So if you don't like three-day wonders, start reading Michael Yon already. There are plenty of views out there from people who have spent considerably more than three days in Iraq, and have spent that time outside the Green Zone.

Speaking of which, The Daily Show's Rob Riggle stepped away from the Green Screen and went to Baghdad. He'll be reporting from there next week.

http://cliffschecter.blogspot.com/2007/08/wow-this-is-impressive.html

Here is a right-wing epiphany I just had while cutting my own wages:

Three days is still three times longer than Rudy spent at Ground Zero pretending to be America's Mayor! And that proved he is competent in every matter of foreign policy. And that period was, by his own calculation, more time than most of the relief workers ever spent there. Thus, Iraq combat tours should be extended again!

Ouch. Right-wing thinking hurts my animal brain.

Kudos for spelling 'hear, hear' correctly.

Sorry Mike, but KD forgot the comma.

Sigh.

(totally tongue in cheek of course)

Damn, you're right. Disillusionment descends...

Michael Yon is an ex-Green Beret, embedded with the US military who thinks an endorsement by Col. "Olly" North, an officer who broke the laws of this land and thought loyalty to politics and terrorism outranked loyalty to the country, is a recommendation to his own reporting, which Verdant thinks somehow unbiased.

However, there are and have been long-term reporters, who have remained outside the Green zone and US military bias, are not committed to white-washing either the US military, the Iraqi politics or our own government, and are a more legitimate voice about the obvious failures of this "war".

The time for propaganda is long gone.

It is a testament to the Orwellian nature of today's Republican-crafted political environment that simply mentioning something so manifestly obvious (to all but the most willfully blind) actually merits attention as a brave or commendable revelation anymore than a declaration that the sky is blue.

It's becoming more obvious by the day that those who still remain registered to the political party of the Republicans are traitors not only to their country, constitution, and god but also to morality and reason.

Wait, that should also include traitors to the human race and all life on this planet not only for their active, deliberate, and willful denial of Global Warming but also their efforts to suppress honest and open debate about it and what can be done to fight it.

Then again, perhaps it's not surprising Christian fundamentalists would be actively attempting to destroy the planet given the zeal with which they yearn for the end of the world.

I too have disdain for the drop-in foreign policy appraisals for political expediency.
Bottom line--there is never the true picture of the adverse effect this invasion and occupation has had on the economic, social and cultural aspects of Iraqi lives. The social sentiment. The fate of women's rights. Imagine the lack of electricity and daily horrors for a family with children, with caring for the elderly. Grieving parents. The stressors of the lack of security, of the fact that a car bomb could go off at any moment. Living with fear, regrets, civil strife, decimation of families, missing family members,the number of widows and widowers as a result of this cruel war.

My sister recently flew over part of Iraq on the way from Singapore to Paris, and she said that it looked so peaceful from only seven miles away -- OK, it was seven miles in a vertical direction, but let's not quibble over semantics. Shouldn't her viewpoint count, too?

Ah, Kevin.

Frankly, Bush has already won this thing, for all intensive purposes. The Sunni arabs have forsaken the insurgency and will soon join the government. Sectarian violence has plummeted.

What Bush is doing is smart. He's letting the Democrats continue to think the war is lost. Then, just when it becomes evident to everyone that Iraq has been stablized, it will be just a few months to go before the 08 election, and the Dems will be depraved of their only election issue. Game, set, match.

Only if he gets George and Dick as housemates.

Clearly people in the mainstream media want to believe Pollack and O'Hanlon. There was no good reason to believe them, yet they all ran with the story ignoring all the contra data pouring out of Iraq.

There have been warnings of an Army under stress, but those warnings have been largely confined foreign newspapers, the back pages of American papers and to little blogs like Watching Those We Chose.

Here are a handful of links to bad news Iraq stories posted at WTWC this last week that haven't received the attention they deserve from the big time press. Army’s High Suicide Rate Suggests Administration Is Understating Cases Of PTSD; Iraq insurgents continue to think a step ahead of the American military; An Army Under Stress; and War Czar Whispers "D" Word. We have an Army that can't sustain itself in Iraq much longer, yet we keep hearing happy talk from the media. Just one more Friedman.

The suicide story is really important, yet as is pointed out in Iraq Suicide Rate At Three Percent there has been a woeful lack of press coverage. Nobody wants to face reality. We have a mess on our hands and we aren't really doing what it is going to take to solve it.

Exactly, Egberto --
Bush is a HUGE winner in Iraq "for all intensive purposes" [sic]. And how do I know, you might ask?
I learned from the very Cheneyist of authorities that the insurgency is "in its final throes". Actually it has been for quite awhile. We're just experiencing the last of those final throes, or (as Condi told us) the "birth pangs" of democracy. Or something.

Plus, like Donald's sister, I looked down on Iraq (okay, in my case it was on Google Earth) and saw all appeared peaceful and good. So take it from Egberto and me. We ain't no fools.
That should be enough for the rest of you malcontents.

If egbert keeps skipping his Bonehead English class at Regent University in order to post his drivel here he may soon be qualified to ghost Guliani's foreign policy position papers for the Washington Post.

Indeed, "Hear, hear" is ever so much better than "Word".

But, as to the Melanie Morgan, Laura Ingrahem, and Mark Williams types, can not see any of those cowards "dropping in by parachute" - If they did, they all landed on their heads. No "Gory, gory, hallelujah" for those wimps.

I am sure the media is playing up happy Iraq stories, bad ignoring not so happy Iraq stories, but I am not so sure there is an actual conspiracy. The evidence can easily be explained by a desire on the part of the media for everything to turn out all right. Maybe Iraq will get better if you just Just Think Good Thoughts, Clap Your Hands and Keep Wishing.

I am particularly upset with the lack of coverage on the Iraq soldier suicide story. Soldiers don't kill themselves if they have hope. Jon Stolz of VoteVets.org has a great post up on WTWC. You might want to give it a look.

These pronouncements that Bush is vindicated in Iraq and that all is well just floor me.

Even the most conservative newspaper in our area reports that 500 people died in a series of
devastating truck bombings in Iraq this week.
500 more were wounded.
In many cases, "there's nothing left but strips of flesh..."
One of the two villages had an area of devastation a half mile in diameter.

Can someone tell me how this fits in with the new talking point that "violence is down in Iraq?"

Perdell Verdant: So if you don't like three-day wonders, start reading Michael Yon already.

Amen.

Another great reporter in Iraq is John Burns of the New York Times. Yon describes operations in which he is embedded, including photos and short videos. His level of specific detail is unmatched. Burns tends to describe the overall sitiuation, with a very high level of understanding. Of course, Petraius and the other generals in Iraq would be the best experts on the military situation there.

P.S. the cited article has a degree of balance in that it eventually points out that, "Opponents of the war are also guilty of using visits to gain credibility." Actually, of those with long experience in Iraq, most support continuing the war, rather than withdrawing.

Supporters of continued American military involvement include Yon and various generals. Burns has not come out in favor of continued military operations, nor has he advocated withdrawal.

I cannot think of prominent withdrawal advocates who have made more than a few visits to Iraq. The list of withdrawal supporters who lack long experience in Iraq includes Cindy Sheehan, Harry Reid, Jack Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Markos Moulitsas, Barak Obama, and Hillary Clinton.

cwa,

Expect a thorough grilling by the press corps, when the new White House team of co-spokespersons, Richard Stickler and Bob Murray appear for the Press Room Briefings.

The point is correct, but to hear it come from Kevin is a bit laughable, after all his definitive pronouncements about what is happening militarily and politically in Iraq over the past few years from the comfort of Southern California.

Well, bri, to hear your cheerleading, while safely and comfortably sitting in New York (?) is just as sickening to the rest of us, so why don't you knock it off?

"Actually, of those with long experience in Iraq, most support continuing the war, rather than withdrawing."

That's not what the overwhelming majority of Iraqis think. Perhaps they have not been there long enough.

"The point is correct...."

You should have quit while you were ahead, Brian.

Well, FAUX-Lib, sitting in your Yellow Cab again - But, how did not tune in to Hugh Hewitt recently - He had John Burns on where Burns said that an early withdrawal from Iraq would be catastrophic - So, if Burns is not advocating further military action, what the hell does he expect our troops to do? Chill out at the clubs?

Oh, and General, "I'm a politician first" Petroman was also on Hewitt - Always fair and balanced.

Do tune in more, but, then you must still be looking for Mrs. Lee to run into you, again.

Be quiet, quit, or just quite - Whatever - well, two of three seem to work.

[Trolling Deleted]

Posted by: mhr on August 18, 2007 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

I refer all to this post, since it conclusively demonstrates the moral and intellectual bankruptcy that is "conservatism" for all to see.

The brutal truth is we can not sustain y'all's wet dream any longer. The Army is broken. Recruiting and retention are lagging, last year 17% of all recruits had to be admitted on waivers. This year it is so far off that last month 1106 former recruiters were reassigned under emergency TDY orders to report back to recruiting stations through the end of the fiscal year.

And those of you who cheerlead and have never stepped up your damned selves, frankly sicken me. We did what we did for the people of this country, and that even includes you lot that would sacrifice us on the altar of ideology - but I certainly have nothing but contempt for you loathsome lot now, from this side of service.

And now, no longer bound by protocol, I can say what I really think - that you pathetic, cloying jackasses who have never sacrificed anything yet still cheer on an immoral and illegal war are craven cowards and I have nothing but contempt for you.

Let me clarify - I have always found you utterly contemptible and unworthy of American citizenship. I just couldn't say so before.

I apologize for bringing this clearly off topic issue here, but I thought this thread as good a place as any to talk about it.

There's been a major controversy in my neck of the woods regarding the Armenian genocide. The national ADL has basically been enabling genocide deniers in to protect the interests of Turkey, an ally of Israel. It pretty much has admitted publicly that that is its motivation for its position. It has also just fired the local Boston ADL director because he came out in opposition to this view.

This is going to get ugly, folks.

What's really remarkable to me about the episode is how it went from a purely local protest in Watertown MA to have potentially a genuine impact on international issues -- Congress is entertaining a resolution that would recognize the massacre of Armenians as an act of genocide, and the ADL has been, effectively, a major opponent of that resolution.

Here's the link to the latest article about the controversy. You can also follow the links along with the article to see the history of the controversy.

Why is it "contemptible and unworthy of American citizenship" to have an opinion?

By the way, the only opinions I even expressed today were agreement with Kevin's post about 3 day trips to Iraq not providing sufficent basis for pronouncments and that the same principle applied to Kevin's many pronouncements from California about what is happening militarily and politically in Iraq. I try to never claim to know what is happenning or will happend in Iraq.

I did not say you can't have an opinion. I said cheerleading a war you stand to lose nothing in is contemptible.

When your opinion implies my friends and relatives still in uniform are expendable, and support for continuing the occupation implies just that, your opinion is contemptible at best, from my perspective. I'm not proposing we assign citizenship a la Heinlein, but the longer this bullshit war drags on, the harder and less forgiving I become. Especially when I have been right about it every effing step of the way, while you lot have been absolutely, positively 100% wrong.

Support for the war by soldiers tells us nothing. As the stock for Enron was tanking there were plenty of employees who believed that it was just a temporary problem. It is the nature of human beings to want their life's work not to be wasted. Yon's reporting can be dismissed for the same reason.

In the late 60s there was an event called the Tet Offensive. The North Vietnamese lost. It was another in a nearly unbroken string of losses for them. Against the military might of the world's largest military spender no nation can be expected to win many battles. But the United States lost its war on Vietnam because it never had the support of the people.

Pick any battle in Iraq to replace the Tet Offensive and replace Vietnam with Iraq in the above paragraph. Everyone knows that Dick Cheney was right to say, both in 1994 and 2000, that removing Saddam Hussein would result in a quagmire.

brian, it's easy to know what is happening in Iraq. Turn on the news and look at the latest figures on Iraqi deaths. Then, get in your wayback machine, and look at the news coming out of Iraq under sanctions. Notice anything? Yes, I can see by the stunned look on you face that you do. No, your eyes aren't deceiving you, the violent death rate is much lower under Saddam Hussein. And yes, it is true that Iraq is a much more peaceful place under the rule of a dictator than under the iron heel of George W. Bush's occupation.

If you are looking for causes, remember, Saddam Hussein was an Iraqi. His police force was Iraqi. His brutality was mostly limited to operations that would keep him in power. Over the course of his entire reign the number of dead estimated was actually less than the number now estimated over the course of a mere three years of occupation.

Now, you may argue that the problem is the insurgency, not the military. And you are right that they are the ones doing the killing, but you are wrong to pretend that absolves George W. Bush of responsibility for the deaths.

Tim McVeigh didn't personally kill 300 people in Oklahoma. He merely set off a chain of events that led to their deaths. The consequences of setting off a bomb in front of a public building were predictable.

George Bush didn't personally kill 100,000 Iraqis. He merely set off a chain of events that led to their deaths. The consequences of his unprovoked assault on the Iraq people were entirely predictable. As I've already mentioned, Richard Cheney explained those consequences a decade before he decided he didn't care about the Iraqi people or the United States military enough to avoid those consequences.

blue girl,

You are certain that you are right, seem to consider yourself superior because of your service, and are contemptuous of those with the audacity to respectfully disagree with you. I don't think it serves any purpose to continue our discussion, so best wishes and I hope you find serenity somewhere.

heavy,

If the consequences of Iraq war were entirely predictable, there certainly were few, if any, people accurately predicting them at the start of the war.

Your argument that President Bush is responsible for terrorists blowing up innocent people seems strained, and a variation of the liberal perspective that the responsibility for criminal action extends beyond the criminal.

Is it wise to allow terrorist killing of innocents to dictate the outcome of this war? Won't that approach produce the same result in future wars or even in future political disputes short of war?

"many Enron employees believing that it was only temporary"

Correct - But, is it not sorta wierd when the Marine Corps band at the White House starts playing "Nearer my God to me"?

You are certain that you are right

I have the archives to prove it. And yes, I do have nothing but contempt for war chickenhawk ewar cheerleaders, no matter how "respectful" they seem to think they are.

While I do not think service makes me superior across the board, I can not help but feel that way toward loathsome chickenhawks. I am, after all, a human being prone to human emotions, including contempt.

You hope I find serenity, and so do I. My wish for you is an awakening.

Now, good day to you as well.

Preview would certainly be my friend, eh?

Egbert and the rest of the loyal apologists for the administration, as a point of fact,
simply report their bias with robot-like argument--never in-depth, or with credible sources, just spouting their fundmentally irrational or false points.
They either live in a parallel universe or are paid neocon commentators.

brian,

Try watching a clip of Cheney in 94, when he still had some sense in his head - It is not much different from General Swartzkopf's view of why we didn't go to Baghdad in 91. Yes, both of them foresaw the results - Oil and power simply have deluded Cheney since that time.

It is not because Blue Girl feels superior due to her service to this land. However, her intellect trumps your Chicken Hawkish views any day. She wishes to see our military strong, but, NOT misused. She is a patriot of the highest order.

If the consequences of Iraq war were entirely predictable, there certainly were few, if any, people accurately predicting them at the start of the war.

Whoa! You need to stop right there chief. Not only were there tons of people ACCURATELY predicting the outcome of this post invasion mess, a number of them were within the administration.

Post Gulf War 1 we fucking knew this!!

Hell, an undergrad can with a map and a middle eastern history course could have told you the outcome.

Lots of Shia...borders Iran...borders Syria...long history of tribal and sectarian violence...a kurdish seperatist movement...possible guerrilla fighting in urban areas... lots of stockpiled arms.

All of that was known beforehand and very well publicized, but you know what? Those who had the balls to say "WTF?!!" were ignored, railroaded, shouted-down and threatened.

The people who decided we were going to war, did so knowing that this outcome was a strong possibility, and yet then they did it anyway.

Then, to top off their gross negligence they were criminally incompetent in execution, and have been trying to declare victory or transfer blame every step of the way.

Oh, and if my previous post didn't make it clear:

The administration's deliberate ignoring of official intel and outcome projections compounded with manufacturing intel to justify their aims is a prisonable offense.

That's not a statement of political opinion. It's a fact of responsibility that lies on those who seek to lead this nation and our armed services.

These days visits to Iraq sound like President Bush's Town Hall Meetings -- largely ceremonial, heavily scripted, audience hand-picked, questions screened, only hearing what the administration wants to hear.

When we finally pull out of Iraq can we please dispense with that annoying phrase, "on the ground?" It's thrown into virtually every discussion about the war. The phrase's apparent intent is to impute to the speaker or writer a grasp of reality, as in "I spoke with the troops on the ground in Baghdad." It seems to sound better than, "I spoke to the troops in the air," which could be perceived as insulting to the Air Force. Nonetheless, it's annoying.

Ex-liberal at 11:19 am claims that "I cannot think of prominent withdrawal advocates who have made more than a few visits to Iraq." He may try reading the writings of such credible journalists as Dahr Jamail, Nir Rosen, Patrick Cockburn, and Robert Fiske, among others, who have spent much time in Iraq and because of that, recognizes that the violence that has permeated so much of Iraq has been due to the less than benevolent presence of the U.S. military in Iraq.

This has then led them to recognize that the only solution to the cessation of violence is for the U.S. to leave Iraq as quickly and as rapidly as possible.

brian: blue girl, You are certain that you are right

Because she is right, you monumental jackass, and has been right since before this war started and every step of the way. You, on the other hand, have been proven wrong in every single prediction, real time report and recap of what's happened and happening over there. Every single fucking one. By god, it takes some talent to still manage to get it so wholly wrong at this point. How does the festering mass of denial between your ears not make your head explode?

Because you continually recast history in your own desperate little mind (outdoing yourself with the outrageous fabrication "If the consequences of Iraq war were entirely predictable, there certainly were few, if any, people accurately predicting them at the start of the war"), you ignore that the record is here for all to see. No one in it could possibly come off any worse than you do.

She's right. You're wrong. Have some shame, a shred of fucking dignity, and shut up now, will you?

Thanks to those who pointed brian to Cheney in '94. Watching Olberman last night I also discovered Cheney's 2000 statement explaining why invading Iraq was a bad idea. In other words brian, you would already know that the consequences were predictable and predicted by the very architects of this disaster if you weren't ignoring the evidence.

I know this is hard for you brian, but what I'm suggesting isn't a stretch. In a war, an occupying nation is responsible for the security of the populace. This isn't some lefty idea, this is international law. George W. Bush has created chaos in Iraq. Had he left Saddam Hussein in power tens of thousands (minimum) of human beings would still be alive. Those deaths have a single root cause - the elimination of Iraq's government.

This is weird. Kevin makes a post saying people who don't spend a lot of time in Iraq don't have the basis to make pronouncements, I agree, and then a bunch of commenters who presumably have not spent a lot of time in Iraq issue a flurry of strident and certain pronouncements.

I don't know that debating whether we should have gone to war is of much value now, but we had a full debate in the house and senate about it, and I sure don't remember anyone predicting the problems we have encountered. Obama came close in the Illinois legislature, and he deserves some credit for it in terms of the quality of his opposition to the war, but what he said was pretty general stuff about the consequences. Anyone have other examples?

No brian, you didn't understand the point of the article. The point is "I've been in Iraq for a three day dog and pony show" doesn't give you credibility on the situation in Iraq. It doesn't tell you if things are going well, it doesn't tell you things are going to hell. Just spending a few days in Iraq tells you nothing.

On the other hand, paying attention to the facts is a better way to be credible. That's right, it is possible to not be in Iraq and know what the fuck is happening. Paying attention to the sum of the facts is better than standing 3" from an elephant and declaring it to be "just like a wall."

As to "full debate" that's just bullshit. First, we didn't have a full debate before the war - we had a bunch of fearmongering and claptrap about nuclear weapons and a vote which claimed to be about "positioning" but was ultimately used as a de facto declaration of war - that vote was done at a time to ensure the RNC could bludgeon as "soft on terror" anyone who didn't vote for it.

It is much easier to say "soft on terror" than to explain why leaving a bad guy in place in Iraq is better than an unprovoked war and subsequent occupation that kills tens of thousands each year.

Oh, I should point out, the debate didn't focus on the aftermath. Which is a big part of why it was a joke.

As to why the issue of whether we should have gone to war is still important - just look at the idiocies you are spewing right now. If we ignore the question of who was right and who was wrong then we allow jackasses like you who were fundamentally wrong a pass on their culpability in the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi human beings.

You were wrong to support the assault on the sovereign nation of Iraq. You are wrong to support the occupation. Worse, you are now willfully wrong about all of this. 20/20 hindsight is only for people who are willing to accept facts as the basis for their judgment. Something you have demonstrated you are not willing to do.

Let's not forget Rumsfeld refusing to plan for the aftermath - to the point that he said he would fire the next person who brought it up.

brian: "Why is it 'contemptible and unworthy of American citizenship' to have an opinion?"

Blue Girl didn't say that it was "contemptible and unworthy" to have AN opinion -- her comment just applies your particular opinion.

But then, your over-reliance on obsolete GOP talking points clearly shows that you don't have an original thought of your own -- so arguing with you is really akin to attempting a rational conversation with a pre-programmed voicebox in a life-sized cardboard cut-out.

Sorry heavy, but you are not right -- he clearly says people who are not there do not have a "keen sense" of what is going on there -- read it again:

It goes without saying that everyone can, and in this country should, have an opinion about the war, no matter how much time the person has spent in Iraq, if any. But having left a year ago, I've stopped pretending to those who ask that I have a keen sense of what it's like on the ground today.

brian, are you really that stupid? He says he's stopped pretending to have a keen sense of what's going on there. Not that he has become ignorant of what goes on there. But the larger argument is simply an unassailable attack on "appeal to authority." Every time Joe Lieberman comes back and says "I know what's going on, I've been there" he is using appeal to authority. It is invalid.

And the evidence that you are complicit in mass murder is the (at least) 25,000 people who die violently in Iraq each year because you and yours were too stupid to understand the difference between a dictator and a threat to national security. The tens of thousands of dead do not thank you for your appalling ignorance.

Every time Joe Lieberman comes back and says "I know what's going on, I've been there" he is using appeal to authority. It is invalid.

As we all learned in both debate and ethics.

Who would you, brian who has been wrong about everything from the beginning and whose understanding of national security, military operations, and reality are roughly that of a four-year-old, have us listen to? The war pornographers like Yon? The generals whose political leanings are the reason they are generals under Bush and whose very jobs depend on pretending that Operation Iron Boot Heel is going well?

Iraq is not some black hole of information where no one knows anything about what is happening. But do you know the single biggest reason why getting good information out of Iraq is difficult? Because people like you have turned it into a fucking disaster.

Another statistic that needs to be considered about the incredible stupidity of starting an immoral and illegal war is in the following:

Warning over spiralling Iraq refugee crisis

Matt Weaver and agencies
Thursday December 7, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

The surging violence in Iraq has created what is becoming the biggest refugee crisis in the world, a humanitarian group said today.

A report (pdf) by Washington-based Refugees International said an influx of Iraqis threatened to overwhelm other Middle Eastern countries, particularly Syria, Jordon and Lebanon.

Last month, the UN estimated that 100,000 people were fleeing the country each month, with the number of Iraqis now living in other Arab countries standing at 1.8 million.

Today's report came as George Bush and Tony Blair were due to discuss the situation in Iraq, which the bipartisan Iraq Study Group yesterday described as "grave and deteriorating".

Refugees International said the acceleration in the numbers fleeing Iraq meant it could soon overtake the refugee crisis in Darfur.

More can be found at the following link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html

You don't have to be in Iraq to know that if 1.8 million are leaving the country, things are NOT good there.

Amen…….I cannot think of prominent withdrawal advocates who have made more than a few visits to Iraq… ex-lax at 11:19 AM

…there certainly were few, if any, people accurately predicting them…Your argument that President Bush is responsible for terrorists blowing up innocent people….brian at 1:39 PM

As for people predicting the consequences, watch Dick Cheney here. You do know of Dick Cheney, don't you?

This reminds me of a mention I saw in a newspaper when I lived in Japan. The writer said that people who visited Japan for a week would go home and write a book. Those who visited for a month would go home and write a magazine article. Those who stayed for six months would go back and write a newspaper article. Those who stayed any longer were totally befuddled and incapable of writing anything.