Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 13, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

SUNSET IN ANBAR?....Sattar Abu Risha, the Sunni sheikh most closely associated with the Anbar Awakening, was murdered today by a bomb planted near his home. AP says, naturally enough, that "suspicion fell on al-Qaida in Iraq." Maybe so. But even within the Sunni tribal community itself Risha was a polarizing, overbearing figure who often claimed to speak for all Sunnis everywhere — an attitude that made him plenty of enemies among other Sunni leaders. Marc Lynch explains:

There's no reason to assume that al-Qaeda killed him — I'd guess that one of the nationalist insurgency groups, the ones which current American rhetoric pretends don't exist — is a more likely suspect. Other tribes deeply resented him. The major nationalist insurgency groups had recently issued a series of statements denouncing people who would illegitimately seize the fruits of their victorious jihad — of whom he was the prime example. All those photographs which swamped the Arab media showing him shaking hands with President Bush made him even more a marked man than before.

His murder graphically demonstrates that the other groups threatened by the American Anbar strategy were never going to just sit back passively and allow it to succeed — an obvious strategic point which has always seemed to elude surge advocates.

Marc's epitaph for this grisly murder could apply equally to the entire American effort in Iraq. The Anbar strategy, he says, relied "on a whole series of best-case scenarios in which nothing could go wrong." Unfortunately, "In Iraq, something always goes wrong."

Kevin Drum 11:54 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (90)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

This, and the failed oil law sets the table for Bush's address tonight. A recipe for national indigestion?

Posted by: Doctor Jay on September 13, 2007 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Everything is aQ! All evil in the world, and we are, at a cost of billions a week, ridding the world of all evil.

Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on September 13, 2007 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINK

That even Kevin uses the phrase Anbar Awakening, which indicates some sort of supernatural transformation of the region, is a testimony to the warmongers' mastery of propaganda.

Why should everyone characterize the result of bribing and arming our ex-enemies as Awakening just because the spinmeisters wants him to do so is quite baffling.

Posted by: gregor on September 13, 2007 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

"...one of the nationalist insurgency groups, the ones which current American rhetoric pretends don't exist...."
________________________

I don't know whose rhetoric he's referring to, but it must be that of some politicians. The military is quite aware of those other groups and is either watching them warily or still actually engaging them in places. Some of these groups might be cooperating with us right now, but they haven't gone away and the US military, at least, knows it.

Posted by: trashhauler on September 13, 2007 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

"Awakening" indeed.

Who, by the way, is not a nationalist in an honor society under foreign occupation?

Posted by: bellumregio on September 13, 2007 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe it's the rhetoric of "some" politicians - also known as the Bush administration, the GOP, the media, the Beltway punditry, the serious 'experts' and every other jackass that points to AQI as the sole insurgency in Iraq circa 2007

Posted by: ckelly on September 13, 2007 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know whose rhetoric he's referring to, but it must be that of some politicians.

Gee, I wonder which politicians those would be....

The military is quite aware of those other groups and is either watching them warily or still actually engaging them in places.

Via David Kurtz at Talking Points Memo:

It came late in the final day of hearings yesterday so you may have missed it. Gen. Petraeus was asked by Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) to rank the enemies the U.S. is fighting in Iraq. Petraeus ran through the list of threats, then, as an afterthought, said, "There are certainly still some Sunni insurgents out there."

You don't say?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Posted by: Stefan on September 13, 2007 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

Murder? The picture with W. Bush is proof of his treason. This was an execution of a traitor.

Posted by: Brojo on September 13, 2007 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

Working with King Turdeater is bad for your health.

The Anbar Awakening is to the sound of a bomb killing all the collaborationist traitors.

Posted by: POed Lib on September 13, 2007 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

Speculating as to who killed this traitorous toad is kind of foolish. In a civil war such as the current insanity in Iraq, scores are settled. Someone cut you off in traffic? Whoops, AQI kills him the next day. Someone insults you in the market? HMMMM, AQI is very good at hearing insults.

The scars of the current retributionist climate of civil war will take 30 years to repair.

Posted by: POed Lib on September 13, 2007 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

Izzat Sheik Yerbuti?

Posted by: Doozer on September 13, 2007 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Al

That was really lame. Why don't you blame his death on the UN and their black helicopters?

Posted by: tomeck on September 13, 2007 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

OK, here's a point about the civil war to come when we leave that I don't see much talked about.

The insurgency in Iraq has been, in fact, very effective in fighting to a standstill the most powerful military in the world, the US military.

Wouldn't we expect that the forces that are able to achieve this remarkable result would be able to dominate Iraq once we leave, and can no longer deflect or dampen the fighting?

Aren't the lion's share of those insurgent forces Sunnis?

So why wouldn't they prevail in Iraq again?

Posted by: frankly0 on September 13, 2007 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Geez, when little Shrub can not even protect one of his Salvation soul mates, then.....

Well, no more Preyer Meetings for the two. Had only they remained together a little longer.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on September 13, 2007 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know whose rhetoric he's referring to, but it must be that of some politicians.

Yeah, Trashy, Republican ones, including your boy Bush, who like to pretend that the enemy we're fighting in Iraq is primarily al Qaeda.

It's comments like this one that cements your well-deserved reputation as a dishonest Bush apologist, Trashy.

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2007 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

A picture with GWB is not something to hang on the wall with pride in the middle east.

Posted by: Neal on September 13, 2007 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

BBC reported today that the Sheik was a "thuggish highwayman." Perfect for George Bush and the Kipling quoting General Petraeus.

Remember ,fans, it only takes 51 senators to stop this war by stopping the funding.

Posted by: Dr WU-the last of the big time thinkers on September 13, 2007 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Democrats in the Senate need only 41 votes to maintain a filibuster and block passage of any measure to continue funding the occupation of Iraq. There is already enough funding in the pipeline from previous appropriations to pay for withdrawing the troops.

The Senate Democrats need only 41 votes to end the occupation and bring the troops home now.

Why won't they do so?

And why do Democratic Senators like Joe Biden blatantly lie to the public by saying that they need a veto-proof supermajority of 67 votes in order to end the occupation?

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 13, 2007 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

This, and the failed oil law sets the table for Bush's address tonight. A recipe for national indigestion?
Posted by: Doctor Jay on September 13, 2007 at 11:56 AM

I wonder if the speech writers are busy as we speak rewriting the entire thing. They will of course blame AQ for the bombing. What would really send them back for another quick re-write is if one of those competing non-AQ Sunni nationalist groups takes responsibility sometime later today.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on September 13, 2007 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

"The Anbar strategy, he says, relied "on a whole series of best-case scenarios in which nothing could go wrong." Unfortunately, "In Iraq, something always goes wrong."

I guess even duffel bags-o-cash only goes so far. Maybe they didn't spread it around equally enough?

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on September 13, 2007 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

The AP story on this.

Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for several previous attacks of this same type. At what point will this new "what al Qaeda?" meme start looking pretty thin?

Posted by: harry on September 13, 2007 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

Hellfire missiles are found beside the road these days?

Was the good shiekh on his way to talk to someone about all the money and guns the US gave him?

The Senate Democrats need only 41 votes to end the occupation and bring the troops home now.

Huh?

They only need 41 votes to pass legislation now? Is it 1858? Did Minnesota finally join the Union?

If you want to pass something that the Executive cannot veto, you have to have a veto-proof majority to do so. This is the inherent check and balance built into the system.

Somewhat ironically, had Bill Frist succeeded in ending the use of the veto in the Senate, the Democrats would have been sending these bills to the President. And the President would be vetoing them. And somehow--in some bizaare universe where only a handful of semi-brilliant people live--41 votes would override the veto?

Now, if only we could get that Dakota territory into the Union. (Sorry, watching way too much Deadwood.)

Posted by: Pale Rider on September 13, 2007 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

Oh and-- one more detail. Minor, though it may be.

You can't cut off funding for troops at war. The goddamned DoD would make a mockery of the situation and "pretend" to leave the troops there without food and water. They would "pretend" they couldn't find the airlift to bring them home. They would "pretend" that they couldn't ship weapons. They would "pretend" that they couldn't pay the troops.

Of course, they could change the funding stream and stop funding one spy satellite program--to the tune of billions of dollars no one has any oversight or compliance on--and take care of the mess that way. But they won't. That's the reality of the situation. They gave the Democrats a little demonstration of this accounting trick when they allowed the post commander at Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, to have to go out publicly and beg the local power company not to turn off the lights on post because DoD interrupted the funding stream and allowed the post to go in arrears.

And, for the innocent and uninformed--

The Senate can pass whatever it likes. It can pass a law outlawing the color blue.

All Bush has to do is issue a signing statement.

Case closed.

Stop fucking blaming the Democrats for not doing what they cannot do. What they can do is exactly what they have been doing, and they've done a pretty good fucking job exposing the lies, the hypocrisy and the bullshit.

Next election, don't vote Republican. That would go a long ways towards fixing this shit.

But whatever. Vote for Ralph Nader and the Green Party. See where that gets you.

Posted by: Pale Rider on September 13, 2007 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

The insurgency in Iraq has been, in fact, very effective in fighting to a standstill the most powerful military in the world, the US military.

Posted by: David W. on September 13, 2007 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider, you are correct for the most part. I think the Dems should push for the Biden plan for partition of the country. It's a realistic option that allows us to get out but give that place a stable direction... It's already happening, that's why the oil law is falling apart. The Kurds will do whatever they want and they are. See today's NYT.

Posted by: Dee on September 13, 2007 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

No, I'm correct for the all part. But thanks for playing.

Posted by: Pale Rider on September 13, 2007 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

Wait a second. There has to be some kind of misunderstanding / error in this article. Killing is forbidden under Islam, isn't it?

Posted by: Pat on September 13, 2007 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

A picture with GWB is not something to hang on the wall with pride in the middle east.

Or anywhere else for that matter. Unless of course, you're playing darts.

Posted by: ckelly on September 13, 2007 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

You can't ever watch enough Deadwood.

Cocksucking HBO executives....

Posted by: Stefan on September 13, 2007 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

"It's comments like this one that cements your well-deserved reputation as a dishonest Bush apologist, Trashy."
_________________

Okay, you've made your brainless insult for the day, gregory. Doubtless, you think you've made some point. Everyone else simply notes that you seem incapable of writing a substantive, non-insulting post. Or indeed, any post that is more than three sentences long.

Posted by: Trashhauler on September 13, 2007 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

No, everyone else simply notes that you are incapable of writing an honest one.

Or, frankly, a non-boring one. Your prose is positively death-inducing. It's all I can do not to let my head drop to the keyboard in exhaustion after I pound my way through one of your style-free paragraphs.

Posted by: Stefan on September 13, 2007 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider: "They only need 41 votes to pass legislation now? [...] If you want to pass something that the Executive cannot veto, you have to have a veto-proof majority to do so."

You didn't pay attention to what I wrote. The Senate Democrats don't have to pass any legislation to end funding for the war. All they have to do is to block the passage of legislation that provides funding for the war. All that's required to block passage of legislation is the 41 votes required to maintain a filibuster.

At a minimum, the Senate Democrats can filibuster and block passage of any war funding legislation that does not include a mandatory timetable for withdrawing all the troops by a specific date.

Pale Rider wrote: "You can't cut off funding for troops at war."

Of course you can. The Senate Democrats can cut off funding for the occupation with the 41 votes required to maintain a filibuster and block passage of legislation to continue funding the war. There is already enough funding in the pipeline from previous appropriations to pay for withdrawing the troops.

Pale Rider wrote: "The goddamned DoD would make a mockery of the situation and 'pretend' to leave the troops there without food and water."

And then the generals can testify in public before the appropriate Senate committee about why they are lying to the Senate, the American people, and the troops in Iraq about that.

Pale Rider wrote: "Stop fucking blaming the Democrats for not doing what they cannot do."

Senate Democrats like Joe Biden are blatantly lying to the American people about what they can and cannot do when they falsely claim that in order to end funding for the war they have to pass some veto-proof legislation which they lack the votes to do. That is a lie and Joe Biden knows it is a lie. They don't have to pass any legislation. They only have to block the passage of legislation that funds the war. That requires a filibuster -- 41 votes, not 67 votes.

Pale Rider wrote: "Vote for Ralph Nader and the Green Party."

I am a registered Green Party voter who voted for Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. Ralph Nader is not and has never been a member of the Green Party. He "accepted" the Green Party's nomination in 2000 and ran a cynical, dishonest and self-aggrandizing campaign. Among other things he claimed that his campaign was intended to help build and strengthen the Green Party. In 2004 he walked away from the Green Party and did not even seek their nomination, but instead ran as an independent and asked the Green Party not to nominate a presidential candidate but to instead endorse his independent campaign. The Green Party wisely rejected Nader's request and nominated a long-time Green Party activist and organizer David Cobb, who did not campaign in states where the race between Kerry and Bush was close. Ralph Nader will never again run for president as a "Green" or as the candidate or endorsee of the Green Party.

For the 2008 elections the Green Party is again focusing on local and Congressional elections and will again avoid campaigning for the presidential election in any states where the race is close. I think that having a Green Party presence in the Congress would be a very good thing, and in some states and Congressional districts, voting for a Green Party candidate may well be an option worth considering as an alternative to a conservative corporate pro-war Democrat.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 13, 2007 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan wrote: You can't ever watch enough Deadwood.

An hour ago I wrote this in an email to a friend who referenced watching "way too much Deadwood:"

There is no such thing as "way too much Deadwood." We bought every season the day it came out.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on September 13, 2007 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

Operation Iraqi Fuq'p has relied from Day One on "a whole series of best-case scenarios in which nothing could go wrong." The current reliance on the tribesmen of al-Anbar is nothing but the latest example of the series.

Shaykh Risha signed his own death warrant when he posed with Bush. It is just as likely that he was done in by his own gang as by the vaunted bogies of "AQI."

In the words of Casey Stengel: "Can't anybody here play this game?"

Posted by: Petronius on September 13, 2007 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

The shaykh (sheik?) is an ex-handsome dude! Classic image of the typeclass. Maybe too hot for Bush's ego and he had him snuffed. Probably way smarter than your average neocon hawk as well. But bombs don't care, I guess.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR on September 13, 2007 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

No, everyone else simply notes that you are incapable of writing an honest one.
Posted by: Stefan

I never took you for a Gregory admirer. A tolerater, obviously. But not enough to defend him.

Posted by: SJRSM on September 13, 2007 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

trashy, if you don't like getting called out for writing dishoenst posts -- and I note that you didn't even attempt to defend the nonexistent honesty of your water carrying -- it's quite simple: Don't write dishonest posts. Since you do, it's pathetic to see you whining about receiving the insults that you richly deserve. Your posts deserve nothing else; there's no "substance" to your own bullshit, and it's further dishonesty to insist that your posts be accorded a respect they don't deserve.

I know there's no honest means of defending the Bush Administration's mendacity, incompetence, corruption and tyranny, but as I've been saying for years, that doesn't excuse you from choosing to try to do so dishonestly.

There's more than three sentences for you, dipshit.

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2007 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

What's to defend, Mike? Even trashy didn't try to defend the nonexistent honesty of his post. By not contesting my notation of his dishonesty, he basically conceded I was right.

It's interesting, actually, to see that you and trashy are stung by being called out on your dishonesty. That does set you apart from the likes of concern troll brian and "ex-liberal," who have no shame at all, but if it bothers you, then stop with the dishonesty. Your whining about being called out is really pathetic.

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2007 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

I think it's not a real Sheikh. This whole thing is a huge prank by the (Borat) Cohen guy.

No middle easetern looks so much like a sheikn the the 21st century.

Posted by: gregor on September 13, 2007 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

A recipe for national indigestion?

The dipsomaniac in chief has dyspepsia.

I think 41 senators can prevent the passage of any war funding bills, which W. Bush cannot either veto or change with a signing statement.

Posted by: Brojo on September 13, 2007 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

dipshit.
Posted by: Gregory

Dont hate

Posted by: SJRSM on September 13, 2007 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the googlebombing, Mike...I couldn't ask for a better concession that you don't have a defense.

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2007 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the googlebombing, Mike...I couldn't ask for a better concession that you don't have a defense.
Posted by: Gregory

Don't worry, the moderator will protect you.

Posted by: SJRSM on September 13, 2007 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

Since I have your attention, Mike, I'll tell you when I gave up on the notion of your good faith. A while back I asked you to name some action -- any action -- Bush took in response to the August 6 PDB. You actually seemed, for a brief, shining moment, to realize that so far as we know, Bush did nothing at all.

But then the cognitive dissonance took hold. Mike. A decent person would turn away from Bush in disgust at his fecklessness an incompetence. And yet here you are, just as you were then, carrying his water. It's too pathetic to inspire hatred, but contempt does just fine.

Still, it is interesting to see how wounded you and trashy are when we don't pretend you're commenting in good faith, but call you out for your dishonest water carrying. There may be hope for you yet. But you have to be honest with yourself before you can ever hope to be honest with up, and you (and trashy) don't give us reason to have a lot of faith in you.

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2007 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

Don't worry, the moderator will protect you.

Who's asking them to, Mike? I'm not apologizing for calling you out on your dishonesty; as Stefan noted, it isn't as if you or trashy are fooling anyone. You're the one whining about it, and like I said, your feeble responses just demonstrate that you don't have a defense (here's a hint: a defense would entail demonstrating that you (or trashy) posted in good faith; but then, we all know you don't, so QED).

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2007 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Al-Qaida is caught in a quagmire in Iraq...they should know that killing counter-insurgents just creates more counter-insurgents.

Posted by: Chris on September 13, 2007 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

Since I have your attention, Mike...

No you dont. I've learned to read the first sentence and skip the rest. Youalways repeat yourself ad nauseum.

Who's asking them to, Mike?
Posted by: Gregory

I dont know, I just know he does it. You attack, I counter, I get deleted. It's the way it is here. I dont see you complaining about it.

Posted by: SJRSM on September 13, 2007 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

Just for the record, I'm a Gregory fan...

Posted by: elmo on September 13, 2007 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

No you dont.

Oh, obviously, Mike. Thanks for the chuckle!

Youalways repeat yourself ad nauseum.

Like I said, Mike, you spew discredited partisan bullshit, you get called on it. If you have a problem with it, I already told you -- you could be honest for a change (and no, I don't mean honest about your obvious contempt for the liberals here that cause you to give the feckless Bush Administration a free pass; you're quite upfront about that, despite your laughable earlier claim about "respectful" posting).

I'm not holding my breath waiting for you to be honest, Mike.

You attack, I counter, I get deleted.

Oh, ho, ho! I hate to break it to, you, Mike, bnut your self-professed "tit for tat" postings of "Moron" do not a counter make. I already told you -- a counter -- which, again, I note Trashy didn't even attempt -- would involve actually attempting to rebut the identification of dishoensty. I dont' see that you've even tried.

Go ahead, Mike, dazzle us -- tell us why your water carrying for Bush is in good faith. I'll personally ask the moderator to leave it -- although the continued presence of "ex-liberal"'s insulting drivel shoudl give you half a clue abotu how much pull I have with the mods.

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2007 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK
I don't know whose rhetoric he's referring to... trashhauler at 12:07 PM Doubtless, you think you've made some point.... Trashhaule at 1:45 PM
Bush hypes al Qaeda 27 times on one speech, 100 times in another. That enough citations for you, water boy?
Can't anybody here play this game?" Petronius at 2:07 PM
Petronious Arbiter played it very well indeed.
....You attack, I counter, I get deleted. .... SJRSM at 2:48 PM
You have that bassackwards: you attacked, you were countered, you weren't deleted. Whine us a river. Posted by: Mike on September 13, 2007 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Just for the record, I'm a Gregory fan...
Posted by: elmo

Gregory appears to be my fan. Wherever I go he follows me. I look forward to the day when he posts on topic and makes a fool of himself.

Posted by: SJRSM on September 13, 2007 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

You have that bassackwards: you attacked, you were countered, you weren't deleted. Whine us a river. Posted by: Mike

You must be new around these parts. First thread here?

Posted by: SJRSM on September 13, 2007 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

Wherever I go he follows me.

Sigh....Mike, I said give us examplesof why you're an honest, good-faith commenter, not the opposite!

We both post here -- duh!

I look forward to the day when he posts on topic and makes a fool of himself.

I don't have to worry about it; we have you making a fool of yourself with your posts already.

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2007 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

give us examplesof why you're an honest, good-faith commenter

My first post in every thread currently up but this one. Everyone on topic, everyone civil.

Your turn. A single post. Good luck looking.


Posted by: SJRSM on September 13, 2007 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

Everyone on topic, everyone civil

Um, Mike, no one's asking if you're "on topic" or "civil"; the question is, are you posting good faith arguments or just carrying water for the GOP? Your posts in every thread show the latter, but by all means, feel free to dazzle us.

Oh, and Mike? It really doesn't bolster your case that you might be an honest commentator when you resort to such dishonesty. "ex-liberal"'s posts may be "on topic" and "civil" -- in that they avoid profanity -- but they're insultingly obvious, long-debunked lies, and no one imagines he posts in good faith.

So, no, it's still your turn. Give us examples of why you're an honest, good-faith commenter, and try to avoid more examples of why you aren't -- we have plenty of those already.

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2007 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

are you posting good faith arguments...

Read my first post in the Sympathizers thread above this one. I address Kevin's topic, make a point, provide a properly referenced quotation to back it up.

Are you a good faith poster? Show me one single post of yours that makes a point and backs it up with facts and points to where those facts are available from an non-disputed source. Go back as far as you need to, months or years back.

Bet you can't do it.

Posted by: SJRSM on September 13, 2007 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

Here, Mike, I'll help you out -- I'll throw you a softball, even:

Yes or no -- can you name one action Bush took in response to the warnings of al Qaeda's plans to hijack aircraft contained in the August 6 PDB (other, of course, than telling the briefer he'd covered his ass)?

Yes or no?

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2007 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

C'mon, Gregory. One single post. You should be able to find at least one in the past year.

Posted by: SJRSM on September 13, 2007 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

You're moving the goalposts. Show me a post where you've made a point and backed it up. You talk the talk, now walk the walk.

Posted by: SJRSM on September 13, 2007 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

Read my first post in the Sympathizers thread above this one. I address Kevin's topic, make a point, provide a properly referenced quotation to back it up.

You also ask, rhetorically, if Kevin had read the article he provided a quote from. Real impressive.

Are you a good faith poster? Show me one single post of yours that makes a point and backs it up with facts and points to where those facts are available from an non-disputed source. Go back as far as you need to, months or years back.

Um, Mike, I pretty consistently make the point that Bush's apologists are rife with intellectual dishoensty, and I demonstrate it using the undisputable sources of their own statements. Sadly, the lack of shame on the part of you and your ilk means that I have been doing for months and years back. Your lack of embarrassment -- though the notation of your dishoensty does seem to sting, you're doign a piss-poor job of refuting it -- is truly a marvel to behold.

If I'm accusing you dead-enders of dishonesty in bad faith, it should be pretty easy for you to refute it. Yet again I note that trashy didn't even try to defend his bullshit, and here we have your own feeble efforts. Once again I'm pleased that our posts remain for all to see; I'm perfectly happy to let the record speak for itself.

Look, Mike, like the Party at whose rancid Rovbian teats you suckle, you want a "debate" in which your bullshit isn't called out. You want your point of view to be respected without providing the veracity or intellectual honesty to make it worthy of respect. As the GOP manipulation of the so-called "liberal media" shows, that kind of mug's game just rewards the repetition of bogus talking points, and wants to consider callign bullshit on them somehow beyond the pale.

No sale, buddy. If your arguments have merits to stand on, they would. As it is, well, QED.

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2007 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

if Kevin had read the article he provided a quote from. Real impressive.

Geez, you can't even get the simplest stuff right. No, I wasn't responding to Kevin.

Hey, still waiting for YOU to prove you are a good faith poster. C'mon, a single post in which YOU make a point and back it up with references. Every else does it, because that's how you make a valid point. Surely YOU'VE done it at least once, no?

Prove me wrong.

I think you're nothing but a troll. Even worse, a cowardly troll because you never wander from the left's bosom.

Posted by: SJRSM on September 13, 2007 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

C'mon, Gregory. One single post. You should be able to find at least one in the past year.

You're moving the goalposts. Show me a post where you've made a point and backed it up. You talk the talk, now walk the walk.

Who's moving the goalposts, Mr. "On Topic and Civil"? My good faith isn't in question here; yours is. You're claiming, against all evidence -- that you yourself provide -- to be a good faith comemntator, and you're doing a piss-poor job of it. So it's hardly surprising -- dishoenst, but unsurprising -- that you want to move the goalposts and change the subject.

"Mak[ing] a point and back[ing] it up with facts and points to where those facts are available from an non-disputed source" is not the only way to comment in good faith, Mike. Pointing out that the contentions of the Bush Apologists are so much snake oil is also commenting in good faith. Since you're one of the snake oil peddlers, I can understand how much it bothers you, and how much you wish the debate would ignore your frequent dishonesty, but lookee here -- you complained about my noting Trashy's dishonest,y and yet after all this time my contentions are 100% unrefuted.

And I might add, Mike, your admitted "tit for tat" posting hardly speaks to your favor either. I don't mind; it's so often all you're left with, but it's a bit much to admit the obvious and then claim respect you don't deserve.

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2007 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

My good faith isn't in question here; yours is.

Yes it is.

I'm calling you out, calling you a liar, saying you can't show me a post where you've made a good faith effort to back up your premise with facts. Not a single post linked to references.

Posted by: SJRSM on September 13, 2007 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

still waiting for YOU to prove you are blah blah blah

Again, my good faith isn't in question here, Mike; yours is, and your attempting to change the subject just further proves your dishonesty. Advantage: Me!

Besides, your definiton is -- surprise! -- also dishonest. "A single post in which YOU make a point and back it up with references" is not the only way to be "a good faith poster. (I'm not saying I dont' do it; I'm just saying that since you haven't proved your affirmative case, I'm under no obligation to rebut.) It's an equally valid point to point out the disnonesty of those who come here to carry Republican water, which you do not once but all the time.

Prove me wrong.

Oh ho ho! I do that all the time -- point out the feebleness and dishoensty of your contentions, and the intellectual dishonesty of your argumentation, Mike. I've done it a couple of times in this thread alone, Mr. "on Topic and Civil." (I'm still chuckling about that one!) Isn't that what you're complaining about?

Speaking of "still waiting," Mike, I gave you an easy way to prove your good faith: Answering a simple yes or no question. What'll it be?

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2007 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

C'mon, Gregory. This should be EASY for you. A single well researched post that shows that on at least one single occasion you've done more than just regurgitate the party line.

EASY! I say you can't find one. Your chance to embarass me and prove me wrong.

Posted by: SJRSM on September 13, 2007 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Still waiting...

Posted by: SJRSM on September 13, 2007 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory
I'm not saying I dont' do it

I am. I'm saying you never do it. I'm calling you a liar.

Posted by: SJRSM on September 13, 2007 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

Yes it is.

Sure, Mike, since you can't defend the hoensty of your water carryign and goalpost moving -- and, I notice, won't touch the question of what Bush did in response to the PDB -- you're trying to change the subject. That dog won't hunt.

I'm calling you out, calling you a liar

...says the guy who linked the "Internet Warrior" reference" earlier. Thanks for the laugh!

saying you can't show me a post where you've made a good faith effort to back up your premise with facts. Not a single post linked to references.

"Aren't doing so" isn't the same thing as "can't," Mike. You haven't established your own honesty, so your claims that I'm a liar are rather feeble -- I point out that you and trashy are dishonest water carriers for the Republicans, and as far as I can see, that point stands unrefuted -- again, Trashy didn't even try. If you want to prove I post in bad faith, it should be easy enough; just cite an honest argument that I identified as dishoenst.

Oops -- you and your ilk are defending the Republicans, so you're a bit short of honest argument. Too bad, but again, that doesn't excuse you form resorting to dishoensty to carry water for them -- and no one forces you to do so, although some may be paid.

And again, Mike, honestly identify the dishonest argument of others isn't the only way to post in good faith. Once again, you're dishonestly trying to constrain the terms of debate in which your bullshit gets presumed respect it doesn't deserve. All I can say is, I asked you for examples of intellectual hoensty, not the opposite, but the latter -- misleading definitions, goalpost moving, red herrings, -- seems to be all you have.

But you inexplicably pass on a golden opportunity to prove your honesty, and in doing so prove me wrong! so: Yes or no?

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2007 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Mike ol' buddy, three posts of "I'm waiting" aren't that impressive when they're a minute or two apart.

I'm saying you never do it.

Frankly, Mike, even if I never did -- and please note that I said if -- so what? That doesn't make me a bad faith commentator, or you a good faith one.

But again, you're trying to change the subject when you haven't established your own good faith (not that I envy you such a Sisyphusan task). That's rather a strike against you, i'm afraid.

I'm calling you a liar.

No, you aren't, Mike -- because I never made any claims about the kind of posts you want to talk about, I can't have lied about it. But I did point out that that isn't the only way to post in good faith. So you're doing a lot of handwaving and name calling that really doesn't apply. That, and your false premise, also doesn't help your credibility.

Again: I asked for examples of your intellectual honesty, not the opposite, but the latter's all you're giving. Is that really all you have? How disappointing.

And, I note, you haven't refuted any of my other points, nor taken the golden opportunity I offered you to actualiy prove something -- if rather more than you'd be comfortable with -- by answering a simple yes or no question. Yes, Mike, of course the question is a trap, but your ignoring it doesn't do much for your already-feeble credibility. It's just interesting that you judge that not answering it is less damaging -- to your credibility or your cognitive dissonance -- than answering it.

It's also interesting to see how much having your dishonesty thrown in your face irritates you. You seem to know something of honor; just not enough to practice it. Ah, well.

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2007 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and Mike? For the sake of your fellow GOP apologists, I wouldn't define good faith posting as not "regurgitat[ing] the party line." Interesting to see you moving the goalposts again, though.

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2007 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

Still waiting...

Posted by: SJRSM on September 13, 2007 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

Your turn to answer questions. I answered your question on pointing out good faith posts. Your turn.

Still waiting...

Posted by: SJRSM on September 13, 2007 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

Still waiting...

Mike, what you're "waiting" for is irrelevant, since it isn't the only way to post in good faith.

Which I've made quite clear, so your "waiting" is further evidence of your own intellectual dishonesty. Since you're proving me right after all, I have nothing to prove to you after all, do I?

but speakign of "waiting," I note again that we're waiting for you to answer a simple yes or no question that could prove your case -- and at the same time prove mine.

You know, Mike, by noting your dishonesty here I at least do you the credit of presuming you aren't stupid, but with this silliness, I'm truly beginning to wonder.

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2007 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

I answered your question on pointing out good faith posts

More dishonesty...one post isn't plural.

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2007 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

...especially when you stack it up against the boatload of bad faith -- goalpost moving, subject changing, false premises -- you're providing in this thread, Mike.

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2007 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

If you're looking for good faith posts, Mike, we have this very thread full of my rebuttals to you, all impeccably reasoned, sourced with quotes from you and -- so far at least -- completely unrefuted.

If you're looking for bad faith posts, Mike, we have you ignoring those rebuttals. QED.

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2007 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

Everything in the thread noted, without further comment.

Jeeezus...

Posted by: Pale Rider on September 13, 2007 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

With any luck, the mod will delete the whole spew.

[I think I will leave it up, in an effort to embarrass everyone involved into remembering how to act in the future. Junior High much? --Mod]

Posted by: SJRSM on September 13, 2007 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

With any luck, the mod will delete the whole spew.

I'm sure you'd like to be spared the embarrassment, Mike -- and again, it's encouraging to note some rudimentary shame on your part -- but as usual, I'm happy to have our respective posts remain and speak for themselves.

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2007 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

Mike's comment is especially, ahem, interesting in light of his earlier whiny complaints about the mods, by the way.

Posted by: Gregory on September 13, 2007 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

Not to get back to the subj or nuttin', but I wonder who the NEXT Iraqi is gonna be who says yes to a photo op with Bush.

Face it, folks: this is a BAD sign. Either this guy was always at risk, and they picked a good looking sheik without realizing they were setting him up, OR they picked a real player -- let's hope it's not another Massoud situation, like in Afghanistan.

But it's clearly one of those data points about Bush to compare him with other Presidents: was there ever anything REMOTELY like Bush's making fun of the search for WMD, which he had stated as a cause for the war? Who could imagine ANY OTHER President doing such a thing -- Reagan? Nixon? Truman, FDR -- Lincoln?

It's a reality check to put this guy in perspective.

So, a question: has there ever been any other foreign leader assassinated so quickly after appearing in public with an American President?

Posted by: theAmericanist on September 13, 2007 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

"The Handshake of Death"

Posted by: R.L. on September 13, 2007 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

Some strange people on this site, a guy who was causing less Americans to get killed is murdered by the enemies of the United States, and the reaction. How can this be thrown in Bush's face. Those of you who complain about this sheik being a thug, apparently we can engage the mullahs in Iran who are helping to kill US troops, but not with Iraqis who can save American lives.
Very strange.

Posted by: robert verdi on September 13, 2007 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINK

There are some stories that Abu Risha embezzled some $75,000,000 of US funds that were supposed to support Sunnis fighting AlQeda.

Posted by: Peter on September 13, 2007 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

I doubt that the Sunni insurgents will make that mistake again, but it's doubtful that the "real" ones would have ever agreed to pose with their enemy, any more than they would pose with Osama.

When AQI tried to muscle its way into a leadership role for the entirety of the insurgency, the groups didn't fall for it. When the Islamic State began targeting Iraqi insurgent leaders with attacks and assassinations, the Iraqi groups responded with vigor.The response of insurgent groups prompted al-Baghdadi to apologize to Iraqi insurgent groups and to caution his fighters to control their behavior. At least one insurgent group, the Islamic Army in Iraq, appeared unwilling to accept the apology (here)

I also thought this article was helpful in understanding the economics of Anbar province.

This is what the ex-sheik was fighting AQI about. Today, militias supporting or opposing the Iraq government—not the government itself—control import supply chains and, indeed, regulate whole sectors of the Iraqi economy.

Posted by: TJM on September 13, 2007 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

[I think I will leave it up, in an effort to embarrass everyone involved into remembering how to act in the future. Junior High much? --Mod]

I'm pretty sure I'm the only one embarassed. Gregory thinks he was an exemplar of...something.

Based on what I've read of the Shiek, he had a target on his back already. I'll be curious to see who claims the killing (which is different from who actually did it).

Posted by: SJRSM on September 13, 2007 at 8:47 PM | PERMALINK

I can't imagine why Bush would even have his picture taken with that guy unless he WANTED the guy killed!

Our best policy is to pull back the forces and just offer a little help the natural political process a little here and there.

The public would be much more accepting of that posture as we'd be seeing a lot fewer American deaths. And, you could draw down the number of American troops in Iraq rather significantly.

Eventually the Iraqis will get their act together, as they have for several thousand years, and fight off the crazy AQ guys (if any remain after we pull back).

There's no real reason for us to be in Iraq.

Posted by: MarkH on September 13, 2007 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINK

There's no real reason for us to be in Iraq.

There never was.

Posted by: heavy on September 13, 2007 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINK

The Sunni sheikh was shaking hands with the infidel - that's why he died.

If only he had thrown his shoe instead - then he would still be alive. What is happening with Iraq oil right now? Most of it is being sold on the black market despite the fact that 20 Americans are overseeing Iraqi oil - The Bush administration is making the "oil for food" program scandal look like small potatoes.

Bush and Cheney are NOT the friends of Iraqi people - Bush and Cheney are ONLY the friends of Western Oil Contractors - I'm sure the sheikh knew this - but he didn't care.

Iraq has the power to tell the US to leave - it's time they found a common enemey - I mean, Bushie's surge was ONLY intended to secure contractors in the green zone AND NOT to provide security for the Iraqi people - Bush doesn't give a damn what happens to them. Their kids can't got to school, they can't get clean water, electricity, Iraqis can't even leave their home - and the every conservative compassionate Bushie could care less.

If Iraq lets Western oil contractors in - those contractors kill people to keep the contacts. Bush has been very nasty about what Iraqis CAN'T do with their oil - so its time to tell Bush and Cheney where they can stick it. At least Turkey know how now to deal with the Bushie.


Posted by: Me_again on September 14, 2007 at 12:51 AM | PERMALINK

"...Iraq has the power to tell the US to leave..."

Yes they do, but we are making it tough for them to tell us to leave by simultaneously running a protection racket with the Shia government and arming the Sunnis who want to destroy it.

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on September 14, 2007 at 9:54 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly