Powered by TypePad

« Democrats Want Their Constituents To Sicken And Die | Main | Chevy Chase, Stand-Up Guy »

January 05, 2007

Comments

maryrose

Reid will not be able to stop more troops to Iraq because he doesn't have the votes. Johnson will not be available for months and if Hagel decides to jump ship along with Smith so be it.
Ranger and Soylent Red your posts have been excellent and spot-on.

PeterUK

It isn't even current Outhouse propaganda Semen,like the new handle,just some old dross they keep for the drones.

Jane

Clarice,

Great indeed. So who after that, could be opposed to this war?

clarice

People who don't read it..Jane.

The Sunday Times (UK) reports Israel is preparing to knock out Iran's nuclear facilities..I have no idea if this is a real leak or a head fake..If it's real, the sec Council members all of whom should be grateful are surely revising thier condemnation resolutions for Osirik to read Tehran.

lurker

maryrose, there are some Republicans that are starting to object to the troop surge....

Specter

The bottom line is - whoever in Congress objects - it is a moot point. They do not control the troops. That is the job of the President. The infamous War Powers Act has never been ruled on by the Judicial Branch - every single time it was threatened to be taken to court by the Executive Branch (both dems and repubs) the Congress has backed down.

What I find funny is that Joe Lieberman is now the most powerful Senator in the Senate. And he has no true love for the Dems anymore. He stated again on Thursday that he is beholden to no party but to the people of Connecticut. Nice job KOS Kiddies!

lurker

And the people of Connecticut want?

MayBee

Ranger:I will point out that the American people will support great sacrifice if they beleive there is a plan for victory.

Do you think so?
I'm not so sure, and have seen little evidence of that in several decades.

Specter

Well...lurker...Joe wants a surge...

lurker

He wants to win for the sake of Judaism.

MayBee, I believe that Bush has always had a plan for victory but each plan is always fraught with unanticipated setbacks. Each setback is one step backwards but two steps forward as long as we stick with it.

The democrats are WRONG to think this plan is a failure and by adding more troops to the plan will continue to be a failure. It is all a PR game to them and an effort to fool the public. Too bad the public believes them. Remember that Hitler said in his Mein Hampf that all it takes is a non-stop repetition of a fallacy and the public will end up believing it to be true.

PaulL

Clarice: "The Sunday Times (UK) reports Israel is preparing to knock out Iran's nuclear facilities."

Shhhh! It's supposed to be a SECRET!

lurker

Had the Democrats stood by the plan, we would've reached victory a lot sooner. But all they have done are obstructionist acts.

MayBee

lurker-
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I wasn't questioning the plan for victory, I was questioning the American people's willingness to support great sacrifice.

BTW

Ranger

"I will point out that the American people will support great sacrifice if they beleive there is a plan for victory."

How old are you? Twelve? Yeh, A plan. That's all that is needed is a paln. A plan for victory. Jeez why didn't we think of that.

BTW

"Pete, BTW, Tic,

None of you has explained why the latest AP/IPSOS poll on the subject had 56% of Americans stating that DEMOCRATS HAVE NO PLAN FOR IRAQ! Stop patting yourselves on the back. You won on "we will fix Iraq" and after that the majority of Americans stated they don't believe you have a plan."

Actually I answered your innane question a few days ago. The American people don't think there is "a plan" that can "fix" Iraq. So why would they think the Dems or anybody should have a plan? They don't!

Idiots like like you helped kill 100s of thousands of Iraqis for absolutely nothing. Do you think you or the radical right is going to spin their way out of this? Not a chnace in hell. What ther RR will try to do is escalate both in Iraq and Iran. Will you get some balls by then or will you continue to play the lapdog for the BushCo crazies.

Soylent Red

Idiots like like you helped kill 100s of thousands of Iraqis for absolutely nothing.

Brilliant ubermensch like you allowed Saddam to kill and estimated 750,000, possibly a million, and now want us to leave Iraq so Islamists can kill even more.

Why do you hate Iraqis?

Soylent Red

Remember that Hitler said in his Mein Hampf that all it takes is a non-stop repetition of a fallacy and the public will end up believing it to be true.

The Big Lie.

For reference examine everything produced at the DNC.

BTW

Soylent

Your an idiot.

Soylent Red

BTW:

Lemme fix that for ya. Should read:

"YOU'RE an idiot."

Maybe so BTW, but at least I'm not a heartless illiterate who wants to condemn innocents to certain death in order to pay homage to a morally bankrupt political ideology.

So why do you want Iraqis to die?

Semenfilledcleo
Your an idiot.

I second that remark.

Now come cuddle with me, BTW, and we can curl up and dream of the days when Iraqi children were quietly dying under our beloved Billy Boy. Sure, over a million Iraqis were killed by sanctions during the Clinton regime, but that didn't matter; there was a Democrat in the White House.

The current clod in the White House can't even manage to get his executive agencies to slaughter Americans, or kidnap kids for Castro as efficiently as Our Bill did!

I miss those halcyon days when we didn't even have to pretend to support the troops or care about foreigners, when we could just carpet bomb those darkies from 30,000 feet.

PeterUK

"Yeh, A plan. That's all that is needed is a paln. A plan for victory. Jeez why didn't we think of that."

Because you are too bust surrendering...no not to that one,he's the pizza delivery man

TCO

Clarice:

"Better yet, there is little coverage of the aftermath debacle in the Balkans and since most of the awful stuff is done under an international flag it--like the UN peacekeepers' raping young children around the globe--is immune from criticism."

This is (1) a whine and (2) if one believes it relevant, than one should indict Bush for having set the bar too high.

"I have no idea whether it is even possible ever to answer such a question. Anyone who had the slightest notion of what was involved would have told you that the war would be easy, the aftermath hard.
And anyone who knew anything about such things would have told you it is impossible to do such things in an error-free way."

Obviously, it is not an analytically soluble question, like something you look up in an integral table in the back of the math book. But also, obviously, it is an important and relevant question and depending on what one believes the answer to be, strongly affects what actions one takes. Yes, it would seem obvious that things would not be easy, but realize that there was a lot of wishful thinking going on and a lot of naive PC failure to realize that everyone does not think/act like us. Some of them specialize in marrying cousins, skimming bribes, etc. etc.

PeterUK

"Soylent

Your an idiot."

No,I thinks he was simply signing off,

Your's an idiot.

TCO

Cathyf: "It looks to me that if reforming the islamofascists doesn't work, then our only remaining option is to commit genocide against 1 billion muslims. I myself would rather be really really really really sure that Plan A is really a failure before moving onto Plan B. I have observed that there seem to be lots of people out there who are quick to say that they see failure, but I don't believe them. If they really saw failure then they would be moving on to organize genocide. "

Huh? You can't think of any other options? How about living with some level of risk? How about a policy of engaging targets when convenient in specific manners other than occupying territory or nation-building or genocide?

I mean, would you kill everyone in Anacostia because of the murders there?

PeterUK

"Darkies", Septic,in Bosnia?

TCO

"What really burns me up though, is that the worst stuff was done by DoS under Powell and Bremer and they remain --like UN peacekeepers--immune from scrutiny or blame."

Look, Clarice. Stop seeing things through such a prism of who gets blamed, etc. Start seeing things through a prism of what is the right thing to do, the efficacious thing to do. All this obsessing about blame or looking for someone to blame things on is so damn inside the Beltway. We've got to be shrewd and think of the national interest here.

PeterUK

"We've got to be shrewd and think of the national interest here."

Which is?

Syl

Tic

The US should be judged for it's meddling in other countries governance.

TCO

How about a policy of engaging targets when convenient in specific manners other than occupying territory or nation-building or genocide?

You're both extremely selfish. Freedoms and good governance for you, but not for anyone else.

Since it's been determined that most of the poverty and current violence on the planet is due directly and indirectly to bad governance, I'd say get the rest of the planet out of the zoo they're living in and into the modern world.

Go Team America!

Meddling is an act of charity and goodness with the side benefit of making the world safer and richer.

Go Team America!

Those who object (EEEEEK. Meddling is creating more terrorsts. Or STOP! We have no right to interfere with the stupidity, ignorance, intolerance, lack of freedoms that the stupid brown and purple of the world live with) either get under your bed or get out of the way!

Go Team America!

kate

Did exit polling support the theory that the Dems won because of Iraq. I recall that in September, the polls started to move in the Republicans' direction and then the Mark Foley scandal broke. I recall that being news 24/7 for days and it had the effect of stopping any movement by the Republicans.

They would not have needed this scandal and staged its release if the public was so disillusioned with Iraq.

I believe Iraq was certainly a factor but the Democrats must tread carefully here. They don't want their slogan to be "We lost us 2 wars". Their performance on Vietnam, lost them foreign policy credibility for many years. It won't all be a plus for the Dems.

lurker

Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden ARE counting on the democrats to lose to them.

Funny how the democrats played the "Cut and Run" tactic during the campaign and won but now they're just beginning to change their position to "stay and hold" (now they're saying hold so that we can pull out as soon as possible).

Now they are caught in a Catch22 situation with the KOS kids, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, etc., getting mad at them and knowing they can easily lose the '08.

Pete

You folks have suddenly developed a sympathy towards Iraqi lives. Where were you all when Reagan and Rummie were helping Saddam when he was at the worst of his behavior and using chemicals on people? Did any of you protest Rummie as Sec Defense given his dubious history in Iraq?

There has been no credible study which shows that fewer Iraqi lives are being lost now than Saddam was killing off in 2002. The number of lives being lost right now are being undercounted. Not one of the right wingers is asking Bush to get an accurate count of Iraqi lives lost. If there is such a concern about Iraqi lives why are you not concerned that the US govt is not even keeping an accuarate tally of the dead?

The statistic that the number of US troops being killed in Iraq is less than the US highway fatalities is really meaningless. It would be meaningless to make the same comparison with the number dead during 9/11.

And about the death rates in Iraq being less than the death rate in some US cities (the argument made with an undercount of the actual Iraqi deaths), two wrongs do not make a right.

Bush/Rove/Republicans clearly told the US voters that the Democrats were cut and run and the party of surrender. And yet the Democrats won the elections handily. Many of you are in denial about this.

I have never advocated an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but there is no doubt in my mind that Bush is clueless on Iraq and that his policies have gravely harmed the US. I don't think that the Democrats would be able to fix Iraq, but then neither will Bush. Before you start advocating military misadventures in other countries, please first fix the mess you made in one.

PeterUK

The Democrats are simply playing politics

PeterUK

"You folks have suddenly developed a sympathy towards Iraqi lives. Where were you all when Reagan and Rummie were helping Saddam when he was at the worst of his behavior and using chemicals on people? Did any of you protest Rummie as Sec Defense given his dubious history in Iraq?"

The principle enemy then as now was Iran,remember the Embassy hostages? I know you are upset by Rummie shaking Hussein's hand,but in the grown up world that happens all the time,Bill Clinton let Yasser Arafat wipe his arse on the White House toilet tissue.True you lefties believe in snubbing the bad guysmexcept for Stalin,Mao,Pol Pot,Tookie,but I put the latter down to an adolescent crush.

"There has been no credible study which shows that fewer Iraqi lives are being lost now than Saddam was killing off in 2002. The number of lives being lost right now are being undercounted. Not one of the right wingers is asking Bush to get an accurate count of Iraqi lives lost. If there is such a concern about Iraqi lives why are you not concerned that the US govt is not even keeping an accuarate tally of the dead?"

Since there are no credible studies how do you know deaths are being undercounted?
Secondly Iraq has a sovereign government,it is their job to keep figures.If there is internecine strife,common in the area for hundreds of years,why is it your government's job to keep count? If you are truly concerned,go and do it yourself.

"The statistic that the number of US troops being killed in Iraq is less than the US highway fatalities is really meaningless. It would be meaningless to make the same comparison with the number dead during 9/11".

Why is it meaningless to state that there also risks staying at home? Merely saying it is meaningless does not make it so.

"And about the death rates in Iraq being less than the death rate in some US cities (the argument made with an undercount of the actual Iraqi deaths), two wrongs do not make a right".

The point is death occur,it is a nasty fact of life,the point being that it is probably safer being in the army serving in Iraq than it is being a member of the Cripps.

"Bush/Rove/Republicans clearly told the US voters that the Democrats were cut and run and the party of surrender. And yet the Democrats won the elections handily. Many of you are in denial about this".

The Democrats also played the paedophile card with Mark Foley,oddly enough just before the election although they had had the facts for some time.

"I have never advocated an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but there is no doubt in my mind that Bush is clueless on Iraq and that his policies have gravely harmed the US"

Have you not received the memo,the Democrat leadership wants out,now,just in case Iraq affects their 2008 presidential bid.

"I don't think that the Democrats would be able to fix Iraq".

So why don't they bugger off and leave the job to someone who can,

"but then neither will Bush."

So Iraq is unfixable?

"Before you start advocating military misadventures in other countries, please first fix the mess you made in one".

One of the countries advocated as a military adventure theme park is Iran,instigator of much of the mayhem in Iraq,the same Iran rushing like the Gadarene Swine to possess nuclear weapons.

Lastly if the Democrats cannot fix Iraq,Bush cannot fix Iraq,who are you asking to fix it?

maryrose

President Bush will prevail in Iraq and the terrorists will be defeated one by one. In 08 Dems will be again scrambling and disavowing their no new troops and defeatist language. The American people aren't stupid {though BTW and pete may be the exceptions ] and will realize once again how soft on terrorism the dems are. In 08 it will be victory for repubs and shocked surprise for cleo, BTW pete et al.

Ranger

Ranger

"I will point out that the American people will support great sacrifice if they beleive there is a plan for victory."

How old are you? Twelve? Yeh, A plan. That's all that is needed is a paln. A plan for victory. Jeez why didn't we think of that.

Posted by: BTW | January 06, 2007 at 10:52 PM

Actually, no, I imagine I am rather older and much more experience in this arena than you are, but that asside I will point out that I sat in on pannel at the International Studies Association national meeting in 2001 where one of the papers presented discussed this very fact. When well constructed surveys were done on public opinion about casualty tollerance it turns out that people will support very large casualty numbers if they beleive both the cause it worth it, and there is a plan to win (the public is actually also willing to support significant casualties if they are not sure the war is worth it, but they see a clear plan for victory anyway). In fact, the US military is much more casualty averse than the general public even when there is a clear plan to win.

The lack of support for Vietnam was the result of LBJ loosing the confidence of the US public that there was any real plan to win the war. The same dynamic is underway now.

Stay the Course was a lousy way to describe what we are doing because it doesn't sound like a plan to win. On the other hand, Hold, Clear, and Build, does sound like a plan to win, (and by the way, it has been proven to work in many counter insurgencies around the world over the last 50 years).

Of course we could always go with the Kosovo option of just letting the Kurds and the Shia whipe out and drive out the entire Sunni population (which is basically what we let the Albanians do to the Serbs in Kosovo), but the US press isn't willing to let a Republican president get away with a deliberate policy of genocide like they let Bill (we may just have to accept that Serbs may not longer want to live in Kosovo) Clinton.

BTW

Soylent

Why do you hate Iraqis and American troops? Why do you hate openness in government? Why do you hate our constitution? Why do you hate yourself?

Yeh we all know you have got a hard-on for Bill Clinton but grow-up boy. It was your support that got us into this mess in Iraq. It's time to face the music. So get your ass over to Iraq and help out if you think it is "winnable" otherwise admit you made a horendous mistake and do us a favor by jumping in front of a bus.

PeterUK

Yes Soylent,
Tell us where you mentioned Bill Clinton.

Devilinabluedress

hard-on for Bill Clinton

Been great if Clinton cared less about his hard-ons and more about his balls and actually, you know did something about terrorism.

boris

Is Soylent causing problems again?

Soylent !!! Behave !!!

boris

BJ was all prick and no balls

clarice

True , Boris, but remember some of us are of the tender sex--*blushing maidenly*

Here is the latest on the Miami port's shutdown.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/16405707.htm

PeterUK

"Been great if Clinton cared less about his hard-ons and more about his balls and actually, you know did something about terrorism."

He did try,but every time it happened it drained the blood from his brain.

lurker

Pelosi hints at denying Bush Iraq funds

What a stupid move for Pelosi to make an hint like this one.

Soylent Red

Why do you hate Iraqis and American troops? Why do you hate openness in government? Why do you hate our constitution? Why do you hate yourself?

I'm quite sure I don't hate any of those things, least of all myself. But just for your benefit, I see if I can explain it to you. I'll try to keep the words short so whoever has to read them to you doesn't get confused...

I don't hate Iraqis. I want them to be a free and successful country. I wanted them to be free from Saddam since 1991. I don't advocate policies that will ultimately cause their country to descend into full blown civil war and eventual domination by Iran.

That is why I disdain your position. You claim to be a party of compassion, yet you did nothing through the 1990s, when there was no Soviet Union to consider, to take out Saddam. Then, when someone comes along who will get rid of Saddam, you and your ilk bitch and kvetch about how its being done. Finally, you plot to remove the one factor in Iraq that is the identifiable stabilizing influence, thus condemning innocent Iraqis to even more violence and death.

As for American troops, I have nothing but the highest respect for them. Your party, who so desperately want to withdraw, better pray they get lost on the way home. Why? Because those who are on the ground in Iraq understand the importance of what they are doing, and want to finish the job. They take great umbrage at being told, by lefty politicians sitting on their blueblood asses in Washington, that they are losing. Disproportionately, American troops favor staying and finishing the job, and disproportionately American troops support the President. If you truly gave a damn about "the troops" you would listen to them and support what they support. But you don't. What you care about is using the facade of compassion for the troops as a lever on the electorate.

Openess in government? Respect for the constitution? Coming from a member of the party of Clinton, those accusations are laughable. Janet Reno, Sandy Berger, Whitewater, Elian Gonzalez, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Chinese campaign donations...were you asleep through the 90s or are you just that blinded by partisanship?

For the sake of argument however, name me one Constitutional right that has been denied you in the last 8 years. Be careful what you say though, because I'll expect proof.

So get your ass over to Iraq and help out if you think it is "winnable" otherwise admit you made a horendous mistake and do us a favor by jumping in front of a bus.

At 38 years old, my ass will be in bootcamp in February, little man. After that OCS and BOLCIII. Then, if they want me to go to Iraq, I will gladly go and do my duty.

You, of course, are welcome to join me in serving your country. Then you will have a right, and perhaps a little real world perspective, to bitch about Iraq policy. Send me your info and I'll remit the entire $2000 recruitement bonus right back to you when you enlist. Swear to God.

Didn't think so. Because from the comfort of your groovy little dorm room or parents basement, you don't care if Iraqis die. Millions of innocent people are only pawns in your shallow little political game. You and your kind are grotesque and souless human beings who care only about tenuous hold on power.

So why do you want Iraqis to die again? You still haven't answered that question.

Soylent Red

Is Soylent causing problems again?

Boris, I never cause problems. I am shocked that you would say such a thing. ;)

Soylent Red

hard-on for Bill Clinton

Has there ever been a phrase, in the history of the English language, as inadvertantly ironic as this?

clarice

Soylent may be off our screen in Feb but SHEIKH YEBOUTI will be coming to screens in Tehran and Damscus at the same time!!!

Syl

BTW

It was your support that got us into this mess in Iraq. It's time to face the music. So get your ass over to Iraq and help out if you think it is "winnable" otherwise admit you made a horendous mistake and do us a favor by jumping in front of a bus.

Soylent really got to you I see.

BTW, your hysteria over the 'horrendous mistake' and assumption that Iraq is a failure is just rhetoric.

You know no such thing. It's just what your friends say who heard it from their friends who it heard it from some MSNBC guy who hates Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Saying that Iraq is a failure just makes you feel soooo good.

So say it again, please, for the children. All those children who giggle with delight like they're saying a dirty word: Iraq is a failure! ::giggle giggle::

Will you ever grow up? Will you ever look back on this and say to yourself 'Yeah, I got a little carried away'?

Honestly, you little pipsqueaks who don't know from anything are so damned sure of yourselves. Being against Iraq is just the 'in' thing today. What will your little clique consider the 'in' thing tomorrow?

Soylent Red

Sheikh Yerbouti (peace be upon him)... Coming to a third rate Islamist dictatorship near you.

Actually, Clarice, I've been thinking about that. rather than pirate radio, much more high tech and low cost methods would be podcast and wireless downloads on to cell phones. Iran has no shortage of computers and cell phones, and I'll bet Syria is not far behind.

clarice

You should , Soylent. If I can help, whistle. I once heard a former CIA official say that American music beamed over satellite to Iran was what would bring the regime down.

clarice

Actually--he said MTV, not music.

Soylent Red

MTV, not music.

Nyuck. And we should definitely not confuse the two.

With Ahmaknucklehead's party in decline, the oil production not meeting quota, gas shipments to Turkey having to be delayed, and out of control unemployment and inflation, the time is definitely at hand for a little "soft kill".

BTW

"hard-on for Bill Clinton"

Could have been worse,it could have been for Hillary.

clarice

Yup--Sheikh Yerbouti could praise the economic miracles of knucklehead..But some music and fashion tips would also be good--Like it's 120 degrees today in downtown Tehran, isn't it cool inside that chador?
And we could remind them that while they cannot afford food, Hezbollah is getting whatever it wants in an "Arab" fight for which the Iranis have no interest or taste for

But--wait--I'm talking to the master himself..

Soylent Red

it could have been for Hillary

I'd hit that. But not in the way you might think.

PeterUK

"With Ahmaknucklehead's party in decline, the oil production not meeting quota, gas shipments to Turkey having to be delayed, and out of control unemployment and inflation, the time is definitely at hand for a little "soft kill".

Wouldn't it be kinder just to nuke them?

Lesley

RE: ROE

I've been waiting for cetain transcripts to appear for the Hugh Hewitt radio show. Alas, the particular transcripts I was most interested in quoting are not yet available.

However, I would encourage anyone with an interest in the military's rules of engagement to listen to Frank Gaffney's comments on the JAG (January 4, 2007) and Sgt. T.F. Bogg's description of going on patrol in Iraq (December 27, 2006).

These radio clips are available on the Hugh Hewitt website.

topsecretk9

This is interesting

President Bill Clinton signed a letter authorizing former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger's access to classified documents that later came up missing, according to a newly released investigation report by the National Archives and Records Administration.

The sensitive drafts of the National Security Council's "Millennium After Action Review" on the Clinton administration's handling of the al-Qaida terror threats in December 1999 suspiciously disappeared after Berger said he intended to "determine if Executive Privilege needed to be exerted prior to documents being provided to the 9/11 Commission." Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft testified before the 9-11 commission about the millennium report, urging the panel to ask why the document's warnings and "blueprint" to thwart al-Qaida's plans to target the U.S. were ignored by the Clinton administration and not shared with the incoming Bush security staff.

The NARA investigation report said Clinton signed an April 12, 2002, letter designating Berger – and another person whose named is redacted – as "agents on his behalf to review relevant NSC documents regarding Osama Bin Laden/Al Qaeda, Sudan and Presidential correspondence from or to (Sudanese President) Omar Bashir, contained in the Clinton Presidential records." A subsequent letter from a National Security Council official, May 14, 2002, said Berger repeatedly was briefed that "he was not allowed to remove any documentation from NARA."...

...Archives officials decided to call Berger and ask him for the documents. He said he didn't think he had any files. They advised him NARA was treating the matter as a security infraction and was going to report the incident to the National Security Council. If Berger admitted to taking the documents by mistake, the incident would be reported as inadvertent removal. But, he maintained that staff members were in error, and he had given the files back to an assistant.

Later that evening, Berger claimed to have found two documents, and NARA made arrangements to pick up the files the following morning. However, NARA reports the documents were an e-mail and a facsimile Berger reviewed Sept. 2, 2003, not classified files viewed Oct. 2, 2003.

Berger said he could not find any additional documents and claimed he must have thrown them away. According to the NARA report, "He had destroyed, cut into small pieces, three of the four documents. These were put in the trash. By Saturday, the trash had been picked up. He tried to find the trash collector but had no luck."

The inspector general was briefed on the incidents Oct. 10. That day, OI investigators recovered documents from Berger's home at the request of his attorney. Six months later, the Department of Justice notified the 9/11 commission.

Berger said if someone had always been with him, he would not have taken any documents.

What are they so worried about? ( PDF of the letter here (scrolling ticker)

Landmark has been attempting to secure copies of all versions of the Millennium After-Action Review (MAAR) document from the Clinton Library for some time. They denied our original request, and have now denied our appeal.
clarice

Yes, it is interesting.

JJ

Firefox 2.0 has a really kewl spellchecker built right in! Nice little red marks under the words and a right-click to correct. Download today! (But there's also ieSpell.)

Makes it so much easier for those who come to the party late and have to slog all and decipher.

Fun reading though.

Yours [your's; your a idiot; youse?] truly, JJ

TCO

PeterUK (3:17) I have posted a fair amount on this issue. I would love to continue the discussion in a forward looking manner. Let's get into it. (Just to be clear...are you conceding my chiding of Clarice here and agreeing with it? I think it is importatn to be very clear about disaggregation of issues.)

The national interest is to avoid 9-11s, avoid nuclear 9-11s, promote general peace and trade stability. Note that we do not control the world, so that actions need to be thought of in terms of their likelihood to actually have benefit and their costs.

TCO

Syl: Philosophically, your idea (that we should deliver US-style freedom to all the people's of the world) up to and including invasions, can be argued morally and legally. Practically, it is a non-starter that ignores that freedom given is not cherished as much as freedome earned, that not all the peoples of the world share Anglo Saxon beliefs in rights, morals etc. (Pashtun tribesmen for instance beleive it virtuous to lie to help a family member.), as well as practical constraints on our ability to police the world (literally).

BTW

Soylent

"At 38 years old, my ass will be in bootcamp in February, little man. After that OCS and BOLCIII. Then, if they want me to go to Iraq, I will gladly go and do my duty."

Going off to kill some of those Iraqis that you love are you?

BTW

Hey Syl

It was a horendous mistake. Deal with it. Just set back and watch now that the adults are in control of congress. Watch what happens to your beloved right-wing ideology as it get hung out to dry. Sunlight ... the best disinfectant.

PeterUK

TCO,
No I wrote it off as verbiage without content.

"Practically, it is a non-starter that ignores that freedom given is not cherished as much as freedome earned,"

You miss freedom acquired and become familiar with,what you say runs counter to all the great liberations of history.

PeterUK

""Practically, it is a non-starter that ignores that freedom given is not cherished as much as freedome earned,"

In other words,"Let the slaves free themselves".

PeterUK

Those two sunbeams Reid and Murtha are just the kind of light all that appropriation money needs.

Sue

Berger said if someone had always been with him, he would not have taken any documents.

He said WHAT? Tell me it is not what he said. It is someone else's fault he took the documents?

Specter

BTW,

We all like laughing at you (note: not with you but at you). You challenged SR to get up and go to Iraq. He is. You aren't. LOL - you just got slammed. And you don't even know it.

As to your assertion about the AP/IPSOS poll, you did not answer the question. What the poll asked was, "did people believe Dims had A PLAN for Iraq?" You keep trying to inflate that to say "a winning plan". That isn't what was asked. 56% of Americans believe that the DEMS HAVE NO PLAN FOR IRAQ. None. Nada. Not even a plan to lose (which is what I suspect will be forthcoming). Get a grip.

Soylent Red

Going off to kill some of those Iraqis that you love are you?

Nah. Just the bad guys trying to ruin their lives... Well, the bad guys trying to ruin their lives in Iraq. There's still a lot of bad guys trying to ruin their lives in the U.S. Right now, you're one of them.

Which reminds me, peanut: When are you going to send me your information so I can get a recruiter to contact you. Then you could really show how compassionate you Dems are by actually getting up off your ass and helping someone.

ajacksonian

JJ - That is a good spell checker and Xinha lets you pop up a mini-word processor just about anywhere.

As my thoughts run long on this subject, I shall post them elsewhere.

That said failure of conception, execution and understanding all play a part... but not in the places people direct it at. The problem is not Iraq, but a deeper failure and flaccid outlook from the elitist based structure of academia, media and politics.

I will say that my initial conception of how to look at things and look for those that want to *build* a Republic looks quite good. Naysayers offer nothing and therefore give no way forward and now the way back is gone. Standing still is death... even the wrong step forward gives perspective on how to make the *right* next step. Now if only those naysayers would turn around to look at the future, and stop tearing up the road behind us.

Ways forward to Liberty, please.

Not ways back to Empire.

PeterUK

"Which reminds me, peanut: When are you going to send me your information so I can get a recruiter to contact you."

Do you really want this kind of dross in your military Soylent? OK for clearing mines and IEDs but not much else,perhaps bayonet practice,though the whining would put you off.

Pete

I know you are upset by Rummie shaking Hussein's hand,but in the grown up world that happens all the time,Bill Clinton let Yasser Arafat wipe his arse on the White House toilet tissue.
If it was as simple as Rummie shaking a hand, I would not be as upset. But we all know that Rummie did not just shake a hand. Rummie went to Baghdad a couple of times to offer assistance to Saddam at a time when Saddam was at the worst of his behavior, and when Saddam was even using chemical weapons. You trivialize this and offer rationales for what Rummie did, fine, but then don’t pretend to be sooooo concerned about the Iraqis.
Since there are no credible studies how do you know deaths are being undercounted?
While there are no credible studies which make the comparison I wrote about, there are credible reports which mention how the deaths are being counted and which point out how the deaths are being undercounted.

Secondly Iraq has a sovereign government,it is their job to keep figures.If there is internecine strife,common in the area for hundreds of years,why is it your government's job to keep count? If you are truly concerned,go and do it yourself.
It is my government’s job to keep count because their actions are resulting in the deaths. And you are validating my point because your lack of interest in finding out how many die really shows how much you care about Iraqi deaths.
Why is it meaningless to state that there also risks staying at home? Merely saying it is meaningless does not make it so.

That is not what was stated. Highway deaths occur regardless of whether or not Iraq was invaded.
The point is death occur,it is a nasty fact of life,the point being that it is probably safer being in the army serving in Iraq than it is being a member of the Cripps.
Being a member of the Cripps is not the benchmark that most of us aspire for.
The Democrats also played the paedophile card with Mark Foley,oddly enough just before the election although they had had the facts for some time.
Poll after poll indicated that Iraq was the number one issue in the minds of the voters.
So why don't they bugger off and leave the job to someone who can,
Because Bush cannot, and furthermore because they have a constitutional responsibility of oversight.
So Iraq is unfixable?
Yes.
One of the countries advocated as a military adventure theme park is Iran,instigator of much of the mayhem in Iraq,the same Iran rushing like the Gadarene Swine to possess nuclear weapons.
Which means that Bush went into Iraq without a plan or ability to control the Iraqi borders. That would have meant a lot more troops, which meant that the war on the cheap could not be sold.
Lastly if the Democrats cannot fix Iraq,Bush cannot fix Iraq,who are you asking to fix it?
The Iraqis. Remember you said it was a sovereign nation.

clarice

We gave the Iraqis intel help re the Iranian positions. And if it's anything like the crap that I saw in the declassified NIEs they'd have been wise to ignore it.

In the meantime, Albright tripped the light fantastic with Kim, while the Clinton Administration gave his failing regime money and oil and a green light to keep on doing what he was doing to become a nuclear power.

maryrose

pete:
You sir are a pessimist. I truly believe we and the Iraq people can win in Iraq. You are a naysayer and therefore useless in this war on terror. As they say on MTV-NEXT

PeterUK

"You trivialize this and offer rationales for what Rummie did, fine, but then don’t pretend to be sooooo concerned about the Iraqis."

Who is pretending to be concerned,you're the bleeding heart liberal.I see a festering geopolitical sore that has to be lanced before it poisons everything.

"t is my government’s job to keep count because their actions are resulting in the deaths. And you are validating my point because your lack of interest in finding out how many die really shows how much you care about Iraqi deaths."

"Being a member of the Cripps is not the benchmark that most of us aspire for."

You probably haven't got the legs for a mini.

"Poll after poll indicated that Iraq was the number one issue in the minds of the voters."

Yet Foley was the number one issue with the MSM.The Democrats didn't win because of an increase in the vote,but because Republicans stayed at home.Interestingly the Democrats fielded centre right candidates many not of the cut and run ilk.

It is no more your government's job to keep count of how many Iraqis kill each other than it is the Iraq governments job to keep count of how many Americans kill each other.
I note your concern only reaches as far as your monitor screen,you are not out there doing any counting,but I would advise you that it is probably impossible to separate out accidental deaths,criminal acts and combat deaths,you would also find that the compensation culture of the region will distort the figures.Anyway,go to Iraq and count.

"That is not what was stated. Highway deaths occur regardless of whether or not Iraq was invaded."

So you are saying that you willingly accept road deaths,often on some trivial journey,but not pacifying a region that, if abandoned will drag the world order into chaos.

How do you know Iraq is unfixable,what knowledge do you have?

Don't answer,None!

"Which means that Bush went into Iraq without a plan or ability to control the Iraqi borders. That would have meant a lot more troops, which meant that the war on the cheap could not be sold."
You cannot control border,America can't the Soviet Bloc could not,even the Great Wall of China failed.The only way of stopping border incursions is to take down the Iranian regime,which is of course why you have armies on either side in Iraq and Afghanistan.


I have to post both these,your reply is so deliciously stupid.

"Lastly if the Democrats cannot fix Iraq,Bush cannot fix Iraq,who are you asking to fix it?"

"The Iraqis. Remember you said it was a sovereign nation".

Remembering your statement,

"Before you start advocating military misadventures in other countries, please first fix the mess you made in one".

The Iraqis are not advocating your miscalled "military misadventures" what on earth are you talking about?
Iraq a sovereign nation with a freely elected government,that is failure? The Iraq government has aske that troops stay

PeterUK

Today's Washington Post reports that almost 25,000 Iraqi civilians and police officers were killed in 2006, with almost three quarters of the deaths occurring in the second half of the year. But here's something you're unlikely to read about in the Post -- Iraq is making substantial economic strides.

James Roberts in the Washington Times points to an article in the end-of-the-year edition of Newsweek international called "Iraq's Economy is Booming" by Silvia Spring. It notes that real estate prices have gone up several hundred percent since the fall of Saddam Hussein; that Iraqi workers' salaries have increased more than 100 percent during the same period; that the number of cars in Baghdad has grown by 500 percent; that the Iraqi construction, retail and wholesale trade sectors are growing substantially; that the number of registered businesses has increased four fold in three years; that taxes are lower and government revenue higher; that the Kurdish region is booming; that Iraq's GDP grew by 17 percent in 2005, with 2006 growth projected at 13 percent by the Global Insight firm (and 4 percent by the World Bank); and that foreign investment from neighboring countries is pouring in.

So, taking into account both the level of violence and the economy, is Iraq better off now than it was under Saddam? If you're a Sunni living in a mixed neighborhood in Baghdad, no. If you're a Shiite living in such a neighborhood, probably not. But if you're a Shiite living in the south or a Kurd living in the north, then you're almost certainly much better off now.

The other thing to keep in mind is that Iraq faced a day of sectarian reckoning regardless of the conduct of the United States. The Sunnis weren't going to be able to oppress the country's majority indefinitely. Ten, twenty, or thirty years down the road, all hell was going to break loose. One can argue that the U.S. would be better off to be nowhere in the vicinity at that time. But it's quite clear that Iraq is better off having the U.S. around to help limit the scope and intensity of the bloodshed.

To comment on this post, go here
Posted by Paul at 08:48 AM | Permalink |

Soylent Red

OK for clearing mines and IEDs but not much else,perhaps bayonet practice,though the whining would put you off.

I was thinking the Pink Berets

And remember BTW, when you mince, the left foot falls on the beat.

clarice

Spengler, who I think is brilliant , has another thought:
A devilish thought is forming in the back of the American mind: which is better, to have Iraqis shooting at American soldiers, or at each other? During the Cold War, Moscow stood to gain from instability, and Washington sought to stabilize allied regimes (Iran being the exception that proved the rule). Now, with no strategic competitor, America can pick up the pieces at its leisure. As in finance, volatility favors the player with the most options.
Last week was not a good one for America's detractors. The price of oil fell to US$56 a barrel. The same financial markets that swooned in July while Israel fought Hezbollah have forgotten the meaning of risk. The question the world should ask George W Bush is, "If you so dumb, how come you ain't poor"? The US economy and US markets are looking more buoyant than ever. As I wrote last week (Jeb Bush in 2008?, January 3), the whole Iraq debacle might disappear from the public's radar screen in time for America's next presidential election.

Not being privy to the Bush administration's Iraq policy debate, I do not know how Washington will present its intentions. But the facts on the ground speak for themselves. A full-dress civil war in Iraq and an incipient civil war between Fatah and Hamas in Palestine promise a period of bloodshed of indefinite duration - and America's strategic position will be stronger as a result, provided that it can neutralize Iran. On the assumption that Iran had a reasonable shot at obtaining deliverable nuclear weapons by late 2007 or 2008, I forecast last year - wrongly - that Western powers would attack Iran. There is a consensus among the major powers' intelligence services that Iran will not have nuclear weapons until 2010, and more likely 2012. Neutralizing Iran may be easier than I anticipated.

READ IT ALL.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IA09Ak05.html

Martin Morgan

Don't forget that Rummy was shaking Saddam's hand with a shiteating grin AFTER Saddam had murdered the 148 Shiites for which Saddam was just put to death.


General Retreat

Not forgetting the left hand on the hip,the right forearm parallel to the ground the wrist limp,knees together and no flouncing at the back.

"BTW,do you think you could kill a man", "Eventually Sergeant".

PeterUK

"There is a consensus among the major powers' intelligence services that Iran will not have nuclear weapons until 2010, and more likely 2012."

I'm not sanguine about intelligence service's information,nations have a nasty habit of suddenly being nuclear powers overnight.

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

The Spengler piece is very interesting.

A full-dress civil war in Iraq and an incipient civil war between Fatah and Hamas in Palestine promise a period of bloodshed of indefinite duration - and America's strategic position will be stronger as a result, provided that it can neutralize Iran.

That's a reasonable analysis - he included the Pali's current attempt at dialog via sincere exchange of bullets but he neglected the probability that the Siniora/Nasrullah contretemp will be resolved in the same manner. He also neglected to link the Iranian Kurds with the Azeri. That's one of my favorite hypotheticals concerning the driving force for a small period (not more than 5-10 years) of civil unrest in Iran itself.

Iran is as brittle as it is hollow and this spring may see an exhibition of proof positive to that assertion.

I wonder what sort of rumor might stimulate the Baluchis to generate some heat in the south? Four civil wars at one time will certainly keep the jihadis occupied.

PeterUK

The price of oil is what will do for Iran,a little structural alteration to Kharg Island should do the trick.

clarice

Isn't that an original and thoughtful piece, Rick?
Something quite a bit above the usual talking points jabbering.

TCO

Pete:

I thought maybe you were just firing back a snark. That's cool and all. Just didn't want to make a mistake, in case you actually want to talk (and think) about things that matter to our country and our men in the field. Like, I said, it's cool. Shaka.

On point: You've distilled my point to an either/or absolute. I did not state it as such. I stated it as a factor. Capisce?

Soylent Red

Four civil wars at one time will certainly keep the jihadis occupied.

The more I read and learn, the more I am convinced that this is what we've been up to all along. Keep the bad elements occupied jockeying for position in as many theaters as possible.

If we win one, we have a foothold in the Mideast. Thus they have to spread themselves thin.

Watch for Africa to intensify as well, further increasing the heat in the metaphorical kitchen.

Soylent Red

As I mentioned...

Africa heats up.

clarice

US planes are bombing the Somalian jihadis tonight..And we are resupplying the Ethipians. And since it is Africa, no one gives a damn about collateral damage, religious sensibilities, starting a war on a holiday, or whether the prisoners are given mink wrapped Korans handed them by gloved dhimmis.

PeterUK

TCO,
I'll be quite frank,no you didn't.Bye!

PeterUK

Clarice,
There are your new legionaries.

Soylent Red

Clarice:

The Ethiopians proved a few things:

a. the African branch of A-Q have not learned the lessons of conducting an insurgency from the Iraqi branch of A-Q

b. when given the opportunity and the training (we've been training Ethiopians in Kenya for a few years now), Africans are plenty willing and capable to get the job done.

c. Africans whacking Africans doesn't generate any coverage on CNN, and thus doesn't become a media war.

Extraneus

I'd hit that. But not in the way you might think.

lol

BTW

"Nah. Just the bad guys trying to ruin their lives... Well, the bad guys trying to ruin their lives in Iraq. There's still a lot of bad guys trying to ruin their lives in the U.S. Right now, you're one of them."

And which Iraqis are the bad guys? Which ever guys US troops happen to be killing? And do you think anybody buys your little schtick about enlisting. What a shmuck! Say anything! The BushCo way.

Just sit back and watch what happens to your precious neocon dreams. And cut the "why do you hate Iraqis" crap. Nobody even understands what you mean. Unless you think killing even more Iraqis is love. BushCo = SaddamCo. Got it, numbnuts?

Soylent Red

Awww...poor BTW. I didn't make you cry did I?

Reduced to calling names because his conscience convicts him. Maybe if you stopped wanting Iraqis to die you wouldn't be so defensive all the time.

You should try it.

PeterUK

Housekeeping,clean up on aisle one!

Pete

PeterUK said: The Iraqis are not advocating your miscalled "military misadventures" what on earth are you talking about?
Iraq a sovereign nation with a freely elected government,that is failure? The Iraq government has aske that troops stay

I meant not Iraq but Iran and Syria. Let me amend what I said before by saying: "Don't start advocating wars with Iran and Syria when you have not been able to finish the job in Iraq".

We have a civil war in Iraq, which is a failure.

Yesterday Lindsey Graham Republican Senator from S. Carolina said on TV that things have gone worse in Iraq in the past two years and that we are not winning.

In terms of the Iraqi economy - the economy of the oil producing mid east countries is directly tied to the price of oil, and they are all flush with cash thanks to the Iraq war which has contributed to a spike in the oil prices. Furthermore we US taxpayers are pumping billions of our tax dollars into the Iraqi economy.

PeterUK

There,Soylent ,you have made his masscarra run.

Pete

Soylent Red said Reduced to calling names

This is really rich coming from you, given that is exactly what you did to me. Hello Pot. Meet Kettle.

TCO

Pete: That's not even responsive. I don't know what statement to which you are reacting. Have fun, shaka-girl.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame