Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe battle for Barack Obama's mind on the issue of getting out of Iraq unfolded in public yesterday, as two members of his Iraq advisory task force presented conflicting versions of what to do about the Bush Administration's nation-wrecking program in that country.
The scene was the second annual meeting of the Center for a New American Security, a center-right Democratic think tank whose luminaries include Madeleine Albright and William Perry, secretaries of state and defense under Bill Clinton, and a host of other foreign policy wonks.
The two speakers were Colin Kahl, who chairs the task force and who works at CNAS, and Brian Katulis, a member of Obama's task force and a thinker-in-residence at the Center for American Progress. Neither Kahl nor Katulis was speaking for Obama, but the stark conflict in their views says something important about the differing opinions Obama may be getting from inside his team.
Kahl is one of the authors of CNAS' new report, "Shaping the Iraq Inheritance," which proposes a policy called "conditional engagement" for Iraq that would leave a large contingent of American forces in Iraq for several years, and which would make America's presence in Iraq contingent on political progress in Iraq toward reconciliation among the country's ethnic and sectarian groups and parties. Katulis is an author of CAP's Iraq plan, "Strategic Reset," and other studies that propose to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq, except for a small force to protect the American embassy. Katulis' CAP plan also suggests a halt in the U.S. training of Iraqi government forces, while Kahl and CNAS want to continue to train the Iraqi security forces long after U.S. combat forces are withdrawn.
Appearing together on a panel at CNAS yesterday, Kahl and Katulis presented a stark contrast.
Kahl criticized Katulis' plan, implicitly, by putting it in a category he calls "unconditional disengagement." In his paper, Kahl describes that as a "pledge to unconditionally disengage from Iraq by withdrawing all troops on a fixed, unilateral timetable." His plan, "conditional engagement," would "negotiate a time horizon for U.S. redeployment as a means of pushing Iraqi leaders toward accommodation and galvanizing regional efforts to stabilize Iraq." In its reports, CNAS has proposed leaving several tens of thousands of American forces in Iraq. In yesterday's presentation, Kahl showed a slide that defines the U.S. military mission in Iraq, after combat forces are withdrawn, to include "counter-terrorism, force protection, train, advise and provide critical enablers for the [Iraqi security forces]." The withdrawal of these forces is "to be determined, based on conditions."
Katulis, responding to Kahl, said that what CNAS is proposing "sounds very close to what the Bush Administration is doing," adding that there was "not a real strong difference" between Kahl's plan and the White House's plan.
Also on the panel was General (ret.) Jack Keane, a crusty old military man who seemed oblivious to the unfolding catastrophe in Iraq. "We can talk about winning in Iraq," said Keane. "I am convinced we will win in Iraq."
Keane cavalierly dismissed the military importance of the two biggest armed movements in Iraq that might oppose both the United States and Maliki's regime: the Mahdi Army and the Sons of Iraq.
He said that Muqtada al-Sadr, the rebel cleric whose Mahdi Army is a powerful force in Baghdad and Iraq's south, is weakening. "Sadr has been marginalized politically by [Prime Minister] Maliki," he said, even though few Iraq experts would be winning to dismiss Sadr as a player--especially since Sadr is leading the nationalist opposition to the Bush Administration's plan to establish a treaty formalizing the U.S. occupation of Iraq this summer.
And Keane pooh-poohed the U.S.-funded Awakening or "Sons of Iraq" movement, which is eighty percent Sunni. "We're not going to bring 90,000 of those hoods into the Iraqi security forces," he said. Many analysts are lambasting Maliki for refusing to incorporate the Sunni-led forces into the government army and police, but Keane dismissed those who are "wringing their hands about what to do" with the Sons of Iraq. "It's not a big deal," he shrugged. To those who say that many of those militiamen would go back into armed opposition to the Maliki government if a deal isn't struck, Keane said flatly: "They're not going to go back and organize themselves into insurgent groups."
RSS
Ah, the experts.
No wonder we're in the mess we're in.
They haven't a clue ... besides promoting their own careers.
Looks as if the old law will eventually prevail just as it did in Nam ... SSISSO.
Stupidly swagger in, swiftly scamper out.
The war of choice ends in no choice.
Of course, unlike Nam, we could untie the hand behind our back & nuke the ingrates into kingdom come, declare victory & defy anyone to defy US ever again.
Boy, won't we feel good about ourselves after that.
Posted by sloper at 06/12/2008 @ 12:15pm
The conflicting opinions of a diverse collection of plausible platforms in an advisory committee? What... and not all of them presented?
I find the change... refreshing...
And the learning curve... stimulating...
Posted by ttr at 06/12/2008 @ 12:21pm
Shouldn't he be applauded for having conflicting views in his advisory team? Single minded groups of yes-men are what got us into this mess. The President SHOULD be a person who makes damn sure to get all the facts and then using them formulate a plan himself. I think THIS is the type of change he is talking about. A Washington not made up of yes-men and people who "advise" him that all share the same exact view but instead a Washington where different views are represented equally and then the facts weighed equally.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 12:37pm
It is encouraging the differing views are being expressed and not repressed. So unlike the Neocon-Rand Corporation groupthink of the Bush administration hellbent on their manifest destiny for the Middle East and the world.
Posted by OneVote at 06/12/2008 @ 12:46pm
"A Washington not made up of yes-men and people who "advise" him that all share the same exact view but instead a Washington where different views are represented equally and then the facts weighed equally."
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008
C3, you know what happens when different views are represented? You get gridlock and bureaucracy.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 12:52pm
C3, you know what happens when different views are represented? You get gridlock and bureaucracy.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
That is probably the most undemocratic statement ever. Isn't Democracy all about opposing views meeting a solution? Jesus. I guess if it was up to you everyone in Washington would agree on everything and never have a different view than the accepted line.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 12:56pm
C3, you know what happens when different views are represented? You get gridlock and bureaucracy.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
You do realize that a lack of opposing views is a big step toward totalitarianism and fascism. I don't think you are a fascist but that is a HUGE step towards it.
I find it funny that people to the right will argue that Liberals hate America. Then they will present an argument like this one that so obviously goes against everything America is supposed to stand for, the equal dissemination and acceptance of opposing views when one is governing.
Aren't you supposed to look at all he facts from both sides and then decide for yourself?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 1:00pm
Obama is already heading right, folks. Witness his first act after being 'elected' as the Democratic contender - he hustled to the Likunik AIPC and pledged support for the "Jewish' state.
He's open to vouchers. He's open to staying in Iraq. And the pressure will be on, and if the pressure from the right is more than from the left? You know which way he'll go.
Posted by ElyDog at 06/12/2008 @ 1:01pm
C3, you know what happens when different views are represented? You get gridlock and bureaucracy.---Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
Come on, ACOOK...tell me that was a rare spark of IRONY and you don't REALLY think that???
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008 @ 1:07pm
ACook, that was one the most asinine comments I have heard on these pages from an otherwise sensible poster. A variety of views is what this country was founded on. The founders of this nation could not have been more different in views and ideas how to start this country off. They devised a system that allows for the many, many points of view we all have. To silence voices not akin to your own for the sake of efficiency and advancement is not only dumb, but against all we are supposed to stand for.
Posted by davefoley0 at 06/12/2008 @ 1:12pm
Couldn't this be framed less as 'will the real Obama please stand up', less as a controversy and more positively. All we've seen is Kremlin like, suffocating, on-message, top-down, dumbed-down Kindergarten teacher oversimplificating (Jesse!), bifurcating, critical thought annihilating...
Isn't debate positive? Isn't embracing diversity, complexity, airing out of ideas, perspectives --- transparently --- all in the positive direction.
Isn't the middle east extremely complex? Isn't exiting Iraq extremely tenuous and worthy of ongoing, in-depth analysis alongside decisiveness and action. These are only mutually exclusive if you have a love of W over the other letters of the alphabet.
Let's go anti-tabloid for a change.
Posted by winyahn at 06/12/2008 @ 1:13pm
...When different views are represented? You get gridlock... ---Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
Wow Cook, if you're serious, that's a hell of a brave self-confession.
Posted by winyahn at 06/12/2008 @ 1:16pm
by Cccomfo1...
--Aren't you supposed to look at all he facts from both sides and then decide for yourself?--
--joke alert--
You fell for that line of BS? Our forefathers were just chuckling amongst themselves when they wrote and signed those sentiments... I can hear them now... "that ought to bring all those poor ignorant gullible curs into our camp" while all the while knowing full well it was a scam to keep and hold power under the guise and sanction of 'Democracy'....
And it undoubtedly says somewhere in those dusty old documents that the balance of power that was such a crucial cornerstone to the building of a safe and secure Democracy... was at some point 200 years later... going to prove 'inconsequential' and like tonsils, would need to be removed permanently, without any further consideration or discussion.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...;^)
Acook is just jerking your PC leash...
Posted by ttr at 06/12/2008 @ 1:27pm
Let's go anti-tabloid for a change.
Posted by winyahn at 06/12/2008
I have to agree with you fully.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 1:31pm
"That is probably the most undemocratic statement ever. Isn't Democracy all about opposing views meeting a solution? Jesus. I guess if it was up to you everyone in Washington would agree on everything and never have a different view than the accepted line."
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008
Why is it undemocratic? Those nutbags in DC disagree on everything and not much gets done period. Unlike you, I don't put much faith in the US Congress getting anything done...RIGHT!!
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 1:56pm
"Aren't you supposed to look at all he facts from both sides and then decide for yourself?"
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008
I do, but Congress doesnt'.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 1:57pm
"To silence voices not akin to your own for the sake of efficiency and advancement is not only dumb, but against all we are supposed to stand for."
Posted by davefoley0 at 06/12/2008
Who said anything about silence? Those clowns in DC do all they can to tie up a bill until the cows come home and yet you seem to think it's an OK part of the process? Helllooo, every hear of special interest? Congress is working on their own behalf, not the peoples.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 2:02pm
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
So better that they all AGREE?...with no dissenting opinon and pass "something"?
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008 @ 2:03pm
"Come on, ACOOK...tell me that was a rare spark of IRONY and you don't REALLY think that???"
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008
Mask, you know I'm not well versed in irony.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 2:04pm
"Wow Cook, if you're serious, that's a hell of a brave self-confession."
Posted by winyahn at 06/12/2008
Sorry Win, I don't believe in the system like you do.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 2:06pm
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
Yeah, that's what scares me.
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008 @ 2:08pm
"So better that they all AGREE?...with no dissenting opinon and pass "something"?"
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008
Tell me, have you ever won an arguement with your wife and gotten in the last word?
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 2:09pm
"Yeah, that's what scares me."
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008
You should talk to my husband, it's worst for him... ;-)
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 2:13pm
Sorry Win, I don't believe in the system like you do.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
So you would rather scrap democracy all together?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 2:23pm
I do, but Congress doesnt'.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
This isn't talking about Congress though ACook. This is the President and his ADVISORS. The advisors can't stone wall legislation they are there to ADVISE the President on decisions. So should his advisors be able to offer opposite opinions so that the President can decide with all the facts present?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 2:25pm
"So you would rather scrap democracy all together?"
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008
C3, we live in a republic, not a democracy. A true democracy, would bring chaos.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 2:29pm
C3, you know what happens when different views are represented? You get gridlock and bureaucracy.
Posted by ACook
i obey.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/12/2008 @ 2:35pm
C3, we live in a republic, not a democracy. A true democracy, would bring chaos.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
So you would rather scrap America altogether and switch totalitarianism?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 2:38pm
what's wrong with mr. obama understanding differing opinions about this situation?
i do.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/12/2008 @ 2:38pm
"This isn't talking about Congress though ACook. This is the President and his ADVISORS. The advisors can't stone wall legislation they are there to ADVISE the President on decisions. So should his advisors be able to offer opposite opinions so that the President can decide with all the facts present?"
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008
True, they are there to advise the President however, even if he makes a decision, it is still up to Congress to enact such a decision. Remember, the framers of the constitution made sure the powers of the executive brach were limited in scope. Most of the power lies with Congress.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 2:40pm
"So you would rather scrap America altogether and switch totalitarianism?"
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008
C3, I have no idea what it's like to live under totalitarianism. Although scrapping America isn't such a bad idea.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 2:43pm
True, they are there to advise the President however, even if he makes a decision, it is still up to Congress to enact such a decision. Remember, the framers of the constitution made sure the powers of the executive brach were limited in scope. Most of the power lies with Congress.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
This is my true but my reasoning for admiring him had nothing to do with Congress. It had everything to do with his intelligence in getting advisors with opposing views. So you took us on a wild tangent of no consequence.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 2:54pm
Although scrapping America isn't such a bad idea.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
Wow. And you say liberals hate America.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 2:55pm
"This is my true but my reasoning for admiring him had nothing to do with Congress. It had everything to do with his intelligence in getting advisors with opposing views. So you took us on a wild tangent of no consequence."
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008
I didn't take you on a wild tanget. But, that interesting, considering a lot of libs felt the same way about Bill Clinton.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 3:02pm
Although scrapping America isn't such a bad idea.----Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
Ohhhhhh, I get it.
She's gone into the "funk" that the Right is rapidly going into as they "see it all slip away."
Bush, most conservative of conservative Presidents...a failure. Popularity closing in on Jimmy Carter if not past him.
GOP lost Congress...no chance of getting it back this year, in fact, likely to lose MORE seats.
The old "Moral Majority" coalition (as well as the leaders) dying off. Young people losing their homophobia.
Even on the non-religious con issues, they're losing. McCain is anti-ANWR drilling and believes in global warming.
So...now...our ol' gal ACOOK is ready to "scrap it all"...because her side is losing.
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008 @ 3:19pm
"So...now...our ol' gal ACOOK is ready to "scrap it all"...because her side is losing."
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008
Mask, the "scraping America" statement was an eye-catcher wasn't it?
No, I'm not in a funk.
And I'd prefer you not reference me as a "gal". It is an old southern term white men used towards older black women (like my mother) as a form of disrepect to show they did not recognize her as a woman.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 3:31pm
C3, we live in a republic, not a democracy. A true democracy, would bring chaos.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
So you would rather scrap America altogether and switch totalitarianism?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008
You do realize that ACook is correct on this point. We are not a pure democracy. That is the nature of a constitutional republic like ours.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/2008 @ 3:50pm
And I'd prefer you not reference me as a "gal". It is an old southern term white men used towards older black women (like my mother) as a form of disrepect to show they did not recognize her as a woman.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
I never knew that. Informative. Like when Frankgrits called Obama boy.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 3:52pm
You do realize that ACook is correct on this point. We are not a pure democracy. That is the nature of a constitutional republic like ours.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/12/2008
I wasn't arguing with her on this point. I was questioning her about her statement that we should scrap America.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 3:53pm
I didn't take you on a wild tanget. But, that interesting, considering a lot of libs felt the same way about Bill Clinton.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
Ya lost me... Thought what about Clinton? I didn't like Clinton by the way just as a side note. The first Clinton or the second.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 3:55pm
"She's gone into the "funk" that the Right is rapidly going into as they "see it all slip away."
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008
You're right, I am in funk but not because of politics...
Two of my patients died within hours of each other.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 4:09pm
Two of my patients died within hours of each other.----Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
Well, first I would never disrespect you with a demeaning term. So I apologize...my part of the country we always meant it in an affectionate way. (i.e. "She's my gal"..."She's a good ol' gal"...or "pretty lil' gal")...but I won't use it anymore.
Second, sorry about your patients.
Third, cheer up. This country has survived more s**t than most of them put together and we somehow seem to come out alright on the other side. Fortunately, with NEITHER side of the extremes winning for long.
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008 @ 4:14pm
Two of my patients died within hours of each other.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
Sorry to hear about this ACook. I know a few doctors and nurses and I know this is always difficult to deal with.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 4:16pm
Two of my patients died within hours of each other.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
you didn't let them read your posts did you? they might have died of laughter.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008 @ 4:41pm
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008
Thank you. I know you would not disrespect me in anyway and I still luv you for being yourself.
As for the untimely deaths of my patients, I will recover.
Yes, I know this country will always come out on top, no matter what. It's just what's at the bottom of the toilet bowl waiting to float to the surface is what truly concerns me.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 4:43pm
you didn't let them read your posts did you? they might have died of laughter.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008
Uhhh little uncalled for Emile.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 5:06pm
"Uhhh little uncalled for Emile."
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008
Remember what I said about things floating to surface?
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 5:12pm
Cccomfo1
you think? "her" patients? what is she, House?
I do not believe this poster is who she says she is.
I think the report of two hospital patients dying was highly inappropriate on this blog.
what is she to Hecuba and what is Hecuba to her?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008 @ 5:16pm
Remember what I said about things floating to surface?
Posted by ACook at 06/12/200
Yeah but please don't lump us all in with that kind of comment. I would never say something THAT crude.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 5:31pm
Cccomfo1
you think? "her" patients? what is she, House?
I do not believe this poster is who she says she is.
I think the report of two hospital patients dying was highly inappropriate on this blog.
what is she to Hecuba and what is Hecuba to her?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/200
Most good nurses or doctors tend to become attached to their patients. I know quite a few. Whether she is or not she is a generally stand up person so I would tend to believe her. I don't know her story so who am I to be an ass?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 5:39pm
you didn't let them read your posts did you? they might have died of laughter.-----Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008
Ladies and gentlemen, the erudite and ALWAYS classy EMILE JOHANNES DUBOIS ROLF!
Posted by Mask at 06/12/2008 @ 5:39pm
Cccomfo1
you don't think that was inappropriate?
what was the intent here? sympathy? for the poster?
like we're all gonna send flowers?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008 @ 5:55pm
Cccomfo1
you don't think that was inappropriate?
what was the intent here? sympathy? for the poster?
like we're all gonna send flowers?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/200
She was answering our accusations as to why she is in a funk actually. Which is legitimate.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 6:08pm
I think it was cheap.
I am happy to disagree with you.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008 @ 6:11pm
I think it was cheap.
I am happy to disagree with you.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008
That's the beauty of America.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 6:40pm
Cccomfo1
nah, that happens all over the world.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008 @ 6:42pm
>>>The two speakers were Colin Kahl, who chairs the task force and who works at CNAS, and Brian Katulis, a member of Obama's task force and a thinker-in-residence at the Center for American Progress. Neither Kahl nor Katulis was speaking for Obama, but the stark conflict in their views says something important about the differing opinions Obama may be getting from inside his team.<<<
DREYFUSS is confused! he should re-read his own writing concerning who is on Obama's team and who is not.
Katulis (the progressive) is on Obama's task force, and Kahl (the centrist) is NOT!
I know both of their last names begin with a "K", but we need to keep their associations straight as to not confuse the reader!
Posted by Metteyya at 06/12/2008 @ 6:44pm
Cccomfo1
nah, that happens all over the world.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008
Yeah but in a lot of places you can get shot for it.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 6:47pm
here you can get shot for reaching for your wallet, if you're dark skinned.
two private individuals arguing? I cannot imagine where that would get you shot.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008 @ 6:52pm
here you can get shot for reaching for your wallet, if you're dark skinned.
two private individuals arguing? I cannot imagine where that would get you shot.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008
Turkey
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 7:13pm
Turkey
Posted by Cccomfo1
what are you talking about? Turkey is a modern, westernized country, soon to be in the EU.
this is a somewhat absurd argument. I just don't like platitudes, such as yours.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008 @ 7:19pm
Turkey
Posted by Cccomfo1
what are you talking about? Turkey is a modern, westernized country, soon to be in the EU.
this is a somewhat absurd argument. I just don't like platitudes, such as yours.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008
I was joking again. Jees sorry I will be 100% serious at all times.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 7:23pm
jes lemme know when you're not kiddin'
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008 @ 7:25pm
jes lemme know when you're not kiddin'
Posted by emile duBois at 06/12/2008
Will do.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008 @ 7:47pm
57 comments, and there's nothing on.
really, this little hive mind clatch has got to be the poorest on any internet discussion board.
I will say something to the topic -- which isn't about the idea of democracy, but U.S. foreign policy -- in a minute, unless puke comes up a la ACook at #38.
Posted by jones at 06/12/2008 @ 9:42pm
57 comments, and there's nothing on.
really, this little hive mind clatch has got to be the poorest on any internet discussion board.
Posted by jones
then don't waste your time.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/12/2008 @ 10:04pm
"Yeah but please don't lump us all in with that kind of comment. I would never say something THAT crude."
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/12/2008
C3, I know and I wouldn't do that. However, EB is a lump all by himself.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008 @ 10:27pm
Addressing the topic "Obama Iraq Advisors Clash at CNAS (Center for New American Security)", discussed by R.Dreyfuss, The Nation. 6.12.'08
1. Both the organizations to which the advisors belong, C. Kahl (CNAS), B. Katulis (Center for American Progress, CAP) are Israei-centric, if not full frontal pro-Zionist fronts. do the google
2. Dreyfus' report, presumably accurate, does not mention any link was made in the 'clash' between the Kahl and Katulis -- CNAS man to stay in Iraq, CAP guy to pull out -- to U.S. policy toward Israel and Iran's nuclear plans. Presumably no link was made. It never is in such discussions. These are the good jews, after all, the liberal progressive J street types. Everybody pimps and panders here because at least they aren't hard core killerjew neocons, like Wolfowitz, Podhoretz, Kristol, Perle, Feith and the Sharonazis, to name a few.
3. Therefore .... (...ouddahere ...rising floatertides)
Posted by jones at 06/12/2008 @ 11:01pm
Jones likes a bit of the ol' holocaust denial and a little bit of jew hate, make that a whole lot of jew hate. they're like mother's milk to him. perhaps his mom was a viper.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/13/2008 @ 12:21am
My solution is to pull out and deploy Israeli troops into Iraq to train the Iraqi police since this is more about their protection than ours.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/13/2008 @ 12:52am
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/13/2008
You are being facetious, right?
Posted by Benchrest at 06/13/2008 @ 01:28am
Jew hate <=> mother's milk?
emule is one of them, ya gotta think.
Are you a Jew emule?
Posted by jones at 06/13/2008 @ 03:30am
to mods
this guy dumps "jew hate" onto my factual case about Israel and its supporters twisting America's foreign policy tail ... calls it my "mothers milk" ... and the post calling him what this sounds like gets booted?
Bill O'Reilly in drag, I guess.
Posted by jones at 06/13/2008 @ 05:20am
Obama has shown great fortitude in dealing with problems on the campaign trail. I tip my hat to the man. I'm just not totally convinced he'll be able to win the election this Nov. The GOP is holding onto a large amount of "dirt" on the guy. A lot of it is discussed on the realdealreport website http://www.realdealreport.com I just don't know if he can fight through this.
Posted by cory714 at 06/13/2008 @ 09:53am
cory714...
Obama doesn't have to fight through any of it... because it's BS. The website is a fake Colbert clone. You are spamming...
...and likely a Rep. op. painting clouds over blue sky.
Posted by ttr at 06/13/2008 @ 10:24am
anyone who posts the same thing on all threads gets
IGNORED.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/13/2008 @ 10:34am
However, EB is a lump all by himself.
Posted by ACook at 06/12/2008
That's the truth.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/13/2008 @ 11:53am
Acooks ridiculous comments aside, this article points to a serious problem that the next president will face. Withdrawal is important and should be done. But how to do it without risking complete chaos over there?
Posted by rasalula at 06/13/2008 @ 6:24pm
Gal is not an "an old southern term white men used towards older black women (like my mother) as a form of disrespect to show they did not recognize her as a woman". It's a Cockney slang pronunciation of the word girl, from the late 1700s.
Among Southern white men (uh, me...) it's used to show affection, not any kind of lack of respect.
On topic, it's discouraging to see that the expert opinions are so different on the Iraq issue. That probably means that we have a long, painful extraction process ahead of us.
Posted by cassenthri at 06/14/2008 @ 12:27am