 |
 |
 June 4, 2007
LEAVING IRAQ....In the current Newsweek, moderate conservative weathervane Fareed Zakaria makes a bunch of excellent points about the almost complete lack of serious national security discourse in the Republican campaign these days ("it has turned into an exercise in chest-thumping") and the related fear of Democrat hopefuls that they need to join in lest they be thought soft ("the party remains consumed by the fear that it will not come across as tough. Its presidential candidates vie with one another to prove that they are going to be just as macho and militant as the fiercest Republican.") As important as this is, though — and it's well worth reading — what he says about Iraq might be even more important:
This gets it precisely right. Our foreign policy is at a standstill right now, held hostage by Iraq and unable to move in any sensible direction as long as we're there. Only if we get out can we start making serious progress against violent jihadists and their murderous and growing influence on Mideast public opinion. As usual, though, Zakaria doesn't quite have the courage of his convictions. Rather than suggesting we leave Iraq, he wants only to draw down our forces to 50,000 troops, a strategy that would almost certainly represent the worst of all worlds: a big enough number to keep the Arab public convinced that we intend a permanent imperial presence in the region, but too small a number to accomplish anything effective. Whether we like it or not, a presence like that will imply an ongoing police role in Iraq, but without enough troops to carry out that role. A much better option would be to draw down nearly to zero, keeping troops and air support nearby but not physically within Iraq. Otherwise the pressure to intervene will rear its head constantly and Iraq will remain the festering centerpiece of American foreign policy, preventing us from devoting our attention to more serious issues. We can't afford that, and neither can Iraq. —Kevin Drum 12:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (142)Comments
But if we're not killing (and being killed by) Scary Brown People over there, the SBP will kill us over here. "They" attacked us on 9/11! Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on June 4, 2007 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINKOnce we were "nearby but not physically within Iraq," under what circumstances would we go back in? I'm trying to imagine how this could happen. Iraqis are hardly likely to invite us back, and a few tens of thousands of troops aren't enough to mount an invasion against resistance. I guess we could try to SWAT team out the losing government ministers if they are being overrun, and if they're somebody we like enough to care about. Or, once we're gone and they are burning Hillary in effigy at every corner in Baghdad, we could launch a strike to encourage them to pipe down a little. But really, I have no idea what the over-the-horizon force thinks it is supposed to do. Posted by: jimBOB on June 4, 2007 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINKAh, Kevin. You just don't get it, do you. Were not leaving Iraq. President Bush the other day made a very cojant argument in favor of making Iraq into the new South Korea. I think this is exactly right. A strong, economically vibrant Iraq is exactly whats needed to move into the era of the new Middle east. For security concerns, we are needed for the long haul, perhaps an even bigger force. But right now, we have a couple thousand dead enders and Al Qeda fighting against this vision. Theres is one of backwardness and darkness. Ours is freedom and prosperity. Thats why this fight is so cruical. Posted by: egbert on June 4, 2007 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINKThe last G.I. to die in Iraq already exists, unless we never leave. Maybe that's what's going on. Posted by: Brendan on June 4, 2007 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINKI think this is exactly right. A strong, economically vibrant Iraq is exactly whats needed to move into the era of the new Middle east. For security concerns, we are needed for the long haul, perhaps an even bigger force.Posted by: egbert on June 4, 2007 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. - Benjamin FranklinPosted by: osama_been_forgotten on June 4, 2007 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK Thomas Ricks, author of Fiasco, made some interesting Worth a listen. http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=333 "the related fear of Democrat hopefuls" Could we please just stop internalizing and repeating Republican slurs? Please? Just stop? Please? Posted by: Winston Smith on June 4, 2007 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINKZakaria's not unreasonable, but I still want to know this; when he says Better to consolidate what gains we have, exactly what gains are we consolidating? Posted by: thersites on June 4, 2007 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINKThe most important foreign policy objectives for the United States are international disease control, combating illiteracy, promoting bottom-up development, and poverty eradication. The most important way to get there is through international cooperation. For what we spend in Iraq every week, never mind, don't get me started. Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on June 4, 2007 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK"an exercise in chest-thumping" Sad to say, that's probably what will win the election. Listen to your radio and be afraid. Does anyone in Canada need an aging C/assembly language programmer with a superficial knowledge of the classics? Please? Posted by: thersites on June 4, 2007 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINKBetter to consolidate what gains we have, exactly what gains are we consolidating? I think Mr Zakaria means taking the profit gains of the defense contractors and those who invested with them into new, lower risk investments that do not depend on the Republican war machine. This is just more wishful thinking. It's all well and good to suggest these potential "plans" (as stupid as Zakaria's "50,000 troops" suggestion is), but none of them are going to happen while Bush is in power. Bush, his base, and many of the Republican candidates for POTUS believe that Iraq can be saved "if only we..." or "when we...". The next corner is only six months away, "we just need to...". Just fuckin' shoot me. Posted by: ihateemo on June 4, 2007 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINKZakaria: In any event, it is time to stop bashing George W. Bush. Wrong, Zak. The day Bush leaves office is the time we can stop bashing him. Then the historians can take over. I wouldn't mind some prosecutors getting their hands on him, either. If you want to rebuild America's image in the world, you need get us out of Iraq. To do that, you need a Dem in the White House. To do that, you need to repeat the message each and every day: we're in a bad situation and it's the fault of Bush and the Republicans. (By the way, I am doubful that anyone will get the U.S. out of Iraq 100%. Even if we leave the cities, and even if the government falls to a bunch of jihadist thugs, we'll probably maintain some bases in the desert for decades to come. They'll say we need that presence to protect our interests in the region, and no one's going to be able to stop us.) Posted by: JJF on June 4, 2007 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINKJoel Rubinstein, precisely. If we wanted to spend $n,000,000,000 over there so we didn't spend it over here, just think what might have been achieved. Humans are a sorry species. Or at least most of those that pull the strings. I don't think it's a matter of Zakaria not having the courage of his convictions, but I agree with Kevin that the partial drawdown idea doesn't accomplish what we need to. Zakaria is concerned about what would happen if the American army left Iraq -- or even left only the Arab-majority provinces of the country -- completely. We all ought to be clear that what would happen, could be pretty bad. Would it be worse than what is happening now, in terms of general violence and the slaughter of civilians in particular? Very possibly. It could be a lot worse. The question is whether this possibility is a good enough reason to maintain a smaller but still expensive American commitment in Iraq -- not worth it to the Iraqis, but worth it to us. It isn't. The problem we need to deal with goes beyond the fact Zakaria notes, that the American government is consumed with the Iraq problem. It would make sense for the government to be so consumed if Iraq were truly central to our destinies. The problem is instead that it isn't. It is one, mid-sized Arab country, and nothing more than that. Whether the United States ever should have assigned Iraq the priority it did can be debated, but if there ever were a time for it that time has passed. Whether the United States is able to conduct an effective foreign policy that serves our interests overseas matters, not just to us but to the world. It matters more than the Arabs of Iraq. Posted by: Zathras on June 4, 2007 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK2,000+ Iraqis and 127 U.S. killed in May. 15 U.S. killed in first 3 days of June. It'll be 600+ U.S. killed in 1st 6 months of 2007. Will this change? How many more Freidmans to see? We better hurry and start the Genocide because we have Iran yet to do with Nigeria coming after that. Nigeria will be a lot of fun because we haven't had a good jungle war in a long time. Posted by: R.L. on June 4, 2007 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINKHere is the weakest point in Kevin's analysis: "Our foreign policy is at a standstill right now, held hostage by Iraq and unable to move in any sensible direction as long as we're there. Only if we get out can we start making serious progress against violent jihadists and their murderous and growing influence on Mideast public opinion." Putting to one side the vague, subjective and debatable comment that "foreign policy is at a standstill," what conceivable basis is there for Kevin's certainty that "only if we get out" can we make "serious progress against violent jihadists." First, it seems an innately illogical and perhaps ridiculous proposition that retreating from violent jihadists where we actually have Muslems fighting with us against them is the "only" way to make serious progress against violent jihadists. But even if you could get past that point, Kevin ignores the obvious -- what actually happens if we leave. Until he can state with a reasonable degree of support what will happen with us getting out, his conclusion that getting out is the only way to make serious progress against violent jihadists is simply unsubstantiated wishful thinking. Zakaria (who perhaps Kevin is adopting on this issue) is not any better -- he assures us that the Shia and Sunni will make a deal at some point - a proposition that is not necessarily true and even if the "at some point" makes it true, it ignores what happens before the deal and the effect of what happens on us. It is one thing to argue that our continued presence in Iraq is not worth the cost and we are willing to accept the bloodshed and other consequences of getting out; it is another thing to engage in fantasies about how getting out is the only way to make progress against violent jihadists. One other point is that Kevin and others always treat Arab mind as some type of simplistic child. Now he says the Arab public will view our continued presence as the intent to maintain an imperial presence. The Arabs are like anyone else, smart enough to form their opinions based on our actions and, if our actions succeed not only in removing Sadaam but also helping Muslems in Iraq establish a decent country with freedoms found nowhere else in the Arab world, they will recognize our good intentions. Posted by: brian on June 4, 2007 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINKLeaving Iraq makes progress against the most violent and destructive of jihadists, whom many Americans call the President, Vice President, Secretary of State, Haliburton, Blackwater, etc. These people and institutions are the real "A much better option would be to draw down nearly to zero, keeping troops and air support nearby but not physically within Iraq." brian, what a pathetically ignorant set of remarks at 1:44, so empty of meaning despite their length that it's hard to respond seriously. still, let us at least reach to the key point: it is now the official white house line that korea is one helluva model for iraq. and the people of the middle east are therefore perfectly capable of reading that for what it is: imperialism. which isn't going to help us one bit. try and use some synapses, why doncha? Posted by: howard on June 4, 2007 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINKegbert: A strong, economically vibrant Iraq is exactly whats needed to move into the era of the new Middle east. like when it was nice and cozy? "The Middle East looked nice and cozy for a while." - President Bush 5/24/07 Posted by: mr. irony on June 4, 2007 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINKThe last G.I. to die in Iraq already exists, unless we never leave. Maybe that's what's going on. Yes. Because the sound of closure on this mess is going to be deafening, unless it never closes. What could possible be more important than killing the bad guys in Iraq? Posted by: james waller on June 4, 2007 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINKWhat could possible be more important than killing the bad guys in Iraq? Posted by: james waller on June 4, 2007 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINKLike Brian, I disagree with Kevin's contention that, "Our foreign policy is at a standstill right now, held hostage by Iraq." Our liberal media coverage is at a standstill, held hostage over Iraq. Fortunately, the Bush administration pays little attention to the New York Times and its ilk. Lots of foreign policy is going on. We and our allies continue efforts in Afghanistan. We recently bombed a suspected al Qaeda base in Somalia. We are negotiating with NK and Iran. Our negotiations with those two countries have been ineffective IMHO. But I think our defeat in Iraq would make those negotiations even less likely to be effective. Posted by: ex-liberal on June 4, 2007 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINKOff topic from CNN, regarding the foiled JFK terror plot: A wiretap transcript given to CNN by the FBI indicates the alleged plotters targeted the airport because of the popularity its namesake, John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated in 1963. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/02/jfk.terror.plot/index.html A radical islamist terror plot characterized as "more ambitious than 9/11" foiled by wiretaps authorized by the Patriot Act. Those are results you can't argue with. Thanks Dubya, for keeping us safe at home. Posted by: sportsfan79 on June 4, 2007 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINKThe Arabs are like anyone else, smart enough to form their opinions based on our actions and, if our actions succeed not only in removing Sadaam but also helping Muslems in Iraq establish a decent country with freedoms found nowhere else in the Arab world, they will recognize our good intentions. Unfortunately, here's what Muslims see right now: - WMDs did not pan out like the Americans claimed You're right that Arabs will form their own opinions based on what they see on the ground. What do you think that opinion will be, based on the above, hm? Posted by: ihateemo on June 4, 2007 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINKIrony alert: brian, everyone's favorite faux-reasonable concern troll, criticizes someone -- anyone -- else for a weak argument. Sadly not ironic alert: "ex-liberal," everyone's favorite perfeptuallt dishonest, willfully obtuse, deliberately insulting neocon propaganda robot, agrees with brian. Not surprisingly, "ex-liberal" then trots out a series of dishonest and unevidenced assertions -- top ofg the list being the existence of a "liberal media" -- to support this original dishonesty. Shame on you both. Posted by: Gregory on June 4, 2007 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINKBrojo at 1:56 PM Hey, you forgot me! Donald A. "out, damned spot" Rumseld Posted by: thersites on June 4, 2007 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINKWhen you look at how a clear and thoughtful statement like Brian's is treated here, do you ever wonder why all you attract for counterarguments are simple-minded trolls? Posted by: rossum on June 4, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINKIt is true my prior comment was too long. But how about someone explainting why the "only" way to "start making serious progress against violent jihadists" is to retreat from where there are thousands and where Muslems are fighting along side us? See what happened today: Iraqi soldiers killed a senior Al-Qaeda leader, Abu Abdullah al-Adhab. Can we at least call that a good thing? Posted by: brian on June 4, 2007 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINKsportsfan79 on June 4, 2007 at 2:21 PM: ...characterized as "more ambitious than 9/11" As characterized by the alleged perpetrators. ...foiled by wiretaps authorized by the Patriot Act. From the CNN article you so thoughtfully provided a link for: The alleged plot was revealed when the planners tried to recruit a person who was a law enforcement informant, sources said. That would make you, ah...wrong, sportster. Those are results you can't argue with. I just did. And I'll add that levelling Fallujah doesn't fight terrorism while good intelligence and police work around the world does. Thanks Dubya, for keeping us safe at home. "Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" has kinda jumped the shark as a catchphrase now, hasn't it? Looks like being in Iraq hasn't done a damn thing to stop terrorist activity in the US. Posted by: grape_crush on June 4, 2007 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINKone question for Kevin: if keeping US troops in Iraq convinces Muslims that we have imperial ambitions, how does pulling them out and keeping them somewhere else in the region change that calculus? I'm not arguing for keeping the troops there, but implicit in Kevin's argument is that we need to find another way to maintain the empire. Posted by: jeremy on June 4, 2007 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINKNow Gregory, I happen to think ex-liberal made some progress today, so let's be encouraging in the hopes that he can make some more at a later date. Lookit:
Now, the tenses are a bit problematic, but there is some positive evidence of some slight understanding of some of the foreign policy complexities that have stymied his Daddy President. Two points, (which, BTW, I have also made on Yglesias' blog regarding this subject. ).
2) Guerrilla warfare has established itself as a credible counter to the US conventional military. The idea created largely as a result of Gulf War I that we could have high tech, shock and awe, smart bomb wars with few casualties and a low cost is gone. Already countries such as Venezuela and Iran are challenging the US while guerrilla activity spreads to the Niger delta, to Columbia, to Somalia, and elsewhere. This is a different game, and people simply aren't going to play by our rules. These shall be realities beyond any president's control; and the best that can be done would be to accept them and make the most of things within those constraints. Posted by: Duncan Kinder on June 4, 2007 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK"Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" has kinda jumped the shark as a catchphrase now, hasn't it? Looks like being in Iraq hasn't done a damn thing to stop terrorist activity in the US. I might also point out that inasmuch as these silly so-called "plots" hacve been stopped, they've been done so not by military means but by law enforcement. As for the JFK plot, for all the predictable scaremongering, the operational details are about as stupid as the jackass who wanted to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch. Setting aside the fact that jet fuel doesn't explode like gasoline does in the movies, there's the fact that pressurized piplelines don't carry combustion any more than lighting your gas stove blows up the lines under the street. Posted by: Gregory on June 4, 2007 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK…always treat Arab mind as some type of simplistic child…brian at 1:44 PMUsing sanctions to cripple a country for over a decade, invading and killing hundred's of thousands of their people and torturing others at Abu Ghraib are actions that speak louder than any Karen Hughes propaganda ever will. Our liberal media coverage is at a standstill, held hostage over Iraq…ex-lax at 2:11 PMCan anyone find one foreign policy success from either Powell or Rice? Have they closes a single deal, make the slightest difference in the world? By the way, the New York Times is another neo-Con rag whose editorializing and slanted news articles were all pro-Bush from the lies they published during the Clinton era, to the lies they indulged in during the 2000 campaign, to the run up to the war. ... with. Thanks Dubya,...sportsfan79 at 2:21 PMSome claims by a US Attorney who's a loyal Bushie may impress bedwetters, but in fact, there were no steps taken past the talking stage and none of the 'plotter's had the expertise to carry out the plan. Actually, even if the plan could have been carried, it would not have worked. Every so often, some hair-brained "plot" is discovered and the Republican media go into an Augie-Dogie moment for a few days until the absurdity of it becomes better know. Posted by: Mike on June 4, 2007 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK gregory, way to kick ex-liberal's butt! brian, it's long been evident to anyone with half a brain that the iraqi people see al qaeda as an interloper and don't support them. what does that have to do with anything? what exactly is it that you think is so laudable here? Posted by: howard on June 4, 2007 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINKYeah, the terrorists are all a bunch of clowns who couldn't blow up anything. Look, here comes a group with--get this--boxcutters! Posted by: dnc on June 4, 2007 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINKYeah, the terrorists are all a bunch of clowns who couldn't blow up anything. Nice straw man, there. They could have blown up part of the JFK fuel system -- if they actually had, you know, explosives -- but this snarky straw man fails to refute the point that the catastrophic consequences the terrorists --and the media -- are so fascinated are mere fantasy. Look, here comes a group with--get this--boxcutters! Friendly advice: Bush apologists, even snarky ones, would do well to avoid the subject of preventing hijacking, unless they're prepared to describe what actions Bush took in response to the August 6 PDB warning of al Qaeda's ambitions to do so. Other than telling the briefer "you've covered your ass, now," of course. Posted by: Gregory on June 4, 2007 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINKGregory, you've been landing some sweet punches today. I'm stuck in moderation. :-( Posted by: kenga on June 4, 2007 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINKGregory: Read the August 6th memo again sometime. Meanwhile, you can look at what Gore did the one time he had a shot at airline security, then tell me the Bishop of Gaia would have done anything with any memo at all. Posted by: monkeybone on June 4, 2007 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINKdnc: Yeah, the terrorists are all a bunch of clowns who couldn't blow up anything. Look, here comes a group with--get this--boxcutters! monkey: Read the August 6th memo again sometime. On July 10, 2001, CIA chief George Tenet and his counterterrorism deputy, J. Cofer Black, were so concerned about intelligence pointing to an impending attack by al-Qaeda that they called an emergency meeting with Condoleezza Rice and her National Security Council staff to issue a warning. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/11/think_again_911.html fewer americans died from terror from 1993 to 9-11.. president bush fixed that.. Posted by: mr. irony on June 4, 2007 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINKRead the August 6th memo again sometime You mean this one, bonehead? The one whose very title -- Bin Laden determined to strike in US -- Bush tried to keep secret? Good idea! Hm, well, bonehead seems to imply reading the August 6 PDB would lead to a different conclusion. Let's see... FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York. Meanwhile, boner, shall I take your "Hey, look over there! Al Gore!" as a tacit admission that Bush, so far as we know, did nothing -- i.e., you give Bush a free pass for doing nothing because you assme Gore would have done the same? Why dodge the question, boner? What action did Bush take to defend the nation from the threat of an al Qaeda hijacking? It's rare we have so open an admission of dishonest partisanship -- didn't you get the RNC memo? Usually brian, "ex-liberal," Marler and their ilk pretend, however unconvincingly, to be posting in good faith. Posted by: Gregory on June 4, 2007 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINKbrian: The Arabs are like anyone else, smart enough to form their opinions based on our actions and, if our actions succeed not only in removing Sadaam but also helping Muslems in Iraq establish a decent country with freedoms found nowhere else in the Arab world, they will recognize our good intentions. You mean like the good intentions Bush demonstrated by lying about WMDs and Iraq-al Queda links? You mean like the good intentions Bush demonstrated by imprisoning and torturing innocent Iraqis? You mean like the good intentions Bush demonstrated by not sending enough troops to get the job done and then later sending an insignificant handful extra to be butchered solely to get the war past his doorstep? You mean like the good intentions Bush 41 demonstrated by abandoning the Kurds to Saddam's poison gas attacks and then giving Saddam more foreign aid? You mean like the good intentions Nixon and Ford demonstrated when they backed the tyrannical Shah who arrested, tortured, and murdered innocent Iranians? You mean like the good intentions the GOP demonstrated by sponsoring Saddam's unprovoked attack on Iran? You mean like the good intentions Bush 41 demonstrated when he abandoned the Shiites in Southern Iraq to Saddam's butchering? You are such a dimwit. ------------------------ But how about someone [explaining] why the "only" way to "start making serious progress against violent jihadists" is to retreat from where there are thousands and where [Muslims] are fighting along side us? 1) Muslims are "fighting along side us" [to the limited extent that is true, and it mostly isn't] because we've bribed and threatened them, not because they love us. 2) The Muslims "fighting along side us" are also the ones betraying us. 3) Most of the combatants fighting US troops are not "violent jihadists", but freedom fighters whose country has been wrongly invaded - they are doing just what American citizens would do if we were invaded by a foreign power. 4) The majority of "violent jihadists" are not in Iraq, so our troops are wasted there, if you believe that a military solution is the answer. 5) Bush's (and Cheney's) goal is not to stem "violent jihadism", but to increase it so they can justify other aims, control of energy resources, revenge on Iran, hatred of Arabs, revenge on Saddam, hatred of Muslims, protection of Israel at any cost, and a host of other similar reasons held individually or jointly by the neocons and Bushiites. 6) For every "terrorist" killed, we are creating several new ones - even "terrorists" (and by this I mean any Arab or Muslim who can be conveniently described as a terrorist for GOP propaganda purposes) have families and friends. Posted by: anonymous on June 4, 2007 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINKIraq is paralyzing US political discourse and foreign policy because the Democrats have decided to make it so. They'll opt to do the same with any military mission against which the wind blows even slightly, for political gain. This is not a serious argument for departing Iraq. Posted by: apetrelli on June 4, 2007 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINKWe have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists. That was the extent of the "hijacking threat" in the memo. The rest of the memo assumed an attack using explosives similar to the first WTC attack, and all the examples given in the memo described such attacks. Only someone incapable of parsing a simple sentence could twist "consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York" into an attempt to hijack airplanes and plow them into skyscrapers. And yes, I do consider it significant that Al Gore, who the Left has deified to the point where they believe he would have stopped the attacks cold if he had been President, did not in reality behave in this manner in the one documented case where he was actually close to the issue. apetrelli: They'll opt to do the same with any military mission against which the wind blows even slightly, for political gain. Liar. It was Democrats (Kennedy and Johnson) who advanced the Vietnam war. It was Democrats (Roosevelt and Truman) who saw us through to victory in WWII. It was a Democrat (Clinton) who saw us win a significant victory against genocide in Kosovo and Bosnia without losing a single soldier. And it was Republicans who wanted us to run away from war in the latter two instances and it was Nixon who ran away from Vietnam. Posted by: anonymous on June 4, 2007 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINKmonkeyboner: Only someone incapable of parsing a simple sentence could twist "consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York" into an attempt to hijack airplanes and plow them into skyscrapers. Hmmmmmm. Let's see. Individuals are focusing on hijackings and federal buildings. Now, could they be hijacking federal buildings? Nope. Could they be throwing federal buildings at airplanes that have been hijacked? Ummmmm, nope. How would those two things, federal buildings and hijackings be connected, I wonder. Hmmmmm . . . maybe they were just intending to land the airplanes on the roof and then hijack some more people? Gee, monkeybrains, show us how those two things, federal buildings and hijacked planes, could be rationally connected in any other way than ramming the planes into those buildings. You dipsh*t Nazi apologist. Posted by: anonymous on June 4, 2007 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINKThat was the extent of the "hijacking threat" in the memo. No, monkeybone, it wasn't. The following sentence I quoted indicated that the FBI was still concerned about the possible threat of an al Qaeda hijacking. Only someone incapable of parsing a simple sentence could twist "consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York" into an attempt to hijack airplanes and plow them into skyscrapers. Only someone sufficiently, dishonestly partisan could pretend that "consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks" does not warn against a possible al Qaeda hijacking. Ah, but it's that bit you added that you dishonest partisans -- from Condi Rice's "no one could have imagined" forward -- have been using to distract from Bush's abject and evident failure to take any action at all to defend against hijacking -- a known threat regardless of what the terrorists intended to do with the aircraft, and one for which there are known countermeasures, worse luck for Bush. Who said anything about plowing the airplanes into buildings? I asked you what response to the warnings about hijacking Bush undertook. You dishonest Bush apologists -- but I repeat myself -- pretend that the fact that the terrorists used the airplanes as missiles excuses Bushs failure to take action to prevent the hijacking in the first place. But if the hijacking was prevented, then whatever the terrorists intended -- be it ramming the planes into buildings, systematically shooting the passengers on TV or selling the planes on eBay -- is also prevented. Note, too, that we aren't debating the effectiveness of any action Bush took -- you have yet to establish that Bush took any action at all. And you give him a free pass, which you genrously acknowledge as motivated by blind partisanship. So again, boner, answer the question -- what action did Bush take in response to being warned of al Qaeda's preparations to hijack a US airliner? We all know the answer -- "you've covered your ass, now" -- why are you so ashamed to admit it? Posted by: Gregory on June 4, 2007 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINKOne more thing, boner: Al Gore, who the Left has deified to the point where they believe he would have stopped the attacks cold if he had been President You never run out of straw men, do you? I assert that Gore would have taken action in response to the August 6 PDB, and I further assert that in doing so, he's one up on Bush, who so far as we know took no action at all. Now: Can you cite any action Bush took, or do you merely assert -- as I already noted -- that you give Bush a free pass for doing nothing because in your partisanship you believe Gore would also have done nothing, so it's okay? And if that's so, do you really want to imply that you'd have given Gore a free pass as well? The partisan tone of your posts suggests otherwise, bonehead my boy. Posted by: Gregory on June 4, 2007 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINKmonkeycheeks: Al Gore, who the Left has deified . . . This coming from a dimwit who has truly deified Bush and continues to do so despite abyssmal failure of every single policy and utter inaccuracy in every prediction about Iraq! Talk about cheeky! The "greatest" predictions of the Bush administration: "Mission Accomplished" "We've found the WMDs!" "They will welcome us with parades." "Iraqi oil will pay for the whole war." "They are in their last throes!" "Saddam is six months from a nuclear weapon!" "Democracy in Iraq will spread throughout the region and destroy the basis for international terrorism." "The war won't take more than six months!" "The surge will bring us victory." "The GOP will not lose the election in 2006!" Posted by: anonymous on June 4, 2007 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK"Our troops did the job they were asked to do. They got rid of Saddam Hussein. They conducted the search for weapons of mass destruction. They gave the Iraqi people a chance for elections and to have a government. It is the Iraqis who have failed to take advantage of that opportunity." Hillary Clinton last night in the debate blaming it all on the Iraqis. Posted by: quo on June 4, 2007 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINKquo: Hillary Clinton last night in the debate blaming it all on the Iraqis. Well, Bush certainly isn't blaming the Iraqis. He won't even make them meet minimal benchmarks or take any responsibility whatsoever for their own country's future. I guess you must agree with him. Tell us exactly who you think is to blame and don't cite the handful of terrorists (many of whom are also Iraqis, thus making Iraqis to blame even for some of the terrorism) who are merely taking advantage of widespread sectarian violence BY IRAQIS or the Iranians whose involvement has been grossly exaggerated. There are millions of Iraqis acting irresponsibly, either by taking part in violence or covering for those who do; there a thousands of terrorists at most and there are a handful at most of "Iranian" agent provocateurs on the loose. Maybe you blame our soldiers, quo, eh? Posted by: anonymous on June 4, 2007 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINKIt's endlessly amusing how this question makes the wingnuts' head spin. Even bonehead here -- as belligerent a Bush partisan as you could as for -- can't quite bring him/her/itself to admit that Bush did nothing, even as he/she/it offers up justifications, however feeble -- Look! Over there! It's Al Gore! -- for Bush's inaction. I suppose we should be grateful he/she/it hasn't tried the "well, what should Bush has done?" gambit -- perhaps he/she/it realizes that's a tacit admission Bush really did do nothing. Posted by: Gregory on June 4, 2007 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINKmonkeybones: Al Gore . . . did not in reality behave in this manner in the one documented case where he was actually close to the issue. When was Al Gore president, monkeybones? Well, I guess he was after the 2000 vote before Bush and the GOP-contolled Supreme Court stole it, but when was he ACTUALLY in charge of the nation's security? Posted by: anonymous on June 4, 2007 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINKMonkeybones, monkeybones, anonymous: 6) For every "terrorist" killed, we are creating several new ones
"We can't kill them all. When I kill one, I create three." - Lt. Col. Frederick Wellman - Detroit Free Press - 6/13/05
heckuva job... huh Posted by: mr. irony on June 4, 2007 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINKBTW, the above monkeybones song is sung to the tune of the classic Spiderman cartoon series. "We can't kill them all. When I kill one, I create three." - Lt. Col. Frederick Wellman - Detroit Free Press - 6/13/05 How dare you post a quote, mr. irony, that shows an American soldier making a traitorous (as Bush and Cheney would have it) statement! ;-) Posted by: anonymous on June 4, 2007 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK Whether we like it or not, a presence like that will imply an ongoing police role in Iraq, but without enough troops to carry out that role. It sounds to me as though you advocate exactly what you oppose: a force in Iraq that will be too small to defend itself from the oncoming all-out civil war. but how "nearly" zero do you propose, and over what time span? And how does the U.S. gain any freedom from maintaining large forces in Kuwait and Bahrain? Freedom to operate world-wide would follow from pulling out entirely from the Persian Gulf, which could be accomplished over 10 years at less cost than maintaining the deployment. Posted by: MatthewRmarler on June 4, 2007 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINKMike: Can anyone find one foreign policy success from either Powell or Rice? Well, yes. Powell & Bush succeed in getting many, many countries to join us in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The original Coalition of the Willing included 49 members. Many of these allies are still contributing to the effort one way or another. Powell & Bush secured at least one very strong UN resolution regarding Iraq. The Bush team negotiated an end to Libya's program to develop nuclear weapons. The Bush team negotiated something regarding NK's nukes (although I don't know if that one will hold up.) Posted by: ex-liberal on June 4, 2007 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINKFAUX-Lib is correct about the fine work of the US Atty Gen in NY - Those Islamos were trying to build a building with their Erector Sets and no permits. Great work, by a Repug. Sleep well, FAUX - Oh, but some Pinko Military just dropped charges against a detainee at Gitmo - Aarrrghhh, he'll be coming for you and Sportsy. Posted by: thethirdPaul on June 4, 2007 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINKex-liberal: The Bush team negotiated an end to Libya's program to develop nuclear weapons. Liar. The program was not active when its "end" was negotiated. If you accomplish nothing, it is not a success. The Bush team negotiated something regarding NK's nukes (although I don't know if that one will hold up.) You are right, your claim doesn't hold up. Powell & Bush succeed in getting many, many countries to join us in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush bribed countries into joining us and they didn't actually join in the invasions, you dimwit. Powell & Bush secured at least one very strong UN resolution regarding Iraq. A resolution that did not authorize Bush's acts, so his repudiation of his own "strong" resolution really doesn't amount to anything, now does it? And it didn't result in anything positive, so I don't see how you count it as a "success." To be "successful" the action must accomplish something and the resolution accomplished nothing that hadn't already been accomplished - Saddam's compliance with the disarmament requirements. Posted by: anonymous on June 4, 2007 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINKWell, hit a few nerves there, didn't I? Nice song, there, "anonymous." What are you, like thirteen? Not quite as funny as you hauling up Vietnam as an example of a great Democratic foreign policy victory, but still pretty funny. I notice you had to get to the aerial bombing of Bosnia before you could mention "without losing a single soldier." Bush has a long way to go to beat Johnson's record. Maybe Bush didn't leap to do something about hijacked airplanes based on that one memo. Maybe he should have. We don't have the details of the FBI actions mentioned there. But at least unlike Gore, who chaired the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, he didn't sell out airline security for campaign contributions. You can spend all day telling me what you imagine Your Boy would have done. I documented what he actually did under similar circumstances. Posted by: monkeybone on June 4, 2007 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINKWe need to send Griffith Observatory's new peg setter upper over to the Middle East. Posted by: lampwick on June 4, 2007 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINKanonymous, the quote from Wikipedia below describes the accomplishments of the Bush team with Libya. In 2003 Libya began to make policy changes with the open intention of pursuing a Western-Libyan détente. The Libyan government announced its decision to abandon its weapons of mass destruction programs and pay almost $3 billion dollars in compensation to the families of Pan Am Flight 103 and UTA Flight 772.[10] Since 2003 the country has restored normal diplomatic ties with the European Union and the United States and has even coined the catchphrase, 'The Libya Model', an example intended to show the world what can be achieved through negotiation rather than force when there is goodwill on both sides.[11] In early 2004, the U.S. State Department ended its ban on U.S. citizens using their passports for travel to Libya or spending money there. U.S. citizens began legally heading back to Libya (some U.S. travellers went to Libya illegally through third countries during the travel ban) for the first time since 1981. On May 15, 2006, David Welch, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, announced that the U.S. had decided to, after a 45-day comment period, renew full diplomatic relations with Libya and remove Libya from the U.S. list of countries that foster terrorism.[12] During this announcement, it was also said that the U.S. has the intention of upgrading the U.S. liaison office in Tripoli into an embassy. [13] The U.S. embassy in Tripoli opened in May. This has been product of a gradual normalization of international relations since Libya accepted responsibility for the Pan Am 103 bombing. Libya's dismantling of its weapons of mass destruction was a major step towards this announcement, and it is seen as an incentive for Iran to do likewise. Relations with Bulgaria has been troublesome after a group of Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor were accused of infecting Libyan children with HIV when they worked at a Libyan hospital; the nurses were sentenced to death in a Libyan court. But at least unlike Gore, who chaired the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, he didn't sell out airline security for campaign contributions. That's a fascinating take on the Gore Commission. The issue there is Gore didn't push for bag matching because the airline industry basically said it would destroy them and at the time the security landscape didn't require it. That was in 1997. Here we are in 2007 six years after 9/11 and the shoebomber the Bush administration still hasn't required bag matching in a security landscape that demands it. They tell me I can't take a Dr. Pepper on a plane because I might conceive of a way to vaporize the entire tail section with it but simple bag matching? You know, to prevent someone from ACTUALLY blowing up the plane? Too much trouble for the Bush administration. Now, careful focus your ganglia and try and guess which one of these scenarios is worse and more blameworthy. You're a goofball. Better trolls please. Smarter ones, at least. Posted by: tRex on June 4, 2007 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINKanonymous: To be "successful" the action must accomplish something and the resolution accomplished nothing that hadn't already been accomplished - Saddam's compliance with the disarmament requirements. That's a high standard for interntaional agreements, and especially for UN resolutions. Very, very few accomplish anything, including Kyoto and the International Court. But, the UN resolution regarding Saddam was helpful in persuading allies to join us. It particularly helped Tony Blair to justify a major military commitment aside ours. Posted by: ex-liberal on June 4, 2007 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINKThe Bush team negotiated an end to Libya's program to develop nuclear weapons. No they didn't. Libya basically offered to give up its WMD programs in exchange for a lifting of sanctions in 1999 in then-secret talks with the Clinton administration, and that 2003 disarmament was the culmination of not only that but decades of economic pressure that finally wore out Qaddafi. Posted by: tRex on June 4, 2007 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINKUntil the United States is able to move beyond Iraq, it will not have the time, energy, political capital or resources to attempt anything else of any great significance. For energy, political capital, and resources to attempt anything else of great significance, I think that the U.S. needs to move beyond its dependence on Middle Eastern Oil. Will Allen asked me about the "opportunity cost" of a Federal push for fuel sufficiency: on the whole, I think that it is less than the opportunity cost of the continual military deployment in the Persian Gulf. Posted by: MatthewRmarler on June 4, 2007 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINKtrex: Libya basically offered to give up its WMD programs in exchange for a lifting of sanctions in 1999 in then-secret talks with the Clinton administration, and that 2003 disarmament was the culmination of not only that but decades of economic pressure that finally wore out Qaddafi. Bush inherited a recession that had begun before he took office, and you give him full blame. The 9/11 attack occured only 8 months after Bush took office, and you give him full blame. But, Bush gets no credit at all for a negotiation that bore fruit beginning in the 3rd year of his term. Hmmm. monkeybone wrote: Well, hit a few nerves there, didn't I? Not until you do better than: Maybe Bush didn't leap to do something about hijacked airplanes based on that one memo. Maybe he should have. C'mon, bonehead...why is it so hard for you to say Bush did nothing? Is it because that if Bush did something, and that something had prevented the hijackings, 9/11 would have been just another sensational foiled terrorist plot? Talk about hitting a nerve, boner...why can't you admit -- okay, you did, tacitly, but explicitly -- that Bush's response to the August 6 PDB -- which you seem to have conceded did in fact warn about hijacking -- was to do nothing but blow off the briefer and remain on vacation? Is the cognitive dissonance that bad? Speaking of cognitive dissonance, Matthew Marler, amusingly enough, posts as if anyone gives a damn whether he thinks, let alone what. On the more overtly dishonest front, "ex-liberal" wrote: The usual neocon water carrying bullshit. "ex-liberal" certainly can't imagine that his/her/its defenses of Bush are at all persuasive, though. I doubt even he/she/it believes these assertions any more, so what, ah, motivates "ex-liberal" to post them must remain a mystery. Posted by: Gregory on June 4, 2007 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINKBut, Bush gets no credit at all for a negotiation that bore fruit beginning in the 3rd year of his term. No, because Libya surrendered with its hand up to Clinton, that's why he gets no credit. If you don't believe me, read the Army War College's take on the matter, you nincompoop. They don't believe Bush had anything to do with it either. Oh, and Defense Secretary Gates and Afghan President Karzai basically blew apart your "Iran is sending arms to the Taliban" argument today. First of all, there were only "indications" of weapons, not actual weapons. Then Gates said there was no proof the government of Iran was involved or if it was just smugglers. President Karzai said Iran was a close ally and that the whole argument was ridiculous on its face, and on TOP of it all Gates said that diplomacy was the best way to resolve our differences with the Iranians, not force. Bwahahahahaha! Remember after the invasion of Iraq when the administration claimed all the violence was caused by Syrian fighters coming over the border so it could pretend that the Iraqis all loved us for invading? This is that story rehashed for 2007. My condolences to your dead arguments. May they rot in hell forever. They had one good day in the sun though, didn't they? Posted by: tRex on June 4, 2007 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINKBush inherited a recession that had begun before he took office, and you give him full blame. Another lie. The recession began after he took office. It's fascinating to see how inconvenient the facts are to "ex-liberal"'s neocon agenda. The 9/11 attack occurred only 8 months after Bush took office, and you give him full blame. Blame for doing nothing -- a fact established, or at least not refuted, on this very thread, which "ex-liberal" dishonestly ignores -- to prevent the hijackings that occurred on his watch? Of course -- few are as invested in giving him a free pass for his dishonesty as you. But remind us, "ex-liberal" -- what did Bush do after the August 6 PDB? But, Bush gets no credit at all for a negotiation that bore fruit beginning in the 3rd year of his term. He gets little credit for getting around to belatedly concluding ongoing negotiations, yes. The fact that you yourself note that he didn't conclude the process he inherited until the third year of his term -- while excusing him for the recession and terror attacks that occurred on his watch -- marks you yet again as a bad faith commentator, "ex-liberal." Why do you bother? Posted by: Gregory on June 4, 2007 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINKex-human: "Fortunately, the Bush administration pays little attention to the New York Times and its ilk." "Powell & Bush succeed in getting many, many countries to join us in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq." Lucky fucking us, eh? Its ilk, of course, being 72% of the country and 90% of the rest of the world—many, many people, you could truthfully say, in this case. But you'll be down there in the bunker with Daddy, hoping for a pat on your tiny, empty head. "Fortunately", he doesn't care if you live or die, turd-brain. Meanwhile, is anyone else convinced that egbert is fake, or replaced by a 15-year-old prankster? No one can make that many spelling errors in a forum where he is mercilessly ridiculed every day and still be a real person. Posted by: Kenji on June 4, 2007 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINKGregory, admit that what really makes you nuts was that Bush not only won a squeaker in 2000, he won again in 2004 by over three million votes in the middle of an economic mess and a war in Iraq. It ain't that Bush is so great, it's that the Democrats are so lame. And in 2008, I'd bet that pretty much any Republican they pick is going to blow away whatever lame candidate you manage to raise again. Especially Hillary. Posted by: bugs on June 4, 2007 at 8:55 PM | PERMALINKanother nifty item about energy here: http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/GE_Jenbacher_Engine_Powers_Commercial_Landfill_Gas_Conversion_Plant_Supplying_Fuel_For_Public_Vehicles_999.html And it's in Orange county. Another plant producing usable gas from a landfill. Posted by: MatthewRmarler on June 4, 2007 at 9:18 PM | PERMALINKAwesome article in the new Rolling Stone Magazine on presidential candidate Rudy Guiliani authored by Matt Taibbi. A good line: "To the extent that conservativism in the Bush years has morphed into a celebration of mindless patriotism and the paranoid witch-hunting of liberals and other dissenters, Rudy seems the most anxious to take up that mantle." "No one has profited more from 9/11 than Guiliani. Thanks to his lucrative speaking fees--as well as his law firm, security consulting operation and investment-banking arm, all of which prominently bear his name--"America's Mayor" has cashed in on his image as a hero." In 2001, his assets reported to divorce court: $7,000 Net worth disclosed in federal election reports in 2007: $30 million Oh read this article!!!! Posted by: consider wisely on June 4, 2007 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINKGregory, Gregory, Interesting article points out that many experts who originally opposed invading Iraq now support keeping US troops there, because our withdrawal would lead to disaster. Brent Scowcroft...who openly opposed the war from the outset and was a lead skeptic of the president's democracy-building agenda...summed up the implication of withdrawal: "The costs of staying are visible; the costs of getting out are almost never discussed. If we get out before Iraq is stable, the entire Middle East region might start to resemble Iraq today. Getting out is not a solution." Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Centcom Commander and a vociferous critic of the what he sees as the administration's naive and one-sided policy in Iraq and the broader Middle East: "When we are in Iraq we are in many ways containing the violence. If we back off we give it more room to breathe, and it may metastasize in some way and become a regional problem. We don't have to be there at the same force level, but it is a five- to seven-year process to get any reasonable stability in Iraq." A senior Gulf Cooperation Council official told me that "If America leaves Iraq, America will have to return. Soon. It will not be a clean break. It will not be a permanent goodbye. And by the time America returns, we will have all been drawn in. America will have to stabilize more than just Iraq. The warfare will have spread to other countries, governments will be overthrown. America's military is barely holding on in Iraq today. How will it stabilize 'Iraq Plus'?" (Iraq Plus is the term that some leaders in Arab capitals use to describe the region following a U.S. withdrawal.) John Burns of the New York Times.... "Friends of mine who are Iraqis--Shiite, Sunni, Kurd--all foresee a civil war on a scale with bloodshed that will absolutely dwarf what we're seeing now. It's really difficult to imagine that that would happen . . . without Iran becoming involved from the east, without the Saudis, who have already said in that situation that they would move in to help protect the Sunni minority in Iraq. "It's difficult to see how this could go anywhere but into a much wider conflagration, with all kinds of implications for the world's flow of oil, for the state of Israel. What happens to King Abdullah in Jordan if there's complete chaos in the region? . . . It just seems to me that the consequences are endless, endless." Posted by: ex-liberal on June 5, 2007 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINKWell then let's look at some facts. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession began in March 2001 and ended in November of the same year. I guess that a month and 11 days in office gives Bush time to create a recession. But you admit that, contrary to "ex-liberal"'s lie, the recession started once Bush took office. Thanks. So if you were president and received the PDB, what would you have done to stop the hijacking? Shall we take that as an admission that Bush did nothing at all? Because if not, you flagrantly, obviously dishonest attempt to change the subject won't do. admit that what really makes you nuts was that Bush not only won a squeaker in 2000, he won again in 2004 Actually, what I object to is that Bush, so far as we know -- indeed, for all Bush's apologists have established to the contrary -- did nothing at all to prevent hijackings by al Qaeda except tell the briefer he'd covered his ass and return to his vacation. The question really is why Bush's apologists give him a free pass for failing to so much as lift a finger to defend the United States, but we already know the answer to that. Posted by: Gregory on June 5, 2007 at 1:00 AM | PERMALINKOh, funny..."ex-liberal" cites as an "interesting article" a pice in the notoriously dishonest right-wing Wall Street Journal opinion page. (Needless to say, he/she/it utterly fails to address the responses to his/her/its earlier posts...but then, we know "ex-liberal" posts in bad faith.) Help that out, "ex-liberal"...was that citation deliberately dishonest, a deliberate insult, or both? Posted by: Gregory on June 5, 2007 at 1:03 AM | PERMALINKGregory, I don't know what to make of some of your comments. E.g., do you actually believe that all those people were quoted incorrectly by the WSJ? If you really thought so, you could use google to try to check. It's a side issue, but I can tell you that the editorial page of the WSJ has better factual accuracy than the op-ed page of the NYT. You may disagree with the Journal's opinions, but you will seldom find a factual error or quote out of context there. I also don't know what to make of your quibble about the date the recession started. As Dave! already pointed out, some experts say the recession started in late 2000; others say it started very shortly after Bush became President. Either way, the point is that it's unfair to blame Bush for that recession. Posted by: ex-liberal on June 5, 2007 at 1:30 AM | PERMALINK"ex-liberal" wrote: Gregory, I don't know what to make of some of your comments. ... I also don't know what to make of your quibble about the date the recession started. Very simple, "ex-liberal": That my "quibble" exposed you (again) as a liar, that you post in bad faith, that you quote the execrable WSJ opinion page either as a further exercise in bad faith or as a deliberate insult -- I'll leave aside the irony of a serial liar like you vouching for the WSJ opinion page's accuracy -- and that in general you opinion isn't worth a bucket of piss. You can't imagine your posts are persuasive. You do, however, seem motivated to post the neocon position, however in bad faith. As I said, one only wonders why you are so...motivated...to have that bullshit represented here. Posted by: Gregory on June 5, 2007 at 1:49 AM | PERMALINKex-human: "That's a high standard for interntaional agreements, and especially for UN resolutions. Very, very few accomplish anything, including Kyoto and the International Court." Hmm, I wonder why Kyoto has failed. Those wimpy UNers, eh? Imagine not being able to stand up to the depredations of the strongest nation on earth. Well, thanks to idiots like you, we will be losing that distinction within our lifetimes, and other bodies, including China and the EU, will be making more decisions for us. Congratulations! Posted by: Kenji on June 5, 2007 at 4:18 AM | PERMALINKI don't know about "tough", but I know how they can stop looking like pansies: I don't know how many Srebrenicas or Khmer Rouges or Post-GW Massacres Americans have the stomach for, but high tolerance for withdrawal from Iraq shows that many Americans have a lot of stomach… and this should scare the $#!+ out of Iran's leadership.Posted by: aaron on June 5, 2007 at 7:16 AM | PERMALINK ex-liberal: [Y]ou will seldom find a factual error or quote out of context [in the WSJ]. If the meaning of "seldom" was the same as "often," I would have to agree. [S]ome experts say the recession started in late 2000; others say it started very shortly after Bush became President. The only "experts" saying that were from the Bush administration and even they had to change the definition of recession to arrive at that conclusion. Either way, the point is that it's unfair to blame Bush for that recession. Yes, it is fair. Bush is a Republican and the economy had been under Republican control, imposing policies identical to what Bush offered and implemented, for six years. So, yes, it is fair to lay the blame for the recession of Republican economic policies which were embraced and promoted by Bush, both as governor of Texas and as president. That is is not alone to blame removes none of the blame assigned. Dave!: According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the recession began in March 2001 and ended in November of the same year. I guess that a month and 11 days in office gives Bush time to create a recession. You are ex-liberal's equal when it comes to lying and obsfucating the truth. So you would have done what exactly to stop 9-11 based on the info presented in the PDB? I'm still waiting to hear a theory of what the combination of hijacking planes and snooping of federal buildings could mean other than ramming those buildings with the hijacked planes. Come on, you are creative with the facts, surely you can be just as creative with theory and come up with some interpretation of how hijacking planes and surveillance of federal buildings together by the same people suggests something other than ramming the buildings with the planes. ex-liberal: But, Bush gets no credit at all for a negotiation that bore fruit beginning in the 3rd year of his term. It bore no fruit. Lying about it doesn't make it so. BTW, the Wikipedia text does not support your assertion that Libya abandoned its WMD programs because of Bush; it merely says Libya said it had abandoned them, but we already know that Libya had no active programs at the time to ban. All Bush did was to get Libya to publically state an untruth (that they were giving up programs they didn't even have) in order to make Bush look good. That's not a foreign polcy accomplishment, at least from the perspective of the citizens of the US, since it didn't serve national interests, but only Bush's partisan interests. That's a high standard for interntaional agreements, and especially for UN resolutions. Very, very few accomplish anything, including Kyoto and the International Court. Funny, that's the same standard you applied when dismissing the sanctions against Iraq. Even a harsher standard in fact, because the sanctions were actually working and had substantive effect and you still belittled them as a foreign policy accomplishment. Which simply goes to show . . . conservatives will belittle anything accomplished by the op | |