarter. They're more honest, caring, sensible, knowledgable, etc. You name it and you have it.

Except for one teeny-weeny thing. You are too friggin stupid to win elections.

The ideas of the right have been bedeviling this country for a half century. At last we can put them behind us and step forward into a progressive 21st.

James of DC,

You have it exactly backwards. Besides cutting taxes and de-regulating GWB has embraced globalization like no other world leader. We've signed free trade agreements with 9 different groups and have completed negotiations with almost as many more. By the time he is done GWB will have executed free trade agreements with over 30 nations and improved trade deals with many more.

The beauty of this is it's all under the radar. In the last Qtr exports rost by 14.7%. That is a blistering pace and the growth is all to Asia.

The progressive groups American libs so idolize are in Western Europe. Yet Western Europe has all but collapsed. During the GWB era USA growth has almost tripled Western Europen levels while NATO and the UN have effectively unraveled. US public opinion on the UN and Western Europe is at all time lows.

What should be especially ominious for America libs is that sentiment in Europe for the USA is also in the toilet. They remain pissed over the death of Kyoto and the AMB treaty. They still can't believe GWB won re-election. They can believe Democrats are so inept. At the same time the EU is stagnant. The constitution is dead at a time the EU lacks credible leadership and has sharp splits between the East and West and especially between France and Eastern Europe. Chirac will fester for another year and his successor might be equally powerless. Merkel heads a divided govt and Blair is almost in lame duck status.

Relations between the USA and Western Europe are the worst they've been since WWII and it's shared by both parties. We will never be close allies with France or Germany again. It's not hard to figure out Japan and India are far more important as allies.

This is a disaster for liberalim. Europe is collapsing in slo-mo and GWB has moved us otu of harms way. The future is Asia.

rdw, nice to finally see you have little sympathy for the people of Iraq, innocent or aggressor. You seem to feel that for rejecting US charity the Sunnis should reap the whirlwind. But the Iraq War has turned Anbar province into a great terrorist training school for radicals from across the middle east, and you are a fool if you don't think we will be hearing from them again.

The funny thing is, the only Iraqis you seem to feel are "fit" to govern themselves are the kurds. They were already practicing, if imperfect, democrats before the Iraq War. We could have just left them.

Ariel Sharon is, was and will always be a giant in Israeli history.

A giant found by a commission composed of Israeli judges and military personnel to be personally responsible for the slaughter of up to 3500 non-combatants. To recap for those just tuning in.

Your arguments are unconvincing, rdw. You repeat silly things you said previously, leading those of us bored enough to keep up with you at all just restating the same rebuttals. That you dissolve into a juvenile taunt at the end of your 7:30 post shows the caliber of debater you are under any kind of scrutiny.

The legacy of GWBush will be one of shame. One of ineptitude

Not at all. The MSM will have no say in writing GWBs legacy or evaluating his performance. This is true for all Presidents. Poll data has zero influence. Clinton had the highest poll data at the end yet won't be remembered for anything aside from impeachment. Truman had the lowest poll numbers at the end yet is ranked in the top 10.

Even the current press corps agree GWB has been a transformational President. As I pointed out in a prior post GWB has been more active than any other President in terms of expanding trade and embracing globalization. Trade is shifting rapidly from Europe to Asia and US diplomatic focus is shifting accordingly.

One simple piece of economic data says it all. Intel now gets over 60% of it's sales from Asia versus 18% from Europe. GWB understands this is how our diplomatic interests and assets should be distributed and he's making it happen. This is incredibly significant.

Ariel Sharon is, was and will always be a giant in Israeli history.

A giant found by a commission composed of Israeli judges and military personnel to be personally responsible for the slaughter of up to 3500 non-combatants.

After which he went on to win the PM position in the largest landslide in Israeli history. He then took his mandate and crush Arafat, Hamas, the infatada and to start creating a Palestinian state by building a security defense on clear borders. At the same time he put the Israeli economy on a proserous path using supply-side incentives. If you trend out relative economic growth between Israel and it's enemies you see Israel getting substantially stronger.

Sharon is a giant.

Yeah, that's a well-crushed Hamas we've got there. You can hardly chalk that up as a Sharon accomplishment.

What you can chalk up to being a Sharon accomplishment is the killing of up to 3500 non-combatants, for he is personally responsible as determined by a commission composed of Israeli judges and military personnel.

sweaty guy is spot on that rdw (like American [chicken]Hawk, GOP, et al aren't worth engaging, but I just can't help rubbing in more fiskery (and I hope we have some *Fitzery* soon!):

>The war is not screwed up. The military is doing >a fantastic job and succeeding against incredible
...
Yes, "the military" is doing well under the circumstances - it's the leaders who screwed up! Please appreciate the difference.

>BTW: The analogies about security guards are >braindead stupid. They make no sense.

Well, to you...But they are a very close reductio analogy to your stunning insinuation that only direct perpetrators are to blame for whatever happens. A general (or CIC) can't screw up because the enemy was responsible for fighting him? You couldn't have meant that, could you?

>>Hence, they are used to using advertising and >>revival-tent psychology in lieu of genuine >>reasoning as necessary to the vocations of say >>law and science, where liberals are more highly >>represented.

>Nothing like blowing smoke up your own ass. But >you have it 100% correct. Liberals are smarter. >They're more honest, caring, sensible, >knowledgable, etc. You name it and you have it.

>Except for one teeny-weeny thing. You are too >friggin stupid to win elections.

Umm - by definition (but not counting messing with voting machines etc.) our elections are about getting the *most* votes, not the most intelligent ones - and there are a lot of stupid voters out there. You could mean strategically, in which case we have some agreement - bozos like Shrum should never run campaigns. I don't fawn over the voters with phony pretenses that they are intelligent. Most of those voting for Bush are stupid or easily fooled or sentimentalized, or are religious cranks, or plutocrats wanting to increase their dominant stance, and some misguided conservatives thinking they were actually serving the cause of limited government.

Ariel Sharon always was and always will be a thug. He rained untold suffering on Israeli and Arab alike. If he had a soul it burns liberally in hell.
.

nice to finally see you have little sympathy for the people of Iraq, innocent or aggressor. You seem to feel that for rejecting US charity the Sunnis should reap the whirlwind

I have much sympathy for the innocent in Iraq. I have total contempt for the insurgents. They're butchers. They are the ones killing innocents or otherwise causing them to be killed. They had a choice between liberty and democracy or chaos. They chose chaos. They are fully culpable. There's no shared responsibility. They get 100% of the blame.

The Kurds were getting slaughtered by Saddam. They are governing themselves because they learned how to do so and have far more defensible positions. The sunni do not attack the Kurds only because they would get slaughered by the Kurds.

The Shia are perfectly capable of governing themselves. They've been remarkably restrained. They are the only reason there hasn't been a civil war. But they are building the capability. In due time the Sunni will have to choose between laying down their arms or dying. The Shia are getting much stronger. There will be peace. Either the Sunni stop the killing or the Shia will stop it by eliminating them. Sunni society, currently near 17% of the total population, would be subtantially reduced. The math is not on their side.

My own suspicion is that as the USA backs out the killing will get worse for a short period as the Shia hold the insurgents and their supporters accountable. Eventually the Sunni will surrender but it could be like the South after our civil war. "IF" they continue to fight neither the Kurds nor the Shia will share their oil wealth. They'll be kept poor and isloated.

A general (or CIC) can't screw up because the enemy was responsible for fighting him? You couldn't have meant that, could you?

Nice summation of rdw's argument about US efforts in Iraq, Neil. Put in other words: "Our side didn't fail, the other side just succeeded!"

I guess an alternative would be "We won the war, but the Iraqi people let us down!" Good luck running with either slogan either this year or in 2008, rdw.

The Kurds were getting slaughtered by Saddam. If so, it was certainly in our power to stop it without resorting to war. We owned the skies over Kurdish Iraq and could easily have owned the ground.

Sunni Arabs probably aren't attacking Kurds because they won't be governed by Kurds in an Iraqi democracy. They, like Kurds, will be governed by Shia. Let's see how the Kurds feel about the nuances of that in a few years.

There will be peace. Either the Sunni stop the killing or the Shia will stop it by eliminating them. This is beautiful. You should frame it. Maybe next to your "I have much sympathy for the innocent in Iraq" quote.

Ariel Sharon always was and always will be a thug. He rained untold suffering on Israeli and Arab alike. If he had a soul it burns liberally in hell.

I understand why the left hates Sharon. He's made fools of you all. Although Oslo was destroyed by Arafat it's Sharon who proved the lefty icon and nobel peace prize winner was a total fraud. Sharon ended the killing of the Infatada. Today the jews live behind defensible borders with a booming economy.

He did this by doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of the left's recommendations in ALL areas including military, diplomatic and economic.

It isn't just that their econmoy is booming it's the assistance GWB provided is securing trade deals between Israel and many of their neighbors. It seems after 9/11 many countries became nervous about islamic terrorism and decided to buy the services of the country most skilled in defeating terror.

If you were to do some simle math and carry out the relative wealth of israel and it's growth rate and compare that to it's enemies you would be distraught. Not only is Israel so much stronger but they are getting so much stronger every year. Palestine is a welfare state reliant on the good will of lefties in the EU and USA. Except the EU has it's own economic pickle and they're a bit less thrilled about supporting terrorists like Arafat.

They can't affort to support Palestine. They absolutely can't affort the increases in defense spending Israel and the US can afford. Moreover, the improvements in US and Israel technology play perfectly into the defense designed around the security fence.

What ended the infatada was Hamas realizing they were going to run out of terror leaders long before Israel ran out of jews. The terror leaders will gladly sacrifice suicide bombers. They will not sacrifice themselves. Watching Arafat spend the last few years of his life shitting in trash cans and groveling to the Israeli's for toilet paper every time he neded to wipe his ass served it's purpose. It was extremely powerful that israel could put a missle laden helicopter or drone over the West Bank and take out just about anyone they wanted. Every few months the technology just gets better.

Sharon is a revered man in Israel and among conservatives. Arafat is a turd. History will confirm both assessments.

Sharon is a revered man in Israel and among conservatives, who was found by a commission of Israeli judges and military officers to be personally responsible for the slaughter of up to 3500 non-combatants. And parents say there's no role model these days for kids to look up to.

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt your hagiography, rdw. When we last left, Ariel Sharon was curing cancer and shitting marble...

has407: republicrat -- I give Iraq 3-4 months. Based on past trends, summers are very bad. If the current government can't prove its worth in that time, it'll turn into a free-for-all.
...
As for Iran, don't expect a revolution anytime soon, at least anything involving violence. The scars from the war with Iraq are still very fresh. That doesn't mean they wouldn't fight if attacked--they would--but being up close and personal with war tends to make almost any alternative look good.

has407, some things in Iraq are improving: military, judicial system, police, farming, sewage and water works, electical supply. Some are either not improving or it's hard to tell: militias, daily volence levels in some areas, petroleum and other fuel supplies. Both lists could be extended. I expect that things will continue like this for a couple years, with generally declining rates of violence. No democratically elected government can turn things around rapidly with so many sources of opposition in violent resistance.

As to Iran, it will continue to become a more unpleasant place to live. They import 40% of the oil they use, even as 8million barrels per day are smuggled out of the country. Anti-government protests come and go seasonally, but they are longer and more widespread each time they occur, such as now. Mullahs consistently and flagrantly block the will of the majorities in almost all realms of civil society and governance, despite the instances of change that you cite, and that I agree do happen.

so we'll see. It was nice chatting with you. My reading leads me to be more optimistic on Iraq, less optimistic on Iran than you are. Your first critique was correct: I had oversimplified.

sweaty guy,

I'll repeat for a 3rd time. Ariel was elected Israel's Prime minister in the largest landslide in Israeli history AFTER the commission made it's recommendation.

Looks like Ariel had the last word on that issue.

Actually Begin had the most famous words on that issue. He shortened lefty ideology down to one sentence. "Arabs kill arabs and it's the jews fault. That is the reason Europe has so little influence in the Middl East and is always on the wrong side of history.

William Jefferson Clinton has as his most frequent and esteemed guest in the Oval Office Yasir Arafat. A man proven to be a human turd. That's the left.

A general (or CIC) can't screw up because the enemy was responsible for fighting him? You couldn't have meant that, could you?

No one said that.

I am saying only a moron would suggest holding someone other than the killers responsible for the killings.

No general is perfect. No private is perfect.

I'll repeat for a 3rd time. Ariel was elected Israel's Prime minister in the largest landslide in Israeli history AFTER the commission made it's recommendation.
What recommendation was that, that he be held personally responsible for the deaths of up to 3500 non-combatants? Yeah, I think I heard about that. What do you think, just because he's popular in Israel the massacre did not happen, or proves he wasn't responsible? That's a little at odds with your Polls May Show Most Americans Think Bush Is A Walking Disaster But He's Really A Great Man theory, no?

No general is perfect. No private is perfect.
As long as the security needs of Iraq are provided for by US troops, any failure to meet them is ours. You can not blame this on the enemy or on the people he hides among. His mission is to create instability, their mission is to try to stay alive. The fact that the only way to fully resolve the situation you can suggest is the obliteration of one religious faction by the other shows the intellectual poverty of the "stay the course" conservative, as well as his general lack of humanity.

sg,

No, the recommendation happened. It was meaningless. Ariel went on to win in the greatest landslide ever and immediately pounded Arafat into submission. Sharon proved the left wrong on everything in the Middle East. His vision has been accepted. Europe and the American left have been totally ignored since Clintion started the infatada. By the time GWB leaves office there will be a separate Palestinian state. Israel will be safe and prosperous and growing even more powerful every day.

The security meeds of Iraqi are being provided for by both Iraqi and Coalition forces. The killing is the fault of the insurgents. It's their fault alone. I am not advocating the removal of a religious sect. I am advocating the killing of the insurgents. We know they're primarily sunni hiding among innocent sunni. IN the event of a full scale civil war using the methods of terrorists there will be large scale killing of innocents. Terrorist exist only to kill innocents. Since the Sunni have left the Shia no choice but to defend themselves that's what they'll do.

It doesn't make any sense for the Shia to move immediately. They grow stronger every day. When ready they'll give the Sunni a final chance to quit the insurgency. If the Sunni decide not to accept the offer it's obvious a bloodbath will occur. My vote would be for the Sunni to end the insurgency immediately. Even this would include the insurgents have to be turned over. Murder is murder. It must be punished. If the Sunni are not willing then they must be dealt with effectively. In order to convince the Sunni to never resort to such behavior again the Shia must make the price very painful. These men have butchered their sisters and brother and kids. The must be removed from society as quickly as possible.

There is a chance this event could be quite severe. If in fact the Sunni so much as hint they'll seek retribution on the Kurds they will join the Shia and remove all Sunni from historically Kurdish regions. Saddam took many sections over. The Sunni continue to live there only because of Kurdish largess. The Kurds could remove them tomorrow. The Sunni understand this. They also understand the Kurds have every reason for revenge. They will not antagonize the Kurds.

Thus it's not impossible there will be a huge civil war and catastrophy for the Sunni. The Sunni are playing a bizarre game of chicken. Not with the Kurds, with the Shia.

No, the recommendation happened. It was meaningless. You mean the recommendation made by a commision of Israeli judges and military officers that Sharon be held personally responsible for slaughtering up to 3500 people? You still on that old saw?

It had no reprocussions on his political career. That's not the same as meaningless. It was a harsh appraisal of his conduct (or lack of it) by the legal authorities of the day and his military peers. The fact that he later became prime minister is irrelevant, not least because the election was not considered a referendum on the Kahane commission by any party, but on Ehud Barak's leadership.

Furthermore, as I noted above, your consideration of Sharon as a Great Man because he rode high in the polls completely contradicts your theory that Bush is a great man (who did you compare him to, Truman? Sweet Jesus...) because he rides low in the polls, bucking popular opinion. I just figure it's worth noting this stuff since you are obviously not keeping track.

Murder is murder. It must be punished. If the Sunni are not willing then they must be dealt with effectively.

I assume that means the random executions of men with the name 'Omar'? You do realize that if the Sunni world realizes that the US military is standing aside letting the Shia slaughter any Sunni Arab man they come across throughout occupied Iraq, we will probably also be held responsible? Not just by terrorist types, but average citizens and even leaders of nations we are friendly with? Nevermind that we are giving non-Iraqi terrorists critical training which they can take back to their own countries, we will also be sowing animosity likely to be around for generations among the Sunni muslims, who will not have profited remotely from the Iraq War.

Do you even think about this stuff as you type it or are you making it up as you go along?

You do realize that if the Sunni world realizes that the US military is standing aside letting the Shia slaughter any Sunni Arab man they come across throughout occupied Iraq, we will probably also be held responsible?

It's more than that. Americans are killing Sunnis on the direction of their Shia fixers and translators. Which, by 'r[eally]d[umb]w[anker]' logic means they're murderers. And doing a fantastic job. In reality, reallydumbwanker is just spouting whatever occurs to it.

God, nice to hear it's not just me who thinks rdw is just pulling stuff out of the old posterior.

But you almost want to go through the rabbit hole with him. Say the Shias commit a nice genocide against the sunni, even a little one. What kind of rogue state will this new nation be? How will its shia leaders respond to charges that they let these massacres happen on their watch? Talk about dealing a fragile democracy a fatal blow to legitimacy. "We just decimate every religious faction that doesn't agree with us!" Just what Hamilton, Madison and Jay had in mind.

Of course, practically the only two nations that would recognize this pariah state would be us and.... Iran! Hey, Iraq could be a middleman! Maybe Bush has a plan after all!

S*T*A*Y T*H*E C*O*U*R*S*E

Furthermore, as I noted above, your consideration of Sharon as a Great Man because he rode high in the polls completely contradicts your theory that Bush is a great man (who did you compare him to, Truman? Sweet Jesus...) because he rides low in the polls, bucking popular opinion. I just figure it's worth noting this stuff since you are obviously not keeping track.

Who said anything about polls?

I said nothing of Sharons polls.

Sharon is a giant because of what he was able to get his country to so. They humiliated Arafat n defeating him and carried out a stunning rebuke of the UN, EU and European left not just by killing the leaders of Hamas and building the fence but in making it clear anyone advocating negotiating with terrorists is a moron. He lies in a coma yet it's his policies determing the future of the middle east.

More than any man he exposed Clinton and Albright and the entire apparatus of the left as Arafats useful idiots.

What makes GWB great is he is getting tremendous things done in the fact of staunch opposition form the left. The ridicule him. He ignores them. The agony of the left is a beauty to behold. GWB has mattered. We are out of Kyoto amd the ABM treaty. We are working aggressively on missle defense with Japan and Australia. We are effectively out of NATO. GWB will sign over 30 free trade deals before he leaves office most with Asia, Eastern Europe and South America. Liberals wanted to stop globalization. Exports surged 14.7% in the 1st Qtr. American troops have left Europe and the diplomatic corps is downsizing. GWB has ensured public opinion of the UN is at it's nadir not be ignoring them but by showing what they do.

Sharon and Bush have been the lefts worst nightmare.

I assume that means the random executions of men with the name 'Omar'? You do realize that if the Sunni world realizes that the US military is standing aside letting the Shia slaughter any Sunni Arab man they come across throughout occupied Iraq, we will probably also be held responsible?

Your assumption is incorrect. Murder is murder. If it's committed by Shia on Sunni it's still murder. If one were to examime the root causes of the Omar killings one would see that it's an act of revenge. The Sunni have been butchering little children. One can understand why they did it but it's still murder. People like you have been praising these 'freedom fighters' knowing all along they were nnt targeting the so-called American imperialist occupiers. You knew they were targeting and slaughtering large numbers of innocent Shia, a large number children. You knew this. Yet you never tried to hold them responsible. You wanted to hold Bush responsible. The terrorists were manipulating US public opinion knowing if liberals get into office the appeasment bazaar opens. The obvious problem with blessing Sunni terrorism is the same as blessing Arafats terrorism. It's morally bankrupt and stupid. The Jews were eventually going to kill those causing the problem. The Shia are also going to defend themselves. The Sunni butchered the Shia to start this war with your blessing and praises. It will end in the only way it can end. Either the Sunni will stop or they will be eliminated. The Shia are no different than any other society. If another group is trying to wipe you out you have no choice but to wipe them out 1st.

This isn't rocket science.

The Kurds and Sunni have an agreement. The Kurds have spoken to the Sunni. "Start something with us and we will finish it". These aren't kurdist rules. These aren't Shia rules. These are Sunni rules.

God, nice to hear it's not just me who thinks rdw is just pulling stuff out of the old posterior.

sweaty guy,

rdw is well known in these parts. Well known for the dream world he inhabits.

Here's the sort of game he likes to play: one day he'll gloat about the achievements of the right, such as "declining union influence," and the next day he's boasting about his son-in-law, the union carpenter, and how well he is paid.

His reason for living can be summed up in words like these:

Sharon and Bush have been the lefts worst nightmare.

Little does he know that the word "left," in his usage, is interchangable with "average, decent, responsible people."

The Sunni butchered the Shia to start this war with your blessing and praises.

rdw,

If it wasn't for ignorance, you wouldn't have no friend at all.

You should be ashamed of yourself. And I think deep down you are.

Hamilton, Madison and Jefferson and Jay went to war with England because of taxes. What do you think they would have done if the Brits were butchering all the little kids?

There's no doubt the Shia are going to return fire. The left isn't just expecting it they are cheering for it. The only question is when the Sunni moderates turn against the insurgents and put an end to the Sunni atrocities. This is exceedingly simple. The Sunni's will stop on their own or the Shia and Kurds will stop them. The Shia have patiently waited to build strength. They will have control of a powerful security apparatus.

The Sunni have caused the Shia an incredible amount of suffering. If history is any guide the Shia will answer for their atrocities. The question is, will you excuse shia atrocities as quickly as you excused sunni artocities?

This is exceedingly simple.

rdw wows us with his knowledge of Iraqi tribal & religious history.

Juan Cole has nothing on you, rdw.

one day he'll gloat about the achievements of the right, such as "declining union influence," and the next day he's boasting about his son-in-law, the union carpenter, and how well he is paid.

Quite wrong. I don't consider the collapse of union membership an achievement of the right. I consider it a failure of the left. The fools leading the unions foolishly chose to take sides and as one might expect they picked the wrong side. Not only is membership collapsing but the movement is splintering politically.

My son-in-law is doing quite well by the way. The membership is facing a labor shortage and if you understand demographics you know it's just getting started. Even though he's reached top pay scale he actively seeks to get laid off. He can work 1,000 hour a year and get full benefits and then clear more working under the table. He's 28 and life is going to be very prosperous.

My daughter is a nurse and has similar opportunities. You probably didn't know but it's not all that difficult for an RN to get side work doinf home care for rich folk. They tend to not want to do nursing homes and thus will pay very, very well for nurses to come into their home and take care of them. All under the table of course.

Little does he know that the word "left," in his usage, is interchangable with "average, decent, responsible people."

Not quite.

The best example of the failure of left is in Palestine with Arafat. Slick Willie and Mad Maddy kissed his ass for 8 years. Sharon understood it was suicide to negotiate with him. Appeasement does not work. Sharon and Bush trashed your playbook and have been remaking the world ever since. Ariel is gone from the stage but his policies rule the middle east. There will be a Palestinian state and it will be up to the leftist regimes in Europe and the middle east to support them. The left created a terror society under Arafat and now have to manage the mess.

It's good to see how the hero's of the left are going to be remembered. Arafat and Fidel are nothing more than turds.

If it wasn't for ignorance, you wouldn't have no friend at all.

Forget the lefty hero Michael Moore and his praise of the freedom fighters? Forget the DC premiere with all of the Democratic big shots posing with all of the beautiful people? Tom Daschle doesn't. His picture doesn't sell well during his campaign. That's why he's an ex-Senator.

The left is a fraud. The EU is a fraud. The UN is a fraud. Arafat was a fraud. Oslo was a fraud. Clinton was a sap. Kyoto is a fruad. The ABM treaty is a fraud. The damage done to the left under GWB has been remarkable. Chirac and Schroeder will forever be dupes to the world and in their own country.

rdw wows us with his knowledge of Iraqi tribal & religious history.

Thank you but it's really a matter of common sense. Butcher someone's kids and they're not likely to forgive or forget. There's nothing good about it but it's not our fight. We will soon start leaving and the elected government will settle things.

The question is, will you excuse shia atrocities as quickly as you excused sunni artocities?
This sums up the entirety of rdw's last three posts. An assumption that whoever you debate with is in favor of Sunni atrocities, and the implication that the Shia aren't committing atrocities already. God, ever troll should go to sleep and hope he never writes lines like, "You knew they were targeting and slaughtering large numbers of innocent Shia, a large number children. You knew this." ]

It all goes back to the maudlin language of domestic politics. Because that's all it is to the GOP, politics. People can't be on another side than mine and concerned about this country, etc, etc.

So I guess it's time to shop abroad for sympathetic parties. You may think the Shia and the GOP is an alliance made in heaven, but quite a few won't. The Shia, for one.

And yes, you intimated in posts that Sharon's later popularity, his "revered" status by Israelis and particularly his "landslide victory"! redeemed him by popular justice... the polls. You mentioned them. Everyone go look right now.

Thank you but it's really a matter of common sense.

Don't mention it. Glad to mock you anytime.

An assumption that whoever you debate with is in favor of Sunni atrocities,

The point wasn't that you favor Sunni atrocities but that you tried to excuse them. This entire firggin post is about liberals trying to blame Bush rather than the Sunni. The next time a liberal hold the terrorist responsible for their terrorism will be the 1st time.

And yes, you intimated in posts that Sharon's later popularity, his "revered" status by Israelis and particularly his "landslide victory"! redeemed him by popular justice... the polls

I said nothing of polls airhead. Elections are not polls. His popularity is PROVEN by official policy. Sharon is in a coma and his policies STILL carry the day. The left is just as far outside as always.

rdw: The point wasn't that you favor Sunni atrocities but that you tried to excuse them.

More friggin' rdw lies.

I see I didn't miss much!

Still also lying about DeWine and Strickland in Ohio, rdw?

The next time a liberal hold the terrorist responsible for their terrorism will be the 1st time.

Wow! A second lie in the same paragraph!

This entire firggin post is about liberals trying to blame Bush rather than the Sunni.

And a third!!!

Good for you!

Bush: 40% approval and going nowwhere fast. Has been behind both Clintons now. He's a loser and you're the proof. If he wasn't, you wouldn't have to lie for him.

rdw: Butcher someone's kids and they're not likely to forgive or forget.

I guess that's what happened when the Shah butchered Iranian kids while being supported by Nixon and Ford . . .

. . . and what happened when Saddam was butchering Kurdish and Iranian and Shiite Iraqi kids while being supported by Reagan and Bush 41 . . .

. . . and what happened when Noriega was butchering women and children while being supported by Reagan and Bush 41 . . .

. . . and what happened when Rios Montt was butchering women, children, nuns, etc, while being supported by Reagan and Bush 41 . . .

. . . and what happened when Putin was butchering women, children, etc, while being supported by Bush 43 . . .

. . . and what happened when Iraqi men were being tortured by Bush 43 using their wives and children . . .

. . . and what happened when US soldiers butchered innocent Iraqis because, in part, Bush 43 failed to provide them with sufficient training, leadership, and manpower . . .

Yep.

Arabs aren't forgetting the killing that conservative American leaders have either supported or directly performed.

Neither are we.

Toads like you, rdw, belong in the same place that the Nazi leadership went.

AFG

Relax, you only have 2 years and 8 months left of GWB, Cheney and Rummy. Iraq will be settled one way or another. The Sunni will stop killing or they will be killed. Either way, there will be a peace created by Arabs for Arabs.

America will always be safe and secure for my family. I live in a beautiful area with rolling hills and horse farms. You know as well as I it's Europe where danger lies. They are going to have to learn how to share their space with Islam. While they seem to prefer secularism I suspect in a couple/few decades they'll see the wisdom of praying 5x's a day.

rdw, liars can never relax.

You will eventually be caught in one that hurts you personally.

I will enjoy that.

I said nothing of polls airhead. Elections are not polls.
Yes you did, fartbreath. Elections are indeed polls. Grab a dictionary some time so you ain't gotta stay ig'nant all ya life.

Main Entry: 1poll
Pronunciation: 'pOl
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English pol, polle, from Middle Low German
1 : HEAD
2 a : the top or back of the head b : NAPE
3 : the broad or flat end of a striking tool (as a hammer)
4 a (1) : the casting or recording of the votes of a body of persons (2) : a counting of votes cast b : the place where votes are cast or recorded -- usually used in plural "at the polls" c : the period of time during which votes may be cast at an election d : the total number of votes recorded "a heavy poll"

You said polls, and you used them to hold up Sharon's worth as a great man. It's all up there so their ain't no point denying it.

The Sunni will stop killing or they will be killed. Either way, there will be a peace created by Arabs for Arabs.
And again, this is not the kind of peace on which a legitimate state can be built. Any govt in Baghdad that massacres its Sunni Arabs is going to be held accountable by the rest of the Arab world (and by the rest of those entities you don't like: the UN, Europe, hell maybe even the US under either McCain or a Democrat). The conservative anti-democratic states in the region are going to have a field day undermining the new state and democracy in general. They're already having a ball.

Stay on the horse farm, rdw. The simple life is the one for you.

The next time a liberal hold the terrorist responsible for their terrorism will be the 1st time.
Posted by: rdw on May 30, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

And when will George Bush hold Osama Bin Laden responsible for his terrorism?

"I don't know where he is, I don't spend a lot of time on him, I'm truly not all that concerned about him."
- George W Bush.

Clinton put the guys responsible for the WTC 1993 bombings in prison. He executed Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma bombings.

What was that you were saying about liberals and holding terrorists responsible?

I can't wait until Negroponte is held responsible for his acts of terrorism in Honduras. I'm truly looking forward to that day.

Conservatives encourage and reward terrorism.

You said polls, and you used them to hold up Sharon's worth as a great man

No, not at all.

I said Sharon is a great man for what he did. He didn't just ignore the left. He did EXACTLY the opposite of what the left recommended EVERY Time.

He essentially spit in your face. He did so repeatedly.

He continually and constantly humiliated your Nobel Prize winning hero. In doing so he made of mockery of Clinton, the EU, the UN, the Nobel and 50 years of leftist nonsense.

Sharon lies in a coma and the party he created STILL rules Israel and STILL follows the path he set.

For 3 years your hero had to shit in a trash can. He had to beg for toilet paper and water. That's how a terrorist is to be treated.

History will record the left treated Arafat as a hero and worshipped him accordingly. History will record his jetsetter glamor lifestyle with liberals the world over getting on their knee's to service him while he stashed billions in private accounts and put his family in his Paris Mansion.

Sharon is a giant. Clinton is a putz. Reagan is a giant. Carter is a bigger putz. Thatcher is a giant. Chirac is an even bigger putz.

Palestine is on the front edge of a civil war unable to function as a civilized society. European liberals are looking at the eventual collapse of their welfare states and now realizing pouring more money down a rathole can only bring trouble earlier. They don't want to give the Palestinains money they can afford to give and they now know will be stolen anyway.

At the same time Israel is booming. Exports are surging. Per capita income is already dramatically higher than it's neighbors and sky-rocketing. The Palestinains inside Israel know what liberals can't figure out. Their best their future is with Israel.

Thanks to Sharons wisdom and toughness and GWBs support conditions for Israel have reversed dramatically as have conditions for Palestine and it's supporters. Israel won the war. There may be more killings here and there. When it happens Israel will take out more of the Palestinain leadership. It's kind of neat how after Israel started it's policy of taking out the terror leaders they started thinking terror wasn't such a good idea after all. Funny how that happens.

Sorry my freinds. Sharon's greatness is obvious and unmistakeable. They are erecting one of the largest monuments in history. It's called the wall.

The conservative anti-democratic states in the region are going to have a field day undermining the new state and democracy in general. They're already having a ball.

I don't think so. They can see the powerful army the US is training. They also know this army sits on top of massive quantities of Oil and natural gas as well as plenty of water. Iraq will be very, very prosperous. If you know anything of the Kurdish North you know how quickly this can happen. Iraq will leap past Iran in wealth.

A few years after Iraq ends the insurgency they will have the regions best trained and equiped army in the Middle East (Aside from Israel obviously) A short time after that they'll have the best trained and equipped air force. They'll be able to devastate the poorly trained and equipped Iranian and Syria armies at the same time in less than a week.

Moreover the moderate states of Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel will be on Iraqi's side. They'll share far more extensive commercial relations as well as a desire for peace.

With the US in place in Iraq no neighbor would dare a direct assault. The Shia are merely waiting for their military to be fully staffed, trained and equipped. We're all familiar with the ability of Middle Eastern governments to shut down insurgencies. They're all very, very competent. It's not pretty but they get it done. These leaders in Iraq aren't suicidal. In a kill or be killed world they know what to do.

I'm not exactly sure what percent of the population of Iraq the Sunni population represents. But it's fair to say it's peaked. If they don't stop their insurgency their future is bleak.

I can't wait until Negroponte is held responsible for his acts of terrorism in Honduras. I'm truly looking forward to that day.

You and Christopher Dodd, John Kerry and most other liberal Senators. So how is it the man holds such a high position and was approved by the Senate so easily?

Did you see the clip today noting Rummy is pulling another 8,000 troops out of Japan? And Japan is going to increase it's defense spending and increase it's manpower as a result?

Did you also know Japan has joined the US research effort on Star Wars? They're going to share the cost of development and will obviously deploy Star Wars. Seems they're uncomfortable with Chinese missle pointed their way.

This is a cool pattern. GWB as you know is getting the Japanese and South Koreans to increase the percent of GDP they spend on defense and assume much more responsibility for their direct security. Seems they fear the Chinese more than we do. This is of course a plus diplomatically as well. Besides giving the US a much smaller profile, and thus make a futher mockery of the left's imperialism charges, it raises the stature of the current Presidents as effective leaders. They also need to be more sober in evaluating the threat.

Combined with the permanent removal of over 100,000 troops from Germany the US will soon have fewer troops serving overseas than at anytime since 1942.

The encouragement of Japan, Korea, India, etc to spend more and defense and to ally closer to the US using defense treaties is brilliant strategic diplomacy designed to take advantage of Chinese dominance. It also coincides with the pullout of Europe. GWB has engineered the most dramatic foreign policy shift since Truman. Many nations formerly dependent on the US for their security, and rather obnoxious about it, now have full control of their own security. Europe wins. The USA wins. Asia wins.

Im not sure the Europeans are thrilled Japan is shooting past them as a military power and I know the Chinese and Russians are not but Japan will soon have the 2nd strongest military on the planet and that can only be good for Democracy.

You said polls, and you used them to hold up Sharon's worth as a great man

No, not at all.

Yes, yes indeed. It's in your own previous posts. It doesn't matter how much more you write if you're in denial. Throw out another three hundred word fairy tail, we're all game.

Moreover the moderate states of Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel will be on Iraqi's side. They'll share far more extensive commercial relations as well as a desire for peace.

This is unlikely. Lebanon and Jordan particularly are irrelevant. The states that can really pull the strings in Iraq - Iran and Saudi Arabia - will feel differently. And now that China will probably be turning to Iran for some of their energy needs, it's unlikely Iraq will become the stabilizing pillar you need for a happy ending.

Arafat isn't my hero. Neither are "the Sunnis". There's no use putting up straw men here, I'm able to post quick enough to correct any distortion you pound out onto a keyboard.

The conservative anti-democratic states in the region are going to have a field day undermining the new state and democracy in general. They're already having a ball.

I don't think so.

Doesn't matter what you think so much. An AI program could write half of it and probably be more convincing.

Still promoting your lies about DeWine and Strickland in Ohio, rdw?

Or moved on to new ones?

LOL!

rdw: . . . and that can only be good for Democracy.

But you hate democracy, rdw.

Try to keep your philosophy straight or people might accurately identify you as the goofball you are!

Lebanon and Jordan particularly are irrelevant. The states that can really pull the strings in Iraq - Iran and Saudi Arabia - will feel differently

Lebanon and Jordan are irrelevent but only for now. Their moderaton is significant and will be moreso over time. Saudi Arabia has zero interest in fermenting terrorism anywhere and especially Iraq.

The problem as you state is Iran followed by Syria. But Syria is a bug. Iraq fought a 10-yr War with Iran and has many differences still. The least of which would be the Kurdish North. They'll accept no part of Iran. Iran's hunger for nuclear power is to become the leading Middle Eastern nation. Funny thing is NONE of the other middle eastern nations are comfy with this.

In a few years time Iraq will boom and have the most powerful army in the region. They will unfortunately be very experienced. Far more experienced than Iran. They have as much oil wealth with 1/3 as many people. They also have water. Iraq will become more powerful than Iran. At some point Iraq will need to settle scores with both Iran and Syria.

Once they are occupied with Iraq Israel will remove Hezbollah from Lebanon and give the lebonese back their country. Syria will quickly collapse. Iran will continue to exist however but with a new government. The mullah have little popular support. Iraq will crush any military efforts by Iran and the Mullahs will fall.

The key here is patience. The Shia in Iraq have it and they have solid allies in the Kurds. In 4 months time the Iraqi army is fully staffed. It's reached it's designed size. A majority have battle experience and are well trained. They will control 85% of Iraq. They will pull those troops patrolling safe area's and replace them with coalition troops to mass Iraqi troops in the remaining hot spots. Then they will go in.

The Sunni are about 17% of the population. If they don't surrender they will quickly drop to 16%, 15% ...10% whatever it takes to quit the Insurgency.

These will be Iraqi operations. They don't have a US code of Military justice. They'll probably follow middle eastern standards. If an insurgent fires from a mosque the mosque will be destroyed. If an insurgent fires from a house the house will be destroyed. I would expect total war. If an insurgent is known to have a family their prospects will not be very good.

Assad in Syria is famous for destroying an entire village of 17,000 in Syria after finding out some terrorist activity eminated from the villiage. They surrounded it with artillary and just leveled the villiage. I have no way of knowing this but it seems likely the Iraqi PM will do whatever it takes to end this killing. He's not American. He's Iraqi. I suspect he's willing to do anything. If the only way to stop the Sunni is to drive their population from 17% to 5% he'll drive it to 5%.

The Insurgency will end eventually.

rdw: Lebanon and Jordan are irrelevent but only for now. [. . . blah, blah, blah.]

You are very good at speculative fiction, rdw, but no Jules Verne.

You've been wrong at every point about Iraq and will continue to be so.

You've lied about every issue related to Iraq (as well as on a host of other issues) and your credibility fell through the floor when you lied about DeWine being ahead in the polls in Ohio and about Strickland being behind three GOP contenders.

The Insurgency will end eventually.

All things end eventually, so not a very bold prediction.

After all, the insurgency could end just like the one in Vietnam, but yes it will end.

But that is you, all platitudes and no substance.

Here's a prediction, rdw . . .

Bush won't make it above 50% in approval rating during the next week.

I know I'm stepping out on a limb as big as the one you jumped out on with your platitude about the insurgency, but I'm just going to have to risk it!

Both Clintons approval ratings going up, up, up while Bush's and the GOP's goes down, down, down.

Too bad conservatives wasted the perfect opportunity to get a lock on America's leadership and world opinion by lying, stealing, cheating, murdering, torturing, and defaming.

It's left them high and dry and at the bottom of the barrel in the mind of the American public.

Good news abounds for Democrats though . . .

May 25, 2006 Governor Ed Rendell (D) has opened his biggest lead of the season over challenger and political newcomer Lynn Swann (R)

Iowa Secretary of State Chet Culver (D) has eked out a six-point advantage over Republican Congressman Jim Nussle.

Democratic incumbent Ted Kulongoski narrowly leads Republican challenger Ron Saxton 43% to 41%.

Democratic Governor Jim Doyle, the incumbent, maintains a narrow edge over his Republican challenger.

Congressman Ted Strickland (D) leads Secretary of State Ken Blackwell (R) by 16-percentage points in the race to become Governor of Ohio.

Your lie about Strickland once again exposed for all to see!!!!

Governor Bob Ehrlich (R) now trails Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley (D) 51% to 42% in this heavily Democratic state.

For the second straight month, Democrat Mike Beebe holds an 11-point lead over Republican Asa Hutchinson.

Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey (R) trails every Democrat she is matched against.

Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry (D) leads his strongest Republican challenger, Ernest Istook, by 11 percentage points.

Our survey shows Governor Dave Freudenthal leading Republican Ray Hunkins 52% to 29%.

Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm leading Republican Dick DeVos 44% to 43%

Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano continues to enjoy an enviable lead over two potential Republican opponents.

Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chafee (R) continues to have a very tough row to hoe in his reelection battle, and fails to reach 50% support

Democratic Congressman Ben Cardin is maintaining a substantial lead over Lt. Governor Michael Steele.

Lieberman leads businessman Paul Streitz (R) 59% to 23% in a general election match-up.

Democratic Senator Ben Nelson leads former Ameritrade COO Pete Ricketts (R) 54% to 35%

Ohio Congressman Sherrod Brown (D) holds a three-point lead over incumbent Senator Mike DeWine (R).

Nelson (D) leads likely GOP challenger Katherine Harris (R) by twenty-seven percentage points, 60% to 33%.

Ouch! The Heroine of the GOP Gang that Stole the 2000 Election is going down in flames big time!

Republican Senator Conrad Burns once again trails both Democrats vying for his job.

In New Jersey's U.S. Senate campaign, Republican Tom Kean, Jr. (R) now leads Senator Robert Menendez (D) by just three points, 40% to 37%.

The polls running in favor of Dems outnumber those running in favor of GOPers by leaps and bounds.

Kiss conservative hegemony good-bye, rdw!

And I forgot the following, second only to the good news about Harris . . .

The latest Rasmussen Reports election poll of the Pennsylvania race for U.S. Senate shows Republican Senator Rick Santorum solidifying his standing as most vulnerable congressional incumbent this election season. Santorum now trails Democratic challenger Bob Casey 56% to 33%

Impending crushing defeat for two of conservatives' most cherished leaders!

Double-ouch.

Just 27% of Americans believe the United States is heading in the right direction while 68% believe we have gotten off on the wrong track.

Yes, Bush and the GOP have fallen into a, dare we say it, malaise.

Effectively, a combined 27% approval rating for Bush and the GOP.

I LOVE IT!

Lebanon and Jordan are irrelevent but only for now. Their moderaton is significant and will be moreso over time.
Baseless conjecture.

Saudi Arabia has zero interest in fermenting terrorism anywhere and especially Iraq.

But they do have in interest in halting the spread of democracy, counteracting Iraqi Shia who might align with Iran, and stopping the massacres of Sunnis generally.

Iran's hunger for nuclear power is to become the leading Middle Eastern nation. Funny thing is NONE of the other middle eastern nations are comfy with this.
None are comfy, but my guess is they're understanding they may have to live with it. The nuclear power bit, anyway.

In a few years time Iraq will boom and have the most powerful army in the region.
More baseless conjecture. And having "water" in the Middle East won't make Iraq any more of a power than Egypt.
They have as much oil wealth with 1/3 as many people.
By this standard, Libya should be a more fearsome and powerful nation than Iraq.

Once they are occupied with Iraq Israel will remove Hezbollah from Lebanon and give the lebonese back their country. Syria will quickly collapse. Iran will continue to exist however but with a new government. The mullah have little popular support. Iraq will crush any military efforts by Iran and the Mullahs will fall.
More strainingly optimistic conjecture.

In 4 months time the Iraqi army is fully staffed.
So we have you on record as saying the war should be over in four months. Hooray for benchmarks!

The Sunni are about 17% of the population. If they don't surrender they will quickly drop to 16%, 15% ...10% whatever it takes to quit the Insurgency.
This analysis remains simplistic. Even assuming most of the local insurgents don't see themselves as jihadis willing to die, the non-Iraqis who have entered the country via Syria certainly do. They are getting valuable training against American troops and American trained Iraqis, and have little interest whether other Iraqis approve of their mission. Those who fight on will kill countless innocent Iraqis. Those who leave will take their experience with them back to their own countries. Think 1989 Afganistan.

Meanwhile the Shia will be staging brutal retaliatory measures, possibly with American assistance, against the Sunni Arabs. As you sit there peeling off percentage points of the Sunni Arab population, you've basically shown how easy it will be for this genocide to begin. And it will not be easy explaining to the majority-Sunni Muslim world why Sunnis need to be massacred in the name of freedom. I doubt even the leaders of the Muslim world will go along if it means becoming that estranged from their populations. our Arab allies have drifted from us over less (think the '73 oil embargo).

There is nothing quick or neat coming up in this war. It will not get better if we just wait for it. Posting simplistic bromides on an internet bulletin board about how you would like the world to be is no substitute for understanding the middle east. Or foreign policy in general.