 |
 |
   Read the story and see the video discussion by the authors about why creeping consolidation is crushing American livelihoods.
 A forensic tool renowned for exonerating the innocent may actually be putting them in prison.
 If you liked Hamid Karzai and Pervez Musharraf, youll love our latest ally, Yemens Ali Abdullah Saleh.
|
   |
|
|
November 27, 2006
By: CIVIL WAR.....Via Taegan Goddard, I see that NBC News has announced a change in policy:
Meanwhile, Niall Ferguson belatedly explains the dynamics of civil war to LA Times readers:
Does Ferguson then take the obvious next step and suggest that the United States ought to leave Iraq since it can no longer influence events in any significant way? No, he does not. —Kevin Drum 12:07 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (91)Comments
I can't wait to hear the new theme song. Posted by: bushwahd on November 27, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINKTraitors in the mainstream media. More liberal media bias and rooting for failure. Posted by: Al on November 27, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINKThis just in: For months now the White House has rejected claims that the situation in Iraq has deteriorated into a civil war. And, for the most part, news organizations like NBC have hesitated to characterize it as such. But after careful consideration, NBC News has decided a change in terminology is warranted that the situation in Iraq with armed militarized factions fighting for their own political agendas can now be characterized as a civil war, or, alternately, Cheney's Colossal Conglomeration of Crap.Posted by: cynic on November 27, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK Cheney, the Democrats were on the wrong side in the Civil War and are now on the wrong side in the liberation of Iraq. Posted by: Al on November 27, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINKThe Iraq war has gone on longer than WWII. Posted by: calendar on November 27, 2006 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINKKing George has made quite a mess. I remember Saddam's comment before the war [slightly paraphrased]... "if they invade the lid will come off Iraq and 7 United States Armies won't be able to put it back on" A bit ironic (or maybe not) that through this entire sad affair, Saddam has consistently been the one telling the truth. Bush: "Disarm NOW!" Powell: "We know where the WMD are... er.. here, see this aerial photo of a jeep!" Etc... etc. And most such wars don't end with power-sharing agreements but in victory for one side or the other often as a result of foreign intervention. This is the interesting part, since Bush administration incompetence has disqualified the US from having any influence in the resolution of the Iraqi Civil War. Who's left? This administration is the best friend Persia has ever had. Somewhere, the dust of the Thermopylae Spartans is spinning at quite a pace. (Sorry, channeled Victor Davis Hansen there for a minute) Posted by: just sayin on November 27, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINKBush is the anti-Midas king.... he turns everything he touches to shit. Posted by: ROTFLMLiberalAO on November 27, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINKThis just proves that all you liberals are racists who hate brown people and will do anything to keep democracy from flowering. Posted by: Al's Mommy on November 27, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK2880? you mean my american-killing crown is in jeopardy? damn you, bush! (just kidding, i admire your work.) Posted by: osama on November 27, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINKAmerican soldiers and marines are no longer even dying for a mistake, they are dying for the unwillingness of leaders to admit a mistake. There isn't a hell deep and hot enough for these people. Posted by: ajl on November 27, 2006 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINKthank you, americans, for our now-uncontested hegemony! Posted by: ahmadinejad on November 27, 2006 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINKahmadinejad: the Saudis might disagree with your assessment. Posted by: jhupp on November 27, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINKcheney: The number of casualties incurred to date is LESS than the estimate for just taking out Saddam. more americans have died in iraq... since saddam was captured.. than in all his time in power.. gwb...misunderestimated... again... we told you so Posted by: mr. irony on November 27, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINKDidn't the L.A. Times adopt the same policy as of Saturday, without a formal announcement? Posted by: penalcolony on November 27, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINKcheney: More Americans died after Pearl Harbor than before. Should we not have fought WWII either?
jhupp, i stand corrected. yes, the 20% of iraqis who remember saddam fondly are well-loved by the saudis. funny how that works. Posted by: ahmadinejad on November 27, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINKThe psychic Nancy Reagan used to consult probably could have fortold the current fiasco in Iraq better than un-American nitwits like Cheney. It is very sad that our major "news" organizations like NBC can only really tell it like it is after "careful consideration." Posted by: GoodGulf on November 27, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINKLet's bring democracy to Iraq. A majority of Iraqis want us out, so we leave. Democracy. Posted by: olds88 on November 27, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK.."cheney can't keep his rifle, his story, or his daughter straight." Posted by: bill maher on November 27, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINKI have been calling the conflict in Iraq a civil war since March 2003, when it began. Posted by: Hostile on November 27, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK"Bush is the anti-Midas king.... he turns everything he touches to shit" This is called Sidam (in my world, anyways), which cunning palindromists will appreciate is a man with the reverse Midas touch. Hence Sidam vs Saddam. Posted by: Palindromist on November 27, 2006 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINKsmaller minds can argue whether the benevolent saudis or we dangerous iranians have more pull among the iraqi majority, but we can all agree that taking out saddam was a boon for shi'ia everywhere. the saudis just got rid of an economic rival. we are rid of someone who killed half a million iranians, so thank you once more - we couldn't have done it without you! (well, maybe we could have, but thank allah we didn't have to. a million thanks. in fact, the president of iraq is visiting me in tehran as we speak! Posted by: ahmadinejad on November 27, 2006 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK"The U.N. says that over 900,000 Iraqis have fled their homes since the war started. Cheney says they're not fleeing. They're actually just running down the street yelling, 'Yipee, we're free!'" Posted by: bill maher on November 27, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINKThis is called Sidam (in my world, anyways), which cunning palindromists will appreciate is a man with the reverse Midas touch. I believe you mean the sadiM touch. Posted by: GoodGulf on November 27, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK"Saddam Hussein, not continued U.S. involvement in Iraq, is responsible for ongoing sectarian violence that is threatening the formation of a democratic government." - GWB 3/29/06 its always someone else's fault Posted by: blast from the past on November 27, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINKI must admit that I, for one, an Iraq pessimist, by nature, thought that the recent upswing in violence was either US-Election-related or Ramadan-related. But the upswing continues, indicating a troubling trend. Yes, it makes the neocons look even more like stupid assholes, and yes, that, in itself makes me happy, because maybe, in the future, people will stop listening to their asshattery. But what is going on there is pretty horrifying. I've forgotten all about the Thanksgiving holiday last week. The things I'm thankful for - I'm thankful for myself. Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 27, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINKThe bad news, as James D. Fearon of Stanford University explained to members of Congress in September, is that withdrawing American troops from Iraq will only accelerate Iraq's descent into the abyss. The worse news is that increasing troop numbers may only slow the descent. The worst news is that the attack by American forces is what started the descent into the abyss in the first place. Posted by: Stefan on November 27, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINKI guess that folks in the media are figuring out that Saddam, as evil as he was, knew that if he didn't keep the lid on tight Iraq would explode. Pretty clearly both Saddam and Bush 41 knew the implications of taking out Saddam far better than anybody with influence on Bush 43. Posted by: Ron Byers on November 27, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINKMore Americans died after Pearl Harbor than before. Should we not have fought WWII either? In 1940, the British Army was surrounded at Dunkirk and retreated across the channel back to England. In 1944 the allies recaptured Dunkirk and went on to win the war. Should the British have "stayed the course" in Dunkirk instead of "cutting and running"? Sometimes the best way to win the game is to punt on fourth down. Posted by: Stephen on November 27, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINKThank God you were not around during ... the Revolutionary war for that matter. Yeah, if we hadn't fought the revolution we wouldn't have our freedom, unlike those Canadians who still suffer under the oppressive yoke of... what? some nazis were okay, like the ones i did business with. i never cared for that rommel guy, though - disloyal, you could tell. Posted by: prescott bush, businessman, senator on November 27, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINKActually, Stephen, the Allies never recaptured Dunkirk. It surrendered, with the rest of the German army, in May 1945. Posted by: ajay on November 27, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINKGetting out of Iraq or not, I'm still waiting for the other obvious. But after careful consideration, NBC News has decided a change in terminology is warranted: It's okay to call Bush a liar and that indeed, the Bush/Cheney administration can now be characterized as pack of shameless cohorts who lied to start a war. Bush and Cheney conspired to cook intelligence leading up to the Iraq war and the only left to do is impeach those two and give them both lengthy prison terms. Posted by: Cheryl on November 27, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK This Administration and it's apologists think that by playing word games, they can manipulate reality. This only works on ill-informed fools like Al and American Hawk. Iraq is in a civil war, our occupation of Iraq is an utter disaster and this Administration is the most hideous failure in the history of American politics. Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on November 27, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINKPOST: But after careful consideration, NBC News has decided a change in terminology is warranted: It's okay to call Bush a liar...
The single word most frequently associated currently with George W. Bush is "incompetent,"and close behind are: "idiot" and "liar." - Pew Research Center 3/16/06 Posted by: mr. irony on November 27, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINKI don't know what the dead-enders are so worried about. It takes less ink to write "Civil War" than any of the other descriptions of the situation in Iraq. That means more room for lying by anonymous administration officials. Cheer up guys! Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on November 27, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINKNiall Ferguson is nothing but a mess. He implies in this opinion piece that the trends of modern history show that underlying sectarian divisions, as in Iraq, become Lebanese-style centrifugal forces. He says things like unstoppable cycle of tit-for-tat killing. If the forces for civil war as so dominate- even inevitable- why did he not point it out three years ago? Some others did. Maybe I missed his sage warnings but I recall he was a big cheerleader of the war. How exactly does a foreign fighting force stop a civil war in such a populous and vast country like Iraq? Ferguson should have been demanding a million troops and a WWII American build-up to occupy the country if The reality, however, is that the majority of conflicts in our time have been within civilizations, not between them civil wars, not holy wars. I know he is a big fan of hegemony, being a keen Hobbesian I guess, but does he think that democratic states in the 21st century have the power to really dominate the world like an imperial power of the 19th century? Sometimes he says "no" and then he says it is the only solution. There is something really crackers about this guy.
Stephen, you are so right. What the neocons, McCain and many other fuckwits do not seem to get is that even if we totally pulled out of Iraq next week, it would take a good three years to get our military manpower up to what is was in September 2001. It would take at least that long and tens of billons of dollars more to replenish our militarys supply inventory. Quite earnestly, they are running on empty. Historically we seem to get ourselves into at least one significant military conflict each decade. We need to get the hell out of Iraq so we can stop our own degradation, heal, and prepare for what ever we face next. ferguson gets away with spouting his shit for the same reason that drunken lick-spittle fool snitchens does; he has a british accent. Posted by: Klyde on November 27, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINKBritain had its civil wars long ago, and is finally ready to accept partition: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml;jsessionid=IEA25RFGU4K0VQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/11/26/nunion26.xml&site=5&page=0 Will this accelerate the Islamicization of England? Will Scotland or England withdraw from NATO first? Hitler must be in agonies, wondering why they couldn't have done this during his life time. Posted by: MatthewRMarler on November 27, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINKSpeaking of terminology, have others noticed how the Iraq War is commonly referred to in the media as either "the Iraq war" (with a lower case "w") or as "the war in Iraq" -- never, as in the example of, say, the Vietnam War, as "the Iraq War," with an upper case "W." It's been my suspicion that this has been done, unconsciously or not, as a way to minimize the war, understate the seriousness of the catastrophe. After all, losing the Iraq war can't be nearly as bad as losing the Iraq War, can it? Posted by: Stefan on November 27, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINKB.T.W., I used to post under the names Thomas1, Cheney, Charlie and most-recently, Jeffery. Now I'm back to using Cheney. I'm still a troll. What about the objective historian wasn't that one of yours? Posted by: Klyde on November 27, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINKI think the best way to encourage the people of Iraq is through humanitarian means. Supporting the Millennium Development Goals is a way for our government to give to these citizens that they have taken some much more from. Agreed to in 2000 by every nation on earth, the Millennium Development Goals aim to curb global poverty, establish equality, provide primary education, and control the spread of disease. Since the Goals inception, little has been done by the current administration to promote the most basic of human needs for citizens worldwide. It's time that we bring these issues to the forefront in order to stabilize not only Iraq, but our entire global community as well. Posted by: Cayle on November 27, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINKAnd most such wars don't end with power-sharing agreements but in victory for one side or the other often as a result of foreign intervention. Isn't the "obvious" course of action for America to back one of the sides and ensure that it wins? Perhaps the elected side? How do you conclude from the quote that the "obvious" course of action is for the U.S. to leave and let another foreign nation determine who wins? Posted by: MatthewRMarler on November 27, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINKThe Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, started in exile in Iran, won the election. They would be the side to back if pacification of a unified Iraq were the only interest. Posted by: bellumregio on November 27, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINKSo, Matthew, do you agree that the "obvious" thing for us to do is back the Iranian-allied Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq? Posted by: Stefan on November 27, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINKIsn't the "obvious" course of action for America to back one of the sides and ensure that it wins? Perhaps the elected side? Yeah, let's join up with the Iranians to install a shiite dominated theocracy! That'll show those damn liberals. Posted by: Col Bat Guano on November 27, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINKDamn Stefan, you beat me to the punch. Posted by: Col Bat Guano on November 27, 2006 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINKAl, are you all packed an heading over to where it's going so well? Great! Buh-bye! Posted by: Kenji on November 27, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINKMatthewRMarler: If that is what passes for obvious, this country is truly lost. This country is in danger of succumbing to the stupidity of its people. Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on November 27, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINKWhat about the objective historian wasn't that one of yours? No. The whackjob TOH at least has some personality - something Charlie can't seem to muster. Posted by: Foundation of Mud on November 27, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINKYou know, these trolls are all stabbed-in-the-back types, ready with complicated systems of blame for their own fuck-ups. Bush and Cheney have taken a huge dump on our country, and these idiots spend 100% of their energy yelling about how great it smells. Responsibility of the press, importance of dissent and reasoned argument inside the system and out, and congressional oversight (unless a Dem is president)all 'traitorous' activity in their fevered brains. In short, well, let's face it: they hate freedom. Posted by: Kenji on November 27, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINKSomeone name of MatthewRMarler>
You mean the Moqtada al Sadr side? The side that runs the Shia death squads and the Mahdi Army? How's that going, poor fool? Posted by: Captain Sensible on November 27, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINKThe metrics for defining civil war are obvious: One side dresses in gray, the other in blue, and the clerics have names like "Stonewall" and "Iron Boot". Clearly, we're nowhere near that point. Look, if you're asking me if we know now what we thought we knew then... Posted by: Don Rumsfeld on November 27, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINKYou go to civil war with the death squads you have, not the death squads you wish you had. Posted by: Don Rumsfeld on November 27, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINKCrossposted bit of insanity>
What was the answer from the Bush daughters? NO thanks, we're not done partying. Do you need more proof that the costs of this war in Iraq are not being shared by all Americans? Posted by: Captain Sensible on November 27, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINKI doubt that anyone in the American government really understands the byzantine politics of Iraq or even the Middle East. Anyone who does, military or civilian, was probably sidelined years ago. The administration has consistently relied on ideologues with an agenda to sell, partisan hacks, failed academics of the think-tank set and op-ed writers for the yellow press. All the crap has been filtered through the mind of a partially educated Texas rich boy. We have a sense now of what happened in Vietnam and we know the misunderstandings intelligent people like Robert McNamara had about the enemy and the nature of the war. Iraq in comparison is mystifying because all the major players are so pathetic. When it is told, the history of the Cheney administration's ego folly in Mesopotamia will be the wildest, most tragic account of anything undertaken in American history. It is too bad that Mark Twain is not with us because he could write a dark sequel to Innocents Abroad. a liberal cure for the Iraq civil war can be found here: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1126-26.htm You mean the Moqtada al Sadr side? The side that runs the Shia death squads and the Mahdi Army? Well, it certainly is a PART of the elected government, isn't it? Posted by: MatthewRMarler on November 27, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINKSomeone name of MatthewRMarler>
Congratulations. You support the current state of civil war and the lawless execution of innocent Iraqi citizens, all in the name of expediency and blind support for the insanity of the current regime's efforts to bleed Iraq dry. By all means, get behind those death squads and see where that takes you. Posted by: Captain Sensible on November 27, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINKbellumregio, you're totally correct. i was a college freshman in 2001 after 911 in virginia. as a concerned citizen and voter i made sure to attend any informative talks on 911, the middle east. one of our international affiars professors, who specialized in middle eastern affairs, lead several discussions on 911 and basically told us that the white house had refused to include his colleagues or anyone who was familiar with middle eastern politics. it is the same in the intelligence community. veteran intelligence professionals for sanity, a group of retired intell agents, has been completely ignored by this administration. relying on ridiculous russian intelligence instead of our own to go to war. what this administration and, i think, we as a people have forgotten is you don't negotiate with your friends, you negotiate with your enemies. this is what our foreign policy should be; not knee jerk reactions that result in more casualties than the terrorist attacks of 911. MEMORANDUM FOR: The President FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity SUBJECT: Intelligence Unglued The glue that holds the Intelligence Community together is melting under the hot lights of an awakened press. If you do not act quickly, your intelligence capability will fall apart -- with grave consequences for the nation. The Forgery Flap By now you are all too familiar with the play-by-play. The Iraq-seeking-uranium-in-Niger forgery is a microcosm of a mischievous nexus of overarching problems. Instead of addressing these problems, your senior staff is alternately covering up for one another and gently stabbing one another in the back. CIA Director George Tenet's extracted, unapologetic apology on July 11 was classic -- I confess; she did it. It is now dawning on our until-now somnolent press that your national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, shepherds the foreign affairs sections of your state-of-the-union address and that she, not Tenet, is responsible for the forged information getting into the speech. But the disingenuousness persists. Surely Dr. Rice cannot persist in her insistence that she learned only on June 8, 2003 about former ambassador Joseph Wilson's mission to Niger in February 2002, when he determined that the Iraq-Niger report was a con-job. Wilson's findings were duly reported to all concerned in early March 2002. And, if she somehow missed that report, the New York Times' Nicholas Kristoff on May 6 recounted chapter and verse on Wilson's mission, and the story remained the talk of the town in the weeks that followed. Rice's denials are reminiscent of her claim in spring 2002 that there was no reporting suggesting that terrorists were planning to hijack planes and slam them into buildings. In September, the joint congressional committee on 9/11 came up with a dozen such reports. Secretary of State Colin Powell's credibility, too, has taken serious hits as continued non-discoveries of weapons in Iraq heap doubt on his confident assertions to the UN. Although he was undoubtedly trying to be helpful in trying to contain the Iraq-Niger forgery affair, his recent description of your state-of-the-union words as "not totally outrageous" was faint praise indeed. And his explanations as to why he made a point to avoid using the forgery in the way you did was equally unhelpful. Whatever Rice's or Powell's credibility, it is yours that matters. And, in our view, the credibility of the intelligence community is an inseparably close second. Attempts to dismiss or cover up the cynical use to which the known forgery was put have been -- well, incredible. The British have a word for it: "dodgy." You need to put a quick end to the dodginess, if the country is to have a functioning intelligence community. The Vice President's Role Attempts at cover up could easily be seen as comical, were the issue not so serious. Highly revealing were Ari Fleisher's remarks early last week, which set the tone for what followed. When asked about the forgery, he noted tellingly -- as if drawing on well memorized talking points -- that the Vice President was not guilty of anything. The disingenuousness was capped on Friday, when George Tenet did his awkward best to absolve the Vice President from responsibility. To those of us who experienced Watergate, these comments had an eerie ring. That affair and others since have proven that cover-up can assume proportions overshadowing the crime itself. All the more reason to take early action to get the truth up and out. There is just too much evidence that Ambassador Wilson was sent to Niger at the behest of Vice President Cheney's office, and that Wilson's findings were duly reported not only to that office but to others as well. Equally important, it was Cheney who launched (in a major speech on August 26, 2002) the concerted campaign to persuade Congress and the American people that Saddam Hussein was about to get his hands on nuclear weapons -- a campaign that mushroomed, literally, in early October with you and your senior advisers raising the specter of a "mushroom cloud" being the first "smoking gun" we might observe. That this campaign was based largely on information known to be forged and that the campaign was used successfully to frighten our elected representatives in Congress into voting for war is clear from the bitter protestations of Rep. Henry Waxman and others. The politically aware recognize that the same information was used, also successfully, in the campaign leading up to the mid-term elections -- a reality that breeds a cynicism highly corrosive to our political process. The fact that the forgery also crept into your state-of-the-union address pales in significance in comparison with how it was used to deceive Congress into voting on October 11 to authorize you to make war on Iraq. It was a deep insult to the integrity of the intelligence process that, after the Vice President declared on August 26, 2002 that "we know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) produced during the critical month of September featured a fraudulent conclusion that "most analysts" agreed with Cheney's assertion. This may help explain the anomaly of Cheney's unprecedented "multiple visits" to CIA headquarters at the time, as well as the many reports that CIA and other intelligence analysts were feeling extraordinarily great pressure, accompanied by all manner of intimidation tactics, to concur in that conclusion. As a coda to his nuclear argument, Cheney told NBC's Meet the Press three days before US/UK forces invaded Iraq: "we believe he (Saddam Hussein) has reconstituted nuclear weapons." Mr. Russert: ...the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program; we disagree? Vice President Cheney: I disagree, yes. And you'll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of the intelligence community disagree...we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei (Director of the IAEA) frankly is wrong. Contrary to what Cheney and the NIE said, the most knowledgeable analysts -- those who know Iraq and nuclear weapons -- judged that the evidence did not support that conclusion. They now have been proven right. Adding insult to injury, those chairing the NIE succumbed to the pressure to adduce the known forgery as evidence to support the Cheney line, and relegated the strong dissent of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (and the nuclear engineers in the Department of Energy) to an inconspicuous footnote. It is a curious turn of events. The drafters of the offending sentence on the forgery in president's state-of-the-union speech say they were working from the NIE. In ordinary circumstances an NIE would be the preeminently authoritative source to rely upon; but in this case the NIE itself had already been cooked to the recipe of high policy. Joseph Wilson, the former US ambassador who visited Niger at Cheney's request, enjoys wide respect (including, like several VIPS members, warm encomia from your father). He is the consummate diplomat. So highly disturbed is he, however, at the chicanery he has witnessed that he allowed himself a very undiplomatic comment to a reporter last week, wondering aloud "what else they are lying about." Clearly, Wilson has concluded that the time for diplomatic language has passed. It is clear that lies were told. Sad to say, it is equally clear that your vice president led this campaign of deceit. This was no case of petty corruption of the kind that forced Vice President Spiro Agnew's resignation. This was a matter of war and peace. Thousands have died. There is no end in sight. Recommendation #1 We recommend that you call an abrupt halt to attempts to prove Vice President Cheney "not guilty." His role has been so transparent that such attempts will only erode further your own credibility. Equally pernicious, from our perspective, is the likelihood that intelligence analysts will conclude that the way to success is to acquiesce in the cooking of their judgments, since those above them will not be held accountable. We strongly recommend that you ask for Cheney's immediate resignation. The Games Congress Plays The unedifying dance by the various oversight committees of the Congress over recent weeks offers proof, if further proof were needed, that reliance on Congress to investigate in a non-partisan way is pie in the sky. One need only to recall that Sen. Pat Roberts, Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has refused to agree to ask the FBI to investigate the known forgery. Despite repeated attempts by others on his committee to get him to bring in the FBI, Roberts has branded such a move "inappropriate," without spelling out why. Rep. Porter Goss, head of the House Intelligence Committee, is a CIA alumnus and a passionate Republican and agency partisan. Goss was largely responsible for the failure of the joint congressional committee on 9/11, which he co-chaired last year. An unusually clear indication of where Goss' loyalties lie can be seen is his admission that after a leak to the press last spring he bowed to Cheney's insistence that the FBI be sent to the Hill to investigate members and staff of the joint committee -- an unprecedented move reflecting blithe disregard for the separation of powers and a blatant attempt at intimidation. (Congress has its own capability to investigate such leaks.) Henry Waxman's recent proposal to create yet another congressional investigatory committee, patterned on the latest commission looking into 9/11, likewise holds little promise. To state the obvious about Congress, politics is the nature of the beast. We have seen enough congressional inquiries into the performance of intelligence to conclude that they are usually as feckless as they are prolonged. And time cannot wait. As you are aware, Gen. Brent Scowcroft performed yeoman's service as National Security Adviser to your father and enjoys very wide respect. There are few, if any, with his breadth of experience with the issues and the institutions involved. In addition, he has avoided blind parroting of the positions of your administration and thus would be seen as relatively nonpartisan, even though serving at your pleasure. It seems a stroke of good luck that he now chairs your President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Recommendation #2 We repeat, with an additional sense of urgency, the recommendation in our last memorandum to you (May 1) that you appoint Gen. Brent Scowcroft, Chair of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board to head up an independent investigation into the use/abuse of intelligence on Iraq. UN Inspectors Your refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq has left the international community befuddled. Worse, it has fed suspicions that the US does not want UN inspectors in country lest they impede efforts to "plant" some "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, should efforts to find them continue to fall short. The conventional wisdom is less conspiratorial but equally unsatisfying. The cognoscenti in Washington think tanks, for example, attribute your attitude to "pique." We find neither the conspiracy nor the "pique" rationale persuasive. As we have admitted before, we are at a loss to explain the barring of UN inspectors. Barring the very people with the international mandate, the unique experience, and the credibility to undertake a serious search for such weapons defies logic. UN inspectors know Iraq, know the weaponry in question, know the Iraqi scientists/engineers who have been involved, know how the necessary materials are procured and processed; in short, have precisely the expertise required. The challenge is as daunting as it is immediate; and, clearly, the US needs all the help it can get. The lead Wall Street Journal article of April 8 had it right: "If the US doesn't make any undisputed discoveries of forbidden weapons, the failure will feed already-widespread skepticism abroad about the motives for going to war." As the events of last week show, that skepticism has now mushroomed here at home as well. Recommendation #3 We recommend that you immediately invite the UN inspectors back into Iraq. This would go a long way toward refurbishing your credibility. Equally important, it would help sort out the lessons learned for the intelligence community and be an invaluable help to an investigation of the kind we have suggested you direct Gen. Scowcroft to lead. If Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity can be of any further help to you in the days ahead, you need only ask. /s/ Ray Close, Princeton, NJ Steering Committee You mean the Moqtada al Sadr side? The side that runs the Shia death squads and the Mahdi Army? The US military has more death squads than any other faction in Iraq. Sadr at least represents the largest political group in Iraq and his father paid the ultimate price for his patriotism. The US, who represensts the interests of defense contractors and oil companies, has no national interests in this fight and if its goal was to truly bring democracy to Iraq, even through war, it should back the largest popular political group that will eventually win out. The Iraqi Shi'a will be the ruling faction because of their overwhelming majority. Embrace them, align with them, compromise with them. Otherwise expect them to be implacable foes. It is their nation, nothing except brutal mass killing can change that. Posted by: Hostile on November 27, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINKSo if half lasted more than 7 years, are we half way through? It's only 7 FUs more. Posted by: john on November 27, 2006 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINKAmid a growing barrage of front-page headlines, U.S. embassy officials "strongly suggested" President Bush's twin daughters, Jenna and Barbara Bush, cut short their trip to Buenos Aires because of security issues, U.S. diplomatic and security sources tell ABC News. But the girls have stayed on, celebrating their 25th birthday over the weekend and producing even more headlines about their activities. I believe the Bush twins will, when all is said and done, be greeted as liberators by the Argentine people, with flowers thrown at their feet. While the defeatist US Embassy officials urge them to cut and run, Jenna and Not-Jenna will stay the course, and the resistance to their occupation of the Argentine capital is merely the result of some disgruntled dead-enders. I believe the Bush twins will, when all is said and done, be greeted as liberators by the Argentine people, with flowers thrown at their feet. While the defeatist US Embassy officials urge them to cut and run, Jenna and Not-Jenna will stay the course, and the resistance to their occupation of the Argentine capital is merely the result of some disgruntled dead-enders. A gaze into the crystal ball: Reuters, Nov. 27, 2010. BUENOS AIRES. Wild celebratory gunfire by rival militias broke out in Buenos Aires tonight as the Bush twins Jenna and Barbara Bush completed their hasty evacuation of the Argentine capital, leaving behind a city in rubble and a country in the grip of an ever-widening civil war. Few would have thought, when the Bush twins first began their occupation of this city four scant years ago, how quickly or how violently the powder keg would erupt or how destabilizing a force they would be to Argentine society. Scattered anti-Jenna and anti-Barbara resistance forces -- dubbed the "anti-Gemelas" -- formed in the first few days of their occupation, gradually coalescing and launcing a series of increasingly daring and highly organized raids. Resisting early warnings from Latin American policy experts to withdraw, the twins, who following the example of their disgraced father had vowed to "stay the course," dug themselves and the 100,000 American soldiers and Marines sent to reinforce them ever deeper into the Azul Zone at this center of this once beautiful and now shattered city, venturing out only at cover of night in heavily guarded convoys to go dancing in the few remaining nightclubs.... Posted by: Stefan on November 27, 2006 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINKThe MatthewRMarlers of this world want to stay the course. Presumably, that means increasing troop levels in Iraq? Perhaps you wingnuts ought to have a look at this: http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2006/11/go_big_sure_but.html Posted by: Wonderin on November 27, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINKActually, Stephen, the Allies never recaptured Dunkirk. It surrendered, with the rest of the German army, in May 1945. The point is: the allies lost the battle but still won the war. Retreat isn't always the worst option. Posted by: Stephen on November 27, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINKWithdraw!! Retreat!! Surrender!!! Whatever--just so we lose. And blame it all on BusHitlerMcChimpyRoveCheneyHaliburton. Sincerely, The Ameican Left Posted by: nikkolai on November 27, 2006 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINKCover up!! Shift blame!! Pretend we're winning!!! Whatever--just so we don't get blamed for it. And blame it all on LibrulMediaDemocratPartyCommieHippies. Sincerely, The American Right Posted by: Wingnuttia on November 27, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINKClearly, what we need is a third way. Now, if we only had a baby to cut in half. Sincerly, No "civil war"! Go back to the euphemisms! Signed, Neo-cons and other right-wing punks Posted by: Vincent on November 27, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINKOff topic, I know, but Reuters is reporting that the U.S. Embassy in Argentina rejected the ABC News claim that it had told President George W. Bush's twin daughters to leave the country. "We have seen a report from news sources stating that embassy officials strongly suggested that President Bush's daughters curtail their visit in Argentina," the U.S. Embassy said in a written statement. "This is false. The embassy welcomes the visit and has provided close support and cooperation," the statement read. It was not immediately clear whether the twins were still in Argentina on Monday. We now return to your regularly scheduled civil war. Posted by: Bart on November 27, 2006 at 8:28 PM | PERMALINKActually, Stephen, the Allies never recaptured Dunkirk. It surrendered, with the rest of the German army, in May 1945. How is Dunkirk relevant? Does the U.S. have an ally that will help us to supply the weapons and manpower necessary to re-invade 4 years later? Captain Sensible: You support the current state of civil war and the lawless execution of innocent Iraqi citizens, all in the name of expediency and blind support for the insanity of the current regime's efforts to bleed Iraq dry. Really? I think that if you read the comments in order, you will see that I was mocking a previous interpretation of what I wrote earlier; my support for the elected government was turned into support for Moqtada al Sadr (or something, the writer was actually a little vague.) Is the "current regime" making an "effort" to "bleed Iraq dry"? The effort to bleed Iraq is made in spite of efforts to prevent Iraqi vs. Iraqi violence. KD claims that the U.S. can no longer influence events in meaningful ways. Over the weekend, U.S. forces supported the Sunni tribal leaders of al Anbar province in their combats against al Qaeda forces. That strikes me as meaningful influence. Posted by: MatthewRMarler on November 27, 2006 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINKYou still can't bring yourself to admit that that Anbar story is basically a non-event, can you, Matthew, indicative of and meaning virtually nohthing? Sigh.... As for this comment, "Isn't the "obvious" course of action for America to back one of the sides and ensure that it wins? Perhaps the elected side?" Just what is "the elected side," Matthew? Iraq has a loose coalition government, with multiple "sides." Which one do you think we should back? And if, say, we back the Shi'ite coalition against the Sunnis, aiding and abetting the current Shi'ite death squads, how do you think the Sunnis in Iraq are going to respond? And how do you think the Sunnis elsewhere in the world are going to respond? What do you think will happen to the region (and our interests) if the Shi'ite vs. Sunni conflict escalates and we are seen as playing a broader and more aggressive role than we are now? So no, I don't think the course of action you are discussing is even remotely "obvious," much less sensible. Posted by: PaulB on November 27, 2006 at 9:54 PM | PERMALINKDear little "Chuckles," our resident clown, wrote: "I'm the Cheney/Charlie who got the Bush 60 million vote prediction right in 2004" You would also be the Chuckles who, in his "analysis," insisted that the Clinton impeachment had an impact on Clinton's re-election numbers. The fact that the impeachment happened in Clinton's second term seemed to have entirely escaped your alleged mind. A truly hilarious "analysis." Posted by: PaulB on November 27, 2006 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINKSince I feel like letting everyone else have a bit of a laugh, this was the full extent of dear little Chuckles' "analysis" of the potential votes in the 2004 election: Bush got 50,456,169 votes in 2000 - I simply need 10 million more to get past 60 million. Now, let's look at the last two successful re-election numbers: Clinton got 44,909,326 in 1992 but only 3 million more in 1996: 47,401,898. That was even AFTER an impeachment (are you guys going to get one of those before November?) On the other hand, Reagan got 43,898,770 in 1980, but more than the 10 million additional votes in 1996 54,451,521. So, given the increase in voter registration since then, I guess I'd rather think we are closer to the Reagan scenario than Clinton - 60 million would certainly not be unprecedented, that's for sure - let me know why you think it will be worse than Clinton's result. The "analysis" is so clearly moronic, so clearly divorced from anything resembling thought or reason, that you just have to laugh at it, particularly since dear little Chuckles really did intend it to be taken seriously. This was his notion of deep "analysis." As you can see, not much has changed since then and dear little Chuckles is as funny as ever. Posted by: PaulB on November 27, 2006 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINKLet me get this straight. Charlie voted for Reagan in 1996? Posted by: Foundation of Mud on November 27, 2006 at 11:43 PM | PERMALINKOver the weekend, U.S. forces supported the Sunni tribal leaders of al Anbar province in their combats against al Qaeda forces. That strikes me as meaningful influence. Marler, you couldn't find your ass with two hands and a map. Here's what the Marines have to say about the current situation in Anbar. This is from TODAY: The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military's mission in Anbar province. Read the whole thing, it's horrific. Then please stop insulting the suffering of the Iraqis with your pollyannish drivel. Posted by: trex on November 28, 2006 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINKtrex: Devlin wrote that attacks on civilians rose 57 percent between February and August of this year. "Although it is likely that attack levels have peaked, the steady rise in attacks from mid-2003 to 2006 indicates a clear failure to defeat the insurgency in al-Anbar." I did not say that the insurgency had been defeated. However, most of the turning of the al Anbar tribal leaders away from al Qaeda, and their cooperation with the US and Iraqi armies has been since August. Some of the clashes between native Iraqis in al Anbar and the foreign jihadists was observed earlier in the year. "Horrific" is not a bad word in this instance. Another parallel with the American Civil War: even though the federal governtment could not suppress the rebellion, the Confederate government gradually failed to control the Appalachian regions of the seceded states. Starting in W. VA, which actually seceded from the seceded VA, down through Knoxville TN and even Northern Alabama, the locals became more independent of the Confederates, and more cooperative with the Federals. Almost as horrific as the pitched battles were the day-to-day skirmishes throughout the region -- as well as the more well-known militia vs. militia civil wars within Missouri. PUt differently, there are civil wars within the civil wars. The character of the civil war within Iraq is continually changing. Whether the Sunni nativists in al Anbar province succeed in ridding themselves of the foreign jihadists, and how that affects the larger civil war, have yet to be determined. The simple statement that the "insurgents" in al Anbar have not been defeated rather masks the complexities of the war there. If Sunni tribal leaders in al Anbar continue to request, and to receive, assistance from the largely Shi'ite army of Iraq, that's something to pay attention to. Posted by: MatthewRMarler on November 28, 2006 at 1:22 AM | PERMALINKThe bad news, as James D. Fearon of Stanford University explained to members of Congress in September, is that withdrawing American troops from Iraq will only accelerate Iraq's descent into the abyss. ...
the second half of KD's sentence contradicts the quote he approves of, since preventing a descent into the abyss is a significant influence of events. How the "obvious" next step is that America ought to leave is not made obvious. Posted by: MatthewRMarler on November 28, 2006 at 1:26 AM | PERMALINKIf Sunni tribal leaders in al Anbar continue to request, and to receive, assistance from the largely Shi'ite army of Iraq, that's something to pay attention to. ???????? On the whole they are NOT receiving assistance from the largely Shi'ite army of Iraq so they cannot continue to receive it. What planet are you posting from? The Iraqi government, dominated by Iranian-backed Shiites, has not paid salaries for Anbar officials and Iraqi forces stationed there. Anbar's resources and its ability to impose order are depicted as limited at best. Here's a picture of Ramadi for you: The 24 hours that The Times spent there was punctuated by the constant rattle of gunfire from across the city, regular explosions and the thump of mortars. US troops killed at least 11 insurgents in that short period after a Bradley was hit by an improvised explosive device (IED). An hour before we left another IED blew up beneath an Iraqi humvee 200 yards from the COP. How many different groups is that fighting for control of Ramadi and Anbar? A lot. Your hopelessly facile analysis supposes only two groups in Anbar, "good" Sunnis and "baaaaad" Al Qaeda. It's much worse than that in that it's total anarchy, with several violent groups competing for dominance and whose alliances of convenience can shift on a dime. And you can bet when the Shi'ite death squads currently cleansing Baghdad of Sunnis make their way to Ramadi, those sheikhs are going to run right back into the arms of any foreign fighters willing to help save their lives. The poverty-stricken people in Anbar being ignored by the central government aren't going to rise up and somehow save Iraq, and endlessly commenting on how "meaningful" or "interesting" or "complicated" the situation is is nothing more than useless chattering. It's apparent that you simply lack the ability to give proper weight to the information you receive; so puzzling that you chose statistics as a profession. Posted by: trex on November 28, 2006 at 2:30 AM | PERMALINK裸体图片 美女自拍 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴图 美女乳房 性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装图片 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 看免费电影 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 两性写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 美女脱衣电影 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 强奸图片 色情图片 黄色小说 黄色电影 强暴电影 乱伦图片 轮奸电影 迷奸电影 夜曲 为什么相爱的人不能在一起 约定 不得不爱 触电 秋天不回来 求佛 太美丽 发如雪 生日礼物 那年夏天 我想更懂你 手放开 香水有毒 Posted by: 手机图片 on November 28, 2006 at 5:21 AM | PERMALINKKeithG wrote: "Historically we seem to get ourselves into at least one significant military conflict each decade. We need to get the hell out of Iraq so we can stop our own degradation, heal, and prepare for what ever we face next." Unfortunately, we are unlikely to be given much respite even when we pull out of Iraq. Our experience since the end of the Cold War has been one of increasingly frequent contingencies, interventions, and wars. There is little indication that the trend is going to slow down. That's the essence of our 1-4-2-1 National Defense Strategy. Whatever plans the Defense Department has for transformation, let alone reconstitution, will have to be done on the fly while we are engaged somewhere, at some level. Contemplating the future can get damned depressing at times. If this is a civil war, then Crips v Bloods in LA is a civil war too. Order Generic drugs Buy Generic drugs without prescription You could get the following medicines at cheapest prices: attract women pheromones Prostate medication Prostate medication Prostate health Prostate health Prostate supplement Prostate supplement Prostate medicine Prostate medicine Prostate vitamin Prostate vitamin Natural sleeping aid Natural sleeping aid Natural pain relief Natural pain relief Colon cleansing Colon cleansing Colon cleanse Colon cleanse Colon cleanser Colon cleanser Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanser Natural colon cleanser Super colon cleanse Super colon cleanse Best colon cleanser Best colon cleanser Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing recipe Colon cleansing recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Prevent Hair Loss Prevent Hair loss Irritable Bowel Syndrome Irritable Bowel Syndrome Irritable Bowel Irritable Bowel Bowel Syndrome Bowel Syndrome Bowel Cleansing Bowel Cleansing Irritable Bowel Syndrone Irritable Bowel Syndrone Bowel Cleanse Bowel Cleanse Anti Wrinkle Treatment Anti Wrinkle Treatment Anti Wrinkle Cream Anti Wrinkle Cream Best Anti Wrinkle Cream Best Anti Wrinkle Cream Premature Ejaculation Cure Premature Ejaculation Cure Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Stop Premature Ejaculation Stop Premature Ejaculation Prevent Premature Ejaculation Prevent Premature Ejaculation End Premature Ejaculation End Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Pills Premature Ejaculation Pills Preventing Premature Ejaculation Preventing Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Solution Premature Ejaculation Solution Premature Ejaculation Remedy Premature Ejaculation Remedy Premature Ejackulation Premature Ejackulation Premature Ejactulation Premature Ejactulation Premature Ejeculation Premature Ejeculation Natural menopause relief Natural menopause relief Menopause treatment Menopause treatment Menopause natural remedy Menopause natural remedy Herb Menopause Herb Menopause Menopause relief Menopause relief Herbal menopause remedy Herbal menopause remedy Menopause remedy Menopause remedy Stretch mark cream Stretch mark cream Stretch mark removal Stretch mark removal Stretch mark treatment Stretch mark treatment Remove Stretch marks Remove Stretch marks Stretch mark remover Stretch mark remover Rid of Stretch marks Rid of Stretch marks How to get Rid of Stretch marks How to get Rid of Stretch marks Stretch mark prevention Stretch mark prevention Cellulite treatment Cellulite treatment Cellulite cream Cellulite cream How to get rid of cellulite How to get rid of cellulite Cellulite removal Cellulite removal Anti Cellulite Anti Cellulite Cellulite reduction Cellulite reduction Rid of cellulite Rid of cellulite Reduce cellulite Reduce cellulite Anti Cellulite Cream Anti Cellulite Cream Best Cellulite Cream Best Cellulite Cream Remove cellulite Remove cellulite Cellulite remedy Cellulite remedy Natural Cellulite remedy Natural Cellulite remedy Cellulite reducer Cellulite reducer Eliminate Cellulite Eliminate Cellulite Colon cleansing Colon cleansing Colon cleanse Colon cleanse Colon cleanser Colon cleanser Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanser Natural colon cleanser Super colon cleanse Super colon cleanse Best colon cleanser Best colon cleanser Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing recipe Colon cleansing recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanser Ultimate Colon cleanser Posted by: top on November 30, 2006 at 3:29 AM | PERMALINK 
March 2010
February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
