Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 16, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

BUSH'S MOUTH....The Washington Post says 58% of Americans trust congressional Democrats to do a better job than George Bush of handling the situation in Iraq:

The president has taken advantage of the congressional spring recess to pound Democrats over their legislation, which would impose benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, set strict rules for resting, equipping and training combat troops, and set a 2008 date for the final withdrawal of U.S. troops. Despite those efforts, Bush has actually lost a little ground to Democrats, who were trusted by 54 percent to set Iraq policy in February.

....Bush continued today to say victory in Iraq is pivotal to the larger war on terrorism, but Americans are increasingly siding with the Democratic view that the issues are separate. Some 57 percent now say the United States can succeed in the war on terrorism without winning the war in Iraq, a 10-percentage point increase since January, when Americans were almost evenly divided on the question.

This reminds me of the Social Security fiasco: every time Bush opened his mouth on the subject, polls moved in the opposite direction. Now the same thing is happening with Iraq. If he had any brains, he'd just shut up and try to ride it out. His mouth is his own worst enemy.

Kevin Drum 7:52 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (249)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I think he's trying to use the Bully Pulpit because he thinks it was named after him.

Posted by: John on April 16, 2007 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK

"If he had any brains, ..." So many things would be so very different.

Posted by: MSR on April 16, 2007 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

Hi guys! I just got here. Will there be snacks?

Posted by: anonymous on April 16, 2007 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

Well, he spent 5 years sowing the wind, it's no surprise he's reaping the whirlwind.

Posted by: anonymous on April 16, 2007 at 8:18 PM | PERMALINK

His mouth is his own worst enemy.

And I was so hoping it would be me.

Posted by: anandine on April 16, 2007 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

I think that was 5 years screwing the wind, so I don't even want to think what he's doing to the whirlwind.

But I still want egbert to go to Iraq.

Posted by: Kenji on April 16, 2007 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

If he had any brains, he'd just shut up and try to ride it out.

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride

Posted by: Matthew on April 16, 2007 at 8:23 PM | PERMALINK

The Congressional Dems are aided by an anti-war media. Most do not emphasize that the early stages of the surge seem to be working. Casualties in Baghdad are considerably down.

Many media take the bizarre tack of reporting the number of American casualties without reporting the number of enemy killed and captured. It's like reporting a baseball score as Yankees 3.

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 16, 2007 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

His worst enemy is certainly not his mouth. It's his brain. That's what tells him what to say. And yes, I do mean Dick.

Posted by: bigcat on April 16, 2007 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINK

"If he had any brains, he'd just shut up and try to ride it out."

is it piling on to mention the obvious retort here?

Posted by: supersaurus on April 16, 2007 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

What ex-liberal seems to assume is that there are a constant number of enemies, and that if you kill enough of them, you win. It doesn't work that way; Iraq is a tribal society where revenge is a duty. A previously neutral person will feel obligated to try to kill Americans once Americans kill his relatives, whether it's an accident or not. Under these circumstances, you don't win by killing more people.

Posted by: Joe Buck on April 16, 2007 at 8:31 PM | PERMALINK

"His mouth is his own worst enemy."

...and ours.

Posted by: deacon on April 16, 2007 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal, seriously, no one supports the iraq war except for a bunch of fanatical dead-enders in the USA. You guys had your chance and you blew it. You even had the media cheerleading for you, repeating every stupid, specious claim from the bush administration about how Saddam Hussein was going to corrupt the purity of essence of your precious bodily fluids if we didn't attack right now. You guys turned out to be wrong and wore out your welcome. Your opinions at this point are worthless.

Posted by: Constantine on April 16, 2007 at 8:39 PM | PERMALINK

The "bizarre tack" of reporting US casualties but not "enemies" killed or captured comes from the U.S. military, which makes a point of not counting the numbers of people they kill. So where do you want the media to get these numbers? Damn liberal Pentagon, making it hard for war supporters to feel like, any second now, we're going to kill the last terrorist.

Posted by: Houdini's Ghost on April 16, 2007 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

Of course since Bush doesn't read the newspapers, only gets Fox News on the White House TV's, and has surrounded himself with a bunch of ultra-loyal yes men, he probably has no idea how unpopular he has become.

Inside his bubble he probably thinks that everyone still loves him and supports the war.

Posted by: mfw13 on April 16, 2007 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINK

To see this post made my day. It is a stunning abuse of power to keep this war going. Yet the right wing dance continues. Bush's evangelical fervor with his misguided imperial ways has moved beyond the pale. Stop with the rosy optimism, already. What, are we stupid?
There is a revival of the American Left.
A billion dollars a week for 5 years--with no end in sight? American people know in their core this is wrong...it is an undeniable foreign policy blunder. I notice more people talking about the stolen elections-- ex-conservatives are emerging

Posted by: consider wisely always on April 16, 2007 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINK

"The Congressional Dems are aided by an anti-war media. Most do not emphasize that the early stages of the surge seem to be working. Casualties in Baghdad are considerably down."

First of all, antiwar media?

The war in Iraq is happening because the American news media sold it hook, line, and sinker to the American people and ruthlessly stomped down any antiwar opinion, no matter the credentials of the source, as dangerous and extreme. Iraq is not going well. That's a fact. You can pretend that accurately reporting mass killings and bombing occurring everyday is "liberal bias" all you want. If there were no mass killings and bombings occurring everyday there would be no reports of them. Casualties are NOT down in the city, more Americans have been killed since the surge began than in the months before it was launched, and Iraqi killings outside of Baghdad surged before creeping back into the city. The day after John McCain left that marketplace with the small army off-camera there to protect him, 30 people in the area were executed in cold blood.

"Many media take the bizarre tack of reporting the number of American casualties without reporting the number of enemy killed and captured. It's like reporting a baseball score as Yankees 3."

How is it a bizarre tact to report what you know, how many American casualties there are, vs. what you don't know, like precise enemy body counts in an urban guerilla war where buildings sometimes have to be completely blown up to end the street fightings? Many of the casualties that the US are taking are happening in IED attacks where there are no actual firefights for the enemy to take KIAs afterwards. Also, did you call for 'enemy body counts'? You want enemy body counts now as a measure of success? This is another rightwing flip-flop that is one among dozens.

It was the Bush administration and the Pentagon who said that this war in Iraq wasn't going to be measured like Viet-Nam where body counts were going to be used as a measure of success. Now, you want the Viet-Nam standard to measure what is a success or not? Call the military and complain.

Darn that leftwing Pentagon, out to subvert the war effort.

Posted by: American Joe on April 16, 2007 at 8:47 PM | PERMALINK

The Congressional Dems are aided by an anti-war media. Most do not emphasize that the early stages of the surge seem to be working. Casualties in Baghdad are considerably down.

You are kidding, right? They took out two fucking bridges across a big river in a divided city. They struck in parliament itself. Sadr pulled out of the government, and the deathsquads have adapted and are back in business.

Many media take the bizarre tack of reporting the number of American casualties without reporting the number of enemy killed and captured. It's like reporting a baseball score as Yankees 3.

More Americans died in March than Iraqi security personnel. Spin that, Mr. I don't know

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

Iraq is a tribal society where revenge is a duty. A previously neutral person will feel obligated to try to kill Americans once Americans kill his relatives, whether it's an accident or not. Under these circumstances, you don't win by killing more people.

You might have noticed that al Qaeda is killing more Iraqis than almost anyone else. From your premise, what should that indicate?

Posted by: elmendorf on April 16, 2007 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

The ABC News poll can be found here.

Posted by: Ein on April 16, 2007 at 8:59 PM | PERMALINK

The warmongers are aided by a pro-war media. The do not mention the half a million Iraqis dead and the million who have left Iraq. Not to mention the displaced, disabled and wounded.

An accurate reporting of the war reduce support of the war to 2%.

There!

Posted by: ex-conservative on April 16, 2007 at 9:00 PM | PERMALINK

This is the reason for the "One Man, With Jesus, Is A Majority" bumpersticker I've seen recently.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on April 16, 2007 at 9:01 PM | PERMALINK

Ordinary people do not share the administration's interests, policies, mission, vision or goals. No one relates to the fly-paper theory that they will get us here if we don't stay over there. It is just insane.
The Iraq Study Group tried to rescue this man, to no avail.
As Paul O'Neill said, as he departed this administration, the president is "like a blind man in a room full of deaf people." How profound and prescient.
No wonder the president was so unconvincing in his press conference today--as Larry Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell remarked, "It's hard to sell shit."

Posted by: consider wisely always on April 16, 2007 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK

This is the reason for the "One Man, With Jesus, Is A Majority" bumpersticker I've seen recently.

As opposed to the "One Man, With a Gun, Is A Majority" bumper stiker I saw on the VA Tech campus today....

Posted by: Disputo on April 16, 2007 at 9:09 PM | PERMALINK

"It's hard to sell shit."

Not to people who need fertilizing.

Posted by: Disputo on April 16, 2007 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo, I expect the same places sell them both.

Majoritarianism is, like, soooo 18th Century.

Force majure and the divine right of kings! Forward into the past!

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on April 16, 2007 at 9:15 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, we can succeed in the war on terrorism without winning the war in Iraq. But remember our goal is much larger than that. It is to bring democracy to the oppressed people of the middle east.

Posted by: Al on April 16, 2007 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, we can succeed in the war on terrorism without winning the war in Iraq

Good. We agree.

Start loading the C-130's.

I expect everyone back by Memorial Day.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on April 16, 2007 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINK

Watched Bush's event today where he called for Congress to give him the emergency war time funding.

To this day, the idiot just keeps spewing lie after lie. Gotta fight em there so they won't come here.

Beyond pathetic.

Posted by: ugly_duck on April 16, 2007 at 9:20 PM | PERMALINK

He is bankrupting our treasury. In Texas he was known to reduce state revenue to the point of bankruptcy, borrowed millions and put the state government in debt...yet all records of his governorship were sealed...
Currently he has largest national annual deficit in our history.
And he remains more secretive than Nixon.
Highest gasoline prices ever. Ordinary people notice the price of gas...
worst. president. ever.

Posted by: consider wisely always on April 16, 2007 at 9:28 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, we can succeed in the war on terrorism without winning the war in Iraq. But remember our goal is much larger than that. It is to bring democracy to the oppressed people of the middle east.

Posted by: Al on April 16, 2007 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINK

The people of the Middle East are oppressed by their own religious beliefs and by their culture. Sad. But not really too much we can do about it.

Posted by: Scott on April 16, 2007 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINK

Simply type awolbush.com

Posted by: consider wisely always on April 16, 2007 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINK

Many media take the bizarre tack of reporting the number of American casualties without reporting the number of enemy killed and captured.

During the Vietnam war they used to report body counts of enemy killed. The practice was thoroughly discredited for a number of reasons including:

A. The "counts" were notoriously inaccurate. An army unit would have a brief firefight, after which they would claim some arbitrary number as a "body count" on the theory that there must have been x number of enemy, and they "must" have been killed since they weren't firing at the end. The notion that insurgent forces intentionally melt away after short engagements wasn't considered. Helicopter-borne brass might demand a body count as soon as a firefight started, so the ground commander would make up a number to get them off his back.

2. Even if the counts had been accurate, they didn't mean anything. Viet Cong were willing to take 10-1 casualties on the theory that the U.S. would run out of soldiers and expensive equipment before the VC ran out of insurgents. They were right.

Posted by: jimBOB on April 16, 2007 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINK

Some 57 percent now say the United States can succeed in the war on terrorism without winning the war in Iraq

Do they think that the U.S. can win against the terrorists if we lose in Iraq outright, or do they believe that at least a stalemate needs to be preserved until late 2008 or early 2009? Are they just saying that Iraq is a lost cause and they hope nothing bad follows it?

Posted by: spider on April 16, 2007 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINK

Numb.

That's how I feel about Bush.

I also feel that about Virginia Tech (my brother went to grad school there, so it feels awful, doubly so)

The thing is, 2-3 Virginia techs happen daily in Iraq.

The idiot who thinks guns are cool doesn't know what they can do!

My sister was shot years ago and I have a general repulsive feeling towards any violence, anywhere, by anybody to anybody else.

War sucks.

Peace is more than the absence of war.

We got bent out of shape over Imus's mouth...where's the outrage over the militarialization of our country? Where's the outrage over the fact that Bush and Alberto put 150+ people to death in Texas?

It's weapons that we need to loath, everywhere.

Heck, Philadelphia's a virtual shooting gallery with homicides through the roof!

My sorrow knows no bounds for the horror at VA Tech today.

Numb.

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on April 16, 2007 at 9:44 PM | PERMALINK

As opposed to what spider? Continuing to pour gasoline on the fire and wonder why the blaze is getting hotter?

Posted by: heavy on April 16, 2007 at 9:44 PM | PERMALINK

mhr--your post sounds like a non-sequitor and is quite bizarre

Posted by: consider wisely always on April 16, 2007 at 9:47 PM | PERMALINK

There seems to be more terrorism in Iraq than any other place in the world. Yet the democrats say it isn't necessary to face these terrorist. If we pull out one of terrorist groups will probably win. It doesn't matter which one there will still be a terrorist group in charge. It really sickens me that the democrats are putting politics ahead of national interest by allowing Iraq to be ruled by terrorists.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 16, 2007 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK

"His mouth is his own worst enemy."

Or in other words: His mouth is our best friend.

Yes, IT'S ALL ABOUT CLINTON!!!

Posted by: Yuckster! on April 16, 2007 at 9:58 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: "Many media take the bizarre tack of reporting the number of American casualties without reporting the number of enemy killed and captured. It's like reporting a baseball score as Yankees 3."

Please don't be so ridiculous and / or grotesque as to equate war casualties with an evening news sports report.

There has always been a great deal of justifiable skepticism regarding Pentagon casualty reports, regardless of the conflict.

In the immediate aftermath of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, radio and wire dispatches cited initial Pentagon reports as not only claiming that the Japanese task force had suffered hundreds of planes shot down, but also that the U.S. fleet had immediately put to sea and were at that very moment "actively engaged in battle with the Japanese fleet just to the south of Honolulu." (UPI, December 7, 1941, as reported in the Los Angeles Times.)

We now know that of the two attacking waves (some 360 aircraft), only 29 Japanese planes were actually shot down (two lone American fighter pilots accounted for nine of that total) with the attendant loss of 55 pilots and crew, and further that the Japanese armada had actually closed to no closer than 200 miles NNW of Honolulu when the attack was launched -- certainly not to the south, where our own aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown were conducting maneuvers that weekend.

Further, Americans were never told the full story of what had occurred on Oahu that morning until well after the fact. Initially, that was perfectly excusable because of military necessity -- after all, who in their right mind would have publicly announced to the world how badly the Japanese had in fact hurt us, and how vulnerable we really were at that point in time?

However, the Pentagon never acknowledged our own casualties of 2,403 dead, 4,134 wounded, 383 aircraft destroyed and eighteen ships sunk (including seven battleships) until the end of 1944, and the public never even saw photos of that bloody day until they were officially declassified by both the War and Navy Departments in May 1946.

More contemporaneously, such enemy casualty counts in the Vietnam War were more often than not grossly inflated, in large part by conflating non-combatant casualties (i.e., "collateral damage") with those suffered by the Viet Cong and NVA.

To an American general public tiring of the war, those numbers eventually became meaningless as it became increasingly clear that we were for all practical purposes involved in a military stalemate, despite all the purported (and also very real) carnage being inflicted upon the enemy.

In that regard, what's currently happening in Iraq is not much different than was our experience in Vietnam.

But the real bottom line here is this:

Casualty counts often don't even begin to tell the whole story, nor do they necessary provide an accurate reflection of the true course of battle or even as a reliable indicator as to the eventual outcome of an armed conflict.

After all, the Russians in World War II suffered about five times the casualties than were inflicted by them upon their German adversaries -- but when all was said and done in May 1945, whose flag was flying over the Reichstag in Berlin?

More recently, it was estimated by the North Vietnamese themselves that both they and their Viet Cong allies suffered almost 2 million soldiers killed in their war with the United States, while we in turn suffered some 58,000 dead -- but as I recall, Saigon was still offically renamed Ho Chi Minh City by the victorious North Vietnamese in May 1975, only days after the last American helicopter removed the last of the State Department's personnel and their dependents from the rooftop of our embassy.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 16, 2007 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

That sounds like the propaganda put out by the administration, TruthPolitik. Maybe you should get on their payroll to talk like that

Posted by: consider wisely always on April 16, 2007 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

That's an easy one.

Why don't they test Bush against a monkey?

Posted by: NeilS on April 16, 2007 at 10:04 PM | PERMALINK

I think the President's problem is that he keeps repeating the same worn out slogans. Nobody I know buys the "we have to kill them there or they will kill us here" line anymore. Everybody has figured out that there is nothing but the cost of an airline ticket stopping at least some of "them" from coming here right now. Even if we were to "win" (whatever that means) nothing will stop "them" coming here to exact revenge.

Everytime George tries the old "we have to kill them or they will kill us here" line, most Americans (including conservatives) look at him as pathetically naive. It is amazing that he never seems to realize when his bumper sticker arguments have exceeded their expiration dates. It is like Karl Rove has just given up. That is exactly what happened to him in the social security fiasco.

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 16, 2007 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal" wrote: The Congressional Dems are aided by an anti-war media.

Pathetic effort, "ex-liberal". You're just phoning in the bullshit now; I doubt even you believe your own drivel. If anyone's paying you to post your neocon bullshit here, they aren't getting their money's worth.

And if no one's paying you, why do you come here to lie to us? Shame on you.

Posted by: Gregory on April 16, 2007 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

Houdini's Ghost: The "bizarre tack" of reporting US casualties but not "enemies" killed or captured comes from the U.S. military, which makes a point of not counting the numbers of people they kill. So where do you want the media to get these numbers? Damn liberal Pentagon, making it hard for war supporters to feel like, any second now, we're going to kill the last terrorist.

Not so. You can read Pentagon press releases at http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=1&id=4&Itemid=21

There's a mixture of good news and bad news. Some recent good news headlnes in just the last 2 days:

-- ONE MAN KILLED, FOUR SUSPECTS DETAINED IN BAGHDAD RAID
-- Iraqi Special Operations Forces raid nets five Al-Qaeda members in Baghdad
-- FIVE TERRORISTS KILLED, TWO DETAINED IN BASRAH RAID
-- IA Soldiers clear IEDs, rescue victims
-- Operation Yukon River reaps cache, seizes eight suspects in southern Baghdad
-- 10 detained following mortar attack
-- Local citizens turn in extremists
-- Provincial Security Forces discover weapons cache
-- Iraqi soldiers and coalition helicopters repel terrorist attack

As you can see the press releases include plenty of good news (as well as plenty of bad news.) But, the mainstream press generally ignores the good news.

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 16, 2007 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

Why don't you send that good news to the families of the seven Americans who perished in the last 24 hours and ask if they think it was worth it?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 10:16 PM | PERMALINK

"That sounds like the propaganda put out by the administration, TruthPolitik. Maybe you should get on their payroll to talk like that"

Seems like common sense to me. Just ask your self. What kind of goverment will Iraq have if we pull out??

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 16, 2007 at 10:17 PM | PERMALINK

That is not our determination to make. To maintain otherwise is simply hubris.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

Where is doc at the radar station? I just got the Captain Beefheart album, and wanted to give a shout-out.

Yeah, even the supporters behind Bush looked incredulous. And when he left, the audience erupted into a Pep Rally-type synchronized clapping, which struck me as forced -- as if they were forcing themselves to encourage their discouraged leader.

Posted by: absent observer on April 16, 2007 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

Seems like common sense to me. Just ask your self. What kind of goverment will Iraq have if we pull out??

First of all, it's not "common sense" to assume an independent government would be run by "terrorists." There's nothing to support that position but hysterics.

Secondly, were we to pull out the government could not be much worse than it is now: massively corrupt, having embezzled billions from both Iraqis and the U.S.; utterly inneffectual and unable to maintain control over the country; splintered and at odds with itself; and shot through with criminal elements that sponsor death squads, enforce involuntary relocation, and engage in combat against American forces.

There is no "worse" thing that could happen. Al Qaeda in Iraq is tiny and doesn't have the forces to prevail against the Shia, neither do the numerically disadvantaged Sunni whose main concern is staving off a future genocide. Whether American forces stay or go, the status quo of a terrible, de facto illegitimate Iraqi government will remain, your plaintive cries notwithstanding.

And the steadily increasing violence and societal chaos of the past four years has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that we lack the ability to improve the situation in Iraq, and that the longer we stay the worse things get.

Posted by: trex on April 16, 2007 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

What kind of goverment will Iraq have if we pull out??

Whatever they are content to have.

Me, I'd like it to be a multi-party, secular, parliamentary federal republic.

But remind me why it's our call....

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on April 16, 2007 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

"That is not our determination to make. To maintain otherwise is simply hubris."

Blue Girl Would it be alright if Al Quaida took over the Iraqui Governmet and Bin Laden Became Dictator in absentia? Or should we do everything possible to insure a stable, friendly, peacefull government?

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 16, 2007 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

Blue Girl Would it be alright if Al Quaida took over the Iraqui Governmet and Bin Laden Became Dictator in absentia?

Since this is no more likely to happen than rogue elephants taking over the Iraqi government and the Jungle Boy becoming dictator in absentia, we do not include it in policy considerations.

CENTCOMM estimates no more than 2000 Al Qaeda in a country of 28 million people. Do the math.

Posted by: trex on April 16, 2007 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINK

trex and BGRS:

Well said. As I recall, the U.S. did not invade Iraq to decide what kind of government they should have. Saddam had WMDs - remember???

Now it has come out that the CIA was warned months before 9-11 that al-Qaeda was planning to hijack American airliners. Bush was probably briefed on this and did nothing. Just like he did nothing for eight minutes after being told, "America is under attack", by Andrew Card. Some leadership.

Actions speak louder than words. Bush has done shit about terrorism, other than to create a safe haven for terrorists in Iraq, where none existed before.

TCD

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on April 16, 2007 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINK

Trex
If what you say is true. Then why not cut off funds and pull out now. Can't you see that the democrats are stringing you along. How many more americans are going to die before their non binding retreat date.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 16, 2007 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINK

How do you leave the house as afraid of al Qaeda as you apparently are? They are something like 2% of insurgent fighters and are hated by most Iraqi's nearly as much as Americans are.

You really think they have the chance of a snowball in hell of running the show when we leave?!?!?! Seriously?!?!?!?!

I gotta admit they do get a lot of press....Every time someone farts sideways in Iraq, al Qaeda,/i> gets credit. They are apparently very industrious and diligent.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINK

html foul...

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINK

Can't you see that the democrats are stringing you along[?]

I think I'll not trash the Democratic caucus based on your concerns thanks. Fact is, more people are going to die. I don't like it, but there it is. We keep the caucus together and stand firm. that's where we start.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 11:04 PM | PERMALINK

"Well said. As I recall, the U.S. did not invade Iraq to decide what kind of government they should have. Saddam had WMDs - remember??? "

But if Bush lied then WMDs were not the real reason. Was it actually to get an american presence in the region?

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 16, 2007 at 11:05 PM | PERMALINK

BGRS

Why do those soldiers have to die? Are we going to accomplish any thing in the next year. Think about it.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 16, 2007 at 11:12 PM | PERMALINK

If what you say is true. Then why not cut off funds and pull out now. Can't you see that the democrats are stringing you along

I'm too jaded to get strung along. I don't listen to authority figures and I don't play well with others. It's better to listen to experts, weigh many sources, question assumptions, and think critically. You should try it.

I absolutely believe we should pull out now, as do many Democrats, for among many other reasons the preservation of American lives in Iraq.

The Democratic Party is making a calculated political decision not to cut off funds so as not to be painted by the slimy Bush administration as "not supporting the troops." Nothing could be further from the truth, of course, because giving them MORE money than Bush asked for AND striving to bring them home at the same time is unquestionably support.

Sending them along without body sufficient armor or post-war planning into a major clusterfuck for one's own pet policy plans, however, is the definition of not supporting them.

Right, wrong, or indifferent this is the Democratic strategy at trying to help the troops while also trying to maintain their chances at winning the White House in 2008, at which point they would have the power to completely withdraw our forces from Iraq.

But if Bush lied then WMDs were not the real reason. Was it actually to get an american presence in the region?

Bingo. PNAC schemed for years about getting into Iraq, and White House insiders like Paul O'Neill have come forward and said that was the Bush administration's priority from the first week in office.

Posted by: trex on April 16, 2007 at 11:12 PM | PERMALINK

Why do those soldiers have to die?

Because they are there. Duh.

Because George Bush is a feckless fool with a cowboy complex who rushed in where angels ought fear to tread and now the American military is mired in a mess of his making. That is why more have to die. And it's on him.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 11:16 PM | PERMALINK

Hmm, ex-lib,

good news from Iraq?

1. Well, for me as a firm believer in Lord Acton's dictum about power and corruption, the loss of US credibility and its weakened position in the world is in the short to medium run a good thing (such concentrated power as that of the US in the world is almost never in the interests of freedom or of democracy) though no one should ever have to pay the blood price from which this good is emerging.

2. America's democracy seems to be slowly awakening from a state of somnambulance. This too a good. And if it leads to a shedding of empire, a great.

So yeah, just keep on ex-lib and go Bushie!!

Posted by: snicker-snack on April 16, 2007 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK

TP: Bush lied, oil companies profited, just like those crazy kids said they would before the war started. And oil companies are why we remain. Elmendork, MHR-Al & others notwithstanding.

Donald in Hawaii--great post earlier, but Yorktown was an Atlantic Fleet ship at the time of Pearl Harbor.

I see a lot of bravery from the basement of Scaife-Central. Anyone with a clue and a heart would extricate the U.S. from this mess. Every time Bush opens his mouth on a subject, the dollar falls, enemies laugh, and security wanes. Go Big Oil. Sigh.

Posted by: Sparko on April 16, 2007 at 11:19 PM | PERMALINK

TruthPolitic: Was it actually to get an american presence in the region?

Is that how you read the tea leaves?

No one in power has stated that was the reason. In fact, they won't answer whether the bases are meant to be permanent. You're the only one who's stated that the invasion was to put an American presence in the region.

So, unless you wish to start dealing with reality, you're going to be eating pie.
(i'm really enjoying this greasemonkey script. let me know if you want help setting it up on your system.)

Posted by: absent observer on April 16, 2007 at 11:21 PM | PERMALINK

"Right, wrong, or indifferent this is the Democratic strategy at trying to help the troops while also trying to maintain their chances at winning the White House in 2008, at which point they would have the power to completely withdraw our forces from Iraq."

Then aren't they playing politics with american lives. They have the power to cut off funds. They ended the vietnam war. I have yet to see any reason other than political for their delayed deadline.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 16, 2007 at 11:24 PM | PERMALINK

Strike three.

You're eating pie.

Posted by: absent observer on April 16, 2007 at 11:26 PM | PERMALINK

Al: "But remember our goal is much larger than that. It is to bring democracy to the oppressed people of the middle east."

And that is why you are surging your ass into the army to support your heroic present. If not, then just shut the fuck up and choke on your own moronic platitudes.

Posted by: Kenji on April 16, 2007 at 11:26 PM | PERMALINK

honest-to-god: you would think that ex-liberal would be ashamed to even try the old "why don't they report the good news from iraq" line anymore, but no, the war enablers are shameless beyond description.

listen you little nitwit: if we'd had as much good news in iraq as you moronic war supporters have been claiming for four long years now, we wouldn't still be spending vast sums of blood and treasure.

you can fool some of the people all of the time, and exliberal belongs in that category.

Posted by: howard on April 16, 2007 at 11:27 PM | PERMALINK

Good news for ex-liberal is anything that supplies the slightest whiff of evidence that he hasn't been wrong, wrong, wrong in this whole misbegotten adventure. But it's far too late for such band-aids and he knows it. You can feel the shame seeping out of his posts.

Posted by: Kenji on April 16, 2007 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK

"Is that how you read the tea leaves? "

It was a question not a statement. Note the question mark at the end.

Posted by: TruthPolitik on April 16, 2007 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin.

{sighs.} Looks like egbert has to dispell all the left wing loonacy echoing around in here.

OK, yes, they just blew up the Parlament building, the bastards. They blew up a bridge. You want me to be frank? People are getting killed. Men, women and children, all innocent, are getting blown to smithereens. Its ugly, and it upsets me. War is the most obsceen act one human can perform on anoter.

Now...

I ask you, what is the alternative? We are building security. Democracy. A future for the people.

The Revolution was messy. Civil War was messy. Did you know more Americans died in that war than any other. WWII was messy.

We are bequeathing democracy to these people. One day, perhaps years from now, these people will understand.

Messy? Yes. Nobel? Yes.

Posted by: egbert on April 16, 2007 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK

TruthPolitik: Pies suck!

Ha ha, I'm joking, of course. Pies RULE!!

I knew you'd say that.

Posted by: absent observer on April 16, 2007 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK

Then aren't they playing politics with american lives. They have the power to cut off funds. They ended the vietnam war. I have yet to see any reason other than political for their delayed deadline.

I'm with you, I think they should cut off funds. But remember that Bush is responsible for the deaths of the troops as well as the deaths of the Iraqis; he started this ill-conceived war, tried to run it on the cheap, lied about its progress time and again, mismanaged it, never fully committed to it, and is now holding on to it in the face of certain failure for the sake of his legacy and nothing else.

You should concern yourself with the politics Bush has played with American and Iraqi lives this entire time.

Posted by: trex on April 16, 2007 at 11:38 PM | PERMALINK

Someone else is going to have to deal with scrambled egbert. I'm laughing to hard.

What Nobel you got in mind, egbert? Piece?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

I'd suggest that anyone who thinks what we're doing in Iraq is so fantastic to stop posting and to get his/her ass out there.

But no. It's all rah-rah-rah from the comfort of your own cosy armchair, watching other people fight. Other people's sons and daughters getting killed.

Some support that is. The support of the coward who doesn't want to admit such. The strutting wimp, unable to face the truth about his own inabilities.

Just like Bush.

Posted by: grumpy realist on April 16, 2007 at 11:42 PM | PERMALINK

honest-to-god: you would think that ex-liberal would be ashamed to even try the old "why don't they report the good news from iraq" line anymore, but no, the war enablers are shameless beyond description.

Plus, "ex-liberal" cites -- apparently with a straight face --- Pentagon press releases.

Pop quiz, "ex-liberal": You trust the Pentagon to tell the truth?

Posted by: Gregory on April 16, 2007 at 11:43 PM | PERMALINK

What Nobel you got in mind, egbert? Piece?

Piece of Pie? Please?!

Posted by: absent observer on April 16, 2007 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory - He cited Sam "Conservative Punk" Pender as a source of established ties between Saddam and al Qaeda just a few days ago.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 11:51 PM | PERMALINK

Faux Lib is correct - The media does not report the good news, such as business picking up what with that new tourist office opening in Sadr City offering special one way flights to Crawford, Texas.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on April 16, 2007 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINK

He cited Sam "Conservative Punk" Pender as a source of established ties between Saddam and al Qaeda just a few days ago.

I remember. That "ex-liberal" didn't slink away in embarrassment is something. He/she/it has been corrected on the "Saddam kicked the inspectors out" talking point, too, but "ex-liberal" goes ahead and posts it again, only to be corrected again. He/she/it is impervious to information. (And if you look closely, you see that he/she/it doesn't believe in any freedom the neocons don't want us to have.)

But that's just it..."ex-liberal" doesn't try to be convincing, and I don't think he/she/it believes half the bullshit he/she/it posts. He/she/it just seems to be interested in making sure that some bullshit supporting the neocon position is posed here.

Why would that be, I wonder?

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 12:00 AM | PERMALINK

His mouth is his own worst enemy.

That Jeff Guckert scandal is long forgotten.

Posted by: Brojo on April 17, 2007 at 12:01 AM | PERMALINK

egbert: "War is the most obsceen act one human can perform on anoter."

No, the most obsceen act is the one you perform when you open your trap, torturing the English language to come up with absurdly childish nostrums intended to prop up your failed father figure.

I've said it before: join up or shut up. Get your ass over there if you think it's so noble. Or don't you want to be part of an 'echo chamber' where the loudest sound is that of bullets ricocheting off of stone walls?

You, sir, are a coward and a fool.

Posted by: Kenji on April 17, 2007 at 12:06 AM | PERMALINK

Ex-liberal: Casualties in Baghdad are considerably down

Said just like a pussy ass chickenhawk. Your a liar and a dumb ass.

TruthPolitk, your a pussy ass chickenhawk too, trying desperately to shift the blame before the Guillotine falls...

Posted by: elmo on April 17, 2007 at 12:08 AM | PERMALINK

A string of good and bad events in Iraq does not add up to anything until we define victory and then specify the steps to achieving it. Then we accomplish those steps. The trick is, each previous step must remain accomplished while we move on the next step.

We continually took an area, chased out the insurgents and then sent the troops to another hot spot. The area the troops left re-acquired its insurgents while the troops controlled the second spot. And so on and so on. In the meantime, sectarian violence was sparked by insurgent tactics, starting another kind of violence paralleling the insurgent activity. Of course some insurgents are foreign fighters while some are Baathists, who are also the object of sectarian violence. It's complicated.

We've had the same clear, hold, build "strategy" from November 2005. (It's pathetic to go back and read it because it's so inadequate. Our clear, hold, and build strategy is working The only thing new about the "surge" was the addition of more troops. But we still don't have enough troops, and we never did.

In November 2005 the only measures of success specified by the administration were political. They were achieved. We should accept that as success as we defined it in 2005, and leave.

Posted by: cowalker on April 17, 2007 at 12:28 AM | PERMALINK

...ah, light at the end of the tunnel.

And, of course, lebensraum...

Posted by: Kenji on April 17, 2007 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINK

What Nobel you got in mind, egbert? Piece?posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 16, 2007 at 11:41 PM

Global, I got a seriously good snort out of this. Gotta love it.

Egbert seems very much like the old Birkel. Hit him for 45 seconds and watch him implode.

Posted by: jcricket on April 17, 2007 at 1:06 AM | PERMALINK

People are just tired of watching him smirk. He's the worst president in history - why is he smirking?

Posted by: craigie on April 17, 2007 at 1:31 AM | PERMALINK

Thank you - thank you very much. Craigie and I will be performing here through Saturday. Remember to tip your waitresses and bartenders.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 17, 2007 at 1:31 AM | PERMALINK

Craigie, he is smirking because he is to effing stupid to figure out that he's the dumbass in the room.

Posted by: jcricket on April 17, 2007 at 1:44 AM | PERMALINK

He thinks we are laughing with him...But he is wrong about that...

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 17, 2007 at 1:59 AM | PERMALINK

today is a sad day, but I thought that I would add a small item of good news about biodiesel:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2007-04-16-conoco-tyson-fat-biodiesel_N.htm?csp=34

Every little bit helps.

I also came across, and then lost, a story about UC Davis scientists prepping cotton and other cellulosic stuff for biofuels.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on April 17, 2007 at 2:18 AM | PERMALINK

...The Revolution was messy. Civil War was messy. Did you know more Americans died in that war than any other. WWII was messy.

We are bequeathing democracy to these people....

Posted by: egbert on April 16, 2007 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK

What is "messy"? Life is messy. Sex is messy. Children are messy. Most of the adults I know are messy.

In the US civil war, what pushes the number of deaths above those of WWII are death from injury. There are more deaths than surviving casualties! As far as wars go, it's hard to beat WWII although I am sure people like GWB, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Kristol, et al. are trying hard.

"Bequeathing democracy." Well you got that right. GWB has been doing his best to kill democracy here although I'm not sure he knows he picked out Iraq to pass it on to. I'd be happier if he wanted to keep democracy here as well as encourage other countries to adopt same; not going to happen with this guy, though.

Posted by: notthere on April 17, 2007 at 2:19 AM | PERMALINK

Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.): Why don't you send that good news to the families of the seven Americans who perished in the last 24 hours and ask if they think it was worth it?

In fact, the servicemen and servicewomen in Iraq strongly support the mission, from all I've read, and so do their families. One annoying bit of media bias was giving so much ink to Cindy Sheehan, even though her opposition to the Iraq mission was the opposite of most in her position.

Gregory: Pop quiz, "ex-liberal": You trust the Pentagon to tell the truth

The media has no trouble believing the Pentagon on BAD news. E.g., numbers of American casualties come from the military.

BTW if your implication were correct -- if the Pentagon were putting out false good news stories -- then the media would be derelict in not reporting on Pentagon lies and not refuting them.

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 17, 2007 at 2:40 AM | PERMALINK

trex: There is no "worse" thing that could happen. Al Qaeda in Iraq is tiny and doesn't have the forces to prevail against the Shia, neither do the numerically disadvantaged Sunni whose main concern is staving off a future genocide. Whether American forces stay or go, the status quo of a terrible, de facto illegitimate Iraqi government will remain, your plaintive cries notwithstanding.
...
And the steadily increasing violence and societal chaos of the past four years has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that we lack the ability to improve the situation in Iraq, and that the longer we stay the worse things get.

A majority of Iraqis want the American forces to stay and help them to fend off a greater chaos than what they have now. larger numbers than before cooperate with the combined US-Iraqi patrols to reveal hiding places of weapons and militants.

A fully-fledged civil war with armies that have heavy equipment, and funding from Saudi Arabia and Iran is still possible.

Unlikely? Hard to say, but certainly possible.

It's almost a coarse joke to refer to the resurgent tourist industry in Iraqi Kurdistan, yet that is a fact: when Michael Totten, whatever his skill as a journalist, flew to Iraqi Kurdistan, he flew on a regularly scheduled flight full of tourists. Similarly, the booming consumer electronics market in Basra and vicinity seems almost as effete as the Dauphin during the time of Joan of Arc. Yet, such commerce is unprecedented, and is a fruit of the partial victory that the U.S. has accomplished. The Iraqi parliament may be as worthless a pack of scoundrels as the American Continental Congress, but they are elected, and there will be new elections in Jan 2009. Maliki has lost support from the Sadrists, but gained support from some Sunnis, and for good reason. And for what it's worth, the new water facilities in Sadr City are better than what that slum had before the invasion.

All this could be lost, and the country could revert to civil war on the scale of the US in 1861-1865, or 20th century Spain, or the ghastly Russian civil war of 1918-1922. Iraq could get far worse. If the Congressional Democrats agreed with you that it could not get worse, they'd cut off the funds tomorrow.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on April 17, 2007 at 2:51 AM | PERMALINK

Do you know anyone in uniform? Or are you relying on what you read at The Corner and LGF?

I do know peopel in uniform and they are using very strong kllanguage in our private conversations. You only think I can spew invective...

They do not support the mission - because they don't know what the hell it is.

Saturday, December 30, 2006 Poll: More troops unhappy with Bush’s course in Iraq
By Robert Hodierne, Senior managing editor, Air Force Times
The American military — once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war — has grown increasingly pessimistic about chances for victory, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll.
For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war.

You certainly must know that I don't say things I can't back up, with sources that are, well, actual sources, don't you?

Or do you post the patently dishonest drivel that seems to be your stock and trade hoping to grab the attention of one or two lurkers before your crap gets handed back to you?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 17, 2007 at 2:56 AM | PERMALINK

That post is directed at you ex-liberal. And for the record, if youy want to read the entire Air Force Times article Here is a link

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 17, 2007 at 2:58 AM | PERMALINK

While I am on the topic of that Military Times Poll, let's talk about it. But before we do, lets consider who subscribes to the Military Times Newspapers, because who answered those questions is as interesting as the answers they gave.

The demographics of Military Times subscribers are mostly active duty, and subscribers are pretty evenly split between officers and enlisted. The officer corp is a much smaller percentage of the service than the enlisted ranks. The officer corp is far more conservative and more likely to be registered Republicans; while the enlisted ranks are pretty representative of any cross-section of America. Those who subscribe to the Military Times Newspapers are most likely to be career Officers or NCO's who have received leadership training.

This makes the results of the poll even more interesting now, doesn't it? When you know who was answering the questions, the results are more meaningful, aren't they?

The poll is overwhelmingly a rejection of the presidents management of the war, not by the ground-pounders getting shot at, but by the career Officers and NCO's who are charged with leading.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 17, 2007 at 3:06 AM | PERMALINK

In fact, the servicemen and servicewomen in Iraq strongly support the mission, from all I've read...

It's really amazing what we can lead ourselves to believe if we avoid the things that run counter to what we desperately want to believe.

Unfortunately, that way lies doom. I don't want a facade, I want a foundation. Read a few GAO reports and some white papers as well, not just the WSJ editorial page(?!?!?!?!?!) and Pajamas Media.

ex-liberal, I await your response.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 17, 2007 at 3:17 AM | PERMALINK

Blue Girl - Pessimism and criticism of Bush's leadership is not the same as disapproval of the mission. I'm not involved with the military, as you are, but I suspect it's not unusual for troops to be perssimistic and to criticize civilian leadership when things aren't going well.

Also, disapproving Bush's leadership doesn't mean favoring withdrawal. Look at question #13 to the second poll, the one counting active duty responses only. Thirty eight percent say we should have more troops n Iraq and Kuwait than we have now; only 23% say we should have fewer.

In short, many military disapprove of Bush's leadership because he's not fighting vigorously enough. That puts them even farther from the Murtha camp than Bush supporters.

Note also how high military morale is, according to your cited poll. Of all military (not just active duty) 83% are completely or partially satisfied with their jobb. Only 15% are somewhat or totally dissatisfied.

The reporter's description of the poll results left out the positive parts of the responses. What else is new?

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 17, 2007 at 3:25 AM | PERMALINK

The mission has never been defined. The military - some of them members of my family - are not happy right now. You convince yourself otherwise at the peril of your party. (So what the hell? Carry on. Why am I trying to convince you otherwise?)

The attitudes have gone down in the four months since that poll was conducted, too. Stop-loss is back, and now it's standardized for the active duty Army.

You can not honestly believe what you posted. Can you?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 17, 2007 at 3:32 AM | PERMALINK

The reporter's description of the poll results left out the positive parts of the responses. What else is new?

So the Military Times newspapers are now part of the "liberal media conspiracy" huh? That is a hoot!!! The entire poll was in the paper.

And I repeat - the answers have a deeper meaning when you think about who answered them.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 17, 2007 at 3:35 AM | PERMALINK

Blue Girl - you're in the military. I accept your observation that morale is lower than it was when the poll was taken.

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 17, 2007 at 3:45 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks. But 'm not in. My husband and brother are retired and I am a GS-ranked civilian, per diem at a couple of VA hospitals and an Army Medical Center. I work just enough shifts to keep my personnel file active these days, since I went back to school and started teaching-to-take.

My nephew is in, and my closest cousin growing up is a full Colonel. She will retire in something life 13 months - unless she gets a star. If that happens, we'll bury her in blue.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 17, 2007 at 4:13 AM | PERMALINK

Okay, I'm going to bed. I just got my last email from the last student. Goodnight.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 17, 2007 at 4:28 AM | PERMALINK

I leave you with this from Think Progress:

Dispatches from Iraq.

American Progress Senior Fellow and former Reagan Pentagon official Lawrence Korb just returned from Iraq. His report:

I had an interesting discussion with an Iraqi official who is close to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. He made several intriguing observations. First, in their video conferences, Maliki and Bush do not really communicate. The official also noted that in his discussions with visiting members of Congress there is really not much dialogue, with both sides giving canned presentations. Second, the U.S. military and State Department do not really work well together and General George Casey would complain to Iraqis about the former U.S. Ambassador to iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad. Third, the insurgency got started when the Americans failed to take control after the overthrow and the Iraqis realized that the American military was not invincible–that is, its soldiers were human beings who displayed the full range of emotions, including fear. Fourth, do not believe anyone who tells you that the situation is getting better.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 17, 2007 at 4:32 AM | PERMALINK

Sparko: "Donald in Hawaii--great post earlier, but Yorktown was an Atlantic Fleet ship at the time of Pearl Harbor."

I checked a few books, and you're absolutely correct. The USS Yorktown was transferred from Norfolk via the Panama Canal to the Pacific shortly after the Japanese attack on Oahu. The USS Enterprise was on maneuvers with the carrier USS Lexington -- not the Yorktown as I erroneously stated -- at the time of the attack.

The Yorktown was badly damaged at the Battle of the Coral Sea on May 7, 1942 (the Lexington was sunk in that engagement), and sent back to Pearl Harbor for some fast repairs. The Japanese had failed to attack and destroy both Pearl Harbor's shipyard and its drydocks on December 7, 1941 -- a huge mistake. The Yorktown was patched up by that shipyard in about two weeks, just in time to play its pivotal role at the decisive Battle of Midway (June 4-7, 1942), which most historians generally consider the turning point in the Pacific war.

The Yorktown was again badly damaged in that battle, and as it was withdrawing to Pearl Harbor was sunk by a Japanese submarine some 200 miles off the northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

On June 4, 1998, almost 57 years to the day after she was sunk, a joint expedition of the University of Hawaii and Robert Ballard's Woods Hole Institute -- the same outfit from Massachusetts that found RMS Titanic back in the 1980s -- located the wreck of the Yorktown, resting peacefully at a depth of some 17,000 feet.

I find American history to be truly fascinating, as you might have guessed. The neocon trolls who come here to post their nonsense ought to try learning about it as well -- before seeking to lecture us about it.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 17, 2007 at 7:27 AM | PERMALINK

"People are just tired of watching him smirk. He's the worst president in history - why is he smirking?"


He smirks because he knows you will be paying him for the rest of his life, that and 35.00 dollars every time he makes a speech.

Posted by: vampire77666 on April 17, 2007 at 9:02 AM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal, seriously, no one supports the iraq war except for a bunch of fanatical dead-enders in the USA. You guys had your chance and you blew it. You even had the media cheerleading for you, repeating every stupid, specious claim from the bush administration about how Saddam Hussein was going to corrupt the purity of essence of your precious bodily fluids if we didn't attack right now. You guys turned out to be wrong and wore out your welcome. Your opinions at this point are worthless.

Couldn't have put it better myself. Right on, Constantine.

Posted by: chuck on April 17, 2007 at 9:44 AM | PERMALINK

Couldn't have put it better myself. Right on, Constantine.

I'll add only one more thing: "ex-liberal", you can take your dolschtosslegende and shove it. Just like no one outside you neocon douchebags believe the so-called "good news" of "progress" outweighs all the bad news, no one's going to believe your idiotic plans are going to work anymore.

I just wish it cost less blood to discredit you jerks, especially because you seem to like bloosdshed -- you know it won't be yours, after all.

Tool.

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

They all have other priorities, like those loud-squawking chickenshits egbert and al.

Meanwhile, Bush punched his NRA ticket for the umpteenth time. Priorities! He never forgot that it's the base that matters, not the nation. After all, they will pay for his alcohol-soaked retirement.

Posted by: Kenji on April 17, 2007 at 10:12 AM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: Thirty eight percent say we should have more troops n Iraq and Kuwait than we have now; only 23% say we should have fewer. In short, many military disapprove of Bush's leadership because he's not fighting vigorously enough.

That's not the only conclusion that can be obtained from the results.

It could simply be that the military knows it is inevitable that the war will continue under the deranged, deluded and imbecilic Princess Bush and that given that fact that more troops would be better.

Moreover, it is doubtful that most military personnel are able to separate the mission from the larger picture and it is probably best that they cannot.

Murtha can.

Murtha knows that 20,000 or 40,000 extra troops won't "win" the war; Gates knows it; the generals know it; Pelosi and Reed know it; of all the leaders, only Princess Bush and Dickless Cheney (and their glib supporters and quisling congressional supporters like you, Boehner and Leiberman) refuse to acknowledge that reality.

Any "improvement" in Princess Bush's delusional world will only be temporary and that is all that is intended - some small measure of success, however self-servingly defined, to get the Princess through his term so he and the war hawks can blame someone else.

Four years and McCain still has to be escorted by a hundred troops and wear a flak jacket in the middle of Bahgdad itself.

Pathetic.

Even more pathetic are those who see this as "a sign of progress" and "good news."

Here's some more of that "good news" from Iraq:

Iraq insurgents 'building rockets' (04.17.2007)

Posted by: anonymous on April 17, 2007 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

Bush's worst enemies are the people like Chenney and the others in the highest circles of the GOP and the neocons who decided he'd make the ideal stooge President for them to use to advance their programs. Bush thinks Jesus is using him. He should look a little closer to Earth.

Posted by: JHM on April 17, 2007 at 10:20 AM | PERMALINK

anonymous: the generals know [that 20,000 or 40,000 extra troops won't "win" the war]

An odd assertion, given the plan for the surge was designed by General Petraeus, who literally wrote the book on this type of warfare. Obviously Petraeus believes in his own plan. His prestige is such that many other generals no doubt share his opinion.

Incidentally, a few months ago, Harry Reid was criticizing Bush for not adding troops in Iraq. In effect, Reid was calling for something like the current surge. Now that Bush is following Reid's advice, Reid has changed his mind and favors pulling troops out of Baghdad. A cynic might think that Reid doesn't really care what we do about Iraq. Rather, he will oppose whatever the President chooses to do.

Gregory, I don't claim that the good news in Iraq outweighs the bad news. I merely assert that the good news receives less media coverage, so the public is less aware of it. At this point in time it's much to early to predict that the surge will work. However, the public ought to be told about early, favorable signs.

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 17, 2007 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

Still somewhat early here in Oregon, but, ah, that sweet smell of Faux-Lib being roasted and toasted in the wee and early hours by BGRS, Constantine and Gregory.

Well done.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on April 17, 2007 at 10:31 AM | PERMALINK

Early favorable signs would have been in 2003 not 2007 they have had long enough to wipe out the whole German and Japanese forces. Ever wonder why we only took Iwo-jima once and not three times like Fallujah???

Posted by: vampire77666 on April 17, 2007 at 10:37 AM | PERMALINK

A. The "counts" were notoriously inaccurate. - JimBOB

As Philip Caputo noted in his novel, Rumor of War, about the war 'If it's dead and its Vietnamese, it was a VC."

There was incredible pressure coming from MACV CinC Westmoreland, comfortable in his air-conditioned suite in Saigon, to 'boost the body count'.

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 17, 2007 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

Obviously Petraeus believes in his own plan.

Wrong.

"If you're really going to do a surge, you don't do it with 20,000, you do it with 250,000," he said, noting that Baghdad is a city of nearly 7 million people. But he said the United States cannot afford such a response; instead it has to come from the Iraqi Army.

Smith said he recently spoke with Gen. David Petraeus, the new top military commander in Iraq, who told him the troop surge has only a one in four chance of succeeding.

You don't "believe" in plans that you think have only a one in four chance of succeeding. You do them because your commander in chief has told you to try something different and you got nuthin'.

Next.

His prestige is such that many other generals no doubt share his opinion.

General Abizaid -- you know, the guy who used to run the place -- testified to Congress that a surge wouldn't help improve the situation in Iraq. Add to that list of experienced, informed generals who don't believe the surge will work Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the #2 in Iraq, and former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, Wesley Clark.

So the current number one and two commanders and the former number one commander in Iraq don't believe a surge will work, nor does the former NATO commander. WTF?

And if the surge is such a fantastic idea why don't any of the ex-generals approached want to be a "war czar" and take credit for the success? Obviously it's not a fantastic idea, and nobody believes in it, not even George Bush, who resisted the idea of adding extra troops for YEARS as things fell apart, and now just needs a political stalling tactic.

Posted by: trex on April 17, 2007 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

>In the US civil war, what pushes the number of deaths above those of WWII are death from injury.

Actually the larger cause is was the combined effects of disease and chronic malnutrition.

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 17, 2007 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

Errr...I swear I took that superfluous 'is' outta there. Can I blame it on Bill Clinton?

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 17, 2007 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

It sounds eerily like the Cold War - and that is no mistake.

The "Long War" is the name Washington is using to rebrand the new world conflict, this time against terrorism.

Now the US military is revealing details of how it is planning to fight this very different type of war.

It is also preparing the public for a global conflict which it believes will dominate the next 20 years.

The nerve centre of this war against terror is the huge MacDill airbase in Tampa, Florida.

Surrounded by white sand beaches, palm trees and two golf courses it looks more like a holiday camp than a military camp.

But inside US Central Command (Centcom) generals are planning what they call "fourth-generational warfare".

Centcom is already responsible for operations in the Middle East, South Asia and Africa - as well as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - and now it is planning a campaign that will eventually span the globe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4897786.stm

I have posted this link before, cutting off funding before GWB unsuccessfully invades another country is the fastest cure.

Posted by: vampire77666 on April 17, 2007 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

[Handle Hijack]

Posted by: egbert on April 17, 2007 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

Egbert channels Bush and repeats the mantra, but the magic words aren't working any more. Who is he least popular president in our history, Eggy? Got any idea why?

Posted by: Repack Rider on April 17, 2007 at 11:06 AM | PERMALINK

You don't see the bug picture.Posted by: egbert on April 17, 2007 at 11:01 AM

Ah, egbert. "Antz"?

No. "Them". Yes, that makes sense now.

Posted by: jcricket on April 17, 2007 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

Blue Girl Would it be alright if Al Quaida took over the Iraqui Governmet and Bin Laden Became Dictator in absentia?

It would certainly be undesirable. Its also very clearly not going to happen. Al-Qaeda has substantial support neither among the Kurds, who make up the most experienced, well-trained, and well-disciplined Iraqi forces, nor among the Shi'a who make up the majority of Iraq. And, heck, the only reason there is any support for "al-Qaeda" in Iraq is because a separate Sunni group that was one of the more extreme groups in the resistance against the US changed its name and affiliated with al-Qaeda during the occupation to gain the image of being part of something larger.

Without opposition to the US occupation as a rallying point, al-Qaeda in Iraq is going to have even more of an uphill battle to maintain any support even among the Sunni.

Conversely, the longer the US presence continues as an irritant, the more dangerous al-Qaeda in Iraq becomes.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 17, 2007 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

egbert: "We are not killing innocents. THEY! They are doing this!"

Yes, there we are with our army, just minding our own business, and they keep killing us. Just when things were going so well.

So are you heading over there to save the day, like Mighty Mouth? You never answer, so we have to assume you are just a big bag of hot air. And a lying coward, to boot. So get get booted.

Posted by: Kenji on April 17, 2007 at 11:12 AM | PERMALINK

trex, I'd be happier if you could quote Petraeus directly, rather than quote an anti-war politician supposedly quoting Petraeus. Still, I suspect that you're more-or-less right. After so much has gone wrong in Iraq, it's hard to believe that any new approach will work.

not even George Bush, who resisted the idea of adding extra troops for YEARS as things fell apart, and now just needs a political stalling tactic.

Yes, Bush resisted extra troops, as well as the revised Rules of Engagement included in the surge. He deserves the blame for that mistake.

However, I don't understand your point about Bush using the surge as a "political stalling tactic." If all is inrvitably lost in Iraq, what does Bush gain by stalling?

I think Bush sincerely believes that a stable democracy can be established in Iraq. He may be wrong, but I don't think he's insincere.

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 17, 2007 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

You don't see the bug picture.
Posted by: egbert

Honestly, I didn't think he could ever top the 'steaks' post. I guess I've misunderestimated the capacity of out trolls. But then look at their Glorious Leader:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush

Which may be about the only truthful thing aWol ever uttered.

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 17, 2007 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

With the latest op-ed from General John Sheehan, it seems there is a crescendo of disparagement.

The Bushies didn't think there is anything wrong with vicious attacks on people from McCain to Valerie Plame, Dems and voters.

Bush/Cheney/Rove are every bit as nasty that old Senator Joesph McCarthy, as the Bushies have used hate and fear to move their ever nasty agenda.

Why Broder and other Repugs pundits rally to the side of such people shows a utter lack in even some half-way decent human character. No ethical behavior need apply were Republicans are concerned.

Posted by: Cheryl on April 17, 2007 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

"You might know that it would be some rice-nibbling chink who shot up the Virginia Tech campus yesterday. We should have nuked Korea when they gave us an excuse to!"

Are you kidding? The media is about to make this kid a celebrity to be worshiped by other nut jobs like Harris and Klebold.

Posted by: Vampire77666 on April 17, 2007 at 11:16 AM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal" wrote: I don't claim that the good news in Iraq outweighs the bad news. I merely assert that the good news receives less media coverage, so the public is less aware of it.

But if the bad news in Iraq outweighs the good news -- a conclusion erveyrone but you neocon numbnuts has long since reached -- then it's completely appropriate that the good news receives less media coverage. I notice, of course, that you weasel out of asserting whether the bad news in Iraq does outweigh the good news -- to assert it does would be ludicrous even for you, and to admit it doesn't neatly undercuts the point you're trying to make.

But not so fast -- which is it, "ex-liberal," you lying toad? Does the bad news in Iraq outweigh the good? Yes or no? Put up or shut up.

Anyway, sorry to break it to your alleged freedom-loving ass, but the media isn't supposed to function as a Pravda propaganda outfit for the neocons. We already tried that in the runup to the war, and look what a clusterfuck resulted from that.

Not only that, but this Administration kept reporting success in this war while the situation steadily deteriorated. No one's falling for lame claims about how many schools are being painted when they're blown up a week later.

No thanks -- I'd prefer a free press to government propaganda as the proper tool for ensuring liberty. You can have your Pravda on the Potomac -- I know you neocon are allergic to the turths that undermine your little fantasies.

You neocons have no credibility left, "ex-liberal." No one believes your bullshit. Seriously -- why do you bother? Do you have some kind of quota of talking points you're supposed to post?

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

er: I mean: The Bushies didn't think there was anything wrong..

Posted by: Cheryl on April 17, 2007 at 11:18 AM | PERMALINK

After all, they will pay for his alcohol-soaked retirement.
Posted by: Kenji

Presumably someplace in South America with a poor history of complying with extradition laws.

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 17, 2007 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Well, eggy? Got any guts?

Posted by: Kenji on April 17, 2007 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Leaving aside what a cowardly twerp you are (yes, I mean your never to be forgotten comment about Max Cleland), this is yet more evidence in support of the theory that actually you are here to covertly make the rightwing side look even more inane than it already does:

We are there to stop the madness, not palpitate it.
Duh wha? "Palpitate"??? Have you ever consulted a dictionary? Read anything above the 5th-grade level that is the standard for TeeVee news? Evidently not. I think the word you're looking for is "perpetuate," but it wouldn't do anything to solve the next little rhetorical tar pit you stumble into:

We are the only things preventing outright bloodshed over there.

Um, maybe you didn't notice but actually there has already been an incident or two of "outright bloodshed" there. Maybe eb'm like 500,000 of 'em, depending on what stats you believe. All of them precipitated precisely by the fact that we ARE there, not the opposite. This, dear child, is why it is best to only go to war when necessary, not because you think it would be nifty and a boost to your political power and also some ivory-tower guys with a big theory thought it would be a miraculously simple cure for all the complicated bad shit going on in the ME for generations.

Poor Norman, forced to have someone like you on his side. Not that his ideas are any less inane, but at least he's bothered to take the time to come up with a faintly amusing schtick to package it in.

Posted by: DrBB on April 17, 2007 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

Hey Kevin. Are you ever going to revisit your stupid post about how the anti-imus people are just as bad as imus, or how Sharpton is the only black person in America who represents all of the blacks on the planet? And how blacks are responsible for getting Sharpton on TV. Or hos you dont have any black friends?

Posted by: LFoD on April 17, 2007 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, we are the only "things" preventing bloodshed. So much twisted worldview revealed in a single phrase.

Posted by: Kenji on April 17, 2007 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal" wrote: An odd assertion, given the plan for the surge was designed by General Petraeus, who literally wrote the book on this type of warfare.

"ex-liberal" proves that his/her/its analytical skills are as lame as those as a propagandist. Yes, General Petraeus who literally wrote the book on this type of warfare. And in said book, he stated unequivocally that a successful counterinsurgency requires an order of magnitude more troops more than Bush sent.

Whether Petraeus believes in his own plan -- or just hopes, like the rest of the Bush Administration, to stave off total disaster until retirement time -- is irrelevant; by his own standards, the plan is doomed to failure. One Parliament bombing and one bridge bombing later, the notion that security in Baghdad is increasing is laughable. And inasmuch as insurgents may be choosing not to attach in Baghdad, they're doing so elsewhere.

You know what's sadly satisfying, "ex-liberal"? Your loathsome Dolschtosslegende will fail because the American people can't help but recognize that you assholes pushing the war aren't willing to fight it yourselves. By your own actions, you prove you don't really beleive your own propaganda. Which is why the American people won't trust Republicans on national security for a generation.

Enjoy your time int the cold, ex-liberal." Enjoy your political opinions being mocked, debunked and derided as much as they are here everywhere but in the loonybins of Powerline. It couldn't happen to a more loathsome toad.

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

all is inrvitably lost in Iraq, what does Bush gain by stalling?

He gains the only thing possible, some possible charity by future historians that he didn't pull out and that he was a "war president" through and through.

For him to pull out of Iraq while its mired in chaos shows his initial invasion to be a mistake and his whole presidency a complete failure. Keep in mind that Bush is not a substantive individual, he is an image created by Republican marketers to put a face on neocon and Christianist ideology. What he gets in return is a place in the history books, and that's the one thing he's trying to save.

I think Bush sincerely believes that a stable democracy can be established in Iraq. He may be wrong, but I don't think he's insincere.

Don't be blinded by your own naivete. Where were the mentions of creating democracy PRIOR to the invasion that was all about WMD's? Where was the turning over of the country to the locals after the war? Where was the post-war planning needed to stabilize the country in order to sustain a democracy?

There was none, because giving democracy to the Iraqis was never an intention going in to this war, and now it's a pretext for staying in long enough for Bush to ride out his term in office.

Posted by: trex on April 17, 2007 at 11:24 AM | PERMALINK

"egbert" -- who must be a parody -- wrote: We are there to stop the madness...We are the only things preventing outright bloodshed over there.

First of all, what do you mean "we," chickenhawk?

Second of all, "we" are obviosuly doing a piss-poor job of it, for all the blood and treasure we're expending.

Tool.

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

That is why Christians should go to Church,And Politicans should run the Country.

Posted by: ALan Hawk on April 17, 2007 at 11:27 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, trex, aside from the fact that all domestic efforts were spent on subverting democracy at home--something that will be even harder to undue than Iraq. But eggy and the other cowards hate our freedoms, anyway. It's interesting that mhr and the other bilious no-minds expend so much energy loathing useless states like North Korea when that is clearly the ideal environment for their one-party mentality.

Posted by: Kenji on April 17, 2007 at 11:29 AM | PERMALINK

trex: Don't be blinded by your own disingenuousness.

Fixed it for you. :)

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

However, I don't understand your point about Bush using the surge as a "political stalling tactic." If all is inrvitably lost in Iraq, what does Bush gain by stalling?

Since "victory" and "defeat" are defined solely by "remaining" and "leaving" respectively, if he keeps us there until he leaves office he leaves "defeat" to be the responsiblity of whoever takes office after him, who will have to accept the inevitable. I.e., it's his mess, but he gets to leave it to someone else to clean up and take the fall.

Pretty simple, really. And in case you hadn't noticed, it's something of a life-pattern with him as for many another spoiled fratboy.

Posted by: DrBB on April 17, 2007 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Pretty simple, really. And in case you hadn't noticed, it's something of a life-pattern with him as for many another spoiled fratboy.

Esepcially because -- and this is the part "ex-liberal" loves -- Bush and his cronies reap the perceived benefits while others pay the costs.

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

You are a coward Pat. You are an anonymous coward like the DLC organization Americans for Jobs, who smeared Dean. DLC illiterates like yourself have no difficulty harrassing Nader voters and anti-war advocates, but love Murtha while he jets around in a defense contractor's plane on his way to a beach house vacation paid for by another defense contractor. You are a DLC Freeper. You are a DLC stalker. You are a DLC goon.

Posted by: Brojo on April 17, 2007 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

OT: and an effort to inject just a tiny bit of comic relief into a reality that is becoming more like black comedy with each passing day:

Revenge of the World Bank Secretaries/Susie Bright

'Want to know what really goes on at the World Bank? Read a copy of Bank Swirled, an underground satirical newspaper published by low-level World Bank employees.'

at Alternet contains a link to the unofficial World Bank employee newsletter. It's hilarious.

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 17, 2007 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK
We are not planting the IEDs ... eggbutt at 11:01 AM
As for killing innocents, the Arab press may disagree with your rosy assessment.
...... the good news receives less media coverage,... ex-lax at 10:24 AM
"Good" news from Iraq each and every day. [/sarcasm] Posted by: Mike on April 17, 2007 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

Umm, Moderator? Mr Tinkerbell? If Rectuma's 11:02 post doesn't qualify for removal, what does?

Posted by: ckelly on April 17, 2007 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

Lot's of people have been saying the Bush is the worst president ever for some time now.

My question is this: How long have some of us known that Bush is the worst president ever? What made you decide?

For me it was when he went into Iraq.

Posted by: slanted tom on April 17, 2007 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

more anecdotes from Iraq:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/hypocrisy_has_a_human_price_on.html

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on April 17, 2007 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

Funny that now Petraeus is the savior. He's the man with the plan.
His prestige is such that many other generals no doubt share his opinion.

Until he falls from Bushie's good graces by telling the truth and recognizing reality. Then, he'll be tossed on the "ex-Iraq War General" dustbin with all those who have come before (and been correct)

Posted by: ckelly on April 17, 2007 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

Rectuma is Pat.

Posted by: Brojo on April 17, 2007 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

Tom Engelhardt does an admirable job in summing up the appalling failures of the neocon dream of empire:


'In short, from Somalia to Pakistan, the region that Bush administration officials, neocons supporters and allied pundits liked to call "the arc of instability" back in 2002-2003 is today a genuine arc of instability. It is filled with ever more failed states (Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine, which never even made it to statehood before collapse), possible future failed states (Lebanon, Pakistan), ever shakier autocracies (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan); and huge floods of refugees, internal and external (Somalia, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan) as well as massively damaged areas (Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon). It is also witnessing the growth of extremist and terrorist organizations and sentiments.' - Chaos in the Greater Middle East/Tom Engelhardt
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=184823

Heck of a job.

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 17, 2007 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

You might know that it would be some rice-nibbling chink who shot up the Virginia Tech campus yesterday.

It would have been better if you had just stayed silent and mourned for a few days. The last such spree on a college campus was Charles Whitman (if I recall the name correctly) at the U.of Texas, Austin. These personal tragedies don't have anything to do with diet or race.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on April 17, 2007 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

Race. Or Rice.

Yes, Charles "Texas Tower" Whitman for many years embodies the angry-white-man syndrome. Now, of course, his ilk is in charge, in the vice president's office, moaning about some little vestige of power and privilege getting away from them and how someone, somewhere has to pay. And how did interlopers like Nancy Pelosi get let into the club? We'll show them, grumble, grumble.

Posted by: Kenji on April 17, 2007 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

faux-liberal wrote: "An odd assertion, given the plan for the surge was designed by General Petraeus, who literally wrote the book on this type of warfare."

Actually, it's not even remotely an "odd assertion," particularly in light of the fact that a) the plan for the "surge" was designed by Kagan, not Petraeus, and b) the plan for the "surge" is contradicted by Petraeus' own book.

"Obviously Petraeus believes in his own plan."

Actually, no, he doesn't. He remarked to a friend that there was at best a 25% chance of success. That's hardly "belief" in his own plan.

"His prestige is such that many other generals no doubt share his opinion."

LOL... You can certainly tell yourself that if you want to. Alas that there is no evidence for such an assertion, any more than there is for any of your other assertions.

Posted by: PaulB on April 17, 2007 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

a modest reversal of the same theme; Democratic rhetoric keeping Bush's poll numbers up:

http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-oppin175174526apr17,0,7241215.column?coll=ny-news-columnists

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on April 17, 2007 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

[Handle Hijack]

Posted by: egbert on April 17, 2007 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

Preface this with a hat-tip to howard: ex-liberal is living proof that you can indeed fool some of the people all of the time.

If all is inrvitably lost in Iraq, what does Bush gain by stalling?

Are you serious? Granted, it's a long shot, but it is Bush's only prayer in hell of fobbing his collosal failure off on a future administration and saddling them with a share of the blame. Sure, add to that the extreme long shot that Iraq will come around to some half-way palatable pro-US gov't in the course of the next decade or so and you get the picture of why Bush cannot conceive of leaving now.

I think Bush sincerely believes that a stable democracy can be established in Iraq. He may be wrong, but I don't think he's insincere.

I agree with you. He may be wrong, and all the evidence indicates that he is. I don't think he's insincere either, but I do think he is dangerously delusional, not to mention mean-spirited, mendacious and thoroughly anti-democratic in his instincts.

I must disagree with my friend trex about the motivation for the war. According to 'Fiasco' Wolfowitz entertained fantasies of democratizing Iraq well before the invasion. Not saying the administration was all on one page about the invasion--clearly they were not--but some were motivated by idealistic impulses.

Unfortunately, as we're seeing now with Wolfowitz's World Bank hi-jinx, once a fuck-up, always a fuck-up...

Posted by: obscure on April 17, 2007 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK
How many people in America get killed everyday, mainly due to liberal attacks on traditional values? I don't know the exact figure, but it's much higher than 60 a day.

This is an interesting thesis, professor. Would you care to flesh it out for us? We're dying for you to share your wisdom.

Please, egbert, won't you educate us?

Posted by: obscure on April 17, 2007 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, Charles "Texas Tower" Whitman for many years embodies the angry-white-man syndrome.

He even had the obligatory angry white man frontal lobe tumor.

Posted by: Disputo on April 17, 2007 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

While libs like to complain about people getting shot and killed in Iraq, let's look at the numbers. About 60 civilians a day get murdered in Iraq. 60 divided by 26M is a diminishingly small number.

False. Over 600,000 Iraqis have died in the four years of the Iraq War (I'm counting all deaths due to the war, i.e. deaths due to bombings, torture, etc, not just shooting deaths). Dividing 150,000 a year by 365 days leads to a death rate per day of 411.

The United States, by contrast, has about 16,000 murders a year in a total population of 300 million, leading to a murder rate of 43.8 a day (figures based on the Uniform Crime Reporting Program).

Or, to put it in simpler terms, there are about ten times as many murders in Iraq per year as in the United States, despite the fact that the United States has over ten times as many people as Iraq does.

Even if we accepted ex-liberal's false figures, 60 murders a day by 365 equals 21,900 murders per year, which again would mean that Iraq would have a greater total number of murders than the US despite having less than one-tenth the population. Hardly a "diminishingly small number."

Posted by: Stefan on April 17, 2007 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

An odd assertion, given the plan for the surge was designed by General Petraeus, who literally wrote the book on this type of warfare.

This is a bullshit talking point peddled by the war-hawks. You need to read Petraeus' thesis (I have. This ain't what he advocated). This is Bush's war-plan. Dave Petraeus is charged with implementing it - but it is not his. I was working at Leavenworth the day he took the billet - and within hours the soldiers had morphed his name to "Betray-Us."

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 17, 2007 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Every troll comment here seems to bolster the Dems poll ratings by .01%. Keep up the good work guys.You have done more for the Dems with your wishy washy way of looking at the world.Eighteen more months and we will have a Super Majority in the House and Senate,And 0f course GW has handed us th WH for years to come.We thank you for your Non-Support/Support.

Posted by: ALan Hawk on April 17, 2007 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

"While libs like to complain about people getting shot and killed in Iraq..."

Yeah, that's it: we like to complain about that. Weird, huh?

Posted by: Kenji on April 17, 2007 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

What is Gen. Odierno's field name? He seems hateful.

Posted by: Brojo on April 17, 2007 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK
How many people in America get killed everyday... due to liberal attacks... eggbutt at 12:31 PM
Your straw man argument is like your 'traditional' values: farcical. Republicans are members of the death cult. Not only is Turkey, but also Lebanon, the Palestinian authority are democratically elected.
...Democratic rhetoric keeping Bush's poll numbers up... MatthewRMarlerat 12:31 PM
With poll numbers like Nixon's, Bush needs all the help he can get. (James Pinkerton is as big a tool as Fred Barnes.) Posted by: Mike on April 17, 2007 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: An odd assertion, given the plan for the surge was designed by General Petraeus, who literally wrote the book on this type of warfare. Obviously Petraeus believes in his own plan. His prestige is such that many other generals no doubt share his opinion.

Petraeus's own formula for a counterinsurgency would require 100,000 troops in Baghdad, not 20,000.

So, you are a liar and a deceiver.

Posted by: anonymous on April 17, 2007 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

The latest three word outburst in Mr. Imus' practice of sexist and racist remarks may be compared with the continuing sexist and racist behaviors that civic opponents would argue should at the very least receive equal time from those who become indignant over cruel, bigoted language...

Female soldiers coming back from Iraq relate their fears of even going to the latrines in the middle of the night for the fear of being sexually assaulted by Pat.


Posted by: Ralph on April 17, 2007 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: In effect, Reid was calling for something like the current surge.

Another lie.

Only two in a single post.

You are falling behind your usual standards, ex-liberal.

Posted by: anonymous on April 17, 2007 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: Gregory, I don't claim that the good news in Iraq outweighs the bad news. I merely assert that the good news receives less media coverage, so the public is less aware of it.

By definition, if there is more bad news than good news, the bad news will constitute more of the reported news.

Yet another dissembling deceit by ex-liberal.

What ex-liberal wants is for the media to lie and report the good news more often than the bad, even though the bad outweighs the good.

In other words, ex-liberal wants the media to do what Princess Bush and his conservative supporters do on a dialy basis: lie loudly and often.

Conservative SOP.

Posted by: anonymous on April 17, 2007 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: . . . if the Pentagon were putting out false good news stories . . .

If?

Use that word with Pat Tilley's family and Jessica Lynch.

Again ex-liberal with the lie by implication.

Posted by: anonymous on April 17, 2007 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Every troll comment here seems to bolster the Dems poll ratings by .01%. Keep up the good work guys.

Yeah, this is pretty much my sentiment about it. These days, the trollier they are, the better they are for our side.

Personally, I love the smell of trolls in the morning. It smells like...victory.

Posted by: frankly0 on April 17, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

They are just errand boys, sent by grocery clerks.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 17, 2007 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

MRM: These personal tragedies don't have anything to do with diet or race.

But they do have a lot to do with conservative worship of guns, violence, and personal destruction as the answer to everything, including mere pique.

Posted by: anonymous on April 17, 2007 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Pat Tillman.

Posted by: Brojo on April 17, 2007 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

Thank you for the correction, Brojo; I type faster than I think sometimes.

Posted by: anonymous on April 17, 2007 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

Or should we do everything possible to insure a stable, friendly, peacefull government?

In case anyone is still reading this - that has got to be one of the most dangerous slogans to come out of this mess.

Think about it.

If we say we will do everything possible, and we say that failure is NOT an option, then what we are saying is we are willing to utterly ruin the US, spend all our money, kill all our citizens, destroy every business we have, to try to make Iraq a peacefull (sic) place.

That is stupid meaningless rhetoric. Of course we will not do everything. What a stupid slogan. What a stupid thing to say.

Posted by: Tripp on April 17, 2007 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal: . . . if the Pentagon were putting out false good news stories . . .
Also: That would be Lincoln Group propaganda

Posted by: Mike on April 17, 2007 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

I invite you all to read this moving article written by a civilian who works for a contractor working in Iraq

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/hypocrisy_has_a_human_price_on.html

An excerpt:
Ahmed is smart, funny and resourceful. He is young, and his vibrant girlfriend - soon to be his wife - will likely be killed, along with him, if the Democratic Party succeeds in affecting a premature troop withdrawal from Iraq.

My friend Sadeq, who has worked hard for years to make his home nice for his wife and children, lost all his possessions, but fortunately not his family, when a terrorist drove an explosives-laden vehicle into the garage beneath his Baghdad apartment house and detonated it while he was at work. We took up a collection to help him, but being the ever-classy guy he is, Sadeq refused to accept the money, even when I tried stuffing it into his pocket. A year before his home was destroyed, Sadeq was wounded by a sectarian killer who brutally shot him in the back. Still, Sadeq continues working tirelessly to build a future for his family. But there likely will be no future for either him or his family if the American Left and Democratic Party succeed in affecting a premature troop withdrawal from Iraq. Because of his history of working for American companies, Sadeq will likely be hunted down and murdered by terrorists if Iraq is abandoned before law and order is established.

My dearest friend, (more of a brother to me), Amin, has been very lucky. Smart, brave, loyal and cool under pressure, at the height of Iraq's violence he stared down death many times and survived. Since the Bush security plan has significantly quieted Baghdad's streets, I fear much less for his life. But if the American Left and the Democratic Party get their way and Iraq is abandoned, I am almost certain that he will be quickly hunted down and killed.

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 17, 2007 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Faux-liberal writes: "I invite you all to read this moving article written by a civilian who works for a contractor working in Iraq"

Why? It's an appeal to emotion and its assertions are wholly unsupported by any evidence or real facts. That you think it proves something says something about you (that we already knew, of course).

That you are wholly unable to deal with the responses to your earlier posts also says something about you (also that we already knew).

Posted by: PaulB on April 17, 2007 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

It's an appeal to emotion and its assertions are wholly unsupported by any evidence or real facts. That you think it proves something says something about you

Yeah. It says that "ex-liberal" knows that he/she/it is losing the argument, and badly; that every assertion has been shown to be so much straw, and that his/her/its complaint that the media is reporting more bad news than good when there is, by his/her/its own admission, likely in fact more bad news than good, has sunk "ex-liberal"'s credibility to record lows -- and that's a bold statement.

One wonders what could motivate "ex-liberal" to humiliate him/her/itself like this.

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Good Ford -- "ex-liberal"'s appeal to emotion is disgusting.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of American soldiers -- many of whom, I'm sure, are smart, funny, and resourceful, and work hard t obuild homes for thier spouses and children -- who will likely be killed if we don't withdraw them from Iraq.

Why does "ex-liberal" value these Iraqis' lives -- whose tragedy, of course, Bush and the neocons are also responsible for -- over American lives?

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

MatthewRMarler wrote: "a modest reversal of the same theme; Democratic rhetoric keeping Bush's poll numbers up:"

There are several problems with the thesis of that op-ed:

- The first is that Bush's numbers aren't rising; they are simply holding steady with some inevitable fluctuation caused by noise and random events. This means that the headline, "Dems boost Bush's sagging approval ratings," is false, at least based on the available evidence.

- The second point is that Kevin's original post refers to Bush's specific talking points and speeches over the past couple of months, not just general bad-mouthing of Democrats: attacks on Pelosi, attacks on the supplementary bill, attacks on setting withdrawal deadlines and timetables, statements about the situation in Iraq -- all of these have been offered up by Bush and in every case, as far as I can tell, the ratings are worse for Bush on these specific issues than before he initiated these attacks.

- The third is that everyone knows that there is a floor to approval ratings. Even Nixon's ratings remained in the mid-20s. Bush's floor appears to be in the mid-30s, for now.

- The fourth is that the "epic collapse" has already happened. Bush went from being a popular "war president" with 90% approval ratings to damn near the worst approval ratings in recent history.

- The fifth is that you could just as convincingly argue that the headline should be, "Bush ratings remain in the basement: nothing Bush says or does can change his approval ratings."

- The sixth is that the columnist makes an argument about "go[ing] against the wisdom of warriors," without noting that that is precisely what Bush has done with this "surge." It also ignored the fact that the letter referred to flies in the face of the available evidence, not to mention public opinion.

- The seventh is that there is absolutely no evidence provided to support the main thesis that, "instead, in the public mind, he is being compared and contrasted to the rest of Washington, D.C. - specifically, the Democrats who now control Congress."

The eighth is that the assertion, "Meanwhile, Americans in the middle ... probably think there's something a little inappropriate in Pelosi's crowding onto the foreign-policy turf of the executive branch" is directly contradicted by recent opinion polls. This is simply wishful thinking on the part of the columnist.

And, finally, the final assertion that, "Speaking of outrunning, it's already apparent, early in 2007, that the Democrats have not only inadvertently helped Bush but, in addition, have given the Republicans good arguments for their holding on to the White House in 2008" is directly contradicted by all of the available evidence.

In short, this was partisan drivel, wholly unsupported by anything resembling facts, logic, reason, or evidence. You'll have to do better than this.

Posted by: PaulB on April 17, 2007 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

As I said before, ex-lib and the even worse cases (btw, the chickenshit really did come before the egbert) are simply trying to shore up their crumbling position. The shame is oozing out of them like pus out of an infected pimple.

Don't get too close!

Posted by: Kenji on April 17, 2007 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

Honestly the media does not cover enough of the bad news, they have pushed aside investigative journalism for tabloid stories and what Rove dreams up for the press release.
And now that Dem's are finally conducting oversight hearings they seem to ask pointless and misdirected questions or blow enough smoke up the witnesses ass that it makes you want to vomit.
After yesterdays tragic events will the democrats be distracted enough into a support losing battle over the second amendment?

Posted by: vampire77666 on April 17, 2007 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

In short, this was partisan drivel, wholly unsupported by anything resembling facts, logic, reason, or evidence. You'll have to do better than this.

Are you kidding, PaulB? Partisan drivel, wholly unsupported by anything resembling facts, logic, reason, or evidence -- coupled with a hefty doese of wishful thinking that the Democrats can be a fraction as mendacious and incompetent as the Republican Party he carries water for -- is all Marler does.

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

PaulB on April 17, 2007 at 2:57 PM

That's a nice fisking. I agree that the title word "boosting" is less appropriate than my words "keeping ... up". As to the others, the many accounts of particular mistakes by Pelosi did contribute to a modest feeling that she is among the people demonstrably worse than the Bush administration, and a warning that Democrats are unlikely to improve things in the Middle East. "The road to peace goes through Damascus" was a loser all around.

It may be common knowledge that there is a floor in opinion polls, but that doesn't make it correct. If, for example, Bush immediately withdrew American forces from Iraq and all hell broke loose his poll numbers would fall to the single digits. He won't do that, and that won't happen, but the existence of a "floor" is no ways guaranteed.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on April 17, 2007 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

Grtegory: Why does "ex-liberal" value these Iraqis' lives -- whose tragedy, of course, Bush and the neocons are also responsible for -- over American lives?

This comment is one reason why I am no longer a liberal. In the old days, it was the conservatives who cared only for "Amuricans" and were OK with letting the rest of the world go to hell.

However, to answer Gregory's question, if we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, many, many thousands of Iraqis will be slaughtered. The history of Vietnam should be a concern. After the US withdrew, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and millions of Cambodians died. We may not succeed in Iraq, but at the least we ought to organize our leaving so as to prevent a comparable bloodbath.

P.S Although Bush deserves blame for mis-managing the post war, it's not at all clear that Iraqis are worse off today than they were under Saddam. Most polls I've seen show a split, but with a plurality of Iraqis saying that despite today's bloodbath they are better off than they were under Saddam.

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 17, 2007 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

Thank you for the correction

I would not want Pat confused with Eustace. But you did make a good point.

Posted by: Brojo on April 17, 2007 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

MatthewRMarler wrote: "As to the others, the many accounts of particular mistakes by Pelosi did contribute to a modest feeling that she is among the people demonstrably worse than the Bush administration"

Not based on the actual evidence: her poll numbers. That you have that feeling is immaterial. Nancy's poll numbers are up since that trip, not down, and they are higher than Bush's. And, irrelevant of poll numbers, my own opinion is that there wasn't a damn thing wrong, or even unusual, with what she did, which is why there's been so much talk about "appearance" rather than actual substance.

"It may be common knowledge that there is a floor in opinion polls, but that doesn't make it correct."

Oh, garbage; you're resorting to sophistry. Of course, events affect the floor but that doesn't change the fact that there is, in fact, a floor. Bush's current floor, based on the available evidence and absent revelations of real malfeasance or miraculous successes in Iraq, appears to be in the mid-30s. Democratic attacks are unlikely to take him lower; his own defenses and counter-attacks have been unable to raise him higher. Pretty much by definition, every pollster will tell you that this is Bush's floor.

Matthew, Kevin's post may well have been guilty of the post hoc; ergo propter hoc fallacy (something I'm sure Kevin knows -- this was just a bit of snark) but at least there was a "hoc" there. In the column you pointed to, there wasn't.

Posted by: PaulB on April 17, 2007 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

P.P.S. PaulB's comment that the predicted slaughter of Ahmed, Sadeq and Amin is not a "fact" also shows the kind of bigotry against foreigners that was once the hallmark of the right. For PaulB, the predicted deaths of American soldiers Bill, Charlie and Tom is a vital fact, but the predicted deaths of foreigners with non-American names doesn't register as a fact.

(Actually I don't think Gregory and PaulB are exactly true xenophobes. I think that their hatred of Bush has induced them to act like xenophobes. Hopefully when Bush is out of office, they will regain their moral compass.)

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 17, 2007 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

The cold equation - the only one that balances is that thousands of Iraqis are going to be slaughtered if we are there or not. I am not willing to sacrifice more Americans at the altar of the inevitable.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 17, 2007 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

faux-liberal wrote: "This comment is one reason why I am no longer a liberal."

Oh, garbage. It's false on two counts: the first is that it's quite clear that you were never a "liberal," by any reasonable definition of that word, and the second is that you are avoiding responsibility for your own actions. Assuming that you were ever "liberal," you are solely responsible for your change in views.

Actually, it's false on a third count, since Gregory's post was a bit of snark and your reading of it was willfully and deliberately false.

Posted by: PaulB on April 17, 2007 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

It may be common knowledge that there is a floor in opinion polls, but that doesn't make it correct. If, for example, Bush immediately withdrew American forces from Iraq and all hell broke loose his poll numbers would fall to the single digits.

No, they'd probably remain in the low 30s, since the dead-ender Republicans would immediately flip-flop and fool themselves into believing that withdrawal and massacre was what they wanted all along. Bush could kill and eat a baby live onstage and the base would still support him.

Posted by: Stefan on April 17, 2007 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

This comment is one reason why I am no longer a liberal. In the old days, it was the conservatives who cared only for "Amuricans" and were OK with letting the rest of the world go to hell.

"ex-liberal," first of all, my comemnt just now hardly turned you into the mendacious neocon toad you are. Second of all, despite your dishonest straw man rendering of my comment, I acknowledged the tragedy of the Iraqis -- and placed the blame squarely on the policies of Bush and the neocon, no less -- far from saying they could "go to hell."

Of course, it's precisely the fact that your neocon factin is responsible for this mess that makes you stoop to such dishoenst distraction, isn't it?

to answer Gregory's question, if we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, many, many thousands of Iraqis will be slaughtered.

And that's different from the many, many thousands of Iraqis being slaughtered right now exacly how, save that Americans won't be slaughtered along with them? And where did I say that I shouldn't "organize our leaving so as to prevent a comparable bloodbath"? You pulled that bit of vile propaganda straight out of your ass, you lying shithead.

If you're so fucking concerned about the Iraqis, "ex-liberal," you go defend them, or send your son or daughter, and quit insisting that otehr Americans die for a policy that even you've admitted is failing (the bad news outweighs the good, after all).

Short of that, you can take your self-righteous hypocricy and shove it.

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

faux-lib: "...it's not at all clear that Iraqis are worse off today than they were under Saddam."

Unless you, strangely enough, count being dead as somehow worse off.

Posted by: Kenji on April 17, 2007 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

However, to answer Gregory's question, if we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, many, many thousands of Iraqis will be slaughtered.

Many, many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were slaughtered because we attacked Iraq in the first place. This tender concern for Iraqi lives didn't seem to be a Republican concern then.

Posted by: Stefan on April 17, 2007 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal" wrote: Hopefully when Bush is out of office, they will regain their moral compass.

You're a fine one to talk, "ex-liberal", when lyuing about PaulB and myself is the only basis for making that self-righteous statement, and your own repeating posting reveals that you'll never regain your own moral compass.

Speaking of PaulB, he wrote Oh, garbage; you're resorting to sophistry.

You know very well that's all Marler has left. That, and dishonesty. Sophistry, dishonesty, and straw man arguemnts. Sophistry, dishonesty, straw man arguemnts and wishful thinking that the Democrats will be blamed for Bush's fuckups.... [/spanish inquisition]

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

For the record - humanitarian concern for the lives of Iraqis was one reason (of many) why I opposed this clusterfuck from the outset.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 17, 2007 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

faux-liberal wrote: "PaulB's comment that the predicted slaughter of Ahmed, Sadeq and Amin is not a "fact" also shows the kind of bigotry against foreigners that was once the hallmark of the right."

ROFL... Like I said, "willfully and deliberately false." Nice ad hominem attack, moron. Got anything substantive to say? Your every talking point has been demolished by the cold harsh light of reality. And for the record, moron, a prediction is not, by definition, a "fact," which means that not only was yours an ad hominem attack, it was an incredibly stupid one.

"For PaulB, the predicted deaths of American soldiers Bill, Charlie and Tom is a vital fact,"

No, moron, it's not, which is why you were not able to quote me or reference anything I actually said, as compared to simply making shit up, which is what you are now doing.

"but the predicted deaths of foreigners with non-American names doesn't register as a fact."

Correct, moron, nor have you provided any evidence that supports that assertion. The impending death of Ahmed, assuming that he even exists, is not a "fact," by any meaningful definition of that word.

"(Actually I don't think Gregory and PaulB are exactly true xenophobes."

No shit, Sherlock, since you cannot find any statements of mine or Gregory's that exhibit any "xenophobic" tendencies.

"I think that their hatred of Bush has induced them to act like xenophobes."

ROFLMAO.... Nor can you find any statement of mine that exhibits any "hatred" of Bush. Again, you have nothing but ad hominem attacks because you cannot deal with the substance of what we write.

"Hopefully when Bush is out of office, they will regain their moral compass.)"

Hopefully, when Bush is out of office, you'll return to reality. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Posted by: PaulB on April 17, 2007 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

I must also point out that "ex-liberal"'s latest line of bullshit has been a desperatel ,if vile, attempt to validate and reassert his/her/its original appeal to emotion.

Stefan and I pointed out that the American people have already decided they don't want to expend American lives and treasure in Iraq, and that an appeal to emotion -- all "ex-liberal" has left, admittedly -- is not at all a persuasive argument -- and "ex-liberal", far from being chastened, wilfully misrepresents our point to cast false aspersions.

And I'll also point out that "ex-liberal" still hasn't answered the question of why he/she/it is willing to sacrifice American lives in Iraq, given that said sacrifice isn't preventing Iraqis from dying by the score. I'll field that one, then: "ex-liberal" isn't making any sacrifice, so it's hunky-dory.

You have nothing, "ex-liberal," nothing but lies in service of a feckless, incompetent President and the failed policies of the neocons. Shame on you.

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

"...it's not at all clear that Iraqis are worse off today than they were under Saddam."

Strangely the International Red Cross does not agree with this ridiculous on the face of it assertion:


"The suffering that Iraqi men, women and children are enduring today is unbearable and unacceptable." -- Pierre Kraehenbuehl, International Committee of the Red Cross.

DETROIT -- A Red Cross report titled "Civilians without Protection: The Ever-Worsening Humanitarian Crisis in Iraq" was prepared after the American military surge in Baghdad began on Feb. 14. The assessment described conditions in Iraq, where a third of the population lives in poverty, unemployment is skyrocketing and food shortages are increasing.

Britain's Mirror reported, "Water, sewage and electricity systems are close to collapse. ... There is a critical lack of medical care as doctors and nurses do not dare to visit hospitals and clinics because they are targeted and threatened." More than half the doctors have fled the country following the murder or abduction of colleagues.'

— from Niagara Falls Reporter
posted at http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/6856

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 17, 2007 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

Meanwhile:

Climate change may worsen instability
Financial Times

Climate change threatens to prolong the war on terrorism and foster political instability that some governments will be unable to cope with, an influential panel of 11 retired US generals has warned.

"On the simplest level, it has the potential to create sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale far beyond those we see today," said the panel, which includes retired General Anthony Zinni, former commander of US forces in the Middle East, in a new study.

"The US must commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilise climate change at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability."

[snip]

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.aspx?
feed=FT&Date=20070416&ID=6753574

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 17, 2007 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

MsNThrope, first of all the Red Cross properly said that there is a humanitarian crisis in Iraq, but they didn't compare today to Saddam's rule. Under Saddam there surely was a horrendous, ongoing humanitarian crisis.

Second, the Iraqis themselves ought to be the best judges of whether they're better off than they were under Saddam.

Gregory, as I already said, American intervention Iraq isn't preventing Iraqis from dying by the score. It's preventing them from dying by the thousands.

It's a logical fallacy for you to assume that because conditions in Iraq are bad, they couldn't get worse. If we pulled out today, most experts think things would get much, much worse.

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 17, 2007 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

MsNThrope, first of all the Red Cross properly said that there is a humanitarian crisis in Iraq, but they didn't compare today to Saddam's rule. Under Saddam there surely was a horrendous, ongoing humanitarian crisis.

That crisis is much, much worse today. The fall 2006 Lancet estimate of 600,000 plus deaths due to the Iraq War was on top of conditions under Saddam. That is to say, at least 600,000 more Iraqis have died (and millions more have been wounded or made refugees) than if Saddam had been left in place.

Gregory, as I already said, American intervention Iraq isn't preventing Iraqis from dying by the score. It's preventing them from dying by the thousands.

No, it's not. In fact, it's already caused them to die by the hundreds of thousands.

Posted by: Stefan on April 17, 2007 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

Gee, that Bush has really done us proud then, eh, ex-thinker? Your shame is stinking up the place, bub.

Posted by: Kenji on April 17, 2007 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal" wrote: Under Saddam there surely was a horrendous, ongoing humanitarian crisis.

Surely? "ex-liberal," your assertions sutrely aren't worth a bucket of piss. Pony up some figures that prove that dozens of Iraqis were subject to random killing every day, or STFU. Put up or shut up.

Gregory, as I already said, American intervention Iraq isn't preventing Iraqis from dying by the score. It's preventing them from dying by the thousands.

Cute. No, it isn't; they're already dying by the thousands. Plus, you assertion of what might or night not happen after the American intervention isn't worth, as I noted, a bucket of piss.

It's a logical fallacy for you to assume that because conditions in Iraq are bad, they couldn't get worse.

No, no, the logical fallacy is for you to create a straw man argument over something I didn't say. Such a fallacy indicates a deep dishoensty in you, not to mention an awareness that you're losing the argument, since you have to make shit up to keep going.

If we pulled out today, most experts think things would get much, much worse.

Yeah? Name 'em. I can't wait to see your sources.

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

No one is saying they won't get worse. That too, is inevitable.

So - how many more Americans are you willing to abide before we, the occupiers, inevitably leave?

Give me a number that is acceptable. 58,00 work for you? Or shall we up the ante?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 17, 2007 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

...and anyway, "ex-liberal," if you're so concerned, why aren't you over there defending the Iraqis?

Even granting your assertions that things might get worse if America pulls out -- a premise I don't grant on your word alone -- your crocodile tears are hardly grounds for you to insist tha other Americans -- excuse me, Americans -- sacrifice their sons, daughters, husbands and wives in Bush's futile folly.

That said, it's also true that absent American intervention, thousands are sdying in Darfur. I presume you advocate immediate US military intervention there?

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

faux-liberal, digging that hole deeper and deeper, writes: "Gregory, as I already said, American intervention Iraq isn't preventing Iraqis from dying by the score. It's preventing them from dying by the thousands."

You have presented no evidence to support this assertion.

"It's a logical fallacy for you to assume that because conditions in Iraq are bad, they couldn't get worse."

ROFL.... Not only are you misstating Gregory's position, but considering the logical fallacies you've displayed on this thread, you are the last person who should be complaining about that.

"If we pulled out today, most experts think things would get much, much worse."

Actually, that's not really true, which is why you cannot support this assertion, any more than you can support the others you've made on this thread.

Posted by: PaulB on April 17, 2007 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

Y'know, PaulB, bullshit like this is why I contended that "ex-liberal" isn't a "civil" commentator, despite the fact that he/she/it avoids profanity. Apart from his/her/its support of Bush, "ex-liberal" doesn't seem stupid, so he/she/it must be fully aware he/she/it is misrepresenting us -- creating straw men "ex-liberal" would prefer to argue, since he/she/it apparently has no rebuttal to our actual points.

"ex-liberal" makes factual assertions -- false one, I'd say -- that he/she/it refuses to substantiate. Employs straw man arguments. Misrepresents and distors his/her/its opponents' statements -- often in an offensive manner. Deploys all manner of logical fallacies -- in this very thread, as you point out.

In short, "ex-liberal" argues in bad faith. I don't care if he/she/it doesn't cuss; coming in ehre and pissing all over the rug is hardly "civil" in my book.

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.): No one is saying they won't get worse. That too, is inevitable.

A quibble. Right below your post Gregory wrote: a premise [that things might get worse if America pulls out] I don't grant on your word alone

BGRS: So - how many more Americans are you willing to abide before we, the occupiers, inevitably leave?

Give me a number that is acceptable. 58,00 work for you? Or shall we up the ante?

I presume you meant 58,000, representing the number of Americans who died in Vietnam. Of course each death is a tragedy, but your mention of this figure reminds us how low the cost in lives Iraq has been, compared with past wars. We've lost 3000+ troops in 4 years. At that rate, it would take 77 years to reach Vietnam's death toll.

However, I will answer your question. I would give General Petraeus all the troops he needs and when he needs them for his surge plan. I would re-evaluate in 6 months, based on what kind of progress we were making (or failing to make.)

If the surge seemed to be working, I'd continue to support it. If it was clearly failing, then I would favor a withdrawal of American troops. However, I hope withdrawal would be done more carefully than our helter-skelter withdrawal from Vietnam.

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 17, 2007 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

"No one is saying they won't get worse. That too, is inevitable."

Well, quite a few people are saying that we really don't know whether things will get worse or not. It's not really inevitable that they will, particularly in the mid- to long-term. Moreover, faux-liberal has presented no evidence that delaying our pullout will do anything to affect what happens when we do, finally, pull out.

Posted by: PaulB on April 17, 2007 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK
If we pulled out today, most experts think things would get much, much worse.

Most experts also think things are getting much, much worse with us staying.

In either consequence, its largely a consequence of the policies to date, not any policy change.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 17, 2007 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal" wrote: A quibble. Right below your post Gregory wrote: a premise [that things might get worse if America pulls out] I don't grant on your word alone

BGRS's word is good, "ex-liberal." Yours isn't. clear enough?

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

reminds us how low the cost in lives Iraq has been

Don't consider the advances in body armor and field medicine that have kept that number as low as it is. And the lives forever altered is staggering as brain injured troops return, only to face a bunch of unconscionable hurdles to access the therapy and treatment they deserve.

We can parse the semantics all day long.

I have gone to great lengths to discourage the young people around me from serving.

Are you encouraging those under 42 in your circle to enlist? It is your moral obligation to do so, since we are sending soldiers back to battle unrested and unhealed to maintain the Splurge you support. These people have already sacrificed. Are you encouraging service and sacrifice from those around you? Or is that a nice idea, but best left to others?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 17, 2007 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

"bullshit like this is why I contended that 'ex-liberal' isn't a 'civil' commentator"

Of course he isn't. Was that ever in question? Anyone who talks about BDS or "Bush hatred" is, by definition, not a civil debater. And that's not even counting the many ad hominem attacks he issues and the fact that his handle was deliberately chosen to offend and inflame. He's a classic troll.

Posted by: PaulB on April 17, 2007 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

faux-liberal wrote: "However, I will answer your question. I would give General Petraeus all the troops he needs and when he needs them for his surge plan."

We don't have "all the troops he needs." Next bit of idiocy?

Posted by: PaulB on April 17, 2007 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

However, I will answer your question.

No, you didn't, "ex-liberal." After your bullshit reference to the so-called "cheap cost" of lives -- of course you consider the sacrifice, cheap, "ex-liberal," since you aren't making it; but most Americans disagree with you -- you say how many troops you would commit (and then, laughably, allow for a Friedman unit! And even more laughably, Bush hasn't committed nearly as many trroops as Petraeus' own manual says is necessary, making Bush's plan doomed to failure by your own standards -- but I digress...).

But BGRS was clearly asking how many American lives lost is acceptable to you. You most certainly did not answer that question. But of course you didn't -- you don't argue in good faith.

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

Of course he isn't. Was that ever in question?

Yes. One regular commentator -- who hasn't been posting in a while, so I don't want to name names in public, although you could search it up easily enough or I'll confirm by email -- asserted that "ex-liberal" was, in fact, a civil commentator. I call bullshit on that.

Of course, it does raise the question of why, exactly, "ex-liberal" is motivated to post such unconvincing bullshit here. Really, "ex-liberal," you can hardly believe half this bullshit yourself. Why do you bother?

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

Are you encouraging service and sacrifice from those around you? Or is that a nice idea, but best left to others?

Sacrificing others to ensure the regional dominance of the State of Israel is at the heart of the neocon agenda.

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory - so long as we don't say "Beutelegeuse" three times...

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 17, 2007 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal has the same problem that our dear, departed Chuckles had -- the notion that simply failing to cuss or deliberately insult was sufficient to render one a "civil" debater. It's absurd, of course, as can be seen in his posts here. They are, by and large, far from civil.

And that's even ignoring the fact that faux-liberal will do everything in his power to avoid any real debate, preferring to instead mindlessly utter the latest talking points, even when they are provably false. Again, this thread is a classic example.

I, on the other hand, will cheerfully cuss and insult as I think appropriate. With an honest debater, I respond accordingly. With a known troll and provocateur uttering mindless drivel, I also respond accordingly. Does that make me uncivil? Then so be it.

Posted by: PaulB on April 17, 2007 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, I totally mangled that...I did that trick where you close your eyes and visualize a word you aren't sure how to spell...And my inner eye obviously needs glasses.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 17, 2007 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal has the same problem that our dear, departed Chuckles had -- the notion that simply failing to cuss or deliberately insult was sufficient to render one a "civil" debater.

I agree with your overall point, of course, but I'd peg "ex-liberal"'s implication that you and I are "xenophobic", among others, as a deliberate insult.

Hell, "ex-liberal"'s very handle is a deliberate insult, even as it's a sly wink toward his/her/its neocon adherence ("ex-liberal" == "new conservative" == "neocon").

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

I should have said, "crudely insult," Gregory, cf. my use of "moron," a word that he richly deserves for his incredibly lame performance on this thread. The "xenophobe" argument has been a favorite argument of the Bush supporters for several years now, originally used in the disingenuous sense, "What, don't you believe that Iraqis are capable of coming to an agreement and founding a free and democratic society? Why you must be a racist xenophobe!"

It was dishonest then; it's even more dishonest now, particularly since so many of them have come around to the argument that the Iraqis themselves are entirely responsible for their current woes. "We held out the hand of friendship and freedom and they rejected it."

What's interesting is that faux-liberal had to twist so far to find anything even remotely xenophobic about our comments. Using my simple (and quite true) assertion that a predicted demise should we pull out of Iraq was not, in fact, a "fact" as "evidence" of xenophobia? The mind boggles at the sheer cluelessness of the attack.

Posted by: PaulB on April 17, 2007 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

By the way, notice the pro-war bias in "ex-liberal"'s statement: If the surge seemed to be working, I'd continue to support it. If it was clearly failing, then I would favor a withdrawal of American troops.

That's pretty much the standard he/she/it applies here -- as long as "ex-liberal" can argue that the surge "seems" to be working (if, for example, attacks are down a bit in Baghdad, even as a bomb explodes in Parliament and attacks are up in the surrounding area) then he/she/it will; the effort has to be clearly failing -- again, hardly a standard one could expect "ex-liberal" to judge in good faith, as much as he/she/it resists the clear evidence of Bush's incompetence and failure.

Everyone knows you argue in bad faith, "ex-liberal." Why do you make it so obvious? Maybe I was wrong, and you're not that bright after all.

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory wrote: In short, "ex-liberal" argues in bad faith.

In short, ex-liberal is a deliberate liar, who repeatedly posts deliberate lies, and when his lies are identified as lies, he posts them again. Everything he posts on these pages is worthless garbage -- nothing but lies decorated with bullshit.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 17, 2007 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory: By the way, notice the pro-war bias in "ex-liberal"'s statement: If the surge seemed to be working, I'd continue to support it. If it was clearly failing, then I would favor a withdrawal of American troops.

Yes, you are correct. The consequences of withdrawing too soon would, I believe, be utterly dreadful. The people we're fighting are barbaric, inhumane mass murderers. I do have a bias toward continuing the battle against these monsters as long as there's hope of success.

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 17, 2007 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

Do you advocate withdrawing in 2003, then? I'll get on stealing the neighbors DeLorean....Who is on the flux capacitor team again?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 17, 2007 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

And you didn't answer my question about encouraging sacrifice and service. Are you encouraging your children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, etc to join up?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 17, 2007 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

Actually there's nobody in my family of the right age. They're all too old or too young.

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 17, 2007 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

Well, that makes support for this nightmare all the easier, doesn't it?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 17, 2007 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

ex-liberal wrote: "The people we're fighting are barbaric, inhumane mass murderers."

The career corporate criminals masquerading as "neoconservative" politicians, whose boots you lick, are barbaric, inhumane mass murderers.

Dick Cheney and George W. Bush are barbaric, inhumane mass murderers.

They have murdered tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, and several thousand young working class Americans with their war of unprovoked aggression based on lies, for corrupt purposes of private financial gain for themselves and their ultra-rich war-profiteering cronies in the military-industrial-petroleum complex. That's what I call barbaric, inhumane mass murder.

Unless someone stops them they will continue to murder any number of innocent Iraqis and send any number of young working class Americans to their deaths in Iraq, for as long as it takes to secure control of Iraq's vast oil wealth for their financial backers in the US-based multinational oil companies.

That's what the US-written Iraq Oil Law is all about, that's what the effort to establish a compliant, US-backed puppet regime in Iraq is all about, that's what the permanent US military bases being built in Iraq are all about, and that's what the invasion and occupation of Iraq is about and has always been about.

The various "insurgent" groups in Iraq have a long, long, long way to go before they catch up with the death and destruction wrought by the barbaric, inhumane mass murderers Dick Cheney and George W. Bush.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 17, 2007 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

I would re-evaluate in 6 months,...

Of course, 1 more "Friedman".

Posted by: ckelly on April 17, 2007 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

faux-liberal wrote: "The people we're fighting are barbaric, inhumane mass murderers."

Really? Which particular set of combatants are you referring to?

Speaking of xenophobia....

Posted by: PaulB on April 17, 2007 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

"Really? Which particular set of combatants are you referring to?"

This, by the way, was not an idle question or pure snark. Like most war supporters, faux-liberal has displayed an abysmal understanding of the various factions involved in the Iraq conflict -- their goals, their alliances, their techniques, their enemies. "The people we're fighing are barbaric, inhumane mass murderers." is an idiotic phrase, appealing to emotion (in another classic logical fallacy), but devoid of content and supremely ignorant.

Posted by: PaulB on April 17, 2007 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK
...The consequences of withdrawing too soon would...be utterly dreadful...ex-lax at 5:31 PM
What, forcing Iraqi to govern it's own country is dreadful? There was no reason to invade Iraq. There is no reason to stay in Iraq. There is no reason not to leave Iraq. As Woodrow Wilson said: ... "rights of nations great and small and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life and of obedience..." You should fall on your knees and beg the forgiveness of every Iraqi for what you have done to their country, their society and their people. Posted by: Mike on April 17, 2007 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal" wrote: Yes, you are correct.

No duh.

The consequences of withdrawing too soon would, I believe, be utterly dreadful.

Given the bullshit you've spouted on this thread alone, one would be insane to imagine that what you believe carries any weight whatsoever -- even to assume that your professed belief is genuine, for that matter.

I do have a bias toward continuing the battle against these monsters as long as there's hope of success.

Sure, because it costs you nothing. See:

Actually there's nobody in my family of the right age. They're all too old or too young.

How conveeeeenient.

So, "ex-liberal" advocates -- insists upon -- sacrificing other people's children to shield him/her/it, his/her/its family and of course the neocon cause from the consequences of Bush's incompetence.

All the while, of course, harboring an addmitted delusional bias regarding information about the war, which puts him/her/it at odds with the American public, who have rightly decided it's no longer worht the cost, and supporting a President who insists on paying for the war with a tax cut, to boot.

And you make self-righteous pronouncements? Get bent, "ex-liberal," you lying neocon toad.

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, "ex-liberal," by admitting your bias toward the prowar position -- as if it wasn't obvious -- you've just excused yourself from being taken seriously in any of your future claims regarding the war's alleged "success" or the alleged bias of its opponents -- as if you had any credibility left.

earlier you were trying to claim the media was at fault for not reporting good news -- but you just admitted you're the one who's biased. Tool.

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 7:11 PM | PERMALINK

He's a shame troll. When he should just be ashamed.

Posted by: Kenji on April 17, 2007 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist wrote: ex-liberal wrote: "The people we're fighting are barbaric, inhumane mass murderers."

The career corporate criminals masquerading as "neoconservative" politicians, whose boots you lick, are barbaric, inhumane mass murderers

This post illustrates a point I've made before. Bush is making war on America's enemies. Some Dems don't care about America's enemies; they're making war on Bush and the Republicans.

The fact that SA can't tell the difference between a rival and an enemy doesn't bother me. SA has no power, But, when Nancy Pelosi travels to Syria to prop up America's enemies, that's a different story.

Posted by: ex-liberal on April 17, 2007 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

This post illustrates a point I've made before.

It was bullshit then, and it's still bullshit now, "ex-liberal."

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

when Nancy Pelosi travels to Syria to prop up America's enemies, that's a different story.

Yeah, a false one.

What did you do, "ex-liberal," email someone for more bullshit talking points after all your others have been shot down?

Do you get paid by the phony neocon talking point you post? Why else would you debase yourself like this?

Posted by: Gregory on April 17, 2007 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINK

Don't remember where I found this coinage but I like it: 'lootocrats'

'The big prize here for Bush’s foreign policy is not the acquisition of natural resources or the enhancement of U.S. security, but rather the lining of the pockets of the defense contractors, the merchants of death who mine our treasury. But because the arms industry is coddled by political parties and the mass media, their antics go largely unnoticed. Our politicians and pundits argue endlessly about a couple of billion dollars that may be spent on improving education or ending poverty, but they casually waste that amount in a few days in Iraq.' - Robert Scheer, 'Ike Was Right'

Posted by: MsNThrope on April 18, 2007 at 7:44 AM | PERMALINK

VAMPIRE 77666: Honestly the media does not cover enough of the bad news


.....beginning on page 94 and 95 of the Iraq Study Group Report:

In addition, there is significant underreporting of the violence in Iraq.

Posted by: mr. irony on April 19, 2007 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

ex-lib: I would give General Petraeus all the troops he needs and when he needs them for his surge plan.

"Well, because we didn't have enough troops, nor did the Iraqis have enough troops, we would do the clear part, but we didn't do the hold part, and so it made it hard to do the build part." - APRIL 10, 2007 George W. Bush


"Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders." - JUNE 28, 2006 George W. Bush


hows that flip flopping working out?

oh right...

ex-lib....i guess timing isnt your thing....

Posted by: mr. irony on April 19, 2007 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly