I we can't have an ex-soldier as CiC, can we at least have someone who knows how to play poker?

But Clarke isn't a party loyalist, so how can his words possibly be heard? They run a tight ship at that Politburo.

Tichman's "March of Folly" should be required reading for anyone looking to work in the foreign policy field. Hell, it should be required reading for everyone.

There's a cartoon from the Vietnam era in the book which sums up that folly, and I think Bush's Iraq folly. It shows Uncle Sam beating his head to bloody pulp against a brick wall labeled "Vietnam". Two Vietnamese are looking over the wall, and one is saying to other "He's trying to save face".

They did so because the personal consequences of admitting failure would be very high.

The problem with Iraq, as with Vietnam, is that the "They" is not just our government. It represents most of the people in this country.

Didn't you just say a few posts ago that the New Republic should be ignored at all costs on foreign policy questions especially where Iraq is concerned? Dost know this waterfly?

Just take first paragraph of Clarke piece where he makes common misrepresentation of facts often repeated here ie that American presence is causing more violence and therefore if americans leave violence will go down. This not the case: violence against americans contributes to the overall level of violence but what is likely to happen when/if americans leave is that that excess violence will be focused somewhere else and level of violence will either remain same or more likely increase because americans no longer there to control it.

Facts are not baubles of whimsy let loose to make you feel good about all the things you don't know and can't understand.

For the 2008 elections, could it be a political strategy for the Republican to pass Iraq on to the Democrats? In 1968, LBJ decided not to run for reelection. LBJ could not possibly end the Vietnam War in the short time after he decided not to run. Presumably he did not escalate it. George W and the Reepublicans have two years to close down or close out Iraq, with pressure from the Democrats in control of Congress. But what are the chances of George W and the Republicans "staying the course" to burden the Democrats politically if they are successful in 2008, thus positioning the Republicans for the 2010 mid-terms and 2012 to regain Congress and the Presidency. LBJ did not have two years when he was convinced that Vietnam was a quagmire. Then consider what Nixon did after winning in 1968, including escalation and expansion, which served Nixon well politically in 1972. The Republicans may have a plan to enhance them politically but at great cost to America.

LMAO @ the saint, who apparently thinks we are too dumb to discern that what he presents as fact is his own opinion. He also gets chutzpah bonus points for then lecturing us on the use of facts. Well played.

In The March of Folly, Barbara Tuchman documented repeated instances when leaders persisted in disastrous policies well after they knew that success was no longer an available outcome.

Nonsense Kevin. Our policies in Iraq are working successfully right now. Violence has dropped the last few months due to the policies of George W Bush.

Link

"Army Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said civilian and Iraqi security force casualties were at the lowest levels since the government was formed in May.

So far this month, the civilian casualty count is well below the casualty count in October and below the six-month average. The security force casualties reduced 21 percent over the past four weeks, and are at the lowest level in 25 weeks, he said.

"In Baghdad, there was a 22 percentage drop in casualties related to sectarian violence and executions," Caldwell said during a televised news conference. "Coalition forces will continue to work closely with the Iraqi government and Iraqi security forces to control the sectarian violence and terrorist attacks.""

Agreed with Shag. GWB's only hope now is to hand the mess off to a Dem so that he/she can take the blame, and the only way to ensure that the next Pres cannot fix things is to ratchet up the FUBAR an order of mag.

GWB is just doing daddy's Somalia play, but on a massively larger scale.

A key problem in this debate is that it is not too difficult to make a case that a) violence will increase if American troops leave or b) violence will decrease if American troops leave.

One thing that seems clear, however, is that those of you that support (a) must be willing to keep troops in Iraq for many, many years to come.

But Bush says that "We'll succeed unless we quit." And as with Vietnam, generations of right-wing pundits will blame their opposition for "losing the war" when the inevitable happens.

The function of the Baker-Hamilton Study Group is to give the Dems joint ownership of the debacle.

Facts are not baubles of whimsy let loose to make you feel good about all the things you don't know and can't understand.

This is a true statement. Shame the author of it doesn't know what the fuck it means.

I heard William Polk on NPR, who said that historically when foreign invaders leave behind insurgencies the sectarian violence peaks and then subsides quite quickly. He mentioned French Algeria as one example.

The idea that if the US leaves Iraq then violence will continue to escalate into something worse does not have much evidence to back it up. Even when the US left Viet Nam, there was very little of the purging and reign of terror the war pigs predicted.

The foreign invaders' presence elicits a violent response. When invaders leave that stimulus leaves with them. I think most of the population in these battle areas are very weary of the violence and will happily stop fighting each other once the primary antagonist leaves.

Barbara could be talking about the "decent interval strategy" that Nixon and Kissinger followed during their reign over the Vietnam fiasco. And Henry K. is also advising this White House. Notice a pattern?

At this point, it's no different from owning stock in a bust company. You can hope that it will come back and you'll look smart, but that's just hope. It ain't conna happen. Grownups admit they made a mistake, take the loss, and move on.

How I laugh when I remember the GOP supporters telling me in 2000 that now we were going to have some grownups running the government. If only.

Appropos of the holiday season, I'd be very happy if the new Dem congress could at least move debate foreward on the Republican "thank you card" meme.

What is that? Well, its this ridiculous argument that (i) assumes that not only is the foreign policy of the United States well intentioned (hmm. . . subject to debate but I would like to believe fundamentally accurate) but also (ii) that such foreign policy, as implemented, is such that every other country in the rest of the world should send the United States an annual "thank you" card. It follows that anyone who does not send a "thank you card," or, indeed, sends instead a "fuck you card" is a member of the "axis of evil" or some such construct.

The Republicans take this one to the bank constantly.

"What's this? Some Palestinians haven't sent us a thank you card because of our support of Isreal? Huh! The nerve! Anyone who supports those terrorists is a traitor."

"Excuse me? In some election in South America the candidate most closely aligned with the United States lost? No thank you card? Screw them! Anyone who supports those commie bastards is a traitor."

And on and friggen on.

I'm a realist, I mean, at least the Europoean Colonial powers really, officially did not give a rat's ass about the brown people affected by their colonial adventures. You have to at least acknoweldge that the Spanish figured that the conqured indians were not going to send a thank you card for wiping out their civilization.

But these days, there are common-sense foreign policy steps we could easily take which would, IMO, greatly reduce the number of people around the world currently pre-disposed to send us a "fuck you card," and yet, because the official republican foreign policy declares that there are no possible grounds for a "fuck you card" those steps are never ever discussed, let alone actually taken.

When invaders leave that stimulus leaves with them. I think most of the population in these battle areas are very weary of the violence and will happily stop fighting each other once the primary antagonist leaves.

As much as I want to believe that, I'm not sure that we're looking at a situation that resembles either Vietnam or Algeria.

Perhaps the situation is more akin to Lebanon: multiple groups and sub-groups, many of whom hate each other fiercely.

"Our policies in Iraq are working successfully right now. Violence has dropped the last few months due to the policies of George W Bush."

Excellent, Al. Thanks to the wisdom of his policies, Bush is killing your family members at a much lowser rate than ever before. Be sure to send him a list of cousins, just in case.

saintsimon on November 22, 2006 at 3:32 PM:

Didn't you just say a few posts ago that the New Republic should be ignored at all costs..

When did Richard Clarke get hired in as a regular columnist at TNR? I must have missed that...See, there's only one article listed in his online bio there...

..American presence is causing more violence..

Yes. Particularly with Americans pulling shit like this.

..therefore if americans leave violence will go down..

Against Americans, yes, it will.

..what is likely to happen..

Yes, sectarian violence will occur. Just as it is right now.

..what is likely to happen when/if americans leave is that that excess violence will be focused somewhere else..

What? There's a fixed amount of violence floating around, independent of causation? Or is it that scary brown people are just inherently violent?

"Fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" and "Flypaper" are on their last legs, boyo.

Facts are not baubles of whimsy let loose to make you feel good about all the things you don't know and can't understand.

As if you do know or understand 'all the things', saintsimon. Puh-leeze.

George Washington was one of those guys who kept pushing disastrous military policies (head-on confrontation with the British) despite the overwhelming evidence that it would fail...I guess the difference is that he had some people close to him who eventually convinced him to change course, whereas Bush only has yes-men.

I guess the difference is that he had some people close to him who eventually convinced him to change course, whereas Bush only has yes-men.

George Washington had the advantage vis-a-vis George Bush that he possessed a modest intelligence.

Perhaps the situation is more akin to Lebanon: multiple groups and sub-groups, many of whom hate each other fiercely.

Thank you for bringing up Lebanon. During Lebanon's Civil War it was occupied by both Israel and Syria. When the occupiers left consociational democracy flourished. Violence may not have completely ended, but it did not escalate.

I guess the difference is that he had some people close to him who eventually convinced him to change course, whereas Bush only has yes-men.

George Washington had the advantage vis-a-vis George Bush that he possessed a modest intelligence.

I think you are both right in important and related ways: one of the things that Bush defenders in 2000 would sometimes say in response to challenges about his lack of foreign policy credentials was that Bush would surround himself with the best people and seek their advice.

Which, you know, for an intelligent leader without much in the way of personal qualifications in a policy area is what you would expect. The problem is Bush seems to lack the ability to judge advice on any basis besides how well it confirms what he intuitively believes is right to start with, thus his administration that was largely yes-men to start with has overtime narrowed itself to being entirely yes-men.

Just take first paragraph of Clarke piece where he makes common misrepresentation of facts often repeated here ie that American presence is causing more violence

As noted in the summary of the poll Kevin recently pointed to:

All Shias polled in Baghdad (100%) believe that the U.S. military presence is “provoking more conflict than it is preventing.”

Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us on the basis for your rejection of this as "misrepresentation"?

...declare that the United States seeks no permanent military bases in Iraq; gain permission from Kuwait to station additional combat units there to create an "over the horizon" capability to deal with terrorists in Iraq

...but, but what will Exxon/Mobil say?

What about our "interest in the region", you know, our "economic security", that black stuff?

It makes you wonder what the H*LL is wrong with Ford and GM, that they never tooled up for hydro cells vehicles, waiting instead for Toyota and Honda to take the leading market. So unlike the US, not have vision.

And maybe all we really needed is refineries that are not owned by big oil companies, if big oil is on the verge of running out of Mideast contracts, well then, no need for banks to play along.

Iraq and Bush/Cheney is how the Mideast finally won it's real independence because, finally, Americans witnessed what Bush was really all about, the oil and control of it, unholy and greedy, American citizens finally saw though Bush's "interest in the region" and the real reason why Bush hated Saddam.

The Mideast equivalent to the 4th of July, will be day American leaves Iraq, for finally, finally, they will make their own choices about their own rich resource, their oil, Western contractors need not apply.

It makes you wonder what the H*LL is wrong with Ford and GM, that they never tooled up for hydro cells vehicles, waiting instead for Toyota and Honda to take the leading market.

Toyota and Honda took the lead with hybrids; the American manufacturers were largely hooked on the farther-off ideas of hydrogen fuel cells, though they've started to get on the hybrid bandwagon a bit (though GM, IIRC, is still mostly "fuel cells or bust").

Some of the finer details of the folly under discussion elucidated:

-- Iraqi deaths have hit a new high. October's civilian death toll of 3,709 was up from 3,345 in September, according to Iraqi Health Ministry data. About 70 percent were in Baghdad. July's death toll of 3,590 had been the highest to date.

-- The report says worsening security and increasing poverty has caused "unparalleled" population movement. It estimates 100,000 people leave Iraq every month and more than 2 million people, about 8 percent of the population, have fled their homes since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. The monthly emigration is equivalent to a million Americans going abroad and a loss to the U.S. economy of a city the size of Detroit every four weeks.

-- Sectarian attacks are now the main source of violence in Iraq, eclipsing the three-year-old Sunni insurgency, and Baghdad is the epicentre. During September and October, 3,253 unidentified bodies were found in the capital, many the victims of death squads operating with the collusion of the police.

--- Iraq's 300,000-strong U.S.-trained security forces, which the government is pushing to take over more responsibility from U.S. forces, is unable to protect Iraqis and militias and criminal gangs are operating with growing impunity.

-- Caught in the crossfire, Iraqi journalists are increasingly becoming casualties. Eighteen have been killed in the last two months alone. Other professionals, intellectuals and academics have also been targeted, forcing many schools and universities to close and teachers and students to flee Iraq.

-- More women are becoming victims of religious extremists or "honour killings".

Very sharp thinking, and writing, by Clarke.

During Lebanon's Civil War it was occupied by both Israel and Syria. When the occupiers left consociational democracy flourished.

As I understand it, Lebanon's Civil War began before Syrian involvement, picked up considerably after Syria invaded (followed by Israel), and then eventually subsided into a fragile democracy, which took root well before the Syrians finally withdrew.

So, yes, there's some evidence that Lebanon may be a better "model" for Iraq.

My concern is that I don't think we've seen the bleakest period in Iraq yet (analogous to Lebanon during the 80s, which was sheer hell). Have the Shiites fully consolidated power? Are the Shiites basically letting us do their dirty work for them, and will ratchet things up against the Sunnis after we withdraw? Will the Sunni insurgents still fight like hell to salvage some remaining power for themselves? Will Turkey and Iran get involved in a serious, overt way?

I want us to get out. I just don't think it's convincing to say that things will subside very much after we leave.

Cheryl on November 22, 2006 at 4:37 PM:

It makes you wonder what the H*LL is wrong with Ford and GM, that they never tooled up for hydro cells vehicles..

This irritates me, because having worked at GM with various hydrogen-powered prototypes sitting literally in the next room, I know it's not true. And that was a few years ago.

An update, courtesy of CBS News:

GM Hydrogen-Fueled Car Hits Milestone

Engineers Make Drivable Version, But It's Years Away From Public Sale

General Motors Corp. has achieved a milestone in its quest to bring a hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicle to market, announcing that it now has a drivable version of its Sequel concept car.

The Sequel, which looks like a shrunken minivan and has a range of 300 miles.

The pollution-free technology holds the potential of zero emissions and a sustainable source of energy produced when hydrogen and oxygen are mixed. Experts say they could begin arriving in showrooms by 2020, or perhaps earlier.

But many obstacles exist including the high cost, relatively short range and a lack of fueling stations.

..Which are obstacles faced by any manufacturer, domestic or import. It would have been nice to be further along R&D-wise, but there wasn't the pressure to come up with a hydrogen solution 20 years ago...

There is no need to do that now. Everyone already knows who is to blame.

That's right -- Bill Clinton and the MSM!!!!1!!

I am wrong all the time -- why cant others admit when they are wrong?

Oh, yeh gotta keep them centrist fence sitting appearances up!!

BTW KEVIN,
YOU can't ban me!!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!

love and hate -AL

BAN AL

BAN AL

BANAL

BANAL!!!!

OKAY I am not AL..

Happy Dead Bird day!!

Windhorse:

"Iraqi deaths have hit a new high. October's civilian death toll of 3,709 was up from 3,345 in September, according to Iraqi Health Ministry data."

I just heard on the radio that the "Iraqi government" (I wonder who that actually is these days) is claiming:

1) those figures (given by the AP and UN) are erroneous, and

2) they were obtained illegally.

...which to me is something like OJ saying "I didn't do it, and even if I did you can't prove it."

Withdrawal from Iraq?

Why they would call us Chickens...

(Or is it that Turkeys?)

Gobble gobble gobble....

pdq, that is quite hilarious, in a sad kinda way.

'"Army Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said civilian and Iraqi security force casualties were at the lowest levels since the government was formed in May. So far this month, the civilian casualty count is well below the casualty count in October and below the six-month average. The security force casualties reduced 21 percent over the past four weeks, and are at the lowest level in 25 weeks, he said."'
--Al

I know how pointless it is to argue with Al or Fake Al or Kinda Fake Al since he/she/it never responds, but the post above at 3:37 p.m. irked me so much, I just couldn't let it go unchallenged. The real truth is that October was the deadliest month ever in Iraq for civilians. It is a hideous bloodbath that we created and to stay one more minute makes no sense whatsoever. Trying to make us feel guilty about pulling out of the middle of a civil war we have no business in only appeals to the feeble-minded.

Many countries have had to fight a civil war to find political equilibrium and maybe Iraq does too. Get the fuck out tomorrow!!!

The scary number in that UN finding is 2,000,000, the number of Iraqis that have fled the country. That's about 8% of the population.

If those numbers keep going up, we can't expect Iraq's neighbors to sit quiet. The lebanese let the Syrians occupy the country so that they would get rid of PLO. If Iraqi seperatist groups are forced to operate from outside the country, you might see some major trouble in the neighborhood.

George Washington was one of those guys who kept pushing disastrous military policies (head-on confrontation with the British) despite the overwhelming evidence that it would fail

I knew George Washington and George W. Bush is no George Washington.

Actually, George Washington's greatest victories were his brilliant retreats and escapes from the superior British forces. He preserved the army until we got foreign allies who could defeat the British with our help. George Washington knew how to fight, but what made him a truly great general was knowing when to fight. The contrast with our current Commander in Codpiece is obvious.

Agreed, and it's good to see many of the PResident's defenders finally telling the truth -- the country has become more important than the Republican party, finally.

Interesting to see that Shrub and al-Maliki have to meet at a neutral site - Neither will have home field advantage - However, it will allow Shrub to bring in the engineers from Gepetto, Industries to re-tune al-Maliki.

Everybody in the Republican party knows who to blame if the Democrats force a pull out.

It is naive to think the the Democrats can engineer a pullout without getting blammed for the defeat. You must not attribute intellectual honesty either to Republican politicians or to their rank and file.

The only way the Republicans will get the blame (the public's conventional wisdom kind of blame, not the historians' perspective)for thhe defeat is if they decide on the pullout.

Al: "Our policies in Iraq are working successfully right now. Violence has dropped the last few months due to the policies of George W Bush."

Brilliant! Brilliant!

TomB: "Actually, George Washington's greatest victories were his brilliant retreats and escapes from the superior British forces."

I agree with you on one major point -- George W. Bush is certainly no George Washington, but rather a near-lethal combination of James Buchanan, Warren Harding and Richard Nixon.

But let's be honest; as a military tactician, George Washington had his occasional brain farts.

For one, his insane insistence on protecting New York in 1776 by parking his entire army on the south shore of Long Island nearly led to his entire force getting bagged -- and that would have effectively been the end of the rebellion.

Only an ill wind kept the British fleet from sailing up the Hudson and East Rivers, thus cutting off the Americans' retreat from British forces that had landed in their rear.

As long as we're in Iraq Syria and Iran will have common cause against us. Once we leave they will be looking after their own interests in Iraq. If we stay until some kind of stabilization is in place it will only be achieved through the common interest of Syria and Iran and that won't happen until we've been exceptionally injured by our presence there and have to pull out whether we like it or not. In that circumstance there would be a kind of stability achieved, but a stability of realpolitik wholly at our expense.

If we were to pull out arbitrarily and all at once it would seem it would in the short term create greater disorder as Iran and Syria jockey one another but I cannot see how they would think a really large bloodbath would be helpful. To support their self-image as the local hero each side will work toward a stability of one kind or another and achieve it

--but this can only be done in the complete absence of US involvement.

Consequently it seems to me the only decent thing to do, and the only thing that would support our own self-interest, would be to pull out precipitately, embassy and everything, and then studiously ignore the whole thing.

Pay no attention to Iraq ever again.

Seymour Hersh reported almost a year ago that Bush has a religious-like commitment to staying the course in Iraq and that even other Republicans can’t sway him. Impeachment and removal of this mentally insane crusader is what is needed and Cheney along with him. If this isn’t a president for whom the impeachment clause in the Constitution was written, I shudder to think what that president might look like….

If Bush had announced a withdrawal of troops two months ago, the Republicans would likely have maintained oontrol of Congress. The personal consequences to Bush of NOT admitting failure were very high. This is the opposite of the situation postulated by Clarke.

BTW you pessimists may be right that the terrorists will prevail and defeat Iraqi democracy, but it's not clear to me that there's absolutely no hope. Powerline blog makes the following point:

"The United Nations said Wednesday that 3,709 Iraqi civilians were killed in October, the highest monthly toll since the March 2003 U.S. invasion and another sign of the severity of Iraq's sectarian bloodbath. That compares to an estimated 3,500 killed in July. "

If 3,709 people were murdered in October, that translates to a rate of 171 per 100,000. That is a high rate of violent death. But, for purposes of comparison, the murder rate in Washington, D.C. in 1991 was 80 per 100,000. So the rate of violence in Iraq today is just over double the rate in the District during the first Bush administration.

Hate to disparage Captain Quegg of the Caine as he was a combat veteran who burned out and was not supported by his men, but I do suspect that Shrub will be asking the Secret Service to find the strawberry culprit any day now. In addition, fully expect Shrub to start rolling marbles in his right hand as he speaks to the press.

Yeah, good old Powerline and faux-lib are on the ball - In Washington DC for 1991, there were 482 murders or 1.3 per day for the year, slightly more than, say Crawford, Texas.
In October, there were 123 people killed per day for the entire month.

Yeah, 1.3 is roughly half of 123 over in Never Never Land. New math and Leave No Trool Behind make a marvelous combination.

Someone name of ex-liberal>

If 3,709 people were murdered in October, that translates to a rate of 171 per 100,000. That is a high rate of violent death. But, for purposes of comparison, the murder rate in Washington, D.C. in 1991 was 80 per 100,000. So the rate of violence in Iraq today is just over double the rate in the District during the first Bush administration.

This is so silly it should not even be worth addressing, but I believe your statistic uses a figure of 3,709 per month while using a Washington DC statistic of "80 per 100,000" for the year of 1991. There were 482 murders in Washington DC during the entire year of 1991, in fact, and it is curious as to why you didn't say that outright.

Ah, you are being somewhat dishonest in your application of statistics, yes? Well, 3,709 in a month is quite a big more than 482 in a year

No, Captain Sensible refuses to parse this further; if 3,079 people were murdered in any American city in the course of 30 days, that would be beyond current belief in this country and it would raise a hue and cry; only the attacks of 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina approach such devastating numbers.

Please, have a seat in the shade and cool your jets, murder statistic person. Were the truth to suddenly arrive where you are, there would be a jolt that would probably blow your socks clean off.

There

Someone name of thethirdPaul>

You have an eye for the details and Captain Sensible respects your ability to trump him with lightning fast reflexes that make a snarling, toothy troll wander back into his cave to find rancid meat to nibble on.

[I see that two fine regulars beat me to this]

ex-liberal, don't embarrass yourself by posting that desperate, equivocating bullshit from Powerline.

First of all, twice the murder rate of D.C's worst year ever, a real outlier, would alone be enough to squelch your comparison. Twice of the worst of the worst and getting worse is a fucking lot. Powerline really had to dig for that figure, and quite shamelessly.

But consider that Baghdad has more murders in a week than D.C. had that entire year. In fact, there were nines times as many killings last month alone in Baghdad than D.C. had in all of 1991.

Further, the Baghdad morgue admits they don't capture all the deaths, as the remains of bombing victims in particular are usually claimed at the scene. So the true rate is even higher.

Then consider that D.C. in '91 wasn't plagued by daily car bombs, market bombs, cafe bombs, mortar rounds, rocket attacks, mass kidnappings, targeted assassinations, and pitched gunbattles. People weren't routinely evicted from their homes by thugs for having the wrong religious convictions. Schools weren't closed because they were too dangerous, and teachers weren't being killed by the hundreds. Unemployment wasn't 50% and people didn't wait in line a day for cooking fuel or have four hours of electricity a day -- et al.

So clearly, a thinking person can see there is no comparison, which of course precludes the desperate dead-enders at Powerline. For some perspective, do you want to know what our national murder rate was last year?

5.6

That 40 times less than Baghdad.

By the way, even true believer Kissinger admits democracy is no longer possible in Iraq. You should at least try and keep up with the talking points.

Al and ex-lib, suck on this while waiting for your transport to Iraq, from tonight's Times:

"U.N. Reports Deadliest Month in Iraq
By SABRINA TAVERNISE 7:05 PM ET

According to the report, 3,709 Iraqis were killed in October, up slightly from the previous all-time high in July."

Hey, it's just the librul MSM, so I'm sure you'll be perfectly safe over there. Have you left yet?

Captain Sensible - do the math. Iraq has a population of around 26 million. A monthly rate of 3708 times 12 = 44,496 per year. 44496*100,000/26,000,000 = 171

In short, the 3708 monthly number of deaths was a basis for an annual death rate.

clarke seems to be referring to FDR in 1943.

thing is, everyone is in a frenzy to identify where we are on the spectrum of victory/defeat. based mostly on hearsay from reporters in hotel rooms, dependent on iraqi stringers with suspect allegiances.

listen to the soldiers, they have a finger on the pulse.

go to milblogging.com

Captain Sensible - do the math. Iraq has a population of around 26 million. A monthly rate of 3708 times 12 = 44,496 per year. 44496*100,000/26,000,000 = 171

26 million live in the city of Baghdad? No, you tried to compare a country to a city, a month to a year, a rate for a country with 26 million to a US city with a population of 500,000.

Your math is worthless and your analysis is silly beyond belief.

Captain Sensible has driven through Washington DC before, and, no, there were no IEDs or a hail of bullets directed his way.

No, the traffic cameras are no comparison, nor are the potholes or the wandering tourists. They are no comparison.

There is no comparison. Rancid meat is stored somewhere in your cave, little troll, and it is lonely for you, so good evening and enjoy some Thanksgiving. Give Thanks that you are not being slaughtered in Iraq right now.

Apparently, the commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps is one of those who thinks we have been in Iraq a little too long. You suppose this could mean something???

Captain Sensible, are you aware that Saddam is estimated to have killed between 1 million and 2 million Iraqis during his reign? In other words, 3708 Iraqis killed was a normal month during Saddam's long reign.

I don't like the situation in Iraq, and it may get much worse. But, I know that the US has done good for Iraq. They now have some hope; under Saddam they had none.

Despite Clarke's conservative social policy positions, I believe it would be smart for those of us on the left, as well as those on the right, to listen to him. He hasn't been wrong on anything that I can recall re: Iraq / Afganistan / war on terror in general.

Fuckbutt:

"But, I know that the US has done good for Iraq. They now have some hope; under Saddam they had none."

Hope is a thing without feathers Fuckbutt... not a thing without electricity.

But don't get me wrong...
Iraq will have served its purpose if we can export all of our republicans there.
Beginning with Bush and ending with you.
To Iraq with you all!

I say:
Give these r-dogs a rifle, a camo suit, seven league boots, and a one way ticket to Iraq!

Now!

And yes I am serious.
There is nothing wrong with America that exporting our Repugs to Iraq can't fix.

[PS I'll hang a little magnetic ribbon around the old tail pipe for ya'll...]

Poor sad fellow who is ex-liberal>

Captain Sensible, are you aware that Saddam is estimated to have killed between 1 million and 2 million Iraqis during his reign? In other words, 3708 Iraqis killed was a normal month during Saddam's long reign.

Since we removed him, the killing should have stopped, correct?

Somehow, it hasn't. Somehow, equating a previous evil to justify a continuing evil makes you look as silly as you are. Somehow, six more months will go by and nothing will have changed, except the killing will continue.

Why so quick to abandon your math and try to horrify with big numbers that can't be verified? Have you decided to stop being honest altogether or are you merely tired of chewing bones for their marrow in your cave?

What's your point, Captain S.?

The Good Captain,

In horse racing, apprentice jockeys are given a weight break of 5 pounds - This is to help them ride against journeymen jockeys.
Now, how much of a weight break do you think Schaife has given the faux-Lib for his work against journeyman? They keep sending younger and dumber to peck away on the keyboards - Reminds me of Hitler Youth being thrown into the line late in WW11 - So, this latest Shrub Youth appears to be barely out of diapers.
As he contemplates on whether to apply for the Metro Police in DC or see his nearest US Marine Corps recruiter - Of course, the leathernecks are still looking for a few good men - Have they lowered their standards for Shrub Youth with GTs under 90? Seems more like a Semper Hi kid, than a Semper Fi guy.

http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/11/the_anbar_tribes_vs.php

The sooner we leave, the sooner we can abandon the people who have come to cooperate with us. Al Anbar province is a significant loss for al Qaeda, though it hasn'tyet been completely lost by them.

Poor marley marler matty m>

Bill Roggio has been right about exactly nothing in this war, paid off by DoD and Pajamas Media, a man who has advocated this war and tried to write about it in infinite detail.

You could go travel through the archives on his blog now, and come back with any one thing he was correct about and it still wouldn't add up to more than a handful of sand.

Trotting out poor wrong Bill Roggio means nothing in polite society anymore. You might want to avail yourself of a bit of Juan Cole and see where you might learn a thing or two worth a discussion. Poor Marley, your ghost couldn't stir poor Scrooge even a month before Christmas.

Poor ex-liberal>

What's your point, Captain S.?

You ran from your own numbers as fast as you can, but those concrete shoes couldn't get you far, poor ex-liberal.

Matthew, al Qaeda is pretty much incidental to what's taking place in Iraq right now. It never was nearly as much of a player as both they and the Bush administration hyped them up to be. Nor was Iraq getting overwhelmed with foreign fighters, although that was the story that the Bush administration tried to push for a while. So forgive me if I'm not particularly impressed by your link to a story that isn't much more than a sideline to the main story.

Yeah, Captain Very Sensible,

Sorta some kinda difference between in bed and imbed - Geez, no morning roll call and DoD still pays the freight. Love the trools when they send right wing sites to "verify" their positions.

ex-liberal wrote: "Captain Sensible, are you aware that Saddam is estimated to have killed between 1 million and 2 million Iraqis during his reign? In other words, 3708 Iraqis killed was a normal month during Saddam's long reign."

You still don't know anything about math or about Iraqi history, do you? Take away the Iran-Iraq war and take away the uprising that followed the first Gulf war, ex-liberal. And then do the math. Here's a free hint: it won't be anywere even remotely close to 3,708 deaths per month.

"But, I know that the US has done good for Iraq. They now have some hope; under Saddam they had none."

And they really don't have much now, or haven't you been paying attention to the recent polls and to the mass exodus of Iraqis?

Come back when you've actually done your homework, because right now, you're just embarrassing yourself.

And, just for the record ex-liberal, the sentence, "Saddam is estimated to have killed between 1 million and 2 million Iraqis during his reign," is grossly inaccurate.

Shorter ex-lib:

Can't we just wait until it gets a lot worse?

George Washington had the advantage vis-a-vis George Bush that he possessed a modest intelligence.

And the diplomatic skills to get the French to do most of the heavy lifting.

"All wars are lost or won before the fighting begins" Sun Tzu over 2000 years before Vietnam.

Or consider Graham Green's "the Quiet American" which predicted the next twenty years of history in Vietnam, as early as 1952.

In the field of civics it a common notion that social norms and ideologies are based upon belief systems, and those are based upon widely shared social experiences - meaning you can chop off the head of a despotic regime and expect a democracy to grow in its place.

Also remedial in the field of civics is the notion of moral authority versus coercive authority.

The former is slow to accumulate but is inexpensive to wield. The latter is expediant to wield but is prohibitively expensive to wield. Also the more coercive power you use, the less potential coercive power you have: you burn coercive power; but also when you burn coercive power you burn your stor of moral authority as well. Meaning extended use of coercive authority leads to bankruptcy, both moral and finincial.

In the 1980s Paul Kennedy had a best selling book titled "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers" documenting the last half millenium of great power geopolitics, demonstrating the point of the futility of expending coercive authority.

The British lasted a long time being mindful about all of this. Its only when Gandhi called their bluff about the extensive use of coercive authority would cost the British in terms of both their store of coercive power and their store of moral authority.

All this is remedial civics. The republicans just farted in the face of all these simple concepts.

"Under accelerating incompetence in America, this may change. Social systems can survive a good deal of folly when circumstances are historically favorable, or when bungling is cushioned by large resources or absorbed by sheer size as in the United States during its period of expansion. Today, when there are no more cushions, folly is less affordable." Barbara Tuchman "The March of Folly"

I'm of the opinion that incompetence is accelerating because we've become, in all essential ways, a oligarchy of the rich and their born-on-third-base kids. Intelligence or competence is trumped at all times by winning the birth lottery.

To think that because I am not pleased with

my government invading a mildly hostile country,

I am deemed an enemy.

Iraq is about profits.

Prophets say rulers who use force usually

die (whither away) by the sword.

Stability anywhere, hinges on cooperation.

I believe my country has forgotten the meaniong of cooperation.

Coercive and subversive, my country

Land of corporate glee...

ex-lib:" do the math. Iraq has a population of around 26 million. A monthly rate of 3708 times 12 = 44,496 per year. 44496*100,000/26,000,000 = 171"

all the action on this thread was over last night, but okay, I have a few minutes before I have to stuff the turkey.

Let's assume that the annual death rate in Iraq is indeed a nicely decontextualized 171 lives per 100,000. Wouldn't that work out to the equivalent--adjusted for the population of the US--of 513,000 Americans per annum?

Off to the bird...

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Up to six car bombs killed at least 133 people in a Shiite militia stronghold in Baghdad on Thursday, in one of most devastating such attacks since the U.S. invasion.

The Sadr City blasts destroyed whole streets, leaving bloodied remains amid mangled vehicle wrecks. Fierce fires were left blazing after the attacks.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15866123/

On second thought, this is just like D.C. in '91.

"At Least 144 Killed in Attacks in Baghdad
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 22 minutes ago

Police report that suicide bombings and mortar attacks on Sadr City, Baghdad's Shiite slum, killed 144 and wounded 236."

Congratulations, Al. It gets better and better. Got your ticket yet? Hawk, you've signed up, haven't you?

By the way, since you guys don't seem to quite get this, when they say 'killed', they mean those people are dead, done—you know, fathers and wives and children who are never coming back! And all because of "the excellent policies of George W. Bush", a man who has never shed a tear in his adult life about anything except his own sorry, alcoholic ass.

Thank you, Matthew R Marler, for informing us on this day of Thanksgiving about the three US Marines in Anbar, who will not be able to see this day or any other. Your concern is deeply appreciated.

If the '60s was a terrible decade for you, mhr, well you were just in the wrong place. Sorry if you never got laid, man. By the way, you could still go to Vietnam and kill people, if you really must. Although the punishments ARE a bit draconian over there.

The beauty of ignorance is that it allows people like ex-liberal to hold on to their opinions...

Well, if 150 people were violently killed in Baghdad today, per ex-lib's math surely 75 people will be murdered in DC today....

That people like ex-lib exist is proof that God has abandoned us.

mhr wrote: "But the difficult part is recognizing the disastrous policy in the first place."

Not really. Quite a few of us recognized the Iraq policy for the disaster that it was well before we invaded. That we have been proved right is small comfort, though, given the damage that has been done.

"Democrats have no clue to this day how disastrous their War on Poverty was,"

LOL.... I just love statements like these because it immediately identifies the writer as someone not worth taking seriously.

"what a terrible decade the 1960's was,"

Q.E.D.

"Now Democrats want to abandon Iraq because a few thousand killers want us out."

No, we want to leave Iraq because a) there is no chance that we can achieve anything like our current goals there, much less the goals we had going in; b) a sizeable majority of Iraqis want us out; c) a sizeable majority of Americans want us out; d) our presence there is part of the problem, which means that it is highly unlikely, regrettably, that we can be the solution; e) we lack the troops and equipment necessary to accomplish anything significant; f) the situation continues to deteriorate despite our best efforts. I could keep going but since you're not listening, anyway, I'll not bother.

"Democrats haven't learned a thing."

Actually, we have, which is why we're pushing for withdrawal. The person who hasn't learned, I'm afraid, is you. You're still hopelessly mired in the past, a past that you're viewing through a distorted lens.

Captain Sensible, are you aware that Saddam is estimated to have killed between 1 million and 2 million Iraqis during his reign? In other words, 3708 Iraqis killed was a normal month during Saddam's long reign.
Posted by: ex-liberal on November 22, 2006 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINK

Your death figures are wildly off. You've lumped in the 8 year Iran Iraq war, plus the Gulf War One figures. It would be like including the casualties the Russians took fighting the Germans in WWII and attributing them to Stalin's gulag. War deaths at the hand of an invading army and political deaths are not the same thing.

It does not surprise me that a conservative can't quote honest numbers. I mean look at all the baloney they claimed about tax cuts paying for themselves and the sustainability of the medicaide drug benefit.

It's all so much faith based math.

Democrats have no clue to this day how disastrous their War on Poverty was, what a terrible decade the 1960's was, what a mistake it was for the US to abandon Vietnam with the millions of dead that led to both in Vietnam and in Cambodia. Now Democrats want to abandon Iraq because a few thousand killers want us out. Democrats haven't learned a thing.
Posted by: mhr on November 23, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK

mhr,
You've really sucked up every far right myth under the sun and smacked it into a short paragraph.

Some corrections:

1. War on Poverty. A lot of far right propaganda has been printed on this topic. Honest thinkers have concluded that the specific policy objectives in the WoP worked. The problem was that LBJ could not spend on the Vietnam War and on the WoP without triggering an inflationary cycle. The irony in all this is that Bush has managed to do the same thing with Iraq War and his War on Taxes. He has triggered an inflationay cycle and it has only been massive intervention from the Chinese central bank that has prevented US interest rates from going sky high. The minute this no longer serves China's interests watch out. Bush's fiscal policies have placed America's economic stability in the hands of foreigners.

2. Vietnam and Cambodia. Hummmm. Are you blind? The Vietnam I see today is America's strategic ally in the region against the Chinese and ready to open the door for trade. I am sorry for the suffering of the Vietnamese Catholics who got screwed at the end of the war, I knew many of them at my High School. Unfortunately their leaders did a great job alienating the buddhist majority in the South for the entire time the Republic of Vietnam was around. Sometimes you pay for the mistakes of your leaders. Ask the Germans.
As for Cambodia it's just silly for a conservative to try and pin it on anybody but themselves. Because it was Nixon and Kissenger (republicans) who authorized the massive bombing (unpresendented bombing actually) of the Cambodian villages next to the Vietnamese border. It was the bombing the led these villagers to back the Khamer Rouge, who up until then had been rather unpopular fringe element. Nixon and Kissenger destroyed Cambodia's traditional village leaders when they bombed the shit out of the area. The Khemer Rouge filled the vaccuume. We also know that at the time no one knew how twisted Pol Pot was or what he would do. It never comes up in any of the internal Pentagon memos and Nixon had no plan to put troops into Cambodia, outside of border incursions. Incidently, Mhr, do you know who brought down the Pol Pot regime? ... The North Vietnamese Army which invaded in 1978 and occupied Cambodia until 1989. Kind of undermines the whole rationale for American involvement in the region in the first place. I mean if the communists are going to fight each other for nationalist reasons, then why do we have to put ourselves in the middle? Maybe in Vietnam nationalism was more important than communism? Just as many liberal advisors had warned LBJ and Nixon. The historical facts speak for themselves.

As for your Iraq comment all I can say is when has it ever been right to base your strategy on what your ennemy wants. Iran wants us in Iraq. The Shia militias want us in Iraq. Al Queda wants us in Iraq. We are doing such a great job pleasing our strategic ennemies and yet you want to make them happy? Trust the wisdom of the American people on this. Strategic retreat is often the pre-requisite for great victory. After all it was the retreat from Vietnam that freed America up for winning the final phase of the cold war. Retreat and defeat are two different things only histories failures hold a position at any cost. Just ask General Friedrich Paulus.

Per ex-liberals' comments: If 3,709 people were murdered in October, that translates to a rate of 171 per 100,000. That is a high rate of violent death. But, for purposes of comparison, the murder rate in Washington, D.C. in 1991 was 80 per 100,000. So the rate of violence in Iraq today is just over double the rate in the District during the first Bush administration.

Anything can be done with stats... but I'm not sure those numbers are accurately describing the death toll in Iraq due to the invasion. One has to take in not only to murders from sectarian violence, but also add in overall death rate attributable to coalition forces prescence, which that number does not include. Also, much of the official reported death toll is actually under-reported - we're talking essentially a third world country with limited resources and non-functioning central government, to keep track of any central data source. How can we trust any numbers that rely on Iraqi gov's "reports" during a time of war?

In addition, the violence is more pronounced in certain areas - so if we wanted to describe just the death toll in the city of Baghdad compared to DC, versus all of Iraq compared to DC, the rate can only be much higher, not just 'double'.

Here's a different breakdown on numbers - Johns Hopkins study has found "that the death toll in Iraq following the US-led invasion has topped 655,000 - one in 40 of the entire population..." this is one of the higher estimates but was based on door-to-door reporting of violence-attributed deaths from war. If this stat is accureate, than this equates to 937 deaths for every 100,000 per year since the start of the U.S. war... approx. 400% more than number that ex-liberal quotes! (See my math below) - this is not the best math I'm using but obviously we can come to very different conclusions when quoting 'official' stats.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1920166,00.html

*The Math: The JH study says one in 40 death toll translates to 2500 for every 100,000 over the length of the war, so counting since coalitions forces invaded, approx. 2.6667 years and that adds to 937 deaths for every 100,000 per year.

Whatever the math might be, the whole thing is a total cock-up on every possible level, and the idea of fostering more murder to justify others is unforgivable. Guys like al and mhr are abetting crimes and floating feeble rationalizations, knowing that people like us will stop what we're doing to explain it to them—and they laugh at us because we're interested in being good citizens.

We have to find a way to sweep past these clowns and get back to the challenge of (maybe) saving the planet.

"Democrats haven't learned a thing."

Hmm... let's see... off the top of my head:

1. Don't go into a war without adequate planning for what happens afterward.

2. Don't go into a war until you have adequately and completely weighed the costs and the risks, both short-term and long-term, against the benefits, both short-term and long-term.

3. Don't go into a war with insufficient force to achieve both the short-term and long-term objectives.

4. Don't go into a war without clear goals.

5. Don't go into a war without a clear exit strategy.

6. Don't lie and distort in order to get public support for a war, because when the truth comes out, as it inevitably will, the American public will turn on you and on the war.

7. Don't minimize the cost of a war, in casualties, in dollars, or in years, because when the truth comes out, as it inevitably will, the American public will turn on you and on the war.

8. Don't pretend that all is going well when it clearly is not. When the truth comes out, as it inevitably will, the American public will turn on you and on the war.

9. Don't place ideology above competence, experience, and education when hiring people to manage, well, anything.

10. There are times when the objectives you seek are simply not attainable. When that happens, you have no choice but to withdraw and move on. You can either do this early, saving money and lives, or you can do it late, but the outcome will be the same either way.

I think that will do for a start. There are other lessons that the Bush administration should have learned, but if they had learned these few simple ones, we would not be where we are today and the Republicans would most likely still control Congress.

This is really bad news. It describes an incident in state of civil war in Iraq. Note the effect that the shelling of the Sunnis' holiest shrine in Baghdad, the Abu Hanifa mosque" is going to have.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2675880

BAGHDAD, Iraq Nov 23, 2006 (AP)— Five car bombs and two mortar rounds struck the capital's Shiite Sadr City slum Thursday, killing at least 160 people and wounding 257 police said. The attack by suspected Sunni Arab militants was the deadliest on a sectarian enclave since the war began and Shiites quickly struck back.

Soon after the onslaught, Shiite militants fired 10 mortar rounds at the Sunnis' holiest shrine in Baghdad, the Abu Hanifa mosque in the Azamiya neighborhood, killing one person and wounding 14. A 3-foot hole was blown in the dome and some inside rooms sustained severe damage.

Eight mortar rounds later slammed into the top Sunni organization in Iraq, the Association of Muslim Scholars, but caused no casualties, police said.

Fighting also flared in another part of Baghdad when 30 Sunni insurgents armed with machine guns and mortars attacked the Shiite-controlled Health Ministry. The attackers were repulsed after a three-hour battle, during which Iraqi soldiers and U.S. military helicopters intervened. At least seven ministry guards were wounded, police 1st Lt. Maitham Abdul-Razaq said.

Al: "Our policies in Iraq are working successfully right now. Violence has dropped the last few months due to the policies of George W Bush."

"This is really bad news. It describes an incident in state of civil war in Iraq."

Yup, and this is despite the elevated troop levels in Baghdad and the determined push on the part of our military to quell the violence there (at the expense of other locations in Iraq). This really sucks. 20,000 extra troops just isn't going to cut it. Damn that idiot in the White House.

"Damn that idiot in the White House."

Sometimes makes you wish we were the kind of country that held its leaders accountable, dunnit?
I know, I know: that notion is as quaint as the Geneva Conventions.

Nemesis wrote: Your death figures are wildly off. You've lumped in the 8 year Iran Iraq war, plus the Gulf War One figures. It would be like including the casualties the Russians took fighting the Germans in WWII and attributing them to Stalin's gulag. War deaths at the hand of an invading army and political deaths are not the same thing.

Nemesis, Saddam started both those wars. So, attributing the Iraqi war deaths to Saddam is like attributing the German deaths in WW2 to Hitler. That seems fair to me.

Math=Love: Most people consider that Johns Hopkins study to be totally bogus.

This from Al: "The security force casualties reduced 21 percent over the past four weeks, and are at the lowest level in 25 weeks,"
This from BBC: "An indefinite curfew is in place in Baghdad after what has been described as the worst attack on Iraq's capital since the US-led invasion of 2003."

Who do you believe?
Message to Al: what are you achieving with this bullshit?

"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
-- John F. Kennedy

There's no question that things suck in Iraq. I don't know whether or not the democratic government has the will and ability to survive. But, I stand with JFK that we should give great emphasis to spreading liberty. Most of today's liberals are unwilling to bear much of a burden to assure the success of liberty. That's why I'm an ex-.

BTW lots of posters here seem happy to blame Bush for destroying a supposedly better status quo under Saddam. Maybe so. But, we should be clear. The people committing the murders are the worst elements in Iraq -- al Qaeda, Saddamists, al Sadrists.. If we and the Iraqi government lose, it will mean that the worst elements within Iraq will take over the country. They will win because they're the cruelest; they're the most willing to commit brutal murders of innocent civilians. That disturbs me.

Somehow the civilized world needs to find a way to promote progressive, modern governments in the rest of the world.

"Somehow the civilized world needs to find a way to promote progressive, modern governments in the rest of the world."

I know, let's make up lies about people and the kill them. That should do the trick nicely.

But seriously, if you can get past the fake argument of Saddam-vs-now, you might be able to see how we got into this mess. Then you could drop your sweeping pronouncements about about what other people don't believe and try to solve the mess your less intelligent friends created.

ex-liberal:

you're right that "Somehow the civilized world needs to find a way to promote progressive, modern governments in the rest of the world." The problem is that that's an easy sentiment, and a hard job. In almost any real estimation, the occupations of Japan and Germany after World War II, and the rebuilding of democratic institutions in those countries, were much simpler affairs than the occupation or Iraq and the building from scratch of democratic institutions.

Yet in neither Germany nor Japan did the U.S. government rely on being greeted as liberators, or on carrying out the work of governance and institution-building with a skeleton staff. The planning for those occupation began two to three years in advance, they were well-financed and well-equiped, and they took a long time.

Conversely, by most accounts, relatively little thought was given to the post-war occupation of Iraq, even as the war was launched, projections of the duration of an occupation and its cost in dollars and man-hours were based on almost ridiculously rosy estimates, and the architects of the plan seem to have known very little about Iraqi society.

So, by all means, support those who desire to promote progressive government, even if it means tearing down a repressive government in order to clear the field for the type of government you support. But you might want to limit your support to those who have a detailed plan in place, who are willing to commit the resources necessary for the time necessary, and who understand that creating democratic institutions and a civil society from scratch are much more difficult tasks than returning a society and its political culture to a civil democratic tradition which it had already developed on its own. You can't do this on a wish and a prayer, which, when you come right down to it, was the basis of this administration's plan for transforming Iraq.

Of course, progressive governance begins at home. But with this crowd, what's good enough to export is highly suspect within our own borders. Maybe that bears looking at for libertarians and genuine conservatives.

For the crackpots, gangsters, and morons currently in charge (but less so every day), the discussion is pointless. They've never heard of the Enlightenment and don't know anything about democratic traditions. What they offer is just another variation on liberating the Sudetenland.

Right on, Nemesis.

Most impressive précis.

(I knew if I fiddled around long enough I'd figure out how to insert accents here.)

Cheryl wrote:

"The Mideast equivalent to the 4th of July, will be day American leaves Iraq, for finally, finally, they will make their own choices about their own rich resource, their oil, Western contractors need not apply."
____________________

The idea that somehow the invasion of Iraq was motivated by the desire to directly control Iraqi oil is not very logical. Nor is the idea that the Middle East can, or even wants to, do without Western companies. They'll still need someone to get the oil out, transport it, and distribute it. Why is it bad if a US corporation performs these functions rather than a (e.g.,) French or Russian company which will, inevitably, be dealing with American firms in any case? Oil, like money, is fungible. It is extracted and sold within an interconnected, worldwide system. Western companies will always be involved, because western consumers are involved.

It's true that oil is in the background of our Iraq campaign, but only in the larger geo-political sense and that's all.

Terrible news out of Washington, DC today - Over 230 people perished in drive by shootings.

But why does not our Liberal Media tell us about the deaths? - It is truly a shame that we must search for the site of Radio Free Faux-Liberal to learn the truth - Long live RFFL.

PaulB forgot one important lesson:

Learn something about the local culture before intervening. Just a couple of months before invading Bush was unaware of the difference between Sunni & Shiite, breathtaking as that sounds...

Peter Galbraith - former U.S. diplomat: January 2003 the President invited three members of the Iraqi opposition to join him to watch the Super Bowl. In the course of the conversation the Iraqis realized that the President was not aware that there was a difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. He looked at them and said, "You mean...they're not, you know, there, there's this difference. What is it about?"

Yeah, and he couldn't tell the difference between a Buccaneer and a Raider - Kept calling both of them Pirates.

Yeah, and he couldn't tell the difference between a Buccaneer and a Raider - Kept calling both of them Pirates.
Posted by: thethirdPaul

Something about Letters of Marque?

The burning questions for me will be: How much eggnog to get through the Texas/Texas A&M and the Hawgs/Bayou Bengals games? How decadent is it to have left-over lemon meringue pie (home made) for breakfast?

Comment and question for ex-liberal:

Very cute and disingenuous of you to quote JFK in support of this unsupportable occupation of Iraq - However, if the reason we are in Iraq is to promote democracy, take away a haven for terrorists and stop the slaughter of innocents (although those reasons were never offered BEFORE the invasion), why haven't we preemptively attacked Darfur (Sudan)??? I eagerly await your reasoned response...

TCD

Someone name of trashhauler>

The idea that somehow the invasion of Iraq was motivated by the desire to directly control Iraqi oil is not very logical.

This is quite silly and dishonest, and needs to be called out for the lie that it is.

The main and salient reason why there are troops in Iraq is because of oil. There is no other reason for troops in the region, billions spent each week, no other reason whatsoever. Period.

This discussion cannot tolerate such a blatant falsehood.

This meme should not be tolerated whatsoever--it is oil that has been the cause of turmoil in the region for decades.

Oil. It is the reason. Do not lie about that.

TCD asks: However, if the reason we are in Iraq is to promote democracy, take away a haven for terrorists and stop the slaughter of innocents (although those reasons were never offered BEFORE the invasion), why haven't we preemptively attacked Darfur (Sudan)???

First of all, those reasons were offered again and again before we invaded Iraq. E.g., see Bush's 2003 State of the Nation speech.

Second, I never said the items you mentioned were the reason; I said they were a reason. Bush offered other reasons, in particular the WMDs, the numerous UN Security Council resolutions that Saddam had violated, and Saddam's history of belligerance toward its neighbors.

Third, your question has an unstated assumption. It assumes that if the US invades a country for some purpose, it must also invade every other country to whom that purpose would apply. A moment's thought shows that no two countries' situation is precisely identical. Furthermore, we don't have the resources to overthrow and replace every bad government simultaneously.

P.S. suppose the US overthrew the government of Sudan and installed democracy, and suppose the process resulted in the same number of deaths as are occurring in Iraq. Would you salute the President's beneficient efforts or would you oppose him the way you demonize Bush?

Captain Sensible wrote:

"Oil. It is the reason. Do not lie about that."
_________________

Captain, it is not enough to say it over and over again to make it true. You should offer a bit more, such as the mechanics of how the war is about oil, if you want to make your point.

Captain ExtremelySensible,

Early morning threads read a great deal like the swill from Victor Davis Hanson's rerun in the Oregonian this day. VDH wrote of the three pronged approach by Bush to install democracy in the Middle East - No more WMDs - No more simply toppling Saddam - Oh no, it was the domino effect of democracy in the first place - And we are supposed to believe him when he writes of events thousands of years ago in Greece? He has not evened figured out how to find his way around the block in Fresno. I did not know he was a revisionist history scholar.

"Would you salute the President's beneficient efforts or would you oppose him the way you demonize Bush?"

Benificent, I think, is the word. Yet another false premise. Why do you insist on setting up your own arguments instead of sticking with what's on the table? The question was how YOU would feel about another preemptive blow "for democracy", not how much the asker would enjoy it.

Anyway, "demonize" is such an ugly word, and should really be reserved for lying thieves who contribute to the murder a half-million people or more and have the conscience of a beer-soaked pretzel. Don't you think?

Kenji: Anyway, "demonize" is such an ugly word, and should really be reserved for lying thieves who contribute to the murder a half-million people or more and have the conscience of a beer-soaked pretzel. Don't you think?

Kenji -- There are sins of omission and sins of commission. You and I didn't help Saddam kill millions of people, but we did nothing to stop him. I don't see myself as morally superior so someone who did try to stop Saddam, even though those efforts are currently a disaster. The worst you can say about Bush is that he may have made a dreadful situation even worse.

Put another way, one should always ask the question compared to what? Things are terrible in Iraq today, but they were pretty awful when Saddam was in power. By comparison, Syria and Hezbollah undermined what could have been a liberal democracy in Lebanon. They made a good situation into a bad one.

Furthermore, I don't doubt that Syria and Iran are playing major roles in undermining the democratic governmenty of Iraq. I think the killers in Iraq and the countries that support them deserve more blame than the country that's fighting against the killers.

Unless that country is enabling those killers through its own stubborn stupidity.

That was an apt quote. The GWB Administration's extraordinary incompetence may leave the impression that a competent President could have succeeded. The policies are flawed no matter the quality of execution. I'd re read the section in Tuchman's book about the Renaissance Popes and compare i to the out of touch American executive and legislative branches.

Captain, it is not enough to say it over and over again to make it true. You should offer a bit more, such as the mechanics of how the war is about oil, if you want to make your point

Well, since the pretzlenut himself has been saying it's about oil lateley, there's that wee kernel of credence you were looking for,

That trashhauler handle makes me think our buddy was in MAC, not TAC or SAC. MAC personnel are the "packers and crackers" who the rest of the pilots dismiss as busdrivers.

Trashhauler, you surprise me; asking Capt. S. for specifics.

Your whole approach here is to argue against anti-war statements, based on your military experience, without offering any ideas of your own other than this war is the right thing to do and it's going as well as can be expected. Have you ever offered specifics?

You did mention once that Saddam's looking menacingly at the Saudis was reason enough to invade. Wouldn't that be about the oil?

MAC = Military Airlift Command
TAC = Tactical Air Command (bombers and fighters)
SAC = Strategic Air Command (think Nukes)

The Navy has supply ships (Wooten, you out there?), the USAF has packers and crackers taking up space and pay-grade.

If you think the war in Iraq was not about oil, Captain Sensible has a bridge in Brooklyn he'd like to sell you...

Can it be relocated to Fresno?

Certainly. What's more moveable than a bridge?

Meanwhile. HEY, AL, READ A FRIGGIN' PAPER!

"Iraq Toll Rises; Shiite Militia Retaliates
By EDWARD WONG 27 minutes ago

Defying a government-imposed curfew, Shiite militiamen stormed Sunni mosques in central Iraq today, shot guards and burned down several buildings in apparent retaliation for a series of devastating car bombs that killed hundreds of people."

Suited up yet, genius? Now might be a good time to claim that ALL of your posts were made by Fake Al.

The irony in all this is that Bush has managed to do the same thing with Iraq War and his War on Taxes. He has triggered an inflationay cycle and it has only been massive intervention from the Chinese central bank that has prevented US interest rates from going sky high.

Inflation has in fact been going DOWN as are long term interest rates. What matters is how the spending is financed and how fast monetary aggregates are allowed to expand. Recent deficits have been tame with this years under 2% and money supply growth has been mostly lackluster.

We are not headed into an inflationary spiral. The mild uptick can be trared directly to the spike in Oil and other comnodities which has been fully absorbed and may partially reverse.

The US has benefitted from the investments by foreign banks in US treasuries thus helping to keep interest rates low however this investment is not a matter of coordination or manipulation. The Chinese are wisely putting their money in the safest place possible. One of the benefits of high trade is the mutual interdependence that results. China needs our huge market more than we need their cheap shoes.

The US economy remains one of the wonders of the world.

After all it was the retreat from Vietnam that freed America up for winning the final phase of the cold war.

It was dumping Carter that freed America up for winning the Cold War. The Russians played him for a total fool by interfering all over the world. Not until Reagan came in and started trashing them verbally while investing heavily in the military, especially Star Wars, did the final phase of the cold war begin.

Reagan correctly recognized America's superior economy and innovation, once freed from 70% tax rates, would bury the Soviets. It's simply not possible for a highly taxed, highly regulated or socialist economy to compete with free capitalist economy. We saw this in the 80's (conservatives saw it, no liberal did) with Russia and we're seeing the economic divergence between the USA and Europe now.

One of Reagans many great one-liners during his 1st campaign is still funny today. "A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose your job. A recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his job". We've never had more of a putz serve as President ever.

Early morning threads read a great deal like the swill from Victor Davis Hanson's rerun in the Oregonian this day.

You do have a problem with conservative intellects. It's interesting that one of the great assets of the internet and cable has been to allow brilliant writers and thinkers to reach a wider audience and a much larger market share than otherwise would have been possible.

Was it you 3rd Paul lamenting the spread of alternative media preferring we still just had the big 3 networks and major newspapers? VDS and Mark Steyn are but two examples of major intellects who've been able to reach the top of their profession gaining great fame and wealth on the way. And each is still fairly young.

Add Charles Krauthammer and Tim Blair to that list. CK is a bit more mainstream and TB still up and coming but the fact is all have acheived a dramatically higher level of influence with conservatives than otherwise would have been possible. Gone are the days when George Will represented conservative thinking. George is still quite good but is no longer among the top 5 in terms of influence.

If it was you lamenting the new media you were smart. Dan Rather would still be an anchor and John Kerry President. It's a much different world. Newspaper subscriptions are still caving along with the big three viewership. The MSM remains powerful but they can no longer block top talent.

If you think VDH writes swill you've got to visit timblair.com. Tim is to Al Gore what the SBVs were to John Kerry.

rdw: "We've never had more of a putz serve as President ever."

Carter? Apparently, you were not alive during the eras of Bush 1 and 2. Fat lot of good "winning" the cold war did when we end up with "top talent" like chimplips in charge.

By the way, what does any of your canned spiel have to do with the topic of military veterans being responsible for wartime decisions? Take your tired, phony pronouncements, roll them tight, and shove them swiftly up your ass, and then we'll all have something for which to give deep, Christian thanks!

There's a good lad...

Trashhauler: You should offer a bit more, such as the mechanics of how the war is about oil, if you want to make your point.

OK. First of all, Trashhauler, Bush stole the business France & Russia was doing with Iraq. By launching his invasion, the oil stopped flowing and the contracts Iraq had with France and Russia became null & void. That is contract piracy.

Second, we're building at least four major military bases in Iraq, even though mum is the word, for the most part, in the news media and from the administration. Bush is planning a long-term presence despite his talk about Iraqi sovereignty.

Third, as someone else just said, Bush has lately come right out and explicitly named the control of oil as a central concern of his.

Frankly, I admit that for the first couple of years of Bush's war, I didn't think oil was the reason. I thought it was more of a twisted oedipal complex sort of thing. But, it is kind of obvious now, I think, that without the 'black-gold' under the ground this whole cock-up never would have happened.

Bush is an oil man--granted, a failed one--and he's got a nose for oil. Cheney too.

The US economy remains one of the wonders of the world.

rdw,

You inhabit a parallel universe. Your man Bush is a fuck-up of heroic proportions and he's succeeded in planting the seeds of major economic misery in this nation and the world.

The one virtue I can attribute to you is your civility.

When it comes to even-handed observation and the application of reason you are a joke.

Have a nice evening.

kenji,

Having a bad day?

Jimmy was pitiful. Wasn't it fitting the hostages were released as soon as Reagan became President? Iran didn't want to spend 444 seconds playing games with Reagan ust like the Koreans didn't wait 444 seconds before they started cheating on his 'deal'.

Yeah, well that sure justifies pillaging Iraq and buttfucking the US constitution, now doesn't it? Your hero is a shitheel we have to rid ourselves of at the earliest opportunity, and it will take a generation to undo the damage he has done, here and abroad.

So again, your crap might fly where people sit around the table listening to you bloviate about shit that happened 30 years ago, but if you're not going to help clean up the current mess, piss off.

he's succeeded in planting the seeds of major economic misery in this nation and the world.

Our economy is amazing. Unemployment, inflation, interest rates, GDP growth, wealth creation, innovation, etc. Whatever measure you want to use the USA is spectacularly wealthy and in sound shape. We live in incredible times.

I went out this morning to buy a $299 fully-featured laptop including wireless modem but alas got there too late. I was a bit hesitant because it 'only' had an intel chip with a clock speed of 1.66 mhz. What was supersonic 2 years ago is now pedrestrian. 22" LCD monitors were under $200 while 42" HDTVs were under $1,000.

Being an American means next year that 42" HDTV for under $1,000 will be 55" next year and 65" the year after.

The stores were jammed packed. Only in America.

The stores were jammed packed. Only in America.
Posted by: rdw

spoken like someone who's never bought electronics from HK, shanhai, singapore, or japan.

And someone who measures the world by the ease with which he can fill his own cakehole.

Ex-liberal:

Your response to my question is first, inaccurate. You say the reasons for invading Iraq for the purpose of spreading democracy was offered “again and again” and cite the 2003 SOTU address as an example. Let me provide you a link to Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address here and challenge you to show me where this was offered as a reason for our invasion. It isn’t there.

In fact, one sentence from that speech shows the depth of Bush’s failure and the lies he used to dupe us into this ill-fated invasion and occupation:

“Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States.”

‘Threaten the U.S.’??? Was Saddam going to use his non-existent Air Force or his non-existent Navy to deliver his non-existent WMDs to our shores? What a fucking liar!

Second, you then backpedal and state, “Bush offered other reasons, in particular the WMDs, the numerous UN Security Council resolutions that Saddam had violated, and Saddam's history of belligerance toward its neighbors.” If those are the reasons we invaded Iraq, why haven’t we invaded Israel, who is a non-signatory to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, but continues to build nuclear weapons in secret and does not allow UN inspectors in? Israel also has violated more UN resolutions than Iraq and routinely attacks its neighbors and kills civilians in Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian territories. But, we look the other way and allow Israel to engage in criminal behavior. This complicity does not go unnoticed in the Muslim world.

Finally, you offer a confused tautological argument that, I think, says not every international relationship with the United States is the same, which is true, but then suggest we can’t invade everyone at the same time, which seems to imply we should keep doing what we did in Iraq to other countries that don’t meet some undefined standard of acceptability, which Iraq didn’t meet but Israel does. This is a ridiculous way to conduct foreign policy.

Your P.S. asks whether I would be happy if we invaded Darfur, to which I would reply it would not be a cause for celebration, but would, at a minimum, be a step towards moral symmetry. I will not ever applaud a man like George Bush, who knowingly lied us into the bloodbath that is Iraq. He knew, without question, that Iraq did not have WMDs. This invasion always has been and always will be about oil.

Read this.

TCD

it will take a generation to undo the damage he has done, here and abroad.

His decisions have been outstanding. I've explained why the withdrawal from Europe was sound and necessary. At the same time he was pulling out of Europe militarily and reducing out state dept staff he was increasing our staff in India and other key places. He's negotiated key trade deals on every continent save Europe.

Hugo Cchavez can stand on his front porch and see a free trade region extend all the way to the North Pole. He can walk to his back porch and assuming the Senate approves the recent deals with Ecuador, Columbia and Peru see the same free trade region all the way to the South Pole.

There have also been significant trade deals with many African nations as well as Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, India, Australia, Singapore, Indonesia, China, Russia and Vietnam.

At the same time GWB made two extremely important tactical moves that will be seen by 2020 as brilliant. Japan has been movely steadily toward full remilitarization. His best allies were Howard of Australia and Kouzimi of Japan. I am sure you noticed toward the massive Tsumami relief operations in Indonesia the UN was invisible as were France, Germany, Canada, etc. The USA was dominating as usual but also part of the relief team were Japan and Australia. GWB spent signficant time pressuring Japan to take a greater role and fully rebuking the restrictions of WWII. Kouzimi's hand picked successor ran on a latofrm that included removing article 9 from their constitution and all limits on military spending. He won easily. Japan has also committed over $1B to R&D on Star Wars and has recently conducted a sucessful test of a ship-based system off of a Japanese cruiser. The worlds most sophisticated radar array, part of the SW system, was constructed in Northern Japan.

As the world 3rd largest economy and 2nd technological power this mature democracy is now finally taking it's rightful place among nations. By 2020 they will be the worlds 2nd most powerful military and a strong American ally

GWBs moves with India have been even more impressive considering our relations have been so poor so long and they're effectively at war with Pakistan. Using brilliant 3-way diplomacy GWB improved relations with both nations reaching dramatic trade breakthroughs with India especially regarding nuclear power. This booming English speaking democracy will no doubt one day be our largest trading partner and eventually an important military ally. China and Islamic fundamentalism are more significant threats to India than to the USA. We have much in common.

You've got to take a longer view obscure. These have been brilliant tactical and strategic moves. Europe is simply decreasing in importance, becoming dangerous and at a minimum moving in a different direction. Japan and India are natural allies moving in the same direction. I think it was Churchill who said, "Nations have permanent interests, not permanent friends". GWB has been both pragmatic and forward looking. The trade deals are intended to increase and improve our relationships with the rest of the world.

Use Intel as an example. Less than 10 years ago over 30% of sales were to Europe. This quarter it might by 15%. A decade ago sales to Asia were less than 20%. This quarter they'll be over 60%. Asia is now more important economically soon to be dramatially more important. If you've been listening to Jack Welsh or any other business leader the past decade you knew this was coming. GWB is seeing the world as it is. and it isn't in Europe.

will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States.”

He did not say they were dominating the region or were threatening the USA. He said they must not be permitted to do so.

Thank you Al Gore for sponsoring the bill to allow the public to share the internet.

As a result, one can, as I am, listen to the great live concert from Toronto - It is on CBC Radio Two - The concert celebrates the 30 year anniversary of The Band's "The Last Waltz" - Lots of Canadian performers, but 4 of the original Band members were Canadian - Do hope that Robbie Robertson will play his "Ophila, please come back home". Great music and we can hear it, thanks to Gore's bill and signed into law by GWHB.

And someone who measures the world by the ease with which he can fill his own cakehole.

Not really but tell me it's not cool to know that 42" TV will be 25% - 40% cheaper new year or for the same price a 55" model will be available. That's just amazing.

There is no force in the universe greater than Capitalism.

thanks to Gore's bill and signed into law by GWHB.

And to think he's not President! He'd have cured cancer by now!

Why Rove was so wonderful changing the topic to the economy, that Republicans captured every race on November 7. What a sweep for Rove - Really knows the territory.

The Conservative Deflator disputes my allegation that among the reasons offered by Bush for invading Iraq were:
1. to promote democracy,
2. to take away a haven for terrorists, and
3. to stop the slaughter of innocents

TCD him/herself provided a quote from the 2003 SOTU address : “Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth, will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States.”

Bush's phrase "a brutal dictator" indicates that one of Bush's reasons was to stop Saddam's internal brutality, which is essentially my point #3. Bush expanded on this theme, saying "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured.

Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape."

Bush's phrase "with ties to terrorism" was Bush's way of saying that he proposed taking away Saddam's (alleged) support of terrorists, which is my point #2

Bush's allusion to democracy for Iraq (my #1) can be found near the end of his address. (given that "freedom" more or less equates to "democracy").: "We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers.

"Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity."

TCD also wrote:

Threaten the U.S.’??? Was Saddam going to use his non-existent Air Force or his non-existent Navy to deliver his non-existent WMDs to our shores? What a fucking liar!

Sorry, TCD, I think Bush was more convincing than you on this point. He said in the 2003 SOTU:

"Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

Now that Saddam is overthrown and we have found no WMD stockpiles, it's easy to pooh-pooh the threat, but based on what was known in January, 2003, Bush's scenario could not have been ruled out.

What Bush recognizes is that any group can be a threat to the US if they get a supply of WMDs. One nuclear bomb smuggled into the US could destroy a city. A contageous biological weapon could kill millions. A terrorist enemy wouldn't need a air force to deliver a bomb or a biological weapon. They could be smuggled in.

Modern weapons make our world horribly dangerous. For idealists like me and GWB, the best protection would be for all peoples in the world to live in free, modern democracy.

Someone name of ex-liberal>

"Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.

It was all well and good that he could speculate--however, we now know that this was an outright lie and that he and his henchmen knew it was a lie. We now know that they knew the truth about what the Iraqi government could and couldn't do--what they once had, what they had destroyed because of the UN mandate in 1991 and what they were capable of building on their own. And when analysts thoughout the US government tried to tell them the truth, they deep-sixed the intel and made up their own reality.

But when you get caught lying at the SOTU or, as in the case of ex-liberal, with math, one supposes a weak person will lie about anything to try to make a point in polite discourse.

Apologies for interrupting--serial liars like ex-liberal are hilarious. Is there a road show? Does he travel about the country peddling these shopworn lies?

captain sensible: virtually everyone -- France, the UK, etc -- believed Saddam had stockpiles of chemical weapons and possibly other WMDs. I could find quotes from John Kerry and from Bill and Hillary Clinton asserting that Saddam had WMDs. Bush, Kerry, Bill and Hillary were wrong; they weren't all lying.

The Good Captain Sensible,

Have you heard the latest death toll from DC on Radio Free Faux Liberal? - Over 150 and rising for the day - Drive bys, Muggings, Robberies, not to speak of the many Jay Walking and Littering transgressins going on - Something fierce - Imagine, Civil War in DC. In 62, they never could cross the Potomac - Must have been smuggled in. Dang, it must be safer in Sadr City.

Reading ex-liberal and rdw this evening, it is abundantly clear that conservatism is a mental illness. Kerry, Bill and Hillary Clinton may have believed Saddam had WMDs, but I don't recall that they (1) invaded Iraq (2) lied to the American people about forged documents from Niger to build support for an invasion (3) outed CIA agents who were working to stop the proliferation of WMDs because their husband disagreed with their policies, and (4) stayed in Iraq for three years, long after it was clear there were no WMDs and we already had Saddam. Face it - Bush is grossly incompetent, dishonest and a pathological liar. GET OVER IT!

As far as capitalism being so great, rdw should look at where the most robust economic growth has been occurring - Venezuela, China, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. All marginally socialist or communist. India is much like the U.S., virtually all of the economic wealth creation has gone to the richest 2-5%, while the vast majority either have lost ground or gone backwards. Bush's tax giveaways to the wealthy have hardly created an economic miracle in the U.S. either. Economic growth has been anemic and many have lost wealth in this economy. Cheap plasma TVs do not equate to economic well-being.

I agree with rdw's comment about "the best protection would be for all peoples in the world to live in free, modern democracy." It's too bad that Dick Cheney and George W. Bush don't believe in democracy.

Someone name of ex-liberal>

captain sensible: virtually everyone -- France, the UK, etc -- believed Saddam had stockpiles of chemical weapons and possibly other WMDs. I could find quotes from John Kerry and from Bill and Hillary Clinton asserting that Saddam had WMDs. Bush, Kerry, Bill and Hillary were wrong; they weren't all lying.

Poor little lying ex-liberal. No, this is not a war about whether or not Saddam Hussein had a stockpile of blister agent or mustard gas.

Condoleeza Rice:

"We know that he has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon," she told me. "And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought -- maybe six months from a crude nuclear device."

"Dr. Rice then said something that was ominous and made headlines around the world.

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

A nuclear device? No, they knew then that this was not possible. It was fantasy. And it was a pack of lies designed to make the gullible support them and to build the case for war--and, by extension, the re-election of Bush the 43rd.

Please. When you lie, your heart breaks a promise and an angel loses their wings in heaven, you know.

Perhaps you could return to doing math?

Someone name of thethirdPaul>

Have you heard the latest death toll from DC on Radio Free Faux Liberal? -

Sadly, those IEDs took out a Metro train and left hundreds to walk the tracks underground. Curse you, insurgency--or perhaps, curse you, poorly maintained infrastructure.

Every calamity can be blamed upon someone ex-liberal will invent for a new lie to keep justifying the first lie, namely, that the Iraqis were six months away from a crude nuclear device.

The dollar is heading toward irrelevancy faster than rdw's straight GOP voting ballot. The yen and the euro are exceeding expectations. Countries around the world are becoming LESS interested in dealing with the uneducated white trash currently squatting in the white house.

What universe does this rdw dingbat inhabit?

Captain Sensible - Yes, in 1991, Saddam was fairly close to having a nuclear device. He was considerably farther along than we had known. The New York Times recently reported:

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

The Times estimate is longer than Rice's six months, but it's based on information not available in 2003.

Since Saddam is known to have come close to building a nuclear device once, it was reasonable and prudent to worry that he might do so again.

Poor, poor silly little ex-liberal>

Since Saddam is known to have come close to building a nuclear device once, it was reasonable and prudent to worry that he might do so again.

Saddam Hussein had a nuclear reactor at one point. It was located at Osirisk. In 1981, the Israelis took it away from him.

It would take several hours and about fifty full comments to explain to you the details and the requirements of nuclear proliferation--that is, how a country goes from zero to sixty in as much time as it takes to become a nuclear power.

The short answer--infrastructure and help. Money alone won't do it, no, sorry, it just won't. Iraq had money but neither the nuclear development infrastructure nor the assistance of the international community--think of someone such as that fellow in Pakistan who is named AQ Quan or something--well, in 2003, at least, Iraq did not have these things in sufficient quantity to be a threat to anyone.

Enjoy your little grasp of the simplistic--as the cold arrives, it will keep you warm in your blanket of ignorance.

More, just for fun>

it was reasonable and prudent

Pardon me, President George Herbert Walker Bush, I am so sorry, I did not know I was addressing you.

[Captain Sensible knows from watching Dana Carvey in the late '80s do GHWB impersonation that the use of the word "prudent" is a code word that tells people when the ex-President is up and about, posting on blog threads, trying to get liberals to lay off the son]

How sad for poor ex-liberal: someone has to be the last Republican to roll over for the lies no one believes anymore...

RDW and XLIB-
Why don't you read and try to understand what Richard Clarke has written. Despite your obvious dismay at his slighting of a demonstrably slight president, Clarke is, by any reasonable definition, a CONSERVATIVE, REPUBLICAN HAWK. This is what a real one looks like, and I wouldn't find a whole lot to agree with re: his views on domestic policy.

"Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament." - G.W. Bush 3/6/03

mission

very clear...

disarmament...

The dollar is heading toward irrelevancy faster than rdw's straight GOP voting ballot.

Just so I understand. You say interst rates are so low because of massive chinese investment in treasuries, which are dollar denominated investments, yet the dollar is headed toward irrelevency.

Then I guess the Chinese are headed toward bankruptcy.

Why don't you read and try to understand what Richard Clarke has written.

Clarke is a clown. He's a professional bureaucrat experienced in office politics not terrorism. He was a failure. His job was to get Clinton to do something about terrorism and he did nothing. I don't read has-beens especially when they never were.

I don't read has-beens especially when they never were.
Posted by: rdw

That's precisely why I strive to avoid reading your repetitive gibberish and wish others would follow my example.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act".
--George Orwell

"Attacking Iraq after 9-11 made as much sense as attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor."

>>Cheap plasma TVs do not equate to economic well-being.

Quite so. And using artificially cheap goods from China and artificially cheap labor in India (or imported from Latin America) as deflationary off-sets to things like soaring health care and education costs is a recipe for certain disaster.

"It is unclear how much longer the world will trade Americans real goods for pieces of paper that the US economy cannot redeem with tradable goods and services." - Paul Craig Roberts: 'Artificial recovery, real job losses'

Dollar Falls Sharply Against Euro and Pound

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/25/business/worldbusiness/
25dollar.html?ref=business

'Analysts said that the dollar’s drop yesterday, which was accelerated by orders from traders to sell automatically once it fell past $1.30 against the euro, reflected a growing anxiety over Chinese economic policy. China’s central bank holds a large amount of American currency, and speculation has intensified recently that it could begin selling off dollars to avoid being burned if the dollar collapses.

Also lurking behind the dollar’s depreciation is the rising probability, in the view of some economists and currency investors, that a slowing American economy will force the Federal Reserve to begin cutting borrowing costs next year.

Against the backdrop of a European Central Bank that seems determined to tighten rates further next year, the appeal of dollar-denominated assets is falling as the prospect of higher returns in Europe rises.'

So the Fed tries to keep the debt bubble/asset bubbles inflated at the risk of a run on the dollar above and beyond the targeted 30% devaluation. Now that's what's called being well and truly on the horns of a dilemma.

DKW, do you have any evidence that Clarke is a CONSERVATIVE, REPUBLICAN HAWK?

I assumed he was a Democrat, because he was put in his position by Clinton, and because he has been a consistent critic of the Bush administration.

Captain Sensible, if you scroll up to my post at 11:45 pm last night, you will see that the New York Times reported that in 1991, Saddam Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb.

I also provided a link, so you can verify the quote.

Why are you still denying that Iraq was close to building a nuclear weapon in 1991?

exasperanto wrote:

"Trashhauler, you surprise me; asking Capt. S. for specifics.

Your whole approach here is to argue against anti-war statements, based on your military experience, without offering any ideas of your own other than this war is the right thing to do and it's going as well as can be expected. Have you ever offered specifics?

You did mention once that Saddam's looking menacingly at the Saudis was reason enough to invade. Wouldn't that be about the oil?"
_______________________

Firstly, exasperanto, I've never argued that this war was the right thing to do, at least in the way it was begun. I would have preferred another course, entirely. But it wasn't chosen and we must deal logically with the situation we have now. I argue against what I consider bad ideas for how we might go on from here. Always, and in every way, my agenda is for long term American success, rather than any short term solutions.

Regarding the subject of oil and it's being one of the root causes of the current Iraqi war, I was objecting to another's post about the idea that our motivation for the war was to somehow steal oil. I've always said that our presence and interest in the Gulf was driven by oil. And rightfully so, since the world's economy is so reliant upon it. That is what I mean when I say that oil is a geo-politcal driver behind nearly all events in the region.

That is quite a bit different from alluding to dark, nefarious plots to snatch the stuff from the control of it's rightful owners. My point to Captain Sensible was that such simple-minded statements need to be fleshed out a bit - preferrably with some details about how it would physically happen - if they are to be believed.

I have come around, I used to bad-mouth Clarke as a 'good republican,' but had a friend from the Army reserves who kept attempting to set me straight -I now realize he (both Richard Clarke and my friend) were absolutely right about everything.

And the trolls still infest. A great nation cannot long endure if a population is so vexed by the reality challenged. Simple logic. Read "The March of Folly." It is a classic history. Tuchman always tried to find something that would help the present in her accounts.

real dumb wanker on Bush: "His decisions have been outstanding"

"Militants Attack Sunnis’ Mosques in 2 Iraqi Cities
By EDWARD WONG

Shiite militiamen stormed Sunni mosques, shot guards and burned down buildings in apparent retaliation for a set of devastating bombings that killed more than 200."

Sparko: A great nation cannot long endure if a population is so vexed by the reality challenged. Simple logic. Read "The March of Folly." It is a classic history. Tuchman always tried to find something that would help the present in her accounts.

Barbara Tuchman is great. However, one can prove anything by choosing one's historical precedent.

Tuchman's, "The Guns of August" tells how the Allies made a number of huge mistakes, resulting in a a dreadful situation where millions were killed. Yet, the situation wasn't hopeless. As we know the Allies eventually did win.

So, one could argue that that WW1 proves that our side can still prevail in Iraq.

IMHO no historical analogy is particularly convincing.

SPOAARH wrote:

"That trashhauler handle makes me think our buddy was in MAC, not TAC or SAC. MAC personnel are the "packers and crackers" who the rest of the pilots dismiss as busdrivers."
________________

That's right, red, I was in MAC, for most of my flying career. I was also in Aerospace Defense Command (ADC) flying early warning aircraft and I worked for three years as a fighter ops planner in the USAFE fighter operations division. I currently work as a civilian in Headquarters, US Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), a place where people of all Services and military specialties can be found. All told, 37 years and counting.

Despite my experience in other missions, I do claim the honorable title of trashhauler, it being in that role that I've had the most exposure to the other Services and militaries, deployment and employment operations, joint planning, and many of the shittier places in the world. We trashhaulers might be bus drivers to the fighter guys (and we are), but we sometimes drive our busses over hot DZs and into often austere, sometimes hostile, locations, delivering the troops, bullets, and tampax. Little or no glory, just necessary.

Just a couple quibbles, though. In the Air Force, the "packers and crackers" are logistics types, tranporters to be precise. The aircrews are considered operations types. The difference is similar to that between a Navy COD driver and a "porkchop" (a supply officer).

MAC is now AMC (Air Mobility Command)
TAC is now ACC (Air Combat Command)
ATC is now AETC (Air Training and Education Command)
SAC no longer exists as a separate command.

We have General McPeak in the early 90s to thank for those changes.

More Cognac in your eggnog up thread?

Yeah, we really did learn a lot from WWI - perhaps it could help in Iraq - The lesson was that if you had enough cannon and machine gun fodder, you might just outlast the other guy. So, no, it was not hopeless - All you to do, was convince whole generations of youth to "give it up" for the cause. Is not slaughter wonderful?

Victor Davis Hanson, the so-called historian, said that the lessons we learned from the civil war were employed in France. WTF? Learning that entire units could be dispatched from the vicious, concentrated fire of grooved rifles and the mini-ball - Well, we learned and sent their grandsons into the horrors of trench warfare, where all they had to face was concentrated fire from machine guns and artillery plastering them. At least MacArthur learned enough from France, that he never wanted to see pitched warfare again.

Yeah, FauxLiberal - All you really need is a slew of cannon fodder. Stay safe and warm in you rat hole.

sparko wrote:

"Read 'The March of Folly.' It is a classic history. Tuchman always tried to find something that would help the present in her accounts."
____________

I've read everything Tuchman has written. I particularly appreciated "A Distant Mirror" and, of course, "The Zimmermann Telegram." I disagree with the more academic historians who have sometimes sniffed at Tuchman's approach to popularizing history. I was pleased to enjoy a few lectures delivered by Tuchman more than decades ago at my alma mater.

While it included many cogent themes, "The March of Folly" is far from Tuchman's best work.

Yeah, Richard Clarke is just one of those party hacks - a clown in bureaucracy - After starting his service under the Nixon Administration and serving the Federal Government for 12 years, he was appointed Assistant Secretary of State, where for 7 years, he worked in Intelligence and Military-Political affairs.

But, then Ronny did appoint a lot of clowns and hacks, and GHWB loyally kept them on. Geez, he was such a clown that Clinton kept him on and even little Shrub.

And next year in 7th Grade, FauxLiberal will learn even more fascinating history under the Leave No Twit Behind grant.

All we need is more bureaucracy - See that Rumdumb, in his "last throes" has appointed a new position; that of the Undersecretary of Defense in charge of "Chaos" - No, not the Get Smart orgainization - This person will report daily, er hourly, about chaotic developments in both Iraq and DC. Going to have a "Really Big Staff".

obscure wrote:

"[W}e're building at least four major military bases in Iraq, even though mum is the word, for the most part, in the news media and from the administration. Bush is planning a long-term presence despite his talk about Iraqi sovereignty."
__________________

A few thoughts about military bases. There are few differences between a well-defended semi-permanent, hostilies-only facility and a permanent base. Each can turn into the other type, given motivation.

However, a permanent base will seldom be placed where it's primary source of resupply is by air. Almost all such sites, especially if used to base heavy equipment, are chosen with a nearby rail line. Similarly, a permanent base will normally include substantial training areas and will have permanently assigned units using the base as its home. There are no "permanent" US bases in Iraq.

That's not to say that they could not become permanent bases. It is merely to point out that any claim that we are building such things assumes knowledge of motivation or intent that cannot be inferred by the presence of bases alone.

All we need is more bureaucracy - See that Rumdumb, in his "last throes" has appointed a new position; that of the Undersecretary of Defense in charge of "Chaos" - No, not the Get Smart orgainization - This person will report daily, er hourly, about chaotic developments in both Iraq and DC. Going to have a "Really Big Staff".
___________________

We do. Several really big staffs, in fact. One is called the Joint Staff. Another is call HQ USCENTCOM. Throw in USSOCOM, USTRANSCOM, and the Service staffs and you have thousands of sons and daughters of Martha doing their best amidst chaos.

Yes, Elgar did have a dilemma while writing his Music of Remembrance.

Should the name be "Hey, but we eventually won", or "Lest We Forget"?

Sort of glad he took the high road.

mini-ball

Um. Mineé ball - named for the guy who made the mold. I have one from Gettysburg.

Carry on.

Trashhauler, how do you think the Repubs have managed to maintain this fantasy, even within the services, that they are the soldier's party and the Dems are anti-military? Any rundown of congessional resumes tells you who has actually served. And why haven't Dems exploited this gap over the years?

'The Proud Tower' (pre-WWI Europe) and 'Stilwell and The American Experience in China' ((for which she won the Pulitzer) are far and away Dr. Tuchman's greatest works.

Math=Love: Most people consider that Johns Hopkins study to be totally bogus.

What statisticians are you talking to? The faculty at Bob Jones U or perhaps Liberty U or Oral Roberts?

Real people with real academic credentials dismiss you and your ilk as bogus.

Kenji wrote:

"Trashhauler, how do you think the Repubs have managed to maintain this fantasy, even within the services, that they are the soldier's party and the Dems are anti-military? Any rundown of congessional resumes tells you who has actually served. And why haven't Dems exploited this gap over the years?"
____________________

Kenji, this is just my opinion, now. But I'll give it a wack and others can chime in and tell me I'm full of shit. (Which I know already.)

The Democrats (is it still okay to call them that and if not, why not?) still suffer in part from the huge impression let at the end of the Vietnam War that they were, if not hostile to the military, then at least mortally tired of the subject.

Few military people consider the fact that someone has served to be a telling measure of a party's or politician's worth. Demographically, very few have served at all and merely having served a short time doesn't given someone great expertise in the tremendously complex military world. For example, Congressman Murtha has far more credibility with the military for his long work in Congress than for the fact that he once served at the sharp end. (Although, the Congressman's credibility within military circles has suffered quite a bit lately.)

The Republicans and Democrats leave a different impression based on their emphasis of different aspects of the military.

Democrats tend to treat the military as a special interest group, stressing pay and benefits and health care. Republicans do the same thing and yet also grasp that the military is rightly proud of their mission, both generally and specifically. In interaction with the military, Republicans will nearly always know something about how well the troops are performing and praise it. Democrats often give the impression that they don't know about our successes or don't want to mention them, as if they are ashamed of our work.

A Republican has the background of a party that has a history of consistently supporting the military, while the Democratic Party seems to become interested only whilst we are getting shot at. (That's a gross generalizaton, of course, but it is a prevelant belief.)

When was the last time a Democrat praised the heroics of a military person that a) wasn't running for office as a democrat or b) wasn't a horribly wounded example of why the Administration is failing? Which Democrats are particularly fond of or have close association with any famous military unit, other than a Service? To Democrats we are all "heroes" but there there are no heroics worthy of mention, except in a or b above.

In short, the Democrats make the mistake of treating and speaking of the military as undereducated victims, while Republicans tend to give the military more credit for their brains and their work and their bravery. Democrats will ask, "Where's the armor?" and military people think, "Good question, but why have you just now noticed? You were never interested before the war."

That's my impression and that of many of my colleagues. It is doubtless wrong in the case of specific politicians, but it is a generally held opinion of the differences in the parties.

I really enjoyed "The Proud Tower," CFShep. All those interlocking threads of family and power.

Yeah, but some of those minee's were really, really small.

Pissed off and armed pre-menopausal redhead(any questions?) asks: What statisticians are you talking to?

Numerous groups who monitor Iraqi deaths said that study was way off, including one anti-war group, the name of which I've forgotten.

I also talked to the medical school where my spouse is on the faculty as a biostatistican.

ex-liberal:

vague and unsatisfying ... "numerous groups" saying the study was "way off" may count as actual data to you, but it sounds like pure bullshit to me. why don't you try quoting an actual scientist, epidemiologist, or mathematician.

... and why the fuck would you ask your spouse's med school? if he/she's really faculty, then why couldn't you just ask your spouse?

are all conservatives scientifically illiterate, or just the ones posting here? ... jesus fuckign christ ... "way off" ... you should be ashamed of yourself.

"talked to the medical school"

And did they have any janitorial openings available?

Trashhauler,

(Now I know what your handle means.)

Thanks for the onslaught of specificity. About your post of 3:08 PM:

Anybody here who's experienced office politics knows that "generally held opinions" can be exploited for personal gain and used to denigrate rivals. The opinions don't have to be fair or accurate.

Many on the left idealistically wish that there didn't have to be a military and many on the right idealistically feel that the military is the only path to manhood. The "general opinion" in the middle seems to be hanging between these two precepts.

Republicans, regardless of whether they've been actually better for the military in their policy and planning, and regardless of whether they've served themselves, seem to be more adept at taking advantage of this prevailing mindset.

Trashhauler et al:

Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers", not "Blessed are the warmakers".

I am a Christian first and an American second.

TCD

Exasperanto, the Republicans are more adept at it. It's not necessarily true that most of them are any more sincere about their support than the Democrats, of course.

And you're right. Opinions aren't even usually fair or accurate.

TCD, yes He did, but the peacemakers these days always seem to need a couple of strong silent types standing behind them with swords to get the point across.

As a Christian, you'll be pleased to consider that so are the great majority of military types. We are all just sinners counting on His grace and salvation. Many servicemembers think of the military as a calling, no less than other types of service, in full keeping with God's will for us.

People have been deceived into thinking that war can produce something good. It never can.

War is a direct repudiation of Jesus's admonition that we love one another as he has loved us. It is always wrong and always a sin.

The Conservative Deflator: People have been deceived into thinking that war can produce something good. It never can.

Except for ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, war never did any good.

Shiite militiamen stormed Sunni mosques,

Kenji,

Tou remind me of a great quote from Israeli PM Begin after liberals tried to blame Israel for a mini-genocide in Southern lebanon.

"Arabs kill Arabs and it's the Jews fault".

Here's the real deal. When Arabs kill Arabs, it's the Arabs fault.

Except for ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, war never did any good.

So which of these grevious wrongs is being righted by boy-gerges pissing contest?

By the way - communism still exists, and the Soviet threat ended without a shot fired.

ex-liberal:

Ending slavery? - Tell that to migrant workers in the fields of California.

Ending fascism? - By Bush's own definition, we have Islamofascists. By my lights, Bush and Cheney and thier ilk are fascists. Nazism is a subset of fascism.

Ending communism? - One billion Chinese still live in a communist society. That's one-sixth of the world's population. Good try.

I've seen the bumper sticker, wise guy. Putting slogans on a bumper sticker does not make them true. War is always wrong.

Trashhauler,
Thanks for the detailed response. I feel that a lot of those public assumptions are based on wrongly held beliefs (thank you, Karl "Patton" Rove). But they are nonetheless held, and the head Dems would be wise to address these beliefs more directly.

If we are ever to move towards a world where a military is not needed—as unlikely as that may seem—we have to honor those aspects of culture that the warrior class represents: loyalty, sacrifice, courage, and some atavistic qualities of masculinity that are not necessarily negative if we really look at them.

In purely political terms, we need to win back some of the 'angry white male' votes by convincing them that their values are not entirely incompatible with a more progressive order.

Just as an aside, re army types sometimes getting respect they don't deserve, I once had a bitter argument, at the height of the Iran-Contra hearings, with Ellis Marsalis, of all people—an otherwise erudite gentleman, by any definition, who could not be convinced that it was wrong of Oliver North to spend $250,000 of public (but secretly taken) money to improve his family home in Virginia, or wherever it was.

In his view, as an ex-Marine, Col. North was working hard for his country's security and was therefore entitled to some extra comforts. When I made comparisons with Pinochet and other such callous next-featherers, he took exception to my (Constitution-backed) argument, and his son Wynton had to physically step between us.

I'm not quite sure of the point of this story, except to suggest that when even a genteel jazz man like the elder Marsalis can be tricked by a Howdy Doody in a dress uniform into giving up his rights and tax dollars—well, you can see how easily they fuck with our loyalties when the democratic process is important to the parties in charge.

...unimportant is, um, a better way to put it.

Kenji wrote:

"Thanks for the detailed response. I feel that a lot of those public assumptions are based on wrongly held beliefs (thank you, Karl "Patton" Rove). But they are nonetheless held, and the head Dems would be wise to address these beliefs more directly."
________________

It might be easier said than done, Kenji. There are quite a few underlying beliefs to get beyond on both sides.

By the way, those opinions about Democrats far preceded Mr. Rove. They aren't manufactured beliefs - military people are usually skeptical about putting their faith in politicians of either party. The military community is (relatively) small and well-networked even on the unofficial level. The network soon notices (perhaps through our own academia, perhaps within our own professional associations, and always by word of mouth) whenever a politician tries to sell a new line of bull. The word gets around.