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

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

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

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

His mouth is his own worst enemy.

And I was so hoping it would be me.

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.

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

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride

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.

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.

"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?

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.

"His mouth is his own worst enemy."

...and ours.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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.

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

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?

The ABC News poll can be found here.

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!

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

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."

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....

"It's hard to sell shit."

Not to people who need fertilizing.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Simply type awolbush.com

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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.

"His mouth is his own worst enemy."

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

Yes, IT'S ALL ABOUT CLINTON!!!

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.

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

That's an easy one.

Why don't they test Bush against a monkey?

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.

"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.

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.

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?

"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??

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

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.

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.

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....

"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?

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.

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

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.

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.

html foul...

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.

"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?

BGRS

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

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.

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.

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!!

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.

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.)

"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.

Strike three.

You're eating pie.

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.

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.

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.

"Is that how you read the tea leaves? "

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

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.

TruthPolitik: Pies suck!

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

I knew you'd say that.

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.

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

What Nobel you got in mind, egbert? Piece?

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.

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?

What Nobel you got in mind, egbert? Piece?

Piece of Pie? Please?!

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

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.

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?

His mouth is his own worst enemy.

That Jeff Guckert scandal is long forgotten.

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.

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...

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.

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

And, of course, lebensraum...

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

...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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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???

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'.

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