Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditDid General David Petraeus today suggest that the war in Iraq may not make the United States safer?
During his second day of appearances on Capitol Hill, Petraeus this afternoon appeared before the Senate armed services committee. Fortified with charts and graphs, he presented the same we're-on-the-right-course pitch he delivered to the House armed services and foreign affairs committees (on Monday) and to the Senate foreign relations committee (this morning). During the Q&A round at the armed services committee, Senator John Warner, the Virginia Republican who used to chair the committee and who has called for beginning a disengagement in Iraq, took a few sharp (albeit respectful) jabs at Petraeus, noting that one intelligence report after another has said that political reconciliation in Iraq could be a bridge too far. He then asked Petraeus a pointed question: "Do you feel that [Iraq war] is making America safer"?
Petraeus paused before responding. He then said: "I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq."
That was, of course, a non-answer. And Warner wasn't going to let the general dodge the bullet. He repeated the question: "Does the [Iraq war] make America safer?"
Petraeus replied, "I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind."
Don't know? Is it possible that the war is not making the United States safer? Petraeus went on to note that he has "taken into account" the war's impact on the U.S. military and that it's his job to recommend to the president the best course for reaching "the objectives of the policy" in Iraq. Yet he did not say that the Iraq war is essential to the national security of the United States. Warner did not press the general any further on this point. The senator's time was up.
That was quite a statement from the fellow who is supposed to save Bush's war. He advocates pursuing Bush's course of action in Iraq but he cannot attest that this effort is crucial for America's safety. Is that being a good soldier?
******
CHECK OUT David Corn's recent interview with the anticorruption chief of the Iraqi government who was forced out of his job by Prime Minister Maliki and who claims the Maliki regime is so corrupt it ought to be abolished. Click here.
OUT IN PAPERBACK: 
Share this article
David Corn
Washington--a city of denials, spin, and political calculations. They may speak English there, but most citizens still need an interpreter to understand its ways and meanings. DAVID CORN, the Washington editor of The Nation magazine, has spent years analyzing the policies and pursuing the lies that spew out of the nation's capital. He is a novelist, biographer, and television and radio commentator who is able to both decipher and scrutinize Washington.
In his dispatches, he takes on the day-by-day political and policy battles under way in the Capitol, the White House, the think tanks, and the television studios. With an informed, unconventional perspective, he holds the politicians, policymakers and pundits accountable and reports the important facts and views that go uncovered elsewhere.
Check out David Corn's latest book, (co-written with Michael Isikoff and now available in paperback), Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown Publishers). For information, visit his personal blog at davidcorn.com.
Photo Credit: Michael Lorenzini
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
"I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind."
well mr general, sir. you'd better give that salary back then because you are ripping off the taxpayer
you haven't thought about it!
i'm a friggin' canadian and i think about it everyday.
and crab, and ibble, and hammer, and jor, and jr, and mask, and dd, and and and and think about it every god damn day
even rio, and lvlib, and franksh, and and and and think about it every day.
what the hell are you made of? rubber.
i think i'm going to cry in my vomit
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2007 @ 4:19pm
CORN: He then asked Petraeus a pointed question: "Do you feel that [Iraq war] is making America safer"?
Petraeus paused before responding. He then said: "I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq."
Maybe others can track down when the General was confirmed by the Senate...was he charged with "making America safer" or just Iraq? If I was the General, I maybe inclined to render my own opinion even knowing no matter what my opinion is, it will be politicized!
Come to think of it, Gen. P's non-answer is exactly the right answer......now, folks like David can speculate till kingdom come! LOL!
Posted by Happy at 09/11/2007 @ 4:20pm
"Does the [Iraq war] make America safer?"
Petraeus replied, "I don't know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted in my own mind."
Again, I just come back to that little theory of mine as to why the Right is pissed off so much on what SHOULD be their chance at gleefulness and apparent victory.
Did Petraeus...betray them? As noted by Mr Corn, he just gave a definitive "I don't know" as to the idea of us being safer because we went into Iraq and are there. That's a KEY TALKING POINT of the neo-cons/Right for years now....and the General just said "he doesn't know"...meaning there's room for it NOT to be true.
Throw in his call for removal of the Surge troops...the FIRST official Bush Administration/Pentagon call for ANY troop withdrawals....again, something that the Right has said will cause massive chaos and that even the HINT of any withdrawal will "signal we are ready to surrender".
Sure it's JUST the Surge Troops...but if the Surge was working...why not KEEP them in Iraq and "finish the job" "assure TOTAL victory", etc.????
No...they're being pulled because Bush HAS TO acede to SOME political realities and give the nervous Repubs something to run on in 2008. Which means the pull-out of the Surge troops is a POLITICAL calculation, not "strategery"....exactly what the Right has accused the Left (or any against the occupation) of when they call for a pull-out.
And now...Petreaus...hailed as the conquering hero...just said being in Iraq is "iffy" on whether it makes us safer or not.
Posted by Mask at 09/11/2007 @ 4:25pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/11/2007 @ 4:20pm
HAPP, do you KNOW if us being in Iraq has made us safer?
Have you ever said so definitively?
If so, fair warning....
you're disagreeing with Petraeus and "attacking our military".
Posted by Mask at 09/11/2007 @ 4:26pm
actually he is being a good soldier. he was given a specific task and is trying to accomplish it. his candor seems to reveal the fact that he really is "doing his job" and limiting himself to the same.
keep pounding him with specific questions that address those facets of the operation he does fails to tout, and keep asking for detailed breakdowns of his answers, stats, assessments, etc. he seems to be cursed with at least a certain penchant for honesty when pressed hard, and unlike gonzalez, eventually coughs up the truth rather than sputtering out stupid, obfuscating moronisms that answer nothing.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/11/2007 @ 4:32pm
Posted by MASK 09/11/2007 @ 4:26pm
well he's not too safe in the house of credit cards this fiasco has created.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2007 @ 4:33pm
Happy-The entire military is charged with making America safer.That is the only job they have.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/11/2007 @ 4:33pm
you're disagreeing with Petraeus and "attacking our military".
Posted by MASK 09/11/2007 @ 4:26pm
did you even read what I posted.....the General doesn't know or don't want to say....thus, Corn + MASK can speculate "till kingdom come"!
I havee my opinion and it's a "YES"! AQ has to spend an enormous amount of energy and focus on Iraq....it IS the cradle of Arab civilization and in terms of the ME, "location, location, location" can't be beat!
Posted by Happy at 09/11/2007 @ 4:35pm
Patreaus is an unpatriotic traitor. If I wasn't so blitzed on vicodins I'd get back on the radio and garble some more gibberish.
Posted by rushlimb at 09/11/2007 @ 4:41pm
Posted by HAPPY 09/11/2007 @ 4:35pm
Well, that's weird, HAPP. An novice, non-military man such as yourself is absolutely sure that "we're safer because we're in Iraq" and the man that is touted as "the best expert on Iraq"...."doesn't know"?!?!?!?
Hmm...so the two competing theories are "He can't say for certain, because it would be politicizing things"---HAPPY.
But he CAN say that Iraq is safer and that the Surge has worked and that he doesn't support a full withdrawal for years because....????
How about THIS for a theory---MASK- He can't say, because he'd either have to lie or DEFINITIVELY undercut the White House position by saying that we are NOT safer because we're in Iraq.
Mind you...mine's more simple and logical. Yours...???
Posted by Mask at 09/11/2007 @ 4:50pm
It's the same as Gonzales' endless "I don't remember" but while wearing a far less tasteful suit. General Petraeus seems to be a good soldier and an honorable man. Nevertheless he is in fact participating in the circular finger-pointing game which does nothing but stall until Bush is out of office. And the answer to "who lost Iraq" becomes his Democrat successor. What a disgusting spectacle to watch.
Posted by MyParadigm at 09/11/2007 @ 5:08pm
...yourself is absolutely sure that "we're safer because we're in Iraq"...
Posted by MASK 09/11/2007 @ 4:50pm
I can be very simple on things beyond my control...right now, today, I am exactly "6 years absolutely sure" and it is quite an easy connect-the-dots exercise that includes Iraq `dot'!
Posted by Happy at 09/11/2007 @ 5:13pm
it is quite an easy connect-the-dots exercise that includes Iraq `dot'!
Posted by HAPPY 09/11/2007 @ 5:13pm
And I'll bet you can pound a square peg into a round hole with your dick.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/11/2007 @ 5:34pm
With enough Viagra, of course.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/11/2007 @ 5:35pm
With enough Viagra, of course.
Posted by DR DECIBELS 09/11/2007 @ 5:35pm |
some folks take it FOR the priapus...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/11/2007 @ 5:42pm
And the answer to "who lost Iraq" becomes his Democrat successor. What a disgusting spectacle to watch.
Posted by MYPARADIGM 09/11/2007 @ 5:08pm |
I think the dems are hoping to get credit for the ones who got us out of Iraq which is why they've been so complacent for the most part. There will be no question of who negligently got us there, who mismanaged things once we were there, and who ultimately lost the "war".
Posted by MATTMAN at 09/11/2007 @ 6:26pm
Ouch, Hillary is all over Betrayus-- with all the bad stats, he'll be hard pressed he says-- "in a year" to continue, but the situation is already where we are worse 'now' than 'last year', why is his answer 180 now? He's totally disingenuous, big time-- not to be believed. The whole hsuB/cHeney/Betrayus BS report is begging to be put down.
Sad day to commemorate 9/11 with yet more lies on top of the past lies and with only promises of future lies.
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/11/2007 @ 6:28pm
Ha, only 1-2% of the fighting being done is by al Qaeda in Iraq, that's al Qaeda created in Iraq after 2005, which means all the al Qaeda created elsewhere after 2003 are free to attack us here or Europe or wherever they are sans Iraq.
The only reason al Qaeda aren't here is the deal hsuB made to let him and and his family go and get out of Saudi Arabia.
Still no reason to be in Iraq except to make Haliburton/cHeney rich.
HA, use your head, people are dying for your stupidity.
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/11/2007 @ 6:42pm
Soldiers don't think about the right and wrong of things. They follow orders, period. I could not be a soldier because I could not go out and kill people just because I was told to. I would not drop bombs on houses, cities , schools etc. Gen. Petraeus is not paid to think about whether or not the war makes us safer, if generals thought about that sort of thing we wouldn't have one tenth of the wars that we have.
Posted by bansidh at 09/11/2007 @ 7:01pm
Posted by BANSIDH 09/11/2007 @ 7:01pm
well, banshee...even soldiers (american) are obligated to disobey illegal orders. easier said than done, however.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/11/2007 @ 7:21pm
I vass only followink orderss.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/11/2007 @ 7:56pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/11/2007 @ 7:56pm
yup...
how u doing, jr?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/11/2007 @ 8:07pm
2-5 years from now, after he retires or the occupation is ove....I wonder if Petraeus will say something (as Gen. Batiste, Colin Powell, etc.) and suddenly the neo-cons/Right will think he's stupid or even a "traitor"?
Posted by Mask at 09/11/2007 @ 8:26pm
Posted by MASK 09/11/2007 @ 8:26pm |
like...the unflattering truth? they should find that man a nice, cushy do-nothing haliburtony job. that shuts 'em up every time.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/11/2007 @ 8:39pm
uh... his JOB is to WIN the Iraq campaign--NOT the entire GWOT!! This question should be directed at the SOD or the Chairman of the JC--not Gen Petraeus. Isn't this obious?? Does David Corn DETERMINE what his publishers' agenda are??
Posted by marbiol at 09/11/2007 @ 9:13pm
GWOT!!
Posted by MARBIOL 09/11/2007 @ 9:13pm
i think it's about time for a global war on global wars on.*
"war and fight for less equality" -- WAFFLE
"campaign on ridiculous republican underhanded political tactics" -- CORRUPT
"fight over orbiting lasers" -- FOOL
GWOT the fuck has happened to people?
GWERE are we going?
GWEN will people wake up?
GWY do people think war will bring peace?
*never end a sentence a preposition with.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2007 @ 10:02pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/11/2007 @ 11:59pm
since when does congress listen to people of principle?
if you want their ear, go on down to k-street and start writing checks.
hey, i've got an idea. let's find one super-quintillionaire who actually wants peace. we convince him to start spreading cash around k-streetville until every last soldier is eating breakfast with her/his family.
yep, you want peace, buy it.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/12/2007 @ 12:08am
I second the observation of what a sad sight this was on 9/11. The General hardly bothered to pause at disingenuousness, and went right straight on to bald-faced lies (Anbar province, anyone?). All to keep the war machines crunching onward. Meantime, the Democrats work for a "compromise" bill that gives Bush everything he wants.
And are we safer? If you were the commander of the primary forces in the Global War on Terror, do you suppose this question would ever cross your mind? And if it didn't, would you question what you were doing there in the first place?
Of course, it doesn't matter whether we're safer. Iraq was never a threat; I was sure of it, and it appears even Bush knew it. Iraq has something to do with us being safer? Please.
It wasn't even a relevant question. Maybe that's why the General couldn't answer. He'd forgotten about that whole "safer" thing.
Posted by Donald Weed at 09/12/2007 @ 02:40am
Posted by HAPPY 09/11/2007 @ 4:20pm
Happy
Just watching a replay of Petraeus on NPR here. Think with you and Ibbie that Petraeus gave the only answer that should have been given. He was perhaps both honest and a good negotiator of verbal minefields.
I liked his comprehensive data and the coherent way in which he draws his conclusions. He really is quite impressive and is not the usual run of the mill US general we are more accustomed to. There is little doubt that the Surge or a better use of the troops has resulted in substantial improvements in the military situation in Iraq. That information has been in the media for several months now from various sources, with different political orientations but it is much better to see it confirmed in the objective way Petraeus has done.
One can't help wondering how much better the situation in Iraq may have been if the same approach had been adopted from 2003. That would have meant sacking Rumsfeld right after the invasion. He was good at the war part but hopeless at dealing with the insurgency. An insurgency that may have been less debilitating for the US and Iraq had different strategies been adopted then.
As far as his opponents go it is the usual tactic of shooting the messenger when they don't like the message. A classic case of character assassination which is a lot easier than an intelligent rebuttal of the way he uses the data to draw his conclusions. They are the real threat to the American democratic system because, in cases like this, they not only debase the language with wild-eyed fanatical epithets but substitute slogans for valid reasons.
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/12/2007 @ 04:15am
....."Yet all those, including Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd, who reject the surge strategy and advocate staged withdrawal are wilfully ignoring the fact that coalition forces remain in Iraq because of their obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) to ensure the security of Iraqis until the Iraqi Government is capable of taking over. This has been mandated by a succession of unanimously passed Security Council resolutions, most recently resolution 1723 of November last year. However much Australians might wish that we could just walk away from Iraq, for both strategic and moral reasons we are obliged to stabilise the country before we leave."
The above is an excerpt from The Australian editorial, 12th Sept, "The West Must Stand by Iraq" that editorial excerpt claims the US (Coalition) has UN treaty obligations to stay in Iraq until it is stabilised? Who's for supporting the UN on this issue?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/ 0,25197,22402965-16741,00.html
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/12/2007 @ 07:47am
I don't want to defend Patraeus for his lack of statement, but it is not the policy of military personnel to dictate U.S. international policy. The military folks are supposed to provide military solutions to problems thrown at them from their bosses. They don't really have a choice once the decision over their head has been made. Remember, the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces of the U.S. so of course the general isn't going to step on the president's feet.
Having said that, the president keeps sidestepping the issues by saying that people in D.C. shouldn't be making decisions about what is going on in Iraq where that is exactly what he is doing on a daily basis. If the generals under Bush don't fall in line, they are fired pronto. Even if the generals fall in line, and Bush doesn't like the outcome, or needs a scapegoat, they are fired. That is why nobody wanted to be in command over there.
This is Bush and Cheney's war folks. Patraeus didn't start this thing and probably won't be in the position when it ends either. This is just more of the Bush administrations song and dance routine.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/12/2007 @ 07:48am
How has occupying a country that was no threat to us, at a cost of 4000 lives and almost 1/2 trillion dollars, made us safer?
Still don't make any sense. None. Zero, zip.
So, Petraeus cannot answer in the affirmative. Unlike many of his predecessors, and most members of ChimpCo, at least he did not bald face lie.
I am once again amused at the war mongers desire to kiss ass to anything in a uniform. This is Petraeus' Plan. Of course it is working, do you think he would come back and say "Sorry, I was wrong, my bad."? Not only is he not bloody likely to do that, ChimpCo does not EVER allow that kind of talk.
And, once again, IF everything goes right and IF we pray hard enough, MAYBE troop levels will return to spring 2007 levels in the summer of 2008. This is progress?
What a crock-O- Stimpy!!
Posted by crabwalk at 09/12/2007 @ 07:53am
What the military will need in 2008 is more recruits.
I nominate:
LRJONES, HAPPYCWARD, RIOCOWARDO, DAVEB, LUVSDESPOTS WOODYEE and his Tickle me Elmo doll, HONESTLIBERAL, PONTIFICUS and LENMOSSE.
That should help. But, we need a squadron name. That is the class assignment today, come up with a good name for our heros to use as they go into battle so their grandkids won't have to.
Show me what you got, Nation bloggers. Lots of room for fun here.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/12/2007 @ 07:58am
how u doing, jr?
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/11/2007 @ 8:07pm | ignore this person
I am well, thank you. I have turned my freshly painted dinette and foyer in my apartment into an art gallery, where I am showing my latest pictures. I wish I could invite all my friends here to stop by.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/12/2007 @ 08:06am
JR....have you tried either of these sites to show off your work??
www.photosig.com
or
www.artsig.com
Posted by Sliver at 09/12/2007 @ 08:59am
What I am about to say is so obvious that I am almost embarrassed to say it. Should not the Iraqi people be allowed to vote on a referendum to decide whether the US should stay or go? Our government made such a big deal about free elections in Iraq, and we saw so many images of smiling Iraqi citizens proudly extending their ink stained thumbs after their elections that it warmed nearly all American's hearts. I suggest we repeat that happy picture. From my perspective, expressions of either support for or discontent with the American occupation have been largely anecdotal. We ought to employ our military to ensure the fairest vote possible, and let the people of Iraq express their opinion about whether or not the United States should continue to occupy their country. If the majority truly want us to stay, the administration and its supporters will be vindicated, otherwise we should make a quick and orderly exit from their country. I think the war was wrong from the outset, and our forces should leave Iraq, but it should not be up to me or other Americans to decide the fate of the Iraqis. I think an Iraqi referendum on our continued occupation would be great for both Iraq and the United States. Iraq would get what its majority truly wants, and the United States can save face, since we would either stay with the endorsement of the occupied people or we could abide by the Iraqi people's wishes and leave without appearing to have suffered defeat at the hands of the insurgents.
Posted by raaustin at 09/12/2007 @ 09:27am
Show me what you got, Nation bloggers. Lots of room for fun here.
Posted by CRABWALK 09/12/2007 @ 07:58am
"FINGERTIP FIGHTING FORCE"
the FFF (apologies to FREI, just coincidence)
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/12/2007 @ 09:29am
Posted by RAAUSTIN 09/12/2007 @ 09:27am |
yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes. yes.
BTW excellent idea
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/12/2007 @ 09:31am
thanks, Sliv.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/12/2007 @ 09:44am
Crabster, I think I have a good one. How about the Chair Bourne Rangers Unit. We used to call the administrative people in the Air Force that, but in this case, I think the name is somewhat fitting. The sit at their computers and wage war at a very very long distance.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/12/2007 @ 09:44am
yes. yes. yes. yes.
BTW excellent idea
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/12/2007 @ 09:31am
Frosty, I agree with your enthusiasm, but dude, your post reads like you are about to hit the finish tape.
I would point out that the idea is great, and obvious which is why nobody Washington has pointed it out. They wish to make the outcome of the Iraqi people dependent upon what they decide. I've wondered the same thing, but keep coming to the same conclusion every time.
So, either we have the biggest idiots running this country, or they or so full of their own power grabbing mindsets to let a simple choice like this fall into the hands of those really involved in the situation.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/12/2007 @ 09:56am
Posted by RAAUSTIN 09/12/2007 @ 09:27am
Sorry, RAAUS, but the Iraqi Parliament and al-Maliki would never allow such a referendum. They know how it'd go....atleast a majority, if not a STRONG majority for pull-out.
But right now, what keeps those parliamentarians safe in the Green Zone and from either being killed or having to take up a rifle themselves and fight their own fight in the civil war are....our troops.
Posted by Mask at 09/12/2007 @ 10:12am
Posted by WOLFGANG1 09/12/2007 @ 09:56am
i never thought it would happen.
i'm optimistic, but not naďve. i know that this has been planned in war rooms and board rooms for a long, long, time.
it's just that here, in this wonderful "place", people of all political stripes say "america, american, and america"
which has some logic given the nationality of the posters, but it lacks compassion for those that are really* (i mean REALLY) living this.
i've always tried to express the idea that "iraq, iraqi, iraq" was a much better place to start, but have had little response.
*not to diminish the danger u.s. troops face. but when their tour is over they still have a home to go to (for a while).
thanks
FZ
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/12/2007 @ 10:14am
I don't blame Petraeus for being confused by the question. After all, Iraq has nothing to do with American safety. It wasn't undertaken to make us safer or to combat terrorism. It was undertaken to further American hegemony in the Middle East. So the general's answer is, technically, the correct one: his job is to impose Bush's will onto Iraq, and that is what he was reporting on.
That said, it is my opinion that the Iraq war has either not changed our level of safety, whatever that means, or has made us less safe. Either means that the war, alas, was a waste of hundreds of billions of tax dollars and an unnecessary sacrifice of many, many lives. And we may have installed a government in Baghdad that is MORE likely than Saddam was to cooperate with or provide aid to international terrorist organizations.
Posted by BlueSpark at 09/12/2007 @ 10:33am
Posted by BLUESPARK 09/12/2007 @ 10:33am
He couldn't answer "yes" or "no", if he wanted to.
Say "yes" and he boosts the Right's argument, but then has to explain exactly HOW being in Iraq has made us safer.
Say "no" and he undercuts a prime Administration and neo-con argument. Even saying "It's not certain one way or the other" and he undercuts their argument by painting it as "up for debate", something they're not able to to.
So...he HAS to say "I don't know" and only dent that argument slightly.
Posted by Mask at 09/12/2007 @ 10:37am
That is the class assignment today, come up with a good name for our heros to use as they go into battle so their grandkids won't have to.
You mean so their grandkids WILL have to, right? After all, continual war is the Bush doctrine.
My entry: The Very Special Forces
Posted by BlueSpark at 09/12/2007 @ 10:37am
CRAB,
are we allowed multiple entries?
how's "TEAM AMERICA" [teamamerica.com]
after all, there just puppets
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/12/2007 @ 10:49am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/12/2007 @ 08:06am
Post some pictures for us somewhere.
Posted by drhammer at 09/12/2007 @ 11:04am
Hammer, thank you for your interest. the show is up for two more mondays, and will be followed by a posting.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/12/2007 @ 11:31am
Posted by CRABWALK 09/12/2007 @ 07:58am
ever read franken's liars book? there's a part with all the original gangsta neocons in a unit in vietnam thats a hoot.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/12/2007 @ 08:06am |
that sounds pretty cool. i've often thought that the nation should throw a party for the blog response pit fiends (being careful, of course, to assure none of us got any personal information on any of them, of course...lol). it would be fascinating to meet in person some of the folks i've been arguing with and blabbulating to for years...scary too...lol
Posted by LRJONES4 09/12/2007 @ 04:15am
you're invited too croc. bring some kangaroo steaks and a big crocodile knife...and just assume all the women you meet are really men in drag...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/12/2007 @ 11:43am
Posted by CRABWALK 09/12/2007 @ 07:58am
How's business Crabs? A bit of a diversion like your latest effort may temporally cheer up the spirits of your flagging troop, which has been more or less Petra-derailed. Whether that will last for a year or two or a decade or two, we're not saying as we intend to follow the Petraeus/Crocker approach of not prematurely spilling the beans. But stay tuned, for like all good soldiers, we wont be backward in coming forward when the "circumstances on the ground" require such a tactic.
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/12/2007 @ 11:44am
As far as his opponents go it is the usual tactic of shooting the messenger when they don't like the message. A classic case of character assassination which is a lot easier than an intelligent rebuttal of the way he uses the data to draw his conclusions.
Posted by LRJONES4 09/12/2007 @ 04:15am
We'll be sure to keep this thought in mind when the topic is the environment and the messenger is Al Gore.
Posted by Hman23 at 09/12/2007 @ 11:59am
i've often thought that the nation should throw a party for the blog response pit fiends (being careful, of course, to assure none of us got any personal information on any of them, of course...lol
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/12/2007 @ 11:43am
i've thought about it, too.
we could do it like speed-dating.
no names allowed, everybody gets a #
five minutes with each poster, face to face, no personal questions, just politics.
after everybody has talked to everybody, we could vote on who is who.
for ex. :
17 votes say #12 is Frosty Zoom
3 votes say #12 is Rio Bravo
etc.,
let's see if we are what we speak.
BTW we could all meet in one of these places:
The geographical center of the lower 48 states lies outside of Lebanon, Kansas, in the middle of a hog farm.
The geographical center of all 50 states is located 17 miles west of Castle Rock, South Dakota.
The geodetic center of the U.S. is found approximately 42 miles south of Lebanon, Kansas. (Note: A geodetic survey makes corrections to account for the curvature of the Earth.)
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/12/2007 @ 12:20pm
We'll be sure to keep this thought in mind when the topic is the environment and the messenger is Al Gore.
Posted by HMAN23 09/12/2007 @ 11:59am
ka-ching!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/12/2007 @ 12:21pm
Posted by HMAN23 09/12/2007 @ 11:59am
Slight difference, HMAN. Petraeus isn't saying "the Surge is working"...but putting his money on oil prices going up or spending his time in Kuwait or someplace safe. (analogy not the best, but you get it).
Gore is talking the "Inconvenient" talk...while walking the limousine and Gulfstream private jet and "carbon credit" walk.
Posted by Mask at 09/12/2007 @ 1:03pm
ever read franken's liars book? there's a part with all the original gangsta neocons in a unit in vietnam thats a hoot.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/12/2007
JR, Yes, I've read that book and found that part pretty damn funny. I like where (I think it's Rush) Rush Limbaugh is crapping all over himself. That whole book was dead on target with these jackasses. Franken should win just on those merits.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/12/2007 @ 1:34pm
Posted by WOLFGANG1 09/12/2007 @ 1:34pm
that was me responding to JR, by the way. i also loved the 50 foot geyser of pig shit part, where some megahog farm sent one of their mexicans out to shoot a hole in the gigantic pigshit containing bedliner. the pigshit sluice had started overflowing and caused the giant bedliner to float up, so the company had their mexican fix it in the manner described above, 'cept that it just resulted in the weight of thousands of tons of pigshit soup pressing down on the sub-bedliner pigshit soup, resulting in a 50 foot geyser of pigshit for several weeks.
thanks, mr. franken. when i grow up i wanna be just like you.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/12/2007 @ 1:46pm
that was me responding to JR, by the way. i
Posted by WOLFGANG1 09/12/2007 @ 1:34pm
no - crabwalk...now i'm confused too...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/12/2007 @ 1:49pm
i've never read mr franken's books (didn't even know they existed).
i found these four in my local library's catalogue:
The truth (with jokes)
Lies : (and the lying liars who tell them) : a fair and balanced look at the right
Oh, the things I know! : a guide to success, or, failing that, happiness
Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot and other observations
THIS is why i pay taxes.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/12/2007 @ 1:54pm
Ok, if this were the mission to the moon, Betrayus would be doing the hsuB argument of why we needed to to send yet another mission to the moon because the last 38 are still there and we might be able to figure out how to get them back next year...
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2007 @ 2:00pm
And you're asking him if he thinks it's safe!?!?!?
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2007 @ 2:04pm
Mask -
It's still shooting the messenger rather than the message, which was my point.
Posted by Hman23 at 09/12/2007 @ 2:04pm
Lies : (and the lying liars who tell them) : a fair and balanced look at the right
the only franken book i've read - hilarious
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/12/2007 @ 2:15pm
ever read franken's liars book? there's a part with all the original gangsta neocons in a unit in vietnam thats a hoot.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/12/2007
JR, Yes, I've read that book and found that part pretty damn funny. I like where (I think it's Rush) Rush Limbaugh is crapping all over himself. That whole book was dead on target with these jackasses. Franken should win just on those merits.
Posted by WOLFGANG1 09/12/2007 @ 1:34pm | ignore this person
this is a mistake. I did not post this. I have never read any of Franken's books.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/12/2007 @ 2:18pm
Posted by HMAN23 09/12/2007 @ 2:04pm
See, I don't know if I buy that cop-out...and I think it is one.
You would surely go after some "draft age" neo-con saying we all need to support the war, but who "has other plans" and won't join up....why not Gore?
Think he's not got a laundry list of things THE REST OF US "need to do" to help cut back on CO2 that he rattles off in his speeches....do we just ignore the fact that he's taking a 8 mpg limo to the airport, to board his private jet burning a couple hundred gallons of fuel between speeches....when there's plenty of hybrid SUVs and AMTRAK that he could use?
If the messenger is a hypocrite...shoot the sumbitch, I say.
Posted by Mask at 09/12/2007 @ 2:31pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/12/2007 @ 2:18pm |
see the following posts, JR...its somehow my fault. but i highly reccomend franken for a good, informative and hilarious read...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/12/2007 @ 1:46pm | ignore this person Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/12/2007 @ 1:49pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/12/2007 @ 2:38pm
I was driving back and forth from Austin to Bostin a few years back and was lent Franken's Liars audio book. He actually tells it well too. It was the winter with lots of ice and snow and I almost went into a skid drive over the Appalachians when he explained Limppaws excuse of a pilonidal cyst. Talk about two skids for the price of one...
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2007 @ 2:44pm
If the messenger is a hypocrite...shoot the sumbitch, I say.
Posted by MASK 09/12/2007 @ 2:31pm
So you're suggesting assasination of Betrayus and the hsuB/cHeney admin?
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2007 @ 2:46pm
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SxOXndrw0yE
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2007 @ 3:05pm
If the messenger is a hypocrite...shoot the sumbitch, I say.
Posted by MASK 09/12/2007 @ 2:31pm | ignore this person
This is the arguement that makes virtually no sense to me.
On the one hand, we have folks like Gore and even Ah'nold, who are actually DOING something, writing legislation, research, books, movies, lectures, etc. But, still own and drive multiple Hummers, take jets, etc. and only seek 'carbon credits' as an offset.
On the other hand, we have Fred Thompson who openly macks the entire body of science on the subject, denigrates those who express concern, openly opposes doing anything of substance, etc. But is consistant in his opposition.
And you think it's people like Gore who need get the "...shoot the sumbitch" treatment...while Fred and the rest get a complete pass?
Seriously, do you think that makes sense?
Posted by Lillian at 09/12/2007 @ 3:10pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/12/2007 @ 2:46pm
Have you missed me, HSUB? I wasn't ignoring you, just didn't feel like saying...
49 days to go.....
Posted by Mask at 09/12/2007 @ 3:19pm
LRJONES
There is little doubt that the Surge or a better use of the troops has resulted in substantial improvements in the military situation in Iraq.
On the contrary, there is very considerable doubt. The NYTimes did an pi ece [nytimes.com] highlighting the different takes on this subject.
From Gen. Jones's commission "Violence has sharply declined in the Sunni-dominated Anbar province -- the former stronghold of the insurgency. But attacks have risen in Diyala, Balad, Basra and Amara. Violence remains endemic in Baghdad, despite measurable gains made since February."
From the GAO report "Violence remains high. The average number of daily attacks against civilians remained about the same over the last six months. Overall attacks declined in July compared to June largely due to a decrease in attacks on coalition forces rather than civilians. Enemy initiated attacks have increased around major religious and political events. "
Bear in mind that the arrival of the surge forces coincides with the arrival of the hot summer of Iraq, which has seen attacks drop each of the last few years.
And, of course, there has been none of the political progress that the surge was supposed to facilitate.
Posted by brunowe at 09/12/2007 @ 3:23pm
On the one hand, we have folks like Gore and even Ah'nold, who are actually DOING something, writing legislation, research, books, movies, lectures, etc. But, still own and drive multiple Hummers, take jets, etc. and only seek 'carbon credits' as an offset. ----Posted by LILLIAN 09/12/2007 @ 3:10pm
First...."carbon credits" are a hoax, even die-hard Greens don't buy it. Plus Gore is buying his "credits"...from a company that HE is an executive of. Would you accept that kind of stuff from a Republican?
Second, so we can all drive SUVs and ride private jets, as long as we buy off our carbon "footprint"? How generous of Al. Again, you wouldn't buy that argument if it was a tax cut for health care, would you?
Third, who cares about Thompson? Thompson isn't a hypocrite. Gore is makig his bones on global warming...and not doing a damn thing SUBSTANTIVE (sorry, but 'making movies' and 'speeches' are not substantive) thing to dent his OWN contribution to it.
Posted by Mask at 09/12/2007 @ 3:23pm
LRJONES
There is nothing in the Fourth Geneva Convention that requires countries to stay in the middle of a multi-sided civil war. Further, the provisions referred to are in the section dealing with occupied territories. Given that the current Iraqi government, impotent as it is, has been recognized and the CPA has expired, Iraq can hardly be considered an occupied territory and thus the provisions don't apply.
If the presence of US forces were contributing to any sort of solution, then one could make a case for them staying anyway--but nothing like that is happening.
Posted by brunowe at 09/12/2007 @ 3:37pm
Frita doesn't really know-- just making another straw dildo and throwing it out there; seeing who bites.
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2007 @ 3:39pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/12/2007 @ 08:51am
You need not enlist in the armed forces. Maybe you have not noticed, but private contractors are welcome. they could use good conservative types to teach, among other things, how to run business in a modern world, how to set up a viable stock market, how to run meetings, how to set up decentralized guvts, as well as how to be good, moral citizens.
you goin'?
Happy won't, we know that.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/12/2007 @ 3:41pm
Posted by BRUNOWE 09/12/2007 @ 3:23pm
Thanks B, saved me some time. I always have to keep in mind that the neo-cons only accept ChimpCo's line, regardless of past history. Third party independent analysis are never acceptable to the mongers. Take this report from the Army War College, roundly criticized by Tough Guys:
Excerpt describing the report from LA Times
"The report by Jeffrey Record, a visiting research professor at the Strategic Studies Institute of the Army War College, calls for downsizing the war on terrorism and focusing instead on the threat from Al Qaeda, the terror network responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as well as other sites around the world.
"The global war on terrorism as presently defined and conducted is strategically unfocused, promises much more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate U.S. military and other resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security," Record wrote, concluding his 56-page monograph. "The United States may be able to defeat, even destroy, Al Qaeda, but it cannot rid the world of terrorism, much less evil."
Record calls the war in Iraq "an unnecessary preventative war" that has "diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault by an undeterrable Al Qaeda." The Iraq war was a "detour" from the war on terrorism, he said."
sound advice. But, giving sound to advice ChimpCo is like pissing into the wind.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/12/2007 @ 4:05pm
Excellent names for Force Coward, so far I like Chair Bourne best.
keep em coming, no limit...
As they have zero shame, I doubt we can shame them into actually going to Iraq to experience the regulation free business zone known as Iraq. But, it does no harm, makes them look like the cowards they are and it's FUN.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/12/2007 @ 4:09pm
This is just worth repeating, it is the crux of the matter
And, of course, there has been none of the political progress that the surge was supposed to facilitate.
Posted by BRUNOWE 09/12/2007 @ 3:23pm
Posted by crabwalk at 09/12/2007 @ 4:10pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/12/2007 @ 3:39pm
HSUB, what's the difference between a Bush kiss-ass like LVLIB or BARRY...and a Gore kiss-ass like you?
No toleration of criticism of Their Leader-Father (look up the German for that word).
Posted by Mask at 09/12/2007 @ 4:34pm
Posted by MASK 09/12/2007 @ 4:34pm
Frita, I would be offended by that suggestion-- if you weren't such a lovingly prolific straw dildo maker.
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2007 @ 4:42pm
At least Al sets high standards, may not meet all of them, but not like lowly hsuB criminal ones.
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/12/2007 @ 4:48pm
Could this possibly look any more like Israeli psyops propaganda to start a war against Syria & Iran simultaneously?
DO YOU GET IT YET?
Report: Israel spots nuclear installations in Syria
Washington official says Israeli surveillance shows possible Syrian nuclear installation stocked by North Korea, Israeli Arab newspaper claims target of alleged raid last week was Syrian missile base financed by Iran
Ynetnews Latest Update: 09.12.07, 14:21 / Israel News
Israel believes that North Korea has been supplying Syria and Iran with nuclear materials, a Washington defense official told the New York Times. "The Israelis think North Korea is selling to Iran and Syria what little they have left," he said.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3448829,00.html
Posted by plunger at 09/12/2007 @ 4:56pm
Does seeking revenge for 9/11 make us safer?
Posted by woodyee at 09/12/2007 @ 8:11pm
btw - Were the Jena 6 motivated to commit their vile acts by the US presence in Iraq?
Posted by woodyee at 09/12/2007 @ 8:13pm
Won't matter....it's all a distraction. The key word for the last three days has been 'Iran,' not surge. They're ready and they're going in.....been there, done that.
MUST READ: Five Easy Pieces to Iran....a Warning!
CLICK HERE [tvnewslies.org]
Posted by Reg at 09/12/2007 @ 8:51pm
Posted by MASK 09/12/2007 @ 3:23pm | ignore this person
You know, I thought maybe we could have a decent converstation about this but then you throw out some absolutely inane comment like this one...
"Gore is makig his bones on global warming...and not doing a damn thing SUBSTANTIVE (sorry, but 'making movies' and 'speeches' are not substantive) thing to dent his OWN contribution to it."
...which is not just stupid...it is STUNNINGLY STUPID!!! (with all caps and a bunch of exclamation points - hehe.) And I suspect you know this...and just threw it out there for effect...as Hsub says...another straw dildo.
Step back and take a really good objective look (if that's something you are even capable of doing) at what's happening now regarding global warming. Even the Republicans (like Arnold) are on board...with just the 30%'ers holding out until Bush tells them it's OK to change their minds...and even HE is doing so (at the pace his handlers set for him.) Why. To pretend that DOESN'T have anything to do with Al Gore's past 20 years, researching the subject, traveling the world to speak on it, writing books, and making an Acadamy-award winning documentary on the subject (which is really just a movie of the very lecture he's given hundreds of times. We also spend the next several hours citing Gore's congressional testimony, the vast number of organizations and events Gore has created and sponsored,and on and on and on. Every one else gives Al Gore credit for raising the issue to the prominence it now enjoys. Even Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, I-Conn., credited his former running mate, Al Gore, with changing the dynamics of the debate on global warming from 'is it true' to 'what do we do about it'.
I don't mind holding the mans feet to the fire but you want to trash him?...because of 'carbon credits'?...while giving a total pass to ALL of the Republicans who have not only done NOTHING to help solve the problem, but have actively worked AGAINST those who are? I mentioned Fred Thompson (who is the great white Republican hope for the next presidential election) but we could just as easily substitute say James M. Inhofe, R-Okla., Rep. Joe L. Barton, R-Texas, or any of the other 30%'ers.
THEY are the problem and THEY are the ones who deserve the "...shoot the sumbitch" treatment...
...not Gore.
Posted by Lillian at 09/12/2007 @ 9:46pm
HSUB, what's the difference between a Bush kiss-ass like LVLIB or BARRY...and a Gore kiss-ass like you?
Posted by MASK 09/12/2007 @ 4:34pm | ignore this person
HEre's a MUCH better question Mask...
What's the differnce between those Bush ass-kisses hammering Dems like Gore for expressing concern for global warming while giving a complete free-pass to all those Republicans who clearly don't give a damn...
...and YOU hammering Dems like Gore for expressing concern for global warming while giving a complete free-pass to all those Republicans who clearly don't give a damn?
The answer is obvious.
Congratulations...you and Barry and LeaveLiberty...all in complete agreement on this one...make quite a trio.
You must be so proud!
Posted by Lillian at 09/12/2007 @ 9:53pm
Posted by LILLIAN 09/12/2007 @ 9:46pm Posted by LILLIAN 09/12/2007 @ 9:53pm
LILLY, your myopia is legendary...from "quotes" from JOHN MAASCH to what you SEE that I do to Dems but "don't do" to Repubs (check any post on abortion, the war, gay rights, etc.)
While you, I AM SURE, have taken Dems, like Gore, to task ...what?....any?
Gore's "thing" is global warming. Shouldn't he atleast be HONEST about his own lifestyle and the CO2 it produces?
Or do you just care that he does the EASY stuff, like "write a book", "be in a movie", or "testify before Congress"....and the HARD stuff, like ...cut back on his OWN lifestyle, before asking the REST OF US to cut back on OURS doesn't matter.
Elitists need their apologist-followers....from Bush and his RIOs, LVLIBs, BARRYs, and PONTIs.....to Gore and guys like you and HSUB.
Posted by Mask at 09/12/2007 @ 9:59pm
Posted by WOODYEE 09/12/2007 @ 8:11pm
Feel free to offer name suggestions for your platoon of fools, Wood. My money is on the word "fratricide" being in your death certificate.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/12/2007 @ 10:18pm
Posted by LILLIAN 09/12/2007 @ 9:46pm
By the way, LIL, before you start making allies with HSUB...the reason he uses the phrase "straw dildoes" is because he thinks I'm a woman.
Ask him WHY he thinks that.
Posted by Mask at 09/12/2007 @ 10:19pm
On the contrary, there is very considerable doubt. The NYTimes did an piece [nytimes.com] highlighting the different takes on this subject.
From Gen. Jones's commission "Violence has sharply declined in the Sunni-dominated Anbar province -- the former stronghold of the insurgency. But attacks have risen in Diyala, Balad, Basra and Amara. Violence remains endemic in Baghdad, despite MEASURABLE (my emphasis) gains made since February."
From the GAO report "Violence remains high. The average number of daily attacks against civilians remained about the same over the last six months. Overall attacks declined in July compared to June largely due to a decrease in attacks on coalition forces rather than civilians. Enemy initiated attacks have increased around major religious and political events. "
Bear in mind that the arrival of the surge forces coincides with the arrival of the hot summer of Iraq, which has seen attacks drop each of the last few years.
And, of course, there has been none of the political progress that the surge was supposed to facilitate.
Posted by BRUNOWE 09/12/2007 @ 3:23pm
B, there may be considerable doubt amongst those who are susceptible to anecdotal evidence such as an ongoing NYT series which has about 150 residents in Baghdad that it regularly polls on various issues or for those who like their sound bites with pictures we have had various political figures visiting Iraq and coming away with "evidence" that supports their own prejudices and represents polar differences (Baird being an exception). One needs to lay out all that stuff and see what the data is really saying.
On the other hand Petraeus was able to present his material in a more comprehensive and systematic way than others have, obviously because in the very nature of his position he was able to garner substantially more accurate on the ground information than any other investigator. His work is open to challenge but to quote some other "expert" who holds a different opinion does not, in any way negate Petraeus's claims. To date no one has yet done that and instead have attacked his motives and his honesty.
Perhaps the report of O'Hanlon and Pollack, also in the NYT, contained some of the more well researched material, by those not particularly thought to be apologists for the Bush strategy, and its conclusions appear to be adequately backed by their data.
I think if you read more carefully what you posted above you will see that it differs little from the testimony of Petraeus and Crocker. Gen. Jones "Violence remains endemic in Baghdad, despite measurable gains made since February." He has previously mentioned the gains in Anbar and the shifting of violence to others areas but so did Petraeus. So this report is one that essentially is saying much the same as Petraeus.
The GAO report is, as you know, based on earlier data than that of the Petraeus report and must be seen in that context and thus does not negate the promising trends displayed in the Petraeus charts.
My contention is that Petraeus, by his position as field commander,has immediate access to a wider range of data than many, if not all others, who offer "expert" opinion on the war. This coupled with an obviously first rate mind, leaves his less well equipped adversaries to fall back on attacking his motives and character. Thus Clinton's assertion about his credibility is patently naive in terms of his data and his ability to understand its military implications and can only be construed as Clinton claiming that Petraeus was lying.
Not sure about your summer thing, madness is generally thought to be exacerbated by hot weather but who can tell, whatever we certainly will be able to test your theory as we head into the Iraq autumn and winter.
The political process, as Crocker indicated, may be moving along a little better than some imagine because of the things, he claimed, that are occurring at the grass roots level. That's the way I think democracy advances best.
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/12/2007 @ 10:25pm
I found a great job for MAASCH, can't think of a reason he wouldn't want this opportunity:
Location: Iraq, Middle East
Job Type: Contract
Posted: 6th Sep 2007
Closing Date: 4th Oct 2007
Posted By: Topworld
Details: Marketing Country Head
START A TOPWORLD CAREER NOW!
Top World hires:
MARKETING COUNTRY HEAD ( in Iraq)
STATUS: Contractual – Flexible time
GENERAL ROLE: Management and appointment of companies, market research, administration and direct sales activities or conferences.
TERMS: The Marketing Agent will be trained. Commission per signed Travel Partner Contract
ESSENTIAL QUALITIES: - College Graduate with at least three years experience in marketing (COUNTRY HEAD) - With pleasing personality - Good project management skills - Excellent interpersonal skills - Ability to work to tight deadlines - A problem solver - Good presentation skills - Prepared to travel - Optimistic and results-oriented - Experience with travel industry is an advantage but not required
Send resume to:
travel@topworld.com
Posted by crabwalk at 09/12/2007 @ 10:27pm
Posted by LRJONES4 09/12/2007 @ 10:25pm
You don't think Gen P might have bias in his review of his own work?
Quick quiz for our Aussie friend; who renamed our "general accounting office" the government ACCOUNTABILITY office"?
Posted by crabwalk at 09/12/2007 @ 10:48pm
thing to dent his OWN contribution to it.
Posted by MASK 09/12/2007 @ 3:23pm
so why did you bug me for making some easy to do suggestions that don't cost a dime and very little time?
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/12/2007 @ 11:07pm
Not sure about your summer thing, madness is generally thought to be exacerbated by hot weather but who can tell, whatever we certainly will be able to test your theory as we head into the Iraq autumn and winter.
The political process, as Crocker indicated, may be moving along a little better than some imagine because of the things, he claimed, that are occurring at the grass roots level. That's the way I think democracy advances best.
Re the summer, the numbers back my position. Casualties, attacks, etc. have traditionally gone down in the summer. Further, merely looking at Petraeus's parameters shoots down some of his credibility. He only counts the last 12 weeks, thus making it impossible to determine how much of the dip is seasonal or some other rhythm. Further, he deliberately didn't count Shi'ite on Shi'ite violence, such as is endemic in Basra. He also didn't look at the progress of ethnic cleansing in Baghdad.
The grass roots level thing is a pure crock. We have a government that is corrupt and constantly on the verge of dissolution. He's only talking "grass roots" because he can't point to the government actually accomplishing anything.
As Crabwalk mentioned, Petraeus and Crocker are also essentially critiquing their own work.
Posted by brunowe at 09/12/2007 @ 11:16pm
Elitists need their apologist-followers....from Bush and his RIOs, LVLIBs, BARRYs, and PONTIs.....to Gore and guys like you and HSUB.
Posted by MASK 09/12/2007 @ 9:59pm | ignore this person
This is BS...pure and simple.
Anyone who is willing to take an objective look (again, are you EVEN remotely capable?) at the issue of what to do about global warming, will plainly see that the 'problem' ISN'T 'hypocrisy' as you are are attempting to portray.
the problem is apathy mixed with active opposition.
But rather than than take to task those who either 'don't give a rat's ass'...
...or those who 'actively try to work against the effort to do something'...
...YOU have chosen instead to create another of your absolutley moronic 'straw dildos' and take to task those whom you portray as hypocritical because, in your opinion, they 'haven't done enough' by living up to your ideals.
That makes YOU the "elitiist" Mask...
...and firmly aligns you with those who are 'the problem' against those who would are trying to provide and promote 'the solution'.
Once again, congratulations for chosing and promoting the wrong side in this one Mask and aligning yourself with the simian-feces slingers and the wingnut, reality-denying religeous wackos.
Posted by Lillian at 09/12/2007 @ 11:55pm
Posted by LRJONES4 09/12/2007 @ 10:25pm
You don't think Gen P might have bias in his review of his own work?
Quick quiz for our Aussie friend; who renamed our "general accounting office" the government ACCOUNTABILITY office"?
Posted by CRABWALK 09/12/2007 @ 10:48pm
He may and my suggestion has been that that is where the action should be, rather than assume bias, which you may or may not be guilty of. How then, Crabs. would any unbiased investigator like yourself set out to discover if there is in fact any bias?
(Here's a little bit of Aussie wisdom gratis to you. Petraeus is dealing with Iraqi pollies and Iraq military officers on a day to day and more or less constant basis. There is such a thing as an Iraqi idiom and nuance that is vital to understanding what is really meant by any words, statement or event. We all understand those in our own cultural context so we can know, apart from the precise meaning of the words being uttered, whether we are getting the good oil or being taken for a ride. In Iraqi culture this unspoken language is a whole new ball game for a raw Westerner. I'm suggesting Petraeus is more likely, because of that extended contact with all sorts of Iraqis, to know what is fairdinkum and what is not. In the case of Crocker, who is fluent in Arabic, this factor is even more in play, given also his various postings around the ME. That's another very vital reason why they are more likely to have a better handle on the Iraq situation than those who don't have the advantage of that cultural interaction and experience).
Ok Ok Crabs,whats the prize? Even performing monkeys can google but not this one for just 2004 peanuts.
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/12/2007 @ 11:58pm
Ask him WHY he thinks that.
Posted by MASK 09/12/2007 @ 10:19pm | ignore this person
Don't need to ask him...already know that he's derived that label from your penchant for creating 'straw-man' arguments...and the fact that you never seem able to create enough of an arguement to be termed a full 'straw-man'...just create the simplistic part with which you try to 'stroke' yourself.
Hsub, did I nail that, or what?
Posted by Lillian at 09/13/2007 @ 12:00am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/12/2007 @ 11:07pm
I'm not Al gore, FROSTY. I'm not out there "buying off my carbon footprint" by investing in MY OWN company...and then telling everybody else they have to "live like FROSTY ZOOM" and "cut back", while I jet around in my Gulfstream, limo back to the Compound, and then fire up the heated pool.
Solutions for everybody...not draconian for us, and "I'll throw a couple bucks at a 'carbon credit'" for the self-annointed spokespeople.
Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 12:06am
Posted by LILLIAN 09/12/2007 @ 11:55pm |
LILLIAN, Al Gore....TALKS about global warming. That's it. He then puts money and invests it in his own "carbon credits" company and says he is "buying off his carbon footprint"....and 80% (not all, SOME non-Gore cultists in the enviro movement) of people like you buy into his "activism".
You're a sucker, LIL. (Probably not the first time that some liberal pol or pundit has TOLD you one thing, and lived their life another, and because they TOLD you....you overlook what they're DOING!).
You're the LEFT-wing version of poor ACOOK. Her boy getting ready for boot camp and shipping off to Iraq, while NONE (except maybe Duncan Hunter) of the neo-con kids are going. But she'll dutifully defend Bush and his view on the war (as you defend Gore and his "activism") with just as much sheepish obediance.
Why? Because that's your lot in life...follower. Pick a side and then obey the Leader, trust the Leader, ignore the Leader's "minor flaws" or "seeming" hypocrisies, DEFEND the Leader against attacks by the "un-believers". You're textbook.
Gore and all the rich "global warming activists" will convince you to do a million little things (FROSTY has a list if you need it) to inconvenience YOUR life, diminish YOUR lifestyle, and reduce YOUR massive carbon footprint (like that once-a-year airline trip you take or daring to drive with the A/C on in July)...while they take a measly portion of their wealth, buy a "carbon credit", and keep pumping out the CO2 like a coal-fired plant in Pittsburgh.
Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 12:13am
Posted by LILLIAN 09/13/2007 @ 12:00am
No...WILL told him I'm a woman because WILL has a problem with women and HSUB, another dutiful follower, followed WILL's lead....mostly because both young gentlemen have a ....less than flattering view of females and MASK as a woman fits their psycho-history.
I would proudly proclaim it if I was, because I think in general women are smarter than men......Uh, with a few notable and recent exceptions.
Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 12:15am
Bush has no credibility. By announcing that he will set his Iraq strategery based on advice from his Generals, he accomplishes at least four things:
1) Gen Patreaus a credible person who, instead of Bush, makes Bush's case for him - Bush hides behind his uniform.
2) The credible person is wearing a uniform so his credibility cannot be questioned
3) since January when Bush announced the surge until now, the answer to every question about the war was: Wait until we hear from Gen. Patreaus in September - Bush got 9 months of no accountability and
4) Gen Patreaus and Bush will argue for war-funding through the end of Bush's term, Jan '09
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. Someone else can cleanup the mess.
Happy loves Patreaus' answer about whether the war in Iraq makes us safer: "I don't know." It's perfect.
But since we're spending $500 Billion and 4000 American lives and 1/2 million Iraqi lives, and 4 million displaced Iraqis and 1 million exiled...
WOULDN'T IT BE SMART TO DETERMINE WHETHER CONTINUING THE WAR IN IRAQ IS MAKING US SAFER?
The NIE says it isn't. Admiral Fallon, Patreaus' boss has a better plan. Patreaus doesn't know if it makes us safer. Happy and Bush are quite sure it is making us safer. Who do you put your money on?
That was easy.
Posted by NeilSagan at 09/13/2007 @ 12:40am
Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 12:13am
you know mask, when i watched INCON. TRUTH, the wall of stats only confirmed what i had been reading about for years.
and i saw mr nafta in his limo, and jet-liner going around the world, giving shows in air-conditioned theatres.
and then came live-earth or whatever they called it.
and i say well, i'm not waiting for goredot. and i will never wait.
BTW #24 avoid the drive-thru.
:+?
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 12:55am
you're invited too croc. bring some kangaroo steaks and a big crocodile knife...and just assume all the women you meet are really men in drag...
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/12/2007 @ 11:43am
Thank you but that depends on my commanding officer. You may not be aware of the new Aussie, post C.D., femininity test. We don't mind women who shave. It's just a matter of where. No need to get nervous as that is ascertained (initially) by a questionnaire.
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/13/2007 @ 01:05am
LILLY, your myopia is legendary...
Posted by MASK 09/12/2007 @ 9:59pm | ignore this person
Actually Mask, The ONLY person on this board to ever post such an opinion about my 'myopia' is you.
On the other hand, it is your pentiant for lying, and twisting other peoples'words into things they never said (like this lame-ass 'John Maasch 'quotes' thing') that is legendary...shall I cut and paste once again the quotes from at least a dozen people noting this?
Posted by Lillian at 09/13/2007 @ 01:15am
His views on immigration reform
Not taking a stronger stand on the hoax of "manmade global warming"
Not using emergency powers to authorize drilling in ANWR
Not taking a stronger stand with Israel against Hamas and the "Palestinians"
Not pulling out of the UN and telling them to relocate elsewhere
Failing to adequately respond to those who falsely claim we have a health care crisis in this country.
BY LVLIBERTY
lib,
are you trying to keep me up all night?
"Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun:
I saw the tears of the oppressed--
and they have no comforter;
power was on the side of their oppressors--
and they have no comforter."
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 01:36am
Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 12:13am | ignore this person
Once again Mask, you've attacked Al Gore on your perceived hypocrisy, because you've taken the utterly and obviously elitist view that he hasn't done 'enough'. You've measured Al's 'sin' of hypocrisy against those who have either done NOTHING AT ALL or worse, have actively fought against those working to solve the problem...and deemed Al Gore's sin to be the more worthy of your derision.
In reality, even my 13 year old can clearly see that Al Gore isn't the problem...perhpas he can explain it to your in 'dumbed down' language that even you can grasp (well, as long as he doesn't confuse you by using quotes...since you've demonstrated over and over that these..." "...are so clearly beyond your comprehension. )
You can flounder away with this BS all night long but it won't ever change the fact that your argument places you directly on the same side as the 'do nothings', the 'don't give a shits', and the 'doing everything to stop those working for a solution'.
Al Gore is not the problem...no matter how hard you try to paint that picture Mask. Your claim that he has done nothing, is as bogus as your attempt to potray me as some kind of supporter of 'carbon credits'...and then building on that falacious view by trying to paint me as a 'sucker' for being a supporter of something I've never once written in support of. I'm no ignorant sheeple follower like Acook and you know it. You are just trying to paint me as such so you can dismiss my point without actually mounting any kind of valid arguement against it (and one can only assume that's because...you can't.)
For the record, my pointing out your inane BS, just stands as clear evidence that I'm smart enough not to buy into your inane BS...and brave enough to call you on it.
(Probably just that whole "women are smarter than men" thing you were talking about.)
hehe
Posted by Lillian at 09/13/2007 @ 01:44am
Back on topic, I find the entire notion that Gen. P. has never considered whether his mission is making America safer or not, to be ludicrous. the man didn't become a general through a lack of intelligence...he has to possess some degree of smarts. It is simply impossible that he has 'never considered' the questions. He most certainly has.
I can however buy into the notion that the same intelligence level has pushed him to understand that a yes or no answer would buy him a world of trouble.
The big problem I have with this is that, instead of being honest and saying that his opinion is irrelevant to his mission, or that venturing his opinion would be inappropriate (both answers worthy of respect and acceptance) he chose to present a rather dishonest answer and pretend that he's never even considered the question.
For me,this takes another chip out of whatever might have remained of his credibility.
Posted by Lillian at 09/13/2007 @ 01:56am
Our greatest fears were not realized as he did uphold life (stemcell vetoes), put conservative justices on the Supreme Court, lower taxes, and show strength in the war on terror.LUVVY
How many fetuses were saved with his stem cll research ban? None. Zero, zip.
His conservative justices lied to the Senate about their views of stari decisis (?). They have overturned several precedents.
What strength on the GWOT? terrorism is up, way up, since he "showed strength". what he should have done is "show smart". But you cons respond to muscle, not thought.
Taxes are down, deficits are not. You are borrowing from your children and their children. All for a war that has produced nought but chaos.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/13/2007 @ 08:01am
Not taking a stronger stand on the hoax of "manmade global warming"
Hoax eh? I would love to read your take on how thousands of scientists got together and came up with this "hoax", and why? Because they hate Bush?
Not using emergency powers to authorize drilling in ANWR
Why? So we could produce 2% of our oil needs, but sell it to Japan? Wouldn't a good "conservative " want to "conserve" that oil for later?
Not taking a stronger stand with Israel against Hamas and the "Palestinians"
His support of an illegal attack on Lebanon wasn't enough for you? Even the Israelis know that was poorly done, now. Would you have us, your kids, pay for more walls, more bulldozing of Palestinian ancestral land, more refugee camps for them to live in for decades so it can breed more terrorists?
Hamas won a fair election, a democratic election in the ME. That was what ya'll wanted, right? Now you weep croc tears because you pushed the Arabs rightward? YOUR policies are what is causing the ME to move in YOUR direction, right with a religious violent bent.
Trying to get along with Democrats who have no intention of getting along with Republicans
aww, the preacher is incapable of turning the other cheek!! I guess you missed the 6 years of not telling the dems what rom meetings would be in, what agendas would be discussed and basically telling them to "go to Hell, we don't need you, we got a mandate from God herself".
Delusional.
Maybe your time would be better spent tracking down a new saddle for your flying colored horsey. Doomsday is just around the corner, right past Iraqi democracy.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/13/2007 @ 08:11am
are you trying to keep me up all night?
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/13/2007 @ 01:36am
Yes
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/13/2007 @ 04:42am
LOL
peace, brother
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 08:16am
How then, Crabs. would any unbiased investigator like yourself set out to discover if there is in fact any bias?Last year the EPA, in an internal report by its Inspector General Nikki Tinsley, said the White House pressured the agency to make premature statements that the air was safe to breathe.
The EPA issued an air quality statement Sept. 18, 2001, even though it "did not have sufficient data and analyses to make the statement," the EPA report said, adding that the White House "convinced the EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones." Among the information withheld was the potential health hazards of breathing asbestos, lead, concrete, and pulverized glass
******
A UC Davis scientist who led the air monitoring of the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center said dangerous levels of pollutants were swirling about the site at the same time the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency assured the public that the air was safe to breathe.
Thomas Cahill, a professor emeritus of physics and atmospheric science, headed the scientific team that studied the aerosols from the fuming site in lower Manhattan during the weeks right after Sept. 11, 2001.
In an interview Tuesday, Cahill called the conditions for people working at ground zero without respirators "brutal" and said conditions were only slightly better for those working or living in adjacent buildings.
"The site was hot for months. The metals burned into fine particles. They rose in a plume and moved over people's heads on most days. There were at least eight days when the plume was pushed down into the city. Then people tasted it, smelled it and saw it. But people who worked in the pile were getting it every day. The workers are the ones that I worry about most," Cahill told The Chronicle.
Cahill's data found that the pollution included very fine metals, which interfere with lung chemistry; sulfuric acid, which attacks lung cells; carcinogenic organic matter; and very fine insoluble particles such as glass, which travel through the lungs and into the bloodstream and heart.
He is expected to present his latest findings at a national meeting of the American Chemical Society in New York today.
Cahill's comments echo a report issued in August by the EPA inspector general, an internal watchdog on the agency. The inspector general concluded that under White House influence, the EPA issued misleading assurances that there was no health risk from air pollution after the attack.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/13/2007 @ 08:22am
Woops, HTML foul, this should have gone before the pastes:
How then, Crabs. would any unbiased investigator like yourself set out to discover if there is in fact any bias?LRJONES
Well, LeeRoy. I would look at who is putting out the report. The GAO has no dog in the fight. ChimpCo has a long and storied history of story telling, and yes, out right LYING to it's employers. I don't believe anything they tell me. That is the bed THEY made and it is a sad state of affairs. They have changed reports from internal agencies many times, based on political expediency, not facts. Based on theories, not facts. If you choose to ignore this history, I cannot help you.
www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate. html?ex=1275883200&en=22149dc70c0731d8&ei=5090
govexec.com/dailyfed/0107/013007m1.htm - 31k
Posted by crabwalk at 09/13/2007 @ 08:24am
Not only do I take into account the myriad reports of report changing, I also look at the number of ChimpCO stooges that have been proven to be liars, in court.
Maybe down under you let kids score their own tests, but I always found that to be bad policy.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/13/2007 @ 08:27am
There is nothing in the Fourth Geneva Convention that requires countries to stay in the middle of a multi-sided civil war. Further, the provisions referred to are in the section dealing with occupied territories. Given that the current Iraqi government, impotent as it is, has been recognized and the CPA has expired, Iraq can hardly be considered an occupied territory and thus the provisions don't apply.
Posted by BRUNOWE 09/12/2007 @ 3:37pm
B, I take it you are referring to this: ..."wilfully ignoring the fact that coalition forces remain in Iraq because of their obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) to ensure the security of Iraqis until the Iraqi Government is capable of taking over. This has been mandated by a succession of unanimously passed Security Council resolutions, most recently resolution 1723 of November last year."
Let me show you how this is correctly developed. The logical thread starts with this section of the 1949 Convention, which is about the responsibilities of occupying forces:
A. Fourth Geneva Convention (1949)
Part 3 Sec (1)
Art. 27. " Protected persons ………… (They) shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity."
I take it you have no objection to the claim that the above responsibilities fell upon the Coalition Forces after the Iraq Government was overthrown and the occupying force became the de facto government.
The next link is found in the following UN document SC/8117 dated 08/06/2004, which consists of seventeen A4 pages if you want to print it out to read at your leisure. It is the UNSC ratification of the transition from an occupation by the Coalition Force to a "security partnership" between the sovereign Iraqi government and the renamed "multinational force". Some relevant parts are listed below.
B. SECURITY COUNCIL ENDORSES FORMATION OF SOVEREIGN INTERIM GOVERNMENT IN IRAQ
WELCOMES END OF OCCUPATION BY 30 JUNE, DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS BY JANUARY 2005
Resolution 1546 (2004) Adopted Unanimously
The Security Council this evening coalesced around a comprehensive resolution on Iraq, which endorsed the formation of the interim government and the holding of democratic elections by January 2005, welcomed the end of occupation by 30 June, and determined the status of the multinational force and its relationship with the Iraqi Government, as well as the role of the United Nations in the political transition.
Among the several provisions concerning the multinational force, the Council decided that the force should have the authority to "take all necessary measures" to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in accordance with the letters annexed to the resolution. (Those letters, dated 5 June, are from the Prime Minister of the Interim Government Ayad Allawi and United States Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to the Council President).
The Council welcomed the letters stating, among other things, that arrangements were being put in place to establish a "security partnership" between the sovereign Iraqi Government and the multinational force and to ensure coordination between the two. It also noted that the Government had authority to commit Iraqi security forces to the multinational force to engage in operations with it, and that the security structures described in the letters would serve as the forums for the Government and the multinational force to reach agreement on the full range of security and policy issues.
The Council also decided that the mandate for the multinational force should be reviewed at the request of the Iraqi Government or 12 months from the date of today's resolution, and that the mandate should expire upon completion of the political process. It would terminate the mandate earlier if requested by the Government of Iraq.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8117.doc.htm
C. Security Council Document SC/8850 dated 8/11/2005 in which the mandate of the Iraq multinational force is extended. (Eight A4 pp).
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sc8550.doc.htm
D. Security Council document SC/8879 in which the mandate of the multinational force in Iraq is extended to 31 December 2007. (Six A4 pp).
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8879.doc.htm
Thus your claim, while perhaps technically correct, ignores the agreement between the Iraqi government and the multinational force, framed in the UN Security Council, to provide security for the Iraqi people and implemented according to the (still in force) UNSC mandate.
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/13/2007 @ 08:27am
LEEROYJONES, look for bias....
Bush: "By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt."
In what the BBC calls "highly unusual," a State of the Union Speech was interrupted by a chorus of "No's," booing, and heckles from some of the members of Congress in attendance. This happened immediately after the above Bush lie. As Shields mentioned on the PBS wrap-up, and as Brooks concurred, if adjustments are not made, by 2042, as they have been made before, 3/4 of the funds promised would still be available. The entire system would neither be exhausted nor bankrupt. -- Politex, 02.03.05
"[Castro] welcomes sex tourism," Bush told a room of law enforcement officials in Florida,
***
"You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."
*****
"I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons." ?Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, at a hearing of the Senate's appropriations subcommittee on defense, May 14, 2003
"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." ?Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
*****
"President Bush proclaimed that a report by leading economists concluded that the economy would grow by 3.3 percent in 2003 if his tax cut proposals were adopted. No such report exists." Gordan Livingston, 06.03.03
****
On April 26, President Bush said in his weekly radio address, "My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax."
That turned out not to be true. According to the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, an unspecified number of low- and middle-income families received no tax cut at all because they'd been excluded from an expansion of the child-care tax. --Timothy Noah, 06.03.03
****
Blix again denied an allegation by Secretary of State Colin Powell that inspectors knew of cases in which Iraq had moved banned items around before inspectors arrived on the scene. "I am sure that Colin Powell speaks on the basis of notes given to him, but this is not correct. Our inspectors have not seen that the Iraqis were moving anything away from the sites that we are visiting," he said. --Reuters.
*****
One example of misinformation, according to physicist and former weapons inspector David Albright, was the Bush administration?s leak to the media in September about Iraq?s attempt to import aluminum tubes which administration officials claimed were headed for Iraq?s nuclear program.
?I think it was very misleading,? says Albright, who directs the Institute for Science and International Security. Albright says the tubes could be possibly used for a nuclear program, but were more suited to conventional weapons production. Government experts thought that too, Albright tells Simon, but administration officials ?were selectively picking information to bolster a case that the Iraqi nuclear threat was more imminent than it is, and, in essence, scare people." --60 Minutes, 12.06.02
Posted by crabwalk at 09/13/2007 @ 08:40am
Art. 27. " Protected persons ………… (They) shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity."
Another failure of ChimpCo to live up to it's obligations. Haiji girl.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/13/2007 @ 08:44am
Well, LeeRoy. I would look at who is putting out the report. The GAO has no dog in the fight. ChimpCo has a long and storied history of story telling, and yes, out right LYING to it's employers. I don't believe anything they tell me. That is the bed THEY made and it is a sad state of affairs. They have changed reports from internal agencies many times, based on political expediency, not facts. Based on theories, not facts. If you choose to ignore this history, I cannot help you.
Posted by CRABWALK 09/13/2007 @ 08:24am
Oh dear what to do with you? Go to the bottom of the class young Crabs as you obviously are not informed enough or competent enough to judge a report on its merits. However I love your lazy, red neck, anti-intellectual approach, it's so Aussie but how about leaving the arty farty jokes to me?
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/13/2007 @ 08:49am
crabwalker,
i can't believe it's true, he actually said that nonsense. cuba was america's bordello until castro, el che (pbuh), and friends kicked out the american backed despot, Rubén Fulgencio Batista y Zaldívar.
from qwiki: "Batista opened the way for large-scale gambling in Havana. He announced that his government would match, dollar for dollar, any hotel investment over $1 million, which would include a casino license. Havana became the "Latin Las Vegas," a playground of choice for many gamblers. Opposition was swiftly and violently crushed, and many began to fear the new government.
In 1956, in midst of the revolutionary upheaval, the 21-story, 383-room Hotel Riviera was built in Havana at a cost of $14 million. It was known as mobster Meyer Lansky's dream and crowning achievement. The hotel opened on December 10, with a floor show headlined by Ginger Rogers. Lansky's official title was "kitchen director," but he controlled every aspect of the hotel. He complained that Rogers 'can wiggle her ass, but she can't sing a goddamn note!'"
Castro denies sex tourism allegations Tuesday, July 27, 2004 at 16:22 EST SANTA CLARA, Cuba -- Fidel Castro rejected charges by President Bush that he promotes sex tourism in Cuba, then went on the offensive to dredge up old reports about his American nemesis' alleged past drinking habits.
Castro vigorously denied Bush's recent allegations, saying that what the White House believes is "that which the president makes up in his head, whether it corresponds to reality or not."
"There are many in the world who know very little about the Cuban revolution, and could fall prey to the lies diffused by the United States," the Cuban president said Monday night at the island's annual Revolution Day celebration in the central city of Santa Clara. During a speech in Tampa, Fla., earlier this month, Bush accused Castro of turning Cuba into a major destination for sex tourism, which is "a vital source of hard currency to keep his corrupt government afloat." "The regime in Havana, already one of the worst violators of human rights in the world, is adding to its crimes. Castro welcomes sex tourism," Bush said at the July 16 conference on "human trafficking" - forced labor, sex and military service. Although prostitution exists in Cuba, it is unorganized and has been far less visible since Castro launched a massive crackdown on street crime in early 1999.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 09:16am
Crabs didn't realise you got up so early; only read your last post to which I previously responded. I like your flood of information style but none of these statements are preceded by data or analysis. It's quite possible, in some cases that Bush may not have stapled his notes together in sequential order or he may have had the wrong speech or the wrong venue. Is that not possible?
What I really had in mind for reports like that of Petraeus or any other serious report source was to check the data for accuracy by trying to get independent confirmation from as many different sources as possible. If that stuff seems OK then check out if the conclusions are valid in terms of the data and of the reasoning. I think Petraeus has adequate favourable data to back up his conclusions but let's see what others who are willing to play by these rules come up with. I suppose "solo" thinking can sometimes be dangerous but it can also be liberating and empowering.
Otherwise what we have is one side (in a sort of team sport mentality) rejecting the other's sources and visa versa on the Joe McCarthy principle, which of course in many cases condemns those who play by those rules to the bondage of carelessly imbibed ignorance.
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/13/2007 @ 09:44am
I'm no ignorant sheeple follower like Acook and you know it.----Posted by LILLIAN 09/13/2007 @ 01:44am
Really? Never know it. You have for several posts now offered apologia for Gore and his "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" global warming hypocrisy.
An honest progressive (our Canadian friend FROSTY-Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/13/2007 @ 12:55am) can note that Gore is a hypocrite....but a willing thrall such as yourself who bodes NO attacks or criticisms of their mythic heroes cannot.
If I point out that Gore was "pro-life" before he ran for President in 1988 (and offer quotes, real honest quotes, not "a combination of many posts over the year or so I've been around here") from Gore proudly proclaiming his view that "abortion is wrong"....you'd say "He grew, he evolved".
If I point out Gore debating Perot IN FAVOR OF NAFTA...and proudly proclaiming his support of it....you'd say "But he promised he'd fix it, if he got elected!"
So now I point out that Gore talks a good game on GW, but uses phoney tricks to keep him and Tipper in the lap of CO2-producing luxury by INVESTING IN HIS OWN COMPANY....and you excuse that or more dishonestly, want to ignore it.
You would NEVER accept similar hypocrisies from Republicans. Mitt Romney's kid doesn't join the Army, but claims he's doing something similarly patriotic by "working on his Dad's campaign"....you buy that?
Larry Craig votes against gay rights...and hits on dudes in the bathroom.....you buy that? Or Vitter, attacking Clinton for Lewinsky, while banging Louisiana hookers?
But if it's Gore or any liberal "hero"...you say "So what? Look at what they're SAYING, not what they're DOING!"
Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 09:49am
Thus your claim, while perhaps technically correct, ignores the agreement between the Iraqi government and the multinational force, framed in the UN Security Council, to provide security for the Iraqi people and implemented according to the (still in force) UNSC mandate.
Except that its a government in name only, not really having much of a writ beyond the Green Zone. In fact, the NYTimes has reported [tinyurl.com] that the oil law compromise that had been in the works has collapsed.
I don't doubt that the force there has a valid UNSecurity Council mandate, but that hardly constitutes an obligation to remain there. The relative inability of US forces to do more than slightly tamp down the civil war(s) in progress there (in terms of either military or political advances) would suggest that any reason for doing so has lapsed.
And what the hell happened in the Twenty20 against Zimbabwe?!?
Posted by brunowe at 09/13/2007 @ 10:21am
It's quite possible, in some cases that Bush may not have stapled his notes together in sequential order or he may have had the wrong speech or the wrong venue. Is that not possible?
by LRJONES
maybe it's his neurons that aren't "stapled" together
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 10:43am
Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 09:49am | ignore this person
Wow Mask...look at that. You proclaimed that Gore is my liberal hero and posted1/2 dozen things that 'I'd day' in response to criticism of him...without ever ONCE asking he what I think of Gore. Just happily putting words in my mouth to try to support your false image of me.
You did the same thing when I pointed out your regurgitation of wing-nut taliking points about Jim Webb...and you claimed that must mean I'm against the second ammendment.
You did the same thing when I pointed out your regurgitaion of wing-nut pablum regarding Hugo Chavez...and claimed I was some kind of Chavez supported (and even tried to paint me as a Castro appologist.)
You did the same thing when I pointed out your regurgitation of wing-nut BS regarding Ted Kennedy...and tried to pretend I was the next Mary Jo Kopechne.
Now you are doing it when I called you BS on Gore and global warming...pretending like I've simply swallowed whole everything he's ever said and done because I somehow idolize him...so you can dismiss me as some brain-dead sheeple who's never done a whit of research on her own. (While completely ignoring the pages of research posts I've placed here on global warming in duels with LR and LeaveLiberty, vitrually none of which quoted Gore.)
Mask, I know your inability to understand logic, and penchant for creating logical phallacies is legendary...
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/illisubs.html
...but here's a revelation for you hun...calling you on your BS in now way allows you to draw conclusions about what I do or don't support politically.
And you're attempt to do so is pathetic, Mask...
...but perfectly in character for you!
hehe!
Posted by Lillian at 09/13/2007 @ 10:44am
I think Petraeus has adequate favourable data to back up his conclusions
by LRJONES
"know" is way better than "think"
better read the people who "know" to better find out what to "think"
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 10:45am
And what the hell happened in the Twenty20 against Zimbabwe?!?
Posted by BRUNOWE 09/13/2007 @ 10:21am
please explain
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 10:47am
"Spinning" thread: Unless you support a tax hike to pay for the war, which means while you may be a defense conservative and social conservative...you're no fiscal conservative. You're a fiscal LIBERAL.
Posted by MASK 09/12/2007 @ 11:10pm
You've a tendency to assume peoples' views overly widely in your MASKiness! Had a tax hike been proposed specifically to fight the wars, Iraq and/or GWOT, I would have supported it! Just as I did for John Anderson when he proposed a $0.50/gal gas tax to reduce gas consumption and promote energy savings.
While I'm sanguine on national account deficits (foreign), there are unHAPPY financial consequences in higher interest rates that do affect the domestic economy.....further, I never argued that it wouldn't be better to have low or no foreign account deficit....big difference vs. what you try to paint me as!
Now, if your dear HRC wants a health care program & spells out exactly how she will tax to support it, I may even agree and support. I had already stated that, unlike the moonbats, I am sure there will be programs that the Dems propose that I can, or could be persuaded, to support. I'm a Realist, I have to be to make a living on investing, and a social moderate....but a fiscal LIBERAL.....slanderous!!!
Your understanding of finance is limited...just as my knowledge in entertainment "speaks" (sleektak, Tom Servo, what have you!)....and you haven't the faintest idea of what's going on w/global capital flows...If what I know--and use it well to good $$ effects--is limited, what you know ain't worth a pile of doo-doo!
Posted by Happy at 09/13/2007 @ 11:13am
Just as I did for John Anderson when he proposed a $0.50/gal gas tax to reduce gas consumption and promote energy savings.
by HAPPY
keep talking like that and will reserve you a seat in frostyland
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 11:27am
And what the hell happened in the Twenty20 against Zimbabwe?!?
Posted by BRUNOWE 09/13/2007 @ 10:21am
please explain
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/13/2007 @ 10:47am | ignore this person
Australia lost a cricket match to a team it had no business losing to.
Posted by brunowe at 09/13/2007 @ 11:32am
...a seat in frostyland
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/13/2007 @ 11:27am
You know, supposedly soon, Congress is to weigh either a direct carbon tax (on gas, etc.) or enact a complex cap-and-trade systems among industries. Yesterday's WSJ had a long article on it!
A direct tax (a la Anderson's platform proposal) at the point of purchase is the most efficient way to cause changes in consuming behavior but my guts tell me our Congress will, once again, choose the corruption-prone, campaign-contribution-impacted, far bureaucratic and less effective route.
I would support a so-called carbon tax....not due to any great concern for GW but simply to reduce consumption and induce more wise use of resources w/side benefits of lower trade deficits and reliance on the ME!
Bet you didn't know I started college as an industrial engineering major and switched to civil! Efficiency should be taught from birth! Efficient people are never the poor people....
Posted by Happy at 09/13/2007 @ 12:18pm
Posted by LILLIAN 09/13/2007 @ 10:44am
I'm sorry, LILLIAN....please post a few of your "fair and balanced" "thoughtful analysis" CRITICISMS of Al Gore....I must have missed them.
After all, if you were only positive about Gore...or Chavez....a mistaken impression that you were a sychophant might be created.
Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 12:21pm
Efficiency should be taught from birth! Efficient people are never the poor people....
Posted by HAPPY 09/13/2007 @ 12:18pm
in many ways efficiency is a dangerous thing. it goes against nature. nature is full of redundancies that protect ecosystems in the case of "plan a" not working. (ex. if bee species A dies off, bee species B steps in and does the "work"; turtles lay hundreds of eggs)
if there had been 500,000 troops in post-war iraq instead of the "efficient" force donald ducksfeld sent.
obviously i want a car that uses fuel very efficiently.
but efficiency isn't always THE answer.
oh BTW, ask a poor person if they use their food allotment "efficiently"
FZ
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 12:29pm
efficiency isn't always THE answer.
oh BTW, ask a poor person if they use their food allotment "efficiently"
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/13/2007 @ 12:29pm
I didn't expect that response since I'm talking specifically about fossile fuel use...oh, well...I'm about to go waste a gallon of gas to get a $5 lunch, so I guess in this recurring daily instances, you're right!
Does selling food stamps for discounted cash to buy alcohol and tobacco count as "efficient"....to the stamp recipients, sure!
Posted by Happy at 09/13/2007 @ 12:39pm
Don't need to ask him...already know that he's derived that label from your penchant for creating 'straw-man' arguments...and the fact that you never seem able to create enough of an arguement to be termed a full 'straw-man'...just create the simplistic part with which you try to 'stroke' yourself.
Hsub, did I nail that, or what?
Posted by LILLIAN 09/13/2007 @ 12:00am
No...WILL told him I'm a woman because WILL has a problem with women and HSUB, another dutiful follower, followed WILL's lead....mostly because both young gentlemen have a ....less than flattering view of females and MASK as a woman fits their psycho-history.
Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 12:15am
Lillian is of course a lot closer to truth than Frita. However, Frita does cite Will's straw woman recreation of her, which caused Frita to "protest too much"-- which compelled me to think Frita was indeed a woman as she was simultaneously mentioning that Frito would be staying as AG and that there would never be impeachment as "it was off the table". Then Pelosi said she'd back the call for impeachment if hsuB didn't fire Frito... Thus all signs pointed to Frita being a woman and she enjoyed creating straw dildos. Like Lillian says, Frita just isn't quite good enough to create a whole straw man, has a real problem with following the whole truth thus the need for her to make straw dildos. It's a private thing I think. In any case Frita is true that her being a woman does enhance her chances of not being totally dismissed per her own straw moniker is a simple truth of our social indoctrination and her attempt to at least 'look good', if she indeed can't be good.
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/13/2007 @ 1:54pm
In any case Frita is true that her being a woman does enhance her chances of not being totally dismissed per her own straw moniker is a simple truth of our social indoctrination and her attempt to at least 'look good', if she indeed can't be good.-----Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/13/2007 @ 1:54pm
See, LILLIAN. I'm a woman because it enchances my chances of not being easily dismissed.
Wait a second...huh?!?!? Then why do I "claim" to be a man and not accept the WILL/HSUB determination that I'm female...since it would improve my chances of not being easily dismissed?!?!?!?
And once you translate that bit of nonsense (and obvious rationalization at being caught being anti-female)....maybe HSUB can explain to you how we're going to impeach Cheney and/or Bush in....
48 days!
Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 2:32pm
Oh dear what to do with you? Go to the bottom of the class young Crabs as you obviously are not informed enough or competent enough to judge a report on its merits. However I love your lazy, red neck, anti-intellectual approach, it's so Aussie but how about leaving the arty farty jokes to me?
Posted by LRJONES4 09/13/2007 @ 08:49am
Judging a report on it's merits is tough when the person writing the report is reporting on his own plans and actions. I guess I could approach the whole situation in a vacuum, like you, where no other information is available. Or, like you, I could take snapshots in time and attempt to apply those finite clues to the whole scheme. I would call that lazy and ant-intellectual. But, that's me.
I would also judge based on past history of truthfulness and ability to asses situations accurately. Using those criteria I am left with only disdain for ChimpCo. I guess you have lower standards, being all intellectual and all.
Plus I have to point out how damn hilarious it is to be called "anti-intellectual" by the crowd who hates intellectuals , those that think scientists are out to get their portfolios rather than get people to pay attention to the current prevailing scientific, "intellectual" theories. thse that condemn "ivory tower" thinking and all things related to the"liberal" education system.
Today I heard that General abizaid thinks it will take another 5-6 YEARS for the Iraqi guvt to get it's feet and be able to actually govern outside of the Green Zone. that is with troop levels similar to what we had a year ago. that puts us at about 10 years to get Iraq back to where it was under Saddam, with untold numbers of dead Iraqis.
Great Plan.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/13/2007 @ 3:21pm
Quick quiz for our Aussie friend; who renamed our "general accounting office" the government ACCOUNTABILITY office"?
Posted by CRABWALK 09/12/2007 @ 10:48pm
Can't figure that one out, eh?
Well, it was none other than Chimpy McFlightsuit himself, who claimed he would bring back accountability to the White House. Now he chooses to ignore his very own Accountability office time and time again.
flip flop, stick your hands over your ears and chant "Chimp is great, feeds us chocolate cake!"
Posted by crabwalk at 09/13/2007 @ 3:24pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/13/2007 @ 09:16am
You are correct, but I give Fidel about as much credence as I do ChimpCO.
that is the America chimpy has built. Gulags in Cuba, lies on the TV, election counting machines built by contributors to one party, "free speech zones" and borrowing from communists.
Cuba lite.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/13/2007 @ 3:26pm
After all, if you were only positive about Gore...or Chavez....a mistaken impression that you were a sychophant might be created.
Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 12:21pm | ignore this person
What 'positive' comments have I made in support of Chavez? Unless you are trying to twist my pointing out how stupid your regurgitation of wing-nut talking points on him into being somehow a 'positive' comment (a notion that would make you look even more brainless than you already appear), then the only honest answer you can supply is that I have NEVER made any such comments about Chavez. But then again, we've all seen you fleeting relationship with honesty, haven't we.
In reality, the only one jumping to your fallacious conclusion is you Mask. Why is that?
And, interestingly enough, we can now add Happy to the long and ever-growing list of posters here who have noticed your penchant for jumping to fallacious conclusion about other peoples' views.
You've a tendency to assume peoples' views overly widely in your MASKiness!
Posted by HAPPY 09/13/2007 @ 11:13am | ignore this person
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Poor Mask. The concept of logical conclusions, like the concept of 'quotes'...is just too difficult for his feeble mind to grasp!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Posted by Lillian at 09/13/2007 @ 3:35pm
Posted by LILLIAN 09/13/2007 @ 3:35pm
Well, good for you, LILLIAN....you're in the same group as HAPPY!
Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 3:45pm
that you were a sychophant might be created.
that's sycophant
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/13/2007 @ 3:53pm
Leeroy, I look at what GP said, which boiled down to :
He does not know if the Iraq war is making the US safer.
IF things go good, MAYBE troop levels will go down to where they were a year ago.
Things are better in Anbar.
---Anbar is largely Sunni, the violence there has been Sunni on Sunni. So he has managed, at a cost of millions, to bring similar groups together to fight. This has done NOTHING to bring Shia/Sunni violence down, nor do I think it will. Not because I don't want it to, but because I see nothing to convince me it will work. You WANT it to work, so you will grasp ANY straw that comes your way. 3-4 years ago I read all the lists of progress put out by war supporters, listing all of the progress being missed by the liberal media. These same war supporters were telling me, 3-4 YEARS AGO, how wrong I was, how ignorant I was and how soon Iraq would come around. 3-4 years later they (you) are telling me that I am ignorant and confused about the progress being made in Iraq. Excuse me if I don't buy it.
Today a leading Sunni sheik was blown up. I condemn it with my whole being. But that means nothing. The reality is that losing this sheik will slow the process and convince other leaders to not get within a hundred miles of shaking Chimpies hand.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/13/2007 @ 4:37pm
LILLIAN- 4
MASK- 0
Posted by crabwalk at 09/13/2007 @ 4:39pm
So, LR, are you going to join the Chair Bourne Finger Fighting Squadron, or are you going to go to Iraq and help them build new chemical plants? After all, it's really not that bad over there.
Posted by crabwalk at 09/13/2007 @ 4:42pm
Posted by CRABWALK 09/13/2007 @ 3:26pm
like i always say, "good and bad everywhere"
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 5:53pm
Wait a second...huh?!?!? Then why do I "claim" to be a man and not accept the WILL/HSUB determination that I'm female...since it would improve my chances of not being easily dismissed?!?!?!?
Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 2:32pm
Oh, Frita, it's because you usually ignore major facts that don't support your weak argument and enjoy making straw dildos-- could it be that it's simply your 'straw dildo' envy?
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/13/2007 @ 6:33pm
http://tinyurl.com/2lpyve
Posted by hsuBfools at 09/13/2007 @ 6:34pm
http://tinyurl.com/2lpyve
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/13/2007 @ 6:34pm |
i bet DHS would love to hear about that when they ask "what is the purpose of your visit?"
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 6:41pm
Posted by CRABWALK 09/13/2007 @ 3:24pm
Crabs I did think of making it a little harder for you by using say "two thousand and four peanuts" but thought I would give you a hint with "2004 peanuts". Now I wonder who was president in twenty hundred and two squared? If you look at the GAO and the Gen Jones report these are in some respects supportive of the Petraeus presentation though some of the conclusions are not. So I don't think you will get much mileage out of looking for a negation of his report from those sources. Not sure whether it was you or B who suggested there was no "peer review" but all the stuff is now out in the open so there will be plenty of opportunity for that but eventually his prognosis will be there for all to see in the next twelve months or so. History eventually is a more unbiased reviewer than any peer.
I was not really impressed with the seriousness of your Bush lies, as those seem to be par for the course for most politicians including ours and yours but his have a certain uniqueness or individuality about them. If he were an artist, it would be nothing more serious than poetic licence. A few days ago Bushie rechristened our soldiers, he'd seen somewhere or other, "Austrians", which I thought was quite charming and only a churl would call that a Bush lie. That's the trouble with subjectivity. One man's meat is another's poison.
I don't disagree that some of your evidence may point to a bit of skulduggery such as the TT pollution report but even there you have not told us why the Whitehouse leaned on the EPA. There may have been valid reasons for that suppression if indeed that's what did occur and we may not have resort to calling them a pack of lying bastards. There are just too many conspiracy theorists to take much at face value these days. So if one is interested in something like the aluminium tubes "lies" you mention, as I was, I looked at the relevant NIE only to discover that there was substantial support (as well as doubts expressed by one intelligence agency) in the NIE October 2002 for Colin Powell's claim about them and to exonerate him from the charge of lies and deceit. It was simply a case of radically flawed intelligence. My suggestion here in the past, has been that the claim Bush and others lied in that context is in itself very likely to be a lie or at least a subjective opinion that flies in the face of the evidence laid out in that Intelligence report.
The Petraeus report can and should be treated on its merits. The problem with pre-war intelligence was that it was flying blind because of massively outdated and probably assumed intelligence. The 2004 Senate Committee slated that as the reason for its radical flaws. In Petraeus's case knowledge is not the problem because the US intelligence this time around is first-hand and extensive.
Politicians, ideologues, scientists and others spin, embellish, indulge in hyperbole and are often factually wrong. There are however methods, which may help even those of us who have our own biases, that enable us to evaluate the truth and validity of claims, provided there is a free exchange of the verifiable data and the methodology.
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/14/2007 @ 09:44am