 |
 |
   Henry Waxmans climate change bill wont make it into law this year. Thats why hes the right guy for the job.
 Conspiracy theories are all fun and games until you become the subject of one.
|
   |
|
|
October 19, 2006
By: "IF WE HAD KNOWN THEN"....In the LA Times today, Jonah Goldberg writes about the war:
Fair enough. I don't expect the National Review crowd to turn into liberals, though I do think there's a minimum standard of intellectual honesty involved here. No matter how enthusiastic you are about spreading democracy at the point of a gun, at some point you have to acknowledge that the Iraq project has turned out disastrously for U.S. interests: "Truth is truth. And the Iraq war was a mistake by the most obvious criteria: If we had known then what we know now, we would never have gone to war with Iraq in 2003." But Jonah says that even though it was mistake to go in, we still need to see it through. And then there's this:
To my surprise, the rest of the paragraph is a suggestion that we should hold a plebiscite asking Iraqis if they want us to stay. But that's not at all what the conventional script requires. The conventional script requires that those who think we should stay need to suggest a way in which we can win. Otherwise Jonah will be writing this same column in 2009, except this time it will be, "If we had known then what we know now, we would have been better off pulling out when we could." Well, we do know now what we know now. The civil war in Iraq is getting worse, our current strategy plainly isn't working, there are no more troops to send over, the political situation in Baghdad is untenable, and the U.S. Army is still culturally allergic to counterinsurgency and security training ("Everyone in the U.S. armed forces knows that the way to the top is to command American units, not to advise foreign units," says Max Boot, and he's right). So what's the plan? It may be true that "if we can finish the job, the war won't be remembered as a mistake," but even if the Iraqis vote to keep us around, how do we finish the job? —Kevin Drum 12:14 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (182)Comments
The only question is whether or not we're in a Killing Fields situation in Iraq. If "yes", we obviously can't leave. If "no", we obviously can't stay. If it's "yes", Bush and Cheney and the entire administration need to resign. And probably be prosecuted as war criminals. And have their tongues cut out. Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on October 19, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINKIn a few years we'll be able to throw the whole damn administration in Gitmo and throw away the key Posted by: nutty little nut nut on October 19, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINKPlus you forgot to mention that we cannot afford to send more troops to Iraq (and need to pull back at least some of those we have there) in order to have a viable "stick" -- if that is what the administration wants -- with which to threaten Iran and North Korea so that they don't go hog wild with nukes. So any Iraq strategy needs to assume fewer troops. Posted by: Tom Casagrande on October 19, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINKTranslation: Just because I was wrong before doesn't mean I'm wrong now. My conservative bona fides assure that I am always right NOW no matter what happened before. Posted by: Alan on October 19, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINKSo what's the plan? George W Bush, the Commander in Chief, DOES have a plan, but he won't make it public because he knows liberals like you and Jon Tester will leak it to the terrorists if he does. This was reported by national security expert Senator Conrad Burns. "Sen. Conrad Burns said at a debate Tuesday night that President Bush does have a plan for winning the war in Iraq, but he isnt about to share it with the world." ""He says our president dont have a plan. I think hes got one. Hes not going to tell everyone in the world."" "Replied Burns: "Were not going to tell you what our plan is, Jon, because youre just going to go out and blow it."" Posted by: Al on October 19, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINKThis just goes to show that the anti-Iraq-war people are on the side of the terrorists! We have to ignore them and keep the Republicans in power -- they can't keep getting EVERYTHING wrong! Posted by: Al's Mommy on October 19, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINKMr. Goldberg will be writing the same column in 2016, but it will incluse the phrase 'withdraw with honor.' Posted by: Hostile on October 19, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINKAh, so we were right -- but we were right for the "wrong" reasons -- while the war supporters were wrong -- but they were wrong for the "right" reasons -- so really, when you step back, we were still wrong and they were right. That's some mighty convenient reasoning, there.... Posted by: Stefan on October 19, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINKLike Al says: After three years, increased bloodshed, hundreds of billions of dollars, Bush has a SECRET PLAN for VICTORY! Vote Republican, or you won't get to see this GLORIOUS VICTORY! Trust us! Posted by: Al's Mommy on October 19, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINKI don't expect the National Review crowd to turn into liberals, though I do think there's a minimum standard of intellectual honesty involved here. Please don't again use "National Review" and "minimum standard of intellectual honesty" in the same sentence. Posted by: Stefan on October 19, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINKsome people did know then what we know now. Like, say, the largest number of people EVER to protest a war? Don't let Jonah rewrite history. Everyone knew back then that Chalabi was not credible, that the PNAC crowd was full of morons, that the planning would not happen, that there were no significant WMDs (the evidence was a handful of left over chemical and biologicals, rapidly decaying, but no nukes), that the only link to Al-Quada was in the Kurdish controlled north protected by US air power, and so on. Posted by: Dan on October 19, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINKThere is no plan that can "win" the war in Iraq. That is the truth that is most painful to accept. We can change the definition of "win." Originally, "win" meant achieving a peaceful, prosperous democratic Iraq that would seed freedom throughout the ME. Now "win" might be an Iraq in which Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds aren't actively killing/maiming/torturing each other. If we just wait long enough and tolerate the deaths of a couple thousand more young Americans, we might see this latter event: All wars burn themselves out if you wait long enough. If we stay we can claim that we "win" when that day finally comes. But if we pull out, we are admitting what a monstrous f**k-up this whole thing has been. Posted by: PTate in MN on October 19, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK"If we had known then what we know now, we would never have gone to war with Iraq in 2003." Jonah Goldberg covers his ass with this purported lack of knowledge, ignoring the fact that many people (whom he disparaged at the time) DID know then what we know now. Lack of knowledge, for a willfully ignorant man, is a perennial excuse. Posted by: olds88 on October 19, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINKYeah, it's disappointing we didn't address poverty instead and work to achieve the Millennium Goals. I think the plan to end world hunger would have been a much better investment. Posted by: Nick on October 19, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINKMaddening, isn't it? Every single thing I've predicted about this war has turned out to be right, and every single thing Jonah "Doughboy" Goldberg has predicted has turned out to be wrong. And yet he's still enough of a fat quivering intellectual coward not to have the decency to actually admit and take responsibility for his mistake, to offer an unqualified mea culpa. Instead it's this mealy-mouthed "I was wrong, but..." Given Goldberg's published record of stupidity, vacuity, and sheer outright ignorance when it comes to the Iraq War, why should anything else his pudgy little fingers type be read with anything other than amused snorts of contempt? Posted by: Stefan on October 19, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINKDoes pulling out of Iraq have to be forever? I mean our interests at this point are, defining them as narrowly as possible, to insure that Iraq doesn't turn into another Afghanistan...a breeding ground and safe haven for jihadis looking to carry the war to the "far enemy". So, our position should be: 1) We will leave Iraqis to work out their difficulties as best they can 2) If genocide ensues we will come back and intervene 3) We will not countenance cadres of foreign jihadis operating openly with support from government officials. If that happens we will come back. It is a crappy thing to do since we are the ones who poked the stick into the hornets' nest of sectarian strife, but there is nothing more we can do at this point. Short of committing a force of a half million or more US and/or coalition troops, to provide the necessary stability and security (and there is no guarantee of success), there is no chance of our improving the situation through military means at this point. We will have to accept the fact that our being there in inadequate numbers will only exacerbate the sectarian tensions over the long haul. But that doesn't mean we can't return under other circumstances. And next time we change regimes in Baghdad we might do some post conflict/nation building planning and get it right. It is sort of like a locked up computer, sometimes the only thing you can do is back out of everything, shut it down and start over. Posted by: majun on October 19, 2006 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK"If we had known then what we know now, we would never have gone to war with Iraq in 2003." Bullshit. We did know, and we're on the record as having said so at the time. Posted by: Stefan on October 19, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK3) We will not countenance cadres of foreign jihadis operating openly with support from government officials. If that happens we will come back. Uh, that's happening now already, and we don't seem to be able to stop it. That horse is already out of the barn. Posted by: Stefan on October 19, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINKYou're right. The Millennium Goals are a much more effective use of our government's funds. According to the Borgen Project, the US spends more than ten times the amount on annual defense than it would cost to support the plan agreed to by every nation to end world hunger. Posted by: Carl on October 19, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINKwe did know in 2003 pretty much what we know now. it's just that most people didn't want to listen back then. Posted by: mudwall jackson on October 19, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINKGoldberg: And I don't enjoy saying it now. I'm sure that to the antiwar crowd this is too little, too late, and that's fine because I'm not joining their ranks anyway. More Goldberg: And I'm not joining the ranks of the military either. God forbid I actually enlist to help fight a war I supported. After all, I'm in my 30s, I'm fat, I have a wife and child and a comfortable sinecure -- let the filthy lower class animals do my fighting for me. After all, it's not like they actually have families and jobs waiting for them at home, is it....? Posted by: Stefan on October 19, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINKAt the risk of piling on...ah, hell, I'll pile on: We did know then what we know now, when schmucks like Jonah Goldberg were hellbent on saying it wasn't so. Bottom line: Back in '91, George HW Bush, Colin Powell and (as I was reminded in an earlier thread) Norman Schewarzkopf knew damn well that the idea of overthrowing Saddam militarily was a non-starter, and no one ever came up with a plausible reason they were wrong. Posted by: Gregory on October 19, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINKand the U.S. Army is still culturally allergic to counterinsurgency and security training ("Everyone in the U.S. armed forces knows that the way to the top is to command American units, not to advise foreign units," says Max Boot, and he's right). No, quite sorry--you are both incorrect. It pains me to correct Mr. Boot and Mr. Drum at the same time, but I will throw two names at you: General Schoomaker Both men either came from the Special Forces component of the military or participated in the training of the Iraqi security forces. Both men were promoted--Schoomaker to Army Chief of Staff and Petraeus received a third star. Schoomaker is well versed in the need to train foreign troops because of his command of the Special Forces. It is not a dead end; staff work is a dead end. Command of a division is also not a prerequisite for a third star or promotion to higher echelons in the US Army; General Wesley Clark was promoted and he never commanded a division, if I recall that correctly. Listen to your uncle Norman--the military is fine and we are winning in Iraq. One need not panic because of a few bombs going off. Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINKaround 2/3 of the american public thinks iraq is a mistake and more than that of the iraqi public wants us to leave. what are we waiting for, an endorsement signed by the pope? shall we wait until bush is gone and 2000 more americans are dead, and then do what we could just as well do now? Posted by: supersaurus on October 19, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINKIf we had left Saddam alone, what would he be doing right now? What about Iran and its nuclear ambitions? Syria? Libya? Turkey? What would be happening in Afghanistan? How stable would this situation be? Whatever is going on in the war in Iraq now, it's ridiculous to assume that no American troops would be dying, no civilians would be being killed, or any of the rest if the al Qaeda battle front was Afghanistan instead. Posted by: carson on October 19, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINKAfter three years, increased bloodshed, hundreds of billions of dollars, Bush has a SECRET PLAN for VICTORY! My sources tell me that it is actually a Double-Secret Plan for Victory and it involves some really cool stuff. Posted by: tbonz on October 19, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINKThe plan is simple and I don't know why it wasn't done in the first place. We keep a hands-off presence in Iraq. Three bases in southern Iraq and one in the west. We protect Iraq against outside military threats and let them sort out their own business, while putting the screws to Iran. Posted by: aaron on October 19, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINKEven though every reason given for the war was false, even though it actively harms US interests and makes fighting terrorism harder, even though Iraq is in chaos and the US effort is completely mismanaged, even though ever-increasing numbers of Americans recognize this and want a solution even if it means quick withdrawal, we should stay in because otherwise people might think Conservatives have bad ideas. It's much better and helps the Conservative cause more for people to think we are so blinded by our ideology that we ignore the fucking obvious, especially when it gets people killed. Even if we lose 10 troops a day, it's worth it for me never to admit being wrong or changing my mind. Also, no one knew this stuff was likely in advance of the war's start, and by "no one" I mean "no one I listen to". P.S. Not I nor anyone I know is willing to sign up for this war I support at any cost. Posted by: Jonah Goldberg on October 19, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK"If we had known then what we know now, we would never have gone to war with Iraq in 2003." As Stefan and Dan have pointed out above, this is pure bullshit. But it's worse than that. Many factions within the Bush administration wanted war with Iraq for their own reasons, and more often than not those reasons had nothing to do with WMDs, al-Qaeda or 9/11. Bush wanted to be a war president, as he considered that to be one element of a "successful presidency;" Rumsfeld's faction wanted to demonstrate our resolve to the world, to show that we couldn't be pushed around; Cheney's faction was interested in securing our access to oil, and probably preventing China from obtaining full access to ME oil; the Wolfie/Feith faction was interested in linking our foreign policy securely to Israel's; and sure, there were some who thought that Saddam might slip WMDs to terrorists. I'm oversimplifying, I know. But the point is that everyone had their reasons. Wolfowitz's comment in Vanity Fair, that the WMD issue was the one thing that everyone could agree on, was the clearest example that the war was being marketed to us, and that a whole host of other reasons were behind it. Posted by: Wonderin on October 19, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINKPerhaps Jonah can ask his mom Lucianne to find a stained blue dress and all will be well. Posted by: gregor on October 19, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINKThe only question is whether or not we're in a Killing Fields situation in Iraq. If "yes", we obviously can't leave. If "no", we obviously can't stay. We couldn't fix Iraq if we stayed another ten years. There will be an even bloodier civil war after we leave with the majority Shia slaughtering tens of thousands of Sunni if they are stupid enough to resist. This will happen if we leave in 18 weeks or 18 months. All we can do is assure Kurdish autonomy by arming them to the teeth so as to keep Turkey and Iran in check, and then leave as soon as possible so as to minimize American deaths and costs. Then, maybe in fifteen years, we can normalize relations with whatever government has emerged, as we did with Vietnam after thoroughly fucking it up. If it's "yes", Bush and Cheney and the entire administration need to resign. And probably be prosecuted as war criminals. And have their tongues cut out. Posted by: Jeffrey Davis This, unfortunately, will never happen. Americans aren't that thoughtful and can't be honest enough with themselves. Posted by: JeffII on October 19, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINKGeorge W Bush, the Commander in Chief, DOES have a plan, but he won't make it public... Maybe he's rolling out Nixon's old secret plan, which remains secret because we never saw it then! And just to pile on -- if one more National Review asswipe says "if we'd known then..." I am going to have to vomit copiously, because there were people telling you, then, what you know now, and you were calling them all sorts of names. I never tire of saying that there is a very special place in the hottest circle of hell reserved for these people... Posted by: mister pedantic on October 19, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINKKevin asks "how do we finish the job?" We finish it by winning, of course! Didn't you hear what your own Dear Leader said? Our stategy is to win! Our tactic is strategy. Victory means that you win. Autonomy means you're an automaton! No, wait... Posted by: mister pedantic on October 19, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINKA doctor will warn that if you see a man stabbed in the chest, you shouldn't rush to pull the knife out. -Jonah Goldberg True. But the police will come and arrest the scumbag who did the stabbing and throw his ass in jail while the doctors tend to the mess. Posted by: snark on October 19, 2006 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINKOh, if only we had known then what we know now! Meanwhile consider this quote from Dick Cheney in 1991 explaining why we didn't invade Iraq after pushing them out of Baghdad: Some have suggested that if we had gotten involved just a little bit -- for example, if we had shot down a few helicopters -- it would have changed the outcome of the conflict. I think that is a misguided notion. One of the lessons that comes out of all of this is we should not ask our military personnel to engage a little bit in a war. If you are going to go to war, lets send the whole group; lets make certain that weve got a force of sufficient size, as we did when we went into Kuwait, so that we do not suffer any more casualties than are absolutely necessary. Ah yes, if only 2003 Dick Cheney had known what 1991 Dick Cheney knew.... Posted by: Stefan on October 19, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINKI don't expect the National Review crowd to turn into liberals, though I do think there's a minimum standard of intellectual honesty involved here. Er, no. Intellectual honesty isn't involved. Jonah Goldberg has some minimum contact with political reality. Jonah Goldberg is aware that almost no one is buying the line that the war was right now, so if he wants to slavishly defend the current policy (which, of course, he does), he's going to have to defend it from the basis that the war initially was mistaken, but nevertheless is still necessary. Admittedly, fewer and fewer are buying that, but the continuation of the war is the fixed policy, and that's what he has to defend, so he's got to work with what he's got. Posted by: cmdicely on October 19, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK
This is exactly correct; Nancy Pelosi will take his secret plan, scrub the name off of it with a scouring pad, and insert her own name where George W Bush's name originally appeared. This happens all of the time--it's why your party can't win elections or accomplish anything. You steal everything and make it your own, you little devils. Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINKWhat the hell are you talking about, Kevin? You sound like you think the purpose of this war was to "spread democracy." That was never anything but a thin PR ploy. This war will forever be regarded as a mistake, and much worse. Posted by: Ace Franze on October 19, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINKAh yes, if only 2003 Dick Cheney had known what 1991 Dick Cheney knew.... Well, yeah, but that was before I became a pump-head. Posted by: Deadeye Dick on October 19, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINKA "thin PR ploy" tossed out after the original ploy, WMD, began to stink even to the Chimp. Posted by: Ace Franze on October 19, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINKnational security expert Senator Conrad Burns. If nothing else gave away the fact that "Al" was a parody, it's his ability to type the words "national security expert" in conjunction with the name "Senator Conrad Burns." me: Oh, if only we had known then what we know now! Meanwhile consider this quote from Dick Cheney in 1991 explaining why we didn't invade Iraq after pushing them out of Baghdad: ...pushing them out of Kuwait, damnit! Posted by: Stefan on October 19, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely wrote: Intellectual honesty isn't involved. Of course -- it is Jonah Goldberg, after all. Jonah Goldberg is aware that almost no one is buying the line that the war was right now, so if he wants to slavishly defend the current policy (which, of course, he does), he's going to have to defend it from the basis that the war initially was mistaken, but nevertheless is still necessary. Admittedly, fewer and fewer are buying that If memory serves me right, prewar polls showed that the American people would not support the war on Iraq if Saddam didn't have WMDs, wasn't in league with al Qaeda and if more than 1,000 soldiers were to lose their lives. In fact, support declined with each of these factors, with significant opposition if all three proved true. Sadly, these polls proved, not cautionary to the Bush Administrastion, but a roadmap for their prewar propaganda ("mushroom cloud," "Saddama bin Laden" and "cakewalk"). Factor in that Bush insists on paying for the war with a tax cut, and it's obvious they've long been aware of the potential unpopularity of their little adventure. But that's the risk of half-assed military ventures -- the public is no longer fooled and no longer willing to expend blood and treasure on this debacle. Posted by: Gregory on October 19, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINKQuoth Jonah: Those who say that it's not the central front in the war on terror are in a worse state of denial than they think Bush is in. Who says its not? Its the central front on which we are losing the war on terror. The way to win on that front is to remove our troops and enable self-rule without our thumbs on the scale, and without our military presence tainting the legitimacy of any regime in Iraq. Yes, just as the current situation is, that will be chaotic, messy, and deadly for people in Iraq: our ill-advised invasion guaranteed that outcome whether we stayed or left. The process of the occupation, and the missteps, blunders, and outright deliberate wrongdoing during it has fatally tainted any ability we might have had to stabilize the situation through a military presence. This is not a war against a nation, or a fixed foe, but a campaign against abstractions, against a violent ideology. The way to win that war is to remove the things on which that ideology feeds. Right now, that is, first and foremost, the continuing US-led occupation of Iraq. We need to be engaged in the Middle East, supporting economic development, political liberalization, etc. But we need to do so by means other than military occupation if we want to defeat, rather than promote, violent Islamic extremism. Posted by: cmdicely on October 19, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINKMany factions within the Bush administration wanted war with Iraq for their own reasons, and more often than not those reasons had nothing to do with WMDs, al-Qaeda or 9/11. So many asshats. So many reasons for going to war. Some wanted to aid Israel. Some wanted to advance their notions of American Kingship. Bush just wanted power and to advance the Republican domestic agenda. (Not because he bought into their agenda. No. It would increase his power.) A war in Iraq gave them all what they wanted. And a never-ending war was best of all. Which is why Bush isn't going to leave Iraq. Ever. Why would he? It -- like Diebold voting machines and the promise to one day end abortion -- is a gift that keeps on giving. We've never had a more cynical president or a more cynical munge of supporters. Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on October 19, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINKGeorge W Bush, the Commander in Chief, DOES have a plan, but he won't make it public... I seeeeeee. So the first four years of George Bush's 'secret plan' to win the war in Iraq involves having the American military get its' ass kicked around while the country tears itself apart from sectarian violence? Hummmm. Can't wait to see the rest of the plan unfold! Posted by: snark on October 19, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINKKevin, So, if I understand this correctly, the Repub "strategy" now is not "to win" as GWB said. (Forget for the moment that victory is not a strategy, it's a result). The "strategy" now is not even to "win" but to ask the Iraqi electorate to tell American leaders how to deploy American armed forces?! The Democrats ought to be all over this. Someone needs to evince a credible strategic plan for stabilizing the situation, and enabling American military withdrawal, as soon as practicable. Clearly the Rebubs are NOT up to the task. The absurdity of punting to another nation's electorate to give political cover to America's politicians, so they can re-deploy American troops they never should have put in harm's way to begin with, ought to be clear on its face. Posted by: Alan Lewis on October 19, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINKJust sent this letter to the L.A. Times: Jonah Goldberg makes the following claim in his column entitled Iraq Was A Worthy Mistake: I do think that Congress (including Democrats Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller and John Murtha) was right to vote for the war given what was known or what was believed to have been known in 2003. What an extraordinary statement. What a utterly extraordinary statement. No one voted for the war in 2003. No one voted on the basis of what was known in 2003. They voted in October 2002. The vote was held in October 2002 fully five months before commencement of the war - for purely political reasons, so the republican party could exploit the issue prior to the 2002 mid-terms. How could Mr. Goldberg not know that? When the vote was held in October 2002 the U.N. had not yet adopted a resolution mandating readmission of weapons inspectors. When the vote was held in October 2002 U.N weapons inspectors had not yet re-entered Iraq. They did not do so until November 27, 2002. When the vote was held in October 2002 it was not yet known that the CIA had provided U.N. weapons inspectors with the CIAs best intelligence on likely WMD-related sites in Iraq. George Tenet didnt testify to that effect until his Senate testimony of February 12, 2003 When the vote was held in October 2002 it was not yet known that Hans Blix would report to the U.N. on March 7, 2003 that it had conducted professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq....No evidence of proscribed activities has so far been found. When the vote was held in October 2002 it was not yet known that inspections by U.N. weapons inspectors of sites identified by the CIA as likely WMD hiding places in Iraq would conclusively demonstrate that the CIAs WMD intelligence was completely unreliable. It was not known that neither WMD nor any evidence of WMD would be found at these sites identified by the CIA as the most likely hiding places for WMD-related evidence. There was no vote after October 2002. But Bush knew all of the above, and yet he commenced bombing of a city of 5 million people just 12 days after Blix reported that each and every site identified by the CIA and inspected by U.N. weapons inspectors had been a dry hole absolutely no evidence of WMD. Mr. Goldberg, the vote was held in October 2002, on the basis of none of the information learned over the succeeding five months, without the benefit of the U.N. weapons inspectors findings, and accordingly without the knowledge that our own intelligence was highly suspect. Posted by: Thomas C on October 19, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINKBooby:
Yes, you went off topic to try and cruise for a little man meat, didn't you? And I called you on it. Well, I'll have you know that I am what I say I am and your sexual fantasies about short fat men notwithstanding, be advised, sir: I am not your type. Now go away and stop interrupting my conversations with people who are here to listen to what I have to say to them. Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINKDammit it all to hell! That last comment at 01:21 PM EDT was intended for another fool on another thread. My apologies to the forum. Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINKA big "what he said" to everyone who is pointing out that we did know then what we know now. I am a liberal who originally supported the war (because I trusted Tony Blair and Colin Powell, if you must know). I had several friends who said I was a fool for believing them, and with each revelation about the intelligence from that period being cooked, I had to admit they were right. Posted by: mmy on October 19, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINKThe war in Iraq turned out pretty much as I expected it would before we went in. The entire strategy of building a united, democratic Iraq was flawed one. The country is not homogenous either ethnically or religiously, and can only be held together at the point of a gun. And the cultural requirements for successful democracy were never there to begin with. However, the key question is the one Jeffrey Davis asked in the very beginning: what happens if the United States withdraws now? There is a real possibility of a full-scale civil war that kills many hundreds of thousands or even millions of Iraqis. Do we have a moral obligation to stay until this possibility is no longer plausible? I think so. A plebscite may be justified to find out what the Iraqis want, and we should abide by those wishes, but our moral responsibility for the outcome cannot be laid down. A subsequent pogrom will require us to reengage. As for a strategy for winning if we stay (and the Iraqis want us to stay), I would begin efforts to divide the country into 3 new ones along the major divisions- Sunni, Shia, and Kurd. This would involve some significant migrations of the populace, but I really don't see an alternative. Posted by: Yancey Ward on October 19, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINKOutstanding, Mr. Rogers. Pure comedy gold -- I salute you! Posted by: Stefan on October 19, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINKfuck him, spineless twit. he's got kids that could very well in up there if we kept dragging this out. murtha's plan is the only viable option. There is a real possibility of a full-scale civil war that kills many hundreds of thousands or even millions of Iraqis. I don't know if you've been paying much attention lately, but that full-scale civil war that kills many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis is already going on now, even with the presence of US troops. It's not a "very real possibility" -- it's a very real reality. Posted by: Stefan on October 19, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINKA doctor will warn that if you see a man stabbed in the chest, you shouldn't rush to pull the knife out. Well, yes. But a doctor sure as hell won't say "stay the course", either. I think Jonah's choice of analogies is revealing. If someone presents at an Emergency Room with a knife in the chest, what will happen is that they will be examined (intelligence work), x-rayed or MRIed (analysis), then when it it determined what the extent of damage is, the foreign object is removed and the wound is repaired. Everyone involved knows the most important thing is to get that knife out as quickly and safely as possible. The risks of keeping the knife in are enormous. The risks of yanking it out are real (it may do additional damage), but somewhat smaller. No one sane thinks it's OK for a patient to walk around with the knife in until 2012 because "it's already in there and he isn't dead yet". But that it exactly what Jonah is saying: the knife is in already, so might as well keep it there indefinitely. Everyone else in the country is talking about the how and when of withdrawal. Only Dr. Goldberg is advising the patient to lead as normal a life as possible with a hunting knife sticking out of his abdomen because it would be "premature" to discuss removal until the wound spontaneously heals itself without disturbing the knife. His license needs to be pulled for malpractice. Posted by: Alderaan on October 19, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINKStepped On:
I'm in a foul mood, sir. Do not set me off. snarky one:
That's it--denigrate the US military. See how that translates into success at the ballot box. I'm quite certain there are more than a few upstanding members of our military who will categorically explain to you via their right boot to your jaw line how they have NOT had their asses kicked in Iraq. Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINKNorman, noone wants to listen to, or have sex with you.Isn't it time for your nap? Posted by: vbrans on October 19, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINKHowever, the key question is the one Jeffrey Davis asked in the very beginning: what happens if the United States withdraws now? No, that's the wrong question. The right question is what is the expected difference if the US withdraws versus if the US stays. There is a real possibility of a full-scale civil war that kills many hundreds of thousands or even millions of Iraqis. There is a very real possibility of that even if the US stays. In fact, such a war is underway, to all available evidence, and indeed one of the aggravating factors in the internal strife is the presence of US forces and the association (and perceived association) of some internal factions with those forces. Do we have a moral obligation to stay until this possibility is no longer plausible? Not if our staying makes the fighting worse, and the prospects of ending it more distant. Where, precisely, is there any evidence, or even rational reason to believe, that our presence has a stabilizing effect that reduces the overall violence? A plebscite may be justified to find out what the Iraqis want, and we should abide by those wishes, but our moral responsibility for the outcome cannot be laid down. Correct. However, that means that we must not merely look at things in terms of what might happen if we leave, but that we must compare that to what is likely if we stay. No one has presented a reason to believe that all the bad things that are pointed to as costs of leaving won't happen if we stay. The civil war is a consequence of the invasion and past occupation, not a consequence of our possible future withdrawal. It is here today and our military is doing nothing to stop it. Sure, its participating in it, but that's not helping the situation. Posted by: cmdicely on October 19, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINKYancey Ward wrote: The war in Iraq turned out pretty much as I expected it would before we went in. So you expected the Bush Administration to create a massive, bloody mess out of Iraq? Do we have a moral obligation to stay until this possibility is no longer plausible? I think so. Best of luck in your enlistment. Posted by: Gregory on October 19, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINKGoldberg: If Iraqis voted "stay," we'd have a mandate to do what's necessary to win, and our ideals would be reaffirmed. If they voted "go," our values would also be reaffirmed, and we could leave with honor. According to Republican shills like Goldberg, we should put the anti-American Iraqis in charge of US national security policy. According to Democrats, we should put the American voter in charge. The choice seems fairly clear.... Posted by: Stefan on October 19, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINKI'm in a foul mood, sir. Dammit, man, you're doing it again! I told you not to let the troops smell panic!! Posted by: Scaife on October 19, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINKEveryone else in the country is talking about the how and when of withdrawal. Only Dr. Goldberg is advising the patient to lead as normal a life as possible with a hunting knife sticking out of his abdomen because it would be "premature" to discuss removal until the wound spontaneously heals itself without disturbing the knife. I think your analogy is flawed. Goldberg is saying that the stabber is morally obliged to keep digging the knife around in the stabbee's abdomen until the wound heals itself, not just merely that the knife must be left there. Posted by: cmdicely on October 19, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINKEven though Norman Rogers gives a couple of counterexamples, I think Max Boot's thesis about military advancement is essentially correct. It works the same way in the civilian Federal government (which is what I know). Your advancement is most directly tied to the size and importance of the divisions and branches that you have supervised. Jobs thought to be "out of the mainstream," no matter how important, are generally considered wasted time as far as career advancement is concerned. Posted by: Virginia Dutch on October 19, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINKNorman, That's it--denigrate the US military. The ability of the enemy to kill our Marines and soldiers at will with seeming impunity prettymuch translates into them getting their asses kicked. Sorry if reality is a bit hard for you to handle. Glad you at least refrained from calling me a traitor. I was sure it was gonna be somewhere in your comment. See how that translates into success at the ballot box. Well, I'm not running for any elective office this year so.... I'm quite certain there are more than a few upstanding members of our military who will categorically explain to you via their right boot to your jaw line how they have NOT had their asses kicked in Iraq. I believe Fascist Germany and Italy used that technique quite effectively. You're a wonderful advocate for our military. They should look into hiring you in a public relations capacity. Posted by: snark on October 19, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINKNorman I have a cousin who disagrees.He just came back from Iraq 2 weeks ago.Hw would like to kick YOU and your kind in the jaw.Unfortunately he's missing a leg now asshole.Maybe you could thank him for his service by letting him punch you instead? Posted by: vbrans on October 19, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINKGoldberg is just re-stating the same thing the Repubs have been saying ever since they took over: "We're so virtuous, even our lying is virtuous." Posted by: MaxGowan on October 19, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINKMr. Goldberg will be writing the same column in 2016, but it will incluse the phrase 'withdraw with honor.' And at that point, how many of todays third-graders will have been killed for this mistake? Posted by: Global Citizen on October 19, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINKSo Goldberg claims that Those who say that it's not the central front in the war on terror are in a worse state of denial than they think Bush is in. Of course it's the central front in the war on terror....If we pull out precipitously, jihadism will open a franchise in Iraq and gain steam around the world, and the U.S. will be weakened. And yet then a few paragraphs down says that we should leave if the Iraqis want us to leave: If Iraqis voted..."go," our values would also be reaffirmed, and we could leave with honor. So if they want us to go, we should go, even though he believes that if we do so "jihadism will open a franchise in Iraq and gain steam around the world, and the U.S. will be weakened"? If this was true shouldn't we stay even if the Iraqis want us to leave? From his point of view, of course, this makes no sense -- which is precisely the point. It's purely a face-saving maneuver. There's no more sense to be had in the Bush regime's misbegotten Iraq War fiasco, and even the paid shills can't go more than two paragraphs without tripping over their own contradictory rationalizations. Posted by: Stefan on October 19, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINKBush has a SECRET PLAN for VICTORY! Is that anything like "double-secret probation" - I mean the White House is a frat house these days. We can stay and watch hundreds more of our soldiers killed and then leave. Or, we can leave now and save their lives. George's choice. Either way we gain nothing more than we have to date. The Gun Liberation Movement,
In 2004 most GOP candidates were traveling downstream in their "swiftboats" attacking every Democratic candidate that dared to criticize the Bush administration's war in Iraq. In 2006 you not only can't find the GOP "swiftboat", you can't find a Republican candidate willing to jump in and try to navigate the hapless dingy against the strong current of voter dissatisfaction with the seemingly never ending war. One, voters appear to have decided that the President's plan is a failure. Two, despite the fact that the Democrats haven't actually offered a cohesive or comprehensive alternative plan, voters are convinced any change might be better than more of the same. That stands to help Democrats on November 7th...but it also means that voters are hoping for change come November 8th...and that may prove to be the beginning of an even larger problem for both parties. In my opinion, it will behoove both parties to find some tangible solutions to the Iraq mess if they hope to have any success in 2008. If one thinks voters are unhappy now, imagine their mood if Iraq is still at the top of their list of issues two years from now. Read more here: Posted by: Daniel DiRito on October 19, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINKVirgin Dutch:
Alas, poor dingbat. No, men in the US Army are not trying to advance to the top of the secretary pool at the Department of Agriculture, as your analogy explains. The premise that "advising foreign troops" is a "career dead end" is demonstrably false (another obscure man who never went anywhere -- General Douglas MacArthur -- comes to mind, advising the Filipino Army) and I expect Kevin to acknowledge me and publish a full retraction; Max Boot should have contacted me before publishing. Are you acquainted with this man Schoomaker? He holds the top job in the US Army. The top job, and he trained foreigners as part of his duties in the US Special Forces. And you wonder why I sneer at you. This is me sneering at you, by the way: :\ So please withdraw your comments and go post on the helpful hints for the home thread and leave the military issues to the men, thank you. cmdicely, It is true that we don't know if things would improve or deteriorate further if the US withdraws- everyone is simply having an opinion on the matter. The available evidence suggests strongly to me that things would deteriorate in the short term. At the moment, most of the killing is Iraqi by Iraqi, and I see no reason to believe this will abate in the absence of US troops, and a lot of reason to expect it would escalate as the factions fight for control; however, you are free to argue otherwise, and I am open to changing my mind on the matter since I would prefer the US to withdraw for simple self-interest reasons. However, if the Iraqis wish to experiment, then we should allow them to do so- thus a plebiscite on the matter is a valid idea. Posted by: Yancey Ward on October 19, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINKRepublican commits suicide after being charged with assaulting underage girls,
carson: "If we had left Saddam alone, what would he be doing right now? What about Iran and its nuclear ambitions? Syria? Libya? Turkey? What would be happening in Afghanistan? How stable would this situation be?...Whatever is going on in the war in Iraq now, it's ridiculous to assume that no American troops would be dying, no civilians would be being killed, or any of the rest if the al Qaeda battle front was Afghanistan instead." This is supposed to be a post hoc defense for the US invasion? This is what the argument is reduced to, the fantasies of true believers: Just think how bad it might be if we had not done this? Let us consider what might have been... Iraq would still be under the control of a ruthless, Sunni brute--hostile to Iran--who was writing poetry while not executing family members. Israel would still be worried about Iraq. Iran would be flirting with developing nuclear weapons. No change there. Except with a hostile Iraq at their border, they would have some regional counterbalance. Young Islam youth would not be flocking to join the al Qaeda jihad. Turkey, Syria would not be polarizing in their opinion of the US. In general, the world would not regard the US with contempt. We might have been able to actually stabilize Afghanistan rather than hand it back to the Taliban. Maybe catch OBL? Maybe American soldier would be dying, but at least their deaths would not be pointless sacrifices to protect GWB's ego and political power. Maybe the US would have some military options left to deal with N Korea. Maybe our national debt would not be owned by China. We could go on. Posted by: PTate in MN on October 19, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINKNorman, Again,no one wants to listen to your drivel here.This is a place for like-minded people to discuss how to fix the mess idiots like you have put us into.Why not post on Drudge or some other wingnut blog where people will (sic)respect you? Jonah sez: I do think that Congress (including Democrats Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller and John Murtha) was right to vote for the war given what was known or what was believed to have been known in 2003. This crap neocon meme only has credibility through shear repetition. War was NOT declared on Iraq in this resolution. Congress handed Bush the power to go to war IF Iraq was found to be a threat to the US and did not comply with the UN. Even knowing what we know now, this resolution was a responsible act by Congress. The alternative would have been to tie the president's hands, removing any credible threat he could have used in bargaining with Saddam. In the hands of Bush 41 or Clinton, this war authority would have been in responsible hands. Unfortunately not the case with George W. Even though Iraq did comply with inspections, and no credible threat to the US was found, Bush invaded anyway. I repeat: Clinton, Kerry, Murtha, etc DID NOT vote for war, but simply to give the president powers he needed to credibly threaten Saddam. It was Bush who decided on war. Posted by: Broken on October 19, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINKoops, I was distracted and hit the wrong button. I meant to finish... I could go on and on. The bottom line is that we have seriously worsened our situation because of the invasion of Iraq, no matter how you try to spin the alternatives. The invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake. Posted by: PTate in MN on October 19, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINKThe situation in Iraq has evolved beyond our ability to contain it any further, and there is no way for us to pull victory out of the jaws of defeat. Being the son of a whore can cause a young boy to grow up in denial. As Lucianne Goldberg is a well-known old Washington slut, it's no wonder her son Jonah lives in denial. He also probably has a deep-seated need for an authoritarian father figure. Thus, he blindly supports George W. Bush, another dysfunctional man from a dysfunctional family. Maybe they should see about getting a group rate on some intense psychological counseling. Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on October 19, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK"We will not countenance cadres of foreign jihadis operating openly with support from government officials. If that happens we will come back. Uh, that's happening now already, and we don't seem to be able to stop it. That horse is already out of the barn." I'm not so sure. What I've been reading is that the "foreign" aspect is about 2% of the killing that's going on. The violence is almost all Iraqi on Iraqi or Iraqi on Coalition. BTW, what's the difference between an "insurgency" and a "militia" except for the apparent fact that insurgent=Sunni and militia=Shiite? Posted by: Cal Gal on October 19, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINKWhat the republicans to drop this war and run? Suggest all tax cuts be given back in order to pay for it. The British were in India for what? About 150 years and there was a civil war when they left and the it split into three countries. If we stay for that long, all of the oil will have run out long before we leave. Posted by: brodix on October 19, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINKThe Iraqis vote... How many times does it take, MOST THE IRAQIS DON'T WANT US IN IRAQ Right NOW - and that already is a well know fact, so don't we need to ask them, most of them already want us gone, but its not its a democracy issue, at least not for Iraqis, right? Jonah Goldberg is and always has been irrelevant, a neo-con nothing, and his stupidity already legendary. So why then is Kevin giving Goldberg credence here? Goldberg says the war was a mistake on the very day little Bushie says the War in Iraq "could be" comparable to the Vietnam. What a revelation. Thus Goldberg spoke and the earth shook for Kevin Drum. Hey, lets just do one of those column by Ann Coulter next, while your at it Kevin. Posted by: Cheryl on October 19, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK"If we had left Saddam alone, what would he be doing right now?" Oooh, being scary, I guess. Still pretending he had WMD? Sipping lemonade on the veranda? Making life hell for Iraqi citizens, I suppose, tho our bungled occupation has kept that aspect of Life in Iraqi just the same, if it hasn't made it worse. You've just got to face the horrible but important fact that life in Iraq is NOT better than before we invaded. It's worse, much worse. If we had a chance in hell of a stable Iraqi government that protected the rights of all, maybe we could argue that the invasion has been worth it. But to replace one dictator with a bloody civil war, where many people are indiscriminately killing others, just isn't a good outcome. At least under Saddam, Iraqi's knew who NOT to piss off. They don't have a chance now. Posted by: Cal Gal on October 19, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINKC-SPAN televised a conference of the US Peace Institute last night. It is an apparent neo-con Orwellian named organization that attempts to rationalize the need for military force to bring about desired foreign policy goals. There was a member of the panel named Michael Rubin, and everytime he had a chance to speak all he could say was we needed to hammer/pound whomever it was that was impeding US goals. Mr. Rubin, now a 'scholar' at AEI, was identified as being a political adviser for the Coalition Provisional Authority (Baghdad). It is because of Americans like this Rubin fellow and Goldberg that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis suffer terrible horrors daily. I wish I could communicate the need to marginalize and isolate people who support violence as policy without resorting to the same kind of violent rhetoric they use. Allah forgive me. Posted by: Hostile on October 19, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINKthe problem is this: We knew then what we know now. Hell, even the onion had it right! Posted by: freen on October 19, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINKI'm not so sure. What I've been reading is that the "foreign" aspect is about 2% of the killing that's going on. The violence is almost all Iraqi on Iraqi or Iraqi on Coalition. Yes, that's true. I was addressing the general point that foreign jihadis are already operating inside Iraq. They only make up about 2% of the fighters, but they are there.
It is true that we don't know if things would improve or deteriorate further if the US withdraws- everyone is simply having an opinion on the matter. I think its pretty clear that things are deterioting further with the US staying, with no sign of any forthcoming change in direction, so that uncertainty itself would seem to be an improvement. The available evidence suggests strongly to me that things would deteriorate in the short term. Things are deteriorating in the short term anyway, with every bit of evidence pointing to that being true in the long term as well. At the moment, most of the killing is Iraqi by Iraqi, and I see no reason to believe this will abate in the absence of US troops, and a lot of reason to expect it would escalate as the factions fight for control; Its going to escalate as the factions fight for control whether or not the US is present, as demonstrated by the fact that it is escalating with the US present. OTOH, without the US present and actively involved, either an accommodation will be reached or one side will acheive victory. Now, the US serves as an irritant that, while making it impossible for some factions to "win", simply by doing what is necessary to do that undermines the legitimacy of the factions it supports and enhances the propaganda of those it opposes by demonstrating that the factions it supports hold power due to foreign support, not domestic support. Further, it encourages the factions it supports to be less sensitive than they otherwise might be the legitimate concerns of some internal communities, favoring instead the competing short-term interests of the US, since the survival of the factions supported by the US is more dependent on US support than internal support; this creates a fertile opportunity for opposing factions to exploit, which keeps the conflict going. Now, if the invasion and earlier stages of the occupation had gone differently, perhaps the US could make a credible contribution to meeting the needs of internal communities and advancing the long-term stability. Unfortunately, I think the failure to adequately plan for winning that inevitable part of the war until after we were well on the way to losing it caused the US to miss that window of opportunity. Posted by: cmdicely on October 19, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINKvibrating sand:
In the first place, one cannot "post" on the Drudge Report. In the second place, I did not know that one had to agree with Kevin Drum in order to post here. Are you saying that only like-minded travellers are welcome here and that the diversity of opinion offered by your uncle Norman is not welcome here? I am quite wounded and sad now. Please apologize or I will cease posting my thoughts and ruminations for you all to read. Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINKThat's it, and I could not agree more,--denigrate the US military. See how their translators raped the ballot box. I'm quite certain there are more than a few genital members of our military who will categorically explain to you via their right nut inside Bush's jaw how they have had their asses boinked in Iraq by the Generals and Republican leaders. Honor and discipline of our US military means they say 'Yes Sir!' when asked if they liked it. Posted by: Will on October 19, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINKThank you mister pedantic. If I see one more interview or news conference where the Chimperor says "our strategy is to win" and the questioner does not say, "Mr. President, victory is not a strategy. Don't you know what the word 'strategy' means? It means a plan to achieve victory, not victory itself. Now again I ask, what is your strategy for achieving victory" For Chrissakes... And thank you Thomas C. for pointing out it was NOT the October 2002 vote that started the War. It was the Chimperor who started the war AFTER the weapons inspectors found no WMD and begged to be told where else they could possibly be. That's exactly why those who looked at the evidence (NOT including, obviously, Jonah) called "Bullshit" from the beginning and demonstrated in the streets around the world. Posted by: Cal Gal on October 19, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINKPTate: Let us consider what might have been... Iraq would still be under the control of a ruthless, Sunni brute--hostile to Iran--who was writing poetry while not executing family members. Israel would still be worried about Iraq. Iran would be flirting with developing nuclear weapons. No change there. Except with a hostile Iraq at their border, they would have some regional counterbalance. Sounds so nice and peaceful. Saddam executed a lot more than family members. Iran would be doing more than "flirting" with nuclear weapons. Their program is older than 2003. Please describe to me how Saddam would actually "counterbalance" these actions. In short, what would Saddam be doing right now with Iran waving uranium over its head? Appealing to the U.N.? How much longer do you think that situation would remain stable? Young Islam youth would not be flocking to join the al Qaeda jihad. Yes they would. Only difference is they'd be flocking to Afghanistan and western Pakistan for their turn at the "crusaders." Anybody who thinks otherwise is naive. Turkey, Syria would not be polarizing in their opinion of the US. In general, the world would not regard the US with contempt. Syria has hated us for decades. The rest of the world, and most of the American Left, would be spitting on the U.S. for the quagmire in Afghanistan. We might have been able to actually stabilize Afghanistan rather than hand it back to the Taliban. Maybe catch OBL? Maybe American soldier would be dying, but at least their deaths would not be pointless sacrifices to protect GWB's ego and political power. And maybe Afghans would all convert to Buddhism. We've already established in Iraq and Afghanistan that it only takes a small group of terrorists and insurgents to "destabilize" a situation, and Afghanistan has at least as many secular and ethnic issues as Iraq does. And you would be saying exactly the same thing about Bush in Afghanistan. Maybe the US would have some military options left to deal with N Korea. What, a ground force invasion of North Korea? That would be bloodless, all right. And there is no other reason you would want or need ground troops to "deal" with North Korea. Nobody is impressed by U.S. forces standing on a border banging swords on their shields any more. Posted by: carson on October 19, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINKOur soldiers are quite wounded and sad now. Please apologize or they will hate peace, posting letter bombs, spreading ruination for you all to bleed. It is true that we don't know if things would improve or deteriorate further if the US withdraws- everyone is simply having an opinion on the matter. Yeah, the difference being the opinions of those who were right and those, like Goldberg and yourself, who were wrong about everything (often with, I might add, a juicy side helping of intellectual dishonesty). So the question is, why the hell is your opinion worht a damn? Posted by: Gregory on October 19, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINKWill:
Typical unhinged lefty loony bin liberal. That's it--denigrate the people who protect you from harm and treat them like dirt because they are braver than you are and have made sacrifices you are not willing to make. I have noticed no dissenting voices--what say you, libs? Do you countenance this hatred of the military? Think it will do you well in November when the American people pause and consider voting for you? Bravo, libs! Bravo! Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINKNorman said: The premise that "advising foreign troops" is a "career dead end" is demonstrably false (another obscure man who never went anywhere -- General Douglas MacArthur -- comes to mind, advising the Filipino Army) A quick click onto Wikipedia revealed the following: During World War I MacArthur served in France, as chief of staff of the 42nd ("Rainbow") Division. Upon his promotion to Brigadier General he became the commander of the 84th Infantry Brigade. A few weeks before the war ended he became division commander. In other words, McArthur made his career as a commander long before his activities in the Philippines. Posted by: Virgina Dutch on October 19, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINKNorman, I believe you have some white foam on the lefthand corner of your mouth. Your welcome. Posted by: snark on October 19, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINKMy native tongue is not English, so could someone please explain to me the meaning of the phrase 'finishing the job in Iraq'? Posted by: gregor on October 19, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK
And, why, might I ask, did Kerry say in 2004 that he would have voted the same again? Was he insane? I suggest that Iraq is not the problem: it's not that strategically important and never was. Virgin Dutch:
You insufferable dingbat! MacArthur retired and was recalled to service after he advised the Filipino Army. Why did he retire? Because he had no chance at higher command. Where did he end up after he advised the Filipino Army? As a FIVE STAR GENERAL in command of US Army Forces in the Pacific. Hardly a "dead-end." And you wonder why I sneer at you. :\ Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely, The thing that worries me on a US withdrawl is that the Shia will annihilate the Sunnis. Yes, eventually stability will be reached when one side wins over the other, but the form of that victory matters a great deal. I agree, it is entirely possible that my feared outcome occurs with or without the presence of US troops, and the present course of action is not stopping this from beginning, as you and others point out, and this is why I outlined a change in direction that might have a less costly outcome- explicit, controlled separation. Posted by: Yancey Ward on October 19, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINKAlas, poor faggot. No men in the US Army are not trying to advance to the top of the fourteen year old at the Apartment of child rape culture, as your anal excretions suggest. The promise that "advising young troops" as a "career lick end" is demonstrably a plus and I expect Bush to acknowledge me and fully retract Max Boot's string warts before washing. Are you acquainted with this man Schoomaker's penis? He holes the top job in the US Army. The top job, and he buggered foreigners as part of his duties in the US. And you wonder why I leer at you. So please withdraw your cock and go post on the helpful snits for the home head and leave the military excretions to the butt men, thank you.
"To my surprise, the rest of the paragraph is a suggestion that we should hold a plebiscite asking Iraqis if they want us to stay. But that's not at all what the conventional script requires. The conventional script requires that those who think we should stay need to suggest a way in which we can win." That's true, and unless senior administration figures and the Congressional leadership are willing to rally around the idea of partition (privately compelling Iraqi [or at least Shiite and Kurdish] leaders to accept its inevitability, and begin talking about it publically) I'm skeptical there is any hope for salvaging some kind of good outcome for this war. If Iraq is going to be a model for the "greater middle east" (do people in the region refer to it that way?), it is going to be a model for a new Arab world reorganized along sectarian lines, a post-modern version of the Ottoman Empire (with local governance, open borders, and some kind of central bureaucracy handling trade, currency, and immigration policy). Whatever it was before, this is now a rescue mission (not unlike our mission in the Balkans), and if we're not going to treat is such we had best just withdraw. Posted by: Linus on October 19, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK"Will" certainly has a bit of piss and vinegar in him, eh, kids? Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINKFollowing WWI and on through the aftermath of WWII, GIs who were honorably discharged received a good medal - Many returning veterans wore what was referred to as a "ruptured duck" on their uniforms. On what part of his "uniform" and/or body does Jonah wear his "ruptured duck" - Geez, with his vast military mind and experience, he must have risen quite high in grade during his "service" in Iraq. Probably had a lot of gold above his brow. Now, he can become a lobbyist for the military-industrial complex. Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 19, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINKBush will certainly piss and defecate in the mouth of kids. Posted by: Will on October 19, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINKThey could have known the same thing if they'd bothered to investigate the question. Why didn't they? They voted for the authorization to use military force in order to strengthen the presidents' hand in forcing Hussein to cooperate. A mass rejection by the Democrats to provide the president with that authorization would have sent a message to Hussein that said don't worry about cooperating, the US is divided. So the Congress did its' part to present a united front to Hussein. And Bush abused it. Saddam Hussein wanted nothing more than to maintain himself in power. That was obvious to most observers not wearing blinders. Imagine if the Bush administration had had the wherewithal to go to Hussein, the way they went to Mussharaf in Pakistan, and tell him, you work with us and renounce your interest in unconventional weapons and we will lift sanctions and allow you to remain in control of Iraq. Don't do that and you will be destroyed. Posted by: snark on October 19, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK"OLDE EUROPE": DID THEY KNOW THEN WHAT WE KNOW NOW? Iraq is such a cockup, so ill conceived, so poorly implemented, so internationally ill received, so inflaming and offering such dismal short term prospects. Now, it is most certainly important to have leadership of a command on your resume, but there was a time. In 1936, I believe that Bob Hope was sent to the Phillipines to advise the Army of their Commonwealth - He took a sidekick, Bing Crosby, with him as his assistant. That aide spent the next four years working with the local army. Now, neither went very far after that, I think. Oh, geez, it wasn't Hope and Crosby - How foolish of me - It was Gen Douglas MacArthur and Major Dwight D Eisenhower. Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 19, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINKNorm, you are such a bore. No wonder your wife left you. Posted by: The Ex on October 19, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINKGoldberg is a tool. Always has been a tool and when he manages to get something right it is usually right in the broken-clock-is-right-twice-a-day kind of way. That he is sitting at the table with a pile of shit right in front of him and remarks that something doesn't smell very good is hardly intellectual honesty. Especially considering he was one of the cheerleaders who supported Bush & Company while they collected the crap, scooped it on the plate, let it sit in the sun longer than it should of and delivered it to the table. Jonah Goldberg --the Manchurian Editorialist! Posted by: cld on October 19, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINKIf we were having a real discussion about Max Boot's thesis and not a posing exercise, I would point out that people like Mac Arthur, Wesley Clark, etc. are not the most relevant examples - they are the extraordinarily talented ones who will rise in almost any event. The point is how things look to the average guy or gal trying to make a halfway decent career in the military. To them, I think Boot's point about the need for mainstream command positions is probably valid. Posted by: Virginia Dutch on October 19, 2006 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINKSounds so nice and peaceful. Saddam executed a lot more than family members. Iran would be doing more than "flirting" with nuclear weapons. Their program is older than 2003. Please describe to me how Saddam would actually "counterbalance" these actions. In short, what would Saddam be doing right now with Iran waving uranium over its head? Appealing to the U.N.? Assuming Iran did not already possess nuclear weapons, Iraq might invade. They did it before. If Saddam thought it was his only option for survival, he might have done it again. A nuclear Iran was Saddam's worst nightmare, especially with the religious and ethnic composition of his country. Imagine a nuclear Mexico and a non-nuclear US when Mexico decides they want California back. That was the situation Saddam was confronting. A 2nd Iran-Iraq war would have destabilized two regimes not friendly to the US, could have advanced US interests without involving US lives and treasure, would have made Afghanistan easier by creating tensions in Iran distracting them from that front, and could have opened up diplomatic space for the US to be the non-crazy broker in the region, which would have allowed other regional powers to stay neutral in the conflict (Jordan, Egypt, etc.) with US security backing. It would have also chewed up thousands of jihadis flocking to Iran to defend a religious regime from a secular one. It would have also heightened Shia-Sunni tensions without focusing their combined attention on the US, so the US could have stepped in later as, again, a peacemaker who was against terror and war but not against Islam. Meanwhile, in the real world, the US just toppled the Mullah's #1 regional enemy for them and made sure Iraq would be way too unstable to fight them. All they have to do now is wait to annex the territory they want. Posted by: ex-conservative on October 19, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINKVirgin Dutch:
No, they are. Both men held high command in the US military and either advised foreign troops (MacArthur in the Phillipines and Clark as NATO Commander) or rose to elevated command and responsibility without commanding a division (Clark). You are cherry picking, as the kids say, because I have blasted you out of the water. What stains do ginger ale remove again, please? Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINKRumor of new page scandal, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/18/193920/94 Posted by: cld on October 19, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINKRepublican Heather Wilson who was on the House Page Board from 2001-04 has a notable history of covering up Republican child abuse,
Remarkable how they thought she was just the person to be on the page board. Posted by: cld on October 19, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINKI know what the "Secret Plan" is - we'll start bombing Cambodia on November 8th. Posted by: de stijl on October 19, 2006 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK"That's it--denigrate the people who protect you from harm and treat them like dirt because they are braver than you are and have made sacrifices you are not willing to make. I have noticed no dissenting voices--what say you, libs? " Norman, I served six years, resigning my commission to take over blood-bank operations in a large VA hospital. (MFA 71, AOC 67B) Don't fucking lionize the troops. We are human beings; nothing more and nothing less. Evryone has a reason for going in in the first place. Some are noble, some are economic, some are merely to get the hell out of a one-horse town and on to better things, and the military is a conduit for that end. I swear to God, the next time someone says "thank you for your service" I'm going to put my size-7 boot against their jaw myself. I didn't do a God-damned thing so candy-asses who have never done a pull-up in their lives could feel patriotic saying "thank you for your service." I went to the Benning School for Wayward Girls because I felt an obligation to duty, honor and country. Not for the undying gratitude and lionization that is occuring now. Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on October 19, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINKcld, I should warn you that Gregory doesn't like it when we discuss off-topic issues in these threads. Posted by: Yancey Ward on October 19, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINKI should warn you that Gregory doesn't like it when we discuss off-topic issues in these threads. Soemone as intellectually dishonest as Yancey Ward wouldn't want to admit it, but some people object to GOP apologists trying to change the subject from topics embarrassing to the Republican Party that they can't even muster a dishonest argument to defend. cld and I didn't see eye to eye regarding Israel's assault on Lebanon, but he or she has credibility. Yancey Ward, not so much. Posted by: Gregory on October 19, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINKMy native tongue is not English, so could someone please explain to me the meaning of the phrase 'finishing the job in Iraq'? 650,000 down, 20,000,000 to go And Norman, I haven't seen any evidence of a direct hit yet, let alone anyone being "blasted out of the water." Ironically, I served in the first place to preserve your rights to be a blithering ass-clown. So carry on. Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on October 19, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK"I am quite wounded and sad now. Please apologize or I will cease posting my thoughts and ruminations for you all to read." Norman, By the way, Yancey, I'm amused to see that you're still smarting from being called on your transaprently obvious dishonesty. Serves you right from cribbing your tactics from Will Allen. Posted by: Gregory on October 19, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINKNobody could have predicted that Goldberg could be this dishonest. Uh, no, actually, they could. Nevermind. Posted by: craigie on October 19, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINKNobody could have predicted that Goldberg could be this dishonest. Uh, no, actually, they could. Nevermind. Funny -- I remember joining others in pointing that fact out before the war as well. And we were right then, too. Posted by: Gregory on October 19, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINKMy native tongue is not English, so could someone please explain to me the meaning of the phrase 'finishing the job in Iraq'? The synonym for this is "mushroom cloud." Posted by: craigie on October 19, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINKYes they would. Only difference is they'd be flocking to Afghanistan and western Pakistan for their turn at the "crusaders." Anybody who thinks otherwise is naive. Yes, how much better to have them flocking to Iraq, which is easy to get to, sits at the center of the Middle East and on top of a large chunk of oil reserves, and is a culturual and emotional locus for the Arab world, rather than to Afghanistan and western Pakistan, a region which can charitably be described as at the ass end of nowhere. In American terms, this would be similar to saying that "if the terrorists weren't flocking to New York City and Washington DC, they'd be flocking to Nebraska and North Dakota instead." Ah, yeah. That's sort of the point. Posted by: Stefan on October 19, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK"Nobody is impressed by U.S. forces standing on a border banging swords on their shields any more." Carson, you got that right. The limits of the U.S. military have been exposed for all to see. A hundred spies couldn't have so thoroughly informed our enemies as the last three and a half years in Iraq. It makes me wonder who Bush is working for. Posted by: cowalker on October 19, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINKOn what part of his "uniform" and/or body does Jonah wear his "ruptured duck" - Geez, with his vast military mind and experience, he must have risen quite high in grade during his "service" in Iraq. Probably had a lot of gold above his brow. Now, he can become a lobbyist for the military-industrial complex. Goldberg wears the coveted Order of the White Feather, with oak leaves and clusters. Posted by: Stefan on October 19, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINKHow can "doing the right thing" also be "a mistake"? Most schitzophrenic column I've read in quite a while. Posted by: Chuck on October 19, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK"if the terrorists weren't flocking to New York City and Washington DC, they'd be flocking to Nebraska and North Dakota instead." Even this accepts his gibberish on his terms. The fact is, there is not some fixed pool of "terrorists." just waiting for the coach to send them in. Instead, there are a bunch of angry people, and at the margins, some decide to jump in and become terrorists. So we're not "luring" them anywhere - we're creating them. That's the goddamn fundamental point. Posted by: craigie on October 19, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINKJonah Goldberg is merely doing his part in helping his sponsors prepare the ground for the Dolchstoss. Posted by: dr sardonicus on October 19, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINKEven this accepts his gibberish on his terms. The fact is, there is not some fixed pool of "terrorists." just waiting for the coach to send them in. Instead, there are a bunch of angry people, and at the margins, some decide to jump in and become terrorists. So we're not "luring" them anywhere - we're creating them. That's the goddamn fundamental point. Yeah, true. Especially since 98% of the "terrorists" in Iraq are homegrown Iraqi. How many Iraqi insurgents were we fighting in February 2003? Zero. How many are we fighting now? Tens of thousands, probably. Every single one of those men picked up arms solely and completely in response to our unprovoked attack on their country. No attack, no insurgency. Simple as that. Posted by: Stefan on October 19, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINKJoylessly Submerged:
That's a very small boot, and would have to belong to a woman. By the time you thought about raising a hand to me in anger, I would have you locked up for being nutty, you moonbat. Thank you for your service. Now get out of the way so others can serve. And please tell me exactly how defending someone who denigrates the military serves your cause. Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINKWhile millions protested in the U.S. and around the world in 2002 and 2003, Bush likened the protests to a "focus group," and said he wasn't interested in listening. Jonah of course applauded Bush's manly resolve. The appoitment of the morally and intellectually cretinous Jonah as a regular L.A. Times columnist just shows how the "respectable" U.S. media has gone from seeking truth to pandering to know-nothings. Posted by: baked potato on October 19, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINKRight to disent is a constitutional liberty. That is what I served to protect, not a political ideology. And my boot does belong to a woman. The medical corps would be lacking a lot more officers than it currently does without us. We put the troops you are so gung-ho to see fight for some warped sense of glory back together . If you had ever seen a troop or a civilian in three discreet peices on a stretcher, or activated the "walking blood bank" you wouldn't be so gung-ho either. Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on October 19, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINKI've always been aware of the exceptional scale of Republican sexual abuse, but I'd never really focused on it before. Considering the level of institutionalized hysteria they manifest over Ted Kennedy, and then Bill Clinton, I know I should have guessed that where there's smoke there's fire, but, honestly, is there any Republican who has anything like a normal sex life? A Republican's view of sex is related almost exclusively to the helplessness of his victims. Posted by: cld on October 19, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK*yawn* I'll be impressed when Goldenboy admits that he was wrong not to butch-up, sign-up, and fight this war that he wanted so badly for others to fight. Sex isn't about mutual pleasure with a lot of these guys. It is about power, and that is a psychological pathology. Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on October 19, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINKI have to go get ready for work now. We are going through plasma like there is no tomorrow. Plasma is a key treatment for burns and we have those in spades at the VA hospital, because more troops are being wounded in explosions than by bullets. I'll be sure to tell the burn victims I transfuse tonight that they have the unflagging gratitude of the 101st fighting keyboarders. I'm sure it will make their day. --Joy Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on October 19, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINKIt's about authoritarian personality disorder and hysteria. And stupidity. Posted by: cld on October 19, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK1. Most Bush-bashers here seem implicitly to want to bring back Saddam. In case you haven't noticed, he is alive, well, and available. If bringing him and the Baath back is your preferred solution, why don't you say so? 1. Most Bush-bashers here... It's nice when they make it so you don't need to even bother reading past the first few words of their comments. Posted by: snark on October 19, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINKMy native tongue is not English, so could someone please explain to me the meaning of the phrase 'finishing the job in Iraq'? An approximate equivalent would be "The floggings will continue until morale improves": we're going to keep destabilizing Iraq and feeding chaos and violence there until the situation is stable. Clear enough? Posted by: cmdicely on October 19, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK1. Most Bush-bashers here seem implicitly to want to bring back Saddam. In case you haven't noticed, he is alive, well, and available. If bringing him and the Baath back is your preferred solution, why don't you say so? Posted by: lawrence Franko Because that's not what anyone here has ever stated or even implied. So fuck-off back to your mother's basement, you idiot troll. Posted by: JeffII on October 19, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINKnorman rodgers: Typical unhinged lefty loony bin liberal.
"...even if the Iraqis vote to keep us around, how do we finish the job?" If they want us to stay, then I guess we need to create a draft and put about 800,000 to 1,000,000 Americans into Iraq to keep the peace. Plus cancel our contracts with our corrupt, incompetent contractors. Either that or play the pacifist card and withdraw anyway but supply money, advice and humanitarian aid, as well as airlift programs and relocation aid to Iraqis who want to leave if things start to unravel. In the long run, i suspect this would be better for the Iraqis, even if things fell apart in the short run. Either way, success will require that most of Bush's cabinet be fired and replaced with people who are capable of empathy. It would also be best if Bush was impeached, and Cheney, too. Posted by: DanM on October 19, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINKGregory, I am laughing my ass off at you. Smarting? I found your objections to my discussing Reid's situation amusing, especially in light of the fact that you seem to have no objections to others doing it as long as it is a topic you like to discuss. You are a fine one to write about intellectual integrity. As for your calling me dishonest, I don't like it when anyone does that, but your doing it is about as painless as it gets. Posted by: Yancey Ward on October 19, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINKWhat would things be like now if there had been no U.S. invasion? 1a. 3,000 fewer US dead soldiers and 40,000 fewer US casualties. Not an ignorable consideration, but, ... 1b. important people in the US still believing it possible to launch a quick, low-cost invasion of a nation such as Iraq or Sudan, without long-term instability. we know now what an invasion of Sudan would produce: quick victory, an incubation period, followed by jihad against diverse Sudanese civilian populations. 2. Baathists still in power, UNSC resolution count up to about 22, endless debate about how many WMDs Iraq has, where they are, who is working on them, etc. 3. Mystery and debate surrounding the Iraqi trade missions to Niger. If not yellowcake, what do the Iraqis expect to buy from Niger -- potting soil? 4. inadequate health care, water, sewer, and electricity in Sadr city (just like now!) and most of the rest of Iraq outside Tikrit and central Baghdad. 5. violent gangs kidnapping citizens and sharing ransom money with Baathist government; protection rackets; 6. no dozens of independent radio stations, tv stations, periodicals, political parties; 7. no lively bloggers like Riverbend and Iraq the model; 8. 1.5 million or whatever Kurds living in the mountains of NE Iraq 9. continuous shooting war if US/GB enforce no -fly zones. 10. much civilian suffering from sanctions; OR ELSE no sanctions and active re-armament of Baathist regime. 11. Marsh Arabs still living near desertified river delta 12. Libya not divulging all nuclear secrets (and giving up centrifuges to US) and revealing A. Q. Kahn network. 13. No Shi'ite pilgraimmages to Najaf and Nasiriyah in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006. 14. No freely contested elections for parliament, president, and constitution. 15. No adequate epidemiology in Iraq providing accurate health and illness statistics. 16. Abu Ghraib and Iraqi gulag under "old management", with dozens of people disappearing into them every day, or at least every week. Arbitrary arrest and detention, with men and women tortured in the presence of their family members. Let us at least not pretend that a world without the invasion would now be looking good. It was the invasion that disclosed the lack of the WMDs. Posted by: papago on October 19, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINKI was expecting Goldberg to say this was not the time for recriminations and bringing up the past. The usual out for those who banged the drum for the war. Whenever I hear one of them say that, I always think of this snippet from Monty Python and the Holy Grail: King: Ladies and gentlemen. This man whom you see beside me is my own honored One need not panic because of a few bombs going off. Norman Rogers at 12:48 PMWe will know Victory Is At Hand the moment you go to war. I really don't see an alternative. Yancey Ward at 1:24 PMReally? Did you ever think that Iraqi's might want to have a say in the destiny of their country or are you blessed by dog to decide the fate of humans? What happened to all your comments condemning war skeptics over the years? NOT had their asses kicked in Iraq. Norman Rogers at :31 PMTell that to their generals. In person. .Sounds so nice and peaceful. carson at 2:36 PMIf you really wish to discuss the actions a competent American government would have taken, think diplomacy not a lunatic fringe that has managed to kill more Iraqis in three years than Saddam did in 20. Perhaps you are unaware that the Reagan Administration took Saddam's side in his war with Iran, that calling Iran a member of a mythical "Axis of Evil," and attacking the weakest was one heckuva incentive to go nuclear. I believe you have some white foam on the lefthand corner of your mouth. snark at 2:45 PMThere's some moisture about the groin area too, but what with his sexual proclivities, who's to say what that is? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 lawrence Franko at 5:43 PM1. You are imputing motives that have never been express. Apparently, Bush is not the only 'publican straw man expert. 2. Three elections and where is the government? If it exists, why is Bush still in Iraq? What is his real reason for war? 3. It took the British years to placate the state, and it took Saddam the same. This country was, according to the histories Bush and you haven't read, a tinderbox that once destabilized, would be a hellish mess, as it is. 4. It belongs to the people of Iraq, not Bush and his corporate sponsors. 5. The middle east is a serious problem that deserves serious policy, not Bush's Bull in China shopppe actions. Posted by: Mike on October 19, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK Former House Clerk repeatedly raised red flags about Foley,
Instead of searching for WMD, someone should launch a search for Jonah's balls. In fact, Goldberg is himself a WMD--wussie of mass denial. What a putz. Posted by: WCharles on October 19, 2006 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINKqd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 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内衣内裤 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 Posted by: mmf铃声 on October 19, 2006 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINKIt was the invasion that disclosed the lack of the WMDs. and here, stupid me, I thought Hans Blix had been having the same difficulty finding them pre-invasion. Posted by: snicker-snack on October 19, 2006 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINKI found your objections to my discussing Reid's situation amusing Delighted to know you're amused when called on trying to change the subject to a Republican-friendly topic, but that doesn't lend your pathetic dodge any more integrity. You are a fine one to write about intellectual integrity. Oh, is that so? Well, Yancey, I've called you on any number of examples of intellectual dishonesty in the past, so how about you cite an example of mine? Go ahead. I call. Put up or shut up. As for your calling me dishonest, I don't like it when anyone does that Then, Yancey, you might want to try stopping the dishonesty. It might be refreshing. I won't hold my breath. Posted by: Gregory on October 19, 2006 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINKBefore the war, I had this idea that we could step up the pressure on Saddam by unilaterally declaring the whole country a no fly zone. sure there would have been some complaints. nothing to serious...then start blowing up military targets.... 'My native tongue is not English, so could someone please explain to me the meaning of the phrase 'finishing the job in Iraq'?' By all means, gregor. "Finishing the job" refers to George W. Bush's deep-seated desire to apply his lips to another man's sexual organ, preferably of Arab descent, and pleasure him repeatedly. It can also refer to his desire to perform coprophilia with a short, near-sighted man of North Korean descent. Thanks for asking! Posted by: Joe Bob Briggs on October 19, 2006 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINKsnickersnack: and here, stupid me, I thought Hans Blix had been having the same difficulty finding them pre-invasion. In his reports, Hans Blix wrote that the Iraqis were not cooperating in confirming the destruction of the weapons. that is, he noted there was some cooperation, but that there was resistance as well. "having trouble finding them" was attributed to the active efforts of Iraqis to keep hiding them. In early 2003, former Clinton/Bush advisor Richard Clarke asserted that Saddam Hussein would for certain use his WMD arsenal to defend his own regime. Only Scott Ritter asserted positively that all of them were gone, but his opinion had been somewhat compromised. Besides, he said in 1998 that 4% of the WMDs remained, and there was never any evidence that any of those 4% had been destroyed. As Blair said to the assembled prime ministers on the eve of the invasion: (paraphrasing) all the intelligence services of all the EU nations believed that Iraq still had WMDs. Posted by: papago on October 19, 2006 at 11:10 PM | PERMALINKHeres the deal papago, Bush went to war based on a guess that there were weapons of mass destruction. He guessed wrong. Hundreds of thousands of people have died because of his inability to look at the evidence and come to the right conclusion. Oh, and the fact that Baghdad has less electricity and more violence under the boot heel of George W. Bush than it did under Saddam Husseins is all the evidence we need to understand that your list is nothing but a regurgitation of brain-dead talking points devoid of meaning and historical context. Posted by: Will Allen on October 19, 2006 at 11:29 PM | PERMALINKIn his reports, Hans Blix wrote that the Iraqis were not cooperating in confirming the destruction of the weapons. that is, he noted there was some cooperation, but that there was resistance as well. "having trouble finding them" was attributed to the active efforts of Iraqis to keep hiding them. Ah right. Which is why he so wholehearedly approved of the Bush drive to war. Woops. He didn't. ...I think when you're listening to someone who is constrained by his position from speaking too directly you should listen to him as though he is constrained by his position from speaking too directly. As a non-Yank I had no difficulty understanding his deep doubts about the existence of said weapons. And Ritter too is an interesting case. I listened to him very closely at the time and couldn't see any motive other than sheer outrage driving him (the Republican smears of his complicity with the Hussein regime just didn't seem to come close to explaining the energy with which he tried to debunk the Republican lies). To some extent we all have to fawn over the Yankee emperor and his gorgeous clothes. Would that it were other but it ain't. Listen to what we're saying through the fawning. Posted by: snicker-snack on October 19, 2006 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINKHow do we finish the job? First, we have to get shut of Bush. The world thinks hes a war criminal and cant be trusted. So do I. Then, with Bush a bad memory, the new Dem president can tell the world that he (she?) wants to start completely over. America will ask the worlds forgiveness for the terrible mistake of letting Texas cowboys run the only superpower. Once accepted, the whole world will pitch in to solve this thing. Even the Arab countries on Iraqs borders will help. They see how destabilizing Iraq is becoming and it will be in everyones interest to get things under control. We have two terrible years to look forward to but there is a dim light way down at the far end of this tunnel. Posted by: James of DC on October 20, 2006 at 2:09 AM | PERMALINKAnd Ritter too is an interesting case. I listened to him very closely at the time and couldn't see any motive other than sheer outrage driving him (the Republican smears of his complicity with the Hussein regime just didn't seem to come close to explaining the energy with which he tried to debunk the Republican lies). As to motive, he was on the Saudi payroll, and had probably been busted for viewing kiddie porn on line, a fact (if it was such) that he kept to keep secret. this does not relate to his veracity. However, you ability/inability to discern a motive is irrelevant: research shows that people over-estimate their abilities to discern motives, and their abilities to evaluate the effects of the motives that they ascribe. Ritter could have been honestly right, honestly wrong, or honestly in the dark. I mentioned him because of his uniqueness, and the fact that he changed his testimony without providing a single new item of evidence to support his change in testimony. In 1998 he said that Saddam still had WMDs, and in 2002 he said Saddam didn't; he never said what he learned between 1998 and 2002 that made him change his mind. He was, however, equally sincere in 1998 and 2002.It was just that he got busted and went on the Saudi payroll in between, for what it's worth. Posted by: papago on October 20, 2006 at 2:39 AM | PERMALINKI, along with millions of others, was right from the very beginning. An relatively easy initial win, we said, followed by a peace from hell. (Molly Ivins) This incompetent bunch cant be trusted to do anything right, we said, so even a justified war should be avoided at all costs, and this one is utterly unjustified. So will the country now turn to us? Uh-uh. A profit is always without honor in his own country, said a certain religious figure. He was right. Once thought of as a far-out crazy, always thought of as a far-out crazy. It took more than a century for the civil war abolitionists to get some respect, even though they were manifestly right. Even today they are often pictured as dangerous doddering fanatics who were insulated by their money and academic positions from the realities of the day. If you are the kind of person who is always ahead of the curve, you will never get respect from the multitudes, but so what? Our job is to lead, while the Kevins of the world absorb, restate at just the right moment and appear wise. Again, so what? That is their job, as well. Posted by: James of DC on October 20, 2006 at 2:54 AM | PERMALINKHeres the deal papago, Bush went to war based on a guess that there were weapons of mass destruction. He guessed wrong. Hundreds of thousands of people have died because of his inability to look at the evidence and come to the right conclusion. Oh, and the fact that Baghdad has less electricity and more violence under the boot heel of George W. Bush than it did under Saddam Husseins is all the evidence we need to understand that your list is nothing but a regurgitation of brain-dead talking points devoid of meaning and historical context. Great googly moogly...I agree 100% with Will Allen (assuming, of course, that really was Will)! Who'd'a thunk? Well, make that 99%. I disagree that "Bush went to war based on a guess that there were weapons of mass destruction." Bush was going to war regardless. He guessed that WMDs would a) scare the populace into agreeing with his plan (and he was right, inasmuch as polls showed that support for the war dropped if Saddam would be found not to have them) and 2) would eventually be found, providing an ex post facto justification for the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation -- a crime under treaties the US Senate has ratified, and thus under US law. Oops. Posted by: Gregory on October 20, 2006 at 8:08 AM | PERMALINKBush "is spending money like a pimp with a week to live." - Jonah Goldberg 2/12/06 Jonah says: "If we had known then what we know now, we would never have gone to war with Iraq in 2003."" Does the ass-kisser even know that Bush and Cheney (and if I remember correctly Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfie, etc) have all said EXACTLY the opposite- that EVEN IF WE KNEW THEN WHAT WE KNOW NOW, it was still the correct decision and they would do it again. Just how ********ing stupid do you have to be to be a Republican??? Posted by: marty on October 20, 2006 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINKHell, even Kay Bailey says she'd vote against the war knowing what she knows know. Hoever, we must stay the course... http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/10/20/20sendebate.html Posted by: DanZo on October 20, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINKHell, even Kay Bailey says she'd vote against the war knowing what she knows know. However, we must stay the course... http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/10/20/20sendebate.html Posted by: DanZo on October 20, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINKAnother peaceful pilgrimmage to Najaf, by hundreds of thousands of Shi'ites: http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6585&Itemid=30 about 8 paragraphs down. It's basically an assessment of Iraqi security forces. Naturally, today was the day of a big success for the Mahdi army. Posted by: papago on October 20, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK助听器协会网 I love how wingnuts, who hate the UN, multilaterlism and coalitions in general, now want to turn US foreign policy and defense strategy over to a Shia dominated foreign government with close ties to Iran. The Iranians certainly support the US continuing to waste men and money on this debacle. For the record, I believe President Thieu, Amine Gemayel, and Ali Mahdi all voted for US troops to remain. Posted by: wrench on October 21, 2006 at 5:23 AM | PERMALINK"It was the invasion that disclosed the lack of the WMDs." Perhaps the greatest piece of agit-prop ever posted on Drum's blog. Revel in its glory Posted by: brilliant on October 21, 2006 at 5:30 AM | PERMALINKWithout appologies, I am posting this link to an open letter from Kevin Tillman on every thread. Posted by: Global Citizen on October 21, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK To qualify for a credit card you must be at least 18 years old and have a regular Chase master card You can search, compare and apply for Low Interest bad credit repair bad credit repair Online insurance quotes Online insurance quotes Credit Reports credit apply for a credit card online - apply for a credit card online Affiliate programs are
the best way to make your web site profitable. There's a huge range of web affiliate programs available
now, so each webmaster could find affiliate program suitable to
his/her web site category. Check out web affiliate
resources section for the best information on affiliate events and how to
set up your own affiliate program
or tools to help affiliates. home security home security
Free news
Free news Myspace layouts Myspace layouts Posted by: credit card offers on October 22, 2006 at 2:09 AM | PERMALINK 
July 2009
June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
