Missing from your clever calculations is whether the surge would cost more Iraqi and American lives, especially since the calls for the surge seem to be coupled with calls for more brutality to smash our "enemies" once and for all.

And suppose it turns into half a surge -- more troops in, and then staying in. Gotcha again!

Can't we ever support something simply because it's the right thing to do?

You're right that what counts isn't what conservatives think about who's to blame for Iraq but what moderates believe. Diehard conservatives will hate Democrats in general and liberals specifically no matter what happens.

It's popular right now to talk about how conservatives act as though America could have won in Vietnam but liberal peace activisits made us lose the war. They may honestly believe that, but how many moderates agree with them? I mean, when was the last time you had a conversation with a genuinely independent or moderate Republican friend who suddenly said to you, "I'm sorry, but I can't vote for that Democrat because you cost us Vietnam." The conservative dominance of the past 25 years owes far more to Jimmy Carter-era stagflation and the bull stock market of 1982-2000 than it does to any defeat in Vietnam.

The problem I have with that position is that it implies you're giving up trying to protect the lives of 20,000 additional soldiers in order to give conservatives more rope to hang themselves with. From my perspective, that is playing politics with soldiers lives. Even if we know the chances of influencing Bush's war policies are extremely remote, we have to try, because what we're playing with isn't federal budget dollars or votes down the lives, but rather the lives of our sons and daughters. Thus, we should push with all of our vigor and strength to get every American soldier out of Iraq and back in their homeland, where they belong. Frankly, if we can get the soldiers home, I'd be more comfortable defending ourselves against the theoretical charges you put forth, knowing we saved many troops' lives, then I would be pointing at a higher body count and saying "We told you so."

I don't buy the premise that conservatives have had success in blaming the debacle of Vietnam on the hippies. We are far too worried about what these cranks think. We should spend far more time pointing out that they are wrong- about everything.

I apologize for continuing the debate over the media's anti-US military bias from another thread, but this AP headline was too appropriate to ignore:

U.S. claims top bin Laden commander killed

To me, the word "claims" implies that one is not to believe the official US statement.
Actually, that headline is germane to this post of Kevin's. IMHO, given the media's pro-Democrat and anti-war biases, you don't have to worry that the public will blame liberals for losing the war in Iraq.

Once again, Kevin shows the only thing he cares about is damaging the Bush administration.

He doesn't care whether our leaving will result in Al Queda establishing more training camps in Iraq.

He doesn't care that withdrawing too soon will damage USA credibility for years.

He doesn't care that if we withdraw too soon, terrorist groups will overrun many cities in Iraq and take them over.

He doesn't care whether the new Iraqi government wants us to leave.

Ironically, withdrawing too soon will guaranatee the next President - even a President Hilary or President Obama - may face a larger, more aggressive threat than we now face.

Thanks, Kevin, for exposing yourself as an irresponsible Bush Hater.

He doesn't care whether our leaving will result in Al Queda establishing more training camps in Iraq.

Don't you mean that Bush didn't care whether our attacking Iraq would result in Al Queda establishing more training camps in Iraq? I mean, that seems to be the corollary to your logic.

Once again, Frequency Kenneth shows that the only thing he cares about is fellating the CinC. He doesn't care that leaving troops in to mitigate a civil war will lead to thousands more deaths.

He doesn't care that continuing the attempt to "pacify" Iraq will damage US credibility for years.

He doesn't care that when Iraqis overrun their own cities, our troops will be left needlessly in harm's way.

He doesn't care that the majority of Iraqi's want us to leave.

Ironically, committing to this infantile "surge" concept will guarantee that the next President - even somebody more delusional than the current one - will certainly face a larger, more aggressive threat than we face now.

Thanks, Frequency Kenneth, for exposing yourself as a kiss-ass brainless tool.

Jackass.

Public opinion is key, and if they go ahead and do their surge, and it fails, it's going to make the conservative story a lot harder to tell. The public just isn't going to buy it.

Kevin...its clue time. The public already doesn't buy it. There is no need to let the salesman get his foot in the door again --especially with the lives of American troops at risk.

λ is just about the silliest sonuvabitch to ever annoy us with his presence. Another waste of band-width.

I'd be secretly happy to see a surge happen since it would deprive conservatives of an excuse to blame the Iraq fiasco on something other than the war...

So how many more dead Iraqi babies will be enough for you?

Why waste their lives? Why not roast them on a spit? I hear our grunts over there are having problems getting fed.

He doesn't care that withdrawing too soon will damage USA credibility for years.

Bush's non-stop stream of lies, culminating in the thoroughly debunked claim of an nonexistent axis between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda being an imminent threat to global security because of an nonexistent stockpile of WMD, has wiped out American credibility a long time ago.

Why do people buy into this administration's euphemistic nonsense? Journalists and bloggers reflexively refer to Bush ordering a "surge" of troops, because that's what Bush says. But, what the hell is a "surge" of troops? Escalation. Since that word is loaded from Vietnam, Bush wants to avoid it at all costs.

Bush intends to escalate the number of American troops in Iraq. Buy escalating the number of troops, he will cause the violence in Iraq to escalate. The obvious result of escalating the violence is that more Americans and Iraqis will die violent deaths. Bush's escalation of troops will serve not only to directly lead to more deaths, but indirectly by fueling terrorist recruitment.

We must oppose this escalation vigorously or be complicit in the horrors that will surely follow.

The public just isn't going to buy it.

I have had this exact thought, and spoken it out loud, at least a hundred times since the Reagan administration. I've been wrong almost every single time. I guess I forgot this one:

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public - Mencken

Since that word is loaded from Vietnam, Bush wants to avoid it at all costs.

Just like he avoided serving in Viet Nam, as did all his cronies.

And those Generals going along with this bullshit lold their souls. They were junior officers during the Viet Nam war, they know what it cost us then and they know what it will cost us now. They are feckless to capitulate to the idiot prince.

But they were bought-and-paid for. Generals and Admirals will get an 8% raise 01 January. Those boots on the ground? They will get 2.2%.

A point that Frequency Kenneth and his ilk should consider, is whether this 'surge' is the Tet Offensive of this war.

Now, Tet was definitely a surge - an attempt to intensify operations, aimed at securing the capital against foriegn fighters, with other secondary operations in regional cities.

Frequency Kenneth and his ilk regard Tet as a really huge defeat for the LAVN, so it's goanna be interesting to see how they spin this.

On the other hand, the Surge has been flagged well in advance, so the other side will already be stockpiling the sinews of war (ie cash, detonators and explosives) and waiting for the Surge to go away.

conservatives will blame the loss in Iraq on liberals no matter what happens.

It's popular Conventional Wisdom among liberals that their actions, both in this war, and Vietnam, had absolutely nothing to do with our setbacks and losses.

Do you really think that the actions of the Left in this country, including the Democratic Party in recent times, really have nothing at all to do with convincing our enemies that we can be defeated? Made to withdraw unconditionally? Encouraging them to think that maybe the biggest military on the planet can be made to run away with their tails between their legs?

The war in Iraq (and Vietnam for that matter), was full of mistakes. But the Left doesn't get off scot-free in this either.

Almost an entire political party advocating unconditional surrender--and face it, that's what "redeployment to other countries" or "withdrawal" is no matter how much icing you slap on it--goes a very long way to convincing our enemies to keep fighting.

You can keep going "who, us?" all you like. A lot of people, particularly in the military, still remember who cut off the funds to South Vietnam before the North made their final thrust.

Meanwhile, Democratic leaders go to Syria and other governments currently actively supporting the fighting against us in Iraq, and kiss their butts. I'm not that happy with Bush right now, but thank God Kerry didn't win.

You know ... we actually DID win the fuucking midterms.

To claim impotence wrt the mismanagement of this war and to give the war criminals MORE troop lives to play with without even trying to stem the bloodshed seems to be a betrayal of whatever principles the Dem majority was elected upon.

Only the 30% of mouth breathing, foxnews nazis still support this war. Why validate their position? So they won't call us names? Treat them like the gutter-trash, bloodthirsty, out-of-touch minority that they are, and treat their opinions the same.

Kevin, what makes you think the "surge" will be temporary and that widthdrawl will surely follow once its understood that additional boots on the ground does not translate directly into better security?

Why are you so confident that once we escalate the war we can simple de-escalate it? Isn't it obvious that military action leads to unforseen consequences, and if so, what will be the consequences of a bigger war? (I mean, aside from more death for all sides, especially Iraqis?)

There is an incalculable downside to Bush's desperation strategy, and your cynical acquiesence to it seems quite lame.

It's insant to attempt to fight a transitive verb militarily.

The British didn't defeat the IRA with tanks in the streets of Belfast. Politicians ended the Troubles.

Only the 30% of mouth breathing, foxnews nazis

Those troglodytes walking around with the perpetually-purple upper lips.

Do you really think that the actions of the Left in this country, including the Democratic Party in recent times, really have nothing at all to do with convincing our enemies that we can be defeated? Made to withdraw unconditionally? Encouraging them to think that maybe the biggest military on the planet can be made to run away with their tails between their legs?
Posted by: elmendorf

Do you really think that the actions of the "Right" in this country, including the Republican Party, really have nothing to do with convincing our enemies that we can be made to abondon military objectives?

Reagan withdrawing from Bierut.

GHWB not supporting the Iraqis who rose up after the Gulf War I.

The Republican congress who pressured Clinton to withdraw from Somalia.

The Republican Congress who tried to block operations in Bosnia.

... and like clockwork elmendorf reminds us what a minority position looks like.

why would we cater to asshats like this guy ... who haven't been right about any foreign policy for over 30 years? why crave his respect? these people just need some more minorities to kill crouched in their orwellian nationalistic rhetoric. chickenhawks like this will ALWAYS blame the libs, so why bother?

the immorality of escalation aside, even politically dead-enders like the aforementioned aren't in the Dem target demographic, anyways ... so why bother with them? they're trash, their positions are trash. their positions are better marginalized or ignored, not validated.

Is this "surge" 30K ground-pounders or 30K total?

Why do people buy into this administration's euphemistic nonsense? Journalists and bloggers reflexively refer to Bush ordering a "surge" of troops, because that's what Bush says. But, what the hell is a "surge" of troops? Escalation. Since that word is loaded from Vietnam, Bush wants to avoid it at all costs.

Posted by: Shocked on December 23, 2006 at 3:08 PM

It does bother me how readily liberals and moderates buy into right wing memes. Once again, the idea that the "hippies" lost Vietnam is not that accepted outside of right wing circles. The conservative movement just came to a screeching halt. They failed and we won. What I find silly about Kevin's position is the idea that we should give any credence to these losers or do anything except oppose their failures.

Nads, it seems comical to hear Kevin gripe about our powerlessness to stop a president whose approval ratings are in the toilet, whose slimy little war is supported by a mere fraction of the electorate, and who is "opposed" by a Democratic Senate and House.

Or is Kevin being honest in implicitly acknowledging that the mainstream Democratic party has ceased being an opposition party? Given Murtha's defeat and Reyes call for additional troops, I would think the answer to that question would be "yes".

GC, dunno. Their math doesn't seem to adding up on this one. Here's what Kagan said:

"We're proposing a surge of 4 brigades, which is about 20,000 American combat troops into Baghdad and a number more, totaling about 35,000 American combat troops into other places in Iraq."

I reading that as 55,000 combat troops, but where are their support personnel going to come from? That should mean at least another 100,000 bodies in addition to the grunts.
[scrathes head]
The worry I have is that BushCo will parley the roop increase into an up-ended escalation and the Dems won't have the nads to curtail it.

Reyes thinks al Qae'da is a Shi'ite group.

We have to be hyper-vigilant and not take our eyes off these goofy mother-fuckers for a second. Just because the Armani suits now outnumber the Brooks Brothers suits doesn't mean we can relax.

I understand Kevin's position the way I understand that of a dog or child that's been whipped too frequently. I don't respect it, but I do understand it.

He's gotten used to a certain subservience, and an unconscious (or conscious) desire to be taken seriously by the conservative elite which have defined the terms of the debate in recent years.

After a few more elections, he and many other dems will find their testicles again.

To the person named Global, give it a break about the 8 per cent pay raise. How else will I be able to secure a membership in a posh golf club before I retire? After I retire, I will be caught in a pickle - either shill for the White House as an expert on CNN, Fox or MSNBC and be able to afford green fees, or go on the anti-Bush speaking tour and, thus, get kicked out of the club. Then what? Play on the publics with former NCOs? Pitch and putt with my grandkids?

You have no heart, whomever you are.

Yeah, 10K ground pounders wouldn't go very far toward mollifying a civil war. Good rule of thumb is that for every foot-soldier we deploy, we send two support troops.

Keep that equation in mind, folks, and ask the appropriate questions.

Oh - and don't forget Desert Crossing. We knew in 1999 that 400,000 troops might not be enough going in. Now it's a clusterfuck and we are going to put it all back right with less than 200,000.

I'm sorry, but even that dude on couldn't balance this equation.

Reyes thinks al Qae'da is a Shi'ite group.

Fer chrissakes. Oh well, you govern with the Congress you have, not the Congress you want.

And on that note I gotta go see if I can *find* some fresh morels for dinner tomorrow (and by find I mean go to the one grocer that might have them, not go out into the hills looking for them).

Mmmmmm...Morels.

cyntax,

Glad you said you were not going to look for them in the forest - As an old morel hunter, they follow the spring thaw up the hill - and try to check with the Forest Service about the locations of any fires from the previous summer. Although, every professional morel hunter will be there before you. Easiest mushroom to identify, although not always the easiest to observe - Have to keep looking at a slant. But, far more fun to find - snakes are still asleep and you don't have the crazies running around with AK-47s as one finds in matsutake season.

Morels with omeletes - Does it get any better?

Lakeoff must be wringing his hands in despair. Everyone is talking about the "surge" as if this is the only alternative to staying the course. I personally think that if they took the money for military expenses and spent it on the rebuilding of all that we destroyed--water, sewage, hospitals, etc. etc. (and let the Iraqis do it) it would be the best PR we could do now. When man is in the position of being totally concerned about his survival, he will do anything, including killing their perceived enemies. When normalcy returns, communication and diplomacy can work.

Seems to me that that was not exactly what Arios said. His point was that if the neocons are given a "surge" and another 6-12 months (2 friedmans), at the end of that time (a) things will be no better and probably worse (b) the neocons will claim that we are on the brink of "victory" and they just need to be given another 6-12 months.

The dolschstosselegende isn't going to be uncorked until at least the 2008 presidential campaign, and possibly held in reserve until 2012.

Cranky

I concede that Bush and Rumsfeld's obstinate refusal to correct course is what has made this war a failure to date. No amount of blaming the useful idiots of the MSM and the left can detract from that. That said, if this country someday has a liberal president with traits as mediocre [and sub-mediocre] as this one, and he gets us into a conflict as difficult to disengage from as this, I hope we on the right will be seen as trying to support the mission and the troops better than you folks have been.

Could we stop insulting Kevin and be civil, perhaps? Kevin, as someone said above, the public already doesn't buy it. How much more will the public have to not buy it before Bush and his ilk stop selling it to us? Answer: No amount of adverse public opinion will stop them. We need to pull the plug on the surge now by political action.

Right, MOR. You mean like the support Clinton got in Kosovo and when he tried to bomb Al-Qaeda camps?

Methinks that when the tombstones of the neocons are etched, they will all read, "But, I was almost there"

Minion, you are usually one of the reasonable conservatives, but even you appear to engage in selective memory. Kosovo ring a familiar bell, perchance? How about Somalia - and Clinton inherited that mess from Bush 41 - who launched the mission after losing his bid for reelection.

Kevon is premising his conclusion on the "surge" being unstoppable. I disagree. The Dems are in power now -- they have to stop enabling the Fuckwad-in-Chief and put a stop to his compulsion to fight his inner psychodramas with the lives of millions of innocents.

I just heard the stalemate machine grind into 3rd gear.

Walter Crockett: Kevin, as someone said above, the public already doesn't buy it. How much more will the public have to not buy it before Bush and his ilk stop selling it to us? Answer: No amount of adverse public opinion will stop them. We need to pull the plug on the surge now by political action.

Amen, brother.

Voters threw out Bush's rubber stamps for a reason.

Yeah, minion is drinking the koolaide just like all the rest, or he's a 12 year old who hasn't covered the 90s in history class yet. Anyone who remembers what the GOP congress did vis-a-vis Kosovo would never pretend to claim that Republicans are more supportive of troops (much less the mission).

Disputo is correct. It takes months to deploy 30-90K troops. They have top be trained and equipped and the logistics of delivering them to the theatre of operations must be worked out.

They can't do that in two weeks, so start emailing Ike Skelton and Carl Levin today.

I don't care if you put in 200,000 more by co-opting Navy and Air Force enlisted personnel to train as infantry -- and don't think for a nanosecond that hairbrained notion hasn't crossed someone's mind in the Pentagon!

If nobody has any sense of a rational, achievable objective other than merely trying to look like something's being done, thi latest exercise is doomed to failure, just like everything else George Bush gets his grubby paws on.

I remember the Kosovo debates and my rancor toward Republican hypocricy surges. Don't tell me about Republican'ts support of the troops. My husband was there. Does any fucking Republican't want to have this debate with me?

Frequency Kenneth: "Thanks, Kevin, for exposing yourself as an irresponsible Bush Hater."

Go blow it out your ass, F.K.

The holidays always makes me depressed, but this “surge� nonsense has me downright morose. This article might have it “about right�, to use a Kevinism.

Merry friggin' Christmas!

I thought someone would bring up the slugs of the Repub Party - Santorum, DeLay, Trent Lott - that tried to hamstring Clinton on Kosovo. I agree there are cheesy politicians in both parties. I said that policy was wrong at the time, and when Lott was neutered after his Strom Thurman remarks I said good riddance.
Notice none of the slugs listed above are in the NeoCon Cabal.
If your tired of shopping, why don't you rent Three Kings tonight and watch it. It has your hero George Clooney and shows why we NeoCons still believe this war was justified.

Support like this?

Randy "Duke" Cunningham House of Representatives - (May 05, 1999) Rambouillet was an agreement. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, would you take this agreement in hand? First of all, if you were going to allow a foreign power to occupy what you considered your country. Secondly, that that foreign power would hold that country, yours, in its hand for 3 years and then turn it over to a country like Albania that since 1880 has not only tried to take Kosovo in expansionism but also Macedonia, Montenegro and even parts of Greece. That is why the Greeks are so petrified. The ad hoc air campaign is no strategy. It is a disaster in my opinion. The strategy of bombing until they capitulate is poor foreign policy and is not a strategy. For us that have fought in wars, unlike many of my colleagues in this body, it is easy to kill but it is very, very difficult to work to live.

Kevin, you're starting to sound like a neocon, in the sense of treating war and peace as a political-intellectual pissing match. If we surge, more Americans and Iraqis will die. The only moral reason to support a surge is if you really believe it will work, not hoping it fails in order to win a political or intellectual point, especially one as lame as you're suggesting, since a vast majority of Americans have never bought that Vietnam was winnable, let alone that the Democrats caused us to lose it.

Think about it like this...is Vietnam a threat to us today? Has it been since we withdrew? Is the Soviet Union gone?

Noone cares about blaming Democrats for Vietnam except a small minority of idiots.

As that staunch liberal Sean Hannity said on FAUX on April 6, 1999, "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"

or that far out lefty from loonie tunes world, Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of one George W Bush about the war in the Balkans, "If we are going to commit American troop, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

Sen Trent Lott, "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."

Thanks to yellowdogdems.blogspot.com and,
thank you, Al Gore for introducing legislation that would allow the public to have access to the Internet. And thanks to former Pres GWHB for signing said bill.

Then watch Beyond Rangoon and we'll get ready for our impending liberation of Myanmar.

Uncle Paul, you forgot what the former Texas Guv said about the Balkans. As George the lesser said, "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strtegy is."

Does the Pres have anything to do with the neocon cabal, Uncle Paul? Do they drop by for non-alcoholic beer busts?

Or this support from Senator Voinovich?

(Senate - May 03, 1999) In my opinion, our State Department, President and NATO are allowing their egos to get in the way of their common sense and good judgment. I believe it is time to stop the bombing, reduce hostilities on both sides and resume negotiations to bring about peace and restore stability to the region.

MOR: ...I hope we on the right will be seen as trying to support the mission and the troops better than you folks have been.

Your assumption that liberals and Dems haven't been supportive of the Iraq misson or U.S. troops is counter to the reality of the mid-term election results. Review your assumption. It's faulty.

When you say "you folks", you're talking about most Americans who support the troops but not Bush's war and who desire withdrawal as soon as it's feasible. IOW, you're knocking not only liberals, but moderates and some conservatives.

Let's cease and decist this nonsense of Republicans ever taking the high road, shall we? It just rings hollow. Especially if one is astute enough to follow the program.

By the way - if you let a film, a work of fiction, influence your views on foreign policy, don't even get out of bed in the morning until you put on a helmet.

If my brother, sister, son, daughter, father, mother, friend, neighbor was in Iraq, I'd "support" them by wanting to bring them home before killed or maimed (for what?).

Period.

Kevin has resorted to muddled thinking.

What if the surge works?

What is the definition of works in this case? Normally we all understand what these words mean, but in case of the current administration, I don't think that they have the same meaning in mind as what we all think it means.

So before making such vague statements, Kevin would do well well to define the terms.

There have been some devastating films, some of the Vietnam ones for instance, that have profoundly helped shape American perceptions on foreign policy, and in a positive way. Not everyone has time to read up on this stuff, and a lot of the "non-fiction" is "fiction" in nearly every sense of the world as far as I'm concerned. There are very few original thinkers in the foreign policy world who have any clue at all, while there are plenty of pretenders.

[sigh]

It's Christmas. I'm not in the mood to fight.
When we debate surges and ebbs-and-flows and cuts-and-runs let's try to remember there are tens of thousands of Iraqis that have risked their lives for a vision they and we shared two years ago. I admit I'm pessimistic if a surge will make any difference, but I think we owe it to the democrats in Iraq to try a little while longer.

I'm not in the mood to fight either, but I am not giving an inch, and if I have to fight to hold it, well, so be it.

minion: "If your tired of shopping, why don't you rent Three Kings tonight and watch it. It has your hero George Clooney and shows why we NeoCons still believe this war was justified."

If "this war was justified", then why aren't you walking point in Sadr City instead of trying to nonsensically validate your failure with a George Clooney movie?

The only applicable cinematic moment you NeoCon clowns should reference right now is Princess Leia's immortal words that she recorded in R2D2's memory chip at the beginning of Star Wars:

"Help me, Obi-wan Kenobi! You're my only hope!"

How many flag-draped coffins will be acceptable in this Friedman you propose, Minion?

Nice of Minion to mention "slugs" of the Republican Party - Guess you could put Cheney into that category as he complained about Milosevic's electoral defeat not justifying the war in Kosovo. Bill Kristol, who called that war Clinton's greatest achievement, criticized Cheney.

However, none of this justifies sending any more of our troops into Iraq. We need to continue Operation Backward Together - Cap Weinberger should have been tried as a war criminal - He started this mess when he ordered the USS New Jersey to fire upon Muslim villages - They have never forgotten and it has been a constant series of actions and reactions from day forward.
Yes, we overthrew the Iranian government in 53 and we had problems in Iran in 79, but the real war in the Middle East began, when Cap Weinberger said, "Commence Firing" - As long as we keep troops in the Middle East, the war against us will continue.

More importantly - is there any chance you might know any of them?

When I answer that question, the answer is "yes" so no, I do not support any troop-builups or escalations or any action other than getting the fuck out as soon as possible. Those of you with nothing on the line...feel free to shut the fuck up at any moment. It will still be too late, but better late than never.

"You can support the troops and not the president." - 1999

"we owe it to the democrats in Iraq"

Do we also owe it to the Republicans in Iraq? You know, the toadies of Shrub.

Global Citizen: "By the way - if you let a film, a work of fiction, influence your views on foreign policy, don't even get out of bed in the morning until you put on a helmet."

minion did -- but his bedroom is probably right next to a 138KV powerline, and the helmet instead acted as a conduit for the resulting surge in electro-magnetic frequency.

minion: When we debate surges and ebbs-and-flows and cuts-and-runs let's try to remember there are tens of thousands of Iraqis that have risked their lives for a vision they and we shared two years ago.

hmmmm....2-years ago....

Kerry Says He Would Add 40,000 to Army - Washington Post - June 4, 2004

The Administration opposes increases in minimum active Army and Marine Corps end strengths.. - Bush White House June-2006

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/109-2/s2766sap-s.pdf

Which one among you had no idea that the whole game was rigged from the beginning, and that as soon as the President came upon the brilliant idea to add more troops, a process was set in motion to ensure that the Generals independently come up with the same recommendation?

It hardly need be said that the Washington establishment together with its enablers among the Brahmins of the media is rotten to the core, and that their main criterion in making such decisions is self preservation and aggrandizement rather than any consideration, even the slightest consideration, of the lives of people who are going to be sacrificed for these people's sicknesses and immoral behavior.

Who the hell cares if Dems are blamed for the evntual failure or not?

FWIW, I supported McCain in 2000. I cringed when Bush said America should try to be a more humble country during his debates with Gore. I believe there is evil in the world, and sometimes evil has to be confronted by force. I think history will decide that Saddam was the bad guy in this conflict, not Bush, and that our fumbling in Iraq was, in the long run, better than allowing him to go down in history as the new Saladin by turning Tel Aviv into another Auschwitz, or New York into another Chernobyl.

Or Shrub turning America into another Guantanamo.

Okay, I retract that reasonable remark I made up thread. I was wrong, the delusion is truly pervasive.

Sorry you feel that way, but if I didn't think Saddam was in a special class of his own, I wouldn't have supported this war. The Auschwitz quip was not mine, it was one of Saddam's promises during Gulf War I. Saladin, by the way, was Tikrit's most famous son before Saddam, and he frequently thought of himself in comparison with him.

Call me crazy - seems to me the Democrats and the Republicans should be focused on finding a solution to Iraq.

Kevin Drum and most of the Lefty Loons who post here are only focused on bashing Bush.

Well, I'm a fetching redhead with a charming smile, so I guess i could fancy myself as Rita Heyworth. I would be more accurate than Sadam fancying himself as Saladin.

In a perfect world there would be a deserted isle somewhere with Cap Weinberger, Saddam, Shrub, the leader of the Munich Olympics massacre, Cheney, Osama, and Rumdumb sitting around a campfire after a day of pulling weeds, telling war stories for eternity.

Or a better thought - sitting together on an ice floe as Global Warming becomes a reality to them.

Actualy, a surge will help conservatives blame failure on the liberals. Every action of the Bush Admin at this point is designed to dump the mess into the laps of the next Admin. To make the next president have to pull out the troops.

The surge is a way to delay. 3-4 months to surge (or fake it), 6-8 months to give it long enough to 'work', continued scrapping over whether its 'enough' (and blaming one and all if its not 'enough'), and then ... well, then we're in 08, and you know what that means.

So the next President has this mess dumped in his/her lap. If it's a D ... well, that's easy, isn't it? The D president pulled them out, therefore, the D president 'lost'. It's a little more complex if we elect an R, but not that much.

GC,

I'll bet you're a firecracker, but Rita Hayworth was in a class of her own.

Kerry Says He Would Add 40,000 to Army - Washington Post - June 4, 2004

Hah! I totally forgot that and they crapped all over him about it!

Two years too late --and it wouldn't have worked then either.

People like Minion of Rove confuse support the mission with support the troops. The mission was wrong from the start and has never deserved our support. Support the troops means getting them out of an untenable situation such as being in the middle of a civil war. I will never understand the Dems fear of calling for troop withdrawal as not supporting the troops. And the majority of Americans want the troops brought home within the next year. If the Dems fail to heed this clear directive they need to be permenantely out of power.

minion: "I think history will decide that Saddam was the bad guy in this conflict, not Bush ..."

Based upon what -- Three Kings?

You best grow up and realize that the world is full of bad actors prancing on the world stage. While I might sympathize with the Iraqi people, let's not forget that Donald Rumsfeld was doing business with Saddam Hussein for the Reagan Administration as far back as 1983 -- so this recent concern for Saddam's bad nature rings painfully hollow.

Further, Saddam is no better or worse than Uzbekistan President Islom Karimov, one of our erstwhile allies in the SCWT (so-called "War on Terror"), who has shown a marked penchant for boiling his political opponents alive and gunning down his unarmed critics in the streets of his capital.

So please spare us your pious pronouncements about how Bush was doing the right thing. A man who verbally mocks death row inmates pleading for mercy is most assuredly not motivated by any concerns for human rights. He just wanted to secure the oil for his political benefactors, and was perfectly willing to bullshit the country and world to get his way.

Your Three Kings refernce aside, you seem like a reasonable person. So stop insulting your own intelligence with this claptrap about exercises in international morality. Life in the world is hard enough, but it's a lot harder if you insist upon validating ignorance with nonsense.

Ignorance can be cured, if you dare open your eyes and ears to the world around you. Stupidity, on the other hand, is more often than not terminal -- unless, of course, your daddy has lots of rich Saudi friends can bail you out.

Aloha a mele kalikimaka.

if saddam thought of himself as saladin, then surely the analogy must extend to the invading americans as crusaders, right MOR?

in which case, bush is the "bad guy" in your pissant example.

for those of us who see the world beyond the good/bad dichotomy of a pre-adolescent with undescended testicles, I would suggest that neither bush nor saddam are exactly admirable, although ironically, in the past 5 years, bush has actually lied MORE than ha saddam, although MOR seems willing to give him a pass on that.

probably because it allows us to kill a few more arabs who he finds scary.

As was Saladin.:)

Everyone does Mayilyn at halloween. I put on a silver dress and use my own hair, and go as Gilda.

Call me crazy - seems to me the Democrats and the Republicans should be focused on finding a solution to Iraq.

While it's tempting to call you crazy, "dim" is probably more accurate.

1)Democrats and Republicans aren't the commander in chief and so have no direct control over this country's Iraq policy.

2) As Bush doesn't listen to ANY of the advice given him, be it from generals, diplomats, allies or Daddy's friends, were there a solution to the quagmire that as Iraq he clearly wouldn't listen anyway.

He is Nero, fiddling while our soldiers die and Iraq burns.

Appologies to the forum for all of the speed-typing infractions.

Every part of this is the Republican's baby. They had carte blanche to handle it exactly as they wanted to. It's a showcase of Republican policy and Republican character.

For the rest of eternity you can say that something is like the Republican way of doing things and everyone will know what you mean. Utter corruptedness, utter stupidity, utter failure, no sense of who they are and no sense of who other people are, but absolute egotism.

As they are so functionally detrimental to normal human life, I think this kind of character is speciating.

I'd agree if the escalation weren't going to cost more lives. Since it is ... I'm not happy to see it.

Nads,

Nope, he saw Israel as the new Western Crusaders, and he intended to exterminate them.

GC,

What movie is that famous poster of Rita from?

I think history will decide that Saddam was the bad guy in this conflict, not Bush, and that our fumbling in Iraq was, in the long run, better than allowing him to go down in history as the new Saladin by turning Tel Aviv into another Auschwitz, or New York into another Chernobyl.

Oh for Christs sake. You're right, Saddam is a thousand feet tall. He flew all the jetliners that crashed on 9/11. He breathes fire and pulls nuclear bombs out of his anus. He is history's greatest monster, more evil than Hitler, Pol Pot and Jimmy Carter combined. Trees wither and dogs whimper around him. It is good that we stopped this monster before he destroyed the universe.

It's because of social conservative personality disorder --their first experience of foreign policy was hearing about Vietnam, and getting freaked out about it, and internalizing the 'lessons' of Vietnam as that everything about Vietnam was right it was everyone else who failed.

So in Iraq they recreated their dream Vietnam.

Sorry to leave now that the party's getting good, but I gotta take my boys to the movies.

Bruce,

I'd agree Saddam was a pissant if he hadn't killed a million people in two unprovoked wars of aggression, if he hadn't demonstrated his recklessness by trying to assassinate a former US President, if he hadn't sheltered fugitives from the first WTC bombing, and if he hadn't cheered the second WTC attack and declared himself an ally of whoever had accomplished that triumph.

I'm not sure - The Lady from Frisco?

The conservative dominance of the past 25 years owes far more to Jimmy Carter-era stagflation and the bull stock market of 1982-2000 than it does to any defeat in Vietnam.

Sing it brother. This needs to be more widely understood.

minion: "I'd agree Saddam was a pissant if he hadn't killed a million people in two unprovoked wars of aggression ..."

You know, I'd agree that you might actually have a point, if you and your fellow neocons weren't so hell-bent on waving a flag of convenience, by never acknowledging who it was that blatantly encouraged and armed him throughout that first unprovoked war against Iran.

We have now been in Iraq for 45 months, 45 months during which things went great for three weeks, and went steadily downhill ever since.

It's hard to imagine that, over the long term, the success or failure of the "libruls kept us from winning Iraq" narrative will depend on whether or not Bush (and it's 100% Bush's decision) gets his surge.

Surge or no surge, the basic fact remains: Bush, Cheney, Rummy, etc. were denied nothing that they asked for in this war. Hell, they had to be forced into accepting money to armor Humvees to keep our soldiers from getting blown up by IEDs.

If we can't get it straight in the public's mind who lost Iraq, by repeating that over and over again - "we gave them all the troops, all the equipment, all the money they asked for, and they still lost," then heaven help us.

It's an escalation--not a surge--and it is going to cost many, many more lives. Playing semantic games with peoples lives is disgusting.

last comment and I'm out the door --

HawaiiDon,

It's not the things you don't know that scare me, it's the things you know that just ain't so....

Maybe Saint Jiminy did give Saddam a wink and a nod to attack the Ayatolla, but that doesn't make the US responsible, at least not us dastardly neocons. As to your tired factoid about us arming Saddam -- nope, it was the French and the Soviet Union. He would have been glad to buy US weapons, but to our credit we would not sell him any. Less than 1% of Iraq's weapons were of US origin in Gulf War I.

Oh it is beyond disgusting. I don't think the word has been coined that encapsulates that level of crass, craven, perfidy that this represents.

Nads and I, unlike most of you, (and you should be thankful you have escaped this, we all puke at least once that first month) know first hand what happens to human flesh when bullets tear into it and things blow up nearby it. Ron Beyers reads my local paper. He can verify the tales I tell about the trauma team I was a part of until I had knee surgery a year and a half ago and just didn't go back because I'm sick of bullets in kids and don't think I could take another one.

Maybe that is why he and I are especially scathing in what we have to say about this?

I'd agree Saddam was a pissant if he hadn't killed a million people blah blah blah

Saddam did not "kill a million people." Your history book is apparently defective and in need of return. Iraq and Iran had a border dispute over a region whose pedigree was in doubt. The revolutionary government in Iran was calling for a bloody overthrow of Saddam's secular regime. War ensued -- and the United States supported Saddam with money and weapons.

Also, there is no conclusive proof that Saddam Hussein tried to kill G.H.W. Bush. It is merely an allegation based on incomplete evidence. You may want to reserve your condemnation until the identity of the person behind the plot is known.

Finally, a former ally whose army we repelled, whose weapons we destroyed, whose military might and standing in the region we took away, and whose country we drove into utter financial ruin for over a decade "cheered" the WTC attacks? Truly inexplicable.

kevin, you are a fucking jerk!!! you are triangulating about people's lives. Quit playing your STUPID FUCKING GAMES and start thinking about reality. What it means for more REAL PEOPLE TO LOSE THEIR LIVES OR LIMBS FOR A FUCKING DIASATEROUS WASTE!!!!!!!! Have you no empathy man????

God you are craven.
.

Liberals can't do anything? Maybe not liberals in particular, but if some 70 plus percent of the people are for ending the war, maybe it's time for a general strike.

12 yr old in the ER last night with a single entry and no-exit wound to her buttock. She was just asleep until some random intruder at the door.

keivn's is an especially easy position when you aren't personally invested in this war, and it remains an abstract poli sci mental mastrubation-fest.

As to your tired factoid about us arming Saddam -- nope, it was the French and the Soviet Union. He would have been glad to buy US weapons, but to our credit we would not sell him any.

Wrong again. We did sell him chemical and biological weapons precursors and Bell helicopters which were used militarily; that is a matter of Congressional record.

Further, the United States pulled strings and arranged the sales of weapons to Iraq via other nations. The CIA oversaw and even coordinated many of these transactions.

Half of being a winger seems to be just not having your history straight.

Kevin, the people who are going to blame liberals and Democrats for losing Iraq are the same people who don't think that sending an army of 500,000 troops, fighting for ten years, losing 58,000 American lives and killing millions of Vietnamese was enough. They blame the Democratic Congress for cutting of aid to South Vietnam before the final North Vietnamese push.

So to satisfy those people, we'd have to do more than we did in Vietnam.

No more American troops or Iraqi people killed for the sake of a surge, please.

I agree that the republicans and perhaps the media will blame the democrats no matter what. It goes along with the stereotype of the dems. "losing" wars and the reps. "winning" them, unless the dems. somehow undermine the cause.
Stereotypes are just a whole lot easier than thinking.
And wasn't it proven that repeated falsehoods work in the case of this war? Despite Bush eventually saying that there was no connection between 9/11 and Al Quaeda there were polls that showed that most Americans believed the connection did exist. This may well have been influenced by the fact that Cheney kept repeating this story even after it had been stated by the President that it wasn't so.
BUT, I was heartened by the results of the mid-term elections. Too many usually-Republican voters I know actually had relatives in Iraq. They know bullshit when they run into it firsthand.
They may even remember it for awhile - like when vets run into program cuts put into place by the rep-controlled Congress in favor of high-tier tax cuts. Who knows?

I was a green paramedic when crack hit the streets of America and people started getting shot over 10 dollars. The most helpless I had ever felt in my life (up to that point) was a thru-and-thru to the ass that went through both femorals. He bled out in front of me, and back then Poly-Heme (I was part of that) hadn't been developed, let alone tested.

Saline has no ability to cary O2, so they still die. They just last long enough to know it's happening.

Shall Nads and I just cut lose and let those who thing this is a swell idea know just exactly what the fuck you are wishing for?

Minion,

Glad you have your logic worked out. Who was the bad guy in Hitler vs. Stalin?

And tonight for the re-opening of the Grand Emporium, back by popular demand, Global Citizen will reprise Rita Hayworth as Gilda singing "Put the blame on Mame, boys, put the blame on Mame".

The San Francisco earthquake was not caused by Mother Nature. Put the blame on Mame.

The greatest non-strip tease number in show biz history.

How do we know we armed Saddam?

We kept the fucking receipts, that's how.

"And if the surge works"

What? And they start throwing flowers?

You shouldn't have wasted any skin cells typing that last paragraph.

What a bogus proposal for a discussion thread.
Iraq started out as a list of "causes" unrelated to reality. Nothing has changed.

F-18's sold to Pakistan.
Nuclear tech to go to India.
Arming traditional enemies in different ways and pocketing the profits.

Afghanistan complaining about Pakistan not closing down Taleban training camps in the area which was once Afghanistan except for European meddling : which they have never accepted. Meantime NATO predicts a shitstorm of fighting come spring.

What is winning ? Especially when the "objective" is either undefined or incompetently sought.

Distraction is the key to a magician's trade. George's pals know how to keep attention away from what is really happening.

Minion,

You are out of your league when you come with flat BS about the US not being involved with the buildup of Saddam during the 80s - Yes, a great deal of material came from the Soviets and the French - Aircraft and missiles - But, the deals were made through international arms dealers - One was a Lebanese-Armenian living in Miami - Cluster bomb technology went from Pennsylvania, through Chile, to Iraq - Companies from the US and Europe were heavily invovled in the transactions - The Italian bank, BNL, supplied and laundered the money - All of this was done under the nods and winks of the Reagan Administration - GWHB was very much involved in seeing that Saddam was able to build his weapon systems - While this was going on, Isreal was selling weapons to Iran -

None of this would have happened, if the US had stepped up to the plate and put a stop to the sales and transfers - They knew about it and allowed it to happen.

You really ought to do, at least a minimum, of homework on this subject - You have not even approached Head Start in beginning to understand what happened - By the way, it is all over the web. - Don't really have to peruse a public library.

Don't embarass yourself any more than you have to date.

Often, the military names an operation with a roman numeral, like a movie sequel.

We can, regardless of the 'official' name, call this escalation "Together Forward II"--and I would urge that we do so.

Donald from Hawaii, I'm a neocon who will acknowldege that the US sold arms to Saddam during the war he started against Iran. What puzzles me is where you go with this fact.

IMHO the fact that we armed Saddam put an extra responsiblity on us to overthrow him. You seem to think that because we wrongly armed Saddam in the 1980's, we are then obligated to keep him in power.

Dell - You just gave me the title of my post on this topic. Thanks.

Its going to be a disaster. Hes like one of those Biblical figures who hardens his heart to the truth and makes his failures more catastrophic. He should have taken the advice of the study group and gotten out.

ex-liberal: Morons like Donald from Hawaii think everything is the USA's fault. It's out fault that Saddam gassed the Kurds, it's our fault that Saddam launched SCUD missiles into Israel. It's our fault that Kim Jong Il is starving his people and threatening the free world with nukes.

It's our fault that people in the Third World are poor. It's our fault that the president of Iran talks about "wiping Israel off the map."

Morons like "Havlicek stole the ball" think that the Republican Party is identical to the USA, and therefore holding the Republicans accountable for their vicious and non-functional foreign policy is actually somehow blaming the USA.

ex-lib writes:

To me, the word "claims" implies that one is not to believe the official US statement.
Actually, that headline is germane to this post of Kevin's. IMHO, given the media's pro-Democrat and anti-war biases, you don't have to worry that the public will blame liberals for losing the war in Iraq.

First, the headline of that article says "Taliban leader killed in U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan, military says -" I don't see the word "claims" anywhere in the headline. Second, it's entirely possible that AP couldn't verify what our military says. The military has shown in the past to exaggerate their successes, and stayed silent on their failures. It's completely reasonable that the press is skeptical about something our military says, and in fact, they would be irresponsible if they weren't. The real bias here is shown by you - who doesn't want the media to do its job, but to parrot everything the administration and the military says. Many conservatives need to learn that just because you disagree with something doesn't make it not true.

The FDR administration created an agency, I've forgotten its' name, with the authority of a Ken Starr to investigate every single allegation of corruption or misuse of funds in New Deal programs and later in WWII. FDR had the most rigorously accountable adminstration in American history.

The Republicans have created exactly the opposite situation. They've done everything they could to limit or eliminate accountability in everything. To what purpose? Because it's a a virtue?

Matt Yglesias wrote: Irrespective of what objective events occur on the ground, there will be a revisionist movement to blame American failure in Iraq on a liberal stab-in-the-back. It's on us -- Kevin, me, anyone who writes about politics for a living, hell, anyone who reads about politics frequently -- to prevent this from becoming the conventional wisdom.

I fully agree with Kevin. Everyone on the planet knows that Iraq is Bush's war. Bush is certain to get the blame for bad results, as well as the credit, should any good results ensue.

So, why is someone as smart as Yglesias worrying about something that won't happen? I think the reason is that it gives him an excuse to keep bashing Bush and conservatives.

It's like a kid who starts a fight, but claims he's just defending himself, because, he says, the other kid was about to hit me when I hit him.

Havlicek stole the ball writes:

ex-liberal: Morons like Donald from Hawaii think everything is the USA's fault. It's out fault that Saddam gassed the Kurds, it's our fault that Saddam launched SCUD missiles into Israel...
blah blah blah

Nope, you're wrong. That's not what he said, and I seriously doubt that's what he thinks, although only Donald from Hawaii knows what Donald from Hawaii thinks. You're calling him a moron for something you assume he thinks? Perhaps this is exactly what Kevin is refering to.

ex-lib writes:

You seem to think that because we wrongly armed Saddam in the 1980's, we are then obligated to keep him in power.

Um, no, that's not what he said in his post.

When are you conservatives going to learn to read what someone wrote, instead of putting words in their mouths, or implying, or thinking what he wrote? I suggest you both read his post again.

Ascribing motives to others one of the things that conservatives are actually good at. Of course, like in oh-so-many other areas they are so bloody fucking wrong in their assumptions that it's laughable.

It's like a kid who starts a fight, but claims he's just defending himself, because, he says, the other kid was about to hit me when I hit him.

Are you sure thats what you wanted to say? Because it sounds like you're the one bashing Bush.

"It's like a kid who starts a fight, but claims he's just defending himself, because, he says, the other kid was about to hit me when I hit him."

Heh. Which is exactly what the Bush Administration did in Iraq.

Andy: First, the headline of that article says "Taliban leader killed in U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan, military says -" I don't see the word "claims" anywhere in the headline.

They changed that headline after I posted my link. Evidently someone recognized that such raw bias was not a good idea.

BTW, it was Mithrandir, not I, who wrote "Morons like Donald from Hawaii think everything is the USA's fault. It's out fault that Saddam gassed the Kurds, it's our fault that Saddam launched SCUD missiles into Israel"

Blueperiod and Joel: Touché

It's a bit cynical to suggest that the main debate has anything to do with long-term US politics--just as it it is cynical to escalate US troops with no plan to use them just to appease the mythology of the Right Wing--we have to do everything in our power to stop this war. Period. Everything else is secondary. Click my initials for for my post on this topic.

Peace,
FP

Glad you said you were not going to look for them in the forest - As an old morel hunter, they follow the spring thaw up the hill - and try to check with the Forest Service about the locations of any fires from the previous summer. Although, every professional morel hunter will be there before you. Easiest mushroom to identify, although not always the easiest to observe - Have to keep looking at a slant. But, far more fun to find - snakes are still asleep and you don't have the crazies running around with AK-47s as one finds in matsutake season.
Morels with omeletes - Does it get any better?
Posted by: thethirdPaul

thethirdPaul,

I even struck out at the market, apparently the morels aren't due here in the Bay Area until sometime in January.

[sigh]

Morels on omelettes are quite good but if you can't get them, then truffle oil does wonders for eggs (and pretty much everything else). There's a great recipe for morels on toast points in the Chez Panise cookbook; I should type it up some time and send it along. That is if GC or Ms N hasn't alreay.

I have heard the crazy stories of mushroom hunting back when the Japanese economy was booming and they'd pay any price for what they wanted. And here I had always thought combat arms training wouldn't come in handy in civilian life.

Gotta run.

minion wrote: "It's not the things you don't know that scare me, it's the things you know that just ain't so...."

Oh, the irony, since that laundry list of yours about just why Saddam was somehow "different" was basically nonsense, some of it entirely untrue, others unproven, and still others badly distorted.

To put it simply, I'm tired of triangulating, I'm tired of focus groups and message testing, I'm tired of worrying about what the other voters will think, what history will think, what the rest of the world will think, and, most particularly, what Osama bin Laden will think. It's time for the Democrats in Congress to figure out what they believe in and then to stand up for it. It's long past time for us to do the right thing.

And if that means that they will be attacked for it (and it will, of course), instead of letting those attacks change their vote, figure out instead how to either respond to those attacks or, better yet, to preemptively deal with them by attacking first. They've been on the defensive since 9/11/2001. It's time to regain the initiative and to do what the voters gave them a mandate to do. And if Bush frets and pouts, tell him to take it up with the voters.

Enough is enough.

More troops? Why not invest that money in jobs for the Iraqis. Or do the Borgen Project thing and address poverty in the country.

ex-liberal wrote: "So, why is someone as smart as Yglesias worrying about something that won't happen?"

Not only will it happen, it's already happening, idiot. We've already seen it from conservative politicians, pundits, neo-cons, bloggers, and the like. It's rather ironic that you are pretending otherwise, given that you yourself are part of this chorus with your idiotic posts about media bias.

minor wrote: "Why not invest that money in jobs for the Iraqis."

Three years ago, we might have been able to do that. Now, though, it would almost certain be a failure, with money eaten up by corruption (both ours and theirs) and security costs, and with ordinary Iraqis fearful of working on any project funded by the U.S.

I've just read this whole thread and now I've forgottenwhat what the topic is.

In other news today, Reuthers announced that "ex-liberal" "claimed" he had an iota of intelligence in his head. No confirmation by reliable sources at this time.

What Republicans mean when they talk about freedom:

That laws should be voluntary, more like guidelines. Unless you're not a Republican, in which case you're guilty unless proven innocent and the only penalty is death.

And that everyone else will voluntarily agree to do whatever the Republican thinks they should. Right away. Now that's freedom.

stupid git: In other news today, Reuthers announced that "ex-liberal" "claimed" he had an iota of intelligence in his head.

stupid git, are you sure that report wasn't from the Athothiated Preth?

cyntax,

Heads up on the truffle oil suggestion - Yeah, dried morels do lack the flavor.

However, at New Seasons Markets in Portland, truffles are selling for just under 20 dollars an ounce. Those with 3 and up car garages can purchase a pound for just over $300.00. Some lady named Hyacinth from England, ordered some on-line for something she calls "a candle light supper" - Richard something or other cancelled the order. MsN will understand.

Keeping up appearances, thethirdPaul?

That Bucket woman is such a pain. Always singing at me.

Boo-Kay

I'm still struck by the juvenile nature of Kevin Drum's post here.

All he cares about is making sure Bush gets blamed for everything.

Kevin Drum doesn't give a whit about finding solutions to the real problems we face in Iraq and elsewhere.

I can only hope and pray that the Democrats are more serious about facing our challenges head-on than Kevin Drum is.

I'm still appalled by Frequency Kenneth's posts here. He seem to post only to blame Kevin for something.

Freq Ken--

You operate from the assumption that Bush is not to be blamed for anything.

Last time I checked, the Commander in Chief was the Decider, and I think he decided we needed to have this war in Iraq.

But keep thinking happy thoughts about how your boy in the White House can stay away from being held accountable for his decisions. It helps your inner wingnut find that warm, happy place.

Shortened for λ - the truth about Bush hertz.

So a surge of troops into the streets of Baghdad is going to convince the Iraqis that we're not an overpowering occupying force being controlled by random domestic politics 10,000 miles away.

They'll stop their own partisan warfare, lay down their arms, run to their roof tops to toss flower petals, and then go to sleep snuggled in their beds assured that their best interests are being looked out for by their hero in Washington DC -- the man they call the decider.

Kevin:

I think you'd better drop anchor here and take a breather while you get your bearings.

This "surge" or "escalation" will express itself as nothing more than blind brutality, and it will be answered with more of the same. It guarantees that more Americans and more Iraqis will be maimed or killed.

If you're "unequivocally in favor of withdrawing," then stop equivocating. What we're doing now is wrong. It would be even more wrong to continue it or expand it, and it would be obscene to tolerate it for political advantage.

You know this, but you write as if you've forgotten it.

Peace on Earth.

"And if the surge works"

For counterinsurgency to work in Baghdad, means Kevin and all of us have acquiesced to Sunni ethnic cleansing, flattening the slums to kill the Shiite Mahdi Militia, and operating concentration camps for the survivors.

minion:

You might as well quit trying to bring historical fact into this. The Left has rewritten the history of the Middle East in their own minds as effectively as they rewrote the history of communist expansion. Why, if not for Imperialist Amerika, the world would have been a quiet and peaceful place for the past fifty years.

Saddam's crimes, two wars of conquest, and the hundreds of thousands dead, have been erased from their memories. To listen to them now, you'd think we'd invaded Belgium.

One thing that is curious in all this is that Rumsfeld's last memo mentioned options like "an accelerated draw-down of U.S. bases", "Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and Coalition forces", "Initiate a massive program for unemployed youth", and "Recast the U.S. military mission... — go minimalist" -- but Gates if ISG fame comes in and the first thing he says is "more troops".

From tonight's Times:
"Commander Said to Be Open to More Troops
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and DAVID E. SANGER

Altering his earlier position, the top American ground commander in Iraq is now willing to back an increase in U.S. troops in Baghdad."

What a coincidence!

Hey vern!

You might as well quit trying to bring historical fact into this. The Left has rewritten the history of the Middle East in their own minds as effectively as they rewrote the history of communist expansion.

That would be Truman, of which you speak--the "lefty" who laid the groundwork for the winning of the cold war? And then forty years of bipartisan efforts to win the cold war, despite Republican efforts to claim victory all for themselves? Typical wingnut--Ronald Reagan beat the Russians all by himself, eh?

Why, if not for Imperialist Amerika, the world would have been a quiet and peaceful place for the past fifty years.

No, that's the coded hatespeech of wingnuts who think the simplistic use of generalizations is the way to make a point. In fact, a sober look at everything America has done in the last fifty years will generate a list of great successes and great failures, with a greater number of things that fall in between.

Saddam's crimes, two wars of conquest, and the hundreds of thousands dead, have been erased from their memories. To listen to them now, you'd think we'd invaded Belgium.

No, but thanks for pointing out just how badly the Bush administration failed to justify their war. Nothing about WMDs in your little diatribe? Nothing about Saddam's proven use of WMD on Iranian troops, on the Kurds, and against the Shia in the south? Nothing about how the war unleashed an even more horrific and out-of-control descent into chaos, marginalization of rights for women, even less quality of life for the Iraqis caught in the crossfire between the Shia and the Sunni? And the wingnuts never bring up the catastrophic loss of Iraq's antiquities and the looting of its infrastructure. Hey, next time--start a war with enough troops and maybe you'll have a leg to stand on. Next time pick a dictator who wasn't already proven to have been working with Republicans in the early 1980s and try to pick a dictator who wasn't photographed shaking hands with Don Rumsfeld.

Now, old Saddam--he deserves to be strung up for his horrible crimes. He deserves everything coming to him. Problem was, he never had a nuclear weapons program--and that's what the whole war was supposed to be about. It wasn't about saving the Iraqi people from him and it wasn't about "democracy." Good lord, man--the Republican party has done more in the last five years to eliminate democracy from the American experience than the previous 42 Presidents.

Now, go back to wingnut central and bring some heavy artillery next time. Or better yet, rub your thighs up against that Grover Norquist statue in your backyard and have a big swig of holiday egg nog during your little session of heavy petting. Maybe it'll ease your pain.

Pale Rider - Will Demcorats ever get beyond their Blame Game mentality?

Sure would be nice if the Dems offered some solutions.

Will Demcorats ever get beyond their Blame Game mentality?

Sure would be nice if the Dems offered some solutions.

First of all, quit changing your handle--it makes me think of Chuckles.

Second of all, it's called accountability. Deal with it.

Third of all, shut the fuck up. Why does the Democratic Party have to solve a problem your President won't even admit exists and who won't listen to the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group?

This columnist asserts that Iraq is already a success. Excerpt:

The leading cell phone company Iraqna is set to take in nearly $520 million in revenues in 2006. That follows a record year in 2005 of $333 million. The leading export of Iraq is producing nearly $41 billion in revenues. In 2004 there were only 8,000 registered companies with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - today there are over 34,000.

... imagine enjoying Iraq's GDP growth of 13% in 2006. Which followed a record year in 2005 of 17%.

Since 2003 the salaries of average Iraqis have risen in excess of 100%. In addition the Iraqi government has slashed the income tax rates from 45% to just around 15%. That has resulted in the average Iraqi family being able to develop long term nest-eggs (we call them IRAs).

private sector unemployment is hovering around 30%. (High to you and me, but still better than in the Saddam era.)
[snip]
the violence so reported in the daily news grind does not begin to give one even a slight glimpse of the entire picture....Every single day 25 million Iraqis are going to jobs, coming home, paying bills, putting some into savings, educating their children - and living in freedom.

I am not as optimistic as this columnist, but he does have a point about the rapidly improving economy.

Now, old Saddam... never had a nuclear weapons program--and that's what the whole war was supposed to be about. It wasn't about saving the Iraqi people from him and it wasn't about "democracy."

I wish every Democratic talking head would mention this every time they talked on TV. By shifting the debate to the handling of the war, the Republicans are trying to distance themselves from the fact that the war was wrong to begin with.

When Bush says "we'll stay until the job is done", why doesn't any Democrat answer back "What job? There were no WMD. There's no job there to be done."

current idiot and never been liberal:

Why do you think the wireless infrastructure of Iraq means anything?

Throughout the Middle East, every country is experiencing a wireless boom that is driven by lowered costs and investment from Europe and Asia. The success of wireless communication in Iraq is driven by the fact that the insurgents aren't actively taking out the towers and the equipment which keeps the networks up and running--this is because they don't have to worry about the networks because of the lack of electricity.

All of your economic statistics are cute and all, but really--there is a shortage of electricity and drinking water. The influx of billions of dollars in money from the US which has been turned around and used to grease the wheels of corruption in Iraq is well documented. Had there never been a Coalition Provisional Authority, do you really think there'd be a difference?

I could take billions and throw it into a cesspool like Iraq and certain areas would be booming--for example, is there MORE or LESS organized crime in Iraq than before?

Is there more or less violence in Iraq than before? More electricity being produced? More or less kidnappings, killings, bombings, more or less torture of civilians and are there more or less instances where people have had to pick up and flee their homes or carry dual pieces of identification to keep themselves from being executed in the streets by rival gangs of Shia and Sunni militia?

Or is that all just shit we made up to make Bush look bad?

imagine enjoying Iraq's GDP growth of 13% in 2006.

A good way to have high GDP growth is to first have someone destroy your infrastructure and start again from zero. Cuba claims similar numbers by the way.

I wish every Democratic/liberal talking head would mention this:

So far, there's more violent crime in Iraq and there's more violent crime in America. Why would anyone trust them to do anything about these problems? If you asked people if they thought that this country was safer now than it was five years ago, you'd get a most emphatic "no."

The only people with Bush right now are the 33% of Americans who were still with Nixon in 1974 and who have consistently ignored every piece of empirical evidence that shows the incredible level of incompetence of this Administration.

Pale Rider: Why does the Democratic Party have to solve a problem your President won't even admit exists and who won't listen to the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group?

Maybe the Dems should try to solve this problem because a solution would be good for the United States good for the middle east and good for the world. Maybe Demcs in Congress should solve the problem becauase that's what they're being paid to do.

I prefer a political leader who takes action, even though he makes mistakes, rather than one who just sits on the sideline and complains -- even if those complaints are valid.

The leading cell phone company Iraqna is set to take in nearly $520 million in revenues in 2006.

Makes ssense. Since we bombed the fuck out of the infrastructure and destroyed large segments of the phone and electricity grids.

Every single day 25 million

25 million of 125 millin. That's 20%.

Those killed by sectarian violence aren't living. Much less in peace.

And if he was honest - a bad check if it's wriotten by any of the fuckwits at Townhall - and took the no-bid contractor money out of the equation, it's less rosy still.

When you don't hear of someone outside wingnut circles there is usually a reason for that.

Let's not treat people who are in the armed forces as mere chess pieces in strategy games between non-fighting liberal and conservative activists, please.

Advocating something because you think it will fail --- the consequences of which, I assume, would be more lost lives than otherwise --- is shameful. War is not a game.

ex-lib, no doubt you know the difference between the executive and legislative branches.

Sure would be nice if the Dems offered some solutions.

You know, I want to revisit that and make this point--

Where were the Republicans who wanted to offer up their own plan to deal with Kosovo? Where were the Republicans who were supposed to offer up their alternative to deal with Bill Clinton's problems with the Balkans, Saddam Hussein and with any of a number of issues?

I don't recall anything more 'constructive' than a lot of bitching and moaning during the 1990s, but hey--peace and prosperity are overrated, or so I hear.

Think on that for the evening, you wingnut shitheads. Bill Clinton gave us peace and prosperity. What have you given us?

Maybe the Dems should try to solve this problem because a solution would be good for the United States good for the middle east and good for the world. Maybe Demcs in Congress should solve the problem becauase that's what they're being paid to do.

Uh, no. Dems in Congress aren't being paid to pull Bush's ass out of the fire. In point of fact, they're being paid to do the business of the American people, and that's all. Foreign policy is conducted by the Executive Branch, dumbass. And if the Democrats in Congress have to perform the necessary oversight and compliance to show how even more incompetent the Bush administration is at that, I don't think you'll be demanding that they do their job. I think you'll be screaming that they're doing their job too well.

I prefer a political leader who takes action, even though he makes mistakes, rather than one who just sits on the sideline and complains -- even if those complaints are valid.

Sits on the sidelines and complains--that's the entire political career of Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, Bob Dole and Trent Lott right there for you.

And Clinton gave you the Roadmap for Peace in the Middle East. And Bush promptly abandoned it, allowing the entire situation between Israel and the Palestinians to degrade to where it is now. The Roadmap for peace laid out by Clinton might have failed as well--but we'll never know, will we?

It's not like Bush was ever going to listen to anything said to him by Democrats, right? He won't even listen to James frickin' Baker--why would he listen to anyone else?

Next time make an honest argument, okay?

"Thanks, Kevin, for exposing yourself as an irresponsible Bush Hater."

Yeah, come on Kevin.

Me, I am a responsible Bush Hater.

I'm sorry but there's no call for "hating" anyone. Merely pointing out that someone is doing a bad job, has made bad decisions, has not properly defended or led the country and who has consistently proven that they are not competent to run the country and put the right people in the right jobs to do what's necessary has nothing to do with "hating" anyone. I certainly don't "hate" Bush or anyone affiliated with him. I am an American who is paying attention, and I refuse to "hate" anyone when pointing out they're doing a bad job is good enough. There's a word for putting the good of the country above all else.

It's called patriotism, and you goddamned wingnuts don't have an ounce of patriotism to call your own anymore. If you were the least bit honest about what is going on in this country, you'd be patriotic about it--and by patriotic, I mean, put the good of the country above your own partisan self-interests and your own ideology. Your blind hatred of Bill Clinton and your blind acceptance of everything Bush does because he's the anti-Clinton has left us with more problems than we can count right now.

Above all else, just shut the fuck up if you can't be honest about what's going on.

The calamity that comes is never the one we had prepared ourselves for. --Sam Clemens. in a letter to Olivia Clemens, 8/16/1896

Apropose of nothing, it's just good advice to keep always; but especially so in trying times such as these. (Besides, the Divine MsN will be tickled to come across a Twain so early in the morning.)

Pale Rider - Clinton's Roadmap for Peace was a failure. Rather than make peace, the Palestinians immediately began an Intifada against Israel -- that is, mass murders of innocent civilians. We now can see that Yasir Arafat had no desire to make peace.

I don't blame Clinton for trying to force a peace agreement. At least he was taking action, even if it didn't work.

Regarding the involvement of Dems in the war, this country has seen a deterioration of cooperation ever since Vietnam. In WW2, Congress and the President worked together to do what they could to win the war. FDR made his share of big, mistakes, but everyone was on the same team. Congress knew that winning the war was more important than showing up FDR.

When JFK botched the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, Eisenhower made no public criticism, although the Bay of Pigs was rife with error. Ike wanted to prevail in the Cold War, so he didn't undermine the President.

Unfortunately for the US (and for the world), those days of cooperation are gone. As a result, the US is somewhat less effective than it might be when conducting wars and in foreign affairs generally.

Here's a problem. After the city of Baghdad was pummeled by US tanks, the Palestinian foreign minister said Mr. Bush told him "God would tell me, 'George, go and fight these terrorists in Afganistan,' and I did. And then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."
Not only has Mr. Bush reserved the right of pre-emptive strikes in his chosen wars, there have been repeated suggestions of the religiosity related to his drive and determination.
With a "surge," will he just further his grandiose imperial desires/delusions at an enormous cost to citizens left in Iraq--they say it is very expensive to leave-- and US troops--assigned there-- and won't the troops be right in the middle of a dangerous civil war?

ex liberal ( very ex )
Kennedy cut air support to the invasion of Cuba and insisted on the Bay of Pigs : because it wouldn't work and the CIA could STFU. Except of course they didn't and insisted on running what they knew in advance was going to be botched.
Kennedy was killed BTW.

Rather than make peace, the Palestinians immediately began an Intifada against Israel

Sharon bears some of the responsibility, about equally with Arafat. He knew it would be seen as an apostacy when he went to the Temple Mount, but the Butcher of Sabra and Shatilla was campaigning. He went anyway, knowing what the outcome might be, but he didn't care.

I guess I'll just stop trying to use tags after midnight.

Barbra Streisand sums it up nicely for the know-nothing, forget-nothing neocons.

GC, did you see the results of the recent polyheme trial? Polyheme did much worse than standard treatment.

Here's another problem: How liberal pacifists are adversely affected by political ideology of those that run the government:
Some insight from Herman Goering, at the Nuremburg Trials: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
This is a symptom of an ideological outrage that we have endured with this administration.
Surge: "to have a heavy, swelling, violent motion, a violent sweeping, to be tossed about on waves, violent rolling, to swell as though agitated"
Do you think "surge" might also equal total annihilation?
Might it be this warring administration's excuse to disrupt Iran?

ex-liberal: "Regarding the involvement of Dems in the war, this country has seen a deterioration of cooperation ever since Vietnam. In WW2, Congress and the President worked together to do what they could to win the war. FDR made his share of big, mistakes, but everyone was on the same team. Congress knew that winning the war was more important than showing up FDR."

Say what?

Oh, what do I know? I'm just a moron who thinks that everything is the USA's fault.

Thanks for the link Disputo. I knew it did not do as well as we had hoped it would, because I was doign some of the data compilation for the project at KU Med.

Realistically, every last one of us who has done any real research knew going in that the first product tested wouldn't do that well. They rarely do.

When we finally have a viable substitute for human blood, it will be a huge boon. But we are a good twenty years away from realizing that.

ex-lib:" "regarding the involvement of dems in the war, the country has seen a deterioration of cooperation since Vietnam."
Well, the Bush administration diverted millions in funds from the war in Afghanistan to prepare for the invasion and eventual occupation of Iraq. As you may well know, you seem quite intelligent, Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 of the US Constitution specifies the power of Congress to "raise and support armies." The emergency spending bill passed after 9/11/01 required the administration to notify congress before changing war spending plans. That did not occur whatsoever, the Republican Congress would not investigate, and "cooperation" was lost right then and there.

Ex liberal quotes a bizarrely upbeat columnist saying: "Every single day 25 million Iraqis are going to jobs, coming home, paying bills, putting some into savings, educating their children & living in freedom." (!)

Global Citizen replies "25 million of 125 million. That's 20%."

Uhmm...the population of Iraq is 26 million. 25 million out of 26 million is actually 99% of Iraqis! That's 99% of Iraqis that this deranged columnist is claiming are "every single day" engaged in full employment, happy homecomings, bill paying, saving money, schooling the kids & "living in freedom". Leaving aside the distinct possibility that this columnist has confused Iraq with Iowa, one must also wonder why, if things are so gosh darn peachy - 3,000 Iraqis are getting butchered & bombed to death "every single" month (not usually signs of equity, prosperity & freedom, just quietly...)And why, if "every single day" they are living in such freedom - over 100,000 of Iraq's best & brightest are fleeing Iraq EVERY SINGLE month to live as refugees in Jordan & Syria?

Let me acknowledge that total screw up. I walked away from the computer in mid-post and I obviously conflated/confused/confounded something, somewhere. That post is so effed up I can't imagine where the train jumped the tracks. I keep the CIA factbook on my homepage and use it daily. I definitely know the population of Iraq.

I appologize deeply to anyone who has ever put any stock at all in my opinion. I shall make it my resolution to use preview at least half the time.

BTW: Good catch. I'd rather get called on something like that and set the record straight that I screwed up than have the thread close with taht hangin' out there! Sheesh!

Yes, good catch DJO -- this guy ex-lib quoted seems to be totally confused. The sentence you quoted was obviously pulled out of a hat. If you start with 26 million and subtract the young, the old, the insurgents, and the unemployed, I'm sure you'll come up with something much less than 25 million. (By the way, 25 is 96% of 26, not 99%).

And he is impressed with the 13% GDP growth -- probably most of it due to money we are pumping into Iraq. But as GC will tell you (if she also has links to the World Factbooks of prior years, which I recommend) Iraq had 13% GDP growth in 1999 and 15% in 2000 -- and that was under sanctions.

So now we know ex-lib's sources. I was expecting better, frankly.

Is there nothing the star-nosed mole cannot do?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10834-starnosed-mole-can-sniff-underwater-videos-reveal.html

(with indescribable photo)

If this "surge" fails, conservatives will demand a bigger escalation. You can then copy and paste your post. I will copy and paste my comment.

To the very responsible E. Henry Thripshaw,

And a merry "Wreck the Halls" time to you.

Truly amazing work in the wee hours of the morning - How any of you could post while rolling on the carpet in hysterics over dimwit's post of the "MAHvelous Iraqi Economy", is beyond me.

Yes, indeedee, the Iraqi economy rocks - Cul-de-sacs of 3 RPG Garages, Iraqi wives crooning "Suddenly Akbar", with pink and blue birds a'twitterin' around their heads - walking into the morning air and breathing all of that fresh residue from bombings; Universities being shut down because of teachers being killed and students fleeing the country - Ah, life in the eye of a maelstrom.

Kevin, your tired, cynical, whipped thinking is morally and politically bankrupt. We just had an election where the American public overwhelmingly rejected "staying the course." 60-75% of them want to see troops withdrawn from Iraq (by mid-2007 to by early 2008). Escalation is supported by only 12%.

So the Bush-Cheney regime orders up an escalation, one that makes no strategic or tactical sense to the generals who have to carry it out. And you want Congress not to oppose it, particularly Democrats in Congress.

This is the last straw. You've been late to the party almost every step of the way along this road to hell -- supporting the invasion until just before it began, criticizing Dean's correct and courageous reaction to Saddam's capture as "tin-eared", trying to pretend a year into the war that no one could have seen through the weapons rationale until the moment that you finally did, opposing withdrawal long after it became clear that there was no possibility of military success -- for the political reason of tying the war can to Bush's tail.

You did come around to a pro-withdrawal stance earlier than many of your "sensible centrist" colleagues. But with this post, you've demonstrated that your position isn't based on any kind of principle, or on the reality of the situation in Iraq. You've reverted to politcal cowardice of the exact kind that got us into this disaster to begin with.

ex-lib: IMHO the fact that we armed Saddam put an extra responsiblity on us to overthrow him. You seem to think that because we wrongly armed Saddam in the 1980's, we are then obligated to keep him in power.

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many." - Dick Cheney August-1992


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/192908_cheney29.html

Havlicek stole the ball: .. Blame Game mentality?

"Bush says he doesn't want to play the "Blame Game." Makes sense. Never heard of a chicken who wanted to play the "Extra Crispy" game." -- Will Durst

vern: Saddam's crimes, two wars of conquest, and the hundreds of thousands dead, have been erased from their memories.

go figure..

the single most downloaded file at the george washington univ. national security archive is:

rumsfeld's handshake with saddam in dec. 1983

"Commander Said to Be Open to More Troops
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and DAVID E. SANGER

so...

casey was against it...

before he was for it...

Pale Rider: It wasn't about saving the Iraqi people from him and it wasn't about "democracy."

true..

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

very clear...

Well, I believe we should overthrow any government we ever sold, funneled or turned a blind eye to the sale of, any weapon system. Keeps those guys at DoD sharp - their eyes on the ball - Attack, attack, Elan, Elan.

We have a solemn duty - If you bought it, we'll get'cha. And that includes private sales to DoD.
Ah, eternal war, the High Altar of the Neocons.

This thread was a truly dismal way to begin Christmas Eve, Kevin. Hoping that public opinion turns wildly against Bush's proposed "surge" in Iraq is not good public policy. This war (occupation really, lets be honest here) is immoral and occurred due to lies and subterfuge by the Bushies.

They knew Saddam didn't have an active biological or chemical weapons program. They knew there were no activities underway to produce nuclear weapons. They knew Clinton's cruise missile barrage in 1998 had seriously degraded not only many of the weapons facilities, but also the will of Iraqi scientists to continue working on them. They knew that the no-fly zones Clinton enforced were very effective in deterring Saddam from further attacks against the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south. It is all in the public record, if you care to research it. But they invaded anyway. That is immoral and antithetical to the history of the United States of America's foreign policy.

Therefore, to support staying in Iraq one day longer, consequences if we leave be damned, is to tacitly support the criminal, immoral and unAmerican behavior of the Bush Administration. I will not be on the side of those cynical and evil men, regardless of the political consequences to the Democrats or liberals. I am ashamed of you, Kevin, of being so craven as to suggest that we should. I am done posting here for a while until a more rational point of view is articulated.

TCD

Funny that the surge coincides with the deployment of more British and American naval battle resources to the Persian Gulf (Iran), and rumors about a draft. Is it really much of a stretch to suggest that the madman leading our country is bent on plunging the entire region into wholesale chaos?

No jman_nyc, it isn't a stretch.

The surge could well be intended not to solve the Iraq situation, but to protect the US presence in Iraq when the bombing of Iran starts. Those who have celebrated the end of the neocon era are, I think, a bit too optimistic.

Global Citizen: Sharon bears some of the responsibility, about equally with Arafat. He knew it would be seen as an apostacy when he went to the Temple Mount, but the Butcher of Sabra and Shatilla was campaigning. He went anyway, knowing what the outcome might be, but he didn't care.

The Temple Mount is in Israel. Sharon had every right to visit points in his own country.

consider wisely always:Well, the Bush administration diverted millions in funds from the war in Afghanistan to prepare for the invasion and eventual occupation of Iraq. As you may well know, you seem quite intelligent, Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 of the US Constitution specifies the power of Congress to "raise and support armies." The emergency spending bill passed after 9/11/01 required the administration to notify congress before changing war spending plans. That did not occur whatsoever, the Republican Congress would not investigate, and "cooperation" was lost right then and there.

Bush's invasion of Iraq was authorized by Congress, including such leading Democrats as John Kerry. When the war was going well, Dems were happy to cooperate with Bush and share the credit. Now that the war is going badly, they oppose it. "Fair-weather friends" is the phrase that comes to mind.

JS and DanJoaquinOz, I agree that the column I posted was too optimistic. However, the 25 million figure isn't the problem. When the columnist wrote:

"Every single day 25 million Iraqis are going to jobs, coming home, paying bills, putting some into savings, educating their children - and living in freedom.",

he meant that the country as a whole was doing these things. It's a reminder that that more is happening in Iraq than the horrendous violence.

In particular, Iraqis are now living in freedom. That's an achievement in which all Americans should take pride.

Every single day 25 million Iraqis are going to jobs, coming home, paying bills, putting some into savings, educating their children - and living in freedom

Out of a population of 26 million Iraqis?

Sorry--this is where the use of statistics flies in the face of reality.

The unemployment rate in Iraq is estimated to be above 40% but below 60%.

Hence, the notion that 25 million out of 26 million have jobs is not possible.

Bush's invasion of Iraq was authorized by Congress

No ex-lib, it wasn't. Congress authorized Bush to use force as a last resort, and many senators made explicit reference to a need to let inspections be completed. Bush invaded before letting inspectors finish their job precisely because he didn't want their report to make an invasion more difficult. So what he did was contrary to the authorization and, in my opinion, grounds for impeachment.

I just have to respond to elmendorf's December 23, 2006 at 3:22 PM post, although he seems to have vanished. He uses two arguments, that conservatives seem to love, that should be shown to be absurd.

It's popular Conventional Wisdom among liberals that their actions, both in this war, and Vietnam, had absolutely nothing to do with our setbacks and losses.

Two things about this quote. We see here the conservative standard that if the left has more than "absolutely nothing" to do with the loss then the conservatives are totally absolved and the left is entirely to blame. The conservatives failures to plan, to understand the country, the terrain, the enemy, to clearly set forth a national objective, etc. can all be ignored unless the activities of 'the left' had, beyond any possibility of doubt, "absolutely nothing" to do with the failure. This is the basic formula for conservatives that is part and parcel of their refusal to take responsibility for any of their actions.

On a related note, I must say that any policy or principal of any sort invariably has advantages and disadvantages. The fundamental principal of the United States to allow, indeed to encourage, debate and discussion of our policies before, during and after their execution, no doubt has, at times, provided some morale boost to our enemies. However, this principal of debate also makes our policies better and more likely to succeed. We can see that clearly today in that the absence of debate in 2002 has been a major cause of the failures in Iraq today. The advantages we gain from this debate, far, far outweigh any disadvantages. Conservatives ignore all the advantages gained from open debate and focus only on the trivially small cost that these debates might, I repeat might have. Note too, that for all they rail on about patriotism, for conservatives there really is only one great, unforgivable crime. And that crime is not criticizing the Unite States. We have seen, in recent weeks, any amount of talk from conservatives that the problems in Iraq stem from America and Americans loosing their nerve or not having the will (see Tom DeLay) or in the past several years, Coulter labeling a third to half of all Americans traitors, or Jerry Falwell blaming American and Americans for 9/11. These condemnations of America and Americans from conservatives raise not a peep of protest, indeed they are often met with great praise. No the one unforgivable crime, to which the names of treason and hating America will be given, is to claim that conservatives are wrong, are to blame or are at fault.

The second point made by elmendorf that I wish to address is in this paragraph:

Almost an entire political party advocating unconditional surrender--and face it, that's what "redeployment to other countries" or "withdrawal" is no matter how much icing you slap on it--goes a very long way to convincing our enemies to keep fighting.

The insistence, on the part of conservatives, that withdraw from Iraq means "unconditional surrender" is nothing short of pathetic. In every war ever fought by any nation great or small, there have been reverses and withdraws necessitated by the fortunes of war. To recognize that a given operation has failed and that it is time to redeploy one's forces so as to achieve victory elsewhere is just a requirement of competent leadership. The conservative demand that they be granted a "victory" in Iraq or else they will call everybody a "looser" and give up, is no more than the tantrum of a child who threatens to run and cry unless he not only wins the game, but wins every turn. In 1864 Grant fought a dreadful battle at Spotsylvania Courthouse, with several regiments ground to nothing in the so-called 'bloody angle' but where Lee had the day and prevented the Union break through. Lee won that battle and no doubt the Army of Northern Virginia gained some boost to morale, but Grant marched on to Cold Harbor and Petersburg and victory in the overall struggle. In 1915 Great Britain attempted to take Turkey out of the war by invading the Gallipoli peninsula. By the end of the year it was clear that the operation had failed and in January of 1916 the British troops were withdrawn, which most certainly gave encouragement to the Turks. Nonetheless, Great Britain went on to defeat the Ottoman Empire in World War I. In September of 1944 the allies attempted to achieve a rapid crossing of the Rhine by landing three airborne divisions in Holland to capture several bridges and to be followed up by the XXX corps crossing the river at Arnhem. By the ninth day of the operation, it was clear that it had failed and the remains of the British 1st airborne in Arnhem were withdrawn. No doubt the Germans felt some boost to morale, but the Allies went ahead and won the war anyway, crossing the Rhine elsewhere. My point is that not all military campaigns will be a success, nor does the nation's safety or reputation require them to be. It is indeed a failure to launch an operation that does not succeed, but it is a greater failure by far to continue to pursue a failed course, as our conservative fellow countrymen insist we do.

Just as Grant ultimately succeeded though he pulled out of Spotsylvania, and the British succeeded in WWI although they pulled out of Gallipoli, and the Allies won WWII although they did not hold the Arnhem bridge, the goals and principals of this nation can still prevail if we pull out of Iraq and direct our resources elsewhere. Indeed, I would argue, if we are to succeed in our ultimate objectives we need to pull out of Iraq. In Iraq we are no longer fighting for the nation's interest but only in the interest of saving the reputations of some leading conservative politicians and pundits.

Ah, the wonderful delusional world of right wing shills -

Living in freedom? So, they voted - So what - They do not have a functional government - Most of their top people live in London - The country is in chaos - They do not want freedom - They all want justice (Friedman's words) - However, the justice they seek depends upon their own unique perspective - Yes, Saddam was a killer - he was a despot - but he kept the lid on this pressure cooker - Anyone wanting to take Saddam out, should have realized that once he was gone, the cooker was going to expode - Ever been around one of those models in the 60s - Your entire kitchen would become a vast display of colors and whatever had been in the pot.

Yes, they have the freedom to attack, retaliate, attack, retaliate - Ah, the wonders AK-47s, RPGs and IEDs can bring to freedom. Freedom is just another word for exterminating one's perceived enemies.

"ex-lib?", you are surpassing rdw for the dimmest bulb in the universe.

JS: Congress authorized Bush to use force as a last resort, and many senators made explicit reference to a need to let inspections be completed.

Senators' reference to inspections was just the usual politicians' CYA verbiage. The law they voted for authorized the war, with no requirement that inspections be completed.

Bush invaded before letting inspectors finish their job precisely because he didn't want their report to make an invasion more difficult. So what he did was contrary to the authorization and, in my opinion, grounds for impeachment.

The inspectors could never have finished their job, because Saddam was not complying with the requirement that he cooperate.

In particular, Saddam was required to account for the store of chemical weapons he was known to have had in 1998. Then the inspectors could have verified his account. He refused to provide information concerning those chemical weapons. Without info from Saddam, there was no way fo the inspectors to find out what happened to those weapons.

However, Saddam's non-cooperation was a violation of the 1992 peace agreement and a violation of Security Council resolutions. The non-cooperation alone was grounds for overthrowing him.

No offense, ex-liberal, but you must be engaging in magical thinking at the point.
Iraq's infrastructure has been terribly damaged, we see blood in the streets, rubble, the environment must be horribly polluted. People can't even go up the street without getting blown up.
You say "Iraqis are now living in freedom. That is an achievement in which all Americans should take pride."

We bombed them back to the stone age and destroyed innocent lives. You say we should be proud?

And democracy is built on trust. We expect the truth. If consent for war was achieved by this administration on the basis of manipulation, lies, misrepresentations, then of course citizens express dismay and dissent. And the rose-colored glasses worn by the administration during the past year that things have been going so peachy well over there has been another lie. This war, and the aftermath of this war--to this day--has been based on deception and lies

MSR,

Excellent points - However, if I may, quibble a bit.

Yes, Grant pulled out of Spotsylvania, only to stupidly order thousands to their deaths in Cold Harbor - This became a war of attrition - A war by bludgeon.

After Arnhem, there was the Huertgen Forest - The name of the "GI's General" should have been ripped from the aura of Omar Bradley - Another war of attrition - Eisenhower, hating the Germans so much, that he became obessed with a war of attrition.

WWI - Does anything need be said about that "War to End All Wars" being the ultimate war of attrition.

No more attrition.

No more "What were their names, boys, what were their names".

thethirdPaul: Yes, they have the freedom to attack, retaliate, attack, retaliate - Ah, the wonders AK-47s, RPGs and IEDs can bring to freedom. Freedom is just another word for exterminating one's perceived enemies.

This is true. But, it's also true that Iraqis have used their freedom to laundh hundreds of new, independent magazines and newspapers. Under Saddam they had none. Iraqis have started thousands of new businesses.

Yes, the insurgency is horrendous. It may bring down all vestiges of freedom. But, at the moment, Iraqis do indeed have a freedom that didn't exist under Saddam.

Anyone wanting to take Saddam out, should have realized that once he was gone, the cooker was going to expode.

Yes, I agree that the Bush team badly mishandled the post war situation. They didn't understand what was coming and didn't prepare for it.

"...Gates’ one-hour breakfast with the 15 ordinary soldiers, none of whom were officers, was largely a question-and-answer session, with the defense secretary asking the majority of questions and seeking advice on troop levels, a timeline for training Iraqis, sectarian leanings within the Iraqi security forces and the “caliber and discipline” of both Iraqi soldiers and their military leaders.

No soldier present said the American forces should be brought home, and none said current troop levels were adequate, as some commanders have argued.

Gates stressed the importance of reconstruction efforts that could quickly improve Iraqis’ daily lives. He also said the United States and the Iraqi government should move to reopen state-owned factories and generate jobs."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16308933/

Why won't the left defer to the wishes of the military personel there and let them finish the job? Is it more important to be vindicated in citing that the US has lost a war that is still in progress?

And what kind of mind set does it take to declare defeat before the end result has been determined? The greatest Democratic President ever, FDR, could have easily declared defeat numerous times in WWII, most notably after Normandy, wherein the US lost over 10,000 soldiers in ONE DAY. How many of you here would have persevered through that challenge?

In the preceeding article, every soldier questioned indicated that they did not want to come home. Why do you want them to come home?

Just a question.

As to Ike supra, obsessed is the more proper word - The obese General was the one played by Orson Welles in Catch 22.

"In the preceeding article, every soldier questioned indicated that they did not want to come home. Why do you want them to come home?"

Heh. That little exercise certainly succeeded in its intended purpose, Jay--to fool simpletons like you into thinking that these 15 soldiers represent anyone but themselves.

I want them to come home for the same reason I want all our troops home. I want the butchery of our men in uniform to end. I want the occupation-fueled butchery of Iraqis to end, too. Your mileage apparently differs.

" . . . FDR, could have easily declared defeat numerous times in WWII, most notably after Normandy, wherein the US lost over 10,000 soldiers in ONE DAY."

Only an idiot would make a comparison between the Allied invasion at Normandy to end the Nazi occupation of Europe and the US occupation of Iraq.

"Freedom is just another word for exterminating one's perceived enemies." - thethird

Perceived?

Was the USS Cole a perception?
Was Daniel Pearl's execution a perception?
Was Nicholas Berg's beheading a perception?
Was 9/11 a perception?
Is Zawahiri's statements a perception?

There does exist a radical faction of a certain religion that is currently, feverishly, working on imposing their vision of a strict religious edict upon theirs, and others, societies. Coupled with todays modern weapons, this faction becomes all too real and threatening. This is not a perception. (and no it's not the Christian Right)

ex-lib, Blix said in March 03 that the inspections needed not years or weeks but months to be completed. And that Iraq was substantially cooperating. If Iraq's earlier report had not contained all the information the inspectors wanted, they were producing that information through their work at that time. It was precisely the successful progress of inspections that Bush was in a hurry to do away with.

And on this last day the Advent door opens for the last time - Hmmm, any more of our troops killed behind that door? No, but a slew of Iraqis - Guess they won't be buying Baghdad Playoy today or the Tigris Home and Gardens-

But, we have Curly and Moe so far. Will rdw appear as Larry to play with Jay and "ex-lib" - The Three Stooges of Schaife, all in the state of denial.

"There does exist a radical faction of a certain religion that is currently, feverishly, working on imposing their vision of a strict religious edict upon theirs, and others, societies."

Yes. Fortunately, the Christianists did pretty poorly in the last election, dealing their plans for us a decided setback.

Joel, FYI:

"Have things changed on the ground in Iraq? Are our troops being routed? Hardly. The number of U.S. fatalities has gone from a high of 860 deaths in 2004 to 845 in 2005, to 695 through November of this year. If the Islamic fascists double their rate of killing Americans in the next month, there will still be fewer American fatalities in Iraq this year than in the previous two years..."

"I want the occupation-fueled butchery of Iraqis to end...." - Joel

Funny, I never saw this compassion for the Iraqi people when Saddam was doing the butchering.

"Only an idiot would make a comparison between the Allied invasion at Normandy...." - Joel

I never made a comparison. I only stated that FDR, never gave up. However, if you do want a comparison, Hitler was never an imminent threat towards the US.

"Funny, I never saw this compassion for the Iraqi people when Saddam was doing the butchering."

I don't find it amusing myself, but if you never saw the compassion towards Iraqis under Saddam, you weren't paying attention.

"However, if you do want a comparison, Hitler was never an imminent threat towards the US.

Hitler declared war on the US. He attacked American ships. Saddam did neither.

Give it up, Jay. Your ignorance of history makes your every post a joke that refutes itself.

Jay, may I suggest a little more reading comprehension for you back at Schaife Headquarters?

Perceived enemies refers to the sectarian killing going on in Iraq - One perceives another of another sect or band to be an enemy - So that person or persons must be killed - This begins a cycle of retaliation that knows no end.

Jay, you have come with your prepared pre-paid talking points - You read into any comment for an excuse to sling your shill. Hell, Jay, just do what rdw does - If he sees a thread on the Easter Bunny, he launches into Kerry, Clinton, Eurabia, Kyoto, 3 car garages, the rich are getting richer, all is wonderful America and that wonderful SIXTY TWO FIVE MILLION DOLLAR High School in Chester County - Poor Easter Bunny, be damned - His Duracells run dry before rdw gets his second wind.

"But, we have Curly and Moe so far. Will rdw appear as Larry to play with Jay and "ex-lib" - The Three Stooges of Schaife, all in the state of denial." - thethird

I am offended by this statement. Where are the censors at PA to protect me? And more importantly where is the tolerance of diversity preached day in and day out by those noble, compassionate people that occupy the left side of the political spectrum?

"I never made a comparison. I only stated that FDR, never gave up."

Uh, either you implied a comparison between FDR in WWII and Bush in Iraq, or your post was a non sequitur. Either of these makes you a fool.

Smarter trolls, please.

" . . . where is the tolerance of diversity preached day in and day out by those noble, compassionate people that occupy the left side of the political spectrum?"

Intolerance of trolls in the defense of reality is no vice.

I've been reading over "ex-liberal"'s propaganda, and there isn't a single point he/she/it has made that hasn't been addressed and debunked in this thread and earlier ones.

Save one -- for the first time, "ex-liberal" self-identifies as a neocon. And why not? "ex-liberal"'s relentless propagandizing in favor of the neocon agenda -- complete with talking points that were hoary and moldy three years ago -- was a dead giveaway. That, plus the cutesy eytomology of his/her/its handle -- "ex-liberal" == "new conservative" == neocon.

Of course, "ex-liberal" shamelessly repeats talking points that have long been debunked -- such as Saddam's position as an unusually monstrous threat (not so unusual, and not so much of a threat); omitting the fact that Bush did not in fact (whatever a CYA Republican Congress may have declared) meet the conditions laid out in the AUMF -- and therefore Congress did not in fact authorize the war as he launched it -- and omitting Sharon's role in declaring the Temple Mount -- which, much as it is part of historical Israel, and much as Jerusalem will likely remain at least in part in Israeli hands, is not in fact an internationally recognized part of Israel.

"ex-liberal"'s agenda becomes increasingly clear -- not as an honest commentator but as a neocon shill. But then, he/she/it hasn't been fooling anyone. Realistic and honest commentators know that Israel, while a laudable democracy and a deserved homeland, is no shining beacon on the hill, and that America's interest, while definitely served in aiding allies, ought to serve America's interest first.

Of course, "ex-liberal", for all his/her/its pretensions, is neither realistic nor honest. Nor does he/she/it show any shame at posting the same debunked bullshit -- Iraq's booming economy, "liberal media," etc. -- ad nauseum. Why do you bother?

Joel: Hitler declared war on the US. He attacked American ships. Saddam did neither.

thethirdpaul; Yes, Saddam was a killer - he was a despot - but he kept the lid on...

Joel, Saddam's attacks on the US were not the main reason for war. However, he was attacking us. He was regularly firing anti-aircraft weapons at our planes. These planes were enforcing the No-Fly Zone, as authorized by the UN. If it were not for our enforcement of the No-Fly zone, Saddam would have attacked the Kurds.

3rdpaul, the US deserves more credit than Saddam for "keeping the lid on." Without our continuing involvement, he would have made war on the Kurds.

"However, he was attacking us. He was regularly firing anti-aircraft weapons at our planes. These planes were enforcing the No-Fly Zone, as authorized by the UN."

Uh, then why didn't the UN vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq?

Your lame attempt to compare Saddam's occasionally firing on our planes flying over his territory with Hitler's declaration of war on the US and sinking of US commercial ships is dishonest.

"Hitler declared war on the US. He attacked American ships. Saddam did neither." - Joel

"Hitler detailed the increasingly belligerent actions of Roosevelt's government and then dramatically announced that Germany was now joining Japan in war against the United States."

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v08/v08p389_Hitler.html

After many negative incursions, yes, Hitler did make the mistake of declaring war. The difference is FDR, knew when there was an enemy. Today's Democratic has yet to acknowledge any enemy, other than the Christian Right.

So using your template for war, read the following:

"President Ahmadinejad’s letter to President Bush, widely interpreted as a peaceful overture, is in fact a declaration of war. The key sentence in the letter is the closing salutation. In an eight-page text of the letter being circulated by the Council on Foreign Relations, it is left untranslated and rendered as “Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda.� What this means is “Peace only unto those who follow the true path................Much of the rest of Ahmadinejad’s letter is devoted to portraying Mr. Bush as an infidel. Given that Mr. Bush is not about to convert to Islam, what the letter presages is, if anything, an Islamic attack. So the thing to think about is what this implies for American policymakers. For one thing, no step short of converting to Islam will avert the planned attack so long as the regime in Tehran remains in power."

http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2006/05/11/vasalam-ala-man-atabaal-hoda-peace-only-unto-those-who-follow-the-true-path/

So, then should we take up arms against Iran?

"Without our continuing involvement, he would have made war on the Kurds."

And this is evidence that Saddam represented a threat to the US . . . how?

"Today's Democratic has yet to acknowledge any enemy, other than the Christian Right."

"Today's Democratic . . ." WTF?

The attack on the Taliban government of Afghanistan enjoyed bipartisan support. Your dishonesty is pathetic, Jay.

"Given that Mr. Bush is not about to convert to Islam, what the letter presages is, if anything, an Islamic attack. So the thing to think about is what this implies for American policymakers. For one thing, no step short of converting to Islam will avert the planned attack so long as the regime in Tehran remains in power."

This is childish hyperventilating.

Smarter trolls, please.

"Uh, then why didn't the UN vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq?" - Joel

The UN voting on anything constructive is laughable. Thanks for the morning chuckle.

"The UN voting on anything constructive is laughable."

You were the one citing the UN mandate for the no-fly zone. So you believe the no-fly zones protecting Iraqi Kurds were not constructive?

What a moron!

"Yesterday, we brought you a message of peace from the Iranian Dear Leader. Today, it’s business as usual, via Australian ABC:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that Israel “one day will vanish� as he ramped up his anti-Western rhetoric in a speech to university students in Jakarta. “This regime one day will vanish,� the leader said, complaining that when elections were held in the Palestinian territories “and supported by its people, liberalism did not want to recognise it�. Last October, the Iranian president declared that the Jewish state should be “wiped off the map�. In April he said that Israel “cannot survive� and that migrants to the Jewish state should go back to where they came from.

Ahmadinejad means business, make no mistake. Every time we see some sort of flabby column, such as this one, indicating that the West should be accommodating to Iran and Islamist radicals in order to get them to moderate their positions, we call to mind the character of Ellis in the movie Die Hard. He’s the poor sap who thinks he is sophisticated but gets his head blown off because he has failed to realize just what kind of men he is dealing with. We fancy we do understand just whom we are dealing with."

http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2006/05/11/vasalam-ala-man-atabaal-hoda-peace-only-unto-those-who-follow-the-true-path/

"This is childish hyperventilating." - Joel

So when others interpretations of events don't match your selfish myopic view of the world, it becomes childish? This is how you debate? This is your idea of tolerance?

You know the Islamic-fascists harbor the same sentiments toward differing opinions. You have a lot in common with them.

"You were the one citing the UN mandate for the no-fly zone." - Joel

um.....NO I wasn't. That was ex-lib. Pay attention.

And incidentally, it was the enoforcement of the no-fly zone that made it constructive.

Jay, Iran is not now a threat to the US, nor will it be in our lifetimes. The US could turn Iran into molton glass within minutes. They know it, and I know it. For you to pretend otherwise is childish and ignorant.

"You know the Islamic-fascists harbor the same sentiments toward differing opinions. You have a lot in common with them."

To the extent that Islamic-fascists harbor intolerance of ignorance of the sort you've evidenced on this thread, then yes, I have that in common with them. I cop to the charge of being intolerant of your willful stupidity.

So Jay, how does your attempt to smear me with a charge of Islamic-fascist belief show tolerance toward differing opinion?

"it was the enoforcement of the no-fly zone that made it constructive."

It was the UN authorization that made it legitimate. I caught you in a contradiction, Jay. But you are too childishly enslaved to your UN hatred to admit you were wrong.

OK, Jay. I and others have thoroughly fisked your posts on this thread, as they have been on previous threads. You are clearly ignorant of history and bereft of a grasp of elementary logic and reason.

I'm bored with you. You simply don't pose any intellectual challenge. I keep looking for evidence of intellegent life in you, but I only find toys in your attic.

Where are the censors at PA to protect me?

Probably standing by, ready to delete the offensive bullshit you normally post.

Funny how a Republican apologist suddenly believes in the First Amendment when all they have ever done is apologize for Bush's attempts to destroy the First Amendment and pretty much all the other Amendments that follow it...

Let me pose it another way:

If in 2008 I'm facing a Democratic nominee who stands for anything less than getting out immediately, and Ralph Nader who says get out now, then I vote for Ralph Nader and I don't care if it brings the whole world crashing down around your realpolitik maneuverings.

You think you can take progressives for granted. You're wrong!

Do you stand with the people or with your Beltway buddies?

"It was the UN authorization that made it legitimate." - Joel

So unless authorized by the UN, nothing is legitimate? Do you subscribe to Howard Deans "permission slip" theory?

I don't recognize the current UN to be anything legitimate. There is nothing but selfish corruption that lay at the feet of Annan.

"The US could turn Iran into molton glass within minutes. They know it, and I know it." - Joel

That can be said about every other country on this planet, but that doesn't stop the violence towards the US and it certainly didn't stop 11 hijackers. The US would NEVER do anything of the sort, you know and I know it, and the rest of your rhetoric is just childish hyperventilating.

"Jay, Iran is not now a threat to the US, nor will it be in our lifetimes." - Joel

You underestimate them.

"....it calls to mind the character of Ellis in the movie Die Hard. He’s the poor sap who thinks he is sophisticated but gets his head blown off because he has failed to realize just what kind of men he is dealing with."

Without taking the time to read the comments, I’ll respond to Kevin’s post.

The problem is that liberal and conservative quickly become ideological positions which, perforce, self-justify themselves in relation to anything, including the Iraq debacle.

Kevin gets closer to the real issue when he points out it is GWB’s war and GWB’s surge, just as it was GWB’s false justifications which got us into the war in the first place. Most facts are facts outside of any ideological framework or set of beliefs.

So, I prefer to go with the facts, and the most compelling of them seem to indicate that a surge is foolish. It probably will not work in the short-term and almost certainly will not work for the long-term. So don’t do it. Don’t base an important decision upon intractable ideologues.

The 25-30% of conservative ideologues who think like GWB cannot be allowed to call the shots. Over time, some of them may change and maybe they won’t change. Can’t control that. I don’t write them off, I’ll continue to talk to them, but I will not do anything just to prove something to them when it requires wasting more lives and resources.

Rather typical Jay - whining when it's your ox getting gored but cheering the carnage when yours is doing the goring.

But pretty standard boilerplate for a GOP shill.

"I'm bored with you. You simply don't pose any intellectual challenge. I keep looking for evidence of intellegent life in you, but I only find toys in your attic." - Joel

You have yet to be successful with any of your arguments, yet feel the need to runaway.

How Democratic of you.

"....is apologize for Bush's attempts to destroy the First Amendment" - PR

Please cite specific examples.

Ellis the Cokehead? The one who "eat(s) eurotrash like this for breakfast?" he had it coming and he reminds me a lot more of the current occupant than the Dems - but maybe it's the blow...

Was the USS Cole a perception?

Funny, when presented with the conclusive report that al Qaeda blew up the Cole, Bush did nothing. Yes, it did happen on Clinton's watch. But when proof that it was al Qaeda was discovered during the first few months of the Bush Administration, why the hell didn't they do anything about it?

Was Daniel Pearl's execution a perception?

In Pakistan, by the way. Where has been the effort to go into Pakistan and find his killers?

Was Nicholas Berg's beheading a perception?

Nicholas Berg died because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time in a country that was descending into chaos because there weren't enough US troops and because Rumsfeld was still refusing to acknowledge there was an insurgency.

Was 9/11 a perception?

Hey, that bin Laden guy who also blew up the Cole--is he still kicking around in Pakistan or what?

Is Zawahiri's statements a perception?

He's probably hanging out with his homey bin Laden--think you might want to find BOTH of them as a way of ensuring that 9/11, the Cole and all that doesn't happen again?

Funny how Jay throws this shit up on the blog without acknowledging just how incompetent the Bush administration has been with regards to actually doing something about these things.

Or is that a perception as well?

Pale Rider: when all they have ever done is apologize for Bush's attempts to destroy the First Amendment...

Actually liberals have pretty much abandoned free speech. They support McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, which restricts and censors political speech. Liberals support politically correct rules that restrict speech in the workplace. They support "free speech zones" on college campuses. Ironically, the meaning of "free speech zones" is that speech on campus is NOT free except in a few designated areas.

Pale Rider, since you do believe in free speech, I invite you to join me in ex-liberalism and fight for freedom of speech.

Please cite specific examples.

NSA wiretap scandal, for one.

How many more do you need? Ability to seize US persons and detain them without access to a lawyer?

Hell, the state of Florida is a perfect example of denying people their voting rights as guaranteed by the Constitution.

How many more do you need?

Or are these just perceptions as well?

Pale Rider, since you do believe in free speech, I invite you to join me in ex-liberalism and fight for freedom of speech.

How about I don't?

You do realize you're merely a tard, right?

Where are the censors at PA to protect me?

Probably standing by, ready to delete the offensive bullshit you normally post. - FR

As opposed to your usual reasoned dialogue?

"Pale Rider needs to show one troll the back of his hand so that the other trolls know who brings the thunder and the lightning into the shit storm of their life.
I must say--the work people are doing to fight the trolls is excellent lately. I am humbled by the efforts of others to smack the shit out of these perverted little beasts and I work hard to maintain the honor of being able to post here." - frail rider
Pale rider 10-11-06"
j

The first time I saw a Free Speech Zone on campus, I had a fit - I made it a point to stand next to the free speech zone - but not in it - and declare that the concept was ludicrous as the entire country was supposed to be a Free Speech Zone.

I have absolutely no problem in holding anyones feet to the fire, the capital letter behind their name matters not one whit. Fucking up is not a partisan act.

""ex-liberal" seems to get quite a kick out of lying by omission.

And lying in general.

Hey, thanks for that.

I consider that little piece of writing a Christmas Present from my little concern troll, Jay.

Hope you choke on a piece of candy cane and they find your bloated corpse sometime after Easter, there, Jay.

thethirdPaul,

Yes, I agree with your point completely. Cold Harbor was a disgrace, the Hurtingen was a waste and WWI was beyond description. I certainly hope we will not repeat those kinds of errors either. My point was only that conservatives equate withdraw with unconditional surrender. That equation is absurd.

MSR

"Rather typical Jay - whining when it's your ox getting gored but cheering the carnage when yours is doing the goring." - GC

Whining about what?

"NSA wiretap scandal, for one.

How many more do you need? Ability to seize US persons and detain them without access to a lawyer?

Hell, the state of Florida is a perfect example of denying people their voting rights as guaranteed by the Constitution." - PR

NONE of these examples are evidence of any attempt to stifle free speech. If you disagree, just look at court rulings. Oh and by the way, it was the left that attempted to deny the military ballots being counted in Florida, just FYI.

You whined about being moderated yourself, then again about Paul-3 being snarky with you.

"Fucking up is not a partisan act." - GC

VERY WELL SAID GC.

Whining about what?

Pretty much everything you post could be read out loud in a whiny, nasally whine. Even the death rattle that you gurgle out of your diseased little gullet will sound like a high pitched whine.

"You whined about being moderated yourself" - GC

SARCASM GC. Embrace it, it can be your friend.

NONE of these examples are evidence of any attempt to stifle free speech.

Using the NSA to track the activities of peace groups? That's not an attempt to stifle free speech?

See, now you're not even making sense.

"Pretty much everything you post could be read out loud in a whiny, nasally whine. Even the death rattle that you gurgle out of your diseased little gullet will sound like a high pitched whine." - PR (aka: a small animal used in places of experiments)

Funny, that's what I hear everytime Nancy Pelosi speaks.

How about the covert attempts to stifle speech? Does it stifle speech to sow the seeds of intolerance, to brand your political opponents as enemies, to equate voting for the Democratic candidates as a vote to surrender to terrorists?

Does it stifle speech to foster an environment where those with different opinions are shouted down and at times physically harmed for having the audadcity to state an unpopular opinion?

I am more concerned about the subtle erosion of liberty that is voluntarily surrendered by those who "have nothing to hide" than any overt calls for curbs on freedom, like the one the Newt just made in New Hampshire.

Merry Christmas everyone--it's family time.

GC, thethirdPaul, everybody who's not a wingnut troll--enjoy the holidays and celebrate in the manner best suited to your beliefs.

Practice that First Amendment, folks.

There is just so much to say.
It is a crime to lie to Congress.
We know that Richard Dearlove, in charge of England's version of the CIA, said that with Bush, "intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."
Before the 3/03 invasion of Iraq, false statements were made by the Bushites. And BEFORE the invasion, The International Atomic Energy Commission proved that that Bush's assertion
in his 1/03 State of the Union Address that "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"--was based on "easily discernible forgeries."
Why is former ambasssador Joseph Wilson discredited by the wing nuts----his findings are the same as the International Atomic Energy Commission. Wilson also investigated the uranium claims, and wrote in the Times they were false.
The Bushites, including Condeleeza Rice, continually repeated "we had bad intelligence."

You know, George Bush just claimed to be reading about George Washington. Well, Washington's farewell address offered a warning about "foreign entanglements." And James Madison said "no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." He warned of "the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state war."

CNN has "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer as I write this, and there is Condeleesa Rice on September 10, 2006 lying thru her teeth about the origins of the Irag War.

Thanks Pale Rider - you too. Enjoy the family and hug the little ones once for me.

Thanks for all you do my friend. Merry Christmas to you and yours.

I employ sarcasm all the time verbally but miss it continually in print where there is no accompanying inflection and cadence to discern.

"Does it stifle speech to sow the seeds of intolerance, to brand your political opponents as enemies, to equate voting for the Democratic candidates as a vote to surrender to terrorists?" - GC

"I hate the republican party and everything it stands for" - Howard Dean

"The republican party is monolithic, white and chrisitan" - Howard Dean

I don't know, you tell me GC.

I don't agree with branding any sebgment of America as an enemy. Maybe because there is something in my genetic memory?

I don't approve when either side does it.

I am not as pure as the driven snow, I am after all a human, and as our friend Norman would point out, I'm "hormonal" too, but I try, and when I mess up and an appology is in order, I 'fess up and render it.

Sorry guys - I just used up all the commas that this post was allotted.

...this thread was allotted. Sheesh.

The sad thing is that Jay and "ex-lib" actually believe that they are two of the Magis. They await the third of their wandering band.

Merry, Happy, Jingles in your Jangles, Mirth and Peace to all, Holly for the Pagans, "Wreck the Halls" Ale to all.

3tP, Git, Stockburn, Ole, et alia

PS to GC, we must hear a rendition of that "Put the blame on Mame, boys, Put the blame on Mame"

and Pale, keep your powder dry and that Remington a'blazin'.

To all: (even Pale Rider)

Have a very Merry Christmas and another great New Year. I wish you and your families all the best.

This thread reminds me of how amazing it is every time I hear Robert Novak complain about somebody whining.

What is it about consevative ideologues? They seem to be totally unaware that their entire ideology, as applied, amounts to one continuous whine that the world is passing them by.

lojfrc: Here is a quote that sums that sentiment up pretty nicely. Conventional people are roused to fury by departure from convention, largely because they regard such departure as a criticism of themselves. --Bertrand Russell

***************

Merry Christmas to you too, Jay, and good wishes for the new year.

In the preceeding article, every soldier questioned indicated that they did not want to come home. Why do you want them to come home?
Just a question.
Posted by: Jay

I get the distinct feeling you've never served.

Let me tell you what we call that in the military: a dog and pony show. No, you don't tell the incoming SecDef you want to leave the theatre of operations.

Here's what happens when soldiers speak on the record (let alone directly to the SecDef):

Ask any grunt standing guard on a 115-degree day what he or she thinks of the open-ended Iraq occupation, and you'll get an earful of colorful complaints.

But going public isn't always easy, as soldiers of the Army's Second Brigade, Third Infantry Division found out after "Good Morning America" aired their complaints. ... "It was the end of the world," said one officer Thursday. "It went all the way up to President Bush and back down again on top of us. At least six of us here will lose our careers."

First lesson for the troops, it seemed: Don't ever talk to the media "on the record" -- that is, with your name attached -- unless you're giving the sort of chin-forward, everything's-great message the Pentagon loves to hear.

[sigh]

Ah well, Happy Holidays y'all.

"What is it about consevative ideologues? They seem to be totally unaware that their entire ideology, as applied, amounts to one continuous whine that the world is passing them by." - lojrc

You know almost the same thing, verbatim, was said about liberal ideology in 1994. Incidentally, I will point out that many victorious Democrats this fall ran very conservatively. Most notably, James Webb and Heath Shuler.

"Gee Jay, I wonder why none of the soldiers told the incoming SecDef that they want to get the f*ck out?" - cyntax

I have a relative over there who tells the same thing these soldiers have said. They do not want to come home....yet. In fact, my relative is now in his second tour.

[sigh] - cyntax

Ah...the proverbial elitist response. If everyone was just as astute as they are.

You know, we had that ass-kicking in 1994 coming because we didn't clean our own house. I started to grudgingly admit that fact within days of the thumpin' we took.

Jay, there are people who have done three and four tours, and not out of choice. Some people do want to stay longer (from what I hear, they're the minority), but for you to use what was said to the SecDef as a brometer of what the prevailing opinion is, that's just blowin' smoke buddy. And as a veteran I get pissed when I hear that.

As to your relative, I wish that person all the best and hope they get through this with nothing bad happening to them.

Fort Riley and Fort Leavenworth delivered the biggest upset of a Republican in the nation. Jim Ryun was supposed to be untouchable, but Nancy Boyda unseated him in a landslide, and the forts put her well over the top.

"...but for you to use what was said to the SecDef as a brometer of what the prevailing opinion is, that's just blowin' smoke buddy." - cyntax

The same can be said for you, using others as the prevailing opinion. I believe that the majority wants to stay to finish the job properly.

"As to your relative, I wish that person all the best and hope they get through this with nothing bad happening to them." - cyntax

I do to. Thanks.

Oh yeah, Jay, I hope your loved one returns safe and sound. I hope everyones loved ones return safe and sound. Have you seen this op-ed from the NY Times written by a West Point grad nearly two years ago?

Wow, not much about the surge mentioned in the last 50 or so posts.

But I'll try.

Over the last two days, I have listened carefully to try to detect what the meta message about this idea is. I may have discovered it, maybe. I have the feeling that this surge thing is based on a lie in that the conditions under which such an operation could be barely successful is as yet not being clearly communicated.

Maybe Bush will do so in his upcoming speech. History does not leave me hopeful.

What the hell am I talking about?

Simply…this is gonna be no fucking surge. It will be somewhat closer to a re-invasion.

How many soldiers?

As many as they can possibly scrape up. That means using Navy and Air Force land assets as well as rotating back units earlier than scheduled.

How long?

Several months to get up to speed, then as long as IT takes.

What is the IT?

While that is what they are working out right now, several things are clear:

To be successful, it can not be just a neighborhood watch program. The impression the hawks have given is that all we need to do is secure the place til the Iraqi Army grows balls. To me, that is the big lie. The new mission will have to be force elimination. Anything short of that a pissing into the wind. For an outside-imposed necessary level of security to be reached, we are going to have to eliminate a fairly extensive level of Shiite militias and their leadership. We are going to have to trudge into neighborhoods and take out high-value targets. Sadar City here we come.

A second big neocon lie was repeated today when a pundit exhorted how all we have to do is get the Sunni under control and the security needs will be met. HA!!

Call this what you will, but whatever this plan becomes, it ain’t gonna be no surge.

There is unprecedented dissention in the ranks, and those of us who have served in any capacity (I did a lot more as a Air Force wife than I ever did in the 15 minutes I was a Reservist) are aware of an undercurrent that has never been there before, at least in our experience. Over a thousand troops, many of them officers, have taken the unprecedented step of signing an Appeal for Redress and many more have begun engaging in "protected communications" with their congressional representatives.

A moment of lucidity from Jay...

Gauging the reaction to the bombing this is most certainly a tipping point in this conflict. If the Sunni's are proven to be behind this, it could easily to an all out civil war which could be disastrous and if that, I am in agreement with Honey P; maybe it's time to get out and let them fend for themselves....

Posted by: Jay on February 22, 2006 at 9:16 PM

...followed by continuing insanity. Please don't feed the Jay troll.

Best wishes for the holiday!

Globe, I sent some love to your recommended recipient. : )

[sigh]
Ah...the proverbial elitist response. If everyone was just as astute as they are.
Posted by: Jay

No Jay, I'm just tired. And unhappy about the amount of GI's killed and maimed, about the amount of Iraqis killed, and about the amount more to come. And it's almost Christmas.

Yeah, it's funny how being in combat has changed my perception of things. Not sure that makes me an elitist, but if it does, then frankly I don't mind. Still I can't help but wonder whether it would have changed your perspective as well...

Well here's to wishing for better things in the new year (including you Jay). And thanks to eveyone else who makes this such a good place to spend time (GC, MsN, PR, 3rP, and everyone else).

Thanks Apollo 13. They are under attack these days, especially on the letters page of my McClatchy cage-liner.

consider wisely always wrote: It is a crime to lie to Congress.

I guess so, at least if one is testifying under oath. AFAIK Bush has never spoken under oath to Congress.

We know that Richard Dearlove, in charge of England's version of the CIA, said that with Bush, "intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."

That comment has been misinterpreted as an accusation that Bush was lying. It was actually just a British way of saying the facts had been determined.

Before the 3/03 invasion of Iraq, false statements were made by the Bushites.

If by "false" you mean "incorrect, then I agree. The same is true of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. They all said Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs. Since our intelligence agencies said Iraq had WMDs, these leaders had no choice but to believe them.

And BEFORE the invasion, The International Atomic Energy Commission proved that that Bush's assertion in his 1/03 State of the Union Address that "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"--was based on "easily discernible forgeries."

Bush's assertion of what the British government believed was an true and accurate statement of what the British government said they believed. Furthermore, the Brits were proved correct: Saddam HAD attempted to buy uranium in Africa. Incidentally, the British intelligence was not based on the forgeries. There was other evidence of Saddam's effort to buy uranium.

Why is former ambasssador Joseph Wilson discredited by the wing nuts

Because he is a liar. Did you know that he wrote a book which included a specific description of of Saddam seeking to buy uranium in Africa even though his NY Times column asserting that he had discovered the opposite. The 9/11 Commission reported on some of Wilson's lies.

Well, Washington's farewell address offered a warning about "foreign entanglements."

Neiher of us would want the US to follow that advice in the 21st century. E.g., following that advice today would mean resigning from the UN. It would prohibit participating in the World Court or the Kyoto accords. Gee, maybe Washington's advice does still make sense. :)

What the rightwing refuses to acknowledge is that the the majority of the country does not support this war not because of lack of resolve or will, but because of principle. How do we know the country does not support the war? Because the army is nearly broken and no one is volunteering to enlist. If the rightwing cheerleaders really believed their own propaganda about a grave Islamofascist menace they would be enlisting in droves. They aren't. Why not? Are they all cowards? If they are all cowards, then where do they get the nerve of blaming the left for the lack of courage and resolve?

blog wrote: What the rightwing refuses to acknowledge is that the the majority of the country does not support this war not because of lack of resolve or will, but because of principle. How do we know the country does not support the war?

When we were winning, there was overwhelming support. The country doesn't support the war now because we aren't winning, and because the medi reporting is so anti-war.

Because the army is nearly broken and no one is volunteering to enlist.,/i>

Actually, the military is meeting its recruiting goals.

If the rightwing cheerleaders really believed their own propaganda about a grave Islamofascist menace they would be enlisting in droves.

They are. That's why we're meeting our goals.

The military is only meeting it's recruiting goals by changing the guidelines and still 17% of last years recruits were admitted to service on waivers.

Please remember that when you tout the meme that recruiting goals are being met.

Yes, they are. But they are taking extraordinary measures to do so.

And who is going to lead these troops? Officers are resigning commissions in droves. The regular Army is short 3500 officers throughout the ranks (you don't find colonels at recruiting stations) and the Reserves are short 11,000 Lieutenants and Captains.

No one is being denied a shot at OCS, and few are washing out. The Honor Code is toast. It took thirty years to rebuild our military in the wake of Viet Nam and it has been wrecked in five years. Quite a legacy. It will take the next fifty years to repair the damage.

Powell says there are no more troops to send. The generals say the army is almost broken. A battalion in casualties is lost every month. How is it that we are meeting our goals? The country doesn't support the war because we are not winning. We are we not winning? But we are meeting our goals!

Thanks, GC. It's amazing that Jay and ex-lib keep returning after being fisked so thoroughly. More evidence for the unreality of their worlds, I suppose.

Truthfully, I wish it were true that Democracy could be imported to the ME on the backs of US tanks, but abundant evidence falsifies this hypothesis every day. We must turn our backs on neocon wishfulness.

Happy holidays from the other end of Missouri.

Right back at you, Joel.

There is a new year a-comin' and we have a state to turn purple.

I'm going to repeat my inclusion of the current Times lead, for amusement of the masses:

"Commander Said to Be Open to More Troops
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and DAVID E. SANGER

Altering his earlier position, the top American ground commander in Iraq is now willing to back an increase in U.S. troops in Baghdad."

Altering his earlier position. Guess he didn't want a lump of coal for Christmas.

Right, so when is the right going to step up and manifest their will and resolve? If it is the manifest destiny of the US to bring democracy to the benighted brown peoples, then why won't the right manifest the manpower necessary to give substance to their will and resolve?

ex-lib: Yes, I agree that the Bush team badly mishandled the post war situation. They didn't understand what was coming and didn't prepare for it.

"We never had enough troops on the ground to keep order in Iraq, and both George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld knew it." - Pauk Bremer 1/8/06

consider: Before the 3/03 invasion of Iraq, false statements were made by the Bushites.

ex-lib: If by "false" you mean "incorrect, then I agree.

There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. - A.P. 9/8/06

Page 57: "Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate assessments that Iraq "has chemical weapons...." 9/8/06

.

"It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions...and that the intel community's own work was politicized."

- Paul Pillar, the former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until 2005

.

Ex-CIA Aide Reveals New Details On Ignored Warnings Of Iraqi WMD Fabricator Curveball - Wash. Post 6/24/06

Veteran CIA officer Tyler Drumheller instantly recognized the source, an Iraqi defector suspected of being mentally unstable and a liar.

ex-lib: Actually, the military is meeting its recruiting goals.

For the 2nd straight year, The U.S. Army has raised its maximum enlistment age in order to make its recruiting goals amid the Iraq war. Now you can be 42 and still volunteer. - 6/21/06


Meanwhile, the Army Reserve predicted it will miss its recruiting target for a 2nd straight year. - 6/21/06

...in October-2005, the Army had such a hard time filling its slots that 12-percent of that month's active-duty recruits were Category IV.

Category IV recruits = applicants who score in the lowest third on the armed forces aptitude test.

For the past 20-years, that number was kept at..less than 3%

..."The Army spent approximately $426 million on reenlistment bonuses in fiscal year 2005 or almost 8 times more than its budgeted amount to meet its retention goals." - gao.gov

The Army is facing a major officer shortage, expecting to fall short 2,500 captains and majors this year. "We're ruining an Army that took us 30 years to build." said Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE). - 4/8/2006

ex-lib: When we were winning, there was overwhelming support. The country doesn't support the war now because we aren't winning, and because the medi reporting is so anti-war.

"Absolutely, we're winning." - President Bush, October 25, 2006

"We're not winning, we're not losing." - President Bush, December 19, 2006

Mr. Irony,

Thank you Sir, for citiing what I have been screaming.

Joel wrote: Iran is not now a threat to the US, nor will it be in our lifetimes.

According to this article, Iran is making war on us right now in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Ledeen sounds like he knows what he's talking about. Excerpt:

both Washington and London are grudgingly coming to accept the fact that Iran is waging war against us in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Coughlin carefully spells out the implications of the accusation against a top British military aide in Afghanistan. Corporal Daniel James–the personal interpreter for the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan–is charged with giving the Iranians information that “prejudic(es) the safety of the (British) state.� No matter how this case is ultimately resolved, Coughlin writes, the fact that Iran is interested in recruiting such people confirms the mullahs’ desire to ensure the failure of our mission.

Until recently, as Coughlin notes, “NATO commanders have appeared reluctant to even discuss the possibility that the Iranians might have their own agenda in upsetting coalition attempts to establish an effective government.� And this reluctance was obviously peculiar to anyone who knew anything about Iran’s real activities in the region. Commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan always knew that the Iranians had helped “orchestrate the roadside bombs that have killed and maimed so many soldiers,� and are “actively supporting and providing equipment to Taliban-related groups� in Afghanistan.

Elmendorf:

Criticism of a failed policy is not actually able to be the cause of the preceding failure. The thing that causes home front support to crack is when the governments rhetoric becomes so obviously detached from the reality of the situation people lose heart. But, the failure preceded the loss, and to expect people to support a failed policy is to misunderstand human nature, and to dishonestly abjure the personal responsibility of the decision makers.

In the first place, Ledeen is a discredited neocon.

Now, let's turn to the text you posted:

"Iran is interested in recruiting such people confirms the mullahs’ desire to ensure the failure of our mission."

Iran has shown an *interest* in *recruiting* confirming a *desire.* Even if this were true, how is this "making war on us right now in Iraq and in Afghanistan"?

"Iranians might have their own agenda in upsetting coalition attempts to establish an effective government.�

Indeed, Iranians may have their own agenda. The US has an agenda, too. Agendas are not "making war."

"Commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan always knew that the Iranians had helped “orchestrate the roadside bombs that have killed and maimed so many soldiers,� and are “actively supporting and providing equipment to Taliban-related groups� in Afghanistan."

This is certainly vague. How have they "helped?" How are they "supporting?" What "equipment" are they providing? What, exactly are these "Taliban-related" groups?

I can't believe anyone would fall for this kind of hype. This is the same sort of hysteria and vague, unsupported allegations that were used to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Later, WMD stockpiles morphed into "WMD-related program activities." Iran is not now a threat to the US, nor will it be in our lifetimes.

Smarter trolls, please.

ex-lib: When we were winning, there was overwhelming support.

Well, I'm not trusting you as an authority. You have little to no credibility. Where are your sources? Demonstrate that your assertion is true. Linkies, please, with a developed argument supported by facts.

Whatever support there was for the Iraq invasion dwindled after we knew there were no WMDs in Iraq or a Saddam connection to 9/11. See David Kay and the 9/11 Commission report. See also polls that showed a majority of Americans thought the Bush Administration "deliberately misled" us into war in Iraq.

Please also define what "winning" in Iraq meant and when that was. For example, before or after the Iraqi elections? Before or after the Talking Codpiece declared, "Mission accomplished"? What? When? How? Please quantify and source your comments.

I'll see your Pajamas Media and raise you a report for the Century Foundation (.pdf alert) prepared by USAF Colonel Sam Gardiner. Hostilities with Iran are a two way street. The report Col. Gardiner presents uses a term that most non-military, probably non-intel people have never heard, but it has a very unnuanced meaning to me and other people who can follow the program in this game of Calvinball: below the CNN line. You can watch every channel and read every blog. But if somebody isn't watching the think-tanks, or you don't have access, you don't know jack. Sorry. I just grow weary of refuting bullshit when I can't open up with both barrels.

From the report:

When U.S. commandos began entering Iran—probably in the summer of 2004
their mission appears to have been limited. They were to find and characterize the Iranian nuclear program. From press reports, we know that the
task force doing these operations was implanting sensors to detect radioactivity.

Intelligence for these early operations inside Iran was coming from information provided by A. Q. Khan, the Pakistani dealer in black market nuclear material.The incursions were focused in the northeast, where the Iranian nuclear facilities are concentrated. The base of these incursions was most likely Camp WarHorse in Iraq.

I recently attended a Middle East security conference in Berlin. At dinner one night, I sat next to the Iranian ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali-Asghar Soltanieh. I told him I had read that the Iranians were accusing the United States of supporting elements in Baluchistan. I asked him how they knew that. Without any hesitation, Soltanieh told me that they have captured militants who confessed that they were working with the Americans.9 The United States is also directly involved in supporting groups inside the Kurdish area of Iran. According to both western and Iranian press reports, the Iranian Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK) has been allowed to operate from Iraq into Iran and has killed Revolutionary Guard soldiers. The Iranians have also accused the United States of being involved in shooting down two of their aircraft, an old C-130 and a Falcon jet, carrying Revolutionary Guard leaders.

And as to Ahmidenijad not doing so well: Students at his alma mater gave him a Deja' Vu moment when they shouted down a speech, set pictures of him alight and then rattled his convoy so much that the four cars were bouncing off one another as students shouted "Death to the Dictator!"

And he took a thumpin' too. Which wouldn't have happened if the Mullahs weren't sending a message. Persian culture specializes in nuance and subtlety, so with these pinheads in charge, we're screwed.

Apollo 13, here's a poll as of June, 2003:

And while 54 percent still believe that removing Saddam Hussein from power was worth the costs of war, that figure, too, has declined from 65 percent in May.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/10/opinion/polls/main562628.shtml

This poll confirms what I said. When things were going well in May, 2003, an overwhelming majority of Americans believed that removing Saddam from power was worth the costs of the war.

Dude! That was less than 12 weeks in.

This is a different fucking conflict than that one was. Now we are in the middle of warring factions in a civil war that is happening because when our clueless leader took out their dictator a power vacuum sucked the civil out of the cradle of civilization.

If you think this war and that war are the same thing, you have a three foot neutral-zone around your head.

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. --Bertrand Russell

Ex-Thinker: "When we were winning, there was overwhelming support. The country doesn't support the war now because we aren't winning, and because the medi reporting is so anti-war."

Gee, if you have such a low opinion of the American people and our institutions, perhaps you should move to country with more, um, resolve. Buh-bye!

Globe, great Russell quote and more apt than even he imagined—although Orwell, with his bleaker world view, would likely not be that surprised by the Bizarro-World turn of trumped-up events.

This poll confirms what I said.

No, it doesn't. It showed a decline in support by 11 points from May to July:

WAS REMOVING SADDAM WORTH THE COSTS?
Yes
Now [7/03] 54%
6/03 62%
5/03 65%

Men and women are greatly divided on this issue. A majority of men -- 56 percent - think the end results have been worth the costs, while just 35 percent of women agree.

And while a majority of Republicans say the results are worth it, less than half of both Democrats and Independents think so.

As I sit here at my desk, I fondly stroke the spine of Why I Am Not a Christian that I have had since I was a 14-year-old math nerd. Here is another favorite of mine:

The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way. Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic. --Bertrand Russell

Secondly, ex-lib, you have not defined what "winning" means and when that was.

ex-lib: The country doesn't support the war now...

Ah, a moment of clarity.

...because we aren't winning...

And then 'twas gone.

You've offered no proof that what you say is true. You would need to prove cause and effect, that when the U.S. began losing the war, (and please explain whenever that turning point was), it provoked a decline in support for the war. So your conclusion is just your opinion unsubstantiated by fact. It also doesn't factor in the impact of missing WMDs, no Saddam connection to 9/11 - which was counter to the stated rationale offered to us by the president - on the American public.

Also realize that you are insulting most Americans by implying they're quitters if we aren't "winning," we're "cut and run" cowards, surrender monkeys, and all the other derogatory terms that have been aimed at people who support withdrawing troops from Iraq.

See, I think overall Americans are tenacious and ingenious, not quitters. A setback, even a severe downturn, doesn't daunt us if we know we are fighting a just war. That just war part is the missing ingredient, IMO, with Iraq. What's a just war? One fought in defense of our nation. We have since learned that Iraq is not a just war.

OK, you might say, we're there in Iraq. Now what?

End the occupation. We deposed Saddam and the Iraqis have formed a new government. Mission accomplished. Now redeploy in a phased withdrawal, accelerate training of Iraqi forces, support reconstruction efforts, engage in diplomacy in the region, and let Iraq forge its future. Our continued military presence in Iraq is now counter-productive, creating more enemies than allies at an extraordinary price in blood and treasure.

But such solutions, Bush diehards belittle, mock, and reject.

Luckily, they are distinctly in the minority. Most Americans want us out of Iraq. Only 11% support a surge according to a poll from Monday.

Unluckily, our president as the CinC is the executive in charge of Iraq and U.S. foreign affairs. Only so much we can do politically to stop an escalation of hostilities, aka, the surge.

Frankly, I speculate that Bush will draw the war out until he can hand the problem off to the next president. Hope I'm wrong.

The majority don't support the war now because they are finally waking up to what the war is really about-the oil. The insurgents have offered multiple times to lay down their arms if the US withdrew its troops within two years. That seems like a good deal, at least the starting point for serious negotiations. If the insurgents agreed to honor the results of the democratically elecctd government, in elections free from US interference or control, we might have the start of a solution. Did the Bush administration even consider it? So, it isn't about democracy, its about oil.

Alas, blog, would that it were only about something so rational as oil. I suspect that many of the neocons were motivated by the oil. Certainly, it was never about WMDs, terrorism or the Iraqis. But Iraq was mostly about W and his dad. It's remarkable that Jay, Charlie, ex-lib, and all the other trolls fell for all the phony distractions and rationalizations. Apparently, they continue to be duped. Together, the represent the dull-witted residue of the electorate that was once blinded by the childish hyperventilating summoned by Rovian hysteria.

November 2006 heralds an awakening.

ex-liberal,

So when the costs of the war were still very low 65% of the population thought the removal of Saddam was worth the costs. As the costs have risen, fewer people think the war is worth the higher costs. Imagine that. But you conclude this is just people being fickle and backing the winning horse. Ok.

MSR

MSR, thank you for your clear explanation of why people supported the war when it was going well and not so much when it was going badly.

It's not like this is a unique phonomenon. The public had a similar reaction in Korea and Vietnam. One difference, as Global Citizen points out, is that the turn in public opinion in Iraq came so quickly -- a matter of weeks or months, rather than years. It seems that the American public has less tolerance for war. They'll support a quick victory, but not a long, difficult struggle.

Whatever it was about in the beginning, for both Bush and the neocons, it now about the oil. Otherwise they would negotiate with the insurgents. If the insurgents did not honor their commitment, then they would delegitimize themselves. In that case the UN would have no problem sending in a multinational force to enforce the democratic mandate.

ex-liberal,

No, the people of this country are perfectly willing to support a long and difficult war, so long as the object of that war is worth the effort and cannot be achieved by other, less costly means. The people of this country hold the lives of its citizens, especially those in uniform, quite dear. The removal of Saddam was not worthless, but it was also not nearly worth the expense of this long drawn out war.

The American people are also not willing to support a long, drawn-out and difficult struggle when the only reasons for the high costs are due to failures in planning and execution and ineptitude by those in charge, as is the case in this war. Also, you have not provided support for your claim that popular support for the war fell suddenly. My recollection is that support has declined steadily over the past several years.

MSR

blog: Otherwise they would negotiate with the insurgents. If the insurgents did not honor their commitment, then they would delegitimize themselves.

blog, my friend, I don't think the insurgents could be delegitimized, because they don't have any moral legitimacy to begin with. They weren't elected. They don't represent any specific group of Iraqis. They haven't been recognized by any government or by the UN. Their power comes from ruthlessly killing and maiming civiliains and committing sabotage.

In that case the UN would have no problem sending in a multinational force to enforce the democratic mandate.

In practice, the only way the UN could send in a multilateral force to Iraq is if the US led the force. That's what occurred in 1991. A US led, multilateral force is more-or-less what we has already been used in Iraq.

One difference, as Global Citizen points out, is that the turn in public opinion in Iraq came so quickly

That is not what I said. I pointed out that your poll was from the initial phase, not even 12 weeks into the conflict. (.pdf alert) In Phase I, which spanned the invasion on 19 March to 30 April, we lost 139 American soldiers and Marines and the insurgency had not started. The lies had not become apparent and Iraqi society had not yet imploded.

I absolutely did not say that the tide turned quickly. Absolutely not. It was a steady erosion of support as more and more troops were killed and more and more were maimed. It became more real gradually. It was a slow sobering up, not a rapid awakening.

I don't mind being cited, so long as my words are not twisted into something I did not say. That annoys me almost as much as having motives ascribed for me - not that you have ever done that - that is the stock-and-trade of a couple of others. You're pretty much civil, even when I'm snarky, and I appreciate that. I want to take this opportunity to say Merry Christmas to you and yours.

Only 11% of Americans support a troop buildup. I'm not saying surge anymore. I'm calling it what it is. A troop buildup. Escalation works too.

Global Citizen - sorry to misrepresent what you wrote.

MSR: the people of this country are perfectly willing to support a long and difficult war, so long as the object of that war is worth the effort and cannot be achieved by other, less costly means.

I hope you're right. It looks to me as if the struggle against radical Islam will be long and difficult.

The American people are also not willing to support a long, drawn-out and difficult struggle when the only reasons for the high costs are due to failures in planning and execution and ineptitude by those in charge, as is the case in this war.

This may be too high a standard. Every war has ineptitude and failures in planning and execution by those in charge.

Also, you have not provided support for your claim that popular support for the war fell suddenly. My recollection is that support has declined steadily over the past several years.

You are correct. I was observing that opposition to the Iraq war grew more quickly than in the cases of Vietnam or Korea.

The insurgents are fighting in their native country against a foreign occupation and they have no legitimacy? It is the US that has no legitimate presence in a foreign country. You live in some delusional bizarro world. Where in the world did you get the notion that you are the owner of the entire world with the right to occupy any country you please on any trumped up charges and call your occupation legitimate while the actions of the people who actually were born and are citizens of that country are illegitimate? It is as if there is not one iota of self awareness in you. You appear completely non-sentient.

Now that we have discussed the absurdity of your contention that the insurgency is illegitimate, then perhaps you could understand the importance of truly deligitimizing the insurgents. Only when that is done, will the Iraqi people and the nations of the world unite to defeat it. Until then the US has no support in this endeavor whatsoever.

Sorry to change the subject and bring bad news to boot, but James Brown, the Hardest Working Man in Show Business, passed away a couple of hours ago.

Yeeeooowww! Hit me one time!

Rest in peace, James. Every time I hear you, I Feel Good.

Ex-lib thinks that you can delegitimize a legitimate insurgency merely through propaganda. There isn't any precedence for all this rightwing insanity in my experience. The only way to delegitimize the insurgency in Iraq is through legitimate means. But that would mean letting go of the oil and that is the one thing that no one inthe Bush administration would even contemplate.

apollo 13: Furthermore, response to the question, HAVE THE END RESULTS OF WAR IN IRAQ BEEN WORTH THE COSTS? 45% said Yes and 45% said No. And...

"Even the most noble ends do not justify any means" - G.W. Bush 8/9/01

ex-lib: people supported the war when it was going well and not so much when it was going badly.

here's another poll...that changed over time...

The single word most frequently associated currently with George W. Bush is "incompetent,"and close behind are: "idiot" and "liar." - Pew Research Center 3/16/06

ex-lib: The country doesn't support the war now because we aren't winning, and because the medi reporting is so anti-war.

.."There is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq." - IRAQ STUDY GROUP

ex-lib: Every war has ineptitude and failures in planning and execution by those in charge.

"We’ve never been stay the course." - GWB on ABC 10/22/06

"We will stay the course." - GWB Salt Lake City, Utah 8/30/06

ex-lib: In practice, the only way the UN could send in a multilateral force to Iraq is if the US led the force. That's what occurred in 1991. A US led, multilateral force is more-or-less what we has already been used in Iraq.

you forgot poland...

1991 - 400k troops...

2003 - 150k troops...

and the 2003 number was used with the bush administrations position that saddam had reconstituted nukes and wmd's..

and rummy had to be talked into the 150k...

he wanted less...

ex-liberal,

Let me join with GC in asking that I not be cited in a manner which changes the meaning of what I write. I wrote:

The American people are also not willing to support a long, drawn-out and difficult struggle when the only reasons for the high costs are due to failures in planning and execution and ineptitude by those in charge, as is the case in this war.

blog - the insurgents are fighting against a democratically elected Iraqi government government. Almost all the people they kill in Iraq are Iraqis. The insurgents are aided to some degree by foreign powers (Iran and Syria) and foreign money (Saudi Arabia).

US troops remain in Iraq at the request of the elected government. If the insurgency is put down, US troops will leave. It is the insurgents who are creating conditions that keep the US in Iraq.

MSR - if I misrepresented your point, I apologize. I agree with you that in Iraq the US has committed failures in planning and execution, as well as ineptitude in high places.

I think pacifying Iraq was a daunting task. Bush's biggest error was not recognizing the magnitude of the challenge. In particular, the Bush team to this day fails to deal with the roles being played by Iran and Syria in destabilizing Iraq. These two countries have torpedoed democracy in Lebanon and are working to do so in Iraq and Israel.

I do not agree that our efforts in Iraq have been more error-prone than in other wars. The assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem, which was permitted by the JFK team, was a horrendous blunder. In Vietnam we had no reasonable strategy IMHO. We should have been able to win that war, but failed dismally.

The errors made by Abraham Lincoln's generals had more horrific consequences than the errors in Iraq. The North had the might to easily vanquish the South. Yet, Northern strategic mistakes resulted in 620,000 dead and missing before the war was finally won.

mr. irony: "There is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq."

This is true. There are so many insurgent attacks that most aren't considered newsworthy. However, the bias is that the many positive developments in Iraq are even more under-reported IMHO.

How did the State come to produce such a moral void as ex-lib? What sinister experiment is he the product of? The dreams of the Grand Inquisitor are fully realized in ex-lib: humanity reduced to the level of programmed automatom; the Freedom to choose between good and evil completely eradicated; no hint of any independent thought or feeing; the light of reason completely snuffed out.

ex-lib: I think pacifying Iraq was a daunting task.

"My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." - Dick Cheney 3/16/2003

"I think we are welcomed (IN IRAQ)," President Bush said. "But it was not a peaceful welcome." - 12/12/05

was it a violent welcome?

ex-lib: There are so many insurgent attacks that most aren't considered newsworthy. However, the bias is that the many positive developments in Iraq are even more under-reported IMHO.

ex-lib logic on display...with no evidence to back up his empty assertions...

so violence is under-reported because there are too many attacks...

there are fewer positive developments but despite being more rare than the bevy of violent events..that still doesnt rate them any more coverage?...

ex-lib...your delusion is delicious..

ex-lib: I swept through the comments here and you sure assert some goofy stuff. But don't get your straight-jacket in a wad.

ex-liberal,

No offense, if I had taken more time to compose my response, it would have been less harsh sounding. Hope you had an excellent Christmas and follow up with a great New Year.

MSR