 |
 |
   Read the story and see the video discussion by the authors about why creeping consolidation is crushing American livelihoods.
 Career colleges and the paper of record face off.
 A forensic tool renowned for exonerating the innocent may actually be putting them in prison.
|
   |
|
|
March 12, 2007
By: ENDING THE WAR....There's no question that congressional opposition to the war is muddled. Cutting off funding would be the best bet to get us out of Iraq, but the votes aren't there for that, and the current compromise (benchmarks and timelines) is murky and unsatisfying. Still, in a remarkable bit of bottom dredging, the LA Times managed this morning to find the worst possible reason for opposing the compromise bill:
As I recall, this was precisely the reason that a lot of liberals gave for supporting the original war resolution in 2002. In fact, I'll bet the LA Times itself made that argument (and if I weren't locked out of Nexis right now I'd check and see). [UPDATE: I bet wrong. They opposed the resolution.] There are certain times and certain presidents for whom this might be a compelling argument. Pretty clearly, Iraq and George Bush aren't among them. Surely by now we all realize that giving Bush the "ability to maneuver" is, in fact, just another name for staying in Iraq indefinitely? —Kevin Drum 11:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (83)Comments
So, in other words, you're willing to sacrifice the ability to have a nimble solution that might save untold numbers of lives because you don't like the President? Flying the donkey above the stars and bars, I guess. Posted by: American Hawk on March 12, 2007 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINKAnd if democrats do give him that "room to manouevre" then they will be blamed for the inevitable failure, and will be accused of "flip-flopping" if they criticise that failure. I'd be glad to give the next president that benefit of the doubt - once. But not this one. Posted by: Wilbur on March 12, 2007 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINKYou really want Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha micro-managing the war from DC? Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on March 12, 2007 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINKGeorge Bush is the geopolitical equivalent of a drunk driver. It's theoretically possible that, if allowed to "stay the course", he might get us all home safely, but the responsible thing to do is to take away his keys. Still, in a remarkable bit of bottom dredging, the LA Times managed this morning to find the worst possible reason for opposing the compromise bill: I think a better reason is that General Petraeus has agreed there is a chance for success in Iraq and we should give it six months before we can judge whether the Surge is working or not. "I have had the opportunity to meet General David Petraeus, the new commander of the U.S. forces in Iraq. I believe he is one of the most capable military commanders America has available for this mission. General Petraeus has indicated there is a chance for success and that he will report to the American people in 6 months as to whether or not the President's plan is working." Posted by: Al on March 12, 2007 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINKKD: Surely by now we all realize that giving Bush the "ability to maneuver" is, in fact, just another name for staying in Iraq indefinitely? It also assumes that the Bush Administration has the "ability to maneuver" competently. Which it doesn't. FK: You really want Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha micro-managing the war from DC? They can't do that anyway under our Constitution, but, yeah, I'd rather have them "micro-managing the war" than the current crop of idiots in the Bush Administration. Posted by: JM on March 12, 2007 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINKWhy the LA Times is hazardous to everyone's health: "The president needs the leeway to threaten, or negotiate with, Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds, Syrians and Iranians and Turks." We know the president now. One thing he doesn't need is leeway. He's already abused it at a cost that we'll be counting for generations. Can you find me a newspaper that recognizes that what the president needs is restraint, preferably a prison cell? Posted by: clem on March 12, 2007 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINKSurely by now we all realize that giving Bush the "ability to maneuver" is, in fact, just another name for staying in Iraq indefinitely? It's sort of like tossing a drunk the car keys so he has the ability to maneuver. I don't know why that's the analogy that always springs to mind when discussing Bush..... The president needs the leeway to threaten, or negotiate with,... Oooh, I wonder which one he'll choose! Seriously, anytime who in 2007 writes that George W. Bush needs leeway to threaten is one step ahead of the men in white coats.... Posted by: Stefan on March 12, 2007 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINKThere is nothing in the Administration's record on any issue (not just Iraq) that would lead me to believe that giving Bush and the Republican Party more leeway in Iraq would result in anything other than more distressing ineptness, appalling stupidity, transparent lies, blatant hypocrisy, increased greed and corruption, and inventive new forms of failure through profound arrogance and intractable ignorance. If micromanagement by Nancy Pelosi et al. means fewer deaths and an end to this humiliating failure and betrayal of American ideals, so be it. Posted by: Temple Houston on March 12, 2007 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINKBush/Pelosi, Bush/Pelosi, Pelosi/Bush. Hummmmmm. On reflection I would rather have Pelosi managing the war. I think a large percentage of Americans agree. I have never encountered anyone who has squandered more good will. Now Halliburton is even leaving the US. Talk about rats jumping the sinking ship. Posted by: Ron Byers on March 12, 2007 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINKNow Stefan - they could be two steps behind the men with the white coats, and are on-line briefly as as the reward element of behavior modification therapy. Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 12, 2007 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINKSurely by now we all realize that giving Bush the "ability to maneuver" is, in fact, just another name for staying in Iraq indefinitely? Givening Bush the room to maneuver just means that we'll stay in Iraq until Jan 2009 (unless Iraqis stand up and we stand down!) More importantly, it relieves the Congress of responsibility for horrors that might follow any policy change actually required by a Congressional resolution. Right now, the "surge" seems both successful and popular among Iraqis where it is occuring. Best to wait until it fails before passing a binding resolution against it. I have a different view than the bottom feeders of the LA Times. Congress ought to do everything it can to hinder every single policy of President Bush's. Everything W. Bush does is wrong, is a lie, is meant to harm the average American, and our only hope is for Congress to prevent as much harm this man wants to do. I do not have much faith in Democrats to prevent or stop W. Bush from hurting Americans and their interests, but it is the only hope I have at this point. Posted by: Brojo on March 12, 2007 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINKFor Bush, the only interest he has is in pumping all the money in the US to defense contractors and ensuring that the war is progressing when he leaves office, so that he can pretend that he didn't lose this war. Democrats MUST ensure that he gets the blame. That's the ENTIRE program for the next two years - pin the war on George. Posted by: POed Lib on March 12, 2007 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINKSo, in other words, you're willing to sacrifice a solution that might save untold numbers of lives because you like the President? Flying the president above the stars and bars, I guess. Posted by: Zit on March 12, 2007 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINKThe war is Bush's war, and all the deaths are his fault, and the fault of the morons who voted for him. If you voted repukeliscum, the deaths are on your head. Posted by: POed Lib on March 12, 2007 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINKThe war is lost. The only issue now is, when do we stop pouring money down a desert rat-hole. It's lost NOW. Posted by: POed Lib on March 12, 2007 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINKWhy don't they say there will be no more money in let's say 10 months from now for the war? Congress will not give any more money after that. You have 10 months to move the troops out. Then, if King Bush doesn't get them out in that time frame if would be him and not congress who didn't support the troops and left them hanging. Quick, someone get this idea to Democratic hq... Posted by: dee on March 12, 2007 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINKYeah, it's too bad Eliot Ness and Frank Wilson interfered with Al Capone's efforts to seek the best possible endgame to his very bad gang war. Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld on March 12, 2007 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINKIf you voted repukeliscum, the deaths are on your head. Word. Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld on March 12, 2007 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINKHawk wrote: This president is incapable of devising a nimble solution. In fact, he is so lacking in nimbleness that he couldn't implement such a solution if it was written out for him as a recipe. Posted by: John on March 12, 2007 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINKDemocrats MUST ensure that he gets the blame. That's the ENTIRE program for the next two years - pin the war on George. Posted by: POed Lib on March 12, 2007 at 12:25 PM I agree, but the Dems seem to NOT be learning any of the lessons that the Republicans have been dispensing for 7 years, like how to ruin someone's reputation by suggested wrong-doing, or spinning all angles to make oneself come up roses, manipulating the heads of MSM, or browbeating fellow party members into line so well that they not only will lie to protect you but will give up personal freedom and go to prison for you. Even with a Democratic Congress, Bush and Co are guarding their position like political linebackers and the Democrats are acting like nerds on the sidelines. Posted by: Zit on March 12, 2007 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINKSpot on post, Kevin. Ron Byers: Bush/Pelosi, Bush/Pelosi, Pelosi/Bush. Hummmmmm. On reflection I would rather have Pelosi managing the war. I think a large percentage of Americans agree. Yes, anybody but Bush-Cheney. Apparently, Gen. Paul Eaton, the original commander in charge of training the Iraqi troops, thinks the Democrats would do a better job, too: We've got this thing that, you know so many military believe that Republican administrations are good for the military, that is rarely the case and we have got to get a message through to every soldier, every family member, every friend of soldier, that the Republican party, the Republican dominated congress has absolutely been the worst thing that has ever happened to the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps...Hat tip to Blue Girl, Red State aka Global Citizen for Eaton's quote. Posted by: Apollo 13 on March 12, 2007 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK I just love how the dems are yet again showing how spineless they are by voting to end this. They're all "AFRAID" of big bad cheney calling them unpatriotic or unmurkin by voting to cut off funding for a WAR THAT IS KILLING AMERICANS. What are they afraid of? fauxnews, chenron and georgie are STILL going to call them unpatriotic or unmurkin whether they vote to end the war or not! be a fucking man! Posted by: jack on March 12, 2007 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINKEaton was on Maher's show. He also said that any success in Iraq would require concerted effort by all of the Cabinet, not just DOD. My suggestion is to tie funds to the number of talks sponsored with Syria, Iran and other governments in the region. If Bush wants soldiers fighting, he must prove that he is also pursuing other avenues to win. Otherwise soldiers just die. Posted by: peppermint on March 12, 2007 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINKBush can't stay in Iraq "indefinitely", because he'll be out of office in less than two years. Clearly Bush is not going to end the war. But, by November, 2008, if the war in Iraq is going as badly as many expect, then Hillary or Barack will win a landslide victory and will raidly withdraw the troops. Meanwhile, we should led Bush do his best. The surge has reduced Baghdad violence by 80%. Let's give Bush a chance to win. Victory means the that a democratic Iraqi government defeats barbaric terrorists. A victory for Bush in Iraq equals a victory for every American and for every member of the civilized world. Posted by: ex-liberal on March 12, 2007 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINKA "nimble solution" in Iraq from blundering Bush? These rightwingers are ridiculous, acting like gullible children. The Democrats strategy should not focus on limiting funding, but on changing the source of the funding. They should insist that every new dollar spent in Iraq from now on be paid for by taxes -- taxes reinstated by repealing Bush's fiscally disastrous tax cuts. It is doubtful Bush can find a good solution in Iraq, but by paying as we go in Iraq, we can at least limit the continuing damage to our fiscal house here at home. I know most Republicans want our soldiers to be the only ones to sacrifice in this war, but that's a cowardly, immoral stance. We all need to pay up for the cost of this war. Posted by: McCord on March 12, 2007 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINKThe way to end the war is: Shifting money from civilian functions of government to Defense is a priority of this Administration. If war is "free" the incentive to have more war is pernicious and permanent. Posted by: Bryan Kennedy on March 12, 2007 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINKRight now, the "surge" seems both successful and popular among Iraqis where it is occuring. Any evidence for this statement Marler? Any cites? Anything at all? Posted by: ckelly on March 12, 2007 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINKMatthewRMarler: Right now, the "surge" seems both successful and popular among Iraqis where it is occuring. Best to wait until it fails before passing a binding resolution against it. The "tell" in Marler's quote above is that he wrote "until" rather than "if" it fails.... Posted by: Stefan on March 12, 2007 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINKKorea, too, was a "very bad war." Liberal Democrat Harry Truman sent US troops to fight in a war against communism, Oh - I didn't know that. Thanks for informing me, mhr. I guess that makes Bush's war okay. You know. Because a Liberal did it too. Let me ask you this: Did Liberal Democrat Harry Truman also have an executive position at Halliburton? Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld on March 12, 2007 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINKResults of the surge (as of 2/24) from Republican Patrick Ruffini: Early indications are that the troop surge into Baghdad is working. It hasn't been reported on widely, but murders in Baghdad are down 70%, attacks are down 80%, Mahdi Army chief Moqtada al-Sadr has reportedly made off for Iran, and many Baghdadis who had fled the violence now feel it's safe enough to return. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickRuffini/2007/02/24/shhhh_the_surge_is_working Robert Kagan wrote in the Washington Post on 3/11: The 'Surge' Is Succeeding ...Some observers are reporting the shift. Iraqi bloggers Mohammed and Omar Fadhil, widely respected for their straight talk, say that "early signs are encouraging." The first impact of the "surge," they write, was psychological. Both friends and foes in Iraq had been convinced, in no small part by the American media, that the United States was preparing to pull out. When the opposite occurred, this alone shifted the dynamic. As the Fadhils report, "Commanders and lieutenants of various militant groups abandoned their positions in Baghdad and in some cases fled the country." The most prominent leader to go into hiding has been Moqtada al-Sadr. His Mahdi Army has been instructed to avoid clashes with American and Iraqi forces, even as coalition forces begin to establish themselves in the once off-limits Sadr City. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030901839.html Since the very early stages of the surge seems to be working, I think it makes sense to give Petraeus' plan a real chance to work. Posted by: ex-liberal on March 12, 2007 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINKFrom the Christian Science Monitor: Yep. Moving out of the way. Parse that phrase, why don't you. Moving out of the way. Not changing ideology, not laying down weapons, not striving for peace...Moving out of the way.Petraeus said Thursday that Sunni insurgents appear to be moving out of the way of heightened US combat patrols, and said he may soon dispatch more forces to Diyala Province, just north of Baghdad. Sunni insurgents appear to be regrouping there, he said. Petraeus did strike some upbeat notes, saying that Sunni Arab Anbar Province – home to Fallujah and locale of the most US combat deaths – has been calmer, and attributed that to local leaders saying "enough" to the conflict. An act of self preservation, not political reconciliation. What one does when one wants to live to fight another day. This is a Bug Hunt, and the Iraqis have the homefield advantage. Our soldiers and Marines don't know who the enemy is. It is an enemy that can fade into shadows and disappear. They are using the same tactics that Americans developed and perfected in our own War for Independence.Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 12, 2007 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK Much as I oppose the Iraq war, the Congressional Dems are just hopeless on this issue. David Obey needs to be put into some assisted speaking program. Keep this fool away from the cameras. I suspect the best the Dems can do, is to take away GW's credit card. If he wants unbudgeted expenditures, let him approve tax hikes to pay for them. Otherwise he has his cake and eats it too! The Dems are too divided and uncoordinated to be effective here. Posted by: RickG on March 12, 2007 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINKBlue Girl Red State, I'm happy to see you quoting snippets from General Petraeus. Yes, he pointed out lots of problems and potential pitfalls. However, the overall gist of his comments are optimistic. He believes his strategy has a reasonable chance of success. Posted by: ex-liberal on March 12, 2007 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINKIf you consider 1-in-4 reasonable odds of success... Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 12, 2007 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINKThe less room Bush has to maneuver the better. Some will wisely take advantage of such room, others will foolishly squander it or overextend. Posted by: Jimm on March 12, 2007 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINKex-lib. Why are you so quick to proclaim success? I thought it would take 6 months before we could even tell if the surge was working? Your team's been blindly proclaiming victory since "Mission Accomplished". (while the facts have proven otherwise). Let's see what happens when the "surge" is over. Hell, it's already such a clusterfuck. Couldn't possibly get worse, could it? Let's just see. (*snicker*) Posted by: Extradite Rumsfeld on March 12, 2007 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINKYou really want Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha micro-managing the war from DC? Will some day we wish they had? Posted by: Ray Waldren on March 12, 2007 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINKAmerican Hawk: "... {typical malarkey}... Uh, your outrage defines you, AH -- nobody I'm aware of even flies the Stars and Bars anymore, unless they're at (or wish they were at) a klan rally. You really want Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha micro-managing the war from DC? Of course not, which is why they want to end our occupation in Iraq and avoid being the middleman in Iraq's civil war(s). Bringing the neighbors to the table, all of whom have some interest in containing the conflict in Iraq from spilling over their borders, is the right move and also the wise move when considering the larger picture and conflicts in the region, which should be reconciled and left behind. Posted by: Jimm on March 12, 2007 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINKWe have much greater challenges to face than petty demogoguic disputes and conflicts in the Middle East. Posted by: Jimm on March 12, 2007 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINKChickenshit: "...a nimble solution that might save untold numbers of lives..." Wow! Nimble... George Bush... Like you even give a shit. Posted by: Kenji on March 12, 2007 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINKI too am shocked by the LA Times editorial boards view that some outside force could reduce George Bush's psychologically non existent "ability to maneuver," however the editorial is much much worse than you argue. Given Bush administration policy to date, even if George Bush suddenly grew up, he would only be able to scare Iraqi politicians with a good cop bad cop routine in which congress has to play the bad cop (lexis-nexis Cheney in Pakistan when the lock opens). Posted by: Robert Waldmann on March 12, 2007 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINKExtradite Rumsfeld: Let's see what happens when the "surge" is over. Yes, I am in full agreement with this approach, ER. Let's let Gen. Petraeus try his plan without Congressional meddling. In a few months we will have a better idea of whether or not he will be successful. Posted by: ex-liberal on March 12, 2007 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINKIf you consider 1-in-4 reasonable odds of success... More reasonable than what your side is offering, which is exactly zero. That experienced politicians and others can use the terms "ending the war" and "withdrawing from Iraq" interchangably is one reason Democrats should not be in charge of things like this. Damn straight if we pulled all our troops out, the war would do anything but "end." It's obvious from most of the commentary that a large segment of the Left is so completely obsessed with Bush that they can't be relied on for any kind of objective observations. Posted by: elmendorf on March 12, 2007 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINKLast comment before I leave for a bit... ex-liberal, you propose that we let Petraeus get on with it. Would you happen to have read his dissertation? I have. I read it in the library at Leavenworth when the talk of a troop buildup was floated. What Petraeus is charged with here has no relationship with what he advocated in his doctoral research. That would requite about a half-million troops, using his own matrices. Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 12, 2007 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINKBush and the neoconservatives don't want to stay in Iraq indefinitely, but only until Bush is out of office. Then they can blame anyone but themselves for the disaster. Posted by: UnJay on March 12, 2007 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINKIt's going to be a long war, even if we manage to reduce our combat role in Iraq. We're going to stay involved in Iraq and the Middle East far past January 2009, so it rather shortsighted to try to reduce Presidential authority in the meantime. No responsible leader is going to simply abandon Iraq. Posted by: Trashhauler on March 12, 2007 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINKNo, sir, the U.S. is not staying in Iraq indefinitely, that is if Democrats as expected win the White House in 2008. Hillary Clinton, for one, has promised as a first order of business to get the troops home if the Bush Administration has not moved to do so. Posted by: jim bob on March 12, 2007 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINKex-liberal: Let's let Gen. Petraeus try his plan . . . As Blue Girl points out, it isn't Petraeus' plan, it't Bush's (or whatever political hack dreamed it up for Bush) plan. Why do you keep lying about this? Why do you keep lying about most everything? In a few months we will have a better idea of whether or not he will be successful. No, we won't, because you will either lie about the plan's success, just as you did about ever other phase of the war (victory is imminent, the insurgents are desperate and on their last legs, the situation in Iraq is improving daily), and again come up with some lame rationalization about why the plan's lack of success is because it hasn't been given enough time (just like you now argue Bush hasn't been given enough time or opportunities to win the war, despite four years of trying). We know why you lie; it is a character defect present in nearly all conservatives and you are not the exception. Posted by: Google_This on March 12, 2007 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINKTrashhauler: No responsible leader is going to simply abandon Iraq. Quite the opposite. No responsible leader would continue to poor resources and human lives down the black hole of failure. That's like saying no responsible physician would abandon a patient whose heart has stopped and whose brain has been reduced to a bloody pulp by meeting the pavement after a 10-story fall, just to serve other patients whose lives can still be saved. Iraq is lost. Remaining in Iraq is counterproductive and will produce not a single positive result and no amount of presidential authority will change that, but limiting presidential authority will limit the horrific harm being done to America's ability to fight wars and engage in diplomacy and intelligence gathering with real implications for American security. The idea that the war in Iraq is important for anything other than personally saving face for the neocons, including Bush, is an idea securely based in fantasy. Posted by: Google_This on March 12, 2007 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINKShe might say that, jim bob, but it is unlikely she'll be able to do it. "Bringing the troops home" is a misleading phrase. First, does that mean everybody? Or just some combat troops? How about continued support for the Iraqi government? Continued training, recce, intelligence, logistics, and air power are all still in play. We're not going to close down the Embassy or the Green Zone. There will be no need to do so. Given that the Shiite militias are sitting out the so-called surge, the military situation is not going to turn precipitously against us in the near term. The odds are great that the situation in 2009 won't be disastrous enough to make us pull out completely. Posted by: Trashhauler on March 12, 2007 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINKTrashhauler - I have a couple of links for you on the superbowl incident. shoot me an email and I'll send them along. Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 12, 2007 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK"...murders & attacks are down 70% & 80%, respectively..." Paraphrase not direct quote. Tell that to the Iraqis in Baghdad! From what I gather from news reports, civilians are being targeted at an increasing rate by insurgents. Where are the troops? Obviously elsewhere. Well, they might not be in this fix if Bush had listened to the generals at the beginning of the war. Remember they said they needed more troops way back then? Remember Bush saying no way? Back then the troops were fresh & better equipped than they are today. well, the on-the-street Iraqi seems to like us a lot less now than they did then. I wonder why, since over 100,000 have died.since. Petreaus makes sense. At least he's honest about the chances for success are not good. How about a one last chance appropriations bill? You get the funding you ask for, but there will be no more until the money is used to bring them home. Posted by: bob in fl on March 12, 2007 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINKbob in fl: Tell that to the Iraqis in Baghdad! The blog Iraq the Model is written by two brothers, Omar and Mohammed, who live in Baghdad. On March 4, Omar wrote: Violent incidents are still decreasing in number and impact in Baghdad. Yesterday for instance the only reported incident was the abduction of an adviser to the minister of defense by gunmen in western Baghdad. It was less than 24 hours until the security forces succeeded in freeing the abducted general and arresting 4 of his captors. Elsewhere in the capital the troops are using not only guns and Humvees, but also shovels and bulldozers. In areas such as Karrada and Palestine Street Iraqi soldiers and workers of the Baghdad municipal services are working on removing trespasses on public property and irregular roadblocks set by locals at earlier times. The measure sparked anger and dismay among some people whose businesses were damaged because the bulldozers also removed irregular kiosks and stalls. An Iraqi officer explained the decision yesterday by saying that those illegal roadblocks and trespasses were making it difficult for the troops to quickly reach areas where intervention is needed. Other law enforcement officials are also getting more serious in doing their job. Traffic cops who would normally stop a suspicious vehicle only if it passed by their post are now riding their motorbikes and chasing suspected vehicles down highways and other streets. This is an indication that Imposing Law does not mean only sending soldiers to kill terrorists. It is reaching out to deal with other aspects of mess and to counter relatively “benign” violations-like breaking the “odd and even” traffic rule, defensive irregular roadblocks and unlicensed kiosks and stalls-by providing protection for the personnel of civilian departments while they do their job. Posted by: ex-liberal on March 12, 2007 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINKBut they are increasing in the provinces like Diyala and Anbar. Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 12, 2007 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINKBut too many lives are at stake to allow members of Congress to play the role of Eisenhower or Lincoln. This might be a way of saying that Pelosi and the Democratic leadership consitute a group of people even less militarily competent than Bush. Taken altogether, it seems to me that the editorial is more a plea that Congress vote to end the war outright instead of finagling the details of the war. But as you say, it isn't all that clear. Dee: Why don't they say there will be no more money in let's say 10 months from now for the war? That is the question that everyone is asking. Posted by: spider on March 12, 2007 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINKThis might be a way of saying that Pelosi and the Democratic leadership consitute a group of people even less militarily competent than Bush. This is simply not possible. Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka Global Citizen) on March 12, 2007 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINKOne thing which has changed since the beginning of the war is that the Baathists have been crushed. No one any longer thinks that the Baathists can reconquer the country and they no longer have any leadership around which they can coalesce. We are sitting on their previous strongholds and they are less and less able to protect Sunni neighborhoods in Bagdad from the much larger Shiite militias. The Sunnis definitely came out on the short end of the horrific duel of the death squads. The best hope for the Sunnis is that we make the Iraqi government play fair with the oil revenue and instill more professionalism in a secular army. That leaves Al Qaeda, bolstered by whatever Sunni holdouts still want to fight, and the Shiite militias, who are sitting out the surge. Al Qaeda being Al Qaeda, civilians are going to be targeted if we are there or not. Anytime they seek to build up into more than a bomb-making outfit, we can detect and destroy their base(s). We're getting plenty of help in rooting out Al Qaeda cells. Overall, our military situation is dangerous, but not disastrous. Of course, General Petreaus has correctly stated the obvious. The military situation must prepare the way for a permanent political settlement. Such it has always been in all wars. Posted by: Trashhauler on March 12, 2007 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK…above the stars and bars…American Rawk at 12:01 PMYour national emblem, I presume: the emblem of racists and traitors. You really want Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha micro-managing the war from DC? F K at 12:02 PMAs opposed to Bush, Cheney, their neo-Cons and stooges? Yes, any time. …responsibility for horrors that might follow any policy change … MatthewRMarler at 12:22 PM |As opposed to the current horrors happening daily in Iraq? Get real. Bush screwed up by launching an unprovoked war and our soldiers and the Iraqi people are paying the price. The sooner we're out, the sooner the Iraqis can repair the damage, unless, of course, Bush has no intention of leaving. …Meanwhile, we should led Bush do his best… ex-lax at 1:03 PMWhat you are doing is letting Bush do his worst. Also, only a fool would accept any number concerning attacks from this regime. Even the Iraq Study Group urged him to tell the truth about the Iraq resistance with real numbers, advice he has continued to ignore. (The numbers were over 100 per day, over 3000 per month). …He was right and modern liberals are quite wrong… mhrat 2:53 PMBoth wars were tragic wastes of human live for no gain to American interests. They were undertaken as a consequence to the Truman Doctrine, another foolish political statement. The Iraq war has even less justification and is a bigger waste of men, material, and wealth. Since you're so gung ho, why don't you go to war, pal? Gutless wonders like you, Bush and Cheney are always eager to waste lives for your amusement. …Since the very early stages of the surge seems to be working… ex-lax at 3:07 PMQuoting a couple of paid propagandists supported by the Lincoln Group is not really informative. Other, more accurate sources are maintaining otherwise. …overall gist of his comments are optimistic… ex-lax on March 12, 2007 at 3:27 PMPetraeus, isn't that the guy who said there were no military solution? That's your guy? …No responsible leader is going to simply abandon Iraq. Trashhauler at 4:49 PMBrownback, Hagel? Get real. The American army cannot maintain this level of destruction without a draft. Sooner or later, we will leave. The Iraqis won't. Sooner or later we realize the war is lost. The sooner, the better. Given that the Shiite militias are sitting out the so-called surge… Trashhauler at 5:14 PMSince the escalation cannot be maintained indefinitely, that is smart strategy on their part. However, they may not stand by as Shia are being killed and US troops are kicking down doors looking for all the world like their enemy. …That is the question that everyone is asking. spider at 6:12 PMBecause there aren’t the votes to overcome a filibuster, capisce? If you understood how laws are passed, you would know that you need 60 votes in the Senate and the Democrats have 50 minus some Blue Dogs. Plus we need enough in the House to override a veto, that's 60%. Can't you count? Posted by: Mike on March 12, 2007 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK One thing which has changed since the beginning of the war is that the Baathists have been crushed…General Petreaus has correctly stated the obvious Trashhauler at 6:23 PMYou claim that the Baathists have been crushed. Can you figure out who we fighting? Were you aware that the Baathists and the Iraqi army decided to go for a cell structure before Bush invaded? They haven't been crushed; they're still fighting the US Army. As soon as the US leaves, they will reconstitute and take on the less trained Shia militia. You only control the ground you're standing on. As soon as you leave, they return to their land, their cities. Al qaida is not a significant force in Iraq. No American military person has said it is. It accounts for less than 10%. The Sunni will toss them out easily. Yours is the worst analysis of the situation in Iraq that I've read for some time. There is no military victory possible against an nationalistic armed insurgency; there is no political solution possible until the Iraqis make one. reasonable summary of current status of war in Iraq: http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/03/weekly_iraq_report_for_march_1.asp#more Quick summary: violence in Baghdad down, al Qaeda relocated to Diyala province, Sunni and Shia opponents of al Qaeda have houses burnt down. Click on map to see current deployments in Baghdad. 4,000 more American soldiers on their way to join the surge (that may be in a different article.) Surely by now we all realize that giving Bush the "ability to maneuver" is, in fact, just another name for staying in Iraq indefinitely? Probably. Posted by: spider on March 12, 2007 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINKAfter the decisive battle of Dien Binh Phu in 1954 the French withdrew from "French Indo-China" which became the newly created countries of North and South Vietnam and the United States "Military Mission" was established in Saigon. Newly elected President Diem (pronounced ZIEM) had a constant visitor from the US Military Mission by the name of Ed Landsdale, a US Air Force Colonel. Lansdale was in fact a full time CIA Agent fresh from an assignment in the Philippines where he orchestrated a coup in 1953 which replaced the elected President with a military colonel, Magsaysay. Mike wrote: "You claim that the Baathists have been crushed. Can you figure out who we fighting? Were you aware that the Baathists and the Iraqi army decided to go for a cell structure before Bush invaded? They haven't been crushed; they're still fighting the US Army. As soon as the US leaves, they will reconstitute and take on the less trained Shia militia. You only control the ground you're standing on. As soon as you leave, they return to their land, their cities." Now, you wouldn't be posting from Samarrah, would you, Mikey? ::grin:: Yes, I'm quite aware that Saddam's surprise was a pre-planned insurgency. I did not say that we were not still fighting the Baathists, I said that they have no way of winning any longer. They have no political leadership and can no longer mass without being targeted and killed in job lots. Even if we left, they would not only have to fight the Kurdish and Shiite militias, but also the regular Iraqi army, with whatever support we still provide after our combat forces depart. A reconstituted Baathist regime is no longer possible. Posted by: Trashhauler on March 12, 2007 at 7:05 PM | PERMALINK..but it must not limit the president's ability to maneuver at this critical juncture. Critical juncture???? WTH? There is NO critical juncture, we've long time passed any “juncture” Bush might have had a couple years back. Cheney is talking about victory today, but there never WILL BE A VICTORY, not if we stay another 10 years or another 20. It's time to pull out. Bush and Cheney have no clue. NO viable plan because surge is nothing but a buy time lost cause – EVERYONE knows good and well that the surge is too little too late. WE are just killing people right now and for no good reason because THERE IS NO critical juncture there is only getting out of this no win situation. The sooner the better. NO more troops left Bush's "I don't give a shit" Walter Reed situation. Posted by: Cheryl on March 12, 2007 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINKi think that amerikan troops will never be leaving iraq. why do i say that? it's those bases that have been constructed at excessive cost. i think that neither reptillians nor demtillians will be abandoning those bases[4?]. the next interesting issue that goes undiscussed is the future deployment of the mercenaries. we know of blackwater. and according to marcy kaptur, ex-SAS tim spicer[founder of SANDLINE, nka AEGIS]is also running a merc contingent in iraq. during the hearings on iraq, during kaptur's airtime, she made a statement that she had been trying to get info from the dod concerning the hiring, contract terms of spicer's outfit - and that she had been stonewalled for months[if not years]. jack murtha cut her off, telling her that hearings on that issue would be held. why is it that i think murtha was silencing kaptur and that no hearings will be held on that issue? how many mercs are there in iraq? 100,000 - 200,000. and these are not remfs. these are soldiers of fortune, so to speak. well-armed thugs is another way to think of them. who directs their activities? OSP? do they conduct death squad operations? do they conduct false flag ops? when there are as many mercenaries in iraq as their are regular army, usmc, reserve army, usmc, national guard, do you find it odd that there is virtually nothing known about this "third" force? anyone out there considering the future deployment of these thugs? Posted by: albertchampion on March 12, 2007 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINKMike: If you understood how laws are passed, you would know that you need 60 votes in the Senate and the Democrats have 50 minus some Blue Dogs. Plus we need enough in the House to override a veto, that's 60%. Can't you count? If your senatorial count is correct, even the Democratic party itself can not agree on a plan, much less override a veto. Posted by: spider on March 12, 2007 at 8:03 PM | PERMALINKGive Bush leeway?! That is hilariously lame. Has Bush done anything in his entire career of screwing up that suggests he's deserving of the slightest leeway? Oh and this , "So, in other words, you're willing to sacrifice the ability to have a nimble solution that might save untold numbers of lives because you don't like the President?" was a hoot, too. "Nimble"--cute. Posted by: BroD on March 12, 2007 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINKKevin, could you please give up on this fautuous assertion that a US withdrawal would "end the war"? Serious people expect that it would worsen the war. Posted by: z on March 12, 2007 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINKMike: Petraeus, isn't that the guy who said there were no military solution? That's your guy? Yes, Petraeus said there was no purely military solution. Other non-military steps are also needed. That's what everyone from Bush and Rumsfeld on down has been saying for a long time. What's your point? Posted by: ex-liberal on March 12, 2007 at 9:03 PM | PERMALINKalbertchampion wrote: "i think that amerikan troops will never be leaving iraq. why do i say that? it's those bases that have been constructed at excessive cost.... how many mercs are there in iraq? 100,000 - 200,000. and these are not remfs. these are soldiers of fortune, so to speak. well-armed thugs is another way to think of them." We Americans have a long history of leaving very expensive bases behind without a backward glance. No real need to worry on that score. According to the US Congress the number of contractors involved in security amount to about 48,000. Most are not organized into large units. Posted by: Trashhauler on March 13, 2007 at 12:43 AM | PERMALINKwill you tell us where we have abandoned bases since ww2? AND CONCERNING THE MERCENARIES, WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR FIGURES? what congressional testimony? dates please. why would marcy kaptur testify in the well of the congress that this information is being hidden from the congress? but you know it? please explain. thank you. Posted by: albertchampion on March 13, 2007 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINKwill you tell us where we have abandoned bases since ww2? Ethiopia, Spain, Philipines. We have fewer in Canada, GB, and Japan. We also abandoned bases in S. Vietnam. Posted by: MatthewRMarler on March 13, 2007 at 1:08 AM | PERMALINKalbert, where haven't we given away bases? Subic Bay and Clark Field. Canton Is. A few in Japan. Rhein Main, Zweibrucken, and a dozen others in Germany. Two or three in France. One in the Netherlands. Torrejon, near Madrid. Zaragoza AB. One or two in Italy. Roosevelt Roads. Wheelus AB. Howard AB. Goose Bay. Several in the UK. Rabat AB, Morroco. Several on Taiwan. Several in Greece. More in Turkey. Three in Thailand. The list is nigh endless. The Washington Post says there are about 20,000 armed contractors in Iraq. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10547-2005Apr22.html Joe Galloway says there are over 25,000 armed contractors in Iraq. http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/03/10/10galloway_edit.html Numerous other blogs say upwards of 25,000 armed contractors. I used 48,000 because it was a number I remember seeing in a draft bill about contractor management sponsored by Congressman Obama, but I can't find it now. The only site that I could find claiming more than 100,000 armed contractors was the Worldwide Socialist website http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/mili-j17.shtml I have no idea why Congresswoman Kaptur would so testify. Did she say where she was getting her information? Posted by: Trashhauler on March 13, 2007 at 1:33 AM | PERMALINKOf course, that should have been Senator Obama in my last post. Posted by: Trashhauler on March 13, 2007 at 1:41 AM | PERMALINKI'm pretty sure the 100,000 number I saw was total, armed and "unarmed" - which is kind of a misnomer, but hey - fun with language and semantics, right? Here are the links for that super bowl incident. http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/64/22386/printer
wheelus was libya, of course. how many other of these bases were those that we voluntarily abandoned? and when we abandoned them, what were the stated rationales? and when all is said and done, how many bases to we have around the world? i ask this because i listened to a woman on pacifica this sunday advising me of the large number of overseas bases that we operate. perhaps the ones you mention are those that were closed, with a new one being opened. any possibility of that? so, tell us, how many overseas bases do we operate as of today? and where are they located? and lastly, how do you know where we have established bases? for instance, are there any that are estblished secretly? i am all ears. because i don't think that anyone outside of special sections of the dod know. and the congress prefers to be mum. t or f?
albert, you should be able to google as well as anyone. Start with Wikipedia and go from there. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/mili-j17.shtml I mostly mentioned Air Force bases since I'm familiar with them and I've flown into many of them. I know the Wikipedia list of closed bases is incomplete. Still, I'm sure I missed some and I'm certain we've abandoned a similar number of army and marine bases. For example, I missed Keflavik, Iceland, where I once spent a very cold winter. The why they were closed is simple - mostly they were no longer needed. Sad, really, if you're the sort that gets sentimental about all the folks who lived and worked and raised families and made friends at all those formerly bustling places. As for secret bases, well, if they exist, there's a reason for them to be secret. But they can hardly number anything like the number we've closed. Posted by: Trashhauler on March 13, 2007 at 4:02 AM | PERMALINKI'll bet that the contrast between the LAT's current, wacky position and its prescient earlier stand has something to do with the takeover by the Chicago Tribune. As Steve Lopez wrote the other day in a column about the $15 hot dog being served in LA: "The Tribune-owned Los Angeles Times keeps flying wieners in from Chicago too." …. What's your point? ex-lax at 9:03 PMI see you are oblivious to the obvious. If there is no military solution, and there is not, you will not win your war. …even the Democratic party itself can not agree on a plan,…spider at 8:03 PMThere are factions to satisfy. If you want a unified Party that marches in lockstep to the tune of their Dear Leader, stick with your Republicans. Now, you wouldn't be posting from Samarrah…Trashhauler at 7:05 PMThanks for the McCarthyite smear. I'll add it to my collection. Since you have no knowledge of the workings of the insurgency, you have no insight as to their capabilities. Iraqis will be there after Bush leaves, even if you are planning a thousand-year occupation. Of course, neither they nor the Shiites will "mass without being killed in job lots." That's is why they are insurgents and use guerrilla tactics. Do you think the enemy is so stupid? The Baathists had no trouble dealing with the Kurds and Shia before. They did have the officer corps and they comprise much of the New Iraqi Army. Withdraw, as you must, and they will fight their way back. They have the training, the experience, and the funding from your ally, Saudi Arabia. Just as no one in the Bush regime foresaw the insurgency, no one can foresee the aftermath of the US withdrawal. Mike, the Samarrah crack was a dig at your rote repetition of the Sunni gameplan, not a MacArthyite attack. I note that those with absolutely no known credentials in military affairs (that's you, Mike) often start off by claiming all opponents are completely ignorant of the subject at hand. It doesn't work with you anymore than it works with others who try it. If you were any kind of student of unconventional warfare, you would, at least, know the literature and what it says about the transition to mass warfare being critical to final success. An insurgency kept at the guerilla level will never succeed at anything other than disruption. An insurgency does not conquer, it only prevents or delays consolidation, while preparing the ground for more decisive action. In order to win decisively, you must take and hold territory. Therefore, the ability to mass is crucial. Read Mao and Giap, at least. Likewise, the Baathists had no trouble with the Kurds and Shiites in the past because they controlled the military and police. It is very doubtful they will ever be allowed to do so again. Meaning all the heavy guns, vehicles, aircraft, and organization are now against the Sunnis, even without our fighting presence. Meaning that the old Sunni officers will have only lightly armed soldiers to "fight their way back." Or do you actually think they'll take over by setting IEDs and killing civilians?
Posted by: Trashhauler on March 13, 2007 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK 
March 2010
February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
