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 24, 2007
 
Comments

Wow. I didn't know he had it in him...

Posted by: pol on April 24, 2007 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK

[okay, enough][

Posted by: Swan on April 24, 2007 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

The piece is so clumsy and awkward it's almost endearing. You imagine that Atrios was writing stuff like that when he was in the fourth grade.

Posted by: lampwick on April 24, 2007 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

Holy shit! Who slipped the acid in Joke Line's coffee?

Posted by: Gaucho on April 24, 2007 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

Sen. Reid said many things I agreed with yesterday. I would like to hear them from front running Democratic presidential candidates.

Posted by: Brojo on April 24, 2007 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

Childish stuff by Klein. Reid saying the war is lost is a bad thing. He increasingly is an embarassment to any serious person. You should have seen him on CNN further embarassing himself by claiming Petreus "said the same thing" when he clearly did not and then saying he would not believe anything Petreus said. You have to watch the video to believe it.

I realize both sides play politics with most issues, but Reid is particularly bad. I think part of it is that he is not very bright. He voted for the partial birth abortion ban, criticized Alito when the decision came out with him as the deciding vote upholding the ban, then claimed he was talking about other Alito decisions and, when asked which ones, said he could not remember.

Posted by: brian on April 24, 2007 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

That was pretty damned funny. Klein is still a putz, but that doesn't make the piece any less chuckle-worthy.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on April 24, 2007 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

Weren't liberal bloggers saying Joel Klein wasn't really a liberal? Will liberal bloggers finally admit the truth Joel Klein is a Bush bashing liberal?

Posted by: Al on April 24, 2007 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

That piece had the sad smell of someone desperately trying to be relevant again.

Posted by: Disputo on April 24, 2007 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK

Al-bot,
You trolls really are precious... it's _Joe_ Klein. You're like the "Outside Scoop" columnist at the Onion, but not as funny.
Kevin, why is your blog catnip to trolls?

Posted by: Chukuriuk on April 24, 2007 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

Only a matter of time now.

Maintain the pressure on their system because somewhere there is a weak link that will "break".

Maintain the pressure & prepare for breakthrough & mop up operations.

"All successful revolutions are the kicking in of a rotten door." - John Kenneth Galbraith

Posted by: daCascadian on April 24, 2007 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK
...claiming Petreus "said the same thing" when he clearly did not…brian at 6:49 PM
No military solution

The new commander of U.S. troops in Iraq has warned that military force alone will not be enough to quell the country's violent insurgency.
Speaking publicly Thursday for the first time since taking charge in Baghdad last month, Gen. David Petraeus said military action was necessary to improve security in Iraq but "not sufficient" to end violence altogether.
"There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq," Petraeus told a news conference, adding that political negotiations were crucial to forging any lasting peace….

Bush is fighting a war militarily. If there is no military solution, the war cannot be won. A war that cannot be won is lost.
Bush should have listened to the Iraq Study Group. Too bad for American soldiers that he is too stubborn, too immature, and too indifferent to their lives and welfare to have done so.

Posted by: Mike on April 24, 2007 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

Brian at 6:49 pm believes that "Reid saying the war is lost is a bad thing." One wonders if Brian received that particular talking point from Karl Rove or Bill O'Reilly, who said on his program after the Iraqi invasion began that he would "spotlight" anyone who dared to criticize the illegal invasion of Iraq. The late David Halberstam also mentioned this in his book The Best and the Brightest, how those in LBJ's administration would always try to smear the critics of the Vietnam War by claiming that they were unpatriotic. Halberstam also pointed out, among other things in his book, that even though people like McNamara knew that the situation in Vietnam was deteriorating [this was in 1966], they would end up telling the press that great progress was being made in Vietnam, despite what their own eyes were telling them.

Despite what Brian believes, this war is lost. It was lost the very day the U.S. decided to invade and occupy Iraq against the wishes of the Iraqi people, just as Vietnam was lost when the United States foolishly and stupidly invaded that country, killing upwards of two to three million Vietnamese. If the U.S. has the slightest interest in saving American as well as Iraqi lives, then the U.S. should certainly withdraw its forces as expeditiously as possible. If not, then most assuredly more lives will be squandered for a less than noble, imperialistic cause.

Posted by: Erroll on April 24, 2007 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Swan--Do you ever post anything that's not just a bald-faced plug for your damn blog? I don't see Kevin posting plugs for WM in the comments at your damn blog--oh yeah, no comments at your damn blog.

Have a real take or take it elsewhere. I'm tired of this crap.

Posted by: WTF on April 24, 2007 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

Klein and the rest of them at Swampland were hammered for a couple of months straight for trying to blog the same way they do their execrable journalism. I suspect all that hammering finnaly bore fruit. It will be interesting to see if thi sort of thing continues, or if Klein will cave to the dictates of "balance," and write one of his "Hillary is calculating," or "Obama lacks experience," or "Edwards has nice hair and a nice ass" posts and/or columns. But in conjunction with Nagourney's semi-admission, this is interesting stuff.

Posted by: Martin Gale on April 24, 2007 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

Mike,

Reid is at best disingeneous. You probably are sincere, but you are talking in circles. Petreus said military force alone will not end all the violence. That obviously is not the same as saying the war is lost. And no, a war that cannot be won solely by military power is not a was that is lost. I think Reid is a combination of not very bright and a purely political operator in over his head.

Posted by: brian on April 24, 2007 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

Erroll,

There is a serious argument that the war is lost and you may be correct on that point.

I don't agree with much of what you say in your post, but you are consistent in combining your view that the war is lost with the argument that troops should be withdrawn as expeditiously as possible. Reid and most other democrats are not doing that. Reid won't even stand behind his statement that the war is lost.

Posted by: brian on April 24, 2007 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Swan--Do you ever post anything that's not just a bald-faced plug for your damn blog? I don't see Kevin posting plugs for WM in the comments at your damn blog--oh yeah, no comments at your damn blog. Have a real take or take it elsewhere. I'm tired of this crap.

I agree, and I actually tried to read the thing after the third or fourth time I saw it posted. I gave up in second screen-full of a long, long, long, long paragraph. No idea what the point of the thing was supposed to be.

Please stop.

Posted by: bobb on April 24, 2007 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

Wow--trolls and Cheney/Bush apologists are really fussed up. Thumbs up to Klein this time.
He exceeded expectations, and with debate over this imperial presidency, more thoughtful ruminations are in order all around. Cheers.
Go Kucinich! --with his three articles of impeachment of Cheney. More challenges. And the investigation of the unctuous Karl Rove announced today. Bwa ha haha haha

Posted by: consider wisely always on April 24, 2007 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

I would reiterate that the debacle and military defeat were authored by the Vice President in the main. He wants Reid to hold-off the "blame game" until he is safely out of office.

Here's the thing, dick (samll d). You broke some laws along with the military.

Posted by: Sparko on April 24, 2007 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

And no, a war that cannot be won solely by military power is not a war that is lost.

Pretty much it is. Unless you have significant parallel political progress to end the war, which in Iraq you actually have a deteriorating political situation: a government that is increasingly illegitimate, fractured and impotent; increasing sectarian violence; and rising numbers of attacks and casualties with a military force that is powerless to quell it.

That is pretty much the definition of a lost war.

Posted by: trex on April 24, 2007 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK

trex,

no, the "definition" of a lost war is not the things you said - those are just difficulties we face in fighting this war.

If you need examples of a lost war, look at germany, surrendering, japan surrendering, lee and other southern generals surrendering, and America withdrawing from Vietnam and refusing to support the allies they left behind. So, Reid, Murtha, Pelosi want to make this a lost war, but it is not yet a lost war.

Posted by: brian on April 24, 2007 at 8:03 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking publicly Thursday for the first time since taking charge in Baghdad last month, Gen. David Petraeus said military action was necessary to improve security in Iraq but "not sufficient" to end violence altogether.

does this mean that it is necessary to end the Amreican military action in order to end al Qaeda violence altogether?

If it is true that military action alone is not sufficient, does that imply that military action is not even useful to end al Qaeda violence?

Harry Reid makes Pres. Bush sound smart.

Posted by: mabel on April 24, 2007 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK

"Kevin, why is your blog catnip to trolls?"

It's more like a hit of acid and a fifth of gin to trolls. Catnip makes cats happy. The trolls are rather more delusional and angry.

Posted by: Fred on April 24, 2007 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

trex >"...That is pretty much the definition of a lost war."

Well he`s betting his favorite SkyRanger(™) is gonna show up any day now & change everything.

"...Only the most naive gamblers bet against physics, and only the most irresponsible bet with their grandchildren's resources..." - William H. Calvin

Posted by: daCascadian on April 24, 2007 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

Reid saying the war is lost is a bad thing.

Yes, so bad.

Starting a completely optional war, however, and then completely fucking it up, killing a lot of people and burning a lot of money, is good.

Posted by: craigie on April 24, 2007 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

brian,

Iraq is in the midst of a multi-party civil war. There is no one to surrender like in the examples you gave. Even the Shia are vying amongst themselves for power.

You're given apples to orange comparisons.

Iraq has been steadily and quickly deteriorating by every measure. you're ignoring those realities and spouting platitudes.

Posted by: trex on April 24, 2007 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

That piece had the sad smell of someone desperately trying to be relevant again. Posted by: Disputo

I agree. After being kicked in the teeth repeatedly in the last six-weeks or so, he's finally decided to jump ship. It really wasn't that hard. Most Republicans think Cheney's a liability. He's got to be the most reviled VP since Agnew.

Go! Blood clot! Go!

Posted by: JeffII on April 24, 2007 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK

So, Reid, Murtha, Pelosi want to make this a lost war, but it is not yet a lost war.

Thanks for setting us all straight, brian. I don't know what we were all thinking.

Posted by: asdf on April 24, 2007 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't know Joe Klein spoke parseltongue.

Posted by: ckelly on April 24, 2007 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

Reid saying the war is lost is a bad thing.
I agree Bush's lost war is a bad thing.

He increasingly is an embarassment to any serious person.
You have been cheerleading for our Dear Embarrassment for 6 years now. And you wouldn't know a serious person if they bit your ass.

So, Reid, Murtha, Pelosi want to make this a lost war,
No, Bush and Cheney did that all by themselves.

Posted by: ckelly on April 24, 2007 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

And no, a war that cannot be won solely by military power is not a war that is lost.

If it's the Americans who are handling the non-military aspects it sure as heck is.

I gotta say too I enjoy the irony of such a FP babe-in-the-woods (it's like listening to an earnest junior high student) constantly throwing around the epithet 'childish'

Posted by: snicker-snack on April 24, 2007 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINK

Does anyone here honestly think Reid is smart? I'm not really trying to be political on this one. I would readily admit Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, for example, are smart.

Posted by: brian on April 24, 2007 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINK

"Waaaah! How dare they attempt to take a stand against my orders?"

Posted by: Crissa on April 24, 2007 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINK

Does anyone here honestly think Reid is smart? I'm not really trying to be political on this one. I would readily admit Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, for example, are smart. Posted by: brian

With regard to the subject at hand (the oh so lost war in Iraq), Reid is a lot smarter than Bush, and that's all that matters.

Reid, like most members of Congress, voted to authorized a use of force in Iraq (though I'm sure no one thought they were authorizing an open ended commitment to a lost cause). He now realizes the mistake of this. Bush, and numbskulls like you, haven't.

Posted by: JeffII on April 24, 2007 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

This isn't about Reid, although the majority of Americans agree with him and surprise, surprise, he is right. No this about a major league talking head finally seeing what has been clear to many of us for years now. Cheney & Bush are full of crap. While Cheney huffs, puffs & spits, more American soldiers die. More Iraqis die. I'm thrilled to see Joe Klein finally seeing something close to reality but where were guys like him a few years ago when we needed them? Now lets see him really start hitting the administration that could not shoot straight on a regular basis. Remind everyone this is an administration that hasn't been able to tell the truth since it came into power. Remind everyone the disaster that is Iraq lies at the foot of Bush and the Congress which enabled him. Welcome to the party Joe. Keep it up.

Posted by: Levees Not War on April 24, 2007 at 8:56 PM | PERMALINK

Levees Not War at 8:56 pm

"... where were guys like him a few years ago when we needed them." Very well said. You may want to tune into tomorrow evening to PBS when Bill Moyers takes the mainstream media to task for not questioning the government during a time of war. Interestingly, Moyers did not accept money from PBS in order to fund his program. He used his own as well as money from his wife's production company to finance the program, which is entitled "Buying the War." As a side note, one of the best books I believe that has ever been written regarding civil liberties during a time of war is a book that I have almost finished, entitled "Perilous Times-Free Speech in Wartime-From the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism" by Geoffrey Stone, former professor of law at the University of Chicago. A must read for every free thinking American.

Posted by: Erroll on April 24, 2007 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINK

It's more like a hit of acid and a fifth of gin to trolls.

My guess is that it's more a mixture of nutmeg and morning glory.

Posted by: Disputo on April 24, 2007 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

It shouldn't surprise you when Joe Klein nails one.

Hell, my clock is right twice a day too.

Posted by: Absent Observer on April 24, 2007 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

yes, brian, reid is smart.

you, on the other hand, aren't.

Posted by: howard on April 24, 2007 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINK

disputo, it's completely off topic but i have to give you props for knowing that nutmeg can get you high: i first learned that from some old jazz musicians who, when they were young and playing in a band with charlie parker in kansas city, used to dose themselves with nutmeg. the club owner wondered why all these fast-living musicians were suddenly so into something associated with baking!

but i digress.

Posted by: howard on April 24, 2007 at 9:53 PM | PERMALINK

OT: Mexico City's legislature just voted to legalize abortion during the fetus' first 12 weeks.

Wouldn't it take a lot of steam out of the US abortion debate if the Supreme Court abstained from making decisions on abortion and forced the legislatures to agree on a consensus position.


(sorry for the Off Topic remark)

Posted by: absent observer on April 24, 2007 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK

pol: "Wow. I didn't know he had it in him ..."

The uncanny marksmanship of Joe "Primary Colors by Anonymous" when shooting the wounded is truly amazing, once he first puts his finger in the air to test the political wounds.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 24, 2007 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINK

Excuse me -- I meant "political winds". But "wounds" kinda works, too.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 24, 2007 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

the neothugs are circling the wagon.

Posted by: jim on April 24, 2007 at 10:29 PM | PERMALINK

I'm a brainless shitbird and my writing is incoherent. Check out this new post on my blog.

Posted by: Swan on April 24, 2007 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK

Re Klein: Even a blind pig...

Posted by: gemini on April 24, 2007 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINK

Such rich banter,

I think Disputo is in the lead

Posted by: MEG on April 24, 2007 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINK

Al: "Will liberal bloggers finally admit the truth Joel Klein is a Bush bashing liberal?"

Will you join the army or shut the fuck up? Well?

Posted by: Kenji on April 24, 2007 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

increasing sectarian violence;

"Sectarian" violence is not increasing. What is increasing are: (a) bombings of undefended targets and (b) fighting between al Qaeda and others within Iraq. Sectarian violence may have decreased, or it may be in quasi steady-state. Areas of Baghdad have become more safe, even as areas outside of Diyala have become less safe. It is not true that there is no political progress. al Maliki has increased support among the Sunni groups, even has he has lost support among some Shi'ite groups. There have been rumors for months that he would be voted out and another prime minister voted in; such an event might or might not be "progress" -- it was progress when Churchill replaced Chamberlain after military defeat.

It's pretty much a stalemate in some areas, OK in other areas. Sen Reid says it's lost (with clarifications), and Gen Petraeus says it isn't. Reid confirmed Petreaus and has since said that he won't be swayed by Petreaus' testimony. I enjoy the funnin' at Cheney's expense, but Reid is actually the more comical.

Posted by: MatthewRmarler on April 24, 2007 at 11:38 PM | PERMALINK

Re: Klein

I couldn't read it.
Got only a couple of paragraphs in.
It went to noise right around then.
Lampwich @ #3 nails my sentiments exactly.

Anybody that writes like that is a loon.

Posted by: ROTFLMLiberalAO on April 24, 2007 at 11:38 PM | PERMALINK

Joke Line is neither a conservative nor a liberal. He is an unprincipled, nominally "centrist" weasel. The problem for you Republicans is the entire Bushco shithouse is going up in flames and even weasels like Klein can see which way the wind is blowing.

Now if there really were a liberal media -- which the last 10, 20, 30 years have conclusively demonsrtated there is not -- then all of the media would have been playing this up big from the get go -- and not just in isolated columns but on the front pages. Think Whitewater.

Posted by: The Fool on April 24, 2007 at 11:40 PM | PERMALINK

BTW: "the" war is lost. In fact, "the" war evaporated. we started out fighting one war against the threat of Saddam and WMD but that war no longer exists.

What we have now is a situation which even the rump military leaders who Bush hasn't purged say can't be won militarily. WE HAVE NO ALLIES. There is no way we can control that situation short of bringing massive force to bear and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people. Failing that, we have no allies. We are unwelcome interlopers. The Iraqis want us out. They think its ok to kill us.

There is no way to win. We got in one set of false pretenses and they no longer are operative. If you go to war on false pretenses, there is no reaon to think that true pretenses will magically materialize and make it worth pressing on.

We need to cut our losses. The whole venture was a fool's errand from the outset. We need to sober up as a country and get the fuck out of the mess that the Republicans got us into.

I know that's hard for you Republicans to stomach but maybe this willl give you incentive not to be such a bunch of lying sacks of shit blindly following your lying sack of shit authoritatian leaders in the future.

Posted by: The Fool on April 24, 2007 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

We need to cut our losses. The whole venture was a fool's errand from the outset. We need to sober up as a country and get the fuck out of the mess that the Republicans got us into.

Cut our losses, sir? Just cut our losses and run like a scared rabbit into the woods? You really think that's a policy, a plan or an option for the most powerful nation on the face of the Earth?

Seriously, liberals--your uncle Norman will now explain this to you. If we run away, the terrorists win. If we abandon Iraq, the terrorists win. If we defund the war, abandon the fight, leave our allies hanging in the wind, the terrorists win.

I realize it is hard to stomach the losses and the sacrifice--be brave, good people. Support the troops and support the mission they have been given. Get behind them and cheer them on. Show them that you care by ignoring the baseless attacks from the liberal media and the delusional generals who, because they weren't promoted, have decided to run everything into the ground. Defeatism is not a strategy--it is a recipe for disaster.

I know that's hard for you Republicans to stomach but maybe this willl give you incentive not to be such a bunch of lying sacks of shit blindly following your lying sack of shit authoritatian leaders in the future.

Really? And would that be Hillary or John Edwards--you know, two US Senators, Democrats, who voted FOR the war? Do you think they had anything to do with getting us into the war? Where was Obama? Not important enough yet to actually vote on the war, I hear.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 12:13 AM | PERMALINK

We won't run like rabbits into the woods. It'll be more like Dad coming with the family pickup to tow away the car that Junior crashed into the woods when he ran off the fucking road because he was drunk and driving like a goddamn idiot.

There were no terrorists or insurgents before you incompetent lying fools got us into the Iraq quagmire. We sure wish you hadn't done that but its a done deal now. The terrorists will not win because the Shiites will win and they don't like al-Qaeda or any other Sunnis. This sucks because its great for Iran. But thanks to you morons its a done deal.

We've already lost, Norm, because there is no way to win. Wake the fuck up and stop sacrificing brave American soldiers just so you can save face, you coward.

Posted by: The Fool on April 25, 2007 at 12:29 AM | PERMALINK

"Sectarian" violence is not increasing. What is increasing are: (a) bombings of undefended targets and (b) fighting between al Qaeda and others within Iraq. Sectarian violence may have decreased, or it may be in quasi steady-state.

Well Herr Schroedinger, you're fucking out of your mind as usual. What brand are you smoking this evening?

Since 2003 sectarian violence went from zero to thousands killed per months, skyrocketing after the bombing of the Samara shrine. As CIA Director Michael Hayden told the Senate Armed Services Committee in November "Sectarian violence now presents the greatest immediate threat to Iraq's stability and future..."

There's been a teeny tiny downtick over the past two months in Baghdad as members of the Mahdi Army have lain low or taken a vacation to wait out the surge, but there is no question sectarian violence is happening nor is there any question it is the principal cause of violence in Iraq.

You continuously reasserting otherwise isn't going to make it so.

And if not sectarian violence, then why is the Army spending millions building these gigantic walls in the city -- and citing the specific reason for these wall as a means to prevent sectarian violence??? Why is the government bringing in neutral Kurdish units to patrol the city?

If in your drug-induced haze when you say Al Qaeda you think you mean foreign fighters than you should know the military believes they represent less than 1% of all insurgent related activity in Iraq, and they are less than 1% of prisoners in custody.

If by Al Qaeda you mean the Iraqi nationals who didn't have a better group to join up with then you really mean disaffected Sunnis belonging to Jihadist groups, of which there are far, far fewer than the insurgency proper, the Badr Corps, or the Mahdi Army - again, probably on the order of a couple of percent of that larger figure.

It is not true that there is no political progress

Smoke some more.

Posted by: trex on April 25, 2007 at 12:30 AM | PERMALINK

Marler: It is not true that there is no political progress

Oh, and then there's this from just yesterday:

BAGHDAD — A broad range of prominent Iraqi lawmakers say they have lost confidence in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's ability to reconcile the country's warring factions. A leading Kurdish lawmaker said al-Maliki should resign. Legislators from several parties told USA TODAY that al-Maliki lacks the support in parliament to push through laws, such as a plan to distribute oil revenues, that could reduce tensions between Sunnis and Shiites. Iraq's parliament has failed to pass major legislation since a U.S.-led security plan began on Feb. 14.

"He is a weak prime minister," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish legislator who supported al-Maliki until recently. "This government hasn't delivered and is not capable of doing the job. They should resign."

"The present government is not competent," said Dawood, a Shiite legislator. "It's more or less paralyzed, inactive. I doubt very much that this government can continue in power much longer."

Dolt.

Posted by: trex on April 25, 2007 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK

Norm: I'm not even going to argue with your completely dishonest sick little joke of an argument that the war is Clinton and Edwards' fault. You Republican cretins have 100% ownership of the Iraq Debacle. Everyone knows this, including you, so I will not humor you with the obvious arguments why.

Posted by: The Fool on April 25, 2007 at 12:37 AM | PERMALINK

Is 'Joel Klein' to make him sound more Jewish?

Posted by: neil on April 25, 2007 at 12:38 AM | PERMALINK

"He is a weak prime minister," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish legislator who supported al-Maliki until recently. "This government hasn't delivered and is not capable of doing the job. They should resign."

You'd be happier perhaps with a coup instead of bickering? How many times has the Italian government resigned?

There's been a teeny tiny downtick over the past two months in Baghdad as members of the Mahdi Army have lain low or taken a vacation to wait out the surge, but there is no question sectarian violence is happening nor is there any question it is the principal cause of violence in Iraq.

Well, is that a reduction or is it not?

There were no terrorists or insurgents before you incompetent lying fools got us into the Iraq quagmire.

They were the government.

"Sectarian" violence is not increasing. What is increasing are: (a) bombings of undefended targets and (b) fighting between al Qaeda and others within Iraq. Sectarian violence may have decreased, or it may be in quasi steady-state.

Posted by: MatthewRmarler on April 25, 2007 at 12:45 AM | PERMALINK

Well, is that a reduction or is it not?

No, it's simply a transference of violence from one area to another, from Baghdad to other regions.

And if you're going to make your smug little rhetorical jabs to avoid the substance of your error -- then fuck off.

You'd be happier perhaps with a coup instead of bickering? How many times has the Italian government resigned?

The point is you're completely divorced from the political reality in Iraq, not what I'd be happy with or what happens in Italy.

Legislators from within all parties believe this government has failed, that the political situation has vastly deteriorated, and that this administration won't last much longer.

Let me hear you say it: "Yes, once again my unsupported claims about Iraq have been refuted."

Posted by: trex on April 25, 2007 at 12:57 AM | PERMALINK

Matthew:

Saddam Hussein's government was not a terrorist government. Saddam was a dictator, not an international terrorist operating in the western hemisphere. The terrorists, i.e. al-Qaeda, weren't even in Iraq until after you incompetent, lying, Republican idiots took over.

Cut the utterly dishonest bullshit, pal. The days when you Republican morons could just talk out of your ass are quickly coming to an end.

Posted by: The Fool on April 25, 2007 at 1:00 AM | PERMALINK

Is 'Joel Klein' to make him sound more Jewish?

"Joe Klein" and "Joel Klein" both score a 8.7 out of 10 on the "Does This Name Sound Jewish?" meter.

For comparison, Spike Jonze scores a 1.2 and Whoopie Goldberg scores a 9.3.

Posted by: Disputo on April 25, 2007 at 1:23 AM | PERMALINK

MatthewRmarler >"...It is not true that there is no political progress..."

The only view point from which that is true is the Iranian one.

So you are a stooge for the Iranians ?

Great. What an ass.

"It's difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it." — Upton Sinclai

Posted by: daCascadian on April 25, 2007 at 1:47 AM | PERMALINK

"Sectarian" violence is not increasing. What is increasing are: (a) bombings of undefended targets and (b) fighting between al Qaeda and others within Iraq. Sectarian violence may have decreased, or it may be in quasi steady-state.

Both (a) and (b) are examples of sectarian violence, you loon. If they're increasing then -- by your own standards -- so is sectarian violence.

Posted by: Stefan on April 25, 2007 at 3:06 AM | PERMALINK

"This government hasn't delivered and is not capable of doing the job. They should resign." "The present government is not competent," said Dawood, a Shiite legislator. "It's more or less paralyzed, inactive. I doubt very much that this government can continue in power much longer."

I'm sorry, I'm confused -- are they discussing Maliki or Bush? Because really, from the quotes above it's hard to tell....

Posted by: Stefan on April 25, 2007 at 3:09 AM | PERMALINK

gee, all of the desperate trolls posting here should join the army. these badasses and mabel would make short work of it.
HAHAHAHA, like these chickenhawks would ever fight.

Posted by: merlallen on April 25, 2007 at 5:36 AM | PERMALINK

Here are the Articles of Impeachment against Richard Cheney that the brave Dennis Kucinich introduced in the House (HR 333).

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on April 25, 2007 at 6:31 AM | PERMALINK

the brave Dennis Kucinich

More of him, please.

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 7:36 AM | PERMALINK

Hey Normie, have you seen Kucinich's wife? I guarantee you she's at least 5 times as hot as any woman you've ever been with in your life -- even the ones you paid for. Now wipe those cheeto crumbs off your face, get out of your pajamas, and get out there and see if you can even begin to compete with studly Dennis Kucinich.

On the other hand, why waste your time in a futile effort?

Posted by: Cause Disturbance on April 25, 2007 at 7:58 AM | PERMALINK

have you seen Kucinich's wife? I guarantee you she's at least 5 times as hot as any woman you've ever been with in your life -- even the ones you paid for.

The one he met while running for President? The one he had to beg for? Do you remember his wailing cry from the campaign trail--that he wanted to find a First Lady?

Sorry, I am required to beat them off with a stick. He has to run for President in order to get a little tail. How pathetic is that?

I wish more of you liberals would embrace Dennis Kucinich. He is the worst enemy Nancy Pelosi ever had.

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 8:23 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, and if Dennis Kucinich runs the country as well as he ran Cleveland, well, Katie Bar The Door...

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 25, 2007 at 8:36 AM | PERMALINK

Cheney is viewed as the fool by the great majority of the American people (his favorability rating has been mired in the low 20's since last Fall.) Anybody that agrees with him would also likely believe that the world was flat if Cheney told him so. Over 60% of this country either believes that we are losing the war in Iraq or that we can't win anyways (whatever the difference is in that one please explain to me.) So let the blustering oil-man from Wyoming blow all he wants - nobody without a pen or a mike in their hand is listening anyways.

Posted by: ny patriot on April 25, 2007 at 9:45 AM | PERMALINK

Normie: I believe the part of what you said about you beating off.

Posted by: Cause Disturbance on April 25, 2007 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

But with a stick! That sounds painful.

Posted by: Kenji on April 25, 2007 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

David Broder took down Reid this morning, essentially repeating what Cheney said in a nice way.

Posted by: brian on April 26, 2007 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK


"I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody (Cheney) who has a 9% approval rating."

Posted by: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on April 26, 2007 at 4:59 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