Powered by TypePad

« Let Me Be Sure To Highlight Some BS | Main | Let's Send A Few Good Men To Congress »

March 16, 2008



If he could bring off a tete a tete a tete with Sistani and Chalabi, I'd be impressed.


What a great thing to do.


http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/03/reflections_on_our_fifth_year.html>Five Years


My job this week is to end old threads. This was another one:

[OT] I'm very worried that Lindsay Graham is tagging along with McCain in Iraq. I don't trust that man's thought processes and I'm afraid he's going to end up in a McCain administration (Attorney General) or as a nominee for the Supreme Court. That would be almost as bad as if Hillary were elected and had to choose. [/OT]

Pat Allen

Look at the end of that quote again: "that Iraqis should arrive at a point when all they want from America is a return to something, stability, that they had under Saddam." But there is a difference between the stability of terror that the Iraqis had under Saddam Hussein and the stability of freedom and the chance to live one’s life as one wants that is our goal and the goal of most of the Iraqi people today.

Besides, Saddam’s stability was no stability for those who feared the knock on the door in the middle of the night or who worried that a careless statement to the wrong person might get them thrown in prison or worse.

The stability of Saddam’s terror is still in Iraq. It is just that, because people are beginning to have a right to choose for themselves and to live in freedom, Saddam’s stability now manifests itself in the terror of Al Qaeda and the suicide bombers.

I cannot believe that the Iraqi people want a return to that kind of stability. They want the stability of the right to live their own lives as they desire, without the fear of a terrorist government or a terrorist group.

But perhaps Mr. Burns’ "impartiality," which he talked about earlier in the article, makes it hard for him to see that difference.

Cecil Turner

John Burns of the Times offers a must-read . . .

That looks a lot like his last assessment:

"If they [Americans] were to stay there another three to five years, we could see this becoming a two-trillion dollar war, we could see thousands more American troops dead. And it seems most improbable to me, from my travels in America, that America is prepared to pay that price."
It's horrible, too expensive . . . got it. But this bit is stunningly ignorant:
It is small credit to the invasion, after all it has cost, that Iraqis should arrive at a point when all they want from America is a return to something, stability, that they had under Saddam.
If, in fact, an entire MidEast Arab nation decides that allying themselves with the Americans is better than harboring Islamist bomb-throwers, we'll have achieved something impressive indeed. If the surrounding Theo/Thugocracies determine (in the face of a credible threat of military action) discretion is the better part of valor and decide to stop funding and arming terrorists, we'll have gone most of the way to winning the GWoT. And in Iraq, the "stability" metric will look a lot like it did under Saddam. Something tells me that probably ain't the right measure of merit.


Those who don't understand that authoritarianism is stable get to find out.

Sic semper tyrannis.


Has Obama ever bothered to go check out Iraq in person? Anyone know?


From what I can tell Obama has only been to Iraq once: in January 2006.


If this is, in fact, the only time Obama has been to Iraq, then it partially explains his almost total disconnection from reality these days. Iraq in March 2008, I daresay, is a very different place than it was in January 2006.

The comments to this entry are closed.