Frist?

Frist wouldn't do any worse -- and he does medical diagnoses without actually seeing the patient or any test results.

Bush has failed. Republicans need to take him and Cheney out so they are not completely destroyed by Bush's utter incompetence.

Here is a very different view of how the war in Iraq is going , from the people who have actually served there, not some Young Republican desk jockey in DC, who wrote Bush’s fictional “feel good� report that was published this morning.

A few excerpts:

’ Spc. Michael Harmon, 24, a medic from Brooklyn, served a thirteen-month tour beginning in April 2003 with the 167th Armor Regiment, Fourth Infantry Division, in Al-Rashidiya, a small town near Baghdad. "I go out to the scene and [there was] this little, you know, pudgy little 2-year-old child with the cute little pudgy legs, and I look and she has a bullet through her leg.... An IED [improvised explosive device] went off, the gun-happy [American] soldiers just started shooting anywhere and the baby got hit. And this baby looked at me, wasn't crying, wasn't anything, it just looked at me like--I know she couldn't speak. It might sound crazy, but she was like asking me why. You know, Why do I have a bullet in my leg?... I was just like, This is--this is it. This is ridiculous."’

Or

’ One photo, among dozens turned over to The Nation during the investigation, shows an American soldier acting as if he is about to eat the spilled brains of a dead Iraqi man with his brown plastic Army-issue spoon. "Take a picture of me and this motherfucker," a soldier who had been in Sergeant Mejía's squad said as he put his arm around the corpse. Sergeant Mejía recalls that the shroud covering the body fell away, revealing that the young man was wearing only his pants. There was a bullet hole in his chest. "Damn, they really fucked you up, didn't they?" the soldier laughed.’

Yeah, it’s going really well, George…

Obviously.

on another note, what do you think of the assertion that Giuliani only wanted to recover the $40mil in gold from the WTC site, not the bodies.

We're like the drunk looking for his car keys under the street lamp.

Anti-terrorism policy under Dubya in a nutshell. Especially appropriate since the president is an alcoholic.

So, essentially, despite [Al-Qaida in Iraq] comprising something like five percent of the insurgency, we have diverted most of our resources to combating it.

Hah? Need I remind the Left it was AL-QAIDA who attacked America on 9/11? Isn't it obvious that's the reason why we're spending so many resources in fighting them? Sheesh.

No doubt about it, Bush has flat out lost the war, and we haven't begun to see how bad this thing will get before it's finally over. This will be seen as America's greatest military defeat and possibly its lowest moment ever.

Oh, well, at least people will stop picking on the Vietnam vets.

It speaks volumes about the general rabidity of rightwing bloggers that, when progressives mention folks like James or Steven Taylor now, the first thing we have to do is make clear that they aren't insane.

And the reason we're fighting AQ in Iraq is because they're the scariest vote-winners for the GOP, so everyone killed gets posthumously inducted into their ranks. Mahdi, Sunni et al.

Mind you, Joe Lieberman (D-neocon) is doing his best to make sure the next media stenographic meme runs something like "today in Iraq US forces detained 11 suspected Iranian agents and killed 23 Iranian agents working for Al Qaeda."

Regards, C

Need I remind the Left it was AL-QAIDA who attacked America on 9/11?

No, but somebody needed to remind Bush al Qaeda was a threat on 9/10, since he thought otherwise.

Imagine what would have happened if the drunk who's now looking for his keys hadn't been drunk at the wheel on 9/11. Imagine if we'd had a real president.
.

I like how balanced the results were 8 good, 8 bad, a few in between.

Makes you wonder how the whole thing was constructed to provide the "balance."

Probably first draft had 2 good, 14 bad, but they just did some creative editing.

Until even the moderates and the centrists explicitly start questioning the motives behind all these ridiculous policies, nothing is going to change. Of course, even if they do, there is no guarantee that we will stop on the path to jumping off the cliff.

Hah?

Shouldn't that be an exclamation, and not an interrogative?

Somebody want to hit Reset on the Al-bot?

okthxbai

Hah? Need I remind the Left it was AL-QAIDA who attacked America on 9/11? Isn't it obvious that's the reason why we're spending so many resources in fighting them? Sheesh.
Posted by: Al on July 12, 2007 at 1:15 PM |

You fucking retard! Al Qaeda in Iraq is a Iraqi insurgent group, not Osama Bin Laden's terrorist organization that attacked us on 9/11.

" 'So, essentially, despite [Al-Qaida in Iraq] comprising something like five percent of the insurgency, we have diverted most of our resources to combating it.'

Hah? Need I remind the Left it was AL-QAIDA who attacked America on 9/11? Isn't it obvious that's the reason why we're spending so many resources in fighting them? Sheesh."

for 2 people talking about 2 different groups, see above quotes.
here, i hope this helps:
'Al-Qaida in Iraq' is to 'al-Qaida' as 'Bjorn Again' is to 'Abba.'

Defeat can be good for the nations that lose. Russia's 1917 defeat ended aristocratic rule. The Soviet Union's defeat in Afghanistan ended the Bolsheviks' rule. Japan's and Germany's defeat ended the political dominance of the militarists and created peaceful societies interested in improving the welfare of its citizens. I hope the US defeat in Iraq will end the dominance of the militarists in America, but I do not think it will, because the other branches of the military are still quite strong and ready to obey the next W. Bush who becomes president. Also, the defeat in Viet Nam did not do much to stop the militarists either. We need a bigger defeat that imprisons the war criminals instead of giving them more ammunition and popularity to create more wars. Unfortunately those kinds of defeats are quite painful, and the acquisition of nuclear weapons almost makes it impossible to sustain without committing mass suicide/murder, which the people who condemn suicide bombers will insist we do. 'Better Dead than Red' used to be the expression used for rationalizing mass suicide/murder and a similar type expression/rational will be developed.

I am confused. I read the news, and the blogs, and I cannot figure out what is actually happening in Iraq.

There are several actors there (the Sunnis, the Shia, the Kurds, Al Qaida, US armed forces, and the Iraqi government). Who exactly is fighting whom? I read news stories that talk about truck bombs or roadside bombs or dozens of decapitated bodies being found but they seldom make clear who the victims are -- or the presumed perpetrators. Who is behind the truck bombs? Sunni fighting Shia? Or Al Qaida vs. Sunni or vs. Shia? What exactly is Al Qaida doing? Are they fighting the US only -- or the Iraqi government as well?

Does anyone have a clear picture of this? A link to a good story will be appreciated.

Need I remind the Left it was AL-QAIDA who attacked America on 9/11?

Need I remind the Right that "Al-Qaida in Iraq" is a former al-Qaida rival that found it convenient to change its name in a rebranding effort because the US invasion of Iraq raised the appeal of the al-Qaida brand there simply because al-Qaida was perceived as a devoted and (compared to other regional anti-US groups) successful opponent of the US?

Your analogy sucks. The drunk not finding his car keys is a good outcome.

Brojo;
It's my fond desire that, as the showdown between the executive and legislative branches plays out - that we come to the inescapable conclusion that the executive has too much powers (particularly with regard to the war-powers act; talk about your quaint anachronisms, no longer necessary!).

My guess is that, faced with a future President Hillary, the Reactionary Republicans in the House and Senate can be led into passing some really draconian legislation to defang the executive entirely. Make it a largely ceremonial position.

I am confused. I read the news, and the blogs, and I cannot figure out what is actually happening in Iraq.

There are several actors there (the Sunnis, the Shia, the Kurds, Al Qaida, US armed forces, and the Iraqi government). Who exactly is fighting whom? I read news stories that talk about truck bombs or roadside bombs or dozens of decapitated bodies being found but they seldom make clear who the victims are -- or the presumed perpetrators. Who is behind the truck bombs? Sunni fighting Shia? Or Al Qaida vs. Sunni or vs. Shia? What exactly is Al Qaida doing? Are they fighting the US only -- or the Iraqi government as well?
Does anyone have a clear picture of this?
Posted by: JS on July 12, 2007 at 1:59 PM |

The minority Sunnis are fighting the majority Shiites. Both sides have militias.

The Kurds are staying out of the sectarian fighting, except for Kurds who are serving in the U.S.-created Iraqi Armed Forces.

Most of the truck bombs are done by the Sunnis -- a Sunni insurgent group formed in 2004 that calls itself "Al Qaeda in Iraq" (not the 9/11 perps) does some of the highest profile car bombings mostly against Iraqi civilians.

The Shiites favor beheadings. By the dozen.

Both Sunnis and Shiites attack U.S. forces when they are not killing each other in their Civil War.

The Kurds do not attack Americans.

That in a nutshell is the Iraq War.

There are several actors there (the Sunnis, the Shia, the Kurds, Al Qaida, US armed forces, and the Iraqi government). Who exactly is fighting whom? [...] Does anyone have a clear picture of this?

Not really. And that's part of the problem. But, for an incomplete rundown of conflicts going on:

1. Some Sunni groups, including AQI, (some of which, but not AQI, are closely connected to factions represented in the government) are fighting against the government,

2. Some Shi'ite groups (some of which are connected to factions represented in the government) are also fighting against the government, at least intermittently,

3. Some Shi'ite groups (overlapping the groups in #2, above) are fighting against some Sunni groups (overlapping the groups in #1 above, including AQI).

4. Some Sunni groups (overlapping the Sunni groups mentioned in #1 and #3 above) are fighting against AQI,

5. All of the groups fighting against the government are also fighting against the US.

6. Occasionally, the US is fighting against (some forces at least nominally responsible to) the Iraqi government, either because those forces have "gone rogue" or because those forces have been infiltrated and controlled by Sunni or, more often, Shi'ite groups fighting the government and the US.

Clive A. left out who the Americans are killing, imprisoning and torturing: Iraqis. Whether they are Shiite, Sunni, secular, man, woman or child. And, as cmdicely commented, sometimes even the Iraqi government.

So, essentially, despite [Al-Qaida in Iraq] comprising something like five percent of the insurgency, we have diverted most of our resources to combating it. And we're failing. Not only is AQI stronger...

I read the passage he derived this from, and I don't know where he got the "AQI is stronger" message. I'll agree with hs Iraqi Security Forces suck" meme, however. And the "Al Qaeda world-wide is stronger than it has been for some time."

"We're not fighting AQI because they're the real problem in Iraq. We're like the drunk looking for his car keys under the street lamp. And we're doing about as well."
---
Don't forget that the drunk has also had his wallet lifted. But, what is worse is that the money in the wallet was money we *borrowed* to give to him to "help him out".

.... As to your use of the word "us," include me out...Posted by: meathead republican

mhr wrote: As to your use of the word "us," include me out, as Sam Goldwyn might have phrased it.

We already assumed as much when you say "we" need to stay in Iraq.

To Al's earlier comment: Let's focus on facts, not opinions.

There is no single entity called al-Qaida.

al-Qaida in Afghanistan attacked the United States. The US should have focused on Afghanistan, the host to those terrorists who who attacked us.

There was no al-Qaida in Iraq until we opened the floodgates of civil and social disruption. Bin Laden was asking for Saddam's removal from power in a message shortly before our invasion, and we did him a favor. I'm not sure why Bush wanted to do Bin Laden's bidding but somehow he convinced himself to do so. Also made Iran very happy; they also wanted Saddam removed from power and had been trying for over 20 years to make this happen.

Responses appreciated. Clive A. said:
Both Sunnis and Shiites attack U.S. forces when they are not killing each other.

cmdicely: All of the groups fighting against the government are also fighting against the US.

So is Petreus now fighting all of these groups that are fighting the US -- Sunni and Shiite alike? The Administration seems to be saying that we are mainly fighting non-Iraqi Al Qaida imports.

In the joke, the drunk is looking for his house keys, not his car keys.

Rich C. I have obtained a screen capture showing the joke says:
"We're like the drunk looking for his car keys under the street lamp. "

If it now says house keys, it's been changed.

Yes, al-Qaida in Iraq is responsible for less than 10 percent of the action, but to hear the tabloid tv networks, it's the main threat.

Someone should count the number of time "al-Qaida" is mentioned by CNN, MSNBC and Fox in its reports on Iraq and the number of times "insurgents" are mentioned. (CNN's Michael Ware is the exception; he reports it as he sees it, but this more often than not puts him at odds with the networks storyline; thus he's used rarely, replaced by a bevy of young blondes who can be counted upon to follow the script).

The nation's people do not know what is wrong and the nation's leaders do not know what is right.

I am confused. I read the news, and the blogs, and I cannot figure out what is actually happening in Iraq. There are several actors there (the Sunnis, the Shia, the Kurds, Al Qaida, US armed forces, and the Iraqi government). Who exactly is fighting whom?

The answer is simply "yes". Figure that to mean what you will. As for what is going on in Iraq, it is anarchy. A real life dirty, nasty version of some cyberpunk nightmare. It is Mogadishu with a little bit more social control.

It is Lebanon of the 80s. What is going on in Iraq is chaos, murder, insanity. That's pretty much it.

There was no al-Qaida in Iraq until we opened the floodgates of civil and social disruption. Bin Laden was asking for Saddam's removal from power in a message shortly before our invasion, and we did him a favor. I'm not sure why Bush wanted to do Bin Laden's bidding but somehow he convinced himself to do so. Also made Iran very happy; they also wanted Saddam removed from power and had been trying for over 20 years to make this happen.

The same reason, perchance, that Bush let the Bin Ladens skate out of Dodge on airliners after the 9/11 attacks? Perhaps BushCo was appreciative of the useful work Bin Laden did for his (and Cheney's) dream of dictatorship and personal enrichment ($$$)? Why yes. Yes indeed. They could only DREAM of a 9/11 before it actually happened. That sucker gave them all the excuses they needed to pass every wet dream violation of human rights and the Constitution that Cheney could come up with.

Bush has been doing EXACTLY what Osama has wanted (and needed) him to do since 9/11. In spades.

bigstory said: Yes, al-Qaida in Iraq is responsible for less than 10 percent of the action, but to hear the tabloid tv networks, it's the main threat.

Interestingly, the new Iraq benchmarks report to Congress seems to agree with this:

These new operations are targeting primarily al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) havens in Baghdad, Babil, Diyala, and Anbar provinces. While AQI may not account for most of the violence in Iraq, it is the organization responsible for the highest profile attacks...

So the Administration seems to be admitting that we are trying to address the high profile attacks only -- the ones that make big news. Not the submerged part of the iceberg. Sounds more like electoral politics than like foreign policy.

A corollary of the Administration's benchmarks report quote in my previous comment is that, even if the current surge-enabled US offensive is successful, it will not have eliminated "most of the violence in Iraq".

And this is from the horse's mouth.

These new operations are targeting primarily al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) havens
and
it will not have eliminated "most of the violence in Iraq".

And since "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is Al Qaeda in name only - a bunch of disgruntled Sunnis in Iraq that grabbed the spotlight by naming themselves after the group-that-shall-not-be-named and they have absolutely NOTHING to do with attacking the US on 9/11...

What's the point?

"And since 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' is Al Qaeda in name only - a bunch of disgruntled Sunnis in Iraq that grabbed the spotlight by naming themselves after the group-that-shall-not-be-named and they have absolutely NOTHING to do with attacking the US on 9/11..."

What's the point?

The point is . . . the point is that The Terrorists will follow us back here! So we gotta keep on fighting them there. (Even though Tony Snow explicitly admitted it's not an "either/or" situation.)

And . . . and Saddam is gone!

The point is . . . the point is you gotta stay the course. You know how, like when you're losing at the roulette table, you have to keep on betting when you're losing, doubling down, borrowing if you have to, because you can't afford to give up when you're losing. Because you can't afford to lose all that money. You HAVE to win. So you keep on doing the same thing over and over until you succeed!

The drunk has one advantage: he will sober up.

Bush and Cheney never will.

Nor will most of their congressional supporters.

Nor will their diehard rabid partisan supporters in the public.

America can sober up, however, by throwing the drunkard GOP out of the White House, out of the Senate, and out of the House in 2007 and 2008, as applicable.

"Alice/George in Wonderland"

Hillary Clinton has it right: "Enough is enough!"

Anyone see these three headlines up simultaneously on CNN right now?
"Bush sees good news in Iraq report"
"U.S. analysis: Al Qaeda strongest since 9/11"
and the main story:
"Report: Al Qaeda steps up efforts to hit U.S."

Doesn't sound like good news to me.

James Joyner is no longer insane?

Unlikely.

What is this "non-insane conservative" of which you speak?

It's all about hanging on till Iraq signs that damn oil contract.

But this contract will be worthless even if it by some standard there is some kind of agreement. Bush wants to hold fast till September but personally, I think Prime Minister Maliki will be an Iragi refuge, living somewhere other then Iraq before the Bushies are able to give ExxonMobil their energy task force promised pipe dream.