Seems like Rumsfeld and Cheney have been talking like this for at least three years, yet every month more and more people become annoyed with the lack of progess in the War on Terror and confused about why we are in Iraq. Rumsfeld is going to face a vote of no confidence next month, which is not a sign of high popularity and trust.

It takes about three seconds to deflate these clowns. The next time they say something like "..and some say...", make them specify exactly who says what they claim is said. Make them name a name or produce a quote. This usually gets them to backpedal faster than Lance Armstrong.

Rumsfeld: Wrong, cranky, armed, and dangerous.

Why can't he just go home and remain irrelevant until trial?

Yeah, Rumsfeld ROCKS!

Check out this to see how else they are making the government better!

Didn't casey say today that the iraqis will be ready to take the lead in 12-18 months?

Creating arguments that you either can't agree with or can't help but agree with takes some ingenuity. Well, some.

Reminds me of an old SNL bit with Buck Henry as host of an unpopular radio call-in show:
"I'm in favor of forced bussing of communist sympathizers to your homes to break in and kill your puppies. Disagree? Call me now!"

This is a big issue. Democrats want the war on terror to be fought smarter. The administration is painting this as appeasement. Here's hoping enough of the American populace sees that as the pathetic straw-man argument that it is.

Great post, Kevin.

mmy wrote: Democrats want the war on terror to be fought smarter. The administration is painting this as appeasement.

Of course...in the face of their obvious incompetence, they have no choice.

Here's hoping enough of the American populace sees that as the pathetic straw-man argument that it is.

Indeed.

Kevin wrote: ... the Bush administration has accomplished nothing over the past five years except to make a bad problem even worse ...

That's not true. The Bush administration has enriched and empowered its already rich and powerful cronies and finanical backers in the military-industrial-petroleum complex. That's the complete and only agenda of the Bush administration, which is actually nothing but a criminal gang masquerading as "conservative" or "neo-conservative" politicians in order to misuse the power of the federal government and the US military for corrupt purposes of private financial gain.

The so-called "war on terror" is a hoax perpetrated towards that achieving that end. In terms of its true purpose, which is to enrich the Bush administration and its backers and not to "make America safer", the so-called "war on terror" has been a great success.

But those are questions Rumsfeld would prefer not to address since they put the spotlight on the fact that the Bush administration has accomplished nothing over the past five years except to make a bad problem even worse

Let's also not forget how, a year ago, the spectacular incompetence and unpreparedness of the Bush Administration for a major disaster such as a hurricane -- or a terrorist attack.

Hmmmm....I wonder if Rumsfeld would rather we remember the shocking revelation -- again -- of this Administration's incompetence (when, of course, they've been branding themselves as the Party of Homeland Security) or debunking these obvious straw men?

With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?

Why, no, we can't.

Then why do you support withdrawing troops from Iraq? Leaving in retreat from Iraq will only make the enemy follow us home. Why are you so willing to allow another 9/11 to happen when the Islamofascist attacked us on our own home soil? Unfortunately liberals have still not learned the lesson of WWII when the Europeans appeased Hitler. It was only too late before they realized theat you can't appease dictators or else they'll attack. With the Islamofascist state of Iran we have to be even more worried because if they ever get nukes, they could send those nukes to America by packing them in a suitcase. That's why we must destroy Iran's nuclear capabiliy now or else they'll start sending nukes at America.

Yes he did, klyde.

But then you have to enter in the Cheops Factor for the Bush administration. Which is partly why Casey also said it didn't mean the US would withdraw troops. The other reason is that "We will stand down as they stand up" has always been a political lie of the vilest kind for there are no plans currently in place to give the Iraqi military the support and supply infrastructure - nor the heavy weapons like tanks, bombers and artillery - that the US currently provides and without which the newly stood-up Iraqi army would simply fall flat on its face again. There are no plans to even look at giving Iraq that stand-alone infrastructure before 2010 - i.e before the next president puts her/his ass on that comfy chair in the Oval Office.

Regards, Cernig

Very nice post Kevin.

Republicans must figure that the only way to make the terrorism card pay off yet again is to amp up the wingnuttery for an obviously skeptical and jaded public.

It will be very interesting to see if it works for them....Again.

Who did business with the Nazi's in WWII? What Senator helped with the money end...hmm...what was his last name...

Al, STFU

To paraphrase a Rumsfeldian speach.

"What have all Americans asked Bush and Rumsfeld to do? America has asked we hunt down Bin Ladin and the rest of Al Qaeda. Have we? Golly, no. Will we? I don' think so. Why not? Its hard work, and winning the war on terror got in the way of fighting the war in Iraq."

Arrogance piled on top of incompetence. Give that man the medal of freedom.

If only the Bush Administration wasn’t so weak on terrorism, we would all be so much safer now! After all, just look at all of the things that Bill Clinton did to fight terrorism, that were thrown out the window when Bush seized power in 2000. And then, of course, Donald Rumsfeld and the neocons tried all of that appeasement nonsense with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s. Look where that got us! And of course, remember that Richard Nixon sold the Shah of Iran one of the nuclear research facilities that Ahmadinejad may be using to make a nuke! We won’t even get into the fact that the Reagan Administration called Osama bin Laden a “freedom fighter” and gave him billions in American tax dollars.

Conservatives always just molly-coddle these tyrants and create all of these terrorists with their foolish appeasement tactics. When will Americans ever recognize how weak these conservative, draft-dodging chickenhawks are on terror and vote in some Democrats who actually do something about it???

It will, eventually, be beaten when the non-terrorist population of the region decides to turn against al-Qaeda and its jihadist allies and deny them the support and shelter they need in order to function.

This, while better than the usual right-wing propaganda, makes the same critical mistake: it presumes that there is an unswayable "terrorist population" and a unswayable "non-terrorist population", and that the war with al-Qaeda will be won when the former is defeated by the latter.

The "war" will be won, however, when the terrorism meme stops spreading in the population, when parts of the "non-terrorist population" stop becoming part of the "terrorist population".

If you make the fundamental mistake of seeing the struggle against terrorism as an effort fundamentally to defeat a given population rather than an effort to arrest the propagation of a harmful meme, you'll never conduct the struggle effectively.

A remotely related story worth following. could be a transient rather than a trend.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2006-08-29-gas-price-usat_x.htm

With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?

With a growing record of misstakes and misjudgements can we really afford to keep Don Rumsfailed as Sec of Defense ?

cmdicely on August 30, 2006 at 2:58 PM

That's a nice post. Here is a question, sometimes presented as a statement: Isn't defeating the terrorists the best way to prevent the meme from spreading? We know bin Laden's answer: terrorist success is the best way to spread the terrorist meme.

"Didn't casey say today that the iraqis will be ready to take the lead in 12-18 months?"

Is that two or three Friedmans?

What Kevin is saying is absolutely true: it is agit prop. But what democrats need to do to fire back is to flip the argument: Americans' hard efforts are being completely wasted in Iraq because the GOP doesn't have the guts to even admit, let alone study its mistakes.

Democrats shouldn't be afraid to tell the story of Harry Truman - who in WW II as a Democrat led the efforts to investigate the mis-steps of WW II. Now, the GOP doesn't have the courage to even look at the lessons of Iraq.

That's what the Democrats should have the courage to invoke - the pathetic cowardice of men hiding their incompetence by invoking the bravery of ordinary foot-soldiers.

Here is a question, sometimes presented as a statement: Isn't defeating the terrorists the best way to prevent the meme from spreading?

Depends what you mean by "defeating" and "terrorists".

If by defeating you mean "killing" or even "killing or capturing" and by "the terrorists" you mean "the set of all people who are now or have in the past participated in terrorist acts or been members of groups that have organized and executed such acts", then no, defeating "the terrorists" would probably not be a particularly effective means of stopping the terrorism meme from spreading, even if it was practically achievable.

OTOH, with those definitions, "defeating" some subset of "the terrorists" is probably one necessary-but-not-sufficient component among many of any practical effective strategy of dealing with the terrorism meme in the long term.

But what democrats need to do to fire back is to flip the argument: Americans' hard efforts are being completely wasted in Iraq because the GOP doesn't have the guts to even admit, let alone study its mistakes.

I'll go further than that: American lives are being completely wasted in Iraq because the GOP doesn't have the guts to admit its mistakes.

GOP 06: we have nothing to offer but fear itself

shout it from the rooftops.

Kevin, you rule. A terrific post.

I recommend this article which documents the tremendous success of the Bush administration's "war on terror" at achieving its real goals, which have nothing to do with protecting America from terrorism:

Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
by Derrick Z. Jackson
August 30, 2006
The Boston Globe

Excerpt (emphasis added):

As soldiers have died in displaying personal patriotism, the pay gap between soldiers and defense CEOs has exploded. Before 9/11, the gap between CEOs of publicly traded companies and army privates was already a galling 190 to 1. Today, it is 308 to 1. The average army private makes $25,000 a year. The average defense CEO makes $7.7 million.

"Did this surprise us? No, because we've been watching since Sept. 11," said Betsy Leondar-Wright, communications director for United for a Fair Economy. "While the rest of us were worrying about terrorism and mourning the people who died, the CEOs were maneuvering their companies to take advantage of fear and changing oil supply, not just for competition but for personal enrichment."

The top profiteers after 9/11 were the CEOs of United Technologies ($200 million), General Dynamics ($65 million), Lockheed Martin ($50 million), and Halliburton ($49 million). Other firms where CEO pay the last four years added up to $25 million to $45 million were Textron, Engineered Support Systems, Computer Sciences, Alliant Techsystems, Armor Holding, Boeing, Health Net, ITT Industries, Northrop Grumman, Oshkosh Truck, URS, and Raytheon.

While Army privates died overseas earning $25,000 a year, David Brooks, the disgraced former CEO of body-armor maker DHB, made $192 million in stock sales in 2004. He staged a reported $10 million bat mitzvah for his daughter. The 2005 pay package for Halliburton CEO David Lesar, head of the firm that most symbolizes the occupation's waste, overcharges, and ghost charges on no-bid contracts, was $26 million, according to the report's analysis of federal Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

This is the real purpose of the war that Cheney and Rumsfeld want to go on forever.

Gregory - American lives are being wasted. And BTW one of the saddest things to me are the two stats you don't see much;

Over 15,000 Americans greviously wounded, and the uncounted Iraqis. And the money, so greviously wasted.

Sad, very sad.

If only there was somebody in the White House or Defense Department Press Corp who would ask one of the top Administration officials to identify the national Democrat who says he wants to pursue an appeasement policy with Al Qaeda? If only? If only?

Na, not possible. None of those guys would ever ask a hard question.

You missed the point (I think). Rumsfeld wasn't talking about Al Qaeda. He was talking about Iran. Al Qaeda does not exist anymore because the pundits stopped talking about them. The 'vicious extremists' are the ones trying to begin negotiations or debates with the USA. We cannot negotiate or debate them, says the GOOP, because they are vicious extremists. The only way to deal with them is to lose 3000 American lives and billions of American dollars installing an Islamofascist government in their country.

The real threat to the most dangerous terrorist organizations has been time. Most wither away as the movements they represent mature (including individual members) and circumstances change. ETA (not defeated by Franco) and the IRA (not defeated by Thatcher) are good examples. The kinds that can be defeated outright are not attached to broader political and social movements. You saw something like this with groups like the Baader-Meinhof Gang, which was really not undone until the 1990’s. By definition terrorists do not threaten states or the military so the mobilization of the populace for a national struggle against domestic insecurity is for reasons other than the physical protection of the state. The only legitimate reason for national war.

It is mostly to manufacture consent for things that are tangential to terrorism and to keep certain people in power. There has not been a single liberal political thinker who did not warn of the short path from domestic insecurity to tyranny. Our own Ben Franklin is chief among them. The War on Terror by its nature- an exaggeration of threats to the state- is a tool of tyranny.

a comment over on dkos

"we are all macacas now"

i had to laugh

"when the non-terrorist population of the region decides to turn against al-Qaeda" is when Iraq and Lebanon become fully functional democracies and spread their influence to the rest of the region. It's the best chance we've got of avoiding larger scale wars in the future - always was.

It would be nice if you and like minded folks could quit your carping and realize that negotiating, even mail fisted or for that matter honey drenched negotiating, has been tried e.g. North Korea. Totalitarians can only be influenced so much through negotiations and in the end they tend to go their own way anyway, perhaps because they are totalitarians.

I understand you want to repeat the mistake with Iran. Ultimately the leaders of Iran will only understand the language of intimidation and force, but you are free to dream on at the expense of the reality based community.

The Right just does not get it.They dodn't understand that they are creating these problems from misstakes they made many years ago.All this can go back to Nixon,Reagan and H.W. Bush.All they know is Stay and Die or Cut and Run they have no other Options no ideas.People this is getting serious we need to get them out of office NOW! before it is to late.

Ultimately the leaders of Iran will only understand the language of intimidation and force,

You're mistaking their state of mind for your own.

Graham's post above is a perfect example.(The only thing that will work against these people is the tried and true Saddam option keep killing them untill they conform).

"Can folks really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?" Donald Rumsfeld

Reino: I think he was referring to Al Qaeda. Of course he might have been talking about Muslims generally. It's hard to tell.

Craigie,

How about talking about the state of mind of Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad? That was the point of my post.

As soldiers have died in displaying personal patriotism, the pay gap between soldiers and defense CEOs has exploded. Before 9/11, the gap between CEOs of publicly traded companies and army privates was already a galling 190 to 1. Today, it is 308 to 1. The average army private makes $25,000 a year. The average defense CEO makes $7.7 million.

Somewhere, Dwight Eisenhower is sadly saying, "You didn't listen to me [about the military-industrial complex]."

Being safe is the Mantra of the right.Why not implant a chip into every person in the U.S and anyone comming into the U.S.Crime will stop Murder will stop.We would not need prisons anymore.But why don't we do this,ask a righty.

Mann Coulter,

One point of my post was democratization. That does not in and of itself involve killing people and can work in their favor - at least I'd like to think so. However, I am in favor of killing people who won't be negotiated down from acquiring nuclear weapons and who simultaineously bankroll terrorist organizations.

"With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?"

Too bad he didn't come to that conclusion sooner, like back in the mid-80s when he was selling such weapons to the "extremist" Saddam Hussein. We might not be in the position we are in now but for such and similar conduct.

Al is right. Kevins post is wishful thinking.

If America engages on one-on-one negotiations with North Korea or Iran, that's a recipe for appeasing the vicious extremists who run those countries.

Strictly speaking, pulling out of Iraq would be ignoring, rather than appeasing, the vicious extremists who are fighting to overthrow the democratic government. That's no improvement.

It's easy to find fault with Bush's war in Iraq, but the Dems cannot demonstrate that they have a better plan. In fact, they haven't come close to agreeing on a plan. This is a winning issue for the pubbies

"It would be nice if you and like minded folks could quit your carping and realize that negotiating, even mail fisted or for that matter honey drenched negotiating, has been tried e.g. North Korea. Totalitarians can only be influenced so much through negotiations and in the end they tend to go their own way anyway, perhaps because they are totalitarians.

I understand you want to repeat the mistake with Iran. Ultimately the leaders of Iran will only understand the language of intimidation and force, but you are free to dream on at the expense of the reality based community.
Posted by: Graham"

Unfortunately for your argument, The number of nukes made North Korea during Clinton's Adminstration is ZERO, NONE. The number of nukes made after the Bush Adminstration broke off the deal Clinton made is six or eight. On a bottom line basis, you flunk.

cmdicely,

It's really not as hard as you make it out to be. One doesn't have to kill all of the terrorists or even many of them. The lesson was given by Sharon in the West Bank. It's a matter of making the acts of terror unproductive. The leadership in Hamas starting to think terror was becoming unproductive when the leaders started getting killed in rapid succession. Funny how that happens isn't it?

No defined government is going to actively and publically support terrorism against the US again after the taliban model has been established and re-established with the Saddam experience.

The dilemma the Western World faces today, and this means Europe, is the Iranian model of using proxy terror armies can and will end their cultures if they remain as politically correct as they are today.

Contrary to conventional wisdom the Iranain thirst for nuclear weapons has nothing to do with the US or Israel. The mad Mullahs understand attacking either Israel or the USA will result in their total destruction.

This weaponry would however give them a decisive edge within the Islamic world and with Europe. We know Iran supports Hezbollah and Hamas and it's only a short matter of time before they start to destabilize Europe. Europe would not contemplate pre-emptive strikes. They worship at the altar of soft power. They would need an admission from Iran that Iran is supporting European terrorist before doing anything against Iran. Obviously that will never happen. Iran merely needs to continue it's current path. Europe is too weak to interfere and demographics ensure Europe can only get weaker.

Iran wishes to restore Islam to it's former lands. They almost have everything they need. The USA is the only nation they have to fear and they won't be supporting stikes here.

Graham That would be ok exept then they can vote into power the exact people we do not want to do buisness with.Sound familar aka Hamas and what ever the hell the leaders name of Iran is.As bad as it sounds strong man like Saddam is a better option.You have to know the people you are working with,and the Right just doesn't get it.

rdw = Bush

"When you crash a school bus in a ditch, the first thing you do is fire the driver. Then you get the bus out of the ditch."
B. Obama, talking about the Iraq war.

Do we really think that Dubya an Co. have any interesting in really fixing Iraq when carlyle group, halliburton, bectel etc. are in the school bus parts and repair business? All this death and destruction has only lined their pockets, what makes us think they want to stop now?

I got a campaign idea for the dems in '06 & '08.
"We're here to fix your mess" or "George broke it, we'll fix it." That's not the "cut & run" or "stay the course" bullshit,they can't shed.

Graham wrote: "However, I am in favor of killing people who won't be negotiated down from acquiring nuclear weapons and who simultaineously bankroll terrorist organizations."

You just wrote that you are in favor of killing the President of the United States, George W. Bush. I'm calling the Secret Service to report you.

As soldiers have died in displaying personal patriotism, the pay gap between soldiers and defense CEOs has exploded.

If God exists, and is just, there will be a very special place reserved in Hell for the Rumsfelds, Cheneys, and Bushes. They gathered up all the people who volunteered for the armed forces after 9/11 out of patriotism, took their energy, anger and idealism, and redirected it toward their own enrichment by misleading them into the wrong war.

Should we encourage Israel to fight a fruitless war against Lebanon while simultaneously egging on American hawks who think a bombing campaign against Iran will fix all our problems?

Are you sure the war was fruitless? Israel has been blowing up Hezbollah defensive postitions since the fighting ceased. Nasrallah says he wouldn't have done it. A person in the US was arrested for supporting Hezbollah based on papers found by Israelis in the war. A plane carrying arms from Iran to Syria was turned bacvk by Iraqi and Turkish air traffic control. Vehicles carrying weapons from Syria to Lebanon have been confiscated by the Lebanese army and the border with Syria almost sealed by Syria rather than submit their vehicles to inspection. Israel now has information that it previously lacked about the exact weaponry and tactics useful to Hezbollah. In some places, Lebanese soldiers have taken weapons from Hezbollah (not a lot, but this is a first.) Hezbollah rocket emplacements are farther from Israel than before.

The list of benefits to Israel and losses to Hezbollah is quite long. It is not as clear a victory for Israel as 1967 or 1973, but it was not fruitless either.

mann

deep

Iran wishes to restore Islam to it's former lands. They almost have everything they need. The USA is the only nation they have to fear and they won't be supporting stikes here.

Ultimately the leaders of Iran will only understand the language of intimidation and force, but you are free to dream on at the expense of the reality based community.

save us GOP-Kenobi, you're our only hope! *swoon*

republicrat wrote: " It is not as clear a victory for Israel as 1967 or 1973, but it was not fruitless either."

Apparently a lot of Israelis disagree with you and are quite angry with their government because they believe the war accomplished nothing.

Nasrallah says he wouldn't have done it.

cite?

The list of benefits to Israel and losses to Hezbollah is quite long.

and vice versa.

Kevin wrote:

"Rumsfeld's speech was never meant to be taken seriously. It's just crude agitprop designed to keep the proles from wondering if the Cheney wing of the Republican Party is actually doing anything to make the world a safer place. The question has never been whether we should open talks with al-Qaeda, it's been what we should do to stop them from killing us. Should we fight a war in Iraq that's served primarily as a recruiting bonanza for radical jihadism? Should we refuse to talk to the Middle East's biggest regional power because we think that merely being in the same room with them is a sign of weakness? Should we encourage Israel to fight a fruitless war against Lebanon while simultaneously egging on American hawks who think a bombing campaign against Iran will fix all our problems? Should we spend homeland defense money on dumb projects in loyal red states instead of taking port security seriously?"
________________

Rumsfeld speech was certainly a form of propaganda, though perhaps not agitprop. But if Kevin objects to the SECDEF's use of false choices or obvious strawmen (such as, "can we truly afford to believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased?"), then why serve up a list of his own, just so he can answer, No, no, no!?" Most conservatives would also answer Kevin's questions with, "No."

Who believes that we want to fight a war that only serves to recruit jihadists?

Nobody believes that the only reason we aren't talking to Iran (if, in fact, we aren't) is that we think doing so makes us appear weak.

Who believes that the intent was to encourage Israel to fight a fruitless war?

Who believes that a bombing campaign against Iran will fix all of our problems?

Nobody will agree with wasting homeland defense money anywhere.

Rumsfeld's use of the appeasement card wasn't designed to convince opponents they are wrong. Nobody thinks of themselves as an appeaser, anyway. But, it's significant that Kevin chose not to include the other questions in Rumsfeld's list:

Can a free country really negotiate a separate peace with terrorists? (Or negotiate any peace with terrorists?)

Can we address terrorism only as a law enforcement problem?

Should we look at America as the source of the world's problems?

One can consider these other Rumsfeld questions to be merely rhetorical tricks only if one trusts that the Liberal answer to all of these questions would be an emphatic, No!

Not meaning to hijack the thread...

But I'm not seeing any commentary anywhere about yesterday's CNN poll results.

Who would win a debate on mideast history/relations...[yada]

President Bush or the President of Iran [Ahmadinejad].

I think the final results were 62-38 in favor of Ahmadinejad winning over Bush with a hundred thousand or so votes cast. Signicant.

Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper

In every American war. It is not an argument for or against any war.

Arthur Miller's play "All my sons" was about corruption in weapons manufacture in WWII. That's the play that Jane Fonda saw the Vietnamese perform when she visited Hanoi, apparently unaware of its morale-boosting intent for the North.

You mean Isreal sealed off borders, Wow could they teach that trick to Rummy.

Mann Coulter,

I think in in a properly functioning democracy / market economy it is unlikely extremists will be elected. It is not easy to create conditions so that such a democracy can emerge - it took Western Europe a centuries long bloodbath. I don't doubt it can be done in a much shorter time span but I don't think it is easy. Arab democracy is in its infancy as measured in historical time spans.

Jon Stopa,

Clinton's deal with NK was unraveling or had unravelled before GWB was sworn in. It's a simple lesson. Don't trust a totalitarian, they are responsible to no one.

Secular Animist,

What terrorist organization are you referring to?

I think the final results were 62-38 in favor of Ahmadinejad winning over Bush with a hundred thousand or so votes cast. Signicant.

Actually it's utterly meaningless. This is CNN with an uber-liberal audience that get's an audience a fraction the size of Fox. They speak to a small and shrinking choir.

There's a great possibility that I'm just a naive liberal who believes that dialogue is possible, even with 'terrorists.' To assume that terrorists are out to get us for no reason other than jihad is misunderstanding the reality. Or, even worse, that they're out to get us because they 'hate our freedom.' How nonsensical. Terrorist groups have real 'complaints' directed at nation states, particularly the US and Israel, but also their allies in Western Europe. Bin Laden started his political involvment as a mujahadeen in Afghanistan, eventually chasing out the Russians. Another serious complaint is Israel's continued intransigence on allowing an independent Palestinian state to exist. Another complaint, the US airbase in Saudi Arabia. This base was actually vacated, but I'm sure only because the US felt its future bases in Iraq would more than suffice. I see almost everything going on in recent years as related to the 'Great Game,' where the US is attempting to gain a real foothold in the ME and thus be able to protect its energy resources. The WOT is a convenient excuse for such. There ARE other options available and have the added advantage of being global warming friendly. The Bush administration has gone 'whole hog' on it's 'great game' strategy. If you take a good long hard look at the US, you'll find that there is plenty of reason for revenge, and that revenge will come from places other than nation states. It sure makes absolute sense to me.

Ultimately the leaders of Iran will only understand the language of intimidation and force, but you are free to dream on at the expense of the reality based community.

Iran has what is called a limited democracy. Iran is not a totalitarian society. The only people who understand the language of intimidation and force are the American ex-slave holders and the people who were lynched, one every day, for decades by them. I assume Graham is from the ex-slave holder population, who now wants to give stripes to Iranians.

cleet asks for a cite for "Nasrallah says he wouldn't have done it."

It was widely reported in the last day or two that in response to growing irritation with Hez by non-Hez Lebanon, Nasrallah announced that had he known that Israel would overreact to a simple capture of POWs with horrific war crimes against Lebanon, he would not have greenlighted the operation.

Disputo,

I'm pretty sure I read that with my own eyes, but now I forget where. Sorry.

oh rdw, you're such a naughty little troll.

I think that there has been extensive discussion on this list and elsewhere about our military options in Iran- short answer is that they are not good. Even with overwhelming air superiority, it is unlikely to derail Iran's program to acquire nuclear weapons, assuming, that Iran is trying to do so.

It is a difficult problem, but I think that we owe it to 18,19, and 20 year olds who will die over there to try to talk the problem through before exercising another preemptive military option.

As far as a winner of the recent Israel?Hezbollah conflict? Hmmm, it is safe to say that more Lebanese civilians were killed than anyone else, Israel civilians were second, then probably Hezbollah fighters, then Israel servicemen. Currently, Iran, through Hezbollah, is spending money hand over fist rebuilding the affected areas of Lebanon. The Israeli's aura of military invincibility has been pierced. Anti-US and Israeli sentiment in the mid-East is reportedly much higher after the conflict, while sympathy for Hezbollah is said to have been greatly improved.

This administration thinks only in terms of maintaining their party's majority in both houses of congress. They will say or do anything to appease their base. So, to the extent that right-wingnuts think talking to Iran is a bad idea- it will not happen.

Apparently a lot of Israelis disagree with you and are quite angry with their government because they believe the war accomplished nothing.

But they are angry for reasons you would find appauling. They wanted far more destruction including the entire leadership of Hezbollah wiped-out. Already the politicians are calling for vastly higher defense spending and more aggressive generals. Olmert has also been placed on notice another weak and hesitant response will cost him his job.

The Israeli's also learned the rest of the world is more threatened by Hezbollah and Iran than they realized. For the 1st time they received unequivical support from the Germans as well as a decisive split within the EU in their favor. Only France remains in opposition and France is essentially alone.

Israel was unprepared for their broad political support. Hezbollah and Iran were outrageously stupid. They played their cards far too early. Now not even the French can deny Iran will supply terror oganizations with as many of the best missles they can buy. Not even the French can kid themselves into ignoring the fact those missle will soon reach Paris.

Iran has what is called a limited democracy. Iran is not a totalitarian society.

That's a dumb observation. A limited democracy is as valid as a partial pregnancy. The choices in Iran are set by the mad mullahs. You can choose between whackjob A or whackjob B.

Hostile,

The US population doesn't want anything but to live in peace with neighbors and to buy crude from some of them at fair market prices. They don't won't to wipe any population off the map as far as I know, or to erase them from the pages of history if you prefer that interpretation. Your right that I am from an ex slaveholder population although I doubt any of my ancestors held slaves much less lynched anyone. Even if they had do you think I should hold my tongue or hang my head in shame? I don't live in past and nor should you. There's problems to solve today that if not resolved satisfactorily would rank up there with historical tragedies like slavery.

Iranian limited democracy in practice means that those in control get to decide who gets on the ballot. It's a lot like Soviet communisim in that regard.

Nepeta,

Al Qeada wants a Caliphate that extends across the entire Muslim world, including Spain I believe, since they once ruled there. The US government and most if not all others don't want that. Not much to talk about really, once you understand the parameters of the debate.

Graham, Any sources you can give me on that? Bin Laden speeches, etc.?

The US of A is a limited democracy, where a presidential candidate can win an election without a majority, as are all others. No nation I know of has an unlimited democracy, although I have heard rumors the Iroquois Nation required one-hundred percent majorities in order to make law, which imposes limits in its own way, too.

Disputo,

I found the cite on Nazrallah. Here's the quote
from Haaretz:

Hezbollah would not have abducted two Israel Defense Forces soldiers on July 12 had it known that the action would lead to war in Lebanon, the movement's secretary general Hassan Nasrallah said in an interview on Lebanon's NTV Sunday.

"We did not think that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of this magnitude. You ask me if I had known on July 11 ... that the operation would lead to such a war, would I do it? I say no, absolutely not," he said.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/755225.html

The Israeli's aura of military invincibility has been pierced. Anti-US and Israeli sentiment in the mid-East is reportedly much higher after the conflict, while sympathy for Hezbollah is said to have been greatly improved.

This is pure nonsense. 1st, Israel has suffered several setbacks in war in the past. 2nd, the Israeli military was constrained by the politicians. 3rd, while far from perfect the military did quite well despite weak intelligence and weak logistical support. 5th, anti-american sentiment in the middle east is always rising. It doesn't matter what happens. 6th, Hezbollah screwed up badly in Lebanon. The non-Shite lebonese are furious and the Shite are none too happy either. $12K in counterfit American dollars won't replace their homes or thoose killed and maimed for nothing. The MSM always says any arab army that survives war with Israel wins because they survived. Ergo Israel has lost all of it's wars.

Hostile,

It's apples and oranges. The litmus test is whether constituencies get representation and minority rights are protected. While there are shades of gray no doubt the US passes and Iran flunks.

Nepeta,

I am sorry that I can't provide specific resources right now but if you search the writings of Bin Laden on the internet (careful now, NSA may be watching) I believe you'll find that re-establishing the Caliphate is the central goal of Al Qaeda. It's hard to do when you have the US (perhaps the only power capable of getting in your way) right in the middle of Saudi Arabia and Mesapotamia (Iraq).

Your right that I am from an ex slaveholder population although I doubt any of my ancestors
held slaves much less lynched anyone.

If your ancestors never held slaves why would you consider yourself as being from the slaveholder population?

Al Qeada wants a Caliphate that extends across the entire Muslim world

so what? there isn't a chance in hell that they could actually get that.

the US airbase in Saudi Arabia. This base was actually vacated

"Mission Accomplished!"
Osama bin Laden

Can Kevin be taken seriously on the war on terror or any military related matter?

Quote 1:
"Should we fight a war in Iraq that's served primarily as a recruiting bonanza for radical jihadism?"

I realize "recuiting bonanza" is a leftwing talking point (without any factual support -- it is essentially an unknown and repeating it a million times does not make it true), but can anyone intelligently state it is the primary result of the Iraq War? By the way, the Iraq war also has resulted in about 250,000 Iraqis fighting against radical jihadism, so is that "recruting bonanza" (actually supported by objective evidence) also something for Kevin to consider?

Quote 2:

"But al-Qaeda won't be beaten by fighting a bunch of aimless proxy wars in the general vicinity of the Middle East. It will, eventually, be beaten when the non-terrorist population of the region decides to turn against al-Qaeda and its jihadist allies and deny them the support and shelter they need in order to function. Encouraging that to happen is the biggest foreign policy challenge of the 21st century, and because they've failed so miserably at it, it's the one thing the Bushies most want to avoid talking about."

This "encouraging" Muslims to think a certain way through talking is mostly liberal gibberish, but if getting people to turn against jihadists is the goal and the "Bushies" have "failed so miserably at it," how does Kevin explain that millions of Iraqis and Afghans have not only turned against jihadists, but are actually fighting against them? And what about Libia, Egyst, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, which are against jihdists and even with respect to Hezballoh in Lebanon, much of the Arab world was against them and even a good portion of Lebanon.

Kevin actually demonstrates the problem with liberals. Even smart and reasonable ones like him basically have nothing of value to say about the war on terror -- only greatly exaggerated criticism of the Bush administration.

The US population doesn't want anything but to live in peace with neighbors and to buy crude from some of them at fair market prices.

The 2004 presidential vote makes a mockery of the above statement. A majority of American voters wanted war for oil.

Your (sic) right that I am from an ex slaveholder population although I doubt any of my ancestors held slaves much less lynched anyone.

Doubtful. Most child molestors are descendants of ex-slave owners, who molested children as a regional past time. Ex-slave holder descendants want to branch out and include Arab and Persian children in a new form of national past time.

There's problems to solve today that if not resolved satisfactorily would rank up there with historical tragedies like slavery.

No, it is more like the historical tragedy of the Holocaust. When nuclear weapons are used against populations, hundereds of thousands and even millions may die. You want Bush to drop the bomb on Iranians for no good reason except you enjoy killing people who defy your Chauvinism. Real problems are solved by adults working towards solutions that work for everyone, including adversaries.

Iranian limited democracy in practice means that those in control get to decide who gets on the ballot.

Iranian democracy is a lot like US democracy in that regard.

rdw:
Where are the two Israeli soldiers who were kidnapped?

The non-Shite lebonese are furious and the Shite are none too happy either.

This is exactly the opposite of the facts on the ground -- as usual.

The stakes are high for Hizbullah, but it seems it can count on an unprecedented swell of public support that cuts across sectarian lines.According to a poll released by the Beirut Center for Research and Information, 87 percent of Lebanese support Hizbullah's fight with Israel, a rise of 29 percent on a similar poll conducted in February. More striking, however, is the level of support for Hizbullah's resistance from non-Shiite communities. Eighty percent of Christians polled supported Hizbullah along with 80 percent of Druze and 89 percent of Sunnis.

Lebanese no longer blame Hizbullah for sparking the war by kidnapping the Israeli soldiers, but Israel and the US instead.

The latest poll by the Beirut Center found that 8 percent of Lebanese feel the US supports Lebanon, down from 38 percent in January.

"This support for Hizbullah is by default. It's due to US and Israeli actions," says Saad-Ghorayeb, whose father, Abdo, conducted the poll.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0728/p06s01-wome.html

As you can see, there is unprecedented support for Hezbollah right now and antipathy toward the U.S. In other words, Hezbollah won the war for hearts and minds and the U.S. lost it.

Your propaganda masked as analysis is predictably both dim and wrong. I'm surprised you're able to muster the mental precision to tie your shoes when you get up on the morning.

Let me guess -- you just save yourself the hassle and avoid wearing them.

Graham,

I just found a short piece by Juan Cole on Al Quaeda's discussion of a Caliphate. I agree with Cleek, so what? It is a doctrine that seeks to reunite the Muslim world after the colonialization of the last century+. In effect, it's just another way to express bin Laden's anger and charges of injustice re Western imperialism.

It's hard to do when you have the US (perhaps the only power capable of getting in your way) right in the middle of Saudi Arabia and Mesapotamia (Iraq).

The USA isn't in their way. We don't have troops in Saudi Arabia and our troops in Iraq are not preventing the Iraqi's from installing Islamic law.

The USA is working to prevent the Iranains from getting nuclear material but to little effect. The US is not capable of preventing Iran from creating and funding terror organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah unless they attack the USA. This they will not do. There is little the USA can do to prevent the Iranians from moving back into Spain. That's up to the Spainish Govt. Given their proclivity to appease it seems likely when Iran decides to expand they will require Spain to appease again.

It's unlikely Iran will move soon. They are familiar with Spainish Demographics which are devastating. They are below 1.2 and still dropping. Having been well below replacement level for two decades their population is starting to shrink starting a trend that will rapidly accelerate.

Spain also sits a short distance from Islamic North Africa and is experiencing it's own illegal immigration. Spain is the weakest and most exposed of European nations. There's little doubt they will become Islamic again.

This "encouraging" Muslims to think a certain way through talking is mostly liberal gibberish

Karen Hughes was given this job by Bush, who thinks Arabs can be convinced with talk to change their way of thinking about US military aggression and imperial coveting of their oil. Neither Bush nor Hughes can be considered liberal.

The US population doesn't want anything but to live in peace with neighbors and to buy crude from some of them at fair market prices.
The 2004 presidential vote makes a mockery of the above statement. A majority of American voters wanted war for oil.
- You are deluded if you believe most Americans who supported Bush in 2004 thought that it was a way to get more or cheaper oil.
Your (sic) right that I am from an ex slaveholder population although I doubt any of my ancestors held slaves much less lynched anyone.
Doubtful. Most child molestors are descendants of ex-slave owners, who molested children as a regional past time. Ex-slave holder descendants want to branch out and include Arab and Persian children in a new form of national past time.
- Whatever.
There's problems to solve today that if not resolved satisfactorily would rank up there with historical tragedies like slavery.
No, it is more like the historical tragedy of the Holocaust. When nuclear weapons are used against populations, hundereds of thousands and even millions may die. You want Bush to drop the bomb on Iranians for no good reason except you enjoy killing people who defy your Chauvinism. Real problems are solved by adults working towards solutions that work for everyone, including adversaries.
- Well it could come to nuclear conflict. Wars happen when differences are unbridgeable and they can get out of hand. I didn’t say I wanted to nuke Iran but I did say that I don’t want them to get nuclear weapons and that I don’t believe negotiations will work. I even cited the example of North Korea. It would be foolish to think this conflict couldn’t escalate to a nuclear one. Who would use the bomb first though and on whom?
Iranian limited democracy in practice means that those in control get to decide who gets on the ballot.
Iranian democracy is a lot like US democracy in that regard.
-Mmm hmm. In the US if you get enough signatures and you are on the ballot, period. You do need money to advertise but it can be done without a George Soros or a Haliburton in your pocket.

Where are the two Israeli soldiers who were kidnapped?

Hopefully still alive. Which is unlike a few dozen of their peers and over 1,000 lebonese. And your point is?

trex,

Thanks. I was hoping someone would respond to
the false info re: support for Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The dream of a new Caliphate is similar to Catholics' dream of restoring the Holy Roman Empire. Schism and nationalism prevent both.

RDW gets his material from the far right boards and then regurgitates it here. Not only is he wrong about his claim of Hizbollah losing support in Lebanon, as shown by Trex above, he is wrong about the counterfeit dollars.

That claim was all over the right wing boards for days after the photos of Hizbollah handing out cash to war victims, but was never proven. It was aggressively pushed on the boards, comment sections and forums of MSNBC, CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS and the Wall Street Journal but was never picked up by those organizations. There are dozens of reporters from those and other national and international news organizations now in Lebanon, yet not one has yet round a counterfeit "franlkin" to report about.

Besides, why would Hezbollah be so stupid as to hand out counterfeit bills? As soon as they came to light, Hezbollah would lose an awful lot of face, goodwill and support. They may be Muslim, but they aren't stupid.

the US airbase in Saudi Arabia. This base was actually vacated

"Mission Accomplished!"
Osama bin Laden

Actually not. There are 5x's as many troops in the Arab word now and the permanent bases in Qatar are far superior ot the bases in Saudi Arabia, which are still there if we need them. Moreover the Taliban is hiding in the same caves he is.

Funny you mention it, I had the same Dr. Stranglove association after reading and listening to slew of speeches given in my backyard by Cheney and Rumsfeld and felt the uncontrollable urge to create something that would reflect how I was feeling.....

http://www.renodiscontent.com/2006/08/29/how-i-stopped-worrying-and-learned-to-love-the-fear-mongerers/

They may be Muslim, but they aren't stupid.

What does that mean?

rdw:

My point is to counter your position that the conflict was a 5.0 victory for Israel- at a minimum, they unfortunately did not obtain the return of their soldiers. Or, are you willing to concede that the return of the kidnapped soldiers was merely an excuse for Israel to engage in an otherwise pre-emptive strike against Hezbollah?

Spain is the weakest and most exposed of European nations. There's little doubt they will become Islamic again.

it's really amazing how dumb you managed to pack into those two sentences.

how dumb = how much dumb

but at least my point was correct.

Or, are you willing to concede that the return of the kidnapped soldiers was merely an excuse for Israel to engage in an otherwise pre-emptive strike against Hezbollah?

The fact Hezbollah attacked Israel to kill 3 soldiers and kidnap 2 more removes the term pre-emption from consideration doesn't it.

Isn't it impossible to pre-empt AFTER the event has already happened?

Rumsfaustian bargain: never be satisfied killing people.

Nepeta,

So you have a religiously driven, violent movement that would like to overthrow some 20 odd governments and establish totalitarian religious law over goodness knows how many people and you say “so what”? Would you be more awakened to the significance of this if say your car got scratched in the process?

trex to rdw: "Your propaganda masked as analysis is predictably both dim and wrong."

Paul E. Tickle to rdw: "RDW gets his material from the far right boards and then regurgitates it here."

Both of you have got rdw exactly right. He's a delusional mental slave to right-wing extremist propaganda.

He is profoundly ignorant about the real world since -- as he himself has proudly proclaimed on numerous occasions -- his only sources of information are Fox News, the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal and other corporate-sponsored right-wing propaganda outlets. He has written here, and I quote, that Rush Limbaugh is "a great man". He does nothing but regurgitate the scripted, programmed talking points that those people feed to him.

He is incapable of independent thought. He thinks what he's told to think. He says what he's told to say. He's the very model of the mentally degenerate, brain-dead, brainwashed, Bush-bootlicking neo-brownshirt that is what passes for a "conservative" in America today.

Graham is another delusional Bush-bootlicking neo-brownshirt mental slave who is incapable of doing anything but robotically regurgitating scripted right-wing extremist propaganda.

rdw:

I so enjoy being misquoted. I think that the phrase I used was "otherwise pre-emptive" as in any excuse will do. Does anyone really believe that the destruction of the Lebanese infrastructure and deaths of some hundreds of civilians was over three killed and two kidnapped soldiers? oh, that's right, Iraq had a central role in 9/11...our master says it so it must be so.

By the way, in my opinion, the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict was a gift to Islamic radicals.

Al Qeada wants a Caliphate that extends across the entire Muslim world

OBL also wants to marry Whitney Houston.

mister pedantic wrote:

the US airbase in Saudi Arabia. This base was actually vacated

"Mission Accomplished!"
Osama bin Laden
______________

Logically, why would we want to continue to deploy to Prince Sultan or any airbase in Saudi Arabia?

Since our presence in SA is no longer required to contain Saddam Hussein and the Saudis won't let us use their bases for the GWOT, the bases serve no purpose. So be it. The world is full of bases we once used but then gave back. Surely, no one is suggesting that we should continue to deploy to a useless airbase simply to piss off Osama?

SecularAnimist

Who are you trying to protect from reasoned debate by depicting me as unworthy of it? Yourself or other people on this site? I would have to infer that someone's world view could implode rather easily, or at least that they are incapable of defending it effectively.

And again, who are the terrorists Bush is supporting?

Fact is G.W. had 89% of the U.S.Backing him after 9/11.We went into Afganistan with the Milatary leading the way,things went the way they where suppose to.Our Army had Osma trapped in Tora Bora, Then the politico's stepped in and took over and since that point nothing has gone right.Osma was allowed to escape for political reasons so the right could maintain it's majority.If you want to see things change hand thigs back over to the U.S Military tell them this is what I want, let them do what they do best and keep the politics out of the War.That is step number one. Step number two comes after the November elections when the left gains controll of both houses,then america will truly see just what a blathering idiot G.W. is.

rdw:
"They may be Muslim, but they aren't stupid."
What does that mean?

You are right, it wrongfully suggests a contempt towards Muslims that I do not hold. Would have been more accurate to say "Hezbollah leaders aren't that stupid."

Trashhauler:
"Surely, no one is suggesting that we should continue to deploy to a useless airbase simply to piss off Osama?"

To the extent that pissing off Osama keeps Bush's base happy, Karl Rove is strongly suggesting just that.

Remember, this is all about the numbers and keeping Bush & Co, off of the witness stand.

I think rdw just got beat up alot in middle and high school and didn't have any dates to the prom. Now he's just another white bread, middle amurican paper pusher with his lite beer and heavy wife. No wonder he's so bitter.

The face of the modern GOP, all the losers who had to stay home on saturday night and had to 'wait' until marriage to see a female naked...snicker!

The face of the modern GOP, all the losers who had to stay home on saturday night and had to 'wait' until marriage to see a female naked

I doubt that they were allowed to turn on the lights during their honeymoon.

RDW ,Iraq attacked us, So Bush lied when he said we should premptively attack them.???

Graham wrote: Who are you trying to protect from reasoned debate by depicting me as unworthy of it?

Not unworthy of it. Incapable of it. You've offered nothing remotely resembling "reasoned debate" on this thread, only slavish regurgitation of scripted right-wing extremist talking points that other mental slaves like yourself have regurgitated innumerable times before.

"WWII vets want to hear paeans to blood and guts."

You have well identified yourself with that little gem.