Baker Report Slaps Bush, Takes the Middle Ground

James Baker did not enter the Senate committee room bearing two tablets. But the Bush clan adviser and former secretary of state had high expectations to meet Wednesday morning when he and his fellow commissioners of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group publicly disclosed at a Capitol Hill press conference their collective wisdom on how to fix George W. Bush's war in Iraq--if, as they more than once noted, that's possible. Baker and his colleagues presented no surprises--given a week's worth of leaks about the report's findings. But they made it official: the Washington establishment has judged Bush's management of the war a failure.

No such bold statement exists in the 142-page report. And before the scores of reporters and dozens of camera crews, Baker, former Representative Lee Hamilton, and the eight other ISG poohbahs offered no harsh words for the fellow Baker got into the White House. Yet the report is unequivocal. "The situation in Iraq," it says, "is grave and deteriorating," and the Bush administration must "pursue different policies."

Citing such statements, I asked Democratic power-lawyer Vernon Jordan, one of the commisioners, if the report is an outright repudiation of Bush's handling of the war. Flashing a wide smile, he replied, "That's implicit." Baker has politely sent a message to Bush the Younger: you screwed up.

The report is both a political and policy document. By declaring that Bush's current approach is misguided, the Baker-Hamilton commission creates greater space for a debate over alternatives. Its report undermines Bush's recent claims that "we're winning" in Iraq and that he has "a strategy for victory." You're not and you don't, the report retorts (between the lines). This slap from Baker and the other Republican members (former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, former Senator Alan Simpson, and former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger) is significant. When has such a group of Washington influentials offered a stinging indictment--even if gently--of the defining mission of a president from their own party? This report comes close to being a vote of no confidence from the Republican elite.

Having dismissed Bush's prosecution of the war, Baker and his comrades try to fill the vacuum with 79 mostly middle-of-the-road policy recommendations. They do not side with the withdrawalists who urge initiating disengagement immediately or within months. ("Precipitous withdrawal," Baker maintained, "could lead to a blood bath and wider regional war.") They do not endorse the proposal from neoconservatives and Senator John McCain for dispatching more troops to Iraq. ("Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq," the report says, adding, "we do not have the troops.") They do not support dividing Iraq into parts. ("It could not be managed on an orderly basis," Baker said, and partition could cause "a humanitarian disaster or broad-based civil war.")

The commission calls for a pullback of combat troops by the first quarter of 2008--"subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground"--as part of shifting the U.S. military mission from combat to training and support operations. (Bush, the commission notes, should state that the United States does not seek permanent military bases in Iraq.) This mission switch, according to the commission, must occur in tandem with a "diplomatic offensive to build consensus for stability in Iraq and the region"--an effort that would include approaching Iran and Syria and seeking "a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts." The Baker gang proposes creating an Iraq International Support Group that would involve all countries bordering Iraq and other nations in the region and world. The commission also recommends that the United States pressure the Iraqi government concerning "milestones on national reconciliation, security, and governance." The report lists various benchmarks Washington should demand of the Iraqis, including passing a law governing oil revenue sharing (by early 2007), completing "reconciliation efforts" (by May 2007), gaining control of the army (by April 2007), and appreciating the value of the Iraqi dinar by 10 percent to combat inflation (by the end of this year). And the pressure must be explicit. If the Iraqi government does not make "substantial progress," the report notes, the Bush administration "should reduce its political, military, or economic support for the government."

Is all this truly "a better way forward," as the report puts it? It certainly is better than the muddle-through approach of the Bush administration. The report lays out specific ways the US military should attempt to improve the training of Iraqi security forces--mainly by increasing the number of U.S. military personnel embedded with Iraqi units. And withdrawing combat troops is a key part of the plan. But one can easily pick apart the fundamental recommendations. The US military has already trained 300,000 Iraqi troops and police officers--or so Vice President Dick Cheney claims--and the program has been a failure. The report cites "significant questions" about the abilities and loyalties of Iraqi units. "The state of the Iraqi police is substantially worse than that of the Iraqi army," the ISG concludes. Is there reason to believe that a new round of training of security forces in this highly fractured state can be done in a manner that works?

The same goes for other recommendations. The report urges both supporting and applying pressure on "the Iraqi government." Is Bush nimble enough to do this? More important, is the Iraqi government truly a working and viable entity that can be effectively assisted and nudged simultaneously? "Key players within the government too often act in their sectarian interest," the report says. "Iraq's Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish leaders frequently fail to demonstrate the political will to act in Iraq's national interest, and too many Iraqi ministries lack the capacity to govern effectively." It adds that sectarian militias "are currently seen as legitimate vehicles of political action." The report sums up a primary obstacle:

Sunni politicians told us that the U.S. military has to take on the militias; Shia politicians told us that the U.S. military has to help them take out the Sunni insurgents and al Qaeda. Each side watches the other. Sunni insurgents will not lay down arms unless the Shia militias are disarmed. Shia militias will not disarm until the Sunni insurgency is destroyed. To put it simply: there are many armed groups within Iraq, and very little will to lay down arms.

How to break this deadlock? The report does not say. And Baker conceded that Iran might have no interest in participating in a diplomatic endeavor designed to stabilize Iraq. He was more optimistic about Syria: "With respect to Syria, there's some strong indications that they would be in a position if we were able to enter into a constructive dialogue, that they could--would be in a position to help us and might want to help us."

At the press conference, Baker, Hamilton and Company discussed political divisions in the United States more than they did those in Iraq. They repeatedly echoed the report's call for the forging of a bipartisan political consensus on Iraq. Baker, the commissions and their report point to the divisive debate within the United States as a critical problem. Whether that's so or not, they left untouched a bigger matter: will Bush listen (to them or anyone else) and chart a different course?

The commissioner met with Bush prior to the press conference, and Hamilton said he was "immensely pleased today when President Bush indicated to us that this report presents to the American people a common opportunity to deal with the problems in Iraq." But the report is more than an "opportunity." It's a specific plan resting on ideas Bush and his aides have already shoved aside. The Bush White House has indicated it has no interest in discussing the Iraq mess with Iran and Syria. Bush has repeatedly stuck with an open-ended commitment: US troops will stay in Iraq until the mission is completed. The Baker commission--as limited as its recommendations may be--is asking Bush to change policy in a dramatic fashion. Does Bush, one reporter asked, "have the capacity to pull a 180?" Baker replied, "I never put presidents I work for on the couch."

But--couch or no couch--that is the question. Bush's intentions are more important than the middle-of-the-road/give-it-one-more-shot particulars of the ISG recommendations. The commission is going out of business. Its members will be testifying before various congressional panels in the weeks and months ahead. But they will not be pressing Bush in any organized way to adopt their proposals--or to alter his own approach. What matters more than the merits of Recommendation No. 37 ("Iraqi amnesty proposals must not be undercut in Washington by either the executive or the legislative branch") is whether Bush accepts the report's fundamentals--Iraq is getting worse and his policies have failed--and whether he is willing to reconsider what to do in Iraq.

At the press conference, Baker talked about improving the "chances for success," not about victory. "We stayed away" from using the word "victory," he said. Hamilton observed, "I don't know if [Iraq] can be turned around." No one connected to the commission positioned him- or herself as a policy savior. "There is no guarantee for success in Iraq," the Baker report says, noting that "the ability of the United States to shape outcomes is diminishing. Time is running out." Baker readily acknowledges his panel's recommendations might not do the trick. There's little hubris within the report.

On the first page, the panel notes, "Our leaders must be candid and forthright with the American people in order to win their support." That suggests "our leaders"--meaning the president--has not been so. To their credit, the ISG commissioners frankly concede--all too willingly--that their proposals might not work. But now that the Baker report is finally done and the Bush family's Mr. Fixit has declared no magical solution exists, the Iraq debate reverts to the basics: can Bush candidly admit Iraq is a debacle and can he ponder meaningful alternatives to the present course? For that question, there's no answer from the wise men (and one wise woman) of Baker's study group.

DON"T FORGET ABOUT HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR, the best-selling book by David Corn and Michael Isikoff. Click here for information on the book. The New York Times calls Hubris "the most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations" and "fascinating reading." The Washington Post says, "There have been many books about the Iraq war....This one, however, pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." Tom Brokaw notes Hubris "is a bold and provocative book that will quickly become an explosive part of the national debate on how we got involved in Iraq." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For highlights from Hubris, click here.

Comments (129)

1. Two things....

   1. "They do not endorse the proposal from neoconservatives and Senator John McCain for dispatching more troops to Iraq."

   or Silvestre Reyes, newly appointed Democratic chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

   2. Re-read it, but is Mr Corn....endorsing the ISG report??? Seems to be in his last line. If so, have he and John Nichols discussed this???

   Posted by Mask at 12/06/2006 @ 3:15pm

2. If Mr. Bush remains true to character - people usually do - he will do nothing one way or the other. His past ventures in the private sector were allowed to completely fail at which point he simply walked away from them - to be bailed out financially by his father or father's friends. If he sticks to his usual behavior, the next president will inherit the mess and Mr. Bush will retire to Crawford with occasional visits to his $500 million dollar presidential library to admire his balls.

   Posted by felicity at 12/06/2006 @ 3:54pm

3. Posted by FELICITY 12/06/2006 @ 3:54pm

   Why should he, FELICITY?.....if ISG is the "cover" for the Democrats to latch onto and support....and its calling for us to remain in Iraq past 2008....he leaves office without having to admit he was wrong.

   And as for "years later"...remember...NIXON partially succeeded in redeeming himself.

   Posted by Mask at 12/06/2006 @ 4:14pm

4. Diplomacy is needed. Fortunately, John Bolton is available.

   Left to their own devices, I expect nothing from this administration. Perhaps some prominent Democrats, who now have no excuse for hiding in the background, can insult and bully Bush enough to get his attention. His vanity will soon force him to do something sensible, lest he go down in history as one of America's biggest failures. But only if pressure is continuously applied.

   Posted by MyParadigm at 12/06/2006 @ 4:49pm

5. Daddy's boy refuses to talk to either Syria or Iran? How could he be so arrogant/obtuse? Both countries (as well as the others bordering Iraq) have every right to attempt to influence the situation inside their neighbor. Did Jr, Cheney and the rest of the neoconservative fools really believe that Syria and Iran would allow a pro US Iraq full of US bases to develop? What have these morons been smoking?

   Posted by mtspence05 at 12/06/2006 @ 5:08pm

6. Is it true the last page contains the lines that .."we support the Presidents goals" or something of the sort?

   Posted by john maasch at 12/06/2006 @ 5:44pm

7. Goals and methods are two different things.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 12/06/2006 @ 5:59pm

8. Well gosh, Dave, I'm glad you're so enraptured with the wise ISG's wise wise report. It is, after all, the sort of mush-mouth middlin' compromise compost you're used to getting from your democrat masters. It must seem like old times, a directive straight outta the DLC.

   And speakin' of the DLC, it's also good to read you're still all comfey-cosy with celebrity Clintonista Vernon "Bagman" Jordan. Your pwoggie cred is obviously still good with the faux-liberal internationists. The only question is - when are you going start making lame-ass excuses for your party's war escalation plan? Gee, I hope those mean old protesters don't get wind of it.

   Posted by AlanSmithee at 12/06/2006 @ 6:41pm

9. Posted by ALANSMITHEE 12/06/2006 @ 6:41pm |

   Okay, all you guys looking for the "paid blogger/Republican operative", it's gotta be ALAN.

   After all, do you REALLy think there is somebody SO far to the Left....that they think DAVID CORN is a "D.L.C. supporter"?!??!?!

   Posted by Mask at 12/06/2006 @ 6:45pm

10. David Corn,

    Can you say "stay the course by another name"? Surely you and The Nation magazine do not endorse the ISG report. It does nothing but maintain the status quo until election time in 2008.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 12/06/2006 @ 7:02pm

11. JOHN MAASCH,

    And if they do support the Presidents insane goals of nation building and Democracy implantation, then God help us all........

    Is it true the last page contains the lines that .."we support the Presidents goals" or something of the sort?

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/06/2006 @ 5:44pm | ignore this person

    Posted by POSEIDON at 12/06/2006 @ 7:14pm

12. Posted by FELICITY 12/06/2006 @ 3:54pm | ignore this person

    Nothing new on Bush's stay the course mentality. Unless the public puts pressure on the Demcrats to pressure Bush he will leave this mess to the next president.............

    Posted by POSEIDON at 12/06/2006 @ 7:18pm

13. There really is no reason why Bush shouldn't follow up on the recommendations (they are, after all, not that sweeping or that much of a challenge to Bush's arrogance). The key word, however, is shouldn't. I think it's obvious Bush won't change course at all.

    Posted by rlh_1984 at 12/06/2006 @ 7:31pm

14. Poseidon,

    My point is that despite the "report", there is a great chance than we will send in MORE troops( can you imagine the effect on ZERO?)...I thought Bush goals were for the US to help the Iraqis stand up for themselves and build a democracy that has a chance of taking root..

    To exchange combat troops for training troops ...how does this change the action in Iraq when our guys are being killed by road side bombs? Will they disinguish between "fighting troops" ans "helper troops"?

    I don't think muich will change in Iraq except perhaps tactics....as far the the left and get out now...they were sold down the river...because all new that idea won't work or end anything, rather , start something much larger.

    Posted by john maasch at 12/06/2006 @ 8:22pm

15. is Mr Corn....endorsing the ISG report??? Seems to be in his last line. If so, have he and John Nichols discussed this???

    Posted by MASK 12/06/2006 @ 3:15pm

    You forget, MASK, that Dems do not have a "hammer" to force them into lockstep with one voice.

    Dems have a truly democratic party. In the Democratic Party, it is OK to disagree... We aren't a bunch of Republicans here.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 12/06/2006 @ 11:20pm

16. My point is that despite the "report", there is a great chance than we will send in MORE troops( can you imagine the effect on ZERO?)...

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/06/2006 @ 8:22pm

    If so, then reinstate the draft, and send in ten million troops, all of them people who supported the invasion in March 2003, plus every single child (18 or older) of everyone in the Bush administration from 2000 to 2006 and all the adult children of everyone in congress who authorized use of force in 2002. Make sure to include RIO, OKSG, LVLIBERTY, PERSON, ACOOK, etc.

    Put them in combat zones and let them lead by example!

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 12/06/2006 @ 11:27pm

17. And as for "years later"...remember...NIXON partially succeeded in redeeming himself.

    Posted by MASK 12/06/2006 @ 4:14pm

    Speak for yourself - Nixon is a total scumbag, IMO.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 12/06/2006 @ 11:32pm

18. Nothing new on Bush's stay the course mentality. Unless the public puts pressure on the Demcrats to pressure Bush he will leave this mess to the next president.............

    Posted by POSEIDON 12/06/2006 @ 7:18pm | ignore this person

    ... I think it's obvious Bush won't change course at all.

    Posted by RLH_1984 12/06/2006 @ 7:31pm

    Bush is a fanatic, and so therefore, self-deluded. We will have troops in harm's way in Iraq as long as he is president.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 12/06/2006 @ 11:35pm

19. Wait...

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/06/2006 @ 11:51pm

20. Patience...

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/06/2006 @ 11:51pm

21. We must wait...

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/06/2006 @ 11:52pm

22. ...for Obama to speak.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/06/2006 @ 11:53pm

23. Dems have a truly democratic party. In the Democratic Party, it is OK to disagree... We aren't a bunch of Republicans here.

    Horseshit. Name one pro-life speaker at the 2004 DNC convention for instance. Now name pro-choice speakers at the RNC convention. Plenty of them.

    Posted by Sliver at 12/07/2006 @ 12:55am

24. These are the same numbers that they're using to say "The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating." By allowing to stay until 2008, they sentence over 14,000 of our troops to death while increasing not decreasing the number through 2008 to then lose another 27, 000:

    Year __Vietnam US dead ___Year__Iraq US dead

    1961-65____1864________2003-06____2965

    1966_______6053_________2007__14,829

    1967______11,058________2008___27,731

    1968______16,511________2009____42,983

    1969______11,527________2010____30,088

    1970________6065________2011____15,645

    1971________2348________2012_____5476

    1972_________561________2013_____1314

    TOTALS

    KIA_____58,191________________141,031

    WIA___153,303________________375,142

    MIA_____2338___________________5641

    South Vietnamese ________________Iraqis

    KIA____230,000________________611,800

    WIA___300,000________________798,000

    North Vietnamese ______Iraqi/regional Insurgency

    KIA__1,100,000______________2.926,000

    WIA__600,000_______________1,596,000

    Total Civilians Killed

    2-4,000,000_______________5-10,000,000

    COST________________________ Trillions

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/07/2006 @ 02:48am

25. ILP<

    "If so, then reinstate the draft, and send in ten million troops, all of them people who supported the invasion in March 2003, plus every single child (18 or older) of everyone in the Bush administration from 2000 to 2006 and all the adult children of everyone in congress who authorized use of force in 2002. Make sure to include RIO, OKSG, LVLIBERTY, PERSON, ACOOK, etc."

    Ok, then if we do this, can we keep the oil?

    Posted by john maasch at 12/07/2006 @ 03:05am

26. Maasch, the road to hell is being paved with hsuB good intentions, I think the oil industry/MIC should be rewarded in kind.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/07/2006 @ 08:52am

27. The ISG lost its credibility with me when Jim Baker admitted the report could have been completed earlier, but they didn't want to influence the mid-term elections. How many people died while we were bowing to political nonsense?

    And saying to Democrats: Hey, Republicans started this atrocious fire and let it get out of control...but now how are YOU going to fix it...might just be the ultimate ROVIAN manipulation. Is the country falling for it again?

    Posted by kimbo1 at 12/07/2006 @ 09:16am

28. Heard a fascinating interview on NPR last night with a blogger who analyzes rightwing website postings. Apparently all we need to do is "unleash hell." That's right folks, the real problem is that not enough people are getting killed. And all this stuff about stressing the force with continuous re-deployment is just nonsense. National guard? Plenty more where that came from.

    Clueless.

    Anybody who thinks neoconservatism has been dealt a fatal blow is mistaken. These kooks haven't changed their minds about anything.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 12/07/2006 @ 09:30am

29. Dems have a truly democratic party. In the Democratic Party, it is OK to disagree... We aren't a bunch of Republicans here.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 12/06/2006 @ 11:20pm

    Obviously...that's why you have John Murtha who's pushing for withdrawal from Iraq, and Silvestre Reyes who's pushing for MORE TROOPS sent to Iraq.

    Of course, one got dumped as Majority Leader and the other is the new Chair of the House Intell Committee.

    But wasn't exactly talking about "Democrats", ILP....but members of "The Nation" writing/editorial staff, who have a BIT more in common than the typical Democratic Party member.

    But hey, if you're saying David Corn is supporting the ISG plan....and John Nichols is opposing it....you're basically confirming the question I asked. I wasn't trying to "start a fight" between Mr Corn and Mr Nichols...but discover if there WAS a sharp distinction between two writers for "TN"...and I guess there is.

    Posted by Mask at 12/07/2006 @ 09:33am

30. ...NIXON partially succeeded in redeeming himself.

    HE DID NOT. revisionist garbage.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/07/2006 @ 11:46am

31. David said: ".....the Washington establishment has judged Bush's management of the war a failure." I can't disagree on the `war management part but let's not forget that the initiation of the war and the successful removal of Saddam and ending its (real or remnents of) WMD program has NOT been so judged.

    As a libertarian-leaning GOP, I'm disappointed the ISG did not at least provide the option of simply pulling out in 2007. To help post-Saddam Iraq was a noble cause but like so many tribal and religion-dominated cultures, perhaps it was a `bridge too far'. About all that 3 years of post-"Mission Accomplished" DID accomplished was/is to keep the bad guys busy in Iraq while our economy boomed and our nation safe for 5+ years. Iraq IS a mess but we are not.....a good argument for those advocating `stay the course'? ...and good for the Dems who took control of Congress? Perhaps!

    Side Note to David: IF you don't plan to take comments at your blog, DavidCorn.com, isn't it time to remove the faux Comment section, it's been what, 3+ months? I know you don't miss most Cornuts, still....

    Posted by Happy at 12/07/2006 @ 12:15pm

32. About all that 3 years of post-"Mission Accomplished" DID accomplished was/is to keep the bad guys busy in Iraq while our economy boomed and our nation safe for 5+ years.

    you are far too modest, happy. you left out thousands of dead americans Gis, twentythousand wounded, 100,000 Iraqis killed

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/07/2006 @ 12:21pm

33. JOHANNESROLF: ...thousands of dead americans Gis, twentythousand wounded, 100,000 Iraqis killed.

    Typical Lib, assumes everything has no cost! Our brave soldiers paid the price for our safety & economic success! The Right appreciates but the Left think it's all wasted!

    Posted by Happy at 12/07/2006 @ 12:32pm

34. Mr. Corn does an excellent job to illuminate the obvious. However, the real question is how and when to recognize failure. Belief in eventual success can go on indefinitely.

    Posted by dcrow at 12/07/2006 @ 12:33pm

35. December 7, 2006

    Quote of the Day

    "A person who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new." – Albert Einstein

    AE was a smart guy, but if he were still around, would he be saying same thing in relationship to hsuB. hsuB has yet to make a mistake.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/07/2006 @ 12:36pm

36. Happy, like Maasch, feel he wins, even if everyone else in the world dies, but he ends up with a profit....

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/07/2006 @ 12:39pm

37. hsuB has yet to make a mistake.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/07/2006 @ 12:36am

    Curious historical question, HSUB....can you name a liberal policy that was a mistake?

    Posted by Mask at 12/07/2006 @ 12:41pm

38. Our brave soldiers paid the price for our safety & economic success!

    this says it all. no comment necessary. let's shovel some more Gis into the maw of death to keep the economy humming.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/07/2006 @ 12:46pm

39. Is bushfools here again with another poll?

    Posted by john maasch at 12/07/2006 @ 12:50pm

40. ...NIXON partially succeeded in redeeming himself

    Sure he did. The country forgave him and all presidents, includeing Clinton seeked his advice and counsel.

    Posted by john maasch at 12/07/2006 @ 12:51pm

41. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/07/2006 @ 12:51am

    On what not to do...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/07/2006 @ 1:00pm

42. Curious historical question, HSUB....can you name a liberal policy that was a mistake?

    Posted by MASK 12/07/2006 @ 12:41am

    Are you still unable think in degrees of gray or still stuck in asymmetric imbalance? If so, you'd only dismiss anything I said as not black or white. And I'd be wasting my time.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/07/2006 @ 1:06pm

43. ...NIXON partially succeeded in redeeming himself

    Sure he did. The country forgave him and all presidents, includeing Clinton seeked his advice and counsel.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/07/2006 @ 12:51am | ignore this person

    which country would that be?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/07/2006 @ 1:24pm

44. John Maasch said: Is it true the last page contains the lines that .."we support the Presidents goals" or something of the sort?

    No, it isn't. Not that I could find, anyway. Don't take my word for it, though. Why not read the report [tinyurl.com] and find out for yourself?

    Happy wrote: As a libertarian-leaning GOP, I'm disappointed the ISG did not at least provide the option of simply pulling out in 2007.

    It did. From the report:

    Because of the importance of Iraq, the potential for catastrophe, and the role and commitments of the United States in initiating events that have led to the current situation, we believe it would be wrong for the United States to abandon the country through a precipitate withdrawal of troops and support. A premature American departure from Iraq would almost certainly produce greater sectarian violence and further deterioration of conditions, leading to a number of the adverse consequences outlined above. The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return. (pp. 37-38)

    Mask wrote: Curious historical question, HSUB....can you name a liberal policy that was a mistake?

    Vietnam. It would be nice if your guy had learned from it.

    ~Terry

    Posted by clubjuggle at 12/07/2006 @ 1:39pm

45. Club, in what way was Vietnam a liberal policy?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/07/2006 @ 1:44pm

46. Woowa, now that's interesting. You'd think they'd like to be out of Iraq too so's they don't have to do a junket there...:

    NONE Of The New GOP Congress Members Has Served In The Military...

    Huffington Post | Posted December 6, 2006 03:49 PM

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/12/06/ none-of-the-new-gop-congr_n_35722.html

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/07/2006 @ 1:51pm

47. happy, I see no comment section on the Corn blog, faux or otherwise. what are you talking about?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/07/2006 @ 4:20pm

48. Johannesrolf wrote: Club, in what way was Vietnam a liberal policy?

    The US involvement military involcement in Vietnam was initiated by the Kennedy administration and furthered by the L. Johnson administration. From Wikipedia: [en.wikipedia.org]

    During his first year in office Kennedy found himself faced with a three-part crisis: The failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba; the construction of the Berlin Wall by the Soviets; and a negotiated settlement between the pro-Western government of Laos and the Pathet Lao communist movement. Fearing that another failure on the part of the U.S. to stop communist expansion would fatally damage U.S. credibility with its allies, Kennedy realized, "Now we have a problem in making our power credible", he told reporter James Reston, "and Vietnam looks like the place."

    My point in answering Mask's question is not to slam my own side, but rather to underscore the lessons from Vietnam that the current administration apparently missed: That when we commit ourselves to war without a clear objective, without an exit strategy, and without the committing the overwhelming force necessary to achieve achieve a rapid and decisive victory, that we are doomed to failure, or at best, a long, costly, and deadly stalemate.

    ~Terry

    Posted by clubjuggle at 12/07/2006 @ 5:02pm

49. Terry, your knowledge here is incomplete. Eisenhower had a great deal to do with the US Vietnam policy. in fact Kennedy inherited that policy.

    that said because it was furthered by a dem pres that does not make the policy liberal. you might look to congress and who approved that policy and who didn't to make any further determination of liberal or not.I don't know the answer but I do know that your statement was glib and misleading.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/07/2006 @ 5:13pm

50. "Lest Bush go down in history as one of America's biggest failures."? He already is THE biggest, and nothing during the next 2 years will change that. Or can you think of a bigger one?

    Posted by Ernest at 12/07/2006 @ 5:13pm

51. Terry, check chapter one:The Eisenhower Administration and Indochina 1954-1960 in David Kaiser's "American Tragedy"

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/07/2006 @ 5:16pm

52. and a negotiated settlement between the pro-Western government of Laos and the Pathet Lao communist movement.

    this was NOT A CRISIS. this resulted in Laos being neutral, a state of which Kennedy approved.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/07/2006 @ 5:41pm

53. Off topic but...

    http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/

    Funny how the show disappeared. No big flare to see where the X6 radiation is coming from but the spot that produced it is getting in better position to produce more damage.

    http://www.spaceweather.com/

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/07/2006 @ 6:55pm

54. happy, I see no comment section on the Corn blog, faux or otherwise. what are you talking about?

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF

    David's blog still has the Post Comment section but won't accept postings. Go try it out!

    Question for you regulars here: does David engage with you folks occassionally in this Comment section? He does (I should say, did) at his blog.

    Posted by Happy at 12/07/2006 @ 11:57pm

55. Posted by HAPPY 12/07/2006 @ 12:15am

    As a libertarian-leaning GOP, I'm disappointed the ISG did not at least provide the option of simply pulling out in 2007. To help post-Saddam Iraq was a noble cause but like so many tribal and religion-dominated cultures, perhaps it was a `bridge too far'. About all that 3 years of post-"Mission Accomplished" DID accomplished was/is to keep the bad guys busy in Iraq while our economy boomed and our nation safe for 5+ years. Iraq IS a mess but we are not.....a good argument for those advocating `stay the course'? ...and good for the Dems who took control of Congress? Perhaps!

    -------------------------------------------------------------

    There we have it: a rightie admitting, essentially, to the proposition that the the troops' de facto role in Iraq is as distracting targets for the terrorists so that the business of generating money without the bother of terrorist attacks on the homeland. The troops, sacrificial lambs, are just so much cannon fodder to be shipped home in flag-draped caskets to a nation not allowed to witness and which, I suspect, it does not care to see.

    Posted by Tiresias at 12/08/2006 @ 06:33am

56. Although at this point I support removing our troops from Iraq, I'm still very afraid of the prospect of a failed state in the heart of the Middle East.

    Maybe this is inevitable, though.

    Posted by Gertrude at 12/08/2006 @ 09:37am

57. JOHN MAASCH,

    Oh, are you talking about building Democracy in the region and helping the Iraqis obtain freedom? You must be thinking about justifications 999 and 1000 on the list of reasons Bush decided to invade Iraq. Come now, John, I know you are smarter than that.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/06/2006 @ 8:22pm | ignore this person

    Poseidon,

    My point is that despite the "report", there is a great chance than we will send in MORE troops( can you imagine the effect on ZERO?)...I thought Bush goals were for the US to help the Iraqis stand up for themselves and build a democracy that has a chance of taking root..

    To exchange combat troops for training troops ...how does this change the action in Iraq when our guys are being killed by road side bombs? Will they disinguish between "fighting troops" ans "helper troops"?

    I don't think muich will change in Iraq except perhaps tactics....as far the the left and get out now...they were sold down the river...because all new that idea won't work or end anything, rather , start something much larger.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH 12/06/2006 @ 8:22pm | ignore this person

    Posted by POSEIDON at 12/08/2006 @ 09:49am

58. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 12/06/2006 @ 11:27pm | ignore this person

    Warmongers not in the military who support war actually fight one? What on earth are you thinking........?(LOL)

    Posted by POSEIDON at 12/08/2006 @ 09:51am

59. Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS 12/06/2006 @ 11:35pm | ignore this person

    But that brings up another point. There are some, including Bill Maher, who want to repeal the 22nd Amendment to allow people to serve more than two terms as President. They advocate this so Bill Clinton could run again. What they don't understand is that a wish like that is like a double-edge Sword because could you imagine Bush serving a third and a fourth term as President? Lest people have forgotten, they knew how bad this man was in long before November 2004 and still they reelected him...............

    Posted by POSEIDON at 12/08/2006 @ 09:59am

60. Posted by KIMBO1 12/07/2006 @ 09:16am | ignore this person

    No doubt the ISG was merely a dog and pony show with no relevance of any kind. They advocate "stay the course by another name" and could care less about the lives lost in Iraq. But keep in mind, when comes great power comes great responsibility. If the Democrats want to stay in power, they need to force Bush to withdraw from Iraq. If they are too cowardly to make it happen, then their majority should disappear in November 2008. This isn't about what Rove wants, it's about doing the right thing regardless of the politics of it..............

    Posted by POSEIDON at 12/08/2006 @ 10:03am

61. Gert, it's a failed state NOW.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/08/2006 @ 10:04am

62. Posted by MYPARADIGM 12/07/2006 @ 09:30am | ignore this person

    Case in point that proves you correct, check out Billo O'Really's latest rant where he declared that the Sunnis and the Shiites should simply wipe each other's respective population completely out in Iraq which would leave only the Kurds remaining. Keith Olbermann skewers Billo big time for that lunacy.............

    Posted by POSEIDON at 12/08/2006 @ 10:07am

63. Hap, I see no post comment section on Corn blog. help me out here folks, anyone else? and no, Corn does not participate in the discussion here. as far as I know only Peter Rothberg does.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/08/2006 @ 10:16am

64. TIRESIAS,

    RIGHTWINGERS HAVE NEVER CARED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO THE TROOPS:

    Simply put, that is the warmongers one and only reason for wanting to stay in Iraq, so they can go about their business of living life in luxury and not be bothered while others shoulder the burdens of being shot at and blown up. Clearly the rightwing public could care less about the troops. Why do you think Bush, the Republican party, and the rightwing fear and smear machine started this stupidity of

    "WE ARE FIGHTING THEM THERE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT THEM HERE".

    Posted by TIRESIAS 12/08/2006 @ 06:33am | ignore this person

    There we have it: a rightie admitting, essentially, to the proposition that the the troops' de facto role in Iraq is as distracting targets for the terrorists so that the business of generating money without the bother of terrorist attacks on the homeland. The troops, sacrificial lambs, are just so much cannon fodder to be shipped home in flag-draped caskets to a nation not allowed to witness and which, I suspect, it does not care to see.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 12/08/2006 @ 10:34am

65. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/08/2006 @ 10:16am | ignore this person

    You are correct. To my knowledge neither David Corn or Katrina Vanden Huevel participate in the discussion. Sorry I don't know of Corn's blog.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 12/08/2006 @ 10:37am

66. Krugman lists some of the folks who warned against the war in Iraq in today's NYTimes. one name is conspicuous in its absence. Hillary. there is no way Hillary will be pres. and that is why. Gore in 08.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/08/2006 @ 10:44am

67. Ah the Saudi/hsuB familia:

    Saudis reportedly funding Iraqi Sunnis

    By SALAH NASRAWI, Associated Press Writer Fri Dec 8, 6:03 AM ET

    CAIRO, Egypt - Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.

    VVVVVVVVVVVVvvvvvvvVVVVVVVVvvvvvvv

    But the U.S. Iraq Study Group report said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by The Associated Press described carrying boxes of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, money they said was headed for insurgents.

    Two high-ranking Iraqi officials, speaking on condition of 96 because of the issue's sensitivity, told the AP most of the Saudi money comes from private donations, called zaqat, collected for Islamic causes and charities.

    Some Saudis appear to know the money is headed to Iraq's insurgents, but others merely give it to clerics who channel it to anti-coalition forces, the officials said.

    In one recent case, an Iraqi official said $25 million in Saudi money went to a top Iraqi Sunni cleric and was used to buy weapons, including Strela, a Russian shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile. The missiles were purchased from someone in Romania, apparently through the black market, he said.

    Overall, the Iraqi officials said, money has been pouring into Iraq from oil-rich Saudi Arabia, a Sunni bastion, since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq toppled the Sunni-controlled regime of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/08/2006 @ 11:18am

68. GERTRUDE,

    You are kidding, right? Iraq was a failed state as soon as the U.S. and Britain decided to obliterate it. Let's examine this country that you think is not at this point in time a failed state:

    1. A Prime Minister trapped in the Green Zone in Bagdad like a peasant in a King's dungeon unable to visit other parts of the country HE IS SUPPOSED TO GOVERN

    2. A foreign occupation army, by all accounts, that is causing more violence than it is supposed to stop. The insurgents will never stop their attacks on foreign troops until they leave

    3. Local militias and gangs who control the streets instead of legitimate gov't forces. Legitimate gov't is non-existent in Iraq

    4. Long gas lines in a country with the third largest oil reserves in the world

    5. And this is the biggest sign that Iraq is already a failed state: You and others want to keep foreign troops in Iraq. This position clearly states that the Maliki gov't is virtually non existent without American blood and treasure propping it up.

    IRAQ WAS DESTINED TO DISINTERGRATE INTO A FAILED STATE ONCE WE INVADED. THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WHETHER WE STAYED AND OCCUPIED THE PLACE OR IF WE HAD LEFT THE IRAQIS TO THEIR OWN DEVICES. NEITHER DECISION WOULD HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE IN THE OUTCOME.

    Posted by GERTRUDE 12/08/2006 @ 09:37am | ignore this person

    Although at this point I support removing our troops from Iraq, I'm still very afraid of the prospect of a failed state in the heart of the Middle East.

    Maybe this is inevitable, though.

    Posted by GERTRUDE 12/08/2006 @ 09:37am | ignore this person

    Posted by POSEIDON at 12/08/2006 @ 11:35am

69. Posted by POSEIDON 12/08/2006 @ 11:35am

    Yep, the DoD, CIA, NSA, etc. all had thousands sim's and scenarios where what you state they knew very well-- that's why Bush I, stayed out of Baghdad. But the godlike antiscience hsuB admin knew better. And here we are-- screwed. Thanks new con repubs.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/08/2006 @ 11:58am

70. Posted by POSEIDON 12/08/2006 @ 11:35am

    Re-read GERTRUDE's post....not sure cause for such antagonism towards her. She merely related the fact that A. She wants the troops out; B. She is afraid of it becoming a failed state; and C. That it seems inevitable.

    Nothing in there that I have a criticism of, or would think any opponent of the war would.

    Posted by Mask at 12/08/2006 @ 12:05pm

71. Week 198 12/10/06 24

    'Iraq Study Group's 79' (12/6/06)

    Week 197: 12/03/06 30

    Week 196: 11/26/06 17

    Week 195: 11/19/06 13

    Week 194: 11/12/06 16

    Week 193: 11/05/06 15

    Week 192: 10/29/06 20

    Week 191: 10/22/06 17

    Week 190: 10/15/06 30

    Week 189: 10/08/06 23

    Week 188: 10/01/06 30

    Week 187: 09/24/06 15

    Week 186: 09/17/06 17

    Week 185: 09/10/06 14

    Week 184: 09/03/06 23

    Week 183: 08/27/06 22

    Week 182: 08/20/06 15

    Week 181: 08/13/06 7

    Week 180: 08/06/06 13

    Week 179: 07/30/06 12

    Week 178: 07/23/06 13

    Week 177: 07/16/06 14

    Week 176: 07/09/06 8

    Week 175: 07/02/06 6

    Week 174: 06/25/06 14

    Week 173: 06/18/06 16

    Week 172: 06/11/06 8

    Week 171: 06/04/06 20

    Week 170: 05/28/06 10

    Week 169: 05/21/06 13

    Week 168: 05/14/06 16

    Week 167: 05/07/06 15

    Week 166: 04/30/06 19

    Week 165: 04/23/06 17

    Week 164: 04/16/06 11

    Week 163: 04/09/06 21

    Week 162: 04/02/06 23

    Week 161: 03/26/06 10

    Week 160: 03/19/06 4

    'ISG/Baker-Hamilton Commission (3/15/06)

    Week 159: 03/12/06 10

    Week 158: 03/05/06 7

    Week 157: 02/26/06 9

    Week 156: 02/19/06 16

    Week 155: 02/12/06 10

    Week 154: 02/05/06 13

    Week 153: 01/29/06 11

    Week 152: 01/22/06 14

    Week 151: 01/15/06 11

    Week 150: 01/08/06 6

    Week 149: 01/01/06 31

    Week 148: 12/25/05 15

    Week 147: 12/18/05 10

    Week 146: 12/11/05 14

    Week 145: 12/04/05 14

    Week 144: 11/27/05 21

    Week 143: 11/20/05 13

    Week 142: 11/13/05 28

    Week 141: 11/06/05 18

    Week 140: 10/30/05 29

    Week 139: 10/23/05 19

    Week 138: 10/16/05 23

    Week 137: 10/09/05 22

    Week 136: 10/02/05 19

    Week 135: 09/25/05 18

    Week 134: 09/18/05 15

    Week 133: 09/11/05 9

    Week 132: 09/04/05 7

    Week 131: 08/28/05 10

    Week 130: 08/21/05 14

    Week 129: 08/14/05 14

    Week 128: 08/07/05 15

    Week 127: 07/31/05 36

    Week 126: 07/24/05 23

    Week 125: 07/17/05 9

    Week 124: 07/10/05 12

    Week 123: 07/03/05 9

    Week 122: 06/26/05 8

    Week 121: 06/19/05 14

    Week 120: 06/12/05 21

    Week 119: 06/05/05 30

    Week 118: 05/29/05 13

    Week 117: 05/22/05 28

    Week 116: 05/15/05 8

    Week 115: 05/08/05 24

    Week 114: 05/01/05 12

    Week 112: 04/24/05 16

    Week 111: 04/17/05 13

    Week 110: 04/10/05 10

    Week 109: 04/03/05 10

    Week 108: 03/27/05 9

    Week 107: 03/20/05 7

    Week 106: 03/13/05 6

    Week 105: 03/06/05 5

    Week 104: 02/27/05 14

    Week 103: 02/20/05 18

    Week 102: 02/13/05 20

    Week 101: 02/06/05 8

    Iraqi Free Elections (1/31/05)

    Week 100: 01/30/05 15

    Week 99: 01/23/05 61

    Week 98: 01/16/05 9

    Week 97: 01/09/05 12

    Week 96: 01/02/05 17

    Week 95: 12/26/04 11

    Week 94: 12/19/04 21

    Week 93: 12/12/04 14

    Week 92: 12/05/04 14

    Week 91: 11/28/04 27

    Week 90: 11/21/04 17

    Week 89: 11/14/04 34

    Week 88: 11/07/04 67

    Week 87: 10/31/04 7

    Week 86: 10/24/04 16

    Week 85: 10/17/04 3

    Week 84: 10/10/04 31

    Week 83: 10/03/04 10

    Week 82: 09/26/04 12

    Week 81: 09/19/04 16

    Week 80: 09/12/04 22

    Week 79: 09/05/04 26

    Week 78: 08/29/04 8

    Week 77: 08/22/04 14

    Week 76: 08/15/04 23

    Week 75: 08/07/04 9

    Week 74: 08/01/04 18

    Week 73: 07/25/04 5

    Week 72: 07/18/04 11

    Week 71: 07/11/04 12

    Week 70: 07/05/04 20

    Handover (6/29/04)

    Week 69: 06/27/04 11

    Week 68: 06/20/04 13

    Week 67: 06/13/04 8

    Week 66: 06/06/04 6

    Week 65: 05/30/04 17

    Week 64: 05/23/04 16

    Week 63: 05/16/04 14

    Week 62: 05/09/04 14

    Week 61: 05/02/04 25

    Week 60: 04/25/04 28

    Week 59: 04/18/04 12

    Week 58: 04/11/04 30

    Week 57: 04/04/04 66

    Week 56: 03/28/04 12

    Week 55: 03/21/04 10

    Week 54: 03/14/04 17

    Week 53: 03/07/04 14

    Week 52: 02/29/04 2

    Week 51: 02/22/04 2

    Week 50: 02/15/04 6

    Week 49: 02/07/04 8

    Week 48: 02/01/04 4

    Week 47: 01/25/04 15

    Week 46: 01/18/04 10

    Week 45: 01/11/04 6

    Week 44: 01/04/04 11

    Week 43: 12/28/03 9

    Week 42: 12/21/03 12

    Week 41: 12/14/03 7

    Week 40: 12/07/03 12

    Capture of Saddam (12/13/03)

    Week 39: 11/30/03 5

    Week 38: 11/23/03 10

    Week 37: 11/16/03 10

    Week 36: 11/09/03 26

    Week 35: 11/02/03 34

    Week 34: 10/26/03 13

    Week 33: 10/19/03 9

    Week 32: 10/12/03 12

    Week 31: 10/05/03 6

    Week 30: 09/28/03 10

    Week 29: 09/21/03 5

    Week 28: 09/14/03 11

    Week 27: 09/07/03 6

    Week 26: 08/31/03 5

    Week 25: 08/24/03 8

    Week 24: 08/17/03 8

    Week 23: 08/10/03 7

    Week 21: 08/03/03 11

    Week 20: 07/27/03 7

    Week 19: 07/20/03 16

    Week 18: 07/13/03 9

    Week 17: 07/06/03 12

    Week 16: 06/29/03 5

    Week 15: 06/22/03 11

    Week 14: 06/15/03 8

    Week 13: 06/08/03 4

    Week 12: 06/01/03 7

    Week 11: 05/25/03 13

    Week 10: 05/18/03 9

    Week 9: 05/11/03 6

    Week 8: 05/04/03 7

    "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03)

    Week 7: 04/27/03 3

    Week 6: 04/20/03 7

    Week 5: 04/13/03 9

    Week 4: 04/06/03 21

    Week 3: 03/30/03 41

    Week 2: 03/23/03 51

    Week 1: 03/20/03 9

    Total 2925

    http://www.icasualties.org/oif/BY_DOD.aspx

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/08/2006 @ 1:11pm

72. Ffolks,

    David Corn's Blog [davidcorn.com] DID INDEED have a comments section. For a couple years it was frequented by not just a few insightful, thought-provoking and intelligent folks.

    Unfortunately, a formula couldn't seem to be arrived at to police the site of people who would constantly bombard it with porno and ticket spam and personal flaming attacks. When "Hubris" was published, the attacks escalated to a point that likely became an embarrasment for the author, not to mention the publishers of "The Nation" and "Hubris".

    There is a shadow site, registration required, but pretty well open to anybody who'd like to toss in their personal two pennies.

    Alternate Reality, AR456 [alternatereality456.blogspot.com]

    Originally a site that invited all comers, it no longer allows annonymous posting and disparages personal attacks on posters. But it is still free.

    -T

    Posted by Hajji at 12/08/2006 @ 2:56pm

73. ...disCOURAGES, personal attacks... however it cannot be said that "never is heard a disPARAGING word, there!

    Posted by Hajji at 12/08/2006 @ 3:00pm

74. Haj, the fact that this site is not strictly policed is the reason that discourse is freer than other blogs, where more decorum is observed.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/08/2006 @ 3:07pm

75. JOHANNESROLF,

    I can only think that "The Nation" has some sort of anti-robot, anti-spam mechanism in place. David's personal blog site couldn't seem to come up with one and was repeatedly attacked. There was no registration there, as here, and the subject matter seemed to be a magnet for those more interested in flaming than discourse.

    I do miss hearing the comment of many of those who used to post at BUSHLIES [davidcorn.com]but have, of late had little time for reading and posting, myself.

    You only have to search the Cornblog archives to see that the "Happy" that posts here had a whole different persona...(or is it personae) in those days.

    www.davidcorn.com/archives/2006/08/deferring_a_fig_1.php

    for one example of the how the spam attackers worked.

    David Corn also did indeed occasionally interract with posters, and actually got at least a couple good stories from ideas presented there.

    -T

    Posted by Hajji at 12/08/2006 @ 4:03pm

76. Haj, once in a while I post on some Tory blogs, say Wash Times, you can imagine what kind of reaction I get. "you are worse than the terrorists" is my favorite. here of course I have been called ex nazi AND east german border guard, descriptions I shall always treasure.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/08/2006 @ 4:19pm

77. HSUBFOOLS,

    HSUBFOOLS, agreed, that is precisely why Bush the Elder stayed away from Bagdad, because his people knew better. I find it hard to believe that Bush Jr. would not even ask his dad what his thoughts were before taking this insane and failed action.

    MASK, in other words, Gertrude is a fence sitter. That is why I came down pretty strong. This issue has no room for fence sitters at this point. No sane logical person who knows the stretched limits of the American military, the history of Iraq as a "nation" and who has viewd the events in Iraq for the last three plus years could not come to the conclusion that withdrawal is the only thing that makes any sense at this point. There is something to be said for the American "can do spirit" but there also comes a time when the obvious must sink in....................

    Posted by POSEIDON 12/08/2006 @ 11:35am

    Yep, the DoD, CIA, NSA, etc. all had thousands sim's and scenarios where what you state they knew very well-- that's why Bush I, stayed out of Baghdad. But the godlike antiscience hsuB admin knew better. And here we are-- screwed. Thanks new con repubs.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/08/2006 @ 11:58am | ignore this person

    Posted by POSEIDON 12/08/2006 @ 11:35am

    Re-read GERTRUDE's post....not sure cause for such antagonism towards her. She merely related the fact that A. She wants the troops out; B. She is afraid of it becoming a failed state; and C. That it seems inevitable.

    Nothing in there that I have a criticism of, or would think any opponent of the war would.

    Posted by MASK 12/08/2006 @ 12:05am | ignore this person

    Posted by POSEIDON at 12/08/2006 @ 4:43pm

78. MASK,

    In other words, Gertrude is a fence sitter. That is why I came down pretty strong. This issue has no room for fence sitters at this point. No sane logical person who knows the stretched limits of the American military, the history of Iraq as a "nation" and who has viewd the events in Iraq for the last three plus years could not come to the conclusion that withdrawal is the only thing that makes any sense at this point. There is something to be said for the American "can do spirit" but there also comes a time when the obvious must sink in....................

    Posted by POSEIDON 12/08/2006 @ 11:35am

    Yep, the DoD, CIA, NSA, etc. all had thousands sim's and scenarios where what you state they knew very well-- that's why Bush I, stayed out of Baghdad. But the godlike antiscience hsuB admin knew better. And here we are-- screwed. Thanks new con repubs.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 12/08/2006 @ 11:58am | ignore this person

    Posted by POSEIDON 12/08/2006 @ 11:35am

    Re-read GERTRUDE's post....not sure cause for such antagonism towards her. She merely related the fact that A. She wants the troops out; B. She is afraid of it becoming a failed state; and C. That it seems inevitable.

    Nothing in there that I have a criticism of, or would think any opponent of the war would.

    Posted by MASK 12/08/2006 @ 12:05am | ignore this person

    Posted by POSEIDON 12/08/2006 @ 4:43pm | ignore this person

    Posted by POSEIDON at 12/08/2006 @ 4:44pm

79. JOHANNESROLF,

    Do those jobs offer full benefits, including health care, and promises of no outsourcing..?(LOL)

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/08/2006 @ 4:19pm | ignore this person

    Haj, once in a while I post on some Tory blogs, say Wash Times, you can imagine what kind of reaction I get. "you are worse than the terrorists" is my favorite. here of course I have been called ex nazi AND east german border guard, descriptions I shall always treasure.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 12/08/2006 @ 4:48pm

80. ".... I'm still very afraid of the prospect of a failed state in the heart of the Middle East..."

    Posted by GERTRUDE 12/08/2006 @ 09:37am

    This raises the question of what constitutes a failed state and whether some recognised criteria show that Iraq was already a failed state in March 2003, under Saddam's Baathist Party.

    There seem to be four types of states:

    1. Strong. 2. Weak 3. Failed 4. Collapsed.

    Some of the criteria that indicate Iraq was a Failed state at and prior to March 2003:

    1. Sustained pressures along ethnic lines and the declining supply of goods and services.

    A. The Saddam Regime favoured certain Sunni tribes, with economic and political power creating ethnic tensions within the Sunni tribes and religious tensions within the majority Shia population.

    B. The country's supply of water, food and electricy were inadequate for Iraq's population, due largely to the Iran and Kuwait wars.

    2. Massive refugee and dislocation problems as a result of government policies and activities.

    Six hundred thousand international refugees and one million internally displaced persons in Iraq prior to the invasion.

    3. Persecution of and atrocities performed against all ethnic groupings in Iraq to maintain power by the "divide and rule" strategy.

    A. Kurds were ethnically cleansed from parts of Iraq and forced to relocate in the North.

    B. Shia Marsh Arabs deprived of their property and livelihood when the marshes were drained after the 1991 war.

    C. Assyrians, Kurds and Turkmen displaced from Kirkuk in 1991 and forced to assume an Arab identity.

    D. Purges against rebellious uprisings amongst Saddam's own Sunni factions.

    4. Sharp and severe economic decline (under Saddam Iraq had a centrally directed command economy).

    A. The manufacturing and industrial base, which was heavily subsidised by the government, was allowed to decline through lack of action and was damaged directly during the Iran and 1991 wars.

    B. From 1991 Iraq suffered massive declines in GDP, high inflation, large currency devaluations and virtually no foreign investment.

    C. Iraqi per capita income in 1990 was US$4900 by December 2002 it was US$700. (Most Civil Servants earned about $6US per month in 2002).

    We could look at other criteria such as the Justice system, the treatment of political prisoners, the declining state of its education system, its massive external debt and its overall human rights abuses all of which reinforce the conclusion that Iraq was a failed state well before and at the time of the Coalition invasion.

    It should be obvious that immediately after the invasion it slipped from being a Failed state to a Collapsed state.

    That all here suggest it is now a Failed state indicates some improvement in its status.

    Many of the criteria are now at about the same "Failed state" level as in the Saddam years but some things such as a greater recognition of human rights indicate it is moving in the right direction.

    The bottom line is that Collapsed states are harder to fix than Failed states and Failed states only move up on the way to being Strong states through a democratisation process and the application of citizens rights to all.

    Thus Bush has the right strategy for moving Iraq up the scale but whether that will be successful in the short term depends on the willingness of the US to put in the hard yards and the co-operation of the Iraq government and the Iraqi people.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/08/2006 @ 5:24pm

81. Jones, ten years of sanctions might have played a role in this litany you offer.

    Thus Bush has the right strategy for moving Iraq up the scale but whether that will be successful in the short term depends on the willingness of the US to put in the hard yards and the co-operation of the Iraq government and the Iraqi people.

    Posted by LRJONES4 12/08/2006 @ 5:24pm | ignore this person

    this is a joke right? Irony? bullcrap? it certainly bears no relationship to truth or facts.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/08/2006 @ 5:38pm

82. "...It should be obvious that immediately after the invasion it slipped from being a Failed state to a Collapsed state.

    That all here suggest it is now a Failed state indicates some improvement in its status..."

    How very astute! I couldn't agree more! I therefore propose that any "failed" state should be immediately invaded for whatever nepharious reasons can be trumped up at the time. At least a half-million of its citizens should be murdered by the invaders and Negreponte-esque "death squads" should be formed by the majority to eliminate any opposition.

    Futhermore, any citizen of said "failed" state should be expected to be forever grateful that the good 'ol US and A acted to set it on the path to "Strong State Status"! Eventually, the US and A will be repaid handsomely by the strengthening state by allowing US and A mega-corporations to control all reconstruction and valuable natural recourses, even though the invasion was primarily paid for by the tax dollars of its private citizens.

    "Capital" idea!

    -T

    Posted by Hajji at 12/08/2006 @ 5:49pm

83. wow! I don't know why that happened!

    Posted by Hajji at 12/08/2006 @ 5:50pm

84. LRJONES,

    I'm going to take that malarkey you posted above and print it out so I can clean my culo with it later on tonight. How about letting in some air in your ivory tower one of these days. Do you see what an ass you appear to be analyzing absolute chaos in some lamebrain outline redolent of something any toady would pull points from while blathering on FOX News? People are dying every hour over there in the most horrific and brutal fashion imaginable and here you are trying to compose some melodious ode to the beautiful outcome that's delayed but on its way to blooming like a rose on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

    Who let you out of your cell?

    Posted by chimichenga at 12/08/2006 @ 5:57pm

85. given those failed state criteria, we should have probably invaded Zimbabwe.they also had nothing to do with 9/11 and don't have any WMD.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/08/2006 @ 6:01pm

86. is this what we've come to? arguing with Rio? the bottom of the barrel is like everest by comparison, c'mon Tory lackeys, let's rumble.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/08/2006 @ 6:02pm

87. I've been reading that the White House continues to refute some of the points made in the recent Iraq report, though admitting it is taking their analysis very seriously while planning changes in its Iraq policy and foreign policy in general. How can anyone think the whole project is a failure? And why wouldn't you include Syria and Iran, even in a last-ditch effort to save some face? It's one thing to be an idiot, but another to be stubbornly devoted to your idiocy.

    Posted by chimichenga at 12/08/2006 @ 6:10pm

88. I meant isN'T a failure...

    Posted by chimichenga at 12/08/2006 @ 6:11pm

89. this is a joke right? Irony? bullcrap? it certainly bears no relationship to truth or facts.

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/08/2006 @ 5:38pm

    JR you wouldn't know what truth or facts were unless they were sympathetic to your ideological bent or suitable to your propaganda purposes.

    One hardly needs to be a genius to work out why post 1991 was significant in the decline of Iraq into Failed status, if in fact it was not essentially that throughout Saddam's rule.

    Anyway who but the Baathists bear the prime responsibility for the imposition of the UN sanctions? Bottom line is that Saddam and his regime were responsible for the Failed state that Iraq was at the time of the invasion. So what's your point? (to borrow a Rolfism)

    But to cut through your diversionary tactic it was in fact a Failed state, by the same criteria you and your cohorts now apply to the present Iraq state. Don't tell me that in Propanda 1 you were told that it is quite acceptable to move the goal posts? ; say by using "failed", where it is ideologically useful, but where it has no meaning apart from being a slogan to influence the uninformed.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/08/2006 @ 6:20pm

90. Posted by LRJONES4 12/08/2006 @ 5:24pm

    Not to mention the est. 750,000 Iqaris, so far, we've helped to free-- from their earthly shackles forever. Talk about turning off the lights...

    Posted by hsuBfools at 12/08/2006 @ 6:23pm

91. JR you wouldn't know what truth or facts were unless they were sympathetic to your ideological bent or suitable to your propaganda purposes.

    the fact is that most americans agree with me, and you and your ilk are on the way out.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/08/2006 @ 6:27pm

92. Posted by HAJJI 12/08/2006 @ 5:49pm

    Haj baby don't think you will get too far with those proposals but send them on to Dubya he can do with all the help you Nation lads can give him just now.

    I haven't come across you before but I have my favourites on this site, like Willie and Fools, who both give me a good laugh which of course I am hoping will help me live to be a hundred (I don't live in a failed state so pre-emption is the least of my worries but thanks for the warning).

    It's a beautiful early summer morning here which puts me in the best of moods and also means I am predisposed, if you are as good as those two with the funny lines and can bring more happiness into my life in the manner those two do, to add you to my favourites.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/08/2006 @ 6:49pm

93. Jones, unlike you I have a dog in this race, this my country.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/08/2006 @ 7:04pm

94. Here's a funny one for you...

    Jill was up all night worrying and crying the past two, because she heard on the news that a soldier who was manning a machine gun in Ramadi, the godforsaken Anbar outpost where her youngest son serves, had been killed.

    BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!

    He finally called this morning to say he's OK. Spend a few nights in her (and mine and HIS) shoes and see how much you laugh, even in the face of glaringly humorous prose like mine.

    I haven't had a good laugh in years.

    Cold as a nun's crotch here in the SC mountains.

    -T

    Posted by Hajji at 12/08/2006 @ 7:08pm

95. Personal inquires can be made to thajji64@hotmail.com

    -T

    Posted by Hajji at 12/08/2006 @ 7:10pm

96. LRJONES4,

    So about ten thousand more dead Americans and about one trillion dollars more in military spending ought about cover it, right?

    The only thing America can do and should do that would be productive for Iraq is giving about two hundred billion for reconstruction and reparations. The military option should be off the table and ruled out. The Iraqis themselves should make up their minds if they want a unified and independent state that can function. We can not and should not continue to waste American blood and treasure trying to decide that for them.

    Posted by LRJONES4 12/08/2006 @ 5:24pm | ignore this person

    ".... I'm still very afraid of the prospect of a failed state in the heart of the Middle East..."

    Posted by GERTRUDE 12/08/2006 @ 09:37am

    This raises the question of what constitutes a failed state and whether some recognised criteria show that Iraq was already a failed state in March 2003, under Saddam's Baathist Party.

    There seem to be four types of states:

    1. Strong. 2. Weak 3. Failed 4. Collapsed.

    Some of the criteria that indicate Iraq was a Failed state at and prior to March 2003:

    1. Sustained pressures along ethnic lines and the declining supply of goods and services.

    A. The Saddam Regime favoured certain Sunni tribes, with economic and political power creating ethnic tensions within the Sunni tribes and religious tensions within the majority Shia population.

    B. The country's supply of water, food and electricy were inadequate for Iraq's population, due largely to the Iran and Kuwait wars.

    2. Massive refugee and dislocation problems as a result of government policies and activities.

    Six hundred thousand international refugees and one million internally displaced persons in Iraq prior to the invasion.

    3. Persecution of and atrocities performed against all ethnic groupings in Iraq to maintain power by the "divide and rule" strategy.

    A. Kurds were ethnically cleansed from parts of Iraq and forced to relocate in the North.

    B. Shia Marsh Arabs deprived of their property and livelihood when the marshes were drained after the 1991 war.

    C. Assyrians, Kurds and Turkmen displaced from Kirkuk in 1991 and forced to assume an Arab identity.

    D. Purges against rebellious uprisings amongst Saddam's own Sunni factions.

    4. Sharp and severe economic decline (under Saddam Iraq had a centrally directed command economy).

    A. The manufacturing and industrial base, which was heavily subsidised by the government, was allowed to decline through lack of action and was damaged directly during the Iran and 1991 wars.

    B. From 1991 Iraq suffered massive declines in GDP, high inflation, large currency devaluations and virtually no foreign investment.

    C. Iraqi per capita income in 1990 was US$4900 by December 2002 it was US$700. (Most Civil Servants earned about $6US per month in 2002).

    We could look at other criteria such as the Justice system, the treatment of political prisoners, the declining state of its education system, its massive external debt and its overall human rights abuses all of which reinforce the conclusion that Iraq was a failed state well before and at the time of the Coalition invasion.

    It should be obvious that immediately after the invasion it slipped from being a Failed state to a Collapsed state.

    That all here suggest it is now a Failed state indicates some improvement in its status.

    Many of the criteria are now at about the same "Failed state" level as in the Saddam years but some things such as a greater recognition of human rights indicate it is moving in the right direction.

    The bottom line is that Collapsed states are harder to fix than Failed states and Failed states only move up on the way to being Strong states through a democratisation process and the application of citizens rights to all.

    Thus Bush has the right strategy for moving Iraq up the scale but whether that will be successful in the short term depends on the willingness of the US to put in the hard yards and the co-operation of the Iraq government and the Iraqi people.

    Posted by LRJONES4 12/08/2006 @ 5:24pm | ignore this person

    Posted by POSEIDON at 12/08/2006 @ 7:21pm

97. Posted by HAJJI 12/08/2006 @ 7:08pm | ignore this person

    what's yer pernt?

    in my city a young woman received an engagement ring from her love in the mail, the same day she learned that he had been killed in Iraq. ironic, isn't it?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 12/08/2006 @ 7:35pm

98. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/08/2006 @ 6:01pm

    JR,

    The suggestion that was being floated here was that Iraq became a failed state because of the US invasion, that is obviously not a sustainable proposition.

    The logicians by a very strict application of their skills conclude that all Failed states should, according to the pre-emption doctrine, also be targets for a US invasion; hence why only Iraq?

    The reason that Iraq (not say, another Failed state) was invaded (apart from the WMD) was because of the degree and extent of its human rights abuses (Bush in 2002 UN speech on those abuses) and its proven record of belligerence toward its neigbours. Not because it was a Failed state per se.

    "the fact is that most americans agree with me, and you and your ilk are on the way out."

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/08/2006 @ 6:27pm

    Feeling the heat JR? The fact about your polled Americans (and any other nationality for that matter) is that they are a fickle crowd who once supported the Iraq venture and Bush in overwhelming majorities and until recently thought Saddam was behind 9/11 (or are they the same solid polled Americans who believe the US admin brought down the towers? We are all comedians now). If Iraq was to turn around it would be instructive to check out the polls and American opinion again. "Everyone" loves a winner.

    Despite all that you still are tops as a propagandist. Getting any good tips from Washington Times?

    (Down the park for me with my boys and their mates for a game of cricket. Australia is world champion at present and are in the proceess of woking the Poms over is a 5 game Test series. Games last up to 5 days. Pity G3 didn't bequeath this great game to you before you kicked him out).

    Posted by lrjones4 at 12/08/2006 @ 7:57pm

99. JOHANNESROLF: No, not ironic.

    Posted by Gertrude at 12/08/2006 @ 8:12pm

100. LRJONES4: "We can not and should not continue to waste American blood and treasure trying to decide that for them."

     I agree.

     This is a little off topic, but I'm going to say it anyway: I am sick and tired of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict getting so much attention from seemingly everyone on both the left and the right. Honestly, what makes the lives of Israelis and/or Palestinians so much important than those of Africans, Asians, Latin Americans, etc.?

     Posted by Gertrude at 12/08/2006 @ 8:18pm

101. Feeling the heat JR?

     not at all, the last election is a balm that soothes many wounds if not all. you may keep your boring cricket in your boring country, back to the beach and the barby, boy. here in america we have something to lose. our country.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/08/2006 @ 8:20pm

102. Gert, you are correct. that was an ironic ironic.

     you raise a good question about the mideast. the short answer is oil. another, perhaps more nuanced answer is that Israel has many friends in this country, and rightly so, though they are as divided politically as we are, and their right wing gov't has much to answer for, as does ours.

     another answer is that we are in a war in that region.

     american colonialism and imperialism has just never really reached Africa, europe is very quiet now, as is Asia.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/08/2006 @ 8:25pm

103. I suppose my "pernt" JR, is that I get irritated by distanced, intellectual speculation about how this man-made "disaster" that put Jill's son...and his brother before that...in harm's way is somehow a "good thing" for the people of Iraq, the region or the world in general.

     It was a disaster in its conception, remains a disaster in its execution and will always be a disaster for my nation.

     It is a very personal hardship for my family. It remains, daily, a tragedy for so many families but will never, ever be more than a "comma" for the families of those who birthed this deamonchild.

     I guess I was just 'sayin'.

     Posted by Hajji at 12/08/2006 @ 8:52pm

104. Posted by HAJJI 12/08/2006 @ 8:52pm | ignore this person

     you have made yourself very clear, and many here agree with you. no matter how much the military families have suffered, they will suffer more when it becomes obvious that their sacrifice has been in vain, has been used in a lie. that is why the perps of this war must be held responsible. it is not enough for Bush to be merely discredited.

     I feel that it was a very bad thing for the country that Nixon was not impeached. a public trial would have gone a long way in discrediting the unitary presidency. a long drawn out airing of his crimes would have done the nation much good. perhaps we would have been spared the farce of the Clinton impeachment over a peccadillo.

     unfortunately there are no referees in life, no penalties for some criminals, and no justice for many who have suffered.but Bush's crimes must be aired, for the future of the country. first end the war, then justice.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/08/2006 @ 9:05pm

105. Precisely, JOHANNESROLF!

     Every time I hear "to leave Iraq before "completing" the "mission" would be an insult to those who have made the ultimate "sacrifice", dying for their country, blah, blah, blah...", I get kinda homicidal, y'know?

     I have remained impassioned in my feelings throughout. I have, in fact, lost friendships over my outspoken stances on what my country has done "in my name". Even in the face of the overwhelming evidence of chicanery by this malAdministration, not one person who poo-poo'd my insistances has admitted being wrong, or even bothered to apologize.

     I guess I expect too much of my fellow humans?

     Posted by Hajji at 12/08/2006 @ 9:53pm

106. Haj, do not lose your passion. I can say about the time of the Vietnam war,"i spoke out. I did not become a part of the war machine. I was right before everyone knew it. same here. we can say, we told you so, we were against it, we spoke out. back then we were 30%, now we are 70 %, we will be 95%. and Bush/Cheney will be gone in ignomy.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/08/2006 @ 9:59pm

107. I have been looking for a place to comment on Mr. Corn's suggestion elsewhere that impeachment is out of the question and this is the only place I've been able to find.

     Politically I am sure he is correct, but impeachment and conviction of only Dick Cheney does not have the political baggage he describes and furthermore would have the benefit of removing most of the problem. If the actual process of impeachment does not take place, investigations of everything to the bottom of each situation are absolutely necessary so that everyone can see what exactly has been done to us by Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush.

     Sorry to go off topic but I had no other forum to get in touch with Mr. Corn.

     Posted by danmiller at 12/08/2006 @ 10:05pm

108. Dan, no apology necessary, in my opinion. the power of the vice pres in this mis-administration is I believe unprecedented. in my lifetime presidents have kept their vice on a very short leash, marginalizing them even. can anyone imagine JFK sharing power with LBJ, as capable a politician as the senator from Texas was? or Spiro Agnew making foreign policy? it is because Bush is such a non entity that this has happened. vice presidents were cheerleaders, ribboncutters. in europe the president is the figurehead, the prime minister is in charge. this is what we have come to here. pathetic. this really Bush's father's gov't. and Rice? has there ever been such a zero as sec of state? astonishing.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/08/2006 @ 10:13pm

109. after the investigations impeachment may not be out of the question anymore. after all, presidents have been impeached for much less.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/08/2006 @ 10:15pm

110. Impeachment will happen if the investigations are not supressed.

     The PTB will attempt supression and obfuscation at every turn. If the MSM doesn't push for the truth, the "people" will just roll over.

     The time to press the media to press your Reps is now...relentlessly...

     Posted by Hajji at 12/08/2006 @ 10:42pm

111. JOHANNESROLF: I agree with you to an extent on the Israeli/Palestinian question. However, it also seems like a lot of people on the left are fascinated with the suffering of the Palestinians. I don't think this is a bad thing. However, over the last 25 years there have been religious, ethnic, and national groups who have suffered just as much as the Palestinians. Yet these various groups have gotten little to no attention on either side of the political aisle in the West.

     Posted by Gertrude at 12/08/2006 @ 11:19pm

112. Gert, you haven't been reading redbird again have you? seriously, I don't know why that is. antisemitism? the arabs in that region have plenty of problems other than israel, and were it not for Israel they would be at each others throats, as they have been throughout history. you raise a good point, and I am mostly at a loss. of course not enough at a loss not to put my two cents in. how about you? care to give it a try? I can say the above, I have the bird on ignore.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/08/2006 @ 11:34pm

113. JOHANNESROLF: I hate the "redbird". He put me on his ignore list because he refuses to talk to people who have even the slightest disagreement with him.

     And as for the question I asked you, I have no answer myself.

     Posted by Gertrude at 12/09/2006 @ 06:58am

114. Gertrude, JR,

     I don't mean this to be rude in any sense, but I believe the answer is-- simply more money and better PR.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 12/09/2006 @ 09:32am

115. We do really heavily on the media as most of us aren't in the position to do our own on the scene investigations. Mostly we form our interests and opinions on what's out there to read, hear about via the MSM. What if there had been no media at NO would it have been perceived as as much of a gov failure? Yet one can argue that NO didn't buy the air time, the US citizenry did. If the MSM knew that the US citizenry were as interested in seeing, first hand, the human tragedy in other areas of the world, sans their 'Disaster Movie' transient angle, I think per their ratings fixation, they'd go for it. Faux News may always represent the unfair and unbalance corporate angle rather than the truth, but even if one or two other news organizations, (are there anymore left?), do tell it as it is, 'the people' will at least be able to debate the issue and motivate our gov to take action.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 12/09/2006 @ 09:59am

116. er, rely

     Posted by hsuBfools at 12/09/2006 @ 10:00am

117. Ok, for those that need consistency:

     Associated Press/Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. Dec. 4-6, 2006. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1 (for all adults). RV = registered voters

     "When it comes to the situation in Iraq, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?" If "mixed feelings" or not sure: "If you had to choose, do you lean more toward approve or disapprove?"

     Date_______Approve___Disapprove

     12/4-6/06______27_______71

     6/5-7/06_______33_______64

     12/5-7/05______41_______58

     6/6-8/05_______41_______56

     12/6-8/04______48_______50

     Posted by hsuBfools at 12/09/2006 @ 10:11am

118. It sure does look like the US citizenry isn't mostly in the middle concerning the mismanagement of the war in Iraq anymore. And thus we mostly do not believe we're there for their Iraqi democracy, but when hsuB floated the 'we're there for the oil stupid', it didn't go over too well. Well, except for the soulless new con profiteer golden calf-whorshipers.

     "How likely is it that a stable, democratic government will be established in Iraq? Is it very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely?"

     Date_________Likely___Not Likely

     12/4-6/06______36_______63

     6/5-7/06_______44_______54

     3/6-8/06_______48_______49

     8/22-24/05_____51_______46

     2/7-9/05_______50_______48

     Posted by hsuBfools at 12/09/2006 @ 10:25am

119. Gots to go do Commencement. Be back way later.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 12/09/2006 @ 11:04am

120. Fools, no matter who commenced it, I'm against it

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/09/2006 @ 12:06pm

121. for a laugh try this

     http://www.glumbert.com/media/roleplay

     Posted by johannesrolf at 12/09/2006 @ 12:28pm

122. HSUBFOOLS: You're probably right.

     Posted by Gertrude at 12/09/2006 @ 3:36pm

123. It's a very very sad fact, but most repubs still believe there's progress being made in Iraq. Perhaps they're indeed on the insurgents' side-- like the Saudis! The Saudi royals are like hsuB's famlia after all.

     Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Dec. 6-7, 2006. N=1,000 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

     "All in all, do you think the United States is making progress or losing ground in its efforts to establish security and democracy in Iraq?"

     __________Making Progress___Losing Ground___Unsure

     ALL adults__________21__________68__________11

     ____Republicans_____46__________40__________14

     ____Democrats______7___________88___________5

     ____Independents___17__________72__________11

     Posted by hsuBfools at 12/09/2006 @ 10:25pm

124. And most repubs still feel being lied to is the right thing for our gov to do to them... So when it's the dems that are the gov and telling them the truth-- I suppose they're really going to think that that's wrong. (Or will they just change medication?)

     "From what you know now, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or not?"

     ________________Right Thing___Not Right Thing___Unsure

     ALL adults__________39____________53____________8

     ____Republicans_____67____________26____________7

     ____Democrats______20____________73____________7

     ____Independents___38____________55____________7

     Posted by hsuBfools at 12/09/2006 @ 10:37pm

125. once in a while I post on some Tory blogs, say Wash Times, you can imagine what kind of reaction I get. "you are worse than the terrorists" is my favorite. here of course I have been called ex nazi AND east german border guard, descriptions I shall always treasure.

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/08/2006 @ 4:19pm

     JR, you are worse than an ex-nazi east german terrorist/border guard! And that's why I like you :)

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 12/09/2006 @ 10:40pm

126. People are dying every hour over there in the most horrific and brutal fashion imaginable and here you are trying to compose some melodious ode to the beautiful outcome that's delayed but on its way to blooming like a rose on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

     Who let you out of your cell?

     Posted by CHIMICHENGA 12/08/2006 @ 5:57pm

     Blooming like a turd blossom blooms...

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 12/09/2006 @ 10:42pm

127. for a laugh try this

     http://www.glumbert.com/media/roleplay

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/09/2006 @ 12:28am

     Yeah, I saw a political performance-art piece in NYC a couple of years back where hsuB got the statue of lib pregnant, but then she kicked his ass at he end of it. A pale shade of foreshadowing a'coming perhaps, hopefully.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 12/09/2006 @ 11:22pm

128. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 12/09/2006 @ 12:28am

     That was good. The "consent" one was good too.

     Eric

     Posted by Malcontent at 12/10/2006 @ 9:13pm

129. So basically then Dumbo-ya has said he'll entertain new ideas....as long as they are no different from the old ideas.

     Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha

     Posted by leftofcenter at 12/12/2006 @ 11:56am