Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditWhile everyone's looking at Iraq's effect on American politics -- and whether or not John McCain and Barack Obama are converging on a policy that combines a flexible timetable with a vague, and long-lasting, residual force -- let's take a look instead at Iraqi politics. The picture isn't pretty.
Despite the Optimism of the Neocons, which has pushed mainstream media coverage to be increasingly flowery about Iraq's political progress, in fact the country is poised to explode. Even before the November election. And for McCain and Obama, the problem is that Iran has many of the cards in its hands. Depending on its choosing, between now and November Iran can help stabilize the war in Iraq -- mostly by urging the Iraqi Shiites to behave themselves -- or it can make things a lot more violent.
There are at least three flashpoints for an explosion, any or all of which could blow up over the next couple of months. (Way to go, Surgin' Generals!) The first is the brewing crisis over Kirkuk, where the pushy Kurds are demanding control and Iraq's Arabs are resisting. The second is in the west, and Anbar, where the US-backed Sons of Iraq sahwa ("Awakening") movement is moving to take power against the Iraqi Islamic Party, a fundamentalist Sunni bloc. And third is the restive Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr, which is chafing at gains made by its Iranian-backed rival, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI).
Perhaps the issue of KIrkuk and the Kurds is most dangerous. Last week, the Kurds walked out of parliament to protest a law passed by parliament to govern the provincial elections. The law passed 127-13, but it was vetoed by President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd. Juan Cole, the astute observer, says : "The conflict between Kurds and Arabs over Kirkuk is a crisis waiting to happen." He cites Al-Hayat, an Iraqi newspaper, as claiming that not only do the Kurds want to control Kirkuk, an oil-rich province in Iraq's north, but they plan to annex three other provinces where Kurds live: Diyala, Salahuddin, and Ninewa. That's not likely, but they do want Kirkuk, and the vetoed election law would have limited the Kurds' ability to press their gains there.
The election law was supported by Sadr's bloc and backed by former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and his Iraq National List. Another nationalist party, the National Dialogue Council, has demanded the ouster of President Talabani over his veto of the law. Other Iraqi parties are backing the now-vetoed law, too, which also restricts the use of Islamic religious symbols by political parties seeking to corral illiterate, religious voters.
Because of all this, it now looks like there won't be provincial elections this year at all. The ruling bloc of Shiite religious parties and Kurdish warlords is split over the crisis, weakening Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and members of the ruling coalition are trying to patch things up. I don't think they'll succeed. Many Shiites in the ruling bloc, including ISCI, have criticized the law as divisive, but as Arabs it's hard for them to endorse a Kurdish takeover of Kirkuk. ISCI and the Badr Brigade, its armed wing, are holding parlays to decide what to do. Interestingly, all three members of the ruling presidential council, including Talabani, the IIP's Hashemi, and ISCI's Adel Abdel Mahdi, voted to veto the law, putting ISCI and the IIP on record as supporting the Kurds. Bad for them politically.
The IIP says that it wants to mediate the crisis. But the IIP is in a very, very weak position. Having just rejoined the Maliki government, it is under siege at home in its base in Anbar province, where the Awakening is flexing its muscle. This could be the second explosion. The Sunni Arabs are still seething over the divisive Iraqi Constitution and their continuing exclusion from political power, and the Awakening movement sees the IIP (correctly) as wildly unrepresentative. So the Awakening, representing Sunni tribal powers and former resistance fighters, wants in, at the expense of the IIP. That time bomb is ticking, too.
The final crisis-to-be is the Sadr vs. Badr one. The Times today suggests that Sadr is weakening:
The militia that was once the biggest defender of poor Shiites in Iraq, the Mahdi Army, has been profoundly weakened in a number of neighborhoods across Baghdad, in an important, if tentative, milestone for stability in Iraq.
Don't believe it. Sadr's rivals, ISCI, don't have anything like the popular base that Sadr has. And underneath Sadr is a volatile mix of neighborhood, local and regional militias, mosques, and economic fiefdoms that won't yield easily to ISCI and Maliki. Because Sadr's forces are dependent on Iran, however, for arms and cash, Iran may be in the driver's seat. Just the other day, the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps crowed that the United States has failed to install an anti-Iranian regime in Baghdad, and he's completely right.
So Iraq is still poised to explode, and Iran may be in control. McCain's solution: provoke a showdown with Iran. Obama's solution: try to make a deal with Iran to stabilize Iraq. I'm not sure either "plan" will work.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Lets not forget the Turks, who won't be happy about the Kurds controlling the oil in the North. The question is not if things are going to explode, but when is it going to happen? As we have seen with Hamas, Iran is not adverse to supporting Sunni groups. Combine the nationalist Sons of Iraq with the Madhi Army, and you would have group strong enough to control Iraq. The problem is Sunni Iraqis tend to be anti-Iranian. Iran must treat Iraqi nationalism with respect if they wish to be a factor in the Middle East. However, this combination might be easier to bring together, than the Madhi Army and the ISCI where the break is along class lines. However with regard to the U.S. and Iran, it is in the national interest of both countries to work together in Iraq and Afghanistan to solve problems in those countries.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 07/27/2008 @ 1:43pm
Iraq poised to explode? On the left, hope springs eternal.
Posted by pontificus at 07/27/2008 @ 4:01pm
All this sounds pretty much like democracy may be breaking out hold in Iraq. Everyone bickering about their own little issues, jockeying for political position. How American-like!
Maybe Mr. Dreyfuss thinks the good ol' USA is a powder keg, too.
[ While here in the USA, I believe that if McCain is elected in November, surely war will ensue! The right is poised to strike in the South, should things go otherwise, while leftist electors in Massachusettes have begun conscriptions, and are moving their forces into key positions, foreseeing that things may not go as they hope at the poles.]
Really, it sounds like the left in journalistland are just hoping that the Iraqi people are so stupid they're willing to throw it all to the wind and sink back into the dark ages. I think the Iraqi's will behave a little more like Republicans, and solve their issues through diplomacy. The ongoing sacrifice their children and homes for all these causes may not be what they're up for.
"McCain's solution: provoke a showdown with Iran. Obama's solution: try to make a deal with Iran to stabilize Iraq."
Neither plan is so simple, Mr. Dreyfuss.
I'm not sure either "plan" will work.
That's because you're just a leftist journalist, Mr. Dreyfuss. You're not a strategist or a fortune teller. But You are hoping things will explode.
Posted by Elcobar at 07/27/2008 @ 6:13pm
Once again the Chickenhawks chime in...
What do any of you REALLY know of CAOS..?? Which is exactly what is going on. You only choose to cherry pick all the "good" news coming from the MSM..?? So, one article says "Shits is brewin' In Iraq" and all you Bush apologists start in on the "Obama wont be able to deal with this" bullshit...
Your BOY (W) put us in this mess. Mccain has never admitted that this complete diplomatic/military disaster was a mistake. Which is the real "lack of judgement"... Obama had the courage/foresight to see this was a mistake and you people twist his judgement and call him the "inexpirienced" one...
Yeah..
Our allies in Europe WANT Obama in.. They like the MAJORITY of the American public are tired of all the BULLSHIT sabre rattling the current admin and a Mccain admin would bring..
Did one of you say Mccain would be better diplomatically..?? WTF are you smoking....
Happ.. dont you have a klan meeting on Sun nights..?
Ps.. Just for the record.. how many of you chicken hawks have even been to the middle east... lol.. Maybe you should do a "fact-finding" trip this summer. I'll escort you if you'd like.
Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/27/2008 @ 6:26pm
"They will have to be destroyed and we will need a President who is up to the task"
indeed (not).
(yawn).
Posted by darladoon at 07/27/2008 @ 6:41pm
WAR
___March 20, 2003
___http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
WAR OVER
___May 1, 2003
___http://tinyurl.com/32do8m
SURGE 1
___August 14, 2003
___http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/
Un-SURGE 1
___Spring 2004
___http://tinyurl.com/5l4ra7
Re-SURGE (level 2)
___December 2, 2004
___http://tinyurl.com/5pk6u
Re-Un-SURGE (level 2)
___Spring 2006
___http://tinyurl.com/5fn8up
___http://tinyurl.com/5kybne
Counter-Re-Un-SURGE (level 3)
___January 2007
___http://tinyurl.com/6r8voa
Semi-Counter-Re-Un-SURGE (level 4)
___November 2007
___http://tinyurl.com/6zp4xl
Current-Counter-Re- Un-SURGE (level 4)
___June 2008
So which type of SURGE worked? Was it working or not working because of all the other un-surges or was it the re-surges? Real numbers show an increase and decrease in death, attacks, wounded, etc. on multiple occasions-- so were we winning before we were losing before we were winning before we were... ad infinitum?
Average Number Daily Insurgent Attacks In Iraq
Feb-June 05 - 61.8
Aug 05-Jan O6 - 81.1
Feb-May 06 - 89.9
May-Aug 06 - 113.4
Aug-Nov 06 - 152.9
Nov 06-Feb 07 - 148.9
Feb-May 07 - 159.8
So as Obama predicted there were increases in attacks and we have already had more casualties in the 1st 6 months of 2008 than in the 1st 6 months of the war in 2003- 1400+ versus about 1100 then. And are we winning when more of our troops are getting injured now than in the beginning of the war over 5 years ago? How short-sighted does one have to become to fall for the new con repub packaging BS just one more time? Obviously for some, it is a unlimited.
And unless anyone forgot-- more of our troops died in 2007 than in any other year of the war. For Obama, apparently that still isn't a good choice considering we were lied into this war of choice in the first place-- HELLO. When will it ever be ok to let more of our troops die for new con repub corporate war profiteering?
http://icasualties.org/oif/
http://tinyurl.com/67op57
***************
BTW
BOUNCE CONTINUES:
July 27, 2008
Gallup Daily: Obama 49%, McCain 40%
http://tinyurl.com/5ol9uh
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/27/2008 @ 7:14pm
But, but, but.....Maverick John said we've "succeeded"?!?!?!?!?
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/27/2008 @ 7:22pm
"Hillary Clinton has stated that the surge is working, Obama is caught in his own inexperience and refuses to admit the success there."
Which is why none of the political reforms have taken place? Also, the Anbar Awakening and the Sadrist cease-fire occurred independently of the surge.
"I believe that John McCain will have the gravitas and the diplomatic skills necessary to bring together a proper coalition to get the job done."
Outside of the fact that he seems to know nothing about the area and has a notorious temper problem (is that now a diplomatic skill?).
"This will require a reintroduction of some form of military conscription because the forces simply are not there to maintain two (or more) fronts."
Not going to happen.
"All this sounds pretty much like democracy may be breaking out hold in Iraq. Everyone bickering about their own little issues, jockeying for political position. How American-like!"
Nothing American about an group of impasses that have lasted years.
Posted by brunowe at 07/27/2008 @ 9:03pm
Why do you people continue to dis our troops when things have turned for the better
Posted by frankgrits at 07/27/2008 @ 9:43pm
Depends on what you're comparing it to-- now doesn't it.
If you say we're dissing our troops because of the fact that we had more troop casualties in the 1st 6 months of this year 2008 compared to the 1st 6 months of the war in 2003-- are you saying that we're saying it's our troops fault? If you are you have a mental disability because that's moronic logic. If your not saying that then you're simply a coward hiding behind our brave soldiers as a shield for your own vacuous arsenal of facts to support your contentions.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/27/2008 @ 10:03pm
Posted by frankgrits at 07/27/2008 @ 2:23pm
What's funny frank is. You know very little about what you are talking about. McCain just said that the 16 month timetable is a good idea. So is Obama wrong for putting it forth? Or is McCain wrong for essentially endorsing it. They are now basically holding the same position on a 16 month time table to get out of Iraq yet you are still dising Obama for it while not even acknowledging that McCain also supports it.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/27/2008 @ 9:43pm
Did you serve Frank?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/27/2008 @ 10:10pm
I'm certain, however, these United States have just 50 states, not the 57 Magic made himself BELIEVE....same with Magic's BELIEF that Pakistanis speaks Arabic! Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/27/2008 @ 9:47pm
Funny that you jump on Obama for something like this while you then defend Bush who has made more drastic flubs during and before his time as President.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/27/2008 @ 10:11pm
"So you're another anti-military extremeist who refuses to give the troops credit for their efforts. You are fooling yourself if you don't think mcCain has a handle on the area. A couple of mis-speaks are meaningess so you'll have to hang your hat elsewhere."
One, a series of factual errors aren't meaningless. Second, it is simply a fact that there were factors independent of the surge.
Posted by brunowe at 07/27/2008 @ 10:12pm
Where'd you 'serve' Frank ?
I understand people from different side of the political tracks can differ on opinions.. But when someone gives us the old "maybe you shouldn't live in America" line.. well thats just pathetic and petty... I guess in a true "Patriots" mind it's Love it Or leave it... Not "lets make it better"..
I am currently deployed in the Eastern Med.. So i'm begging you not to come at me with the "Troop Hatin'" Bullshit.
As for China... You sure you want to start with China..?? Now that, would get some headlines....
So are we the only ones allowed Nuke weapons..?? The only country to ever use a NUKE..?? Any of you "true Americans" ever wonder why the hell we "allowed" PAKISTAN a nuke..?? Hell we helped them. The CHEM weapons used by our Boy Saddam... Yep, American Made... Get over yourselves. Dont be so Goddamn ignorant.
Its all about perspective ladies and germs... Try to see things from the other side sometimes, instead of being such ignorant dolts.
Posted by Vvf1969 at 07/27/2008 @ 10:12pm
http://tinyurl.com/6p6g5g
Also many people in Pakistan DO speak Arabic Happy. To the point that as this article states, it was suggested to be the national language.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/27/2008 @ 10:22pm
now, I even flip-flop between my HS sons' name with the dog.........and it's depressing (not)....since we're younger than McCain!
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/27/2008 @ 9:47pm
A couple of mis-speaks are meaningess so you'll have to hang your hat elsewhere.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/27/2008 @ 9:39pm
Maybe it's just a new con repub thing:
http://tinyurl.com/5k58hj
http://tinyurl.com/5nbzuj
http://tinyurl.com/5rq4tf
http://tinyurl.com/6enq9s
http://tinyurl.com/6mrl7n
http://tinyurl.com/5gwkna
Oh MAW:
http://tinyurl.com/69vyo3
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/27/2008 @ 11:29pm
then have to hear a Presidential candidate say they've failed in their efforts.
posted by frankgrits at 07/27/2008 @ 10:26p
No FrGr--- 'YOU' are the only one saying our troops are failures. YOU FrGr.
Yep, FrGr is not only a racist, he's also a coward hiding behind our brave troops because FrGr has nothing; no facts, just garbage. And thus denigrates our troops to elevate himself from below the dung, and only then to rear his face covered in BS, cowardly BS.
FrGr-- you are the only one that has failed here.
Well, ok, hsuB/cHeney/McCave/new con repubs/etc. have also failed a lot.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/27/2008 @ 11:39pm
"How do you think our troops feel when they are responsible, after several very bloody battles through the surge, for getting the violence under control and then have to hear a Presidential candidate say they've failed in their efforts. This from a wannbe CIC"
this is called 'emotional blackmail,' when people like yourself force others to 'support the troops' even when the policy dictating their efforts is vague, indeterminate, open-ended, immoral and/or possibly illegal.
Posted by darladoon at 07/27/2008 @ 11:55pm
how is supporting a failed policy, no matter what the consequences, an indication of support for the troops?
Posted by darladoon at 07/27/2008 @ 11:57pm
I expect to wake up some morning and turn on the television and see a political rally with large shirtless men with we're number one painted across their chest while they swing large red, white and blue Styrofoam hands with the index finger displaying one. If this were a movie and we were not the invading country, but some other nameless country, our outrage would be enormous. why didn't we bomb Michigan out of existence when Tim Mcveigh blew up the Murrah building? When did we inherit this national insanity?
Posted by julien38 at 07/28/2008 @ 12:10am
frank,
reading your posts is nauseating, and i'm not sure how you can consider yourself a clinton-ite, now that you've literally embraced a lieberman-esque stance vis a vis middle east foreign policy.
Posted by darladoon at 07/28/2008 @ 12:21am
"How do you think our troops feel when they are responsible, after several very bloody battles through the surge, for getting the violence under control and then have to hear a Presidential candidate say they've failed in their efforts."
That's the same ridiculous argument that the neo-cons use to justify this war. The point is that you have provided no facts to refute the position that the Anbar Awakening antedated the surge or that the Sadrist cease-fire or the fact that ethnic cleansing had been completed in Baghdad were factors independent of the surge.
Your McCarthyite tactics make you, FG, no different from Karl Rove.
Posted by brunowe at 07/28/2008 @ 12:27am
since their military wings, are no match for the Iraqi Army backed by the US.
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/27/2008 @ 3:23pm
you mean like in basra earlier this year?
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 12:46am
The Coalition
Posted by 2HAPPY at 07/27/2008 @ 5:10pm
hahahaha!
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 12:48am
Bush who has made more drastic flubs during and before his time as President.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/27/2008 @ 10:11pm
and after!
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 12:53am
fingers crossed.........
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 12:54am
why didn't we bomb Michigan out of existence when Tim Mcveigh blew up the Murrah building? When did we inherit this national insanity?
Posted by julien38 at 07/28/2008 @ 12:10am
the fed took care of that.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 12:56am
As part of his quest for Her Majesty in 2012....FRANK now trying the most lunatic of right-wing talking points...
that being if you are dubious of MCCAIN's claims about the Surge...you're "dissing the troops".
Sound familiar? Same logic the Right tried with Dubya...."Doubt Dubya, you're dissing the troops!"
OLD FRANK would have never accepted that, much less been a part of it.
I sure do miss OLD FRANK...I guess he's dead now.
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/28/2008 @ 08:54am
Two corrections:
Kurds do not plan to annex the whole of Diyala, Salahuddin, or Ninewa, they only plan to annex a handful of Kurdish-majority districts currently in these provinces which border of Iraqi Kurdistan.
The IIP's "base" is not al-Anbar province, by any stretch of the imagination. al-Anbar is tribal dominated, IIP is more urban intellectual. Their base, if anywhere, is Mosul in Ninewa province.
The only reason they control al-Anbar Governorate is they were the only Sunni Arab party on the ballot there.
Posted by AndrewRT at 07/28/2008 @ 09:02am
AndrewRT
The only problem is how you calculate Kurdish-majority. The Kurds want a referendua in Kirkuk and Mosul and their environs based on a calculation that excludes those people settled there by Hussein. You only have a Kurdish majority in those cities if you exclude them.
Posted by brunowe at 07/28/2008 @ 10:13am
Truth hurts, don't it?
Posted by frankgrits at 07/28/2008 @ 12:12am
FrGr you should know-- you're the one in total denial.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/28/2008 @ 11:05am
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/28/2008 @ 08:54am
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
------ OR ------
Revision of the New Con Songster
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/28/2008 @ 11:34am
First, contrary to McCain/Bush claims of all living happily ever after in Anbar- it's quiet in Anbar solely because we're paying them to keep quiet. The recent GAO hearing verified the US is still giving out bundles of money to tribal chiefs to pass around. Not unlike the Afghan warlords we paid to do the same thing in 2003 - the minute the money stopped the Taliban were back and the warlords switched alliances.
A sovereign government paying salaries to dedicated civil servants was the goal of the surge. For McCain and the Right wingers to claim a temporary bandaid of hush money is their idea ofsuccess is proof of how the military are nothing more than campaign tools to be used by the Right.
Second, the notion that these fiercely nationalistic desert people are incapable of running their own country without our authority -after living for 5 years on scraps while under our control and then still being capable of putting up a huge nationalistic battle against us after a decade on severe sanctions and after we wore out our welcome is also utter bullshit.
Third, Hizb'allah reacted in Lebanon because their leaders were ineffective and showed too much deference to outsiders, while Israel kept kicking their asses. So too would Iraqis have continued to act against the Bush installed al-Maliki. But just look at his sudden show of nationalistic strength as the Bush regime ends and he sees himself and the west in a new light -as partners -as equals, under a new President like Obama.
Finally, all of our fiercest opponents are fierce not from just their military capabilities - but by centuries of wars fought to protect their lands and cultures. Obama has had those same inherent nationalistic skills since birth. His serious demeanor suggests he to has just realized this and why he thinks he could be of help to solve such a worldy crisis. 'The world senses it too.
McCain has only recently acquired capabilities and certainly hasn't any concerns for other cultures or other's sovereign rights - other than to use them as tools for his own purposes. Like father like son.
Posted by hazmaq at 07/28/2008 @ 11:44am
"McCain has only recently acquired capabilities and certainly hasn't any concerns for other cultures..."
this pretty much sums the entire GOP.....
Posted by darladoon at 07/28/2008 @ 12:02pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/28/2008 @ 11:34am
No, there definitely was an "OLD FRANK", who was against the war, against Republicans, and said McCain was not that great too.
But once he devoted his life and EGO to Her Nibs and her quest for the Presidency...he set aside all other considerations AND principles.
If McCain wins, he'll try to revert back to "OLD FRANK" and pretend like he never left us to join the Dark Side. (Within weeks of McCain being inaugurated, so it'll be BLATENTLY obvious.)
If Obama wins, FRANK will either semi-rationally begin dreaming up scenarios by which Hillary "comes back in 8 years and defeats Obama's Veep for the nomination"....or slightly rationally that she'd "take the Dem nomination from Obama after his disasterous first term"....
or insanely where she runs as an Indy in 2012 and defeats him AND the GOP nominee.
Ignore anything else he has to say about McCain...or Obama....and remember the underlying basis for everything with FG...
her.
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/28/2008 @ 12:20pm
I sure do miss OLD FRANK...I guess he's dead now.
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/28/2008 @ 08:54am
no, he's suffering from PHILL:
POST HILLARY LOSS LAMENT.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 12:41pm
Frank. You know why I think you didn't serve. YOU say you won't tell us because you refuse to divulge personal information. However you take many many opportunities to remind us that you son served and that you as a parent had to sit by an watch. Now I very well could be wrong. However you seem like the type of person who IF you served whether you tell us what you did or not you WOULD love to rub it in that you served because you would feel like it made you superior to us all. The fact that you like to remind us about your sons service though stands as proof to me that you didn't serve, because I think if you did you would have tried to use it to make you seem superior in one way or another.
Again I very much could be wrong but these are just my observations.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 12:41pm
Goes to show--- McCave's got nothing and McCave isn't happy about it:
McCain's New Tactic: Savage Obama's Character
July 28, 2008 09:06 AM
Whatever his motives, McCain's new hit on his foe's patriotism hints at two years of whispered, viral rumors and myths about Obama centered on his patriotism and American values, or, more to the point, his lack thereof. The emails --cataloged in snopes.com's lengthy Obama section and Obama's own "fight the smears" page --often have contradictory particulars, but the thrust is clear: Obama, various false emails claim, is not really a natural-born American citizen; is not really a Christian, and refuses to pledge allegiance to the American flag.
Not all Republicans think this is a good idea. Sen. Chuck Hagel said Sunday that McCain is on "thin ground," and the Washington Post quotes a strategist questioning the new tactics:
One GOP strategist with close ties to McCain's campaign said the new line of attack reflected the operation's "schizophrenic" nature. He said that tendency was also on display last week, as McCain spoke at length about media coverage of Obama rather than sticking with his plan to focus on the economy.
"They couldn't help themselves," the strategist said, adding that the ad over the hospital visit is "churlish and unlike McCain, and hardly will resonate with the swing voters who are going to decide this election." The strategist continued: "They're doing it because the candidate, and the campaign, is not happy with where they are and they're lashing out."
If McCain hopes to win the election, the strategist added, "he needs to be a happy warrior."
http://tinyurl.com/5ssp5f
But McCave is an angry guy; a conflicted guy:
A tortured soul in favor of torture. One that wishes to stay in Iraq for 100 years, but 'having' to say he's leave in 16 months to be politically expedient.
McCave's having to slam Obama for not visiting the troops in Germany even though he knows he did a worse thing by choosing a fund raiser closer to the troops.
Yes, McCave has a lot to be angry about. Having to cosy up to hsuB/cHeney, two men he deeply despises for the lies they told about him in 2000, questioning McCave's patriotism, besmirching his daughter's reputation and his family.
And McCave truly hates what he's become, but can't stop his ambition and greed. It's become so easy for him to lie; to say completely contradictory things now. It's totally in keeping with who he is now and will continue to always be lest, like his infector-- hsuB, his entire revisionist reconstructed psychologically laminated together shell of a world collapses.
You see-- McCave is incrementally inheriting hsuB's sins. Slowly becoming what he wants and can only forgive himself by being, that which beat him, his ultimate captors: the GOP new con repub dic'tatorship.
I'd wager McCave will require a major intervention before Iraq requies another Ultra-Semi-Counter-Re-Un-SURGE, at this point.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/28/2008 @ 12:44pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/28/2008 @ 12:44p
This is where McCain is going to kill himself. Attacks didn't work for Hillary because people are sick of that. They actually work against the attacker. Same when Obama would attack Hillary it ended up being negative on the ratings. McCain is too used to Republican politics where you play as dirty as possible. He will issue attack adds and they will hurt him just like they hurt Hillary because the ONLY people who are going to believe the adds and actually use it as a reason to not vote for Obama are the people who weren't going to vote for him to begin with.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 12:49pm
I'd wager McCave will require a major intervention before Iraq requies another Ultra-Semi-Counter-Re-Un-SURGE, at this point.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/28/2008 @ 12:44pm
well, maybe not.
gas prices will be below $3.50 by october.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 12:49pm
look kid. I don't care what the hell you think. It's none of your business. Posted by frankgrits at 07/28/2008 @ 12:56pm
If you really DIDN'T care what I thought you wouldn't have bothered responding. You obviously feel the need to defend yourself. More reason why I don't think you served. You defend yourself but you won't say you were in the military. Anyone with half an ounce of brains knows that there is "personal information" and then there is general information which can't provide anyone with anything. Saying "yes, I served" isn't information that anyone could use unless they knew your real name. If they got your real name they could find out if your served either way. So as long as we don't know your name then whether you served or not is of no use to us but just to know the truth. But continue to deny deny deny. I am starting to get a firm grasp on you Frank.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 1:05pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/28/2008 @ 08:54am
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
------ OR ------
Revision of the New Con Songster
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/28/2008 @ 11:34am
...once he devoted his life and EGO to Her Nibs and her quest for the Presidency...he set aside all other considerations AND principles.
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/28/2008 @ 12:20pm
Then it must be:
Evolusion of the Hillary Snatch...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/28/2008 @ 1:15pm
er, 'Evolution' of the Hillary Snatch...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/28/2008 @ 1:17pm
er, 'Evolution' of the Hillary Snatch...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/28/2008 @ 1:17pm
Ħay yi yi!
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 1:31pm
The subject is closed. Posted by frankgrits at 07/28/2008 @ 1:12pm
Whatever you say Frank. But I tend to think your motives are different.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 1:36pm
How about letting Iraq solve Iraqs problems. Oil Can Sam hasn't fixed things. The squeaky wheel is right here in the USA.
Posted by Sorelish at 07/28/2008 @ 1:51pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 1:36pm
He has only one motive...get Hillary Clinton the Presidency.
When it was "inevitable"...he had no worries. Check his posts pre-Iowa. All "WHEN Hillary wins in November"..."The GOP have nobody that can defeat her"...."Repubs are dead for a generation"
Then when Obama started winning it was..."She'll be back"..."He's a flash in the pan"..."Once Super Tuesday comes, she mop the floor with him"...
Then as the Obama wins tallied up, FRANK (as Hillary and her campaign tried) "graciously" offered to let Obama become Veep under HER to "gain some experience" and take the mantle in 2012....
then the last desperate weeks, where the math just wasn't there and...."She's coming back"...."The Super Delegates will see she's the Dems only chance"..."Obama has run his course"...
and then....the HINTS about McCain started....first on how "only Hillary and McCain have the experience" (Whereas previously FRANK had once thought McCain might be mentally unbalanced!)...
and finally (when HRC's hopes died) "I'm supporting McCain!"
Why? Because only a McCain victory allows her, her LAST chance at it in 2012 (She'll be too old in 2016 and would face off against Obama's Veep or a Dem constituency that had long since passed the Clintons by.)
BUT, he added his new line (as of early June) where as FRANK PRAYED that Obama would take on Hillary as Veep, thus allowing him to "come back" as "OLD FRANK"...and support the Democratic ticket and start sending lots of cholesterol-heavy food to President Obama...heheh.
And for FG, it's all about HER and his own monumental ego. McCain wins...he gloats for a minute...but then tries to win us back by launching into McCain first chance he can, and calling Maverick John every name in the book by Summer 2009....and of course discussing how "Hillary will mop the floor with McCain in 2012!"
Obama wins?...FRANK in a pickle. Obama WILL be the nominee in 2012 and his Veep (if younger than Cheney) the inevitable nominee in 2016.
And he's alienated every Obama voter on this site...and the McCain voters (LVLIB, PONTI, HAPPY, etc.) won't trust him for his pre-2008 attacks on the Right and THEM!
Plus he'll be shown to have been wrong...again...and his claims of "If you knew what I knew, you'd agree" make him look like the WORST kind of foolish egotist.
So, he prays for McCain to win...and that we'll all "forgive and forget".
I doubt the first...and I KNOW the second isn't going to happen.
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/28/2008 @ 4:50pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/28/2008 @ 4:50pm
I applaud your astute observation.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 5:40pm
Except of course youthful impressionable types like CC. Posted by frankgrits at 07/28/2008 @ 6:39pm
More and more condescending every day. Watch out Frank your head might get so big you topple right over.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 7:49pm
Except of course youthful impressionable types like CC.
Posted by frankgrits at 07/28/2008 @ 6:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I am neither youthful nor easily persuaded, but I think Mask's take is spot-on.
Posted by brunowe at 07/28/2008 @ 8:19pm
It's pretty apparent that you are praying for disaster in Iraq with an Iranian takeover...don't know why except for maybe mental illness....However, the Iraqi people have too much pride to allow the vermin in Tehran to "take over". There is a lot of bad blood left over from the 1979 era war. Don't forget, Iraq is Arab and Iran is Persian.
Posted by pyeatte at 07/28/2008 @ 8:57pm
There is a lot of bad blood left over from the 1979 era war.
Posted by pyeatte at 07/28/2008 @ 8:57pm
as there will be from the 2003 era war.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 9:45pm
There is a lot of bad blood left over from the 1979 era war.
Posted by pyeatte at 07/28/2008 @ 8:57pm
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/45701.html
The original statement said that Mahdi and the two women were "criminals" and that an American convoy on the side of the secured road came under small-arms fire from the vehicle. Soldiers said they shot back. A weapon was found in the debris and two U.S. military vehicles were struck by bullets from the attack, the statement on June 25 said.
"When we are attacked, we will defend ourselves and will use deadly force if necessary," Maj. Joey Sullinger, a spokesman for 4th Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, said in a statement at the time. "Such attacks endanger not only U.S. soldiers but also innocent civilians, including women and children, traveling the roadways of Baghdad."
On Sunday the story changed and the tone was apologetic. A military statement said that neither the civilians who were killed nor the soldiers were at fault for the deaths. An investigation found that "the driver and passengers were law-abiding citizens of Iraq."
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 9:51pm
There is a lot of bad blood left over from the 1979 era war.
Posted by pyeatte at 07/28/2008 @ 8:57pm
"Liberators???
It was only 90 minutes till sunset, and my brother and I decided to go to Shaab neighborhood. The road was very long because of the concrete walls that now divide Baghdad neighborhoods. They took away the shortcuts that we used to pass through.
We arrived at our destination in an hour; our mission didn't take long because we were afraid of the dark. Unfortunately, there was a sand storm spreading all over Baghdad so thick that we could hardly recognize our road--especially with thousands of concrete fences erected and dozens of Iraqi security checkpoints.
We took the Al Qanat highway, which is located along the length of an old canal on our left and a very long and high concrete wall on our right in which there were breaks where Iraqi police vehicles sat to watch the road. The highway is supposed to be an open road where cars can go at top speed, but suddenly the cars in front of us started to crazily turn aside from the paved road and get too close to the concrete wall. I couldn't see the reason why. Finally. and with difficulty, I recognized an American military vehicle looming on the side of the street, a dusty color, carrying camouflage nets and giving off a sinister look. It was parked on the left side of the highway and was standing still; there weren't any soldiers nearby it.
It was only one parked vehicle--no more no less. But for poor Iraqis; what they had seen and heard about this kind of vehicle made them try to get as far away from it as they could to avoid appearing in a regrettable incident.
The scene reminded me of wild animals, when they come to drink water at a pond and they find a tiger or lion. Even if he is not hunting, they try to tiptoe away as quietly as they can, lest they invoke his wrath. "
http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/iraq/2008/07/liberators.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/28/2008 @ 10:24pm
It's pretty apparent that you are praying for disaster in Iraq with an Iranian takeover...don't know why except for maybe mental illness....
What color is the sky in your world?
Posted by brunowe at 07/28/2008 @ 11:08pm
rio,
how would you like your house broken into at 3 am by armed soldiers who take your sons away, never to be seen again?
success. what nonsense.
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/29/2008 @ 12:24am
You people have a lot of fear.---Posted by frankgrits at 07/29/2008 @ 12:00am
Again, projection, FRANK. It is YOU that have the fear.
You're afraid of both future scenarios-
1. McCain wins, we don't buy your "re-re-conversion" back to OLD FRANK who will attack McCain at the first opportunity and try to pretend like "I was a progressive the whole time, guys...now, let's be friends again and work hard to defeat McCain or his Veep in 2012...and I know just the gal to do it!" And that you'll remain a pariah on this site for helping to give us "four more years" of Bush'ism under McSAME.
2. Obama wins...Hillary's hopes are permanently dashed (causing you endless heartache but not the fear)....and you are STILL a pariah on this site for your incessant attacks on Obama (likely to get worse upto Novmeber). And we also STILL don't buy your "re-re-conversion" and attempts at "Okay, guys, I'm sorry, I was wrong...now, let me go back to OLD FRANK and forget all that crap I flung at Obama from Januuary 08 to November 08, hmmmm? Heh, guys? Hmmm?"
Plus the fear that your batting average of predictions is still .000. And nobody buys the "If you knew what I knew" and "You people just don't understand politics the way I do" crap anymore.
Posted by Maskdelta at 07/29/2008 @ 09:04am
Posted by frankgrits at 07/28/2008 @ 6:55pm Will he owe them? Not anymore than he will owe any other voter. I answered that part already. 90% of black voters ALWAYS vote Democrat. So how is Obama any different than every other Democrat who ran? How will it manifest itself? It won't that's how. He will do for them what he can. He isn't going to make blacks his priority as you seem to be implying Frank. On a side note. McCain gets a lot of his money from defense contractors and oil companies, how will that manifest itself if he gets elected? Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/28/2008 @ 7:48pm
Are you trying to turn him into a nother Jesse Jackson? Make people afraid of the darkies so we won't vote for him?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/29/2008 @ 11:43am
Let's see:
1-He calls the killers of al mahdi army the protectors of shia, while they have killed so many shia, believe your and their lies if you want, but you can not fool us Iraqis.
2-Good that [the Kurds, ISCI, and IIP] they did side with the baathist ayad allawi, khalaf alalyan, and the son of a baathi agent AKA muqtada Alsadr, get your facts before you pretend to speak about such things; the law they wanted to pass would have made arabists [aka Nazis] very happy.
3-Your entire piece has just proved that the USA needs someone who would deal with these issues instead of handing Iraq over to the Iraq hating and USA hating Iranian and Arabic Dictatorship, way to go.
Next time use an umbrella, the sky is falling.
greetings.
Posted by IraqBruin at 08/02/2008 @ 01:46am