Use the power of the purse and just say no! Slow down the appropriation. Whatever. Just don't give the lame duck one more dime. When will Congress use the power we gave them at the polls to shut this damn thing down?

I quickly misread it as "fund the splurge." How silly of me.

Maybe it was meamt to be "What fun to splurge". After all we aren't the ones paying for it, are we?

The war is so popular and going so well, how could anyone on the Very Serious Thinker circuit, like the good folks at Len Downie's Washington Post*, balk at the idea of throwing another $50 billion on the pile? It's not like any of them will have to pay the debt.

Oh, and the lovely extended combat tours being subsidized by this money? Surely the soon-to-be maimed and the dead won't mind, or their families.

Did you hear in Iraq entire militias are using pogroms to evict hundeds of ethnic and political rivals at a time instead of piddling, inefficient car bombs and death squads which kill only a handful at a time?

*Hell of a job reporting on Sen. Craig's Union Station trysts, Len.

How much was that infamous NYTimes op-ed by O'Hanlon and Pollack worth? I'd say, in terms of shaping the debate, about $1 billion.

They will be richly rewarded as a result.

The Kabuki Kongress will give Cheney and Bush exactly what they want, as they always do. The Democrats are spineless, corrupt, and stupid and the GOP Bushbots are arrogant, corrupt, and stupid.

“It makes no difference who you vote for - the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the people” - Gore Vidal

But we've got to stay in Iraq and fight the terrorists over there, if we leave now they will follow us home. 9-11, 9-11, 9-11. If we leave now the terrorists win. Support the troops. Oh, sorry, didn't mean to ramble on, just getting myself ready for the onslaught of BS we are about to hear AGAIN. Too bad those spineless politicians in congress will give this idiot whatever he wants.

$50 billion? That can't be enough. After another $9 billion disappears in Iraq, another $10 billion purchases arms that get resold to the insurgents, Halliburton gets its cut, Cheney makes a billion from his stocks, Chalabi takes his share, another US base gets built, and the Iraqi parliament takes most of the balance, all that leaves for the troops is black trash bags and ties in place of body bags.

He's gotta ask for more. He could take it out of the Katrina rebuild account.

> The White House already knows what Petraeus and
> Crocker are going to say

Better yet, the White House knows what the White House is going to have them say. (and what not)

I am taking bets that thirty years from now when the claws of FOIA finaly get to Cheney`s man sized safe... this piece of stagecraft will appear:

* Petraeas enter stage left.
Petraeas: Everything is fine [some permutation of the words warfighters tactiacally taking the fight to the terrorist that attacked us], 50B$ please, bye.
* Petraeas exit stage left.

Also in the safe, a bill for a million dollar set including a hollywood lighting and a humvee. It will of course include a list for the next batch of corrupt and or sex crazed republican resignations that will be burried underneath the carfully timed tv broadcasts.

Remember all that noise about a new strategy, that turned out to be a bunch of powerpoint slides with bullet pointed slogans with a cool cover? That thing made the Guliani foreign policy paper looks rational and consistent.

Make the piece of shit go on national TV and tell the American people he needs to raise their taxes to pay for his vanity war.

It will be over next week.

ok, this is what we do...give him the check, but in teenie, tiny print it says that by endorsing it he has to resign in 5 days...better yet, he is enlisting in the infantry.

It'll be interesting to see how this goes down. Unlike some, I didn't expect that gaining narrow majorities in congress would allow Democrats to dictate an end to the war, though up to now they've been pretty spineless about even trying. However, the political center of gravity keeps shifting more and more against the administration, so I expect this request may prove a bit more troublesome than past ones.

It also will do nothing to help Republican electoral prospects in 2008 - another reminder that this deeply hated war is costing us all, even if we don't have family fighting in it. The GOP position is being hollowed out with every new development, even as they do a big PR push to keep from being forced to withdraw.

If Dubya wants to keep the troops in, I think he'll be able to, at least till he leaves office. But every day the war goes on it kills the future of the Republican party a little more, embedding the memory in the minds of the public what an arrogant Republican is capable of once ensconced in the oval office. I think they won't be quick to trust another Republican with the Executive branch anytime soon. And in a few more election cycles, demographic changes will make it much more difficult for Republicans to win a national election.

Here's hoping Bush is the last Republican president of my lifetime.

I assume the blogosphere will go back to what was being said last March and find that the more prescient--or cyncical--observers predicted that in September Bushco would come back to us with claims that "things are going much better, thank you, and we just need more time to solidify the progress." We should be surprised?

Americans want to believe that this particular story will have a happy ending, and Bushco wants to string it along as long as they can. It is a vicious co-dependency, the gullible believer and the hardened con.

And it is hard to know what to do. The Republicans in Congress still control outcomes, despite the narrow Democratic majority, and they aren't going to support cutting off funding. If the Dems did pull it off, somehow, the 25% of hardcore, irrational liberal-hating warmongers would screech and obsess for the next couple of generations that the liberals forced the US to leave too soon--things were just starting to turn around!

The real victory in the US invasion of Iraq will come when that noisy, irrational segment of the population is discredited forever.

Make the piece of shit go on national TV and tell the American people he needs to raise their taxes to pay for his vanity war.

It will be over next week.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on August 29, 2007 at 6:25 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No it won't. The American people as a group are possibly the fattest, stupidest, laziest, most gullible motley crew of buffoons on the planet. S & M spanking fetishists got nothing on this electorate when it comes to begging for abuse.

If he gets the $50 B that he is asking for, and he probably will, he'll use it to bomb Iran.

Bush needs to go to The Hague.

I've never been much of a fan of political protests; even in the past, protests were rarely effective in advancing their objectives and, in the current era, protests are barely covered by the media and protesters are marginalized in the media.

However, if Congress continues to be ineffective in putting any brakes on this tragic and misguided war and occupation of Iraq, I really could get behind a massive, peaceful protest in D.C. with no purpose other than to express deep opposition to this war and frustration with the political class in D.C. I have no expectation that it would necessarily accomplish anything, but it would do me (and maybe others) some good to be part of it.

The founders hoped the power of the purse would limit the kingly ambitions of presidents. It was, after all, how the British limited the vain war ambitions of their monarchs and, in part, gained democratic institutions. But this check has been nullified by easily manipulated nationalist sentiment in the United States, the availability of a vast standing army established to fight the Cold War, and an abstract system of taxation and payment which hides the cost of war. Parliamentary governments would have the option of replacing the prime minister but under a presidential regime the institutions of the state can be held hostage. As it turns out any group of thugs capable of manipulating their way into the White House can have the war they like. It could just as well been a group of anti-Chinese politicians and industrialists wanting to get at the People's Republic. Making the war you like is now the perk of the office. These are not national wars of necessity but wars of personal ambition wrapped in patriotic propaganda.

PTate in FR --

Thanks for your perceptive comment. So true.

The White House already knows what Petraeus and Crocker are going to say and they figure it's going to be $50 billion of good news.

—Kevin Drum

Voters know also. And we dems will pay the price in '08.

A few courageous dems like Murtha showed the way early on. And American public opinion was on our side. But the equivocating, triangulating and cautious hair-splitting went on and on ... and, unbelievably, it's still going on.

Dems in Congress -- including HRC -- are now seen as cowardly enablers of a White House that is in total disarray. Bush is a mean, stupid clown and his administration is a sad, pathetic circus financed by a democratic Congress.

It may be too late to regroup.

The unbudgeted expenditure requests since the war has begun are more examples of the Cheney/Bush plan to impose the executive's will on the Congress. By forcing through the extra money, the Congressional hold on the purse strings has weakened diluting yet another part of the Constitution.
The surge report is largely irrelevant except as it relates to the volume at which the debate, prior to its inevitable passage, takes place. Do you really think that if the Petraeus report was negative about current conditions, that Congress would cease funding? At best, the funding might take place with the sort of "yeah, we'll give you the money this time, but don't you come back here again (without a better story)."
We're in, we're staying and we're never leaving. Iraq would be just as well off if they applied for statehood and asked for health insurance for all the children. That's the only way the Feds will deny the financing.
In the words of Kurt Vonnegut, it's too sad to cry about, you may as well laugh.

For a little perspective on numbers like these, ther the Children’s Health Insurance program that Bush promises to veto if expanded costs about $4 billion per year. The Iraq fiasco is currently incinerating about $12 billion per month. The $50 billion more for the "purge" would fund the program for 12+ years.

Health, infrastructure, the general welfare, it all suffers for the United States of Halliburton, et al.

What Petraeus should be planning to say when he takes center stage on 9/11:

Please, let me and my troops come home. I don't know what I'm doing or where I'm going, and I'm tired of killing Iraqis for no good reason. I'm tired of seeing my own troops killed and maimed by a ruthless enemies who at least understand why they are fighting and what their objectives are.

I wrote the book on counterinsurgency, but it's not a very good one. It cannot save us, and it cannot guide us to victory. The surge was never a good idea, and its weaknesses are glaringly obvious to me and to the insurgents. If we insist on continuing it, it will bring nothing but further destruction and shame.

I care about my country and I care about my troops. I care about the Iraqi people. Help me to end this futile exercise, because I am incapable of ending it or completing it by myself. For the love of God and our children, let's stop this now.

What if those Armed Forces Generals actually ARE telling the truth ... ?

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator

Which Generals?

This would be an excellent time for the Democratic leadership to point out that the deficit orgy thrown by Bush and the former Republican Congress needs to be over, and that if Bush wants more money for a war the American people are overwhelmingly in support of ending, he should propose a tax increase to pay for it.

I'm not holding my breath.

This is the same guy who is threatening to veto $50 billion in children's health insurance.

He's willing to spend $50 billion running out the clock, so he doesn't have to admit he has failed in Iraq.

But $50 billion over 5 years to get health insurance for nearly 5 million kids? 5 million American kids with vaccinations, checkups, in school instead of Emergency Rooms?

Nah, we can't find the money for that.

Once again, which generals is Bush listening to?

Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste who led the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq until he retired last year? No.

Retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, former commander of US forces in the Middle East and Central Asia? No.

Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton in charge of training Iraqi forces from 2003 to 2004? No.

Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, former operations director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff? No.

Colin Powell, former Joint Chiefs chairman? No.

Army chief of staff Gen. Eric Shinseki? No.

Gen. Merrill McPeak, retired Air Force chief of staff? No.

This is perhaps the biggest disgrace of all. Letting this little lying man continue to say that he is listening to his generals.

If we don't spend the $50B over there, we will have to spend it over here, but that would be wrong.

Bush is getting ready to veto SCHIP which provides health care for lower and middle class kids whose parents have lost their health care. Price between 35 and 50 billion for the next 7 years. Bush says its too expensive to make sure millions of American kids get the health care they need. Explain to me why we need to spend that much additional money on Iraq.

I guess gregor is right. If we don't spend it over there, we whould have to spend it over here and that would be wrong.

My question would simply be:

When is this funding going to be put on the books?

This is a cite to a very interesting column on the consequences of the liberal "victory" in giving up on Vietnam.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/the_left_loses_the_vietnam_war.html

If it is accurate that giving up in Vietnam spawned the mujahadeen in Afghanistan and the Ayatollah in Iran, it was a mistake of breathtaking historical proportions. I realize there probably will not be much agreement here with the causation argument in the column, but it still is a very interesting theory and it is worth giving some thought to the idea of unanticipated or unknowable consequences.

Thanks, brian! Appreciate your "thoughtful" passing along of another "interesting" article.

Say, as you're sifting through all this thoughtful, interesting stuff from your approximately three total information sources, do you ever come across anything that makes you be thoughtful about or interested in the breathtaking historical mistakes of the Bush administration and all Republicans who enabled it? No? Huh. That's weird.

The Conservative Deflator: ...go on national TV and tell the American people he needs to raise their taxes to pay for his vanity war.

Yup. And this Friday, Mr. Drum will have pictures of Inkblot glding from tree to tree. Domino won't be available for picture-taking, having flown on her new wings to St. Louis to spend the long weekend visiting with Blue Girl's cats.

brian, everyone's favorite faux-moderate concern troll, wrote: I realize there probably will not be much agreement here with the causation argument in the column

You don't say.

It is amusing, though, to see the lengths brian has to go to (citing a nutty "Vietnam caused Afghanistan!" in an equally nutty wingnut website as a "very interesting theory") to shore up the GOP's sagging, decades-long branding effort as "strong on defense".

Sorry, brian ol' buddy, but the incompetence of Bush and the neocons -- which authoritarian personality cultists like you and the yo-yos ar RCP support -- has ruined that rep. Your constant assertions that Daddy knows best have gone from mildly irriating to downright pathetic.

Sock Puppet Alert: The "Conservative Deflator" at 10:16 is a fraud. Check the email, it's different.

The Democratic Majority - Wow - Sounds great - Now, discount the Blue Dogs - Liebermann is about to be named the new head of DOJ - Repug appointed by the Conn Guv, but, would that make any real difference?

And, then you have Rep Brian "Linda Smith" Baird in Southwest Washington - I had to cancel a trip across the river last night to hear him speak to a Town Hall meeting - However, for anyone interested in that dustup, check Columbian.com for online report - High School auditorium was packed with anti-war, and many former voters for Baird, folks - Very few in the audience agreed with Baird - Yet, Baird believes that there is a silent majority of folks in the land, who are against the war, but, against our losing. How, Archie Bunker and Falwell have become twisted and stood on their collective heads - The Silent Majority, indeed.

Most telling exchange of the evening was between Baird and a former student of his and close friend - Fellow is a ship's captain on the Columbia River - In the exchange, Baird was quoted as saying, that as a captain of a ship, his friend would stay and bring the vessel to safety. The Captain responded by saying, that no, Baird would take the ship into the rocks, but, that he would take it safely to the beach. With that, he stormed out - Biggest applause of the night as he departed.

ah, shortstop weilds her bat firstest and bestest. Nice job.

Also the one at 8:47.

I realize there probably will not be much agreement here with the causation argument in the column, but it still is a very interesting theory and it is worth giving some thought to the idea of unanticipated or unknowable consequences.

You can't, by definition, give thought to "unknowable" consequences. If you could think about and anticipate them they wouldn't be unknowable.

You can't, by definition, give thought to "unknowable" consequences. If you could think about and anticipate them they wouldn't be unknowable.

I know this is inconvenient to the Dolchstosslegende that brian and his fellow Bush Apologists are trying to build -- which, interestingly, is a tacit admission that they know Bush has lost the war -- but any bad consequences that follow our withdrawal -- and we will withdraw at least somewhat next year; the military can't sustain the troop levels and yo-yos like brian refuse to join up -- these consequences are a result of Bush's invasion.

That's the causation brian and his fellow Bush Apologists refuse to consider. But Papa Bush and Colin Powell did in Gyulf War I; they cited the risks of occupying a Muslim country -- and one with obvious sectarian fissures at that -- in explaining why they didn't take Baghdad back in '91.

There is no doubt the Republicans are going down in 08. The real question is whether the Democrats are any better? So far that is an open question. Given Pelosi's refusal to do anything serious to restore the constitution and Hillary's insistence that the Republicans will benefit if America is attacked, one has to wonder whether an whole new party is needed to restore power to the people. Maybe it is time to kick all the bums out--both parties.

Gregory,

Add, some guy named Cheney who, in 94, said the same - Video of this has been shown recently. Of course, this is before he went to the Halliburton Stab Lab for oil transfusions.

We're spending 50 billion over there so we don't have to spend it here.

On second thought, make that "so we can't spend it here."

WTF? - BlueGirl's cats have escaped to St Louis? For the Chiefs game with the Rams? Corpus Juris, be on the watch.

brian's "cite" is utterly irrelevant and worthless. Which, of course, he sees as a positive.

Not worth commenting on, let alone responding to.

"If it is accurate that giving up in Vietnam spawned the mujahadeen in Afghanistan and the Ayatollah in Iran..."

It's not, of course. Next?

"but it still is a very interesting theory"

An idiotic and inaccurate "theory" can be "interesting," just as any fictional account can, but it's hardly worth spending any thought on.

"and it is worth giving some thought to the idea of unanticipated or unknowable consequences."

Now if you had applied that "thought" to the situation in Iraq before we went to war, you might really have something. Alas, you didn't, and neither did Bush. And, of course, neither of you are actually spending any time thinking about the consequences of our remaining in Iraq. Were you planning to spend some time on that?

Add, some guy named Cheney who, in 94, said the same - Video of this has been shown recently.

94 and didn't he repeat it as recently as 2002? Or was it 2000?

Now if you had applied that "thought" to the situation in Iraq before we went to war, you might really have something. Alas, you didn't, and neither did Bush. And, of course, neither of you are actually spending any time thinking about the consequences of our remaining in Iraq. Were you planning to spend some time on that?

This cracked me up. Have never met Paul but can imagine him delivering this deadpan in a very level voice.

Yeah, Shortstop, but, then oil takes a while to harden the arteries.

Good god Brian were you even alive when the war in Vietnam was going on. The level of nonsense you cite is breathtaking. I guess you could blame the holocaust on Moses. He did lead the Jews out of the desert you know. Therefore making their progeny available to Hitler for extermination. This of course makes as much sense as what your citing as even worthy of mention.

brian at 10:13 AM: If it is accurate that giving up in Vietnam spawned the mujahadeen in Afghanistan

It was your deity Ronald Reagan that spawned the mujahadeen in Afghanistan. Great idea; let's give these islamic fundamentalists advanced weapons, and show them how to use them. That worked out pretty well, didn't it? But at least Reagan never negotiated with terrorists! Oh, wait...

shortstop,

There is no way at this point to determine if Bush has made a mistake of breathtaking historical proportions. It is far too early to tell. One point of the column I cited is that you cannot tell such mistakes until far down the road.

I concede it is possible that Bush has made such a mistake. But what we know now is that Bush's decisions have put us in a very difficult situation. I think it is more likely that, if there is a mistake of historical proportions, it will be what we do next in terms of trying to address the current difficult situation.

if there is a mistake of historical proportions, it will be what we do next in terms of trying to address the current difficult situation.

If I hit myself over the head with a shovel, it will be from trying to dig myself out of the hole that I've dug myself into.

Is the $50B for selling the new draft or is just bonuses for getting our soldiers to "re-up" their enlistments, or is just monies for "mercenaries"? I wonder if there are any Hessians or Janissaries around?

Dem leaders should hold one or more press conferences, accompanied by snappy graphics, and talk about what alternative uses $50 billion could be put towards: Katrina rebuilding, tackling our crumbling infrastructure, universal health care, etc. etc. There is a pronounced lack of initiative on the Left to attack this crap, put Bu$hCo on the defensive, and reshape the debate. To the extent they try at all, it's always pitifully lame. More progressive politicians with backbone, please.

thethirdpaul: Yeah, Shortstop, but, then oil takes a while to harden the arteries.

Outstanding.

brian: There is no way at this point to determine if Bush has made a mistake of breathtaking historical proportions. It is far too early to tell.

No, brian. No, it's not. Not to anyone with a modicum of honesty. Now, we've given your little show more attention that it deserves. Git along now.

A trillion here, a trillion there...pretty soon it adds up to real money.

Well, fuck the slick Chinese who'll be left holding the bag with our worthless paper.

See that Brian is still working on the historical implications of Napoleon staying in Moscow a tad long - Brian, old chap, how is that firing on Fort Sumter working out?

Still too early to call?

Any word yet as to Marc Antony joining forces with Cleopatra?

I think it is more likely that, if there is a mistake of historical proportions, it will be what we do next in terms of trying to address the current difficult situation.

Shorter brian: Dolchstoss!

Yeah, yeah, brian, we know. Meanwhile, everyone but autoritarian Bush Cultists like you quite correctly recognize the blunder Bush made in invading Iraq, that the incompetence endemic to the neocons and the Republican Party made that blunder worse and that yes, we have no good options. Your mealymouthed "if there is a mistake of historical proportions, it will be what we do next in terms of trying to address the current difficult situation" prsumes that there is a good option, an assertion nto at all in evidence. No one's buying your bullshit, brian -- per usual, I might add.

(On a personal note, you were more entertaining when you dropped the pretense and unleashed your wingnut venom against Rep. Murtha. Don't imagine it's forgotten.)

And another reason your Dolchstosslegende won't work this time, brian? Because chickenhawks like you are so obviously unwilling to make any of the scarifices you demand of your fellow citizens. You're quite happy to demand America expend its lives and treasure in Iraq, knowing full well you'll never serve and that the Idiot in Chief you support insists on paying for the war with a tax cut. That dog just won't hunt, and no amount of dishonest blog posts by you or the rest of the Scaife Counter Blogging Project are going to help.

brian: But what we know now is that Bush's decisions have put us in a very difficult situation. I think it is more likely that, if there is a mistake of historical proportions, it will be what we do next in terms of trying to address the current difficult situation.

So you don't think it was a mistake of historical proportions to put us into this very difficult situation, where by this spring we will be forced to begin the withdrawal of our troops due to the foreseeable consequences of troop exhaustion and the loss of popular support among American citizens for an obvious debacle?

You think that being the sole author of this unnecessary mess that now presents Americans with NO good choices does not make Bush a mistake-maker of historical proportions?

Trust me, history will not place the greatest blame on the people trying to cope with the aftermath of this immense clusterf*#k.

cowalker: ...history will not place the greatest blame on the people trying to cope...

No, but the wingnuts and chickenhawks will. Be ready to deal with that!

Does anyone else lie awake at night, coming to the cripplingly-depressing conclusion that what ultimately drives what's happening in Iraq is a vast collection of Swiss bank accounts for the Bush and Cheney families?

Some of your comments are funny. None provide an intelligent counter argument to my view that it is too early to tell if Bush has made a mistake of breathtaking historical proportions.

Thersites' attempt at humor can be used to illustrate my point that what we do next is most important: "If I hit myself over the head with a shovel, it will be from trying to dig myself out of the hole that I've dug myself into." Thersites mistake of historical proportions would be not his original hole, but his attempt to dig himself out of it, i.e., America's potential mistake of historic proportions will be what we do next, not what we have done so far.

None provide an intelligent counter argument to my view that it is too early to tell if Bush has made a mistake of breathtaking historical proportions.

You presume your view is intelligent and not the basest wingnut propaganda, brian, but no one's fooled. Your record as a dishonest disher of authoritarian Bush Cultist propaganda is too well established.

Your silly "view" -- like the laughable "Vietnam led to Afghanistan" hysteria -- deserves nothing more than the mockery it's getting, brian, you tool. Does the term "ridiculous on its face" ring a bell?

"None provide an intelligent counter argument to my view that it is too early to tell if Bush has made a mistake of breathtaking historical proportions."

Dear heart, that's because you didn't make an intelligent argument in the first place; you simply asserted it. And since the column you cited to back up that assertion was historically inaccurate, you have nothing to stand on to back up that assertion.

Even worse, by framing it as "a mistake of breathtaking historical proportions," you've created a (mostly) strawman argument, since few of us have gone that far.

In short, you've got nothing.

"The American people as a group are possibly the fattest, stupidest, laziest, most gullible motley crew of buffoons on the planet."

QUIMBY: "Er, ah...You people are a bunch of fickle mushheads. I'm sick of all of you."

CROWD: "Give us hell, Quimby!"

Thersites mistake of historical proportions would be not his original hole, but his attempt to dig himself out of it, i.e., America's potential mistake of historic proportions will be what we do next, not what we have done so far.

It's also useful to note that brian hasn't provided any response to the observation that Bush's invasion was a mistake -- he basically concedes, or at least does not contest, this point -- and that Bush's incompetence has left us with no good options.

In order to establish the Dolchstosslegende, brian, the burden is on you to prove that there are good options that justify the continued expenditure of American lives and treasue (and don't worry, old boy, it's other people's lives and treasure at that). Manage that, and you might get the "intelligent counter argument" you claime to want; otherwise your assertins are rightly dismissed as the Bush Apologist propaganda you routinely dish out here.

brian: please, please, please stop putting fish in the barrel. I've got to leave off shooting, and do some work here!

Even worse, by framing it as "a mistake of breathtaking historical proportions," you've created a (mostly) strawman argument, since few of us have gone that far.

Er, hello; I echoed that phrase back to brian after he employed it in his--what was it?--interesting theory. Although I used it largely as a rhetorical device, I hardly think that, in terms of U.S. military history, our record of foreign policy, the number of dead and maimed, the effect on the U.S. deficit and the now-inarguable impossibility of a truly positive outcome, it's a phrase that goes too far. And I believe the assembled postings of those who regularly hang here would indicate overall agreement with me.

[This is Sportsfan 79. He is now banned for handle spoofing.]

Some of your comments are funny. None provide an intelligent counter argument to my view...

Your view deserves nothing but derision.

Why don't you tightly define "results" for us, Thinker, and we'll take it from there? Hint: The stated purpose of the surge was to achieve political progress.

Thinker at 12:09 PM: I'd like to see the context. I'm very suspicious of interpolations in square brackets, especially when it's something that potentially inflammatory. But if Clyburn really said that, he's an idiot, and he sure as shit doesn't speak for me, and I'm mostly a Democrat.

What if the surge actually is producing results in Iraq?

Oh it's producing results alright. I believe Kevin had the casualties posted last week.

[This is Sportsfan 79. He is now banned for handle spoofing.]

[This is Sportsfan 79. He is now banned for handle spoofing.]

Thinker; At least your fellow Democrat Jim Clyburn had the honesty to admit

Still waitin' for that cite.

What if the surge actually is producing results in Iraq?

let's say that [the White House] characterises the results as very positive, and gives evidence in the September report.

Do these two sentences share a common meaning to you? Yep, there's your problem right there.

I note you can't even specifically define (much less produce evidence of) political progress--and that's even leaving the lack of military progress out of it for a moment. Even for an empty sloganeer, that's just bad work.

Game over. For you. And it boggles the world's mind that you guys don't even realize--er, realise it.

The good news (if you're a Republican): that's $50B the government won't have to spent here at home.

Since Bush is going to "ask" for the money, is it too much to suggest that the answer should be "no"?

At least your fellow Democrat Jim Clyburn had the honesty to admit Democrats need a negative report to further their agenda for withdrawl.

Too bad Bush Cultists like "Thinker" (oh, the irony!) and brian don't have the honesty to admit they need to blame the brewing disaster in Iraq on the Democrats, obvious as their efforts are.

I'll also echo the point about the inherent dishonesty of the term "producing results." Of course the so-called "surge" is likely to produce some kind of results, and even some positive ones. The question remains, are they results likely to effect the stability of Iraq following our intevitable troop drawdown -- as shortstop noted, political reconciliation in Iraq, and I'd add increases in public services and a return to prewar levels of security (that's no mass casualy bombings, not just fewer of them) -- or are we just getting more painted-school bullshit?

Many here, including myself, predicted some time ago that, since the surge was doomed by Petreus' own COIN manual, the best the Administration could do would be point to "progress" -- not "success" or "victory," which at this time are the only two acceptable metrics -- in an effort to draw things out long enough to punt the mess into the lap of the next President. (Even I didn't imagine that the White House would write the report tiself!) Then, predictably -- as brian demonstrates for us so nicely -- Bush Cultists and neocon tools will claim that Bush didn't create the disaster in Iraq, but blame it on someone else.

That dog just won't hunt, and no amount of crackpot historical revisionism about Vietnam will make it so.

The key fact is, as I pointed out, that chickenhawks like brian demand other Americans sacrifice blood and treasure, but won't join up even as the Army can't sustain troop levels in 2008. That proves one thing -- Iraq really isn't as important to them as they claim. And rest assured, this time the American people recognize the fact that tools like brian are conspicuously absent from the fighting. They'll have no credibility when it comes to assigning blame, try as they might.

Face it -- Bush ruined the GOP's branding effot as strong on defense, and no amount of faux-reasonable popagandizing by brian will get it back. One really wonders what could motivate him to post such bullshit.

[This is Sportsfan 79. He is now banned for handle spoofing.]

By the by, posts like "Thinker"'s are useful in one way -- in a typical example of Republican projection, they reveal how important it is to the GOP to be able to claim victory in Iraq, or at least blame the failure on someone else.

So of course they're willing to gamble other people's lives and treasure on a double-or-nothing long shot -- it's the only hope they have.

[Trolling Deleted]

[Trolling Deleted]

Brian,

History is very, very complex. Let's just assert for the moment that the mujahadeen were emboldened by our departure from Vietnam. That they observed the success of the guerilla movement in Vietnam and, thought, "hey, that would work for us, too!"

Do we conlude that our withdrawal from Vietnam "caused" them to learn this lesson? Now I realize that the mujahadeen were uneducated men, but surely they could have looked at, say, American history and learned the same military lesson: a foreign force of overwhelming military superiority can be defeated by a well-armed, persistent resistence.

For that matter, why is it the US fault? Perhaps we should blame the French for the rise of the mujahadeen. The Vietnamese obviously learned the advantage of guerilla warfare from its use against the French during the Algerian War. And, obviously, the French are to blame for the Algerian war, since the Algerians were no doubt emboldened by the French resistence during WW2. It is all France's fault.

And it really is such a pity that the Algerians, the Vietcong and the Muhajadeen didn't take lessons from Ghandi's success in getting the British out of India. Non-violent methods would have kept the body count down over the decades.

The problem with historical conversations like this is that what happened did happen. We have no way of knowing what unintended consequences might have followed if we had stayed in Vietnam. It is possible that the mujahadeen and the ayotallah are the least of the problems we might have experienced, had we stayed in Vietnam.

Perhaps American persistence in Vietnam would have inflamed resistence and instability throughout the region, causing more casualties, wrecking the US economy, and giving Communist regimes stronger footholds throughout SE Asia. Perhaps the Muslim populations of SE Asia would have declared a jihad against the USA joined by their brethern in the ME...Perhaps the Russians and Chinese, seeing the anti-American sentiment, attack the US, leading to a nuclear exchange and the destruction of civilization as we know it. We just can't know, can we?

All wars have unintended consequences. This is a very good reason not to get involved in wars in the first place. It is a lousy reason for staying in Iraq.

What if the surge actually is producing results in Iraq?

let's say that [the White House] characterises the results as very positive, and gives evidence in the September report.

Sorry, "Thinker", that's circular. What specific facts on the ground would constitute "very positive" results? Again, keep in mind the purpose of the escalation earlier this year was supposed to be to give the Iraqi government room to make political progress, so it's going to take more than body counts or local sheiks choosing to make tactical alliances with the occupation force.

What if the surge actually is producing results in Iraq?

That would be proof American soldiers are killing Iraqis. That evidence should be used to try our political (both Republican and Democrat) and military leaders for war crimes. They should receive life sentences for these crimes, preferably served in solitary confinement at that prison where Rudolf Hess spent the rest of his life.

[Trolling Deleted]

Now we've got two lefties contemplating the possibility of success in Iraq.

Typically dishonest of an authoritarian Bush Cultist. "Success" in Iraq is impossible -- didn't you get the RNC memo? The word is "progress."

And I've been saying all along that the White house will -- hell, it has been -- pointing to suprious signs of "progress" in Iraq. It's been doing that ever since the occupation, and the insurgency began, while the situation deteriorated.

"Progress" is a smokescreen to cover the absence of success. Only an idiot or the conenitally dishonest will be fooled.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

Cowards.

Just like I thought.

You're posting from Iraq, I take it? If not, you can shove your "cowards" bullshit.

[This is Sportsfan 79. He is now banned for handle spoofing.]

He even gave himself away by responding as sportsfan to Thersites' comment to "Thinker."

As well as general dishonest wingnuttery.

Ho ho!

I haven't had my coffee yet - but when I saw that moron calling himself "Thinker" I giggled like a schoolgirl.

Sorry, Brojo, Spandau was torn down after Hess died in 87 (i think? Maybe 88?) but i bet we can find an uninhabited alaskan island we could use! Maybe Ted Stevens can help?

Moderator,

Good work on the above - However, will you please revisit the Vitter-Craig thread and delete a comment from Michael Buchanon at 10:09 AM this morning, where he smears a known actor without any proof.

There is no way at this point to determine if Bush has made a mistake of breathtaking historical proportions.

Yes, there is.

It is far too early to tell.

No, it's not.

One point of the column I cited is that you cannot tell such mistakes until far down the road.

Yes, you can.

Funny, isn't it, how the standard of "you can never tell if it's a mistake until far, far, far into the future" only seems to apply to Republicans and never to Democrats....

Ptate,

Thanks for your interesting and respectful reply.

Your are correct that history is complex, especially with respect to some causation questions. I think your response supports my questioning of the certainty repeatedly expressed by many in their comments here. I would have been interested in your view of whether there is any causation between the effect of Vietnam on American politics and our abandonment of the Shah of Iran/rise of the Ayagollah. To the extent Vietnam helped produced Carter as president, there is a basis for linkage, but who knows what Ford would have done on Iran.

I also think your view supports a point I have made in the past about the need, when assessing Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, to try to look at the potential consquences of leaving Sadaam and his legacy in power. Your comment about Vietnam can be modified to apply to Iraq:

"The problem with historical conversations like this is that what happened did happen. We have no way of knowing what unintended consequences might have followed if we had [left Sadaam in power]. It is possible that the [present problems in Iraq are lesser than] the problems we might have experienced, had we [left Sadaam in power]."

Next year I'm voting a straight Republican ticket and hope they sweep the Presidency, House and Senate. Then when shit like this $50-billion gets passes, I will only feel angry and frustrated. No more the feeling trifecta of angry, frustrated and betrayed!

stephan,

I did not say you could not tell any mistakes until far down the road, only some mistakes of historical proportions.

I tried examples on Clinton, but he really did not do much of a large nature. His Branch Dividian fiasco and his personal indiscretions were easily and quickly identifiable mistakes but of little historical significance. His ineffective efforts against al Qaeda might be an example of something that did not seem like much of a mistake at the time, but turned out to be one of historical proportions.

I actually don't have any big problem with the view that the Mujahadeen having "learned the lesson" from Vietnam. It is pretty much that lesson, after all--that a big occupying army could be ousted by a determined insurgency--that was underlying our support for the Mujahadeen, and why we crowed about Afghanistan as "the USSR's Vietnam" when they were finally forced to pull out.

In fact it's precisely all that history that made it so incredible to me, as the Bushists ramped up the invasion of Iraq, to think we were going to make that same historical mistake ourselves all over again.

Can we go back in time and have this tatooed on Dick Cheney's forehead so Don Rumsfeld can read it? A big occupying army can be ousted by a determined insurgency!

The problem with the idiot article, Brian, is that someone needed to un-pretzel it and have nitwits like you read it BEFORE doing something as breathtakingly stupid as the invasion of Iraq. It's of very limited use now. To draw the conclusion from all this history that this is our chance to "redeem" Vietnam and do it "right" this time is just flatly insane. Patreus himself is predicting 9-10 more years, which even he must know is absurd. At a cost of $12 billion a month? And with what army? Where are the taxes, where is the draft, where is there anything remotely resembling any practical steps toward sustaining that long of a commitment on the part of the war's supporters, let alone the (majority) rest of us?

This is nothing but fantasy. The only thing at issue now is whether the idiot zealots who blundered us into the thing are going to be able to find a way to make it everyone else's fault that their Cunning Plan was a cataclysmic failure when the inevitable withdrawal finally happens.

You are much too kind with the Kabuki show remark.

.... unintended consequences might have followed if we had [left Sadaam in power].... brian at 1:57 PM

...It also warned that “many angry young recruits” would fuel the rank of Islamic extremists and "Iraqi political culture is so embued with mores (opposed) to the democratic experience ......

However, the consequences of leaving Saddam in power are analogous to, say, having left Muammar Qaddifi in power. Nothing detrimental and far better than the potential dangers of invasion.

....Clinton... Branch Dividian fiasco ..... His ineffective efforts against al Qaeda .... brian at 2:04 PM

I also think your view supports a point I have made in the past about the need, when assessing Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, to try to look at the potential consquences of leaving Sadaam and his legacy in power.

I wouldn't go there, brian. While you're apparently still touting the dishonest fantasy that Saddam was a threat, the fact is that Iraq was contained and deterred. Iraq's own neighbors didn't consider him a threat, and he was only portrayed as such to the American people by a dishonest porpaganda campaign on the part of the Administration and its media whores.

Moreover, as odious as Saddam's regime was, it followed clear trend lines of having been contained and deterred; in order to propose his false analogy, brian is forced to imagine dire consequeinces of leaving Saddam in power that have no support int he real world. Balanced against the disaster of the occupation -- a disaster, once again, anticipated by Bush pere and Colin Powell -- brian's desperate grasping at straws to justify his defense of this Administration and offensive Dolchstosslegende becomes even more pathetic.

Basically, brian's reekingly dishonest 1:57 post demonstrates why he isn't worth an "interesting and respectful reply," but rather contemptuous dismissal.

His ineffective efforts against al Qaeda might be an example of something that did not seem like much of a mistake at the time, but turned out to be one of historical proportions.

I'll see your so-called "ineffective efforts against al Qaeda" and raise you the August 6 PDB, jackass.

Tell us, brian -- what action did Bush take to defend this country after receiving that briefing? What action of any kind, save for telling the briefer he'd covered his ass?

Until you can name one action Bush took, there's a big hole in the ground in New York that points to Bush's evident inaction as the real "mistake of historical proportions." It's pathetic that you continue to push the long-debunked myth of GOP effectiveness on national security on behalf of a man who, so far as the public record shows, didn't lift a finger in response to this urgent warning (and yes, brian, it did warn about al Qaeda hijacking planes, and no, brian, they didn't need to know they'd fly them into buildings -- skyjacking is already a known threat worth worrying about).

The issue with Clinton is whether more effective efforts against al Qaeda would have prevented 9/11. At some level the answer has to be yes. I think history likely will tag Clinton with that as a mistake of historical significance.

Again, brian: Name one action Bush took in response to the August 6 PDB -- other than telling the briefer he'd covered his ass. Name one action Bush took to defend this nation from al Qaeda, and then you can go on with your psuhing the GOP's long-kaput branding effort.

I recognize if Iraq turns out bad, Bush also likely will be tagged with a mistake of historical significance.

You need no further proof that brian is a dishonest tool that he uses the phrase "if Iraq turns out to be bad." Evidently the massive carnage and chaos, the egregious aste of lives and treasure -- so far are just jim-dandy!

More delusion, please, brian. You only hasten the demise of your rotten Party.

In this issue of "Remember When...":

"White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels told The New York Times in an interview published Tuesday that such a conflict could cost $50 billion to $60 billion -- the price tag of the 1991 Persian Gulf War."

source: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/01/sproject.irq.war.cost/

My governor is good at math.

Uh, whoops, did brian's latest idocy get the axe?

Gregory,

I never thought that August 6 PDB was specific enough to pin a mistake on the Bush administration that caused 9/11. Neither the 9/11 Commision nor even democrats has made that charge to my knowledge. So I think that I agree certainly in hingsight that Bush did not take sufficient action in response to the PDB, but I don't think that falls into the catefory of a mistake of historic proportions, because I don't see the causation link to 9/11.

I never thought that August 6 PDB was specific enough to pin a mistake on the Bush administration that caused 9/11.

You're a dishoenst Bush shill, brian, so what you claim to "think" -- or, more accuratly, your lying distortions of the PDB -- counts for nothing.

But here in reality-land, the PDB warned specifically about al Qaeda plotting to hijack US airlines. Again: What action -- any action -- did Bush take in repsonse?

I think that I agree certainly in hingsight that Bush did not take sufficient action in response to the PDB

Very dishoenst, brian! Sufficient action? Try any action. Your claim of "insufficient" action could imply bush did something, however inadequate.

The question before you, though, is can you cite any action at all Bush took to defend the country. Wwe're still waiting.

but I don't think that falls into the catefory of a mistake of historic proportions, because I don't see the causation link to 9/11.

Again, brian, your failing to see a causation link between Bush's evident inaction and the carnage of 9/11 is more an indictment of you as a dishonest GOP shill pushing a long-expired branding effort as strong on defense that no one buys any more. The fact that you're evidently willing to give Bush a free pass on his inaction -- and more, to obfuscate it with your dishoensty -- exempts you from consideration as an honest commentator despite your faux-reasonable tone (though I still think you're more fun when you dropped your mask and called Murtha names).

But then, you aren't fooling anyone at all to begin with. One wonders why you bother -- more specifically, what motivates you to post such unpersuasive bullshit. Are you paid?

brian: I never thought that August 6 PDB was specific enough to pin a mistake on the Bush administration that caused 9/11.

consider....

in july-2001...bush and rice were in milan for the g-8 summit...

airspace there was shutdown due to a threat of a plane being used as a weapon...

not too mention...tenet visiting rice about the threats...in july....

and...

the f-a-a receiving more than 4-dozen warnings about possible terrorists attacks involving planes and hijackings...

and the a-g ashcroft stopped taking commercial jets that summer because of the high number of threat activity..

in the end....brian you use hindsight to say that clinton may have made huge mistakes in the fight against al queda...

but in that light of clinton being soooo bad..

you can't name one thing bush did BEFORE 9-11 to correct the situation....despite the events that are well-known in the months before the attacks...

heckofajob....

you can't name one thing bush did BEFORE 9-11 to correct the situation....despite the events that are well-known in the months before the attacks...

It's interesting indeed that in light of his professed belief that major blunders don't become evident until later (which really is just a variation of the bullshit "history will vindicate Bush" claptrap that's all the Bush Cultists have left), brian seems to find it necessary to resort to such obfuscation to defend Bush's inaction before 9/11 and attempt to obscure the fact that he can't seem to answer a simple question -- what exactly did Bush do?

Cognitive dissonance much, brian?

I don't want to get too much into the weeds about what happened between 8/6 and 9/11, or what should have happened.

Trans: "I don't have an answer to your point."

But if Bush's failure to respond to the 8/6 PDB caused 9/11, how did he get re-elected president three years later and after the 9/11 commission report?

Trans: "I know! Let's change the subject!"

I don't want to get too much into the weeds about what happened between 8/6 and 9/11, or what should have happened.

Dishonest again, brian -- you're being asked to name one action Bush took in that time, not "get into the weeds." Do it, or admit you can't.

But if Bush's failure to respond to the 8/6 PDB caused 9/11, how did he get re-elected president three years later and after the 9/11 commission report?

As an evident part of the right-wing propaganda machine, brian, you'd know the answer to that better than I. But again, you're dishonest -- Bush's re-election does not mean he took any action to defend the nation.

It's a simple question, brian, and although I'm amused by your contortions in avoiding admitting what we both know, it's even more tiresome than is usual with you.

So again: Name one action Bush took to defend the US from al Qaeda, or admit you can't name even a single action. And of course, the latter answer would call into quetion your support of him and the myth that the GOP is strong on defense, wouldn't it?

Put up or shut up.

Put up or shut up.

I'll take Shut Up for 200 quatloos, Gregory.

I never thought that August 6 PDB was specific enough to pin a mistake on the Bush administration that caused 9/11.

But I am willing to pin everything on the Clinton administration. [/Brian]

Guys, sure, if Clinton not more effectively attcking al Qaeda for 8 years was a mistake, then Bush not more effectively attacking them for 8 months also was a mistake. As to what, if anything, the Bush administration specifically did between 8/6 and 9/11 in response to the 8/6 PDA, I don't know. I assume it is in the 9/11 report.

The point of my question about Bush being re-elected is not changing the subject. It is to show that for all your certainty about Bush failing after the 8/6 PDA, it certainly was not apparent to American voters, the 9/11 Commission or John Kerry and the democrats. A lot of you folks find certainty where other less partisans folks find uncertainty.

Guys, sure, if Clinton not more effectively attcking al Qaeda for 8 years was a mistake, then Bush not more effectively attacking them for 8 months also was a mistake.

Thanks for confirming ckelly's comment that, for all your dithering and ambiguity about Bush, you're willing to propagandize about Clinton.

But you're being dishonest again, brian -- the question before you is not whether Bush effectively attacked al Qaeda for 8 months, but whether Bush took, so far as we know, any action at all to defend the nation from the attack eh was warned about on august 6 -- which included warnings about a skyjacking.

Still unwilling to admit what we all know -- that, so far as the public record is concerned, Bush did nothing at all save tell his briefer he'd covered his (the briefer's) ass, brian professes ignorance:

As to what, if anything, the Bush administration specifically did between 8/6 and 9/11 in response to the 8/6 PDA, I don't know. I assume it is in the 9/11 report.

So you admit that so far as you can cite, Bush did nothing. Strange, isn't it, that someone so obviously plugged into GOP memes doesn't have an exacmpel of Bush filfilling his Constitutional duty in defending the nation ready to hand!

But being the nice guy I am, brian, I'll help you out. The 9/11 report is here, and you're welcome to cite for us the action Bush took.

While you're at it, you might also try explaining why you support the myth of GOP effectiveness on defense when you don't even know if Bush did anything to defend the country after bein warned of al Qaeda's plans to attack. That should be amusing.

The point of my question about Bush being re-elected is not changing the subject.

Oh, we believe you, brian.

Bwahahahaaaaaa! Okay, of course we don't.

It is to show that for all your certainty about Bush failing after the 8/6 PDA, it certainly was not apparent to American voters, the 9/11 Commission or John Kerry and the democrats. A lot of you folks find certainty where other less partisans folks find uncertainty.

Oh, we've covered that ground. We have no illusions about the effectiveness of the Mighty Wurlitzer and the propaganda machine in which you play so odious a role. I'm sure you get a lot of satisfaction in the