Fristlosi!!

Democrats want to bring the troops home because that is the right thing to do and is what most Americans want.

Cutting off funding, though, is not the way to go.

No.

This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions (h/t atrios)

James: Then what is? In any case, this is merely cutting funds to send more troops over, not cutting funds for troops already there.

But do they have the spine to do it?

Sure. And there's a 70 percent chance of a pigstorm this afternoon too.

More seriously, though, for once I'm not actually convinced that they should.
The reichwing noise machine has already re-started the classic "stab-in-the-back" meme that has been the hallmark of every repressive and/or failed regime since the Germans in the interwar period. And entirely too many American voters (and even more non-voters) will buy it this time.
I am not the only one who thinks that it is at least possible (I'm far from convinced myself) that the least-bad move here -- in the longer-term of course -- is to let the Bushists have their surge, and to havae every single Dem and every single columnist, pundit, spokesperson, continually, loudly, constantly, and all in the same exact terms (just like the Repukes do!), reiterate that we HAVE given them everyting they could possibly want -- so that when, as it almost certainly must, come to nothing but still more death and destruction, we can finally, and without any possibility of dispute, say SEE?
The Dem's have made mistake after mistake in dealing with the Repukes, ever since the fall of Nixon. We've never taken the political, legal, or rhetorical fight all the way. And we have paid the price as every single slime-mold from every past mal-administration has crawled back into the light, and back into the seats of power.
For once, let's let them have enough rope to hang themselves fully and finally dead, permanently and without hope of further resurrections.

The reichwing noise machine has already re-started the classic ....

Because if one relents on opposing the war, it will make such a difference to the Al's, Amerikkkan Hawk's, dogbert's, and frickin' ken's all over the world.

In any case, this is the Democrats' first chance to oppose the surge in a serious, non-symbolic way: they can refuse to approve the additional $2 billion.

That would be a disaster since the Surge has been successful so far and cutting funds would only embolden Al-Qaeda and their fellow terrorists.

Link

"President Bush said yesterday that his decision to send more troops to Baghdad is yielding "gradual but important" progress in Iraq."
""Other members of Congress seem to believe that we can have it all: that we can fight Al Qaeda, pursue national reconciliation, initiate aggressive diplomacy, and deter Iran's ambitions in Iraq all while withdrawing from Baghdad and reducing our force levels," Mr Bush said in a speech to the American Legion."
""That sounds good in theory, but doing so at this moment would undermine everything our troops have worked for. There are no shortcuts in Iraq," the president said."

Al .

Al, seriously, how does Bush have any credibility when it comes to the Iraq war, or anything, really? And even more seriously, what else is he going to say? What are you trying to accomplish by posting this here?

P.S. Al,

you should refrain from adding your .02 to anything other than MY's basketball posts.

can you refrain from making racist statements? Cause ESPN is still trying to fill Limbaugh's seat.

Yeah. Some success we're having.

This isn't a stand-up fight, it's a Bug Hunt. The insurgent fighters aren't fighting in Baghdad, they just faded away like so much smoke, taking the fight to the provinces. 112 dead in explosions and ten Americans dead in the last 24 hours.

Success, you say...

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

""That sounds good in theory, but doing so at this moment would undermine everything our troops have worked for. There are no shortcuts in Iraq," the president said."
Al .
Posted by: The Real Al

Since everything our troops have done has resulted in more terrorism and a more unstable middle east, shouldn't it be the duty of every patriotic american to actively undermine their current course?

Nads, they are holding out hope that for the first time ever the same fucked-up thinking that created a mess will be the tack to take to clean it up.

In.Fucking.Sanity.

Yes!

(Short answer to short question.)

I have to agree with Kevin here. They somehow suprisingly forgot to the country that they need these support troops (who will be equally exposed to hostile action). Why shouldn't the Democrats say that if the administration is so fast & loose with the real number of troops you needed then why should the Democrats agree to pay for the extra troops let alone the surge itself?

No, letting Bush have his way is not the least-bad thing. It sentences about 1000 soldiers per year to death, as long as this thing goes on.

If the Democrats get their act together to stop it, the Republicans will claim for the next 20 years that they were on the edge of victory and were betrayed. No matter, we need to stop it anyway.

Apparently it's been decided that "fully funding a withdrawal" polls well. Whatever, just stop the war.

Not to break out the little dance that goes with my "I told you so's" but....

I spent a lot of time while this lunacy was being discussed screaming that 21,500 wasn't the real number, that support personnel would be required that were not being taken into account.

Right again.

Although I really am ready to be wrong about some of this dismal and depressing bullshit.

I would love to see a Committee member feign ignorance:

So wait, you needed 21,500 more combat troops or just 21,500 troops?"

What's the difference betweebn a troop and a combat troop?

Can you send a combat troop without also sending a plain vanilla troop?

Wait, I'm confused...

Did you want just 21,500 people on the ground, or 21,500 combat people?

Well why didn't you say so?

They are going to say they were stabbed in the back no matter how it ends, and there is no moral justification for keeping the war alive just so they will be proved wrong. They are wrong now and no amount of failure will make them admit it.

Well, maybe Bush will make some tearful barroom confessions ten years from now—you know, while having beers with all those Americans who dreamed of the chance. (It'll be the first ex-presidential kissing booth.)

I am anticipating that Global or someone will correct me if I am wrong , but it is my understanding that the current level of support troops to combat troops is at least 1 to 1. If that is the case,how are they going to properly support 21,500 combat troops with only 4,00 to 7,000 support troops? I believe this is an especially salient point in light of the fact that the Brits are withdrawing from Southern Iraq at the same time that the Mahdi Army and other Shia militias are relocating there to avoid the surge in Baghdad and all of our supply lines have to run a difficult gauntlet through that territory.

BG, RS >"...Although I really am ready to be wrong about some of this dismal and depressing bullshit."

You and me both but I don`t see that happening anytime soon...

*sigh*

"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know." - M. King Hubbert

DNS >"I would love to see...Well why didn't you say so?"

Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) would probably be your man for that; he is really, really good at it. And he is the current Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces...

“Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty. Without them, we have no other fortification against being ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, worked like cattle, and fed and clothed like swine and hounds.� - John Adams

gradually reducing funding in order that we can plan for and achieve an orderly withdrawal: yes. on that i have no problem facing up to the stab-in-the-backers.

but not funding support troops for combat troops already over there? no, that's not the way to start - maybe if there were already further momentum for troop cuts, but the gop has thus far sucessfully fended that off, but not as the very first action in the funding battle.

the Republicans will claim for the next 20 years that ....

D'ya think the GOP will be around for 20 more years? Think of all the parties that have come and gone.

The GOP becomes more anti-liberty and Christianist every election. Some party will spring up to capture all the cast-off conservatives & unaffiliated libertarians.

bmaz, that's kinda cloudy right now, with all the outsourced operations, but yeah, I would guess that the ratio would be at least 4:3 solider:support, even today with all the *contractors* over there.

Y'all do realize that there are 100K *contractors* in Iraq right now, don't you? Many are ostensibly in support roles, but do not fulfill their jobs in many instances, leaving the military to pick up their slack in addition to their own jobs. Too frequently the meals that are to be delivered must be fetched because the *contractors* won't leave their ensconsed positions to deliver the meals.

And by the way, if you righties want to talk about undermining the morale of the troops, let's talk about the rate of pay of the military compared to the Halliburton/KBR employees. And lets talk about the provisions intended for the troops that get commandeered for the contractors. Remember the TV's and super bowl munchies that the Halliburton crew didn't bother delivering, instead they just took them for themselves.

Blue Girl, Red State- You are right about contractors and morale. I was stuck in the Dubai airport 18 months ago and was talking to a contractor. I asked how he became a contractor. He said that he had been in the New Zealand army during the East Timor conflict. He frequently got called into action to bail out the contractors that had been hired. Eventually, he found out they were making three times what he was making and was furious. When his tour of duty was over, he went back to New Zealand and demanded they release him from his contract. They did, but he had to give up his pension. He agreed and immediately signed up with with a British security firm. He said he'd never fight for any country's army again. He'd only go as a contractor and he didn't really care where he went. He didn't seem to mind serving in Iraq. I asked how the war was going. "It's going great, I've never made so much money. And whenever things got hot, I just call in the Americans and let them handle it." "But what about the Iraqis?" I asked. "Oh, well they're screwed, but that's not my problem." I can't see our soldiers appreciating people like that.

Tip of the surge iceberg - How many mercenaries and other private contractors are part of this stupid ass surge? All of this waste of American blood and treasure is compounded by the fact that Iraqi prime Minister Maliki wanted no more American troops, but Bush insisted.

We just simply have to impeach both Bush and Cheney, for the good of this country and the good of this world. DO IT NOW, DEMOCRATS!!!

But do they have the spine to do it?

I wouldn't bet the bunker on it...

If the Democrats get their act together to stop it, the Republicans will claim for the next 20 years that they were on the edge of victory and were betrayed. No matter, we need to stop it anyway.

I agree, especially since the authoritatian cultists that form the modern Republican Party are going to claim that anyway to avoid responsibility for the debacle in Iraq. Hell, ol' tbrosz was sharpening up the Dolschtosslegende a year or two ago.

Kenji's summary of the situation was so good, let's just hear that again:

They are going to say they were stabbed in the back no matter how it ends, and there is no moral justification for keeping the war alive just so they will be proved wrong. They are wrong now and no amount of failure will make them admit it.

Right. And Gregory sweeps in with solid backup:

...the authoritatian cultists that form the modern Republican Party are going to claim that anyway to avoid responsibility for the debacle in Iraq.

Right again. Let's not turn this into a game of chess. The right answer is much simpler.

Unless initiated by Republicans, any movement towards impeachment that hits the mainstream will prevent any chance of ending this war.

Let's ask Cheney why the British, who are only pulling out because they've been so successful, and are really still part of the "coalition of the willing," can't just swing on up to Baghdad and help out with the surge?

And by the way, if you righties want to talk about undermining the morale of the troops

One thing the piss-poor conduct of this war is revealing to the American people is that the GOP's decades-long branding effort as "strong on defense" an "supporting the troops" is just marketing bullshit. The GOP has been hiding the mendacity, incompetence and corruption of its civilian leadership behind the honor of the troops -- when it's Democratic politicians whom we find have actually, you know, served (as opposed to having a boil on their butt or "other priorities") since the Vietnam War, but this time the American public is wise, and the Dolschtosslegende won't work.

One tiny comfort of the disaster Bush has created in Iraq is that he has ruined, along with everything else, this decades-long branding effort. And yet the 33% dead-ender Bush Cultists will never acknowledge it, even as the rest of the American public abandons the wreck of the Republican Party in droves.

Bad idea, Kev -- cutting off a surge of combat personnel is one thing, but stopping the flow of support personnel for already-allocated combat personnel is quite another.

But based on Army standards, it would take 28,000 support troops to support 21,500 combat troops. Are they going to try to do it on the cheap, or will they come back in a couple of weeks for another few thousand troops?

Are they seriously trying to pretend that they just forgot they'd need support troops as well as combat troops? Please.

I made this exact point here when they first announced the "splurge," asking whether they really meant 20,000 extra front-line combat troops (which would involve tens of thousands more support personnel) or 20,000 total troops (which would mean only a few thousand real front-line combat soldiers).

Baffling, really, that a civilian like me seems to have a better handle on military logistics than the White House does....

You guys are dreamin' -- the troops are staying well into next year and beyond.

It's for that reason that -- in a strictly nihilist and objective political sense -- Dems would be foolish to want any change in policy at this point.

Does anyone doubt that this was the plan all along? X number of combat troops, followed later by Y number of support troops, and you can bet we'll see requests for still more support troops in the near future. Should the Dems block this? Politically speaking, not never nohow. See those words support and troops right next to each other in the same sentence? That's why not.

This is the suckerpunch the Dems always fall for. By not staunchly opposing the "surge" itself, and voting for withdrawal on some sort of timetable, they're in a weaker position to oppose any future "surges," especially when these are characterized as necessary to support troops in the field from past surges. It's a fun cycle, and we've been here before.

Of course, as pointed out so well above, Democrats will be excoriated as traitors by the right-wingers no matter what they do.

Dems would be foolish to want any change in policy at this point.

It is abhorrent that anyone could even consider allowing more blood to be spilled and more troops to die just to make some political hay. That is the stock-and-trade of the Publican party, not us.

*********

Stefan and I and many others here were asking the right questions all along.

Why weren't our elected officials?

Of course, as pointed out so well above, Democrats will be excoriated as traitors by the right-wingers no matter what they do.

Of course, as pointed out so well above, Democrats will be excoriated as traitors by the real traitors no matter what they do.

There. That's better.

I am anticipating that Global or someone will correct me if I am wrong , but it is my understanding that the current level of support troops to combat troops is at least 1 to 1.

Oh, much worse than that. Traditional military doctrine holds it's about 10 to 1 (ten support personnel for one front line soldier) when you factor in HQ staff, drivers, mechanics, cooks, medical personnel, training staff, quartermasters, computer techs, electricians, MPs, etc. etc. Of course these days the Bush regime has outsources quite a few support roles to foreign nationals and mercenaries, so the old ratio doesn't really apply, but you still need many more people behind the lines for every one person in the field.

(Ignoring also, of course, that in Iraq there's no real front-line and even support personnel are exposed to hostile fire every day).

damn, smartalek, you stole my line!

Blue Girl, Red State- You are right about contractors and morale. I was stuck in the Dubai airport 18 months ago and was talking to a contractor. I asked how he became a contractor. He said that he had been in the New Zealand army during the East Timor conflict.

Can we stop using the GOP PC by calling them "contractors" and start calling them what they are, which is mercenaries?

Contractors renovate your house and install new kitchen cabinets and plumbing. Mercenaries kill people for money. There's a difference.

I'll get on-message with that. Should be pretty easy, since it is reinforced at home. Every time the word pops up, my husband screams in the direction of the offending media source "Contractors fix your plumbing and install new windows. These bastards are fucking mercenaries.

Great minds, eh Stefan?

There are three separate issues:

1. Should the Democrats seek to end American involvement in Iraq?

2. If so, how?

3. If so, what are the chances of the passage of any initiative toward this end?

I think the chances of success of any initiative on the part of Congressional Democrats is slim to none. They are reasonably well united in favor of item 1 and vastly in disagreement on item 2. Congressional Republicans and the Bush administration are similarly reasonably well united in opposition to item 1 and can block anything Congressional Democrats do, either by legislative hindrance, presidential veto, or presidential signing statement.

My argument would be that given that any such effort is likely doomed to failure at this time, Congressional Democrats should stop their stupid bickering, stop looking for watered-down "bipartisan" measures, and just pass something -- demonstrate that they have a backbone, that they stand for something, that they are with the American people in decrying this ill-fated effort, this dismal failure of the Bush administration.

Would that be "partisan?" Damn right. This war has been partisan from the very beginning, promoted as such by the Bush administration. The "war on terror" and the war in Iraq have been used as a partisan cudgel against the Democrats for more than five years. Now the chickens are coming home to roost and it's time for the Democrats to stand up.

Will their efforts fail? Almost certainly, but it will be remembered that they tried and that they were blocked by a stubborn Republican Party that is wholly disconnected from reality and from their constituents, giving the Democrats a cudgel that they can use in the coming months and in the next election.

I have a question.

Can we just cut funding for the mercenaries, I mean "contractors"? What segment of the US voting populace would have a problem with that?

Halliburton/BushCo would go nuts. This would highlight what the Iraq invasion was all about in the first place.

Congress' real job should be investigation, investigation, investigation. The white house runs the invasion, Congress just needs to let America know what they are doing.

TT

And, just once, I'd like to see the Democratic Party go on offense with respect to framing their opposition instead of weakly whining in their own defense that they "do, too, support the troops, really."

They may be mercenaries, but they are OUR mercenaries.

Suggestion:

Buy Halliburton stock.
In two years I will be back as CEO.
It is a can't miss investment.

Can we just cut funding for the mercenaries

Heh. I am working on a post for another site that follows that same theme.

They should not cut off funding here. I don't care how anti-war you are. You said it yourself, Kevin: this isn't a new surge. It's not extra combat personnel. You're talking about nixing funds for the support troops, whose mission would be to run operations necessary for the continued functioning of combat troops. Bad bad bad BAD policy, and bad PR to boot.

This is the one scenario where a funding cutoff would do exactly what Republicans claim - leave troops in the field but without operational support. The fact that the support would still get there from other sources is irrelevant, since it would get there via the military circumventing the vote. Congress would be voting to screw over the front-line (if the term even means anything anymore) soldiers. NO.

Fostert, quoting a contractor's opinion about the Iraq war:

"It's going great, I've never made so much money."

Are you sure you weren't talking to Cheney?

Press reports say that 17,000 Marines are going from Camp Lejeune, N.C., alone. I'd like to know when was the last deployment of that size from that base. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the largest since WWII.

My city's monopoly propaganda newspaper had an article saying "Bush says 'encouraging signs' show success of Iraq strategy," but the very next headline belied it, "130 Shiite pilgrims massacred."

This was the online version, so I do not know if the print copy was so blatantly contradictry.

Stefan: Traditional military doctrine holds it's about 10 to 1.

A few weeks ago, an NPR story quoted what they called current military doctrine saying 21,500 combat troops would require 28,000 support troops in area. That number does not include the number of support troops required in the US. Maybe your 10 to 1 does.

Unfortunately smartalex, Americans are dying right now in Iraq and to continue with the surge means even more Americans die for the lie.

And, just once, I'd like to see the Democratic Party go on offense with respect to framing their opposition

I agree, and as a matter of general principle, too, not just the GOP's failed war.

We should cut funding entirely.

Then we should make it legal for the oil companies to hire US troops directly as mercenaries.

Then, the oil companies would have to pass those costs directly to the consumer.

Then, Americans would pay the REAL cost for their gasoline. And maybe there would soon be some demand for electric cars.

Sometimes, I feel as if liberal laws (like making corporate mercenaries illegal) do more harm to the liberal cause than good.

The support-troops issue actually came up back at the beginning of February, when the CBO released a study predicting that an additional 15,000 to 28,000 support troops would be required for the "surge."

The White House promptly denied it the next day, saying that there were already enough support troops on the ground (this from Dan Barlett via Howard Fineman on MSNBC's "Countdown," February 2).

...but this time the American public is wise

Well, I wouldn't go that far.

Since the Administration has repeatedly lied about the firing of US Attorneys (DOJ calls US Attorneys "former disgruntled employees grandstanding before Congress"), its not all that difficult to believe that they would lie about the surge too.

And that's exactly what we've seen.

Well, I wouldn't go that far

Okay, how about getting wise? They've pretty much already concluded that Bush's war is a failure, and if I read the 2006 elections right, they aren't blaming Democrats for it.

Whoa now. I'm pretty sure I read that the support troops to combat troops was 10 to 1 not 4 to 3 or whatever was said above. What are the numbers? That thought crossed my mind when all this "surge" (escalation) nonsense was coming out - that 21K extra troops meant, what, 2-3 K combat troops? W was pissing in the wind.

The sad fact is that too many Democrats will not have the balls to refuse any more funding for this fiasco of a war!

I'm pretty sure I read that the support troops to combat troops was 10 to 1 not 4 to 3 or whatever was said above.

Sure, but a lot of the tail doesn't have to be deployed into Iraq if the combat troops are; 10:1 is, I seem to recall, close to the overall tail:teeth ratio, but a significant chunk of that stays in the US wherever the troops go, and another chunk may be deployed closer to the front but not necessarily into Iraq in the case of supporting combat troops in Iraq.

We have privatized Iraq. Mission accomplished.

Who cares about how many grunts our military deems worthy of being blown to bits by IEDs?

The contractoralization of Iraq is complete, on a scale never seen B4.

Surge protection = kill all infidels.

This war sucks, unless you are making the big bucks in the land of endless mayhem.

There's gold in dem dare killing fields folks.

By immediately privatizing all sorts of Iraq endeavors our current administration set the tone for the "defeat" that is/cannot be denied.

Bring 'em on.

I need to do some research on the number of support personnel in the combat zone (not calling it theater of operations anymore, since they aren't out for a night on the town) but I am certain that the use of mercenaries for much of the so-called support operations skews the numbers dramatically.

Please explain, in detail, how the United States gets to put a hashmark in the "Win" column of Iraqs civil war?

Bush's war is a failure, and if I read the 2006 elections right, they aren't blaming Democrats for it.
Posted by: Gregory on March 7, 2007 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

If I read the pre-primary polls for the 2008 presidential race right - they're not blaming ALL Democrats for it.

If I read the pre-primary polls for the 2008 presidential race right - they're not blaming ALL Democrats for it.

Point taken.

A victory for the United States of America in Iraq would be disastrous for liberal Democrats.

Notice, though, how this talking point shows that the whole "Mission Accomplished" bit is now, ah, no longer operative.

>This isn't a stand-up fight, it's a Bug Hunt.

Game over, man. Game over.

Ah, Chet.

"But do they have the spine to do it?"

No.

Next question?

The Democrats are still playing the same game they played in the runup to the Iraq invasion: wringing their hands and going along because they don't want to be seen as soft on terrorism and national security.

Problem is, they already are.

So now they are not just seen as weak on national security, but merely weak period.

There is nothing to gain from remaining in Iraq.

Predictions of doom if we leave are just as incredible as the predictions of doom used to justify invading Iraq in the first place.

There is no doom on the horizon from leaving.

This is simply a figment of the imagination of arrogant, spineless and demogogic foreign policy incompetents within America.

But if the support is say 10:1, even though a lower ratio is in the actual combat zone, these are troops occupied with Iraq and not available for Afghanistan combat/support and further taxes a very thin military. No?

Most definitely, ckelly.

The military that it took 35 years to rebuild after Vietnam has been decimated in five years.

We went off to fight a vanity war with the military we had, and now it is short an entire division due to death and injury, and the officer corps is hemorrhaging seasoned officers.

The troop quality is declining, as 17% of the Army recruits from last year were admitted on waivers.

So we have a decimated military, a regular army short 3500 officers, the reserves are short 11,000 officers, and we are recruiting hinky troops who wouldn't have been allowed in the door of a recruiting station five years ago...without seasoned leadership.

brojo:

It isn't surprising to me that newspapers often have inherently contradictory headlines, when you consider that newpapers may have CIA "plants" on their staff whose job it is to plant stories favorable to the government or squelch stories that are unfavorable. Before you dismiss me as a "conspiarcy theorist" or garden variety loon, Google "Operation Mockingbird". And we wonder why so many Americans are so confused...

TCD

.. parlamentary trick to head this surge off before US troops come close to winning in Iraq... mhrat 12:21 PM

The Democrats already expressed their willingness. They will probably pass such a resolution in the House. But in the Senate, needing a 60% majority to close off filibusters, the Republicans have blocked any effort to confront the administration.

So, Kevin, let's put the blame where it belongs, shall we?

The Conservative Deflator:

I had long ago heard of Operation Mockingbird, but at your suggestion I googled it to refresh my memory. Most of it was unsurprising to a full-bore cynic, but one part was: The wikipedia entry suggests that Edward R. Murrow's attack on McCarthy was inspired by the CIA as part of Operation Mockingbird. If true, his memory is a bit deflated, too.

Are they seriously trying to pretend that they just forgot they'd need support troops as well as combat troops?

Given the general incompetance of this administration, they probably don't need to pretend.

Are they seriously trying to pretend that they just forgot they'd need support troops as well as combat troops?

Hey, the "I forgot" defense worked well for Scooter, didn't it?...

Oh, wait, nevermind...

blue dog Democrats, and the question of whether the party moved rightward in the 2006 election:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/03/07/D8NNHKNG3.html

If there were any blud dog Democrats around here, I'd probably vote for them.

The reichwing noise machine has already re-started the classic "stab-in-the-back" meme that has been the hallmark of every repressive and/or failed regime since the Germans in the interwar period. And entirely too many American voters (and even more non-voters) will buy it this time.

Well, yes. A lot of people in the US do not want the next dramatic American foreign policy decision to make the last dramatic decision ("mistake" or not) have an even more disastrous outcome. They also want to avoid giving foreign adversaries of the future more reason to think that America will "cut and run" for sure. A number of the liberal Democratic plans actually only call for American troops to start withdrawing some time in the future, and then only if the situation in Iraq is stable, and even then perhaps not all American troops. So as long as the troops remain deployed in Iraq, it's probably best to ensure that they are employed at least as effectively as the president wants, not less so.

If there were any blud dog Democrats around here, I'd probably vote for them.

Do you imagine this statement gives you any credibility after your endless river of partisan bullshit, Marler?

another roadbump in the road to defeat:

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/features/article_1274190.php/Al_Qaim_is_island_of_stability

Do you imagine this statement gives you any credibility after your endless river of partisan bullshit, Marler?

Of course not. It's just another of my comments about my bipartisan voting history.

The cited article addresses an issue that was discussed here last fall: did the 2006 election result have the overall effect of moving the Democrats farther left or farther toward the center?

It's just another of my comments about my bipartisan voting history.

Do you really think anyone believes them any more than your ridiculous stories about your supposed liberal friends that all happen to fit convenient, extreme stereotypes?

just another of my comments about my bipartisan voting history

As cmdicely pointed out, what makes you think that your so-called "comments about my bipartisan voting history" have any more credibility than any of the other bullshit you post here?

For that matter, what makes you think that your so-called "bipartisan voting history" mitigates the coeans of water you've carried here for the Republican Party?

Oh, and Marler? You can take your cherrypicked "roadbump on the road to defeat" citations and shove them straight up your ass, you mendacious Bushlickin g toad. No amount of your so-called "roadbumps" can mitigate the fact that the president and party you support fucked up this war and our nation's security, no matter how much you distract yourself by gloating about how difficult a time the Democrats will have cleaning up the mess.

Blue Girl wrote:

"Every time the word pops up, my husband screams in the direction of the offending media source "Contractors fix your plumbing and install new windows. These bastards are fucking mercenaries."
_________________

Come on, folks. Most contract personnel - at least, of the Halliburton type - never carry weapons and do, indeed, fix plumbing and install windows. As well as run chow halls, drive trucks, repair aircraft, and do a hundred different jobs that Combat Service Support (CSS) troops used to perform.

There is an estimated 48,000 contract personnel involved in security work in Iraq. One could call them mercenaries, though it's impossible to know how many would take such work if the US weren't involved. Presumably, none are employed by our enemies.

I voted for Nancy Kassebaum a couple of times, too, but I am not bipartisan by anyones definition.

cmdicely: Do you really think anyone believes them any more than your ridiculous stories about your supposed liberal friends that all happen to fit convenient, extreme stereotypes?

I do have liberal friends, and a subset of them do fit that particular stereotype. I would have thought that the number of people in the US expecting respect for N.Korea would have been more like 5% than 8%, but this diehard extreme left is certainly not moribund.

Why you think I am lying about my voting record I can only guess. Forty years ago I would have proffered a psychoanalytic conjecture about unconscious desires. Now I tend to think of it as some kind of religious faith. I voted against Nixon and for Clinton. I don't know why that is intrinsically unbelievable.

Actually, Trashhauler, I read somewhere just last week that there are over a hundred thousand mercenaries in Iraq working for U.S. interests.

I believe it was in a McLatchy paper, I'll see if I can find the link...

After 22 years in Strata Blue, he can call 'em any fucking thing he wants. Since they are in a war zone for money and not wearing the uniform of their country, they definitely meet the most basic definition of the word.

Why you think I am lying about my voting record I can only guess. ... I don't know why that is intrinsically unbelievable.

Well, Marler, that's the price one pays for posting intellectually dishonest bullshit in an attempt, however feeble, to defend the mendacity, incompetence and corruption of the Republican party you've allied yourself with: You lose credibility, and no one has any reason to believe you about -- or, really, to give a toss about -- your voting record, your friends, and your fantasies about the "diehard extreme left."

Trashy wrote: One could call them mercenaries

And indeed, one certainly would, unless one were dishonest enough to even suggest a possibility that one might not by using the would "could." Who gives a damn if they're working because the US is involved, or not for our enemies? That's the thing about mercenaries, after all.

Blue Girl, far be it from me to get between a man and what he yells at his own TV. Especially a fellow graduate from Big Blue.

I got the 48,000 figure from the text of a bill in Congress.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-674
I think it also mentioned that there were about 100,000 total contract personnel in Iraq.

Say, can you provide more detail about those contract people who stole the Superbowl stuff? That really burns me and I'd like to follow up on it. I'd at least want to ask the Army loggie types I work with what was done to the creeps.

Mudville Gazette has snippets about the surge:

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/008053.html

Gregory: your fantasies about the "diehard extreme left."

You must have not read Kevin Drum's item about how 8% of Americans respect North Korea.

mendacity, incompetence and corruption of

That got me to thinking about Murtha, Mollahan and Jefferson. I hadn't thought about Mollahan and Jefferson for days now. Less fishy, most likely, are Pelosi's and Feinstein's property development deals.

Mudville Gazette has snippets about the surge:

Yeah, Michael Yon's observations about Geraldo's moustache were fascinating.

Here are some more snippets on the "escalation to give Bush political cover:"

The biggest attack on pilgrims Wednesday occurred in Dora, a mostly Sunni neighborhood of southern Baghdad, where a roadside bomb killed at least seven people, police said. Immediately after the blast, gunmen moved in and fired on the victims. About 14 were wounded, they said.

Gunmen also opened fire on Shiite pilgrims on a bridge in southeastern Baghdad, killing three and wounding five, police said.

Another shooting left one pilgrim dead and four wounded in central Baghdad, police said.
Gunmen wounded six pilgrims in Baghdad as they were heading to the holy city of Kerbala.

A suicide car bomber killed one policeman and wounded 17, including 10 policemen, in Saidiya in southern Baghdad, police said. The bomber targeted police who were marshalling Shi'ite pilgrims walking to Kerbala and the wounded included seven pilgrims.

A suicide car bomber struck an Iraqi police checkpoint in a southwestern Baghdad suburb and killed seven police officers and one pilgrim, police said. The blast injured at least 25 others.

The head of relations and media department in tourism committee Ahmed Gati’a was killed when gun men shot him in Al-Iskandariya district (South of Baghdad).

An official at Yarmukh hospital in Baghdad said the bodies of eight pilgrims were brought in overnight -- seven killed by a roadside bomb and one shot -- and that 23 wounded were treated and 24 anonymous bodies were found in Baghdad. 23 were found in Karkh, the western part of Baghdad in the following neighborhoods (7 bodies in Dora, 5 bodies in Hay Al Amil, 3 bodies in Baiyaa, 2 bodies in Ghazaliya, 1 body in each of Saidiya, Hurriya, Abo Disheer, Jami'aa and Amiriya). A body was found in Al Ameen one of the neighborhoods of Rosafa, the eastern part of Baghdad.

Diyala Prv:

A suicide bomber blew himself up in a cafe in a town northeast of Baghdad on Wednesday, killing at least 26 people, police said. The blast occurred in the town of Balad Ruz, in the religiously mixed province of Diyala. Balad Ruz police chief Faris al-Umayri said the bomber killed 26 people and wounded 25 others. Another police source put the death toll at 30.

At least 20 Shiite Muslims were killed on their trek to Karbala, where they would mark the end of a 40-day mourning period after the death of the Prophet Muhammad's grandson.

At least 28 Shiite pilgrims heading to the shrine city of Karbala were among 43 Iraqis killed on Tuesday in a spate of insurgent attacks

A total of seven pilgrims were killed in three separate car bombings in Baghdad, which also wounded 42 others, security and hospital officials said.

Trashhauler - I will see what I can find out about how that superbowl issue played out. It may be a day or two. Spring break starts at noon-fifteen tomorrow for me - not that I'm counting or anything.

Send me an email. This one works.

They also want to avoid giving foreign adversaries of the future more reason to think that America will "cut and run" for sure.

Personally, I want to avoid giving future foreign adversaries reason to think that America will, once it has made a disastrous mistake, keep on making that same mistake, time and time again. I want to avoid giving them a reason to think that we're not smart enough to get out when we should, and to think that all they have to do to suck us into a quagmire is to lure us in and that we'll just stay there, slowly sinking, until the mud rises above our heads. I want to avoid giving them reason to think that we're too dumb to learn and to stupid to stop -- I'd rather have them think we're smart and cunning and adaptable.

But then again, for me foreign policy doesn't boil down to a dick-measuring contest as it seems to for so many right-wingers.

You must have not read Kevin Drum's item about how 8% of Americans respect North Korea.

Curiously, they all seem to be friends of yours, as you revealed on that thread.

BGRS: After 22 years in Strata Blue, he can call 'em any fucking thing he wants. Since they are in a war zone for money and not wearing the uniform of their country, they definitely meet the most basic definition of the word.

Hmmm...actually, fighting in a war zone and not wearing the uniform of their country sounds more like...unlawful combatants! Off to Guantanamo with the pack of them!

http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/bio.aspx?act=pro&fil=IQ

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reconstruction_of_Iraq_contractors

Among many worse reported:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6947745/

100,000 government contractors, plus subcontractors,etc.(Dec, '06):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/04/AR2006120401311.html

Contractors? Mercenaries? Political and Financial Prostitutes? An idea run amok?

Name it anything you want, but we seem determined that the price will only be paid down the line. From debt to the social cost of our psychologically damaged troops.

The $$ debt mounts every day but the Washington Post hasn't even scraped the surface of the invisible harm.

"Rather than looking for a policy that might be within our means and might mitigate the disaster, Bush is betting all his chips — all our chips — on the only choice that allows him the fantasy that in the end people will say: Bush was right. He is sending twenty thousand because twenty thousand is all he has. Next to nothing in the way of ground forces remains for other contingencies. His Presidency and his 'legacy' are in ruins anyway, so he imagines he has nothing to lose. If only that were true of the rest of us."

Hendrik Hertzberg
The New Yorker

There is an estimated 48,000 contract personnel involved in security work in Iraq. One could call them mercenaries,

One could, and should, since that's what they are. Though "contract personnel involved in security work" sounds so much more sanitary, doesn't it? The same way that union-busting goons are "contract personnel involved in labor negotiations," or hired assassins are "contract personnel involved in alternative dispute resolution"....

though it's impossible to know how many would take such work if the US weren't involved.

Uh, yeah. So what?

Can we seriously provide THREE combat troops for ONE support troop? If true that has to be an insane ratio.

That was funny Kevin - do the Democrats have the spine... I laughed until I got so angry I punched a hole in my monitor. After years of supporting them in every election I have concluded that I have been voting for invertebrates.

Octopus / Jellyfish 08

Stefan: But then again, for me foreign policy doesn't boil down to a dick-measuring contest as it seems to for so many right-wingers.

latest Democratic plan to keep US forces deployed in Iraq for at least another year, perhaps more like 18 months (the president is permitted to waive requirements if conditions require):

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/03/08/D8NO3FNG0.html

Curiously, they all seem to be friends of yours, as you revealed on that thread.

Nope, I only know a few. I do not know 8% of Americans.

Am I the only one here who knows people who think that N. Korea is governed better than S. Korea, and that the problems of N. Korea are caused by the U.S. and its hegemony? I guessed the number to be around 3% of Americans, KD posted figures that the number who at least "admire" N. Korea is 8%.

more from that article I posted above:

Yet it also permits Bush to issue waivers of these standards. Democrats described the waiver provision as an attempt to embarrass the president into adhering to the standards. But they concede the overall effect would be to permit the administration to proceed with plans to deploy five additional combat brigades to the Baghdad area over the next few months.

Marler, your obvious glee at the difficulties the Democrats are having at cleaning up Bush's mess contributes to nothing except your own discredit as a slightly more obnoxious than usual asshole.

Memo to Marler: We know Bush has fucked this country up so badly, on the domestic and foreign fronts alike, that the Democrats have no good options. The fact reflects much more discredit on Bush -- and those who, despite his mendacity, incompetence and corruption (and hey, buddy boy, I'll see your William Jefferson and raise you the entire Republican record of scandal and corruption over the last six-plus years, you schmuck) continue to defend him.

It's beyond belief that you imagine you have any credibility, or contribute anything of value to these discussions save yet another example of the dishonesty inehrent in the 33% dead-ender Bush cultist Republicans. That you continue to post here, then, once again identifies you as nothing but a slightly more obnoxious than usual asshole.

Gregory:Marler, your obvious glee at the difficulties the Democrats are having at cleaning up Bush's mess contributes to nothing except your own discredit as a slightly more obnoxious than usual asshole.

It's not glee. When the Democrats won in 2006 I recommended that Democratic voters enjoy their victory for a while, because before long they would start suffering the way that Republican voters have been suffering under Busdh.

It's beyond belief that you imagine you have any credibility, or contribute anything of value to these discussions save yet another example of the dishonesty inehrent in the 33% dead-ender Bush cultist Republicans.

Pretty soon the actual text of the law cited by Breitbart will be posted on the Senate and House web pages, and we'll know then whether the fall 2008 "date certain" is actually a date certain, or includes provisions for presidential discretion to extend the deployment. And we'll know whether it actually does, as the Breitbart item says it does, support the surge.

Republican graft of the last decade certainly matches the excesses of the late 19th century. Abramson, Ney, Cunningham and more were justly punished. It does not follow that the Democrats are particularly clean. Pelosi's, Feinstein's, Murtha's and Mollohan's finances ned to be thoroughly investigated (I think Feinstein is probably clean, but the others don't seem so), and Jefferson is an outright embarrassment. Democrats ought to have refused to seat Jefferson pending the outcome of a trial, but instaed the Democratic Black Caucus gave him a standing ovation for winning re-election.

I do have liberal friends, and a subset of them do fit that particular stereotype.

Strangely, when you are making claims about them, its usually "all", or "most", when the implausibility of your claims is attacked, it turns into "a subset". Whether you actually have liberal friends or not, your unverifiable, shifting, convenient stories about them have no persuasive power.

Why you think I am lying about my voting record I can only guess.

I never said you were lying. I asked why you thought anyone would give any weight to the claim, or your other unverifiable stories that you present as if they added persuasive weight to your (often, otherwise unsupported) claims and generalizations.

Forty years ago I would have proffered a psychoanalytic conjecture about unconscious desires. Now I tend to think of it as some kind of religious faith.

I'm not really sure why you think anyone would care how the personal attacks you would use to "respond" to accusations that were never made have shifted over time.

I voted against Nixon and for Clinton. I don't know why that is intrinsically unbelievable.

Any lack of credibility it has is not intrinsic to the claim itself (plenty of people who lean to the right likely did both of those), but rather extrinsic and related to the source of the claim. Even then, its no so much that it is unbelievable, as that there is no particular reason to believe it when its offered in support of some characterization you'd like us to accept.

Strangely, when you are making claims about them, its usually "all", or "most", when the implausibility of your claims is attacked,

Really? I am sure I never said that "all" or "most" of my liberal friends think that N. Korea is mostly a force for good in the world. I might have said "all" or "most" of A.N.S.W.E.R.

I asked why you thought anyone would give any weight to the claim, or your other unverifiable stories that you present as if they added persuasive weight to your (often, otherwise unsupported) claims and generalizations.

Oh.

And let the whining begin. all the usual whiners with all the usual whines have assembled here at the feet of Kevin Drum to repeat their secret mantras.

My goodness all this complaining you guys do, what a bunch of ineffectual jerkoffs.

Am I the only one here who knows people who think that N. Korea is governed better than S. Korea, and that the problems of N. Korea are caused by the U.S. and its hegemony?

Yes.

Which, as cmdicely pointed out, says something about the nature of the people you choose to associate with. I'm not sure "some of my friends are unhinged lunatics" is the argument-clincher you seem to think it is.

My goodness all this complaining you guys do, what a bunch of ineffectual jerkoffs.

As opposed to your complaining about people complaining, which is manly and active.

Stefan: I'm not sure "some of my friends are unhinged lunatics" is the argument-clincher you seem to think it is.

I didn't mean it to clinch an argument. They are not actually unhinged lunatics. They think Deng Hsiao-ping took China in the wrong direction, and that the USSR used to be very egalitarian. They have a lot of respect for Castro and Chavez. And they want to free Mumia.

I wouldn't call them friends, but I can point to a few of those walking cliches/punchlines on my campus. Just point to any department that is rooted in identity politics.

bg/rs/gc: I can point to a few of those walking cliches/punchlines on my campus.

I decided not to mention the UC campuses, where I have worked. They (that is, people like you mention, like I have mentioned) are people with whom I am friendly, as long as we avoid political discussions, or keep the discussions really short. Someone who teaches art history (an example from my past), dance or literature may have very bizarre political or religious beliefs, yet be an excellent teacher in his or her field. It's foolish to avoid being friends intentionally just because you think they are wrong. It would be like staying away from here! Only more so, and in color.

They are not actually unhinged lunatics. They think Deng Hsiao-ping took China in the wrong direction, and that the USSR used to be very egalitarian. They have a lot of respect for Castro and Chavez. And they want to free Mumia.

Well, the first sentence doesn't really track with the second.

And I thought you said your friends were liberals? Obviously you were lying or deeply confused, as liberals don't hold the above beliefs. Maoists and Stalinists, perhaps, but obviously not liberals.

Look, if I said "I have a few conservative friends who think that Nazi Germany was governed better than West Germany, and that the problems of Nazi Germany were caused by the international Zionist conspiracy" would that say more about the state of conservatism or about the state of my friends? Why, having admitted that I was friends with such deluded fanatics, should I expect to be taken seriously? The same applies to you. You seem to be friends with some rather hard-core Maoists and Stalinists (oddly enough for someone who claims to be a conservative) and you misrepresent these friends of yours as "liberals" in order to score a point about liberalism. But your friends aren't liberals, they're authoritarian fanatics, and the fact that you befriend such people says something about you.

As opposed to your complaining about people complaining, which is manly and active.

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to interupt your masterbatory activities mid stroke like that.

do, uh, carry on.

Stefan: Why, having admitted that I was friends with such deluded fanatics, should I expect to be taken seriously?

When asked a similar sounding question, Jesus said "If your right eye offends you, pluck it out. If your right hand offends you, cut it off." I don't do that.

The question started off as: do people with such beliefs exist? I mentioned that some of my friends have such beliefs. you assert that having such friends reduces my credibility. It's almost as though having such friends reduces the credibility of my claim that they exist.

I have had friends who were almost irredeemably hostile to White people, and some who were almost irredeemably hostile to Black people. Not close friends. I have had a few friends who were intense partisans on extreme sides of the abortion debate. When they assemble peaceably and petition the government for redress of grievances, they remain my friends. If they organized to beat or kill their opponents, then they would not be friends.

Have you really no friends who have extreme views? People who, paraphrasing Bill Maher, think that the world would objectively be a better place if Cheney were assassinated?

"barely been reported," kevin? come on. it's the first story in the world section of the new york times today. give me a break.

I have had friends who were almost irredeemably hostile to White people, and some who were almost irredeemably hostile to Black people.

Where the fuck do you find these people??? Again, "my friends are horrible racists" doesn't really make the point about your open-mindedness you seem to think it's making.

speaking of racists, did you guys see south park last night? niggers! i mean that's hilarious. woo boy. good stuff. and btw, smitty, you are right. it was the first story that jumped out at my in the times this morning.

Order Generic drugs Buy Generic drugs without prescription

Order prescription drugs Buy prescription drugs without prescription