I'm always amazed how everybody feels that The Iraqi Leaders need a good: Shake, Kick, Lesson, Stick, Carrot. So we can get on with our lives. Do not these folks get it?

I would say: We are out of or fricking minds.

Shouldnt we also be looking at what happened after Bush Sr. pulled out?

And, no, I dont mean junior.

When we leave, Iran will dictate that the Iraqi Shias get their act in order. The Sunnis can be offered sanctuary in Saudi Arabia. Hmmmm, that scenario might also work some 500 miles WSW of Baghdad.

Saddam was executed some months ago.

The fact is we can't afford to stay in Iraq any longer. The Iraqi imperialist adventure has already cost us much more than it is worth.

Out of your stupor, damn you! I'm done bustin' up the furniture. Now clean up.

Jet,
Some people might argue that the world would be better off if Bush Sr. had pulled out.

To see how much the Iraqi government has accomplished, check out the Iraqi Council of Representatives website. The only accomplishments listed are the Iraq Constitution, and an online survey where you can rate the web site from "Ummmm, not bad" to "what the hell is this?"

I totally agree with Jet that, as a nation, we should carefully examine the tragic consequences that flowed from the failure of Bush, Sr. to timely
"pull out".

I submit that coitus interruptus in this particular case would have far better served the national interest.

Responsible withdrawal:

1) All US troops and Iraqis working in Green Zone flown stateside.

2) Sincere apologies to everyone in the region.

3) Massive reparations.

4) Cheney & Bush on one-way flight to Baghdad to stand trial.

Damn! Thersites beat me to it! Ya gotta be quick when you reach for that low-hanging fruit-type humor.

Curses!

Well Thersites/Shystr,heh,lucky sperm club aside, I was looking at what happened to the Kurds after senior decided Iraq would become an unmanageable mess and left.[Will Maliki turn on them as Saddam did?,Sanctions etc]
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/kurds/

Kirkuk [Kurds] and Basra [Sadr] are both oil centers and Maliki doesnt control much of either one, yet the corruption is so deep they will probably fight over it [oil] in perpetuity.

The Sunnis are SOL and will begin fighting again for their piece of the pie.

We are basically referees in militia land.

Exactly what clip do Iraqis need to die for it to be unacceptable? Are we talking peek levels during the occupation? I mean, precisely how much worse can it get? What exactly is the worry?

The occupation hasn't prevented the insurgency. It hasn't prevented a civil war. It didn't prevent ethnic cleansing. So what, exactly is it supposed to stop now? I guess, the only thing left for us to do to make a complete mess of things is to spill the war over into neighboring countries, since that's the only other thing we haven't managed to accomplish.

What's more, the biggest threat to expanding the disaster in Iraq to other countries has been Cheney's designs on bringing in Iran. Weren't these the guys who thought chaos and instability was the justification for war? So from the neo-con perspective, I'm not even sure why that's a bad thing.

Jet,

The point is that:

a) Bush Sr. pulled out after encouraging the Shi'ites in the south to rebel against Saddam, and left them hung out to dry. He's never had to answer for that.

b) The Kurds fared better. After Bush Sr. Pulled out, the No Fly Zone protected them pretty well. Saddam's atrocities against the Kurds happened when Saddam was still our pal, IIRC.

c) That aside, from a coldly realistic perspective Bush Senior was right. It would have been an unmanageable mess. But now it's our mess, thanks to Junior's Oedipal issues and the mendacity of those who pull his strings.

It has been abundantly clear to anyone who is not stupid or who has not been duped by Republican propaganda, that we are not staying in Iraq to "promote democracy" or to "spread freedom" or any other noble-sounding but ultimately meaningless motives. We are there to protect the interests of oil companies and to enrich defense contractors. Period.

War profiteering used to be a crime that might earn one a trip to the gallows. Now, it is apparently common business practice in Republican America.

Why is it either/or? Can't we withdraw at the same time we take over the government as care-takers WITH allies in the region?

I got the chronology wrong on my point B above. But the main point is that the situation had at least somewhat stabilized by the time Junior decided he had to finish his dad's job for him.

And I stand by my original remark about Bush Sr. pulling out. Although a condom would have worked just as well, I suppose.

Jet: Shouldnt we also be looking at what happened after Bush Sr. pulled out?

Would that he had done so, and spilt his seed upon the ground, and spared us this scion that bears bitter fruit.

Sorry, I see thersites the blackguard said it first. I don't like to repeat jokes.

The analysis sounds pretty good to me. The Conservative Deflator is largely right about why we stay. I also think that once we leave -unless it can be portrayed as defeatocrats changing victory to defeat will cause the country to wonder what we got for out $3T and 4000+lives. The Rs are justifiable afraid of that.

from a coldly realistic perspective Bush Senior was right. It would have been an unmanageable mess.
Bush Senior? Cheney thought it would be an ungovernable mess.... before he though it wouldn't. GwB's irresistible persuasiveness turned him into a true believer. You can see that trait every time he speaks or dances.

A responsible withdrawal would be too costly. The next question is can we get out of there on the cheap and still achieve enough stability in Iraq to avoid national shame and humiliation? That would also be too costly. We should avoid thinking in anglo-pomorthic terms, or PC thinking, that they are just like us. Getting the parties together would be like getting the Republicans and Democrats together if Cheney's militia had assassinated Ted Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Chelsea, and Michelle Obama; and Hillary's militia had likewise perpetrated thousands of acts of violence against the Republicans. Rahowa.

anandine: I don't like to repeat jokes.

Oh, but you said it so much more eloquently that it's hardly repetition.

So what Luther is saying is that our least costly option is to stay there forever.

Okay... See ya down at the enlistment office, bud.

When one of the smartest foreign policy experts in the world makes such a well reasoned case for leaving Iraq, it's time to go. Imagine how different things might be if there were such intellect within the Bush administration.

But if we leave, then how are we gonna get that oil? And who gets those big permanent military bases? Inquiring minds want to know!

Brzezinski's argument would have been stronger some time ago when the biggest problem was battling between Shia and Sunni. Today, the major sources of instability appear to be AQi and armed Shia gangs, often supported by Iran. Withdrawal of American troops will do nothing to help the Iraqi government battle against these groups.

I'm not necessarily saying the US shouldn't withdraw; I'm saying that I don't agree with Brzezinski's reason.

ex-liberal, the Iraqi government has been definitively shown to be nothing more than a Potemkin village sited in the Green Zone. Maliki not only has no actual power, he isn't even trusted by his compatriots who went to Iran to parlay with Sadr. Leaving isn't a great option to be sure, but at some point it hurts less to leave - and we're now at that point.

We just gradually disengage and pull out. When does the process start for meting out justice for all the crimes we've committed? It certainly can't be as simple as we came, we saw, we conquered, we raped and pillaged and murdered and tortured. Oh, and now we're leaving. Sorry about all the bloodletting and mayhem. See ya! Toodles! Where's the justice part come in?

Brzezinski's argument would have been stronger some time ago when the biggest problem was battling between Shia and Sunni. Today, the major sources of instability appear to be AQi and armed Shia gangs, often supported by Iran. Withdrawal of American troops will do nothing to help the Iraqi government battle against these groups.

Your rejoinder would have been stronger ages ago if it weren't obvious 1) that our presence is exacerbating the problem and 2) that we went in originally to have a military presence in the region. So, since our military presence in the region (and not Iraqi democracy) is the reason for our military presence in the region, it stands to reason that you wouldn't acknowledge that fact or agree to anything that would diminish it. That's one of the costs of the Bush horror-show: ordinary bozos like ex-liberal seem to feel that their souls are up to the tawdry toll of lying to support "Realpolitik".

"January 20, 2009, seems like a good start date"
=============
March 31,2008, seems better.

"January 20, 2009, seems like a good start date"
============

It seems the surge was successful.

Kevin wrote: "January 20, 2009, seems like a good start date"

Since the corporate-owned mass media combined with the Republicans' voter disenfranchisement and election fraud will ensure that John McCain is sworn in as the next president on January 20 2009, we can expect a new escalation to begin on that date, not a withdrawal.

steve duncan: Where's the justice part come in?

How fortunate that Bush and most of his supporters believe in Hell. How unfortunate that they're taking us all along for the ride, and that it's going to be in this world, not the next one.

Zbig is missing the point. The real reason McCain & Co. are afraid of leaving Iraq is that they think whatever happens in Iraq after we're gone, Iran's influence in the region will be too great for their taste & we'll have no plausible base of operations from which to stand in their way (either with actual intervention if Iran does something we 'must' respond to militarily, or just with the implied threat that we could). Leave aside the cognitive dissonance that says invading Iraq was a great idea, AND that the unavoidable consequence of that great idea (Iran's ascendance) is a catastrophic threat to our security. Whatever.

Point is, the McCain nightmare scenario of too-hasty withdrawal has little to do with chaos or bloodshed in Iraq, and everything to do with a Middle East in which Iran is ascendant & we have no strong base from which to project our power. He'd rather have a chaotic Iraq with 100K+ US troops on the ground, than a peaceful, stable Iraq that's aligned more closely with Iran than with us. In a backwards kind of way, that's why he'd love a pretext to go after Iran: the sooner we get either regime change or a crippled Iranian regime, the sooner he thinks we'll be able to 'safely', 'responsibly' wash our hands of Iraq.

I'm just reporting this view as i understand it. As policy & as strategy, I consider it something close to criminally insane. But i think that's the mindset we're really up against. And if you buy that frame on the issue, it really is hard to conceive of a scenario where we could 'safely' or 'responsibly' leave Iraq in this century.

Brzezinski is the guy who prodded the Russians to invade Afghanistan (you look it up if you don't believe me). We then armed the likes of Bin Laden (look it up) to attack the Russians. You could say that Brzezinski stated this whole mess. (look it up). Now, even he, wants out!

Right now we spending more oil on the place than we get back. The military costs us 3 billion barrels a year and we don't get back near that from Iraq (Look it up)

So, fellow imperialists and gas users: the war in Iraq is a lose-lose situation (you can look it up).

Smart people would leave the place pronto!

"Responsibility" would begin with 1) acknowledging that the war was a crime and 2) punishing the criminals. The only responsible withdrawal would be immediate and complete. A bank robber caught in the act may not plead for time in which to orchestrate an orderly disengagement from the bank. He is removed forthwith: at least in restraints, more than likely feet-first.

The sensible option is to withdraw the troops. Then bomb the Iraqi Congress every three years until the Iraqi's randomly elect perfectly pro-US leaders. Statistically, there will be 100% pro-US Iraqis elected to power in about 16.9 years (p=0.05). This is rational.

Instead of discussing a withdrawal from Iraq, Americans should be planning a response to their leader's sneak attack on Iran.

Gawd Kevin, this blog topic is as long lived as an NPR spring fund drive.

My quarrel with "the experts" is the notion that those groups in Iraq who oppose the occupation are by definition (or implication) "the bad guys" (whose views - the bad guys, that is - coincide with 75-80% of (non-Kurdish) Iraqis). Surely the evidence, after last week's events, clearly point to a "nationalist/occupationist" internal divide, exploited by Iran and totally buggered up by the Yanks. The problem for the "nationalists" - both Sunni and Shi'a alike - is the weight of the most powerful militia in Iraq: the US military. There is NO hesitation on its part to bring Luftwaffe-style blitzkreig airpower against Shi'a-dominated urban districts whenever and wherever "anti-government insurgency" breaks out, never mind the minority status of the Da'wa/ISCI faction it seeks to protect. Remove the clueless US military in its entirety tomorrow, and the Iraqis themselves will quickly solve the "government" problem, clearly not without bloodshed, but surely not to the extent promoted and caused by the MNF-I occupation, and with the added advantage of being largely - if not exclusively - an IRAQI SOLUTION! Forget about preserving reputations, "legacies", the lot...the US simply cannot make a silk purse from this sow's ear...the game is up, but will perforce be protacted until after 20 Jan, 2009.

I don't know what Brzezinski has been doing for the past 28 years since he was complicit in our humiliation under the Carter administration, but what factual basis does he cite for his various all knowing opinions and why would anyone think he is likely to be correct? What expertise/experience does he have relating to Iraq or the current war? Consider his speculative conclusions about unavoidable consequences and a viable Iraqi state:

"U.S. military disengagement will accelerate Iraqi competition to more effectively control their territory, which may produce a phase of intensified inter-Iraqi conflicts. But that hazard is the unavoidable consequence of the prolonged U.S. occupation. The longer it lasts, the more difficult it will be for a viable Iraqi state ever to reemerge."

Kevin is even worse in being more definitive with less expertise.

"But [U.S. withdrawal is] highly unlikely to lead to a catastrophic regional meltdown of the kind that the chaos hawks peddle on cable TV. What's more, Brzezinski is also right that the risk of increased violence is inescapable at this point and, in fact, probably grows the longer we stay in Iraq. The events in Basra over the past week ought to make that clear. . . . And the only way to make our withdrawal credible is to create a timetable and then stick with it. "

I never understand why people without relevant knowledge or expertise don't have the good sense not to pretend they are experts on the best way to proceed and on what will happen under various scenarios.

Kevin and other democrats are against the war and wants withdrawal because: (1) Bush is for it and they believe opposition is a path to political power for democrats; and (2) they don't believe it is worth the blood and treasure necessary to win. The later opinion is fine and entitled to a fair debate, but let's not pretend that Kevin or even Brzezinsky have the basis to accurately assess and predict what will happen on the ground in Iraq. Let's have that debate, which is speculative even among informed experts, among people who actually are knowledgeable and have expertise on the subject.

Mostly offtopic, check out what's happening in Turkey:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/world/europe/01turkey.html?_r=1&ex=1364702400&en=25008bcde83ed7cf&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin
Turkey Court Takes Politically Explosive Case - New York Times

ISTANBUL — Turkey’s highest court said Monday it had decided to take a case on closing Turkey’s governing party and banning its top political leaders, moving the country closer to a final confrontation between religious and secular Turks over who will rule Turkey.

Alifeyyaz Paksut, deputy chairman of the court, known as the Constitutional Court, said its justices had voted unanimously to hear the case, which was filed by Turkey’s top prosecutor on March 14.

The case calls for the closure of the Justice and Development Party, and the banning from politics of 71 party members, including Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erodgan and his ally, President Abdullah Gul, from politics.

Turkey has shut down other parties in the past. In 1998, it banned the Welfare Party, an openly Islamist group that claimed Mr. Erdogan and Mr. Gul as members, and has also banned Kurdish parties. But Mr. Erdogan’s current party maintains that it is secular, having moved away from its earlier involvement with political Islam.

The court’s acceptance of the case significantly increases the chances that the party, which was elected to power in 2002 and remains highly popular, could be closed. Turkey’s secular establishment — its courts, military and parts of government bureaucracy — are struggling with it for power.

All this talk of leaving ... We ain't leaving, we have an 'enduring' relationship (and bases).
Had a look at that embassy we built?

I never understand why people without relevant knowledge or expertise don't have the good sense not to pretend they are experts on the best way to proceed and on what will happen under various scenarios.

Me neither, but that's how we got into this quagmire in the first place. The "experts" you trust have been pretty much wrong the whole way, and they don't seem to be learning anything.

AJ

Okay argument about the Bush administration going in, so long as you put Brzesinski and Kevin in the same category now as persons without relevant knowledge or expertise about how to handle the current situation.

complicit in our humiliation under the Carter administration

Some Americans are proud of the accomplishments of the Carter Administration. Proud Carter ended support of the Persian despotic pretender to the Peacock Throne, who murdered many Iranian sons, including Ayatollah Khomeini's, with US training. Proud Carter ended support of the puppet dictator whose family had run the US colony/nation of Nicaragua for generations with US military aid.

What is worse than humiliating for Americans is the shame of using torture and white phosphorus bombs on civilians without hardly any domestic opposition. Not enough Americans were ashamed of what they did to Vietnam and not enough are ashamed of what they are doing to Iraq. Until they experience shame for their crimes, other nations' peoples will become victim to American power. Our victims' suffering elicits shame amongst some Americans, but for too many Americans the suffering their country creates elicits pride.

"so long as you put Brzesinski and Kevin in the same category now as persons without relevant knowledge or expertise about how to handle the current situation."

Why should we do that when they have clearly shown better analytical and predictive skills than those you currently support? Kevin would be the first to admit that is not the best qualified person on this subject, which is why he mostly acts as an aggregator rather than offering individual analysis. But Brzezinski? Get real.

but for too many Americans the suffering their country creates elicits pride

That's a bit harsh, Brojo. It might be more accurate to say that they're just oblivious, and happy to stay that way.

Besides, the risks work both ways. If Obama pulls out and relative calm follows the Republicans will be doomed for a generation. Even Red State American's will be wondering why we didn't get out years earlier. It will be a political death stoke for the Neocons, McCain, and the entire Republican establishment.

Talk of withdrawal is meaningless unless we dismantle the Green Zone.

We could remove all 143,264 troops but we'd still have a brazillian or so support personnel womaning the embassy, etc.

Face it. We are in Iraq. We have FUBAR'd it beyond belief.

God Bush America!

"Kevin and other democrats are against the war and wants withdrawal because: (1) Bush is for it and they believe opposition is a path to political power for democrats"

Complete bullshit, of course, which is why you can't even be bothered to try to support it.

"(2) they don't believe it is worth the blood and treasure necessary to win."

Overly simplistic strawman, since nobody has said precisely that. You first have to define "winning" and then tell us how much "blood and treasure" it will take to "win". Once you've done that, we can decide whether it's worth it.

"The later opinion is fine and entitled to a fair debate, but let's not pretend that Kevin or even Brzezinsky have the basis to accurately assess and predict what will happen on the ground in Iraq."

Um ... why? This is Brzezinski's field. If you're going to pretend that he's not an expert, I suggest you do a little more than mindlessly rant. So far, your only complaint seems to be that you don't agree with him.

"Let's have that debate, which is speculative even among informed experts, among people who actually are knowledgeable and have expertise on the subject."

That's precisely what we're trying to do. Sadly, the mainstream media has mostly decided that this debate should be only between those who want to remain in Iraq a really long time and those who want to remain in Iraq forever -- almost all of these with people who have been wrong about Iraq from the very beginning. Let's get a few people into the debate who have been right from the very beginning.

America has too many sadists like brian. They want more torture. They want more white phosphorus bombs dropped. They want more colonies to abuse.

Checkmate on Brzezinski being a biased hack. Look at the first sentences of his piece:

"Both Democratic presidential candidates agree that the United States should end its combat mission in Iraq within 12 to 16 months of their possible inauguration. The Republican candidate has spoken of continuing the war, even for a hundred years, until 'victory.'"

No honest person would characterize McCain's position like that. He said that troops could be in Iraq for 100 years, comparable to 60 plus years in Germany and Japan or 50 plus in Korea, if they were not taking casualties.

TODAY IS A GOOD DAY TO LEAVE IRAQ. Call Nancy Pelosi @1-202-225-0100 and DEMAND IMPEACHMENT.

Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will. --John McCain

On the subject of Osama bin Laden... we will track him down. We will capture him. We will bring him to justice, and I will follow him to the gates of hell. --John McCain

We must win in Iraq. If we withdraw, there will be chaos; there will be genocide; and they will follow us home. --John McCain

I dunno, brian, but I don't see a lot of room for equivocation in some of the strident things he says.

[C]an we get out of there on the cheap and still achieve enough stability in Iraq to avoid national shame and humiliation?

We can't get out of there on any terms, cheap or not, without national shame and humiliation. The national shame and humiliation is a sunk cost, like the 4000, the million, and the three trillion. Our goal now ought to be avoid throwing good money, and good lives, and whatever shreds of honor we may have left, after bad.

The national shame and humiliation are our just due for having done something shameful and humiliating. A rereading of Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address would be in order:

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html

"Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

If you have about ten minutes, I strongly suggest you read this essay. While I cannot believe that anyone has all the tiles of this complicated mosaic, I think these two guys are close. Cheers

Title:

Five Things You Need to Know to Understand the Latest Violence in Iraq

Sub Title:

The traditional media is incapable of reporting what's going on in Southern Iraq.

http://www.alternet.org/story/80580/

http://www.alternet.org/story/80580/

they don't believe it is worth the blood and treasure necessary to win.

Damn straight we don't, Pyrrhus.

$3 trillion, a million dead Iraqis, and 4000 dead Americans later, and you don't even have a coherent explanation of what "win" is, or how you propose to get there. There was never anything we could accomplish there remotely worth our sunk costs to date.

Hey Brian, if our troops are in a country where the strongest political faction are those who desperately do not want us there...there will be violence.

This ain't and never will be Germany of Japan, or Korea.

Read the essay that I pointed to above. Iraq is fubar-ed in ways our media and our leaders are unable or unwilling to even talk about.

There's no sense in responding to brian because there's no sense in brian. He comes here and complains about Kevin's lack of expertise but then never manages to cite anyone with even the vaguest hint of a notion of an idea of foreign policy, military strategy, military tactics, or even just common sense.

Brian is, when all is said and done, a fucking moron who cheers the death of anyone who isn't him. He's the guy dancing in the street on every 9/11 as he remembers that this slaughter gave the bloodthirsty thugs he supports a chance to murder hundreds of thousands of foreigners. He isn't a toad, he doesn't have the moral fiber to aspire to be a toad.

Carter was a far better president than Republican assholes like brian pretend. And brian seems to forget that Reagan made a deal to ensure that the hostages would stay until Reagan was sworn in as President. His first official act of treason.

"Checkmate on Brzezinski being a biased hack."

I don't think you understand chess any more than you understand politics or national security.

"No honest person would characterize McCain's position like that."

Yes, brian, they would, since that is precisely McCain's position. McCain has unequivocally stated that we have to stay until we "win" although, as with other Republican politicians, he's never defined what "win" means, nor defined what it will take to "win". If this is the best you can do, you might as well give it up because you got nothing.

The average American, like Brian, doesn't realize the irony and hypocrisy of the Bush Administration's support of Nouri al-Maliki. al-Maliki is the titular head of the Dawa Party, which has close ties to Iran and relies on support from SIIC, another pro-Iranian political party, and its powerful Badr militia. This so-called "government crackdown" is actually an escalation of a long-simmering conflict in the south between the Badr Brigade, Moqtada al-Sadr's militia and members of the much smaller Fadhila Party, which favors greater autonomy for Basra but rejects SIIC's vision of a Shiite-dominated Southern Iraq.

Given that we have a President, Vice President and Secretary of State that don't even understand the politics of Iraq and ignorant dupes like Brian that mindlessly support them, is it any wonder that America is mired in a hopeless quagmire?

Well, Thersites, I agree, yet the names have changed, but the withdrawal seems much the same.

AS LONG AS BUSH AND CHENEY HOLD OFFICE we will not leave Iraq. IMPEACHMENTS exposure of the war lies will draw the AMERICAN PEOPLE together in leaving Iraq. 1-202-225-0100---DC business hours, call often.

Kevin, when are you going to do another post about Basra? I feel like I'm being left in the lurch with my new hobby, reading about Basra every day.

Let's remember, the people who tell us that withdrawing from Iraq would be a total disaster are pretty much the same people who told us before the war that things would turn out absolutely splendidly after we defeated Saddam. If they predicted totally wrong in the first case, might they not also be wrong for the second one?

No one can point to any statement by McCain that he is willing to "continue the war" in Iraq for 100 years. Bzrezinski mischaracterizes the McCain position in the very first paragraph. It obviously is not an honest assessment of anything.

Swan, and Jet: Read this linked by Keith G. above, if you haven't already. Should keep you entertained for a while, Swan. Jet can learn the new names, too. Fun for all.

The Republicans warn of 'chaos", "a bloodbath", and "ethnic cleansing" if we withdraw. What do they think has been going on already for the past five years?

The oil companies, Arab states and defense contractors are benefiting from our continuing war in Iraq.

Why not let the Arabs and oil companies pay Blackwater to take over this war? They could pay the defense contractors to build the best weapons possible so jobs in that sector would not be lost. The 'policeman' of the world needs a new cash stream.

Thersites, I was making fun of Kevin, actually, because his blogging so suddenly and so completely became huge posts about Basra all the time. I would actually prefer more blogging about American politics.

But of course Kevin is entitled to write about Basra if he wants, and I'm sure many people find knowing details of that story useful or interesting or both. So I didn't mean any criticism at all, I was just hinting about what I'd like to see in a teasing sort of way.

brian you wouldn't know honest if it bit your lying ass. McCain isn't concerned with how long we fight, so long as he can see the dead rolling in from offshore he's as happy as a pig in brian's brain.

By the way, brian you fucking moron, explain McCain's exit strategy. Explain how he will get us out of Iraq within the next 100 years.

You can't do it. He, like Bush, has no strategy. He just puts the warm in warmonger.

Swan: But of course Kevin is entitled to write about Basra if he wants

I can hear Kevin's sigh of relief clear across the continent.

Back in November 2007, McCain explicitly rejected the "like Korea" spin on our presence in Iraq. Since then, not so much. McCain, it should torture his supporters to admit, is just saying what he thinks people want to hear.

but what factual basis does he cite for his various all knowing opinions and why would anyone think he is likely to be correct? What expertise/experience does he have relating to Iraq or the current war? Consider his speculative conclusions

Brian you fool, you just described EVERY neocon rat-bastard that supports this war. Funny, you still throw your lot in with these assclowns that have been WRONG for 5 years.

[Comment deleted. You were warned. Keep it up and I will ban you for the rest of the day. --Mod]

What expertise/experience does he have relating to Iraq or the current war?

I'm with Brian, we need the maverick, centrist, warrior McCain to rescue us, confuse Shiite and Sunni factions and parade around in "safe" markets with a 100-soldier entourage.

"No one can point to any statement by McCain that he is willing to 'continue the war' in Iraq for 100 years. Bzrezinski mischaracterizes the McCain position in the very first paragraph. It obviously is not an honest assessment of anything."

LOL.... Man, you really are getting desperate, aren't you? You just cannot deal with Brzezinski's arguments or with McCain's stupidity, so you have to rail endlessly about nothing at all. This is pathetic.

This whole thing is so familiar, and I don't mean Viet Nam familiar, it was something else, something personal.

Oh, yeah, I remember, the phone call from my brother in Vegas:

Tripp I need you man. I've lost it all - my money, my car, my house. My wife hates me. I can't quit now, not when I'm down this far. I need your money. I promise I can make this good. I'm begging. All I need is one big win. Just one. Please help me out. Please.

Alright, I've got to protest Kevin's moderator's continued use of the delete button to censor me and make me look bad.

As you'll see, Thersites sarcastically insulted me at 10:37.

I responded in kind, writing that Thersites was as dumb as a high-schooler who smokes cigarettes in the bathroom during class.

That's all I wrote- so I'm not left being picked on by this Internet stalker and predator, and so that other people who read the comments don't feel like they have to be intimidated by the commenters if they want to post a comment- they can post a comment in return.

But for some reason, my inoffensive comment was deleted, while Thersites' (and other commenters') trite, non-topical insults of me are typically left up. If Kevin's moderator had any brains, and was a liberal, I'd think he or she would have figured out by now that a bunch of commenters on this site are most probably going after me just to defame me.

Please stop deleting my comments from now on.

"Please stop deleting my comments from now on."

Then stop writing comments like this one, which is almost certainly going to be deleted because it's a) completely off-topic, and b)insulting. Even worse, you've been warned, which means that you have no excuse. Take the time-out with good grace and your comments won't be deleted.

Swan,

I can't speak for the moderator, of course, but here are my observations.

First, Thersite's comment was funny. Your's was not.

Second, "Internet stalker and predator?!" Dude, those are some pretty harsh charges. I mean WTF?

Third, I can't speak for the rest, but I go after commenters who are rude and/or who say stupid things. I mean is defamation of someone even possible when the allegedly defamed person is using a pseudonym? I wish you no harm in real life. Believe me I don't even want to know you. But I love me some lampooning of stupid comments. I like to be funny and factual when I do it, too.

Guess what, Swan?

You're an idiot. Stop mewling about it. Be a man. Cowboy up, sir.

Swan's spiritual brother in idiocy "brian":

No one can point to any statement by McCain that he is willing to "continue the war" in Iraq for 100 years.

You schmuck! He actually did say that! Stop drawing attention to it!

“Make it 100. We’ve . . . been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, that’s fine with me. I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day.�

Do you want to just hand these gifts to the idiot liberals all the day long? And you wonder why I think some of the people who claim to be on my side of the aisle are just idiots and poseurs.

Norman,

But I love me some lampooning of stupid comments. I like to be funny and factual when I do it, too.

Yeah, like that!

Excuse me, what the deuce? Who is clicking on my site, sir?