 |
 |
 October 12, 2006
TOP BRITISH GENERAL: IT'S TIME TO LEAVE IRAQ....Ah. This is interesting. Remember a couple of weeks ago I posted an item about a secret memo suggesting that the Chief of Staff of the British Army wanted to get out of Iraq? The only question I had was: which Chief of Staff did the memo refer to? The previous guy who retired at the end of August, or the new guy who took over from him? Today the Daily Mail answers my question: it's the new guy. Here's what General Sir Richard Dannatt told them:
All in all, this is a pretty extraordinary interview. The BBC's Nick Robinson calls it a "very public warning" to the next prime minister. Doug Henderson, a former defence minister, told Newsnight, "One can only assume that Sir Richard has made his views known privately and that they've been ignored." That's true. The secret memo made it clear that Dannatt tried to privately broker a deal last month to pull British troops out of Iraq and transfer them to Afghanistan, where he thinks we still have a chance to make a difference, but was turned down. Now he's gone public. I wonder if there are any American generals who agree with him? —Kevin Drum 8:21 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (111)Comments
...and, is he still in charge? If so, for how long? Posted by: DaveH on October 12, 2006 at 8:24 PM | PERMALINK>"...pretty extraordinary interview..." Indeed, seems that finding someone in a position of authority with a lick of common sense is extraordinary. To go one step further and find someone with common sense and enough balls to state the obvious truth is like finding the proverbial needle in a haystack. Posted by: Buford on October 12, 2006 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINKAh, Kevin. Cherry picking comments from the military again. This time you have to go all they way to Britain, an EU member nation. Nice try, but American troops aren't going anywhere. Posted by: egbert on October 12, 2006 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINKI feel sorry for egbert and Thomas1. Poor guys. Posted by: floopmeister on October 12, 2006 at 8:44 PM | PERMALINKI wonder if there are any American generals who agree with him? I'm guessing that more than half agree. They aren't dumb. I imagine quite a number of US officers, including generals, agree, but actually speaking up? I guess that's another matter. I don't see one of them speaking up by himself-- it would take several to decide to do so together. Posted by: Jonathan Versen on October 12, 2006 at 8:46 PM | PERMALINKActually, you might also want to take a look at Dannatt's comments about the Christian foundations of both Britain and the British Army. They'd be eye-popping in America. I'm not sure how that kind of stuff goes down in Britain, though. Posted by: Kevin Drum on October 12, 2006 at 8:47 PM | PERMALINKOh, that Kevin! 'Cherrypicking' whole public interviews from the most senior member of the British Army - has he no shame? In the interest of journalistic impartiality let's balance this view with the uninformed opinions of a rightwing blogger bloviating from a basement in Nowheresville Idaho. There, that's better. Posted by: floopmeister on October 12, 2006 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINKI am getting quite nostalgic about the time I used to be a hawkish Cold War liberal... Seems like a long time ago. And such a long list of things I thought to be impossible, to be ethically unthinkable. Bloody hell, the present crew actually really ARE war criminals - the very phrase that I used to think that characterized the delusional anti-Western Left. It takes George W. Bush to make Noam Chomsky appear rational. We sure live in interesting times. Posted by: Jonathan on October 12, 2006 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINKCherry picking comments from the military again. This time you have to go all they way to Britain, an EU member nation. Nah, you can just listen to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs: In Washington, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that the American strategy of training tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and police hasn't curbed violence and that senior military commanders were puzzled by its failure. "We do need to take a look" at other factors that might be driving violence, he said. Posted by: Windhorse on October 12, 2006 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINK floopmeister, I believe that is zip codes 83201 through 83877 - Pretty well covers it. All very blue. Posted by: stupid git on October 12, 2006 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINKStupid git - sorry about that. But then, I'm not American, and wouldn't know Idaho from Ohio - they sorta sound the same to me... ;) Posted by: floopmeister on October 12, 2006 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINKShit - you mean I was right? Go figure. Posted by: floopmeister on October 12, 2006 at 9:06 PM | PERMALINKThey'd be eye-popping in America. I'm not sure how that kind of stuff goes down in Britain, though. It's still the Royal -- i.e. the Queen's and not Parliament's -- Army, and the Queen is, at least on paper, the senior figure in the state religion. Each regiment in the RA, and all of the trades -- Engineers, Artillery, REME, have a chapel, for example. I suspect thanks to various atavistic responses, and a memory of small-e evangelical imperialism, it's not as in-your-face in the UK as it would be here. Posted by: Davis X. Machina on October 12, 2006 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINKWhen Gen Pace replaced Go Along, Get Along Myers, there were those at this site who lauded him for seemingly standing up to Rumsfeld. He is starting to use that Rumsfeld method of asking and answering his own questions. Becoming another Go Along, Get Along will do that at DoD. Aiyeeee!! Hillary-loving, Euro-socialist, freedom-hating, terrist-appeasing, librul traitor! Obviously an enemy combatant! He should be sent to Gitmo and waterboarded until he reveals his secret Osama connections! Only the moonbat librul media would print comments like his. THEY should be rounded up too! And anyone who reads it! AND their families! It's the only way to preserve freedom. The problem has always been not enough troops. So the new Chief of Staff, a real expert on the Islamic world no doubt - yeah right, points to the fact that muslims don't like to see foreigners on their land, so the British ought to get out because they are antagonizing the local Shia militias. Where should they go? To Afghanistan!! Where they will be welcomed with open arms by all the local islamic tribesmen. Right. He may have a point about abandoning a sinking ship. But his reasoning is disingenuous to say the least. Posted by: chew2 on October 12, 2006 at 9:31 PM | PERMALINKThis guy is solid and unassailable. You don't get to be Chief of Staff of the British Army by being flaky or unreliable. This guy is basically untouchable. It's over...that's the best I can say. The British involvement in the war in Iraq is over. Posted by: Pale Rider on October 12, 2006 at 9:35 PM | PERMALINKa real expert on the Islamic world no doubt - yeah right, points to the fact that muslims don't like to see foreigners on their land, so the British ought to get out You would think that the British might know a little something about Occupying Iraq. But, history is so pre-9/11. Posted by: enozinho (we torture) on October 12, 2006 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINKToo bad our generals have no cajones until after they retire and our troops, not to mention the Iraqis, pay the price for their silence. As a Vietnam era veteran I'm ashamed of the chain of command, starting with the shrub-in-chief! Posted by: Fred on October 12, 2006 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINKThe problem has always been not enough troops. Yeah but you go to war with the army you have, right? Or, alternatively, you don't go to war. Difficult choice, I know. He may have a point about abandoning a sinking ship. But his reasoning is disingenuous to say the least. Translation: He's right. But it's an accident he's right, so we can ignore him. Posted by: floopmeister on October 12, 2006 at 9:38 PM | PERMALINKWe should also follow the Brits now. It is time to get out. I've been saying for years, our presence there makes things worse. We need to leave. The US is the only "willing" nation left if the Brits leave. What a joke this war has been. What a disgrace this president is. I guarantee Thomas1 was saying earlier in the war, look the Brits are with us but now that they are coming to their senses as expected he now doesn't give a shit what they think. How many more Iraqis have to die before we realize we need to leave? Its mind blowing that there are not more protests going on in America over this war. That's a disgrace also, we need to be protesting and excercising our right to do just that. Posted by: dee on October 12, 2006 at 9:41 PM | PERMALINKBut his reasoning is disingenuous to say the least. Um, well, I think it's YOU that is being disingenuous. His point -- if you take the time to read his few reported comments -- is that British forces can no longer make a positive difference in Iraq, whereas they might be able to do in Afghanistan. It's true, of course, that they're both "Muslim countries," and so the lack of "invitation" would work against them in both cases. But his reasoning clearly goes beyond that single point -- mentioned at the end of the article, as sort of an outtake -- as you might expect from a military man (vs., say, a politician). Translation: He's right. But it's an accident he's right, so we can ignore him. Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. (Unless the clock is a registered Democrat.) Posted by: Pale Rider on October 12, 2006 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINKProbably not long before the House Cafeteria starts featuring "Freedom Muffins.' Posted by: Barry on October 12, 2006 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINKit would take several [American Generals] to decide to do so together. That could be considered a coup. Given our tradition of civilian leadership of the miltary. Dicey territory. In Britain, the conservative movement has been the major opposition to the misadventure in Iraq - partly because they are the opposition to Tony Blair's labor party but partly because they just didn't swallow the neocon fairy-tales as easily. After all, many British conservative grandees are the sons and grandsons of those who ran the British Empire - no fools when it comes to believing daft yarns about "rose petals" and easy victories. Conservatives in the U.S. could do well to think more deeply about such things, rather than letting blind loyalty to the current administration trump the brains many undoubtably have. Regards, Cernig @ Newshog Posted by: Cernig on October 12, 2006 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINKIn related news, the British former ambassador to Afghanistan says: We should continue to try to eliminate the hardline al-Qaeda people; but by deployment of money and intense hearts and minds activities we should persuade the Taleban to become part of the democratic process in Afghanistan, as good citizens. We should use the carrot more than the stick. Someone who agrees with Frist's flip, before he flopped back. Unlike the campaign-donating car salesmen of the Bush administration, the UK appoints career diplomats as ambassadors. Regards, Cernig
Global - yep, I spent hours last night cleaning it all out (I kid you not - I had 17,000+ junk emails in my bulk mail folder - I took a screen grab for posterity!). OT comment follows! ------------------------- I thought your analysis was pretty good - and since I'm not up to date with the science/geeky side of it all the plutonium stuff was interesting... You're right about KJI not being stupid. NK is a better negotiator than people give them credit for - there still here, and still in the game. If the purpose of the 'game' is regime survival (and when isn't that the purpose of the political game, in whatever country?) then North Korea has been remarkably successful, considering the forces ranged against them (of course, the misery and hardship of the average North Korean is never considered). KJI is apparently pretty sell informed about world events - just cause the people are kept in the dark doesn't mean the regime is also uninformed - they're not. Demonising him as personally crazy (however despotic the regimes is - and it's pretty damn horrible) is a dangerous mistake - we can forget about 'knowing our enemy' while at the same time you could argue that KJI understands the US quite well. I agree that this doesn't mean they're about to nuke someone - it's a negotiating prod; a poke in the eye to people to take them seriously and offer them something in return. The real threat is another arms race. However, I'm not so sure that the Chinese view NK as a buffer against encroaching Americanism - well, not any more, anyway. I think that underplays the growing confidence of China with regard to the US. I think the Chinese feel they have America's 'measure' and they are now looking for the respect that they feel is rightly theirs. Instead, NK may be becoming more of a nuisance for the Chinese than anything else. If the DMZ goes and the situation is resolved then the US troops go to. That would be more to China's liking, I think, than a puppet state that seems to be less willing to toe big brother's line. It seems obvious that the Chinese didn't want this test to happen. Posted by: floopmeister on October 12, 2006 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINKThanks for the link - I'll check out your site again! Posted by: floopmeister on October 12, 2006 at 10:22 PM | PERMALINKFolks, I opposed the Iraq invasion. LOL! "His point -- if you take the time to read his few reported comments -- is that British forces can no longer make a positive difference in Iraq, whereas they might be able to do in Afghanistan." I did read them. Which is why I said he was deserting a sinking ship. I was critizing his specious rationalizing. He claims he was "invited" into Afghanistan, while the British invaded Iraq which makes them unpopular. While he may be technically correct (The US invaded, while Nato was invited in by Karzai) tell that to the locals. If there is any country which will be antagonized by Western military forces it is Afghanistan. So it's not a question of antagonizing the locals by occupying muslim lands, but whether we have enough troops there to do the job despite any opposition we may create. I believe his knowledge of Islamic society, and there is no evidence that he has any special knowledge from his prior military experience, is informed by his devout Christianity as reflected in this quote. "When I see the Islamist threat I hope it doesn't make undue progress because there is a moral and spiritual vacuum in this country. Our society has always been embedded in Christian values; once you have pulled the anchor up there is a danger that our society moves with the prevailing wind. "There is an element of the moral compass spinning. I am responsible for the Army, to make sure that its moral compass is well aligned and that we live by what we believe in." Posted by: chew2 on October 12, 2006 at 10:26 PM | PERMALINKchew2 - point taken. But while his reasoning might be specious, there is still a difference between the two countries and the roles that Western forces might play in them. 'Invited' or otherwise (and I agree that's a ludicrous term for either country) there may still be a situation where the Taliban enjoys less legitimacy amongst the local Afgan population than the Iraq insurgency obviously does in Iraq. I don't know if that's true or not, but there does seem to be a consensus amongst the British military establishment that withdrawing from Iraq to concentrate in Afghanistan is still worthwhile. BTW, I opposed the Afghan invasion as well as the Iraq invasion... primarily because I didn't think that Westerners would ever be viewed as anything other than invaders. But, here we are, stuck in the tar baby. And you're right about his views on Islam being coloured by his Christianity. This is huge. The Chief of General Staff of our closest ally and most important coalition partner is now saying they should abandon the mission "soon." I wonder what the NY Times and Washington Post are waiting for before they put stories on this up on their sites? Posted by: twc on October 12, 2006 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINKI can't believe that people are so fucking gullible, that they actually believe that the poor planning was due to over-optimism. It's the oil-market manipulation, stupid. Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on October 12, 2006 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINKDemonising him as personally crazy (however despotic the regimes is - and it's pretty damn horrible) is a dangerous mistake - we can forget about 'knowing our enemy' while at the same time you could argue that KJI understands the US quite well. And it's equally important not to mistakenly inflate our enemy. It is difficult to disentangle the concept of "personally crazy" from the normal human attitudes and perceptions which someone in the position of being an absolute dictator of a totalitarian society would have. It is hard to believe that Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were all personally crazy; but their actions, both as individuals and as leaders, were strange, violently aggressive, and dangerous, and any average person who behaved that way would probably be classified as paranoid or psychopathic. The situation seems to induce megalomaniacal personality disorders. (See also George III, King; Nicholas II, Tsar.) It is not true that KJI has a good understanding of American politics or its foreign policy tendencies. He seems to believe that the US is likely to attack NK; this is wrong. (The attack on Iraq should in fact have made this clear: you had to be as weak as Saddam was for a US attack to be realistic.) His nuclear policies are a pointless and stupid detour, both for him and his country, and may sabotage his remaining sources of cash. If he gave up his nuclear ambitions, the US would probably leave him alone, and he would be free to reap the fruits of SK's Sunshine Policies and enjoy his Bentleys and his trysts with starlets unto a ripe old age. GWB is an idiot. That doesn't make KJI a genius. Posted by: brooksfoe on October 12, 2006 at 11:19 PM | PERMALINK...and, is he still in charge? If so, for how long? Oh, probably for a long time. The UK is a reality-based country, save for Labour. And Labour is going to get flushed down the toilet at the next elections if they don't start a serious internal flushing themselves. Posted by: Fifi on October 12, 2006 at 11:29 PM | PERMALINKWell, this'll make the British 0 for 3 in their invasions of Iraq. The Iraqis sweep the series! Posted by: Stefan on October 12, 2006 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINKI think in the 21st century, they play best of 7 for invading countries. So watch out, Grenada! Posted by: craigie on October 12, 2006 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINKIt is not true that KJI has a good understanding of American politics or its foreign policy tendencies. He seems to believe that the US is likely to attack NK; this is wrong. (The attack on Iraq should in fact have made this clear: you had to be as weak as Saddam was for a US attack to be realistic.) The US administration also claimed that Iraq was about to attack the US, but that doesn't mean that they believed it. A lot of international politics is really domestic politics, or played out for internal reasons. I can't say whether he and/or the regime actually believes a US strike is imminent or likely, but it's not enough to look at the posture the North takes and say "it's not logical by our reckoning, therefore it's strange, violently aggressive, or dangerous". The actions of NK are strange, dangerous, etc - but what's the reasoning behind them (either by KIJ personally or the regime as a whole). Would they have moved forward with this test if the US wasn't bogged down in Iraq? Or have they judged they can get away with this due to the current US situation? His nuclear policies are a pointless and stupid detour, both for him and his country, and may sabotage his remaining sources of cash. Not so sure. Morally it's absolutely reprehensible that a country in such a dire position would waste money on nukes, but what has the test done for NK? It's ratcheted up the tension, and rattled Japan, but then NK may judge that such tension creates a better bargaining position for them. I seem to remember Nixon saying something about letting the other guy think you're crazy enough to do something provocative... If he gave up his nuclear ambitions, the US would probably leave him alone Actually, I think that's debatable - not having nukes did not dissolve the DMZ or remove the US troops. Posted by: floopmeister on October 12, 2006 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINKIf [Kim] gave up his nuclear ambitions, the US would probably leave him alone Other than rhetoric meant for domestic consumption, that has pretty much been GWB's policy for the last six years. Jeffords/Boxer (or Boxer/Jeffords) 2008!!! "The problem has always been not enough troops." This is fast becoming conventional wisdom. More troops simply mean more targets for the local folk. Here is the bottom line truth: A foreign white Christian country's army cannot hold a brown Muslim nation without being flogged by endless injuries, loss of life, and ceaseless demands on its treasury. Swap the adjectives about for an equally true vice versa law. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was a dumb idea. There never was a right way to do it. It's destiny was to fail. Unless you understand this you are leaving yourself open to suffer yet more Vietnams. End of story. Posted by: koreyel on October 13, 2006 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINKIt's the only way to preserve freedom.
When past, recent-serving US generals criticize tactics, strategy, and the politics of a war; when the US army staff withhold the budget due because they believe the army to be underfunded in a time of "war"; when the Chief of Staff of the main allie (UK) goes outside channels to say that the war is not achieving goals and better to win one war rather than lose two; AND ALL are ignored in seriousness both by the politicians and media, I'm sorry, it is out of kilter. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6046332.stm I can't think of any other time the UK CoS has spoken outside channels. If not for the US, this is serious in credibility of direction of the war. If not addressed, the Afghan war will also lose credibility. I think it almost unbleievable that 2 major democratic governments are losing credibility over fighting a war against terrorism within their adminstrative time span. It is because they both held unrealistic beliefs and both overplayed their hand for political advantage. A pox on their house! Both of them! I just listened to Sir Richard on Radio 4. He backed down somewhat on whether there's any disagreement with the PM and the Foreign Sec. Seems to think there's a brouhaha over not much. Posted by: KathyF on October 13, 2006 at 2:58 AM | PERMALINKMuslim customs are quite clear on the right to hospitality: That once granted, it cannot be revoked; and if taken, it cannot be given. By leaving, and then giving them the option to ask us in, we'd be winning. I know it's hard to understand, but really, the job is done. There's nothing more our troops can do. Posted by: Crissa on October 13, 2006 at 3:52 AM | PERMALINKIn Britain, the conservative movement has been the major opposition to the misadventure in Iraq... Er... actually, the Conservative party were enthusiastic supporters of the war right from the start, and lost a lot of potential support because of that. Their new leader is trying a more skepical stance as part of a general populist make-over, but that's very recent indeed. The actual major opposition has been the Liberal Democats, whose historically centrist position now puts them slightly to the left of Blair. Posted by: Sam Dodsworth on October 13, 2006 at 4:18 AM | PERMALINKIt's still the Royal -- i.e. the Queen's and not Parliament's -- Army, and the Queen is, at least on paper, the senior figure in the state religion. Each regiment in the RA, and all of the trades -- Engineers, Artillery, REME, have a chapel, for example. No, it's the British Army. Royal Navy, Royal Air Force, but British Army. Goes back to the day when the Army decided to abridge Charles I. RA stands for Royal Artillery. You're right; the oath we take is to defend the Queen against her enemies. But that doesn't mean that we're a Christian army; plenty of Gurkhas and Sikhs still serve, and most of the soldiers aren't much more religious than the average Brit (the CoS sounds a bit of an outlier). Posted by: ajay on October 13, 2006 at 6:04 AM | PERMALINKThe only people who still believe in continuing the occupation of Iraq are self-delusional American conservatives, many of whom, like George W. Bush, have very evident mental problems. It's time to take back the asylum from the inmates! Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on October 13, 2006 at 6:18 AM | PERMALINKThomas1: "Who cares what the British do?!" Our British allies currently garrison Iraq's second largest city, Basra, and its environs. Are you -- and the rest of the tough-talking chickenhawks who sound just like you -- willing to volunteer to take their place? Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on October 13, 2006 at 7:36 AM | PERMALINKNow he's gone public. I wonder if there are any American generals who agree with him? The American officer corps is now thoroughly Republican, and no longer capable of such independent thought. Posted by: bob h on October 13, 2006 at 8:00 AM | PERMALINK"The American officer corps is now thoroughly Republican, and no longer capable of such independent thought." Huh? GOP mind control? Blackmail? Replace "Republican" with "Democratic" in that sentence and tell me how silly it would sound. Posted by: Trashhauler on October 13, 2006 at 8:40 AM | PERMALINKOf course there are generals that think this way - even if the quesion was merely rhetorical it was still idiotic. It's a mystery why you morons on the left cannot figure out that getting the f--- out was inevitable: the only question that had to be resolved was the politics of it. Bush and his team of idiots went in for political reasons do you really think they were gonna leave for anything less? This why Kosite-like calls for withdrawal are so stupid, it's like you're working for Rove! And the only one amongst you to realise the folly of it, Hillary, you shit on as if she were the worst kind of apostate. My god. And you're wondering if the 'idiot' generals are finally agreeing with you as if you've been blessed with incontrovertible proof of all that is. Posted by: saintsimon on October 13, 2006 at 8:43 AM | PERMALINKsaintsimon: Rather funny definition of "political" you seem to have. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on October 13, 2006 at 8:55 AM | PERMALINKsaintsimon, did you run that last post through some kind of potty-mouthed babelfish or something? British days in Iraq are indeed numbered. Anyone hear about how a coroner in Oxford today declared that an ITN reporter was effectively murdered by US marines? I'm in the UK right now and it is ALL over the news, along with chief army dude's remarks. I think it's safe to say that by this time next year we'll probably be flying solo in IQ. Probably sooner than that. Aside from Australia, I guess. Who else is left these days in the Coalition of the Willing? Posted by: sweaty guy on October 13, 2006 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINKsaintsimon sez: Of course there are generals that think this way - even if the quesion was merely rhetorical it was still idiotic. It's a mystery why you morons on the left cannot figure out that getting the f--- out was inevitable: the only question that had to be resolved was the politics of it. Here we see the hardcore freeper/little green foosballs/Cornerite crowd preparing themselves for the day when a Chinook lands on top of the US Embassy in Iraq and spirits away the last remaining members of the abandoned staff. There are two kinds of true believer on the Republican side right now--the Realists and Retards. The Realist is posting here as saintsimon, and he sees the debacle for what it is. The retards? Still trying to pull their head out of their ass and figure out why the Iraq experiment failed. Bush and his team of idiots went in for political reasons do you really think they were gonna leave for anything less? This is where saintsimon puts some distance between an administration that he has fanatically and blindly supported from day one of all this through to today. The attitude was, Bush is God, he can do no wrong, Dumbocrats hate Amerika, etc. When the cracks began to show, the Realist realized it was time to join the other rats and leave the ship. The Retards are still playing shuffleboard with a canoe paddle while the ship goes down. This why Kosite-like calls for withdrawal are so stupid, it's like you're working for Rove! This is where I think there's a freeper/lgf/Cornerite angle to what he's saying--who the fuck uses the term 'Kosite' except that crowd? One thing the Realist can't abandon is the notion that Karl Rove is a genius. No, Karl Rove has been lucky and had ridden the crest of a few changes in the voting patterns of the American people. If Karl Rove were a genius, Bush would be at 50% approval and US troops wouldn't be locked into a war against insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. So we have him slamming Bush but calling Rove a genius? How funny is that? I guess the Realist has a bit of the Retard in him. And the only one amongst you to realise the folly of it, Hillary, you shit on as if she were the worst kind of apostate. No, we shit on Lieberman as the apostate. Get your facts straight. My god. And you're wondering if the 'idiot' generals are finally agreeing with you as if you've been blessed with incontrovertible proof of all that is. Please write this down: The plan of the Republican Party is to BLAME THE GENERALS. Obviously, they cannot blame Clinton for the Iraq debacle (I'm sure they would like to, but what with Katrina, North Korea, 9/11, the breakup of Brad and Jen and the Lindberg Baby all being the fault of William Jefferson Clinton, this is a stretch) so they're going to BLAME THE GENERALS for the withdrawal in Iraq. Look for Rumsfeld to throw up his hands and quit and say "the Generals lied to me and I couldn't fight the war the way I needed to." That's the meme: BLAME THE GENERALS. SS, so dems were supposed to use reverse psychology and argue for the building of permanent civilian settlements on the Euphrates? I know POTUS acts like a child, but I don't think he could be so easily manipulated. I think he'll keep trying to put the square peg in the round hole until you take it away from him. Posted by: asdf on October 13, 2006 at 9:16 AM | PERMALINKAside from Australia, I guess. Who else is left these days in the Coalition of the Willing? Don't we still have those 40 monkeys offered into service by some small island nation? Funniest thing I've read all week. This is from Dan Froomkin's column in the Washington Post about Bush's press conference yesterday in which Bush, apparently frightened by having to answer real questions, retreated into the fantasy world in his little head and started to pitch himself his own softballs: When a questioner asked about the credibility of the administration's threats toward North Korea, Bush said: "I thought you were going to ask . . . 'How come you didn't use military action?' " Bush then replied: "My answer is that I believe the commander in chief must try all diplomatic measures." "I'll ask myself a follow-up," Bush continued. "If that's the case, why did you use military action in Iraq?" His answer to himself: "Because we tried the diplomacy." "I'll ask myself a follow-up"...hysterical! What a clown. I'm surprised he didn't just continue the rest of the press conference by himself, darting back and forth from the podium to the press corps seats to make it look more authentic: "I'll ask myself a fifth follow-up: why are you such a bold decisive leader? Because I lead boldly, and that's what bold leaders do." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/11/AR2006101101557_2.html Posted by: Stefan on October 13, 2006 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINKReagan kept trying to put the square peg in the round hole while you liberals screamed about the end of the world too. Uh-huh. But Reagan wasn't "staying the course" and getting thousands of US troops killed and wounded in the Middle East--he cut and run from Lebanon instead. Are you referring to that or are you referring to the Cold War in general? Because if Bush had had to fight the Cold War, our troops would be evacuating Portugal right now and the US would have to give California back to Mexico. Posted by: Pale Rider on October 13, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK...because, as Richard Clarke said, attacking Iraq after 9/11 made about as much sense as attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor... Posted by: Pale Rider on October 13, 2006 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINKIs it just me, or is there a dearth of troll comments lately? It's almost as if the wingnuts, sensing disaster, have all gone to ground to avoid the humiliation. Posted by: Stefan on October 13, 2006 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINKDon't worry. Jay will turn up soon, right after he finishes his morning six-pack; and rdw is bound to chime in with his long-winded nonsensical posts on George Clooney and the death of western Europe Posted by: Botecelli on October 13, 2006 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINKIt's getting pretty bad. Should I start doing Norman Rogers? Posted by: Pale Rider on October 13, 2006 at 10:28 AM | PERMALINKThis story is getting far more play than I expected. Even AOL's lowest-common-denominator news listing on its welcome screen is playing it up, as if Jennifer Aniston were a British general. Posted by: Vincent on October 13, 2006 at 10:39 AM | PERMALINK"dearth of troll comments" Probably hunkered in a bunker somewhere, blaming the Generals, and awaiting their rescue by the breakthrough of the Ninth Army. I believe it is somewhere near Halbe at the moment. As to the 67 year old troll, come on down. Bring your expert rating on the Garand M-1, and/or M-14 or M-16 with you. Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 13, 2006 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINKReagan kept trying to put the square peg in the round hole while you liberals screamed about the end of the world too. Well, yeah, and Bush is just like Reagan: get attacked by terrorists, have a minimal symbolic response and go invade some unrelated country. The difference, of course, is that when Reagan tried to distract America that way after letting terrorists off easy, he at least chose an irrelevant fight that the US could win and extract itself from quickly, rather than an irrelevant fight which empowered the same terrorists that had attacked us, and in which the US became lastingly entangled with a mounting death toll with no prospect for a productive outcome. So, yes, Bush is like Reagan in his lack of resolve in pursuing America's real enemies, the people that have attacked us. But he's unlike Reagan in that Bush instead of merely distracting from that lack of resolves, instead actively (whether through malevolence or sheer incompetence) aids those same enemies. Posted by: cmdicely on October 13, 2006 at 11:05 AM | PERMALINKFine! The British are worthless, sniveling allies, anyway. A nation of shopkeepers and gardeners. If necessary, Barney and I will win this war by ourselves! Posted by: Bushenfuehrer on October 13, 2006 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK"As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited into a country, but we weren't invited, certainly by those in Iraq at the time. Let's face it, the military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in." The above quote has never been discussed. We often here the claim that the Iraqis need to stand-up and take control of their future. But that is only true if we were asked to invade Iraq and help them establish a functional democracy. We weren't...at least I never heard or read about such an invitation. Posted by: RoundGoby on October 13, 2006 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINKI'm 67, but I would gladly stand up, next to you, and defend her still today. 'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land. God Bless the USA! And then... "CLINK" went their tumblers of kool aid. Posted by: God on October 13, 2006 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINKWould someone please help me out? Not very good with geography - Were Tulagi and Guadacanal in North Africa on August 7, 1942? Now, I know that in early November of 42, we conducted an Operation Torch whereby US Army forces landed in North Africa in order to fight the Germans. However, why aren't the lst Marines credited for their invasion of "Guadacanal,North Africa? on August 7 of that year? Posted by: stupid git on October 13, 2006 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINKThe New York Times story about Gen. Dannatt reports his "modification" of his earlier statements -- but never quotes the earlier statement itself! Really quite amazing. Or not. Posted by: SqueakyRat on October 13, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK"was busy with the larger threat" Yeah, Granada loomed large on the horizen - And there were all those boxes of CIBs to pass out. Was a time, when one had to be in a combat zone for quite a while to qualify for a CIB. Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 13, 2006 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINKWould someone please help me out? Not very good with geography - Were Tulagi and Guadacanal in North Africa on August 7, 1942? Now, I know that in early November of 42, we conducted an Operation Torch whereby US Army forces landed in North Africa in order to fight the Germans. However, why aren't the lst Marines credited for their invasion of "Guadacanal,North Africa? on August 7 of that year? I believe you may be thinking of the Philippine islands in North Africa, where US Army forces engaged in the first ground combat against Imperial Japanese forces on December 8, 1941.... Posted by: Stefan on October 13, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINKWould someone please help me out? Not very good with geography - Were Tulagi and Guadacanal in North Africa on August 7, 1942? Now, I know that in early November of 42, we conducted an Operation Torch whereby US Army forces landed in North Africa in order to fight the Germans. However, why aren't the lst Marines credited for their invasion of "Guadacanal,North Africa? on August 7 of that year? Hmmm...come to think of it, Tokyo may have been in North Africa as well. We all rememeber Col. James Doolittle's heroic B-25 raid on Tokyo on April 18, 1942, and how the surviving bomber crews had to crashland in the Sahara Desert afterwards.... Posted by: Stefan on October 13, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINKThomas: Write down "August, 1942." Now write down "November, 1942." Now ask yourself, which follows which.... Here's a tip: August, September, October....what comes next? Posted by: Arminius on October 13, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINKIraq did not attack us. Germany declared war on the US - We invaded North Africa to fight German troops. Japan attacked us - We began invading islands controlled by the the Japanese. Iraq did not attack us. Had they done so, we probably would have heavily damaged Tierra del Fuego. Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 13, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINKLOL -- in hindsight, Reagan should have stayed in Lebanon instead -- that's not a "lack of resolve" though. He understandably was busy with the larger threat at the time. How soon we forget. I'm not going to debate about Reagan, because you miss the point: I was deliberately construing Reagan's behavior in the way most favorable to the Reagan:Bush(II) comparison. Sure, you might think that that sells Reagan short, and perhaps it does: but Bush falls far short in the comparison, so saying that the description of Reagan is unfair to Reagan just underlines how misguided using the Reagan:Bush(II) comparison is in trying to defend the latter is, which illustrates, rather than contradicts, the point of my post. Or were you deliberately ignoring the point, and just hoping to sidetrack this into a debate about how good Reagan was or wasn't? Posted by: cmdicely on October 13, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINKI do not think Bush is Reagan (but, then again, Bush is facing a far more diverse enemy than Reagan did). I've trusted them both as Commander-in-Chief. Aside from demonstrating your own poor judgment, I'm not sure what value you think this comment has. Posted by: cmdicely on October 13, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINKOh yeah, I remember now - Timothy McVeigh declared war on the US - That's when we invaded Oklahoma. Better to fight them in Broken Arrow than back in the world. Posted by: stupid git on October 13, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINKP.S. to thethirdPaul -- terrorists declared war on the U.S. -- we invaded Iraq to fight terrorists. Hmmmm...Saudi, Yemeni, Egyptian and Pakistani terrorists based in Afghanistan "declared war" on us, and we invaded Iraq, where none of them were, to fight them. Yep, makes sense to me.... Posted by: Stefan on October 13, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINKThomas: Did you ever figure out whether November 1942 comes before or after August 1942? Do you need another hint? Posted by: Arminius on October 13, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINKI was answering your questions I asked exactly one question in this thread, and nothing in your "response" answered it, so no, I don't think that explanation is credible. Posted by: cmdicely on October 13, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINKYou know i'm starting to see why Saddam had to be such a badass.Those Iraqi's seem to need a guy like Saddam.Yea I know,But i just had to say it. Posted by: Thomas2 on October 13, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINKYou know, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy--the wingnuts always go to World War II and they ALWAYS get it wrong because they misremember the facts in order to cover Bush's ass. Here's another way to explain why "FDR invading North Africa after Pearl Harbor" is the ultimate misdirection play that ends in a sack for a thirty yard loss: After Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt put the US on a wartime footing. In order to build ships, tanks, planes and get men ready to go to war, the country was told exactly what was expected of it. Within months, the US was pumping out weaponry at a rate that astonished the world. The troops that went to war in North Africa and Guadalcanal were ill-equipped; but in a matter of two years, their gear was vastly improved. Compare that with the time elapsed since the start of the Iraq war in March 2003. The gear is wearing out and the country isn't on a wartime footing. I mean, he's a wartime President. Right? Again, After Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt mobilized the country for war. After 9/11, Bush told Americans to go shopping. Posted by: Pale Rider on October 13, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINKThomas1 If you didn't vote for Bush who in the hell did you vote for? Or are you one of those welfare queens that don't vote? Posted by: Thomas2 on October 13, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINKGet so confused. Invade Iraq to depose Saddam,or Follow through with our educational programs created by Work Force in 96 - give more money to Community Colleges and fund more On The Job Training for "Terraists" in Iraq. "Bring 'em on" and they came and they came - And Omar begat who begat Osama who begat............. And the beat goes on. Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 13, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINKThomas1 loves America so much and believes in the occupation of Iraq so strongly, but he is not willing to pay a dime in taxes to support them. Dimestore patriotism at it's finest. Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on October 13, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINKContinuing Pale Rider's thought: Roosevelt and Churchill also agreed on the strategy of defeating Germany first, since they considered Germany to be the larger threat. Hence, while we had started a counter-offensive in the Pacific, the North African invasion was the easiest way to get American troops into the fight against Germany. It made sense, thomas1, and it was the right strategy. Can you say the same thing about invading Iraq? Posted by: tomeck on October 13, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINKActually it would rather hard to invade Oklahoma. What with my old stomping grounds of Fort Sill, the home of the Artillery and over hill, over dale and all that... Perhaps this is why the Sooners have to go to Dallas every year to be humiliated by the Longhorns. And we now return to the intelligent thoughts of the British Army's Chief of Staff. Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 13, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINKStefan wrote: Is it just me, or is there a dearth of troll comments lately? It's almost as if the wingnuts, sensing disaster, have all gone to ground to avoid the humiliation. Not only that, but the trolls have ceded the field to intentional parodists -- "American Hawk" and the various iterations of "Al" -- and the obsessive but unintentional parodist who posts variously -- and nigh-incessantly -- as Charlie/Cheney/Thomas1. (And really, Kevin, isn't it time you banned this clown?) There have been a few halfhearted attempts by the always-dishonest "ex-liberal," but that aside, morale seems to be low at the Scaife Counter Blogging Project. Posted by: Gregory on October 13, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINKJune 7,1942 - Japanese forces invade the Aleutian Islands. August 30, 1942 - American forces land at Adak Island in the Aleutian. Hmmm, wonder what that was all about - Control of fishing rights from Dutch Harbor? Another important facet of landing in North Africa was to bring a young army up to speed - Was not long before that when soldiers carried wooden sticks and "trained" with wooden tanks. Also to develop leadership - In the great novel, "An Army at Dawn", the author discusses the culling of political types from the National Guard units. Many careers were either made or curtailed by the rigors of combat operations. And Kudos to the fine work of the Big Red One in that endeavor. Posted by: stupid git on October 13, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINKThe DoD had to get Pace out there quickly to try to calm fears about what the Brits are saying. More insanity: WASHINGTON — The U.S. military's top officer said Thursday that the Pentagon would have sufficient forces to win if called on to fight a war in North Korea, but the conflict would be more difficult without the intelligence and guidance systems devoted to Iraq and Afghanistan. Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that about 200,000 U.S. troops were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving more than 2 million troops available for a war in Asia. Pace said a conflict with North Korea, which both he and President Bush have said is highly unlikely, would rely heavily on the Navy and Air Force because of the significant deployment of land forces in Iraq. In addition, such an attack would not be "as clean as we would like," he said, because guidance systems used to aim bombs were in use in the Middle East. So what is he really saying here? First of all, the notion that there are "2 million" troops who are sitting around, ready to go fight North Korea is the most absurd and dishonest thing I've read from this crowd in quite a while. You don't send troops to war; you send units comprised of troops. That two million number has to include Air Force and Navy personnel who are not capable of serving in combat in a ground war with the North Koreans. We're not going to be flying them in alphabetically and setting them up in South Korea to magically transform themselves into fighting units in a matter of minutes. Of that two million, I would be willing to bet you than twenty percent have either never deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan or couldn't deploy to a theater of war. I would also add that quite a few of those have never showed up for drill and are carried on the books of Reserve and Guard units to pad the books and fill billets. How about we make sure Pace is fired along with Rumsfeld? Did anyone ask Pace this question: "How many combat arms brigades, with their gear, could you send to the Korean peninsula in 90 days? 180 days?" Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that about 200,000 U.S. troops were deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving more than 2 million troops available for a war in Asia. The active-duty uniformed strength of the US military is a little under 1.5 million, that goes up to a bit over 2.5 million with reserves, so this "more than 2 million [troops] availabe for a war in Asia" is referring to every active duty member of every branch of the service, and every reservist in every category, that is not currently deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. That may be stretching the definition of "available" more than any reasonable person could tolerate. Posted by: cmdicely on October 13, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINKI'm 67, but I would gladly stand up, next to you, and defend her still today. 'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land. God Bless the USA! Excellent. There's aren't any recruiting centers real close to when you live, but someone as patriotic as yourself should be willing to drive a half hour or forty-five minutes north to sign up. There's an Air National Guard recruiting center in Costa Mesa: 2651 Newport Blvd, Costa Mesa, CA and an Army Recruitment Center in Orange, which is where you really should go if you want to defend this country in Iraq: 365 E River Ave, Orange, CA Don't worry about your age, they'll be able to verify from both your appearance and your social security number that you're not 67. Write us from Basra and let us know how it all turns out. Posted by: trex on October 13, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK"Oh, that's right, I forgot -- anyone who dares to trust our Commanders-in-Chief is simply showing poor judgment nowadays." Thomas1, that's the most perceptive thing you've ever said, or probably will say. Good for you for letting the Kool-Aid pass out of your system. But one question: who are the other Commanders-in-Chief, Cheney and Rumsfeld? What a great country, with the job-sharing and all! Posted by: Kenji on October 13, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINKThere have been a few halfhearted attempts by the always-dishonest "ex-liberal," but that aside, morale seems to be low at the Scaife Counter Blogging Project. A shame, really. There are few things I enjoy more than kicking a wingnut when he's down. Posted by: Stefan on October 13, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINKanyone who dares to trust our Commanders-in-Chief is simply showing poor judgment nowadays. Anyone who trust someone who has demonstrated so clearly that they cannot be trusted as our current President is showing poor judgment; you are falsely generalizing the specific. Isn't it about time for the news dump that happens on Friday afternoons? Posted by: Pale Rider on October 13, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINKDEMOCRATS FINALLY DEBUNK “STAY THE COURSE” Jack Murtha, a Democrat, at some personal political risk announced that "our presence in Iraq has become the cause, not the cure, for much of the violence." This has been openly confirmed, among many others, by the presently serving United Kingdom Army Chief of Staff. Murtha’s wisdom is now a major policy plank for Iraq solutions.
Joe Biden, a Democrat, was the first major political figure to forcefully call for a partition plan for Iraq, a Tri-Part solution. This too has also become the majority opinion for best solutions in Iraq. When Joe Lieberman and the GOP attempt to paint Democrats as weak on terror and having no plans for Iraq solutions it only serves as an illustration of their bankrupt and inept foreign policy. “Stay the Course” has put our Troops in harm’s way. “Stay the Course” has hamstrung our now openly angry and frustrated Military leadership. “Stay the Course” has now been openly exposed for what it is, a disingenuous mantra employed by Joe Lieberman and the GOP for political gain. Democrats have changed the debate and the strategy for Iraq. They will continue to seek honest open and considered strategies for Iraq and the War on Terror. They will not substitute political sound bites for strategy. In pursuing the War on Terror, they will also not emasculate the honest work product of the CIA, the Joint Chiefs and the State Department for political power. In other news from the UK, a coroner's inquest in Oxfordshire has ruled the killing of a British journalist in Iraq to have been an unlawful killing by US forces and recommended prosecution of the perpetrators. Posted by: cmdicely on October 13, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINKLOL -- in hindsight, Reagan should have stayed in Lebanon instead -- that's not a "lack of resolve" though. He understandably was busy with the larger threat at the time. How soon we forget. Let me guess. Alzheimer's? What ever it was I'm sure he forgot about it too. Posted by: asdf on October 13, 2006 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINKAccording to NBC Evening News report on the Dannatt interviews, the British general is saying in public things which American military people say only in private. To answer Kevin's question. Posted by: jawbone on October 13, 2006 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINKI feel sorry for egbert and Thomas1.floopmeister at 8:44 PMWhy? They won't put their skin where their mouths are. All they do is talk tough like Bush: Big words, small deeds. They are typical authoritarian personalities: At one time all they could do was brag about the "International coalition" consisting of Britain. the conservative movement has been the major opposition to the misadventure in Iraq - ...Posted by: Cernig on October 12, 2006 at 10:11 PMHere I thought it was the British Liberal Party that was the only party there fully opposed to the war while your tories are aligned to our Republicans. How did David Cameron vote on the war? Ayes got it. ...He voted in favour of the Iraq war with the majority of his party... He understandably was busy with the larger threat at the time...Thomas1 11:35 AM |Yes, the invasion and liberation of Grenada , the Mouse That Roared war. America's finest hour. we invaded Iraq to fight terrorists. Thomas1 at 12:26 PMHilarious revisionist history: Invade for WMD, nope didn't work out. Invade for Democracy. Nope didn't work out. Invade to fight "terrorist." Nope, that didn't work out: They're winning. Posted by: Mike on October 13, 2006 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK Yes, the invasion and liberation of Grenada , the Mouse That Roared war. America's finest hour. My brother was in that war - he sees a medical student standing on a beach with a suitcase, he flips right the fuck out. Posted by: Global Citizen on October 14, 2006 at 1:49 AM | PERMALINK迅雷5 web迅雷|acdsee9.0|Tom skype ppstream 新浪uc photoshop8.0 pplive qd铃声 来电铃声 经典铃声 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书金瓶梅 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人 人体写真 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 联通铃声下载 联通手机铃声 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃 中国联通炫铃 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃联通彩铃 联通彩铃下载 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 | |