I was under the impression that requesting more troops would a firing offense. Maybe after the first bunch of generals were "retired", generals who wanted to continue their careers shut up.

They don't need to pass this information up the chain of command, because

A. Anyone sane already knows about it without any prompting; the insane ones (who are actually in charge) would not listen if told.

B. Passing it up the chain of command would be career suicide.

C. There are no more troops available anyway.

I wonder if we have the cause and effect of Rummy's memo wrong. Is it possible he was fired BECAUSE he wrote the memo? That would fit the pattern of Denial Boy, and explain the bizarre timing of Rummy's dismissal...

One of the biggest disappointments in this whole sad affair (except for all the dead and wounded, US and Iraqi, the irreparable harm to our interests, and other little things) is the tremendous number of career professionals, both civilian and military, who have, in the face of this chain of monumental lies and screwups, chosen to remain silent -- presumably to protect their careers and pensions. We need some damn patriots!

It is all your LIEberal's fault that we even NEED troops!

Is it possible he was fired BECAUSE he wrote the memo?
I'm with Steven. Was thinking the same thing...

More troops won't solve the problem, but building infrastructure and reducing poverty will. According to the Borgen Project, the Millennium Development Goals will not be achieved at the current rate.

It is time to say it unequivocally: We are winning in Iraq. ...[much cheering and yawping at the sky]... This doesn't mean the war couldn't still go wrong.

I don't have the book on me right now, but as I recall, in Tom Rick's book, Fiasco, the military, at least on the ground in Iraq, asked for reinforcements several times, almost always to get a resounding no in response.

(how'd that happen?)

here's that Rich Lowry article.

All of the senior generals were in mid-career during the Clinton era, and were handpicked to be groomed as generals because of their liberal ideology.

It's not surprising that they are dragging their feet about following civilian leadership, as they are required to do by the Constitution.

Damn! Now Rich Lowry is even posting as cleek?! Kevin, it's really time for comment registration.

a or b? It's probably both. I've never been in the military, but it can't be that different from how the business world works.

How many times have you been asked to do the impossible, and agreed? Sometimes you succeed and sometimes you come up short. Sure, you protest in the beginning, but when it is made clear that you are on your own, you try to do your best, and you don't complain. Eventually, the prospect of failure becomes too great to hide, even from yourself. And that's when the shit hits the fan.

The choice:

(a) they have said this and Bush has been lying all along when he said the generals were getting everything they had asked for, or (b) they haven't said this and they've been monumentally derelict in their duty. Which is it?

How about (c):

After watching General Shinseki get turned into a lame-duck by Secretary Rumsfeld, it became apparent that there was no way to communicate bad news up the chain of command past Rumsfeld to the President.

Remember this: Rumsfeld removed the direct connection between the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the President. Traditionally, the CJCS had a direct, unfiltered route to the President and could relay military information and advice to the President without having to first receive approval from the Sec Def.

Hey - I'm the REAL Rich Lowry!

Btw, the real Pale Rider said in a thread below that he was not going to post more today. So both the above are imposters.

Beware, there's been a LOT of spoofing going on here lately. Most of the people posting as "Pale Rider" "CFShep" etc are conservo-trolls.

Hey, Charlie.

How are you? Are you dead yet?

If a question has only two possible answers, and one is that Bush has been lying, it is a waste of time to pose it.

Hey, fake "Pale Rider" fuck off! You're supposed to say shoot, move, communicate. That's what makes you so cool. Motherfucker.

The post at 2:27 is another spoof.

If your purpose is to shut down commentary and drive people off this blog, forget it.

Wanna see if we can hit 700 comments? Let's see if we can hit 700 today, Charlie.

Your vain attempt at running the show is over. You're done.

Charlie, I'm warning you. I'm coming after you. We know where you live.

Seriously, Charlie. This is your last warning.

I know people at Blogger. Did I mention that? Huh? Huh? Watch out, son.

Is that enough proof?

There were two ‘plans’ for the war. There was Rumsfeld’s light force, which would come in and do the job. Clearly this assumed the country would be relatively stable. The second plan was the nation-building plan to transform the Middle East. The first plan was naive and overly optimistic, but the second plan was entirely political. One of the most salient feature of this war is how profoundly un-military it has been. It’s pretty clear that most of the folks who criticize Rumsfeld and talk troop numbers are in some way in the political nation-building camp. They don’t say the whole project was ridiculous right down to its basic assumptions; they just say it was not well executed.

This is an ideological war of political transformation and therefore the military goals are elusive. It is why Rumsfeld and the White House pay a great deal of attention to bureaucratic and popular propaganda. It is what makes the Iranians and many others ask just what Americans are doing in Iraq. It is why Seymour Hersh says US policy has been taken over by a few true believing ideologists.

To my mind it is the old imperalist cover story of civilization for the benighted peoples of the world strained through a particularly American- evangelical- vision of Cold War ideological struggles.

I'm sure there is no point in saying this, but hijacking these threads through spoofing is working like a charm. You're killing one of the best forums online with these childish antics. Congrats.

Al,

Every officer promoted to flag rank in the military in the last six years has been personaly vetted and interviewed by Don Rumsfeld. This fiction that they were liberals selected by Clinton is ridiculous.

Chief of Staff Pace is well known as a roll-over for Rumsfeld who no one thought would ever get to the JCS, let alone become Chief. This is Rumsfeld's military built for Bush. There is no one else to blame.

They're doing a really good job of convincing the gullible that they were incompetent.

When, in fact, this was all done this way, on purpose. Who wins? Crooked contractors. Oil companies. That's who. Who's our leaders? Former contractor CEO. Former oil company CEO.

It just blows me away - I'm not a genius, but even I could see this in 1999 when Bush was running for president. How can people be so stupid? Just because he SAYS he's a Christian? Fuck. I'm going to open a used-car dealership, and start telling people that God wants them to buy THIS car!

Of course, *I* said this, on the eve of the invasion. Other "America-hating Liberals" also said this.

And we were accused of armchair-quarterbacking, and that we should step back and let the professionals handle this.

... Is it possible he was fired BECAUSE he wrote the memo? ...
Posted by: Steven Jong on December 4, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

Rummy was fired because of the war-crimes charges in Germany. Bush's handlers were afraid Rummy was going to be arrested at the conference he was due to attend TWO DAYS AFTER he was fired.

What Drum (and most Americans) don't understand is that the whole "Shiite hates Sunnis" thing is a fabrication by Bush and Co.

Remember, the (Arab) Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites fought an 8 year war against Shiite Iran.

Bush and Co. are the instigators of the so-called Iraqi civil war. At least they are trying their damndest to get a civil war going. It is called "divide and rule." The British used it to great effect all over the world.

They have hired vicious thugs to kill multitudes of both Sunnis and Shiites, and dump the bodies. Then they pin the blame on the other side.

These American paid killers often torture these poor farmers just for the media SHOCK value (not to find out what seed they planted in the spring, as some claim).

The fact that so many random people are tortured (or at least reported tortured by the lying press) shows that this is all for its SHOCK and propaganda value.

Anyway, this allows the vicious Americans to claim that the people doing most of the killing (ie, the Americans) need to stay "to prevent killing/genocide/civil war."

Since Drum believes that the Shiites hate the Sunnis and vice-versa (as the lying press intends him to believe) he sees it is only natural that they would wish to kill each other. However, the reality is somewhat different.

I think the answer is really quite obvious, it is a combination of:

1. The military brass knew that requesting more troops was tantamount to insurrection in the view of Bush and Rummy and therefore not only was it career suicide, but they wouldn't get the troops anyway.

2. There aren't any more troops and the generals knew that. They can see there is no political will to increase the size of the military so they don't want to make the strain any worse than it is now. These guys are going to have to rebuild the Army and Marines after they have been destroyed by Bush and Cheney and they don't want to make that job harder.

3. Related to #2, as shineski suggested, it probably would have taken 300,000 to 500,000 troops to be able to secure Iraq and battle the 'insurgents'. There was no way they were going to get that many, and 50,000 more wouldn't help much and would just accelerate the breakdown of th military.

Kevin wrote: "There are really only two options: (a) they have said this and Bush has been lying all along when he said the generals were getting everything they had asked for, or (b) they haven't said this and they've been monumentally derelict in their duty. Which is it?"

We already know for a fact that Bush has been "lying all along" about every single aspect of the war, beginning with the deliberate, repeated, elaborate and sickening lies about the nonexistent threat from nonexistent Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction" and nonexistent "links" between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks that he used to deceive the US Congress and the American people into supporting his long-planned illegal war of unprovoked aggression against Iraq for the purpose of seizing control of Iraq's oil.

On the other hand, what the generals who have been in command since the invasion have or have not said to Bush about troop levels is unknown and a matter of speculation.

So Occam's razor suggests option (a) is the preferred answer, since it is an explanation that relies only on what we already know, does not introduce any explanatory elements that have not actually been observed and may or may not exist, and is in itself sufficient to explain what is observed.

Oh, give it a rest:

What Drum (and most Americans) don't understand is that the whole "Shiite hates Sunnis" thing is a fabrication by Bush and Co.
Remember, the (Arab) Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites fought an 8 year war against Shiite Iran.
Bush and Co. are the instigators of the so-called Iraqi civil war. At least they are trying their damndest to get a civil war going. It is called "divide and rule." The British used it to great effect all over the world.

As answered earlier, and without repeating myself this time, let me say that this is the worst kind of right-wing screed you'll probably end up seeing. This is far to the right of Ann Coulter in its denial of reality and in its lack of any, you know, "facts."

The fact is, Saddam Hussein was from Tikrit, he was a Sunni, he was mostly secular in his approach to things (any hat tip to religion was done for political calculations, not any deep religious conviction) and he went to war with Iran over territory, not religion. After the Iranian revolution, Iraq saw the opportunity to grab land.

They have hired vicious thugs to kill multitudes of both Sunnis and Shiites, and dump the bodies. Then they pin the blame on the other side.
These American paid killers often torture these poor farmers just for the media SHOCK value (not to find out what seed they planted in the spring, as some claim).

No, but thanks for playing. The "death squads" are a byproduct of organized crime, religious persecution (because there IS a civil war going on) and to say that the Bush administration is paying people to do this--no, that's not true. The Bush administration is far too inept to do much of anything--that's the problem.

The fact that so many random people are tortured (or at least reported tortured by the lying press) shows that this is all for its SHOCK and propaganda value.
Anyway, this allows the vicious Americans to claim that the people doing most of the killing (ie, the Americans) need to stay "to prevent killing/genocide/civil war."
Since Drum believes that the Shiites hate the Sunnis and vice-versa (as the lying press intends him to believe) he sees it is only natural that they would wish to kill each other. However, the reality is somewhat different.

Someone is missing their tin foil hat and their special mittens of doom.

Guess what? You're full of shit. Is that a news flash for you? Too bad.

I thought that Rumsfeld had ordered the generals not to request more troops when they talked to the President. But I don't recall when/where I read this assertion.

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
10 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush told an Iraqi power broker on Monday that the United States was not satisfied with the progress of efforts to stop the sharp escalation of violence in Iraq.

Bush met at the White House with Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the Shiite leader of the largest bloc in Iraq's parliament.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah, the damned Iraqis deserve a lecture on all the violence they allow and foment. There is a precedent for this. I remember when Truman visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki in '46 and chewed some ass for what a fucking mess the Japanese had allowed them to become.

Pale Rider wrote: The "death squads" are a byproduct of organized crime, religious persecution (because there IS a civil war going on) and to say that the Bush administration is paying people to do this--no, that's not true.

How do you know it is not true? The Reagan administration trained and funded death squads in El Salvador and Guatemala in the 1980s, death squads which murdered thousands of innocent people, and some of the same people who were involved in that, e.g. John Negreponte and Elliott Abrams, are working in the Bush administration. And I recall reading news articles in the last year or so citing sources in the Bush administration as discussing the "El Salvador option" for "pacifying" Iraq.

I don't know if it is true that the Bush administration is training and funding death squads in Iraq, or not, but it is certainly not a priori implausible, let alone "tin foil hat" stuff.

I dunno Pale. I think WorthRepeating makes some very good points.

The Bush administration is far too inept to do much of anything--that's the problem.
Posted by: Pale Rider on December 4, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

You think so? You really believe that? He was competent enough to get into office (twice). I will certainly believe that Bush, himself, is incompetent. But his handlers sure as hell are not. Look at the Usual Suspects here: Poindexter, Gates, Wolfowitz, Cheney, fucking NEGROPONTE - you think lightning strikes twice in the same place? By accident?

These people know EXACTLY what the fuck they are doing. And everything is proceeding according to plan. And now, they're all going to crawl back under the same fucking rock they hid under from Nixon to Reagan, and from Bush41 to Bush43. And in another decade or so, when the next sock-puppet gets installed in the White House, they'll crawl back out again - a parade of war-criminals and scum.

/me hi-fives SecularAnimist. . .

Steve: John McCain said that if he were president, he'd tell the Sunnis and the Shia to "stop the bullshit".

I don't know if it is true that the Bush administration is training and funding death squads in Iraq, or not, but it is certainly not a priori implausible, let alone "tin foil hat" stuff.

My larger point is--they are not behind the civil war itself. They are caught in a whirlwind they cannot control and they are not behind the chaotic killings of people for sectarian reasons.

What Iraq more closely resembles is any other conflict where 'ethnic cleansing' has been unleashed--think of the Balkans and the atrocities committed on both sides. No government or entity can control that kind of chaos.

I think pumping billions into the economy that have been used to create organized crime syndicates--and we know that this is true--is proof they are inept. I don't believe they have fifty thousand Shia militiamen on their payroll any more than I believe they have twenty thousand Sunni insurgents on their payroll. There is no inherent trust of the Americans in Iraq.

You could make the case that the Viet Cong were in the employ of the CIA--if so, how? How are you going to motivate so many people to flock to a cause?

You guys are giving the most incompetent administration in US history too much credit. They can't control what their own people say in public--how can they control anything that goes on in Iraq?

Here’s ugly truth: the Iraq disaster cannot be undone until there is REGIME CHANGE in the United States -- that is, NO SOLUTION IS POSSIBLE until BUSH AND CHENEY ARE FORCED OUT OF OFFICE.

How can any proposal or plan be taken seriously unless the authors of this monumental disaster are held to account for their false dealings and impeachable offences?

Let's face it, the current situation in Iraq can only be settled by one of two strategies: 1) massively increasing troop levels or 2) redeploying U.S. forces and allowing international forces to provide a solution.

Option 1 is a non-starter because, domestically, the Bush/Cheney regime lacks all credibility, and thus increasing U.S. troop levels would result in political upheaval. Option 2 is undoable because, internationally, the Administration lacks support as they are, correctly, associated with incompetence, bullying tactics, and dishonesty. Moreover, throughout the Arab world (and parts of Europe and Asia) Bush himself is now a lighting rod for terrorist ire and, more than just a figurehead, he is reviled more than the U.S. generally. Simply put Bush/Cheney is part and parcel of the Iraqic problem thus cannot be part of any workable solution.

To make progress the Man-Child Bush and Mad-Man Cheney must be held accountable and forced out.

But his handlers sure as hell are not.

This argument makes some sense until you factor in the fact that Cheney is clearly insane and incompetent.

There are two differences between Reagan's administration and Bush's; The scale of mendacity and failure was smaller. And there must have been someone, anyone, in Reagan's administration capable of steering them away from the precipice.

Think about it this way. What are the chances that Bush would have withdrawn from Lebanon after the Marine barracks were bombed? Exactly zero, right?

Well....either McCain is right and they need more troops....or Bush is right and they don't. Which is it?

The choice:

(a) they have said this and Bush has been lying all along when he said the generals were getting everything they had asked for, or (b) they haven't said this and they've been monumentally derelict in their duty. Which is it?

The official missions for the last couple of years have been 'force protection' and training Iraqis, not occupying Baghdad or defeating an enemy in battle. This gives them cover to say to Congress 'I have enough troops for my mission' without it being a lie. You notice they always couch it in those terms. When you ask them if they have enough troops to do anything other than that, the answer is always something akin to "Hell no".

Via Rich Lowry at The Corner? Via Ann Althouse, below? What gives?

Yeah, I'm with Gregory--

What gives with linking to the criminally insane?

What gives with linking to the criminally insane?

And why isn't anybody linking to me? I'm just as crazy as Ann.

Al,
I needed a good laugh today, and your comment provided it. Thanks!

These people know EXACTLY what the fuck they are doing. And everything is proceeding according to plan.

Excellent. Good to see the right-wing trolls have moved from "Bush planned 9/11 with the Israelis" to "The CIA invented the 7th Century Shiite/Sunni rift using time-travel devices invented in the year 2568." Kudos; nothing if not entertaining.

Pale Rider: "You could make the case that the Viet Cong were in the employ of the CIA--if so, how? "

I didn't claim anything as bizarre and without evidence as that.

I simply stated the fact that current members of the Bush administration, e.g. Elliott Abrams and John Negroponte among others, have a well-documented track record of funding, training and indeed directing death squads in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala when they served in the the Reagan administration in the 1980s, so it is, in my opinion, entirely plausible that they and others in the present-day Bush administration might well be doing the same thing in Iraq today.

'The Salvador Option':
The Pentagon May Put Special-Forces-led Assassination or Kidnapping Teams in Iraq
by Michael Hirsh and John Barry
January 9, 2005
Newsweek

Excerpt:

What to do about the deepening quagmire of Iraq? The Pentagon’s latest approach is being called "the Salvador option" —- and the fact that it is being discussed at all is a measure of just how worried Donald Rumsfeld really is. "What everyone agrees is that we can’t just go on as we are," one senior military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing." Last November’s operation in Fallujah, most analysts agree, succeeded less in breaking "the back" of the insurgency -— as Marine Gen. John Sattler optimistically declared at the time —- than in spreading it out.

Now, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success—despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal. (Among the current administration officials who dealt with Central America back then is John Negroponte, who is today the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Under Reagan, he was ambassador to Honduras.)

Following that model, one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions. It remains unclear, however, whether this would be a policy of assassination or so-called "snatch" operations, in which the targets are sent to secret facilities for interrogation. The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries, officials tell NEWSWEEK.

One thing striking about the Newsweek article that I excerpted above is, aside from demonstrating that the idea of US-funded and directed death squads in Iraq is entirely plausible, that with regard to the original topic of this thread, a "senior military officer" was telling Newsweek's reporters almost TWO YEARS AGO that "everyone agrees ... we can’t just go on as we are" and "we are losing."

Thus, I still choose option A. Bush is lying, and has been lying all along.

They are caught in a whirlwind they cannot control and they are not behind the chaotic killings of people for sectarian reasons.
Posted by: Pale Rider on December 4, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

They don't have to control it. They only had to START it.

What Iraq more closely resembles is any other conflict where 'ethnic cleansing' has been unleashed--think of the Balkans and the atrocities committed on both sides. No government or entity can control that kind of chaos.

The key words here: "has been unleashed"

You are correct. No government or entity can control that kind of chaos. That was why it was started. Think of WHO benefits from the chaos.

I think pumping billions into the economy that have been used to create organized crime syndicates--and we know that this is true--is proof they are inept.

??? how so? This is proof that they are competent; at creating organized crime syndicates. Because that is what they are: An Organized Crime Syndicate! These folks can always protect themselves. If other people get killed? Oh well.

I don't believe they have fifty thousand Shia militiamen on their payroll any more than I believe they have twenty thousand Sunni insurgents on their payroll.

They don't NEED to pay them. All they need to do is stage a few provocations. Hell, they probably didn't need to do much. The rest followed like water flowing downhill. It's the False Flag operation that has been Rove's signature since the days of his work in the Nixon campaign. (I'm not saying that he invented it, and I'm not saying that he *personally* is involved in this one; I'm just saying that it is one of the clubs they carry in their golf bag, and one that they use frequently).

There is no inherent trust of the Americans in Iraq.

You're saying Chalabi didn't trust us?

And also - folks like Sadr can be trusted to NOT trust us, which makes him predictable in a certain way, which makes him useful.

You could make the case that the Viet Cong were in the employ of the CIA--if so, how?

I wouldn't make that particular case. But HOW? Through fear. Indiscriminate US bombing campaigns motivated far more Viet Cong than any Marxist propaganda ever did. US-Trained South Vietnamese death-squads also played a motivating role.

The same story with the Central and South American conflicts of the 1980's.

How are you going to motivate so many people to flock to a cause?

The same thing that has ever motivated people to a cause. Fear.

Well....either McCain is right and they need more troops....or Bush is right and they don't. Which is it?
Posted by: Spock on December 4, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

Neither. Thanks for playing "hide the False Dilemma Fallacy" - by the way, you totally suck at it.

SecularAnimist:
Thanks for the article. It's also probably worth noting that the CIA trained "death squads" during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the early 1980's.

After the Soviet pullout, these death squads organized in a group that called itself "Al Qaeda".

On September 11, 2001, this same group attacked the United States of America in a simultaneous coordinated hijacking of 4 airliners, crashing two of them into the World Trade Center buildings, and one into the Pentagon, and a fourth failed to reach any target, crashing into an empty field in Pennsilvania.

One wonders what mischief this current group of death squads in Iraq is going to pull off 20 years from now. . . and who we're going to blame.

.. . Do you think less troops can do the job?
Posted by: Spock on December 4, 2006 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

Precisely WHAT job are you talking about? I can't answer your question if you use vague and imprecise terms. "Moving the goalposts" is why we're even talking about this topic right now.

"Moving the goalposts" is why we're even talking about this topic right now.

So, where would you move the goalposts then?

ircpj and others,

What is certain is that fomenting chaos in Iraq, and elsewhere in the ME, has been a key objective of the Bush Administration.

Daniel Pipes has said that civil war in Iraq would be useful, in that it would drag in Iran and Syria and thereby weaken them.

And from prisonplanet.com: "Stephen Zunes, professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco, recently wrote,

'Top analysts in the CIA and State Department, as well as large numbers of Middle East experts, warned that a U.S. invasion of Iraq could result in a violent ethnic and sectarian conflict. Even some of the war's intellectual architects acknowledged as much: In a 1997 paper, prior to becoming major figures in the Bush foreign policy team, David Wurmser, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith predicted that a post-Saddam Iraq would likely be "ripped apart" by sectarianism and other cleavages but called on the United States to "expedite" such a collapse anyway.

One of the long-standing goals of such neoconservative intellectuals has been to see the Middle East broken up into smaller ethnic or sectarian mini-states, which would include not only large stateless nationalities like the Kurds, but Maronite Christians, Druze, Arab Shi'ites, and others. Such a policy comes not out of respect for the right of self-determination – indeed, the neocons have been steadfast opponents of the Palestinians' desire for statehood, even alongside a secure Israel – but out of an imperial quest for divide-and-rule. The division of the Middle East has long been seen as a means of countering the threat of pan-Arab nationalism and, more recently, pan-Islamist movements.'

And Spock, the "job" can't be done, so it's irrelevant to keep asking about more troops or fewer troops.

Spock, your logic is faulty.

You're leaving out choices C and D in your false construct:

C) Significantly more than 20,000 additional troops are needed in Iraq, or

D) Even if it instituted a draft, the US couldn't send enough troops to secure Iraq at this point.

Remember, McCain has been quite specific; a 15% increase troop levels is all that is standing in the way of a US victory.

It's not clear whether the military made its frustrations known to the White House. Generals tend to salute and say can-do; if anything, the military has not been accurately portraying the dismal events on the ground, at least in the eyes of some White House aides. But with Donald Rumsfeld's departure, the Pentagon is entering a new era of leadership, in hopes it will be one in which the uniformed brass and their civilian bosses will communicate better.

OH, I SEE, it's not Bush's fault, it's his stupid generals, the press didn't lie about the state of war in Iraq, it was those damn "can-do" generals that did, shame on those "yes-man" generals that Bush surround himself with that is the cause of the war to be lost, those which are now about to be fired, retired, whatever, just as long buck never stops at the "Deciders".

So are we now being told that Bush is finally taking an “assessment” of his war in Iraq and found the generals to have been lying all this time. Jeebus, I'm not sure who wrote that shit analyst in Newsweek, but it nothing but BS, someone who can't find facts, thus reports complete bullshit. A so-called journalist that took a page of Bush's playbook, "just make shit up".

Republican pundits are running out of scapegoats and getting completely stupid now.

I vote it's Bush and Cheney's fault. Dan Froomkin writes that Bush's agenda is falling apart and it sure has that appearance to it, that Bush's war is doing exactly that, falling apart in spades. An "Alice in Wonderland" the head trip presidency.

Oh, and Michael Duffy (Whitehouse damage control specialist man that he is,) writes that the "Decider" has a long time habit of just simply reversing course, as if this were somehow, an admirable feature of little Bushie, instead of the pure fact that it proves that Bush is a complete imbecile, that Bush never knew WTF he was doing the entire time he's been alive on this earth.

So, where would you move the goalposts then?
Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on December 4, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

Excellent question. What are our goals? Here, let's make it a multiple-choice question:

[ ] A. Establish peace and security in Iraq, allowing people to work, an economy to function, prosperity to thrive, giving people something better to do than killing eachother, like building a new Iraq, educating its people, so they can contemplate with honesty, the role that Democracy can play in their society, and in the future, throughout the Middle East.

[ ] B. Keep the Green Zone intact long enough to ride out the last years of the Bush Administration so that every time the Iraq war policy is questioned, Malarki can be trotted out like the trained poodle he is, and he can wag his purple finger at us freedom-hating liberals. What happens after that isn't Bush's problem, but whatever it is, it will probably be very profitable for Halliburton, Bechtel, BPAmoco, and ExxonMobil.

[ ] C. Let nature take its course.

I reckon Option A will take, conservatively, about 1 to 1.5 million troops; to secure the borders, sweep the urban areas, disarm the militias by force, and keep the peace for a period of 5-10 years while Iraqis rebuild their country using money grants from the US and other countries. Had we pursued this goal from the start, maybe it would only have taken 500k troops. Plus we would have had to NOT disband the Iraqi army.

I reckon Option B will take - oh, just ask George W Bush. He's the expert.

Option C is; well, we can bring em home now then.

I simply stated the fact that current members of the Bush administration, e.g. Elliott Abrams and John Negroponte among others, have a well-documented track record of funding, training and indeed directing death squads in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala when they served in the the Reagan administration in the 1980s, so it is, in my opinion, entirely plausible that they and others in the present-day Bush administration might well be doing the same thing in Iraq today.

I dunno SA; I'm not seeing the benefit for the administration. I know that the prolonging the "War on Terror" has a benefit for them, but undermining our own invasion of Iraq? It seems a bit baroque even for these guys.

And while you're right that death squads did operate in South and Central America (and Afghanistan), we didn't have any alrge scale military operations going in those regions. So while I would in no way argue that the current administration would be opposed to death squads, I don't see how having death squads in a theatre that we're trying to pacify helps the administration.

...out of an imperial quest for divide-and-rule.

Yes, of course. Throw in a touch of machismo, a pinch of 9/11, a dash of Rovian over-reaching, and enough delusions of grandeur to feed an army, and you have one hell of a recipe for disaster.

They never-fully articulated, even internally, what this was really all about. They wanted it all and were so delusional that they believed their own rhetoric. That is why incompetence, rather than mendacity, is their defining characteristic.

Novak writes this about McCain:

If not able to secure an Atlanta-style victory, could Bush stabilize the situation in Iraq by sending in more troops? Sen. John McCain, the putative front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, once again has gone against the body of opinion in the party by calling for more U.S. troops in Iraq. Sen. Chuck Hagel, second-ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a McCain supporter in 2000, wrote in The Post on Nov. 26: "The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq."

The Hadley memo is quite clear that there is still a 'four-brigade deficit' in Baghdad, i.e. a gap of four brigades between what Maliki promised and what he delivered. It is because of this gap that US withdrawal from Anbar is now on the table as a means to backfill the forces in Baghdad.

The interesting question is why this gap has persisted for so many months in light of the realization by US generals that it undermined the mission in Baghdad.

Our generals are fed up with Maliki? BFD. We're fed up with Bush and Cheney, but think they're gonna step down in January? I think not.

Excellent. Good to see the right-wing trolls have moved from "Bush planned 9/11 with the Israelis" to "The CIA invented the 7th Century Shiite/Sunni rift using time-travel devices invented in the year 2568." Kudos; nothing if not entertaining.

That's the comment of the day.

ircpj,

Well, I probably do suck at this--one question, though.

Evidence? Evidence of the administration doing all these things, please? Can you post it?

I think we have over three years of evidence that they do chaos, instability and incompetence; I don't see any evidence that backs up what you and SA are saying, other than an article about the evil shit they did in the 1980s.

So while I would in no way argue that the current administration would be opposed to death squads, I don't see how having death squads in a theatre that we're trying to pacify helps the administration.

Now, regional stability so they can steal all the oil--I'd buy that.

Problem is, there is no regional stability, so the one thing we know they want--Iraq's oil reserves open to investment and control by US oil companies--that ain't happening when we're "supposedly" spending money to finance death squads.

Now, besides oil, what else does Iraq have? Are we going to foment death squads and instability so we can corner the world market on Benzite or something?

Spock wrote: "So if Bush is lying, then McCain is right about needing more troops?"

McCain is bullshitting, just as much as Bush is bullshitting. He's posturing for the 2008 campaign, so he can run on "I was tough while everyone else was weak, if they'd listened to me then we would have won."

Is he "right"? He's not even wrong. There are no more troops to send, and the US military can barely maintain current troop levels while rapidly and grievously degrading the entire military to do so. When McCain starts talking about instituting a military draft, sending a hundred thousand middle and upper class college kids to Iraq, and raising taxes so that he can spend hundreds of billions of dollars more on Iraq than the Bush administration is already spending, then he's getting serious about his "send more troops" shtick.

Besides which, in my opinion, sending more troops won't accomplish anything at all, even if it were possible. The US had half a million troops in Vietnam at the peak of that war, and the only result was to pointlessly kill tens of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese before withdrawing in 1974 with the same outcome that would have occurred if we had withdrawn in 1968.

I support complete withdrawal of all American troops, to begin immediately and to be completed as quickly as possible, within a few months at the most, concurrent with the impeachment, removal from office, indictment, prosecution and conviction of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for war crimes, crimes against humanity and treason.

I support complete withdrawal of all American troops, to begin immediately and to be completed as quickly as possible, within a few months at the most, concurrent with the impeachment, removal from office, indictment, prosecution and conviction of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for war crimes, crimes against humanity and treason.

Let's have the trial; I don't prejudge whether there will be a conviction, though. I'll make up my mind when I see some evidence.

I'm kinda nutty that way,

Pale Rider: "Are we going to foment death squads and instability so we can corner the world market on Benzite or something?"

Others have suggested that the Bush administration would organize, fund and direct Iraqi death squads for the purpose of "fomenting instability" but I have not.

I think the purpose of US-backed Iraqi death squads would be to kill, kidnap, torture and otherwise terrorize people who are hostile to the US presence and/or supportive of the Sunni insurgency.

Certainly "chaos" might well result from supporting death squads, but I don't think that is or was the intention. I think the intention was exactly as stated by the sources who talked to Newsweek two years ago: to use death-squad terror tactics against Iraqi civilians to put down the Sunni opposition.

Note that the January 2005 article from Newsweek that I excerpted above had this to say:

... one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers ... One military source involved in the Pentagon debate ... suggests that new offensive operations are needed that would create a fear of aiding the insurgency. "The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists," he said. "From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation."

This is virtually identical to what the US-backed death squads in El Salvador did in the 1980s: they targeted civilians who were supportive of the anti-government insurgency, with murders, kidnappings ("disappearances") and torture.

And when the US Congress finally cut off funding for the US-backed state-terrorist war in El Salvador, what happened? Did the ongoing US-backed bloodbath explode into something much worse? No, what happened was that the US-backed government immediately entered into peace negotiations with the rebel opposition, and in a fairly short time the conflict moved from war into the political arena.

We need to get out now and let the people of Iraq determine their own destiny by whatever means they choose. It may be far less bloody than the conventional wisdom expects, I think it is unlikely to be worse than what is already going on, and in any case the US invasion and occupation of Iraq was and is a crime and we as a nation have no right to continue to impose it on the people of Iraq, particularly when every poll shows that an overwhelming majority of Iraqis believe it is doing more harm than good and want us to leave.

With the resignations of Rumsfeld and Bolton we can imagine that our system of government works, but just barely.

D) Even if it instituted a draft, the US couldn't send enough troops to secure Iraq at this point.
Posted by: Dwight on December 4, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

I disagree. It's a matter of commitment. We could do it. But we'd need a draft. We'd need at least 2 years to train and equip them. And we'd need to radically shift-gears to a wartime economy.

And to do that - we have to convince a fast-food-nation that War isn't something you can pick up at the drive-thru (and put on your credit-card). And we have to convince an H2-nation that cheap gasoline is not a good enough reason to resort to violence.

Now - maybe I'm mistaking the patience and goodwill of my countrymen, but I think that as soon as they're faced with the REAL consequences of this war (having been lied to about them for 4 years), their opinions will shift, and we'll start hearing more voices in favor of withdrawl. And then, our spineless politicians will be forced to do one of two things. LEAD, or GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY (of the stampede for the exit door).

I dunno SA; I'm not seeing the benefit for the administration.Posted by: cyntax on December 4, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

The benefit is not for the administration. The benefit is for the folks pulling the administration's strings. The benefit the administration gets is; lots of cushy speaking engagements, think tank jobs, executive spots or BOD spots at large corporations who benefitted during their administration. Please tell me that after all this, you are not still ignorant of how the circle jerk works.

I know that the prolonging the "War on Terror" has a benefit for them,

Just to get elected. That's all.

. . . I don't see how having death squads in a theatre that we're trying to pacify helps the administration.

Our argument is that they're trying to sucker the American People (and Congress) into *believing* they're trying to pacify the theatre. When, in fact, the more chaos there is, the longer Halliburton gets to scam us, and the longer Iraqi Oil is kept off the market, which coincidentally, boosts ExxonMobil's profit margin as well. The "speculators" drive the cost of a barrel of oil up. Who gets the difference in price? And who gets to shave a percentage off as profit? The higher the price, the larger their profit. They pass on the INCREASE to you and me at the pump.

Well, I probably do suck at this--one question, though.Posted by: Pale Rider on December 4, 2006 at 5:53 PM | PERMALINK

That comment was directed at Spock - who was trying to sneak in a False Dilemma by asking if Bush or McCain was wrong about # of troops.

Evidence? Evidence of the administration doing all these things, please? Can you post it?

If I had a Top Secret Clearance, maybe I'd be privvy to that Evidence.

For me - the Evidence is: How could someone be so completely utterly fucking stupid? Incompetence is a convenient excuse. The fact that guys like Cheney have Masters degrees from Ivy League schools, and have been in and out of government and corporate boardrooms for 40+ years, and he wasn't smart enough to know the difference between Shia and Sunni? Please. That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. It's insulting. I can't even believe Bush is actually that stupid. For christ's sake, he and his family have been in business with Arab oil interests for 60+ years. Tell me another fairy tale mommy!

Al: "All of the senior generals were in mid-career during the Clinton era, and were handpicked to be groomed as generals because of their liberal ideology."

Liberal generals: curse of a nation!

Now, besides oil, what else does Iraq have? Are we going to foment death squads and instability so we can corner the world market on Benzite or something?

Not Benzite, Burkhas! Oh wait, that was Afghanistan.

Hmmm... wsn't Democracy supposed to be marching out of Iraq and off across the Middle East or something like that? Gawd, you know it's a mess when we can't even come up with a sinister plot that will hold water. I mean the idiocy and incompetence really trumps everything else.

Worst administration ever.

The fact that guys like Cheney have Masters degrees from Ivy League schools, and have been in and out of government and corporate boardrooms for 40+ years, and he wasn't smart enough to know the difference between Shia and Sunni?

I can't speak to the Ivy league schools, but you surely aren't arguing that it takes smarts to be a congressman? I think the 109th blows that theory out of the water. Also, have you ever worked in a corporation? Stupidity is a major requirement.

Pale Rider: Let's have the trial; I don't prejudge whether there will be a conviction, though. I'll make up my mind when I see some evidence.

All the evidence I need to see is in the public domain: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and other principals of the Bush administration repeatedly and deliberately lied to the American people and the United States Congress, not to mention the United Nations Security Council and the entire world, about what they knew at the time to be a nonexistent threat from nonexistent Iraqi "WMD" in order to justify a war of unprovoked aggression against Iraq which they had planned from the inception of the Bush adminstration, and indeed for years before that.

Remember, Bush and Cheney continued these lies long after the UN inspectors had been on the ground in Iraq for months and were reporting that no "stockpiles" of WMD nor programs to develop them could be found, and were stating that in a matter of weeks they would be able to definitively report that no such stockpiles or programs existed.

And remember, that Bush later said in an interview that he chose to invade Iraq because Saddam refused to allow the UN inspectors into Iraq.

Bush and Cheney are the most vile and despicable liars to ever hold public office in the United States of America. Their lies are directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans and the deaths of tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of innocent Iraqi civilians, the the mutilation and impoverishment of many, many thousands more.

Impeach, indict, prosecute, convict, imprison.

Pale Rider: Let's have the trial; I don't prejudge whether there will be a conviction, though. I'll make up my mind when I see some evidence. I'm kinda nutty that way.

That's not nutty, just quaint. In light of the New Reality though, we should just declare them enemy combatants and have them "disappear". Maybe they'll like the Cuban climate.

For me - the Evidence is: How could someone be so completely utterly fucking stupid? Incompetence is a convenient excuse. The fact that guys like Cheney have Masters degrees from Ivy League schools, and have been in and out of government and corporate boardrooms for 40+ years, and he wasn't smart enough to know the difference between Shia and Sunni? Please. That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. It's insulting. I can't even believe Bush is actually that stupid. For christ's sake, he and his family have been in business with Arab oil interests for 60+ years. Tell me another fairy tale mommy!

Speaking as someone who has two Ivy League degrees, and who works in law and finance with many other people with advanced business and law degrees from Ivy League universities, I can assure you it is indeed quite possible that someone with those credentials can be ignorant of the difference between Shia and Sunni. Most of these people are interested in one thing -- making money and acquiring power. Any facts that don't directly affect that don't really seep into their brains.

And by the way, it was Bush, not Cheney, who was ignorant of the difference between Sunni and Shia. And Bush didn't have an MBA from Harvard and a career in business because he was smart -- he had it because of his daddy.

Smock: "George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and other principals of the Bush administration repeatedly and deliberately lied? So did Clinton, Albright, etc.?"

Hmmm, half-million war dead vs. blowjob — let me get back to you on that/

Our argument is that they're trying to sucker the American People (and Congress) into *believing* they're trying to pacify the theatre. When, in fact, the more chaos there is, the longer Halliburton gets to scam us, and the longer Iraqi Oil is kept off the market, which coincidentally, boosts ExxonMobil's profit margin as well. The "speculators" drive the cost of a barrel of oil up. Who gets the difference in price? And who gets to shave a percentage off as profit? The higher the price, the larger their profit. They pass on the INCREASE to you and me at the pump.

Maybe. But Haliburton bailed right? So even if they screwed it up on purpose, it seems to have gotten out of hand even by that logic. And I don't find that logic all that compelling. Would Haliburton have made more money from the 3 or so years it was there as oppposed to if we had pacified the country and been able to provide a stable environment that they could over-charge in for years to come?

As to Bush being smart, he got into those Ivy League schools because of GHWB; same with all his "business" experience. If it wasn't for his daddy's contacts, he never would have got beyond mid-management, let alone been given millions of dollars in stake money for oil prospecting.

You say that their incompetence is a fairy tale, but keep in mind that elaborate conspiracy theories can be characterized the same way: they provide an organizing principle to what seem random or incomprehensible events. In such a way there's a sense of stability, even if it's found in opposing the organizing principle. Just sayin.

The U.S. Congress has the responsibility to follow up on all important executive actions for the purpose, among other purposes, of determining whether they have been told the truth by the executive branch.

In the case of Iraq, the Democrats certainly need to add a good number of military officers and enlisted men to what should be some pretty long list of testifiers. Military oversight has been neglected as badly as any other area under the Republican Congress.

Let’s see what the military personnel have to say under oath before the Congress. I believe that 99.99 percent of them will be truthful, unlike, say Oliver North.

Clinton, Albright never promoted an invasion of Iraq. That's kind of major distinction. Besides, believing bad intelligence is not the same thing as creating it. Case closed.

And by the way, it was Bush, not Cheney, who was ignorant of the difference between Sunni and Shia.
Posted by: Stefan on December 4, 2006 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK

So you're telling me, that Cheney never talked to Bush about it? Or any one of the other so-called middle-east experts, consultants, and cabinet posts didn't think to say something? Come on. You can't be THAT gullible.

This is a CON JOB.

It was a con job from day one.

But Haliburton bailed right?Posted by: cyntax on December 4, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

From a couple of their contracts, yes. But they're still very lucratively working supply and logistics contracts.

Would Haliburton have made more money from the 3 or so years it was there as oppposed to if we had pacified the country and been able to provide a stable environment that they could over-charge in for years to come?

You're forgetting the oil market manipulation.

Remember when Enron manipulated the electricity market in California in 2000, by taking capacity off the grid? Remember when Bush stood by and said "let the market fix this problem"?

but keep in mind that elaborate conspiracy theories can be characterized the same way: they provide an organizing principle to what seem random or incomprehensible events.
Posted by: cyntax on December 4, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

It does not have to be a "consipracy". Wouldn't you like to see those "Secret Energy Policy Meeting" minutes that Cheney has so jealously guarded under "Executive Privilege"? I don't think he kept them secret to hide the fact that they just sat around playing xbox.

No, Kenji, I was asking SecularAnimist if he / she thinks that Clinton, Albright, etc. lied about Saddam.
Posted by: Spock on December 4, 2006 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

Ew, Spock. Nobody wants to see that. Go do that stuff in private. Didn't your parents teach you any common decency?

Bush and Cheney are the most vile and despicable liars to ever hold public office in the United States of America.
No arguement here.

Let’s see what the military personnel have to say under oath before the Congress. I believe that 99.99 percent of them will be truthful, unlike, say Oliver North.
Good point. The wingnuts would probably be surprised to know that most Marines (particularly the officers) did not like it when he stood up before Congress in uniform and testified about things he did when not in uniform. Lying to Congress? Not part of the oath you take when you join.

Rumsfeld's parting words to Bush: "And I know, with certainty, that over time the contributions you've made will be recorded by history."

The fact that guys like Cheney have Masters degrees

I thought Cheney dropped out of an ivy league school as he was flunking out, never to return.

You're forgetting the oil market manipulation.

Remember when Enron manipulated the electricity market in California in 2000, by taking capacity off the grid? Remember when Bush stood by and said "let the market fix this problem"?

There is that, but I'm just not convinced that couldn't make more money from a pacified but dependent Iraq. And even if this had gone swimmingly, I don't think Iraq would have been able to strike out on their own for quite some time, so that's where the golden goose scenario really could've gotten legs (to mix metaphors shamelessly).

Wouldn't you like to see those "Secret Energy Policy Meeting" minutes that Cheney has so jealously guarded under "Executive Privilege"? I don't think he kept them secret to hide the fact that they just sat around playing xbox.

I'm still hoping those will come out eventually; it's never a good sign when you invite the major beneficiaries of a policy to participate in writing it and then keep their input secret.

Don't forget to shoot, move, communicate.

but I'm just not convinced that couldn't make more money from a pacified but dependent Iraq

Eh? What happens when you increase the supply of oil on the market? Price goes down, oil glut, oil companies get assraped. Example: Houston economy in the toilet 1980-1985:

http://travel2.nytimes.com/2004/07/15/travel/NYT_ALMANAC_US_TEXAS.html?ex=1165381200&en=350a31c96f764e70&ei=5070
(read the last paragraph on this page)

http://www.pipingtech.com/history/intro03.htm

And then, this little ditty:
http://www.dallasfed.org/research/houston/1998/hb9808.html

November 1998 Vibrant retail and auto sales and soaring housing starts continue to belie a slowdown in Houston's economy. The slowdown is not a mirage, however, as many Houston companies are struggling with a worldwide oil glut, local employment growth has slipped to a 1.5 percent annual rate over the past six months, and preliminary figures show the Houston Purchasing Managers Index falling to 46.7 in November. Further weakness probably lies ahead, both for oil markets and the Houston economy.

These guys SAW IT COMING in 1998 - and decided to act.

So you're telling me, that Cheney never talked to Bush about it? Or any one of the other so-called middle-east experts, consultants, and cabinet posts didn't think to say something? Come on. You can't be THAT gullible.

Sure, they may have. But he didn't know it before they told him. And even when they told him, it only sunk in on a surface level, not with any deep understanding. Bush has only a third-rate mind -- the reason he speaks in slogans and cliches is that that's how he thinks.

It isn't a case of gullibility, but of experience -- I know lots of people, many in quite advanced positions in business and public affairs, who are appallingly ignorant of things you or I would consider basic knowledge. Don't assume that because someone has gotten ahead that it's proof of intelligence, or even of basic competence -- it may simply be a case of being in the right place at the right time, or of having one particular skill that's valuable.

Pale wRiter said: "I don't believe they have fifty thousand Shia militiamen on their payroll any more than I believe they have twenty thousand Sunni insurgents on their payroll."

This is the sort of LIE Pale wRiter and his buddies usually make,... because you also get led down the garden path,...

The "fifty thousand" is clearly BS.

The truth is you only need a handful of vicious American paid thugs (the Israelis would probably do this for free) who are protected from arrest by the American paid thugs in the "Iraqi government."

Spock wrote: "No, Kenji, I was asking SecularAnimist if he / she thinks that Clinton, Albright, etc. lied about Saddam."

What specific statements by Clinton and Albright concern you?

Was it when Clinton cited a report by the IAEA that Iraq was only six months away from having a nuclear weapon -- a report that not only made no such assertion, but didn't even exist?

Ooops, no that was George W. Bush.

Was it when Albright said that Iraqi intelligence agents had met with 9/11 conspirator Mohammed Atta in Prague -- at a time when the CIA knew for a fact that Atta was not in Prague, but in the USA?

Ooops, no that was Dick Cheney.

Was it when Bill Clinton said that Iraq had purchased aluminum tubes that could only be used for enriching uranium to make nuclear weapons, when in fact he was well aware that US DOE experts had said the tubes were entirely unsuitable for that purpose and were clearly for manufacturing short-range conventional artillery rockets?

Ooops, no that was Condoleeza Rice.

Was it when Albright told the United Nations Security Council that the US had irrefutable evidence of Iraq's "mobile chemical weapons factories" when in fact the experts had already established that they were for the purpose of filling lighter-than-air balloons?

Ooops, no that was Colin Powell.

Was it when Bill Clinton told the American people that he knew where Saddam's "stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction" were hidden?

Ooops, no that was Donald Rumsfeld.

Was it when Bill Clinton told the press that Saddam had refused to allow the UN inspectors into Iraq before the invasion, and that the US had "found" the WMD -- even though the UN inspectors were in Iraq for months before the invasion and the Iraqi government was destroying its own missiles at the inspectors' command, and even though the US's own inspection team had concluded that there were no WMD or WMD programs and had not been any for years before the invasion?

Ooops, no that was George W. Bush again.

The list of specific lies by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell and other principals of the Bush administration about what they knew at the time to be nonexistent "threats" from nonexistent "Iraqi WMD" and nonexistent "links between Saddam Hussein and 9/11" goes on and on and on.

What specific statements by Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright are you concerned about?

Or are you just another brain-dead, ignorant dumbass dittohead with irreversible brain damage from watching Fox News all the time who can barely mumble "It's Clinton's fault" when he takes the occasional break from sucking his thumb?

Suckular Analist, you need to pay attention more. DB already posted this on the other thread:

________

LARRY KING: Mr. President?

BILL CLINTON: I think that our policy to change regimes is a good one. We should support a new regime in Iraq. And I think we should try the arms inspection one more time, because I think we also have big long-term benefits in cooperation with our allies through the United Nations.

I don't think it will be a great military problem if we do it. You know, our guys did great there the last time, in the Gulf War. We're stronger, and he's weaker than he was then.

The security challenge will be, you can't surprise him. You've got to move a lot of people in. And if he has chemical and biological agents, and I believe he does, he would have no incentive not to use them then, if he knew he was going to be killed anyway and deposed. He's got a lot of incentive not to use them now because he knows he'll be toast if he does.

So I think the question is not whether he should go, but how, and under what circumstances.
_____________________

Bill Clinton: "I believe he has chemical and biological agents"

-- I know lots of people, many in quite advanced positions in business and public affairs, who are appallingly ignorant of things you or I would consider basic knowledge.
Posted by: Stefan on December 4, 2006 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

Well, chalk one up for PUBLIC EDUCATION then, because I remember a discussion we had in 1979, in my Social Studies class, in secondary school (Jr. High), on the differences between Shiites and Sunnis, and Persians and Arabs - during the Iranian Revolution. I was what - 13? Same age as my son is now. (who - I assure you, knows the difference).

You're telling me that among all these high-powered mucketymucks and their caterwauling sycophants, representing probably HUNDREDS of man-years of direct US foreign policy experience, not ONE of them spoke up?

That is simply unbelievable. No, really. I don't believe it. The conspiracy theory is a simpler explanation. Given that it matches a pattern we've seen in the past. Many, many times.

I continue to believe that monkeys might fly out of my asshole, but there are some who tell me that might not happen. Let's impeach this cocksucker and get it over with. He is a freaking idiot. December 10th is National Impeachment Day - let's march on the White House and get this retard out of there, pronto!

I'm not sure that a conspiracy involving oil manipulation conflicts with the apparent ignorance of GWB.

Some cretin stole Pale Rider's handle to write: "Suckular Analist ..."

You are an ignorant, dumbass, snivelling, cowardly little puke, using someone else's handle to publicly embarrass yourself with your abject stupidity.

ircpj,

Honestly we could go round and round on this all day and I'd still be skeptical. I think for me Occam's razor cuts through the issue at one angle and for you another.

Take that, Pale Rider!

You are an ignorant, dumbass, snivelling, cowardly little puke, using someone else's handle to publicly embarrass yourself with your abject stupidity.
Posted by: SecularAnimist

Yeah, but he's impressing the hell out himself with his pithy wit.

I'm not sure that a conspiracy involving oil manipulation conflicts with the apparent ignorance of GWB.
Posted by: jackohearts on December 4, 2006 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not saying GWB is not incompetent. He was probably chosen to be the Sock Puppet BECAUSE he's incompetent (because that's a convenient excuse. Just like it was convenient to speculate that Reagan was having Alzhiemers attacks and getting old and sleepy and senile, when he should have known about all the Iran Contra stuff going down - just like it was convenient to blame all the Enron scamming on a sneaky underling; that Ken Lay couldn't possibly have known about, even though he was The Supreme Leader, entirely deserving of his tens of millions in bonuses).

Yes, an apparently (or actually) incompetent figurehead is necessary as a scapegoat, when pulling off these kinds of heists in plain view.

The best part is - nobody can believe that it's actually happening. And you can scam them over and over and over again, decade after decade. And if you torture or kill a few brown-skinned people along the way, you'll get the redneck vote.

I would have thought that it was obvious to all sentinent beings that no amount of US or western troops are enough for Iraq.

This is one of the best blogs and I appreciate the intelligent discourse. I deplore this policy of democracy at gun point, the outrages on human dignity, the lies...even Sandra Day O'Connor warned of dictatorship. How about how 415 historians surveyed by the non-partison History News Network calling the policy " a failure."

"Puke" - that's a funny word. Secular Animist, you are soooo witty.

Clinton's SecDef: "I have a picture which I believe CNN can show on its cameras, but here's a picture taken of an Iraqi mother and child killed by Iraqi nerve gas. This is what I would call Madonna and child Saddam Hussein-style."

Wow. I had forgotten about that. And about the bag of Anthrax that could kill half of DC. Thanks for reminding me, Spock.

John Bolton resigned today, and that was one more pillar holding up Charlie's fantasy world that has come unceremoniously crashing down.

Think about what he has to contend with: a lame-duck president who's been an utter and abject failure and is a complete laughingstock; a vice president so reviled he can't even show his snarling face; Republican scandals too numerous to count and mounting weekly; the loss of both houses of Congress after all his boasting and "predictions;" the politicized Christian right - who've sold their souls for thirty pieces of silver - humiliated by the sins and hypocrisy of their leaders -- and so on.

So he lashes out by trying to wreck Kevin's blog, because what else is a total loser going to do? Take responsibility for his own shortcomings and had judgment? Have even a tiny bit of grace, restraint, or shame?

Nope, because he's a real loser.

The main problem with Bush is that he is a religious JEW.

A while ago someone here linked to a web-site with hundreds of photos of Bush, mixing with Rabbis at the White House, wearing a skullcap while praying at the wailing wall, etc, etc.

People were so worried that people would see the photos and draw the only possible conclusion, that they removed the entire site from the internet, even though the rest of the site was only about computers.

Spock, if we want to actually succeed militarily in Iraq, we would need more troops--several hundreds of thousands of them. So, you tell me, who is right, Bush or McCain?

>they are guilty of war crimes. I'm just trying to get Secular Animist to agree that Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, and other principals of the Clinton administration are too.

in case you ain't been following along, bill clinton and miss madeleine albright didn't attack Iraq.

news is on 24/7 now, you should try and watch it. it'll help keep you current.

And I think we should try the arms inspection one more time, because I think we also have big long-term benefits in cooperation with our allies through the United Nations.

Yep, always sounded like Clinton wanted to continue with U.N. and international consensus. He would not have invaded Iraq, although conservative hawks like to insinuate that he would have.

There is a huge difference in keeping the pressure on Saddam with strong, no-nonsense public statements backed up by inspections and actually invading without consensus. All those statements by Clinton and others were to let Saddam know he was not trusted and would never be allowed to develop WMD.

"in case you ain't been following along, bill clinton and miss madeleine albright didn't attack Iraq"

Merely a coincidence. If 9-11 had happened on 9-11 1998, they would have.

So, it is agreed then. Both Clinton and Bush should be impeached and removed from office and tried for war crimes against Iraq. I suggest we start first with the current office holder, the one who actually invaded Iraq. I am sure Spock will whole-heartedly endorse this proposition.

"Yep, always sounded like Clinton wanted to continue with U.N. and international consensus. He would not have invaded Iraq, although conservative hawks like to insinuate that he would have."

Bullshit. He was just covering all his bases.

Worth Repeating

The main problem with Bush is that he is a religious JEW.

A while ago someone here linked to a web-site with hundreds of photos of Bush, mixing with Rabbis at the White House, wearing a skullcap while praying at the wailing wall, etc, etc.

People were so worried that people would see the photos and draw the only possible conclusion, that they removed the entire site from the internet, even though the rest of the site was only about computers.

Who cares if Clinton would not have invaded Iraq?

i think what dickless here is trying to say is that he's got nuthin' but a sack full of shit that he wishes was kittens

Fuck off, WorthRepeating.

Spock, so neither is right, I think we agree on that. What do you suggest we do next?

I see Chuckles took my handle again--

How's Church? How are things at Brokeback/Saddleback Church there in Cali, Chuckles?

k,

I thought we already agreed that impeachment hearings were next?

Some folks are forever going to pouting about not be able to hang any crimes on the Clinton and the members of his administration.

Clinton Administration; number of convictions, one. If you count Web Hubble's conviction for over-billing law clients, nothing to do with his government service.

Reagan Administration, number of felony convictions: 28 directly related to Iran-Contra.

Nixon Administration: 25 felony convictions directly related to Watergate.

Carter Administration: 0

Hmmm. Is there a pattern here?

Does not look good for GWB.

Spock, you are being cagey. It is a simple question.

>Are you finished reading

come on back and see me when you get the difference between enforcing a no-fly zone and sending 17 battalions into a country and overthrowing its gov't

boy, you ain't so sharp, are ya?

8:24 is a spoofer again, probably Charlie. Nice misdirection, Chuckles. I was teling WorthRepeating to fuck off because we don't need any more antisemittism on this blog. Not on top of the trolls.

SecularAnimist,
Where did you go?

Now THAT's a classic Charlie question. Man, when he thinks he's got something on someone, he gets all worked up and starts cursing and asking where people went--

Just like the good little troll he is.

I'm still here, having a great time, enjoying life and happy to have some free time to post on the old blog between reading up on the day's events and burning music CDs.

How's your life Chuckles? Still in abject terror that Jesus himself is going to walk through your front door, look at you with a frown, and shoot a lightning bolt up your ass for doing what you're doing with your life?

Spock, assume that impeach hearings have already started, what do we do in Iraq? More troops, immediate withdraw, an international conference? What?

Poor little trolls.

Life is slipping away, and all you have is the bullshit you spew.

It's gotta be an empty, sort of eating-at-you type feeling. And then you remember how disappointed Daddy was every time you walked into a room. Plus, there's that whole thing about hating yourself and wanting to shoot animals with a crossbow...

Spock;
False Dillemas are Illogical.
I suggest you go back to Planet Vulcan and throw yourself into a volcano, before you further anger the Logic gods with your fallacious nonsense.

You want me to post everything Clinton, Albright, etc. said about Saddam and "regime change" too? Or, are you at least willing to admit you were wrong about "Bill Clinton never attacked Iraq"?

Wow, how transparent.

Cheney did that when he falsely claimed that Bush never said "imminent threat."

Go ahead, coward. You're not getting what you need so why not keep trolling this blog and why not spew bullshit and lies--it's all you have left.

Why not?

You're slipping. That's what happens when you realize you don't have the talent or the ability to keep up--you're firing blanks and you have nothing left.

Wow--look at you. Sputtering, helpless, impotent.

When you hold your dick, it's like shooting pool with a rope, isn't it? And causing other people pain is the only way you can halfways get it up and do your little herky-jerky dance.

Poor little trolls...this is all they have in the world. Such a mean world--the world doesn't understand, does it?

Aw, someone has to listen to your little ideas, right? Isn't that why you keep posting--because you think someone has to read what you're saying.

Sorry--the regulars know to skim past me and you and look for something interesting.

Spock, assume that impeachment hearings are already taking place, what do you suggest we do in Iraq? Put more troops in, start withdrawing them, call an international conference? What? Like, I said, it is a simple question, though, of course, the answer may be more complicated.

You are the same person, then, just with different screen IDs? And you say I am transparent. You have the military background, though, so was Operation Desert Fox by Clinton an "attack" or not?

Why are you panicking? Are well all one person now?

Or is this fuck with Charlie by committee?

How's church, by the way? Lots of annointing with the oils going on while you try to work on the curriculum for a purpose(less) driven life?

Sorry for the double post. Spock, thanks for your answer.

I forgot that Pale Rider has this imaginary military background. Not to mention the pathetic Clint Eastwood fixation.

But her Star Wars blog, that's classic. You gotta check it out. The link was posted to one of the earlier threads.

I note that the real Spock's forte is logic. Somebody needs to switch to another handle.

Good shot, Simon.

Too bad it's so yesterday...

What? No creativity? No ability to come up with a new line? Still gotta recycle the shit your pals used to make you look like an asshole?

Awww, poor little fella. I have so much pity for you.

I checked out her blog earlier. She's cute, in a dweeby kinda way. Goes with the super-cool geek occupation as "dtech-support" specialist. The little nerds that come and fix your computer while you're doing serious work, you know? The girls, like Pale Rider, can be cute, especially the ones with glasses.

It is a weird nickname, though, for a chick, isn't it: Pale Rider?

Each to her own, I guess.

Fuck you, Simon. I happen to have a super cool job making tons of cash.

You are just sitting around, without a family, and and, like, are not cool. And your daddy is disappointed in you.

Look, I came up with all that. See: creativity.

I feel totally sorry for you since you're not as creative as I am. Sux to be U!

Is that the fifth or sixth time you've tried this joke?

"Dweeby?" Man, you're at least thirty-five, aren't you? I don't think anyone has used that word since, oh, I dunno...it's so 1987 of you.

Creativity is a bitch when you don't have it. You can spot it, you can see it--you know when people have it and you certainly know when you don't. Sorry--I have it. Always have, always will. I'm happy as a pig in shit--now that I'm out of the Army and working in the contractor world, the money is great and life is good. I can get on blogs, tear the shit out of liars and charlatans like yourself, and all you have is the shit you've been pulling--the facts? The ability to articulate what you think?

You don't have it.

You are just sitting around, without a family, and and, like, are not cool. And your daddy is disappointed in you.

Look, I came up with all that. See: creativity.

I feel totally sorry for you since you're not as creative as I am. Sux to be U!

"Sux to be U?" "not cool?" "Dweeby?"

Is this how you imagine people actually speak? It sounds like you haven't had human contact in, what? a decade?

If I keep feeding you material, you're sure to keep up, aren't you?

I have a suggestion. Let's assume we don't really know who anyone is who is posting here and just respond to the substance of their post. A radical thought, I know.

Forget it, Simon. It's an unshakeable fantasy of Pale's this martial stuff. He keeps insisting on it. We laugh at him. It's obviously just make believe. But he needs to believe that he was a soldier.

Who cares? At least he's harmless.

God, talk about telegraphing your moves.

Simon doesn't work, you switch to spoofing me.

What's next? Oh, that's right--you don't have the cognitive ability to come up with your next move until I give it to you.

Dance, little puppet, dance.

Follow the shiny object, follow the shiny object, follow the shiny object...

And thanks for doing what I expected you to do. It's when you're unpredictable that I get a little nervous...

PaleRider - "life is good. I can get on blogs"

(giggles)

Poor nok.

Can't keep up, can you son?

And daddy? That look on his face? It really, really was disgust.

[sigh...]

Good suggestion, k. Let's discuss next why it would be political suicide for Democrats to impeach and/or defund the war ...

PR - "Sorry--I have it. Always have, always will. I'm happy as a pig in shit--now that I'm out of the Army and working in the contractor world, the money is great and life is good."

Wow. Repeat it in the mirror every morning, Pale?

Unbelieveable.

What loser writes like that? Who even thinks like that?

Beyond spoofing Kevin, which is typical of the unimaginative troll, what else do you have?

Still pissing your pants, trying to keep up, huh?

You know that empty place? The one where you know there's something missing and you can't quite figure out what it was or where it went and you know there's supposed to be someone or something to fill it?

And you know how yours is perpetually empty?

This isn't filling it up, I hope you know.

And now he's back on the daddy stuff again. Oh, yeah, creative this one.

It's 'cox.net' by the way.

Jesus, spoof much?

If you're this incompetent in life, you HAVE to be employed in the retail industry. How's that name tag feel every day when you put it on?

Simon, Spock, Nok... shouldn't you guys get back to writing songs? I mean, you've got;

Bush Was Right, I'm in love with Ann Coulter, What about the Issues, and my Fave, I want to live...

Where the hell is your "scary islamofascists are taking over the world, the WORLD!!!" song? You guys need to get busy!

(giggles). I didn't know about the pathetic soldier fantasies of his, though. I thought all that stuff was just bravado. You know, all the "backup comms" and the "shoot, move, communicate" crap. I didn't know he had concocted a whole fantasy world around it where he actually WAS in the army!

I mean, a 14 year old girl. LOL

LIfe's an open game, and this is fun.

Too bad you can't be having much fun--I'm still here, having the time of my life, knocking the shit out of your little psyche.

See--if these things didn't bother you, you'd be watching Carolina-Philly right now. Me, personally--the Eagles aren't interesting without McNabb. And after watching Delhomme these last couple of weeks, I'm not convinced he can take Carolina out of the playoffs.

Any concept of sports? Or is that too social of an activity for you?

Oh yeah. The soldier fantasy has been part of his on-screen schtick for years now. Cute, really.

I didn't know he had concocted a whole fantasy world around it where he actually WAS in the army

Well, that's what it says on my DD214.

Listen, I'm a reasonable guy.

If you leave now, I won't continue to embarrass and humiliate you in front of your dumb little buddies, who, by now, are trying to figure out a way to get at your old man's stash of liquor and crystal meth.

"I was teling WorthRepeating to fuck off because we don't need any more antisemittism on this blog,..."

Oh really,.. so hundreds of photos of Bush, mixing with Rabbis at the White House, wearing a skullcap while praying at the wailing wall, etc, etc, is anti-Jew. First I knew, that photos hated Jews.

How about a debate of ideas? You know--a regular old, good fashioned "debate" where you post your position on the subject of the thread and I'll offer my take on it and we'll debate the actual ideas.

Or does that not appeal to you? Since an actual debate would reveal just how little you know, how paltry your education and how clumsy you are expressing your actual beliefs.

I gotta believe that someone who goes out looking for human interaction has some core beliefs--so put them out here and let's have an honest debate about them. I'll just use Pale Rider and you can use the seven or eight handles we've identified you using and you can do whatever you want.

Let's see how far that takes you.

A straight up debate. You put something up, and I'll take it from there.

Oh yeah. The soldier fantasy has been part of his on-screen schtick for years now.

So you're not a regular; have only been here a little more than a year.

Hey, thanks for that little tip.

Jesus, blog much?

Let me give you a friendly tip--stupid mistakes make you look bad in front of people.

You know, you seem to think you know something about Hamas and Hezbollah.

Let's debate--are they a legitimate force for political change and stability in the Middle East? Do they have legitimacy with the people they purport to protect? Or are they hyping a non-threat from Israel to raise money, consolidate power and become the de facto government of Lebanon.

Got a position? An idea of your own? Or just spoof posts with material I handed to you?

What? Too scared to debate?

Where'd you go, little bitch?

Fuck off, reallyworthrepeating. Go hang with Pale Rider.

"Well, that's what it says on my DD214." Heh. He doesn't give up does he. Thinks because he knows the name of the form, everyone here will believe him.

Hey, got any good war stories to tell, Pale Rider. That would be fun. Otherwise, you're starting to bore me.

Even if it's just fantasy, since you're so creative, tell us some war stories.

C'mon mr eats, shoots, and leaves. Tell us about that time you parachuted into 'Nam to fight Charlie.

[Is this where he gets the fantasies about his imaginary blog opponent "Charlie" from? From shit he read about Vietnam? Discuss amongst yourself.]

There's my little bitch--

So what's your debate position? Where's you on-topic post?

What's your best shot?

[Is this where he gets the fantasies about his imaginary blog opponent "Charlie" from? From shit he read about Vietnam? Discuss amongst yourself.]

No, that's not something I can actually debate with you.

What's the matter? No ideas?

You had that little blog on blogger.com. You have some "interesting" ideas there.

:0

As in, holy shit, are you an idiot.

But let's debate. It's what people normally do in lieu of a useless flame war that you can't possibly imagine you're in a position to win.

Freak out much, dude? Spoof much?

Jesus, you can't keep up or stay on task, can you?

If I could interrupt this food fight for one comment, please?

The problem with pundits like Rich Lowry is they don’t ever challenge what Bush “continues to believe”. From his recent trips abroad, it is quite clear that Bush is delusional and borderline psychotic. Bush is becoming like Nixon just before impeachment, drunk and babbling incoherently. Frank Rich gets it “about right”, to drop a Kevinism.

A little classic Pale Rider from the archives:

_________________

thirdpaul really is delusional if he thinks that American warplanes will shoot down any airplane racing away from an American city....

Posted by: Mike Cook

Mike Cook,

In about twenty years, you'll find out just how fucking delusional you really are. Til then, shut the fuck up, son. Shut the fuck up about what we will or won't do. You've no idea.

Posted by: Pale Rider
________________________________

See? No arguments. None needed.

Arguing with people like this is a waste of time, because they don't have any. Just their pathetic fantasies that they were in 'nam or whereever.

Who cares?

Hey, got any good war stories to tell, Pale Rider.

No, and thank God I never had to deploy. Came close a few times, but I am thankful that I've never heard a shot fired in anger and I'm thankful that I got out of the military when I did.

You could debate your own reluctance to do anything about these threats out there in the real world, couldn't you? The general summation of your position is, radical Islam is a threat, right?

So do something about it. I did. Why didn't you? Not serious enough about actually doing something to defend your country?

And it must hate you to have to deal with people who disagree with you, can rip to shreds your fifth grade education, and have actually done something about keeping their country safe.

I sense a lot of hate--it couldn't be the green monster of envy, could it?

Naaaaah!

Oh yeah. I forgot. Pale Rider, with his amazingly rich life, just spent half the day yesterday chasing around for a blog that he thought one of his imaginary blog opponents had written. Freak out much, PR?

Gee, I'm so impressed with a warmongering little troll who doesn't know a goddamned thing, can't even spoof competently, and still hasn't come close to driving me off the blog.

So impressed. Do you lick your daddy with that mouth, son? It ain't working, is it?

Pale Rider (the real one -- and it's obvious who that is):

This is all very silly, but if you're interested in my views about the difference between Sunni and Shi'ite terrorism as they ramify in both Saudi Arabia and Iran, you could have a look at this post of a couple days ago.

Honestly, a lot of it is intuitive conjecture and I might be wrong about a couple things. Genuine feedback would be appreciated.

Bob

Freak out much, PR?

No, it's okay--you can use my line.

"So do something about it. I did."

Wow, he still thinks we believe that. Hysterical.

We already saw it, ya blowhard. It's boring.

Anyway, I'm heading out. Don't forget to shoot, move, and communicate.

Bob, you can join in if you like.

I like the history of the split between the two, how it relates to the Crusades and there are tons of good books on those subjects.

Which strain of Islam do you fear the most?

I gotta be honest--I don't see anything more virulent or dangerous from Islam than I do from basic, run of the mill Christianity.

But the history of Islam--very rich and diverse. I particularly like knowing that there wouldn't be any knowledge of algebra without the Arab peoples.

Ok, smell the insanity... they trash Maliki thru Hadley, then GW offers supportive comments of Maliki; Rummy's memo is disparate from his usual stay the proverbial course/back off media silliness, dismissed/dissed a day or two later by GW after the midterm election----- and it all is supposed to make sense 'cause Tony Snow today says to David Gregory: it is mixing apples and oranges. Impeach after studying copiously, nothing radical with the funding quite yet...wake up in a brave new world, like Colbert just said. John Conyers and Harold Waxman--come to the forefront when it it time. Where is the wisdom of Stephan--the best commentator at washington monthly?

Bob, you can pick which ones are me.

It's obvious. ;)

Ooh, scared little bitch "nok" can't hang.

That's what his daddy said when he couldn't find the Vasoline, I hear.

But that's nothing I'd repeat in mixed company.

I'll debate you, Pale. About what?

Where is the wisdom of Stephan--the best commentator at washington monthly?

He was kicking ass on a different thread today.

Sorry, this one? not so entertaining. My fault, I'm afraid.

What's a little flame war to make a bitch run for the comforts of his daddy?

Pick a topic, RWB.

Here's one:

Why can't nok properly troll/spoof/post?

You don't seem to like this comment,... but why? Too much truth for your type?

"I was teling WorthRepeating to fuck off because we don't need any more antisemittism on this blog,..."

Oh really,.. so hundreds of photos of Bush, mixing with Rabbis at the White House, wearing a skullcap while praying at the wailing wall, etc, etc, is anti-Jew. First I knew, that photos hated Jews.

万维网酒店联盟,是一个专门为您提供酒店资讯的网站，是一个可以轻松实现酒店预定 酒店预订的平台.
万维网火车站,您进行火车票查询和了解火车站的摇篮，我们会为您提供最新的列车时刻表信息。欢迎光临!
站点地图sitemap

I see Pale Rider has nothing constructive to offer, as usual.

Oh really,.. so hundreds of photos of Bush, mixing with Rabbis at the White House, wearing a skullcap while praying at the wailing wall, etc, etc, is anti-Jew. First I knew, that photos hated Jews.

Jesus, dude. Chew that gristle with your two buck teeth, much?

What's it like in the world of the batshit crazy? Can you give is a 300 word take on what your daily routine is? Just cut with the anti-semitic bullcrap and explain what you do when you roll off your soiled mattress, how many people recoil in horror at the smell that emanates from you, where you go when you need to buy pr0n that involves animals and handcuffs, who sells the best adult diapers, which strain of herpes you like to have show up on the corner of your mouth...

You know--tell us what it's like to be you.

I'll bet the girls think you're dreamy.

I see Pale Rider has nothing constructive to offer, as usual.

Poor nok--so incompetent as to not know that Al never posts beyond the fifteenth post on a thread.

Ever.

Keep putting off having to service that old man of yours and he might be cranky by halftime.

Useful info--Carolina and Philly are actually making a game of it. We're tied 7-7 with a minute to go before the half.

Bob:

While "al
Qaeda" has indeed mestasticized into a decentralized brand name, its
fundamental common denominator is takfir -- and takfir does not and
cannot possibly make accomodations for Shi'ite doctrine.

Is there anyone smart enough to figure that out? We get back to the wrongheaded notion that there isn't a brewing conflict between Sunni and Shia--people don't seem to realize--there is no movement of support for al Qaeda.

I don't see where people in the West can grasp this fact.

Your point is made, I don't know how it translates.

Congratulations, Pale Rider. Looks like you chased that troll away for good. And beat him to a bloody pulp. Pale Rider 49 - Trolls 0. Not that it was much of a competition.

Bob

And thanks for the insights on the article. Let's discuss more later. Heading out.

Bob

Hmm, that wouldn't be a fake Bob, would it?

Jesus--you don't even know the basic characteristics of the people who post here.

Everyone knows Bob doesn't do hyperlinks...

Heading out.

Also something Bob would never say.

It's the incompetence, stupid.

Ooh, can Carolina score before the half?

I'm getting suspicious. My keen sense of smell, honed in the jungle, tells me something's fishy. I bet it's that Charlie again!

Pale Rider:

I'm actually mixing it up with one of these spoofhappy assholes on an older thread about deconstruction.

Total fucking dipshit, naturally :)

I think you're doing about as well as can be expected with these guys -- but you know they'll never learn, never show humility, never admit when they've been called out, never engage in debate where the subject matter is more important than the ego-issues of arguing ...

It can be sort of half-amusing, but it also gets quite tiring -- and when you that that the intent here is pretty much to render these threads unreadable, it's kinda hard not to feel a little guilty for playing into it.

I generally agree with you about Islam, btw. I think freelance Sunni takfiri Islamism is not only the graver danger to the West than Iranian state Shi'ism -- but also the graver danger to the Islamic world itself.

And we had a glorious opportunity to win a propaganda victory in the Islamic world by making that case. Instead -- heh -- Bush conflates 'em all together. "Well *they* attacked us."

Fucking pea-brained rich kid know-nothing.

Bob

Congratulations, Pale Rider. Looks like you chased that troll away for good. And beat him to a bloody pulp. Pale Rider 49 - Trolls 0. Not that it was much of a competition.

Hmm, that smells like a little bitch who can't keep up, can't think of anything to post, and who is just scared shitless of what his daddy has in store for him.

It was a leather belt, wasn't it? Leather. Verrrry supple. With a big daddy buckle on it. Lemme guess--silver dollar.

Oh, it must have felt...delightful.

Fucking pea-brained rich kid know-nothing.

This kid has nothing.

That's the sad part about it.

:(

I do hyperlinks -- it's HTML that I refuse to bother with.

Pale Rider:

Takfir is a Sunni doctrine with long past that's been revived by some of the founders of the Muslim Brotherhood, especially Sayyid Qutb -- a huge influence on Zawahiri and Osama.

Basically it's the idea, contrary to much Sunni tradition (especially in Saudi Arabia) that it's righteous to kill Muslims and depose Muslim regimes if they're not righteous.

It's the ideology that enables Sunnis to massacre Shi'ites just based on their sect. You'll notice that as gory and as gruesome as the Shi'ite reprisal killings have been against Sunnis -- they're a lot more targeted, generally more like classical revenge killings.

Sunni takfiris will walk into a Shi'ite neighborhood and just blow themselves up, causing indiscriminate deaths.

And I think this illustrates an important difference between Sunni and Shi'ite radical doctrine.

Bob

Yeah, Bob--I hear you. I have no idea if that's you or him or the guy with the speech impediment who tries to hump the red light camera on New York Avenue every morning.

Is there anything else going on? I have a troll to kill.

Cool. I'm starting to get the hang of this blog. And only after a couple of days. Of course, Eastwood-wannabe is pretty competent at this, too, having spent every waking hour at this for months (or was it a year?). Wow, he even has formed close bonds with his imaginary blog friends to the extent that he knows exactly how they would word their posts. That's impressive, in a really sad way.

PR, you have no imagination, no creativity. Reading through what you write to anyone you disagree with, I can tell it's always either (1) some ridiculous fantasy where you're in a position of authority due to military command or (2) a really disturbing fixation on your daddy and getting spanked by him. You might want to think about finding someone to talk to about those fantasies, and I don't mean your imaginary online friends. Get out of your studio for a while and meet some people.

Bye for now.

PR, you have no imagination, no creativity.

No, sorry dude. I have the skill and the talent and the creativity--witness the fact that the trolls have to steal my best lines just to have something they can post.

You obviously haven't been paying attention. Keep deluding yourself, though.

I'm not going anywhere, Chuckles.

(psst! Hey Chuckles. Yeah. Jesus? He's got that lightning bolt ready. Is tomorrow good? Just answer the door in something form fitting so he doesn't have to work on the aiming part.)

Okay, I've been following this site off and on for, uh, years, or a year, or something like that. And I've always wondered:

What's the deal with the Chinese posts that are often made here?

Get out of your studio for a while and meet some people.

It's just shy of 4,000 sq feet with a three car garage.

But thanks for playing.

Jesus-get envious much?

Cool. I'm starting to get the hang of this blog.

I think there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but keep rolling that turd up the hill, son.

You might find a pony under it when you're done.

What? Still afraid to debate an issue on the merits and show people you're not a third-rate punk with no talent?

I thought you'd want to prove how much you know about radical Islam and the threat to this country.

Too bad what you know is what you have to cut and paste or just steal outright.

Do you want help with this spoofing thing? Sad to say, I've never, ever spoofed anyone or used another handle. I have NO idea how to spoof people.

Right Norman?

Someone ... :

They're automated spam-bots that randomly cruise blogs. The people who've run the spam through the translator BabbleFish say that they're commercial offerings and porno, mostly ...

Why do they target English-speaking blogs? Because they're going for one click out of millions of people who see them posted, and it's just easier for the idiot "programmers" that'll write a routine to have 'em trawl as many blogs in as many languages as they can.

The older version of MoveableType that WM uses here (which doesn't support either sitebanning by IP or email-verified registration) has minimal protections against this crap. They do run a program that will block out a range of IPs that spammers like to use -- but it's a statistical hieruistic, and therefore only approximate. Sometimes it will block a normal poster in the blocked IP range until they re-log in a few times and get a new dynamic IP from their ISPs ...

Pale Rider doubtless knows more specifics being that he works in the industry. I'm the last thing from a technical computer guy.

Bob

Pale Rider:

You whiny cunt, what is this? Spamming the thread and shutting down dissent from the respectable Republican perspective? Hello, this is not your echo chamber. This is not where you can simply strip the dignity from a man and leave him to boil alive on the rocks of a lost debate.

Have a care, this is dangerous game you choose to play. There are enemies amok and things amiss.

And no shots at rmck1. He's been in rare form lately. A hundred percent wrong on all fronts, but a gentleman and a scholar nonetheless.

And you wonder why no one reads this blog anymore.

Thanks, Norman.

It's not often someone calls me the "c" word and I really appreciate your restraint this evening.

Pale Rider doubtless knows more specifics being that he works in the industry. I'm the last thing from a technical computer guy.

Nah, you nailed it.

Ignore Norman. He's got *issues.*

Pale Rider:

I've got my theories about that, but I'm playing it close to the vest.

Bob

Major issues.

Personally, I think the guy should apologize to everyone, but what do I know?

Fuck you Pale Rider, you're supposed to say shoot, move, communicate. That's the only thing that makes you cool.

Personally, I think the guy should apologize to everyone, but what do I know?

Hello? Pale Rider? I'm the only thing people are interested in on this blog, what with your inability to drive off trolls and everyone else sitting on their hands and whistling past the graveyard.

And you liberals wonder why you can only win an election once in a blue moon.

shoot, move, communicate.

That's better, boy. Now, do some backup communicating.

Amen to that, Mr. Wile.

Is there a reason why you can only come up with a mealy-mouthed little attack and spew some drivel out the side of your mouth?

Perhaps your uncle Norman can assist you--Pale Rider is a sensitive, thoughtful fellow who cannot abandon the mental illness known as liberalism. He has never won a debate, never made a point that a third grader with epilepsy couldn't refute by staring at a tile floor with a lip full of droll and screeching "...ugh! Ugh!" and he never, ever gets the hint.

What is the hint, you ask?

Ah, Mr. Wile. We shall have to discuss this later--

Can the Eagles tie the ballgame? We're approaching the 2 minute warning and the pigskin is out past midfield.

In my youth, I played linebacker for the Princeton Tigers, only two seasons--1962-63. I lament the fact that we weren't very good those years, but I will always remember knocking down the Rutgers quarterback and making him choke on his own dry heaves. In those days, we didn't have Gatorade, you know. We drank scotch mixed with a little seltzer, sometimes a nice ale, never cheap beer. Oh, that wouldn't do on the sidelines. It would not do.

I'm confused--is there a person who has appropriated Pale Rider's handle?

I cannot spot the fake.

I can't either. Noone can.

But go on with the story....

Dear me, it's only the third quarter.

If I had the free time to pay attention to the ballgame, I wouldn't have made such a grievous error.

You know, we played with cheap plastic helmets back then--and the pads were awful. I still have some looseness in my shoulder from a separation injury.

Mr. Wile, I support you in your endeavor but you must improve the quality of your insults. Pale Rider just shrugs off the slings and arrows--go for the jugular.

You know he never served a day in uniform.

I can't either. Noone can.
But go on with the story....

I apologize--I lost my train of thought. I keep admiring what a handsome fellow this Jeff Garcia is for the Philadelphia Eagles. He has strong thighs and a very, very thin waistline. I would imagine the loss of his hair can be traced to having the testosterone of a bull and the stamina of a racehorse.

Sorry--which Pale Rider is the real one? I cannot spot the fake or phony one.

Pale Rider, your little bitch troll has absconded again.

Do you think the poor soul is licking his wounds and enjoying the salty taste of his own blood?

Apologies, all. Every day is Halloween for your uncle Norman.

"He has never won a debate, never made a point that a third grader with epilepsy couldn't refute by staring at a tile floor with a lip full of droll and screeching "...ugh! Ugh!" and he never, ever gets the hint."

- pretty good stuff, man.

You REALLY don't seem to like this comment,... but why? Too much truth for your type?

"I was teling WorthRepeating to fuck off because we don't need any more antisemittism on this blog,..."

Oh really,.. so hundreds of photos of Bush, mixing with Rabbis at the White House, wearing a skullcap while praying at the wailing wall, etc, etc, is anti-Jew. First I knew, that photos hated Jews.

Dear new_direction or whatever, you are absolutely correct and I am glad someone found the intestinal fortitude to pay me the tribute I deserve.

Pale Rider typifies the insanity of liberalism. I spit out that word like I spit out a curse word at someone who works in the food service industry--liberals. These liberals--liberalism is a mental condition, highlighted by a desire to do nothing all day except smoke pot and eat Doritos--don't realize that George W Bush has handed them a blanket.

That blanket? It is security. It is the safety of knowing that a man with a turban on his head and a bandolier full of hand grenades is not going to run through CostCo with an AK-47, shooting people through the ear and the eye and through the chest cavity. It is the security of knowing that a plane full of screaming people is not going to do a belly roll and tear into the side of the Sears tower on a placid morning in Seattle. It is the security of knowing that a grandmother with a vest full of C4 or plastique is not going to try to hug you in the elevator and scream "jihadi! jihadi!" and pull the detonator. It is the comfort that allows you to pull that blanket over your eyes and hide from the rough business of torturing people to find out whether or not they remember something about a terror plot they weren't privvy to in the first place. The blanket can be used as a distress flag and it can keep a kennel full of puppies safe in the event of a civil emergency--why you would do so, I do not know, but the blanket is there, sir, and it can be used for nearly everything. Do not wax your boat with it--that would be disrespectful. The blanket is soft, it is warm and it makes the American people feel good about themselves.

Liberalism is the unravelling of that blanket. And when a blanket unravels, it is merely thread. Thread which will warm no one. Yes, it can be processed BACK into a blanket and be good as new, but who has the time in this hurly-burly world of ours?

And you wonder why they should outlaw liberal blogs.

Oh really,.. so hundreds of photos of Bush, mixing with Rabbis at the White House, wearing a skullcap while praying at the wailing wall, etc, etc, is anti-Jew. First I knew, that photos hated Jews.

Having met the President, when I was a Pioneer for the 2000 election from the state of New Hampshire, I can tell you he's not the least bit Jewish and actually strikes me as being a bit of a dandy. He is fastidious with his personal hygiene and likes to have clean towels and Purell hand sanitizer around. Plus, I can attest to the fact that he looks like a dish in a pair of jeans--there is a crease that runs from a man's thigh down into the upturn of his calf--that's where the muscle and the meat collide in a dizzying display of power and cat-like swiftness. There is a smell that goes with a man in crisp jeans as well--that's the smell of honor and diginity, my good man.

Trust your uncle Norman to explain this to you.

The American military is fed up with Maliki.

He hasn't been in office a full year. Lots of leaders have been detested by their military after only a year in office. They can't all be as popular as Truman.

All of the posts on this blog (every single thread) have been spoofs. My REAL name is Pile Rider. Please remember it for future reference.

Had to wait until Pale Rider left for the evening before you peeked your widdow head back out, didn't you Chuckles?

What a chickenshit.

The level of discourse on this blog has reached new lows. Time to block some IP addresses or go to registration, Kevin.

This joint needs a moderator...it's getting Jim Angleton "wilderness of mirrors" in here.

But can we keep Norman? Just as a representative meta-troll, like the Devil's Advocate.

I vote for moderation--my apologies for the flame war.

stefan: Don't assume that because someone has gotten ahead that it's proof of intelligence, or even of basic competence -- it may simply be a case of being in the right place at the right time, or of having one particular skill that's valuable.

"The world is run by "c" students." - Woody allen

More troops? When will we be able to stop throwing federal money into Iraq and redirect it toward poverty reduction? According to the Borgen Project...while the US has spent over $300 billion in Iraq so far and spends over $400 billion on defense each year, only $40 to 60 billion is needed to end poverty and hunger through the achievement of the UN Millennium Goals. Let's siphon a little fuel out of this war machine and lift billions out of extreme poverty.

Pale Rider, have you sunk so low you have to deploy TCD as a sock puppet again to defend you? can't you do it yourself? With your real name? You really are below patheic, beyond low, above the pinnacle of sleazy.