Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThis summer, Americans Against Escalation in Iraq – a broad coalition of advocacy organizations and political action committees from across the political spectrum – has launched the Iraq Summer campaign to help end the war by making it politically toxic for Republicans to support it.
Tom Matzzie, Washington Director of MoveOn.org, is "on loan" to run Americans Against Escalation in Iraq. The national campaign has a staff of 100 people, a multimillion dollar budget, and a tall order as it embarks on this effort to unify opposition to the Iraq War in advance of the Petraeus report in September.
"The debate was set up in the spring as leading towards a September report," Matzzie says, "so that gave us an organizing opportunity and an organizing momentum going into the summer. The goal is to cut the remaining support for the president's Iraq policy out from underneath him. Give the Republicans a choice between helping to end the war or facing political extinction."
With over 80 paid organizers deployed across the country, the Iraq Summer campaign – which organizers say is modeled after the Freedom Summer – is focused on 40 targeted districts where Matzzie says "there is a lot of opposition to the war but very little grassroots leadership supporting an end to the war…. Often in these suburban and exurban Republican districts there's no institutional support for a campaign to end the war…. That's what a lot of Iraq Summer is about is building a permanent apparatus to oppose the war policy in these targeted areas. "
The organizers were trained at the Maritime Institute in Baltimore – a union training facility – and then assigned to 15 states across the country. Many organizers are veterans or their family members. Iowa State Director Sue Dinsdale is the mother of two Marines. Michigan State Director Tamarra Rosenleaf's husband has been deployed to Iraq. There are also Iraq veterans on staff in New York, Illinois, Virginia, and Kentucky, and three full-time staff in Washington, DC including the chief lobbyist, John Bruhns. Finally, dozens of veterans and their family members are in the field as paid staff and volunteers.
In addition to the 40 districts where the Iraq Summer campaign has sent staff (a fairly up to date list of targets can be found here – it's missing only Senator Mitch McConnell and Representative Jean Schmidt), Americans Against Escalation in Iraq reaches another 30 House targets through grants to local organizations such as the Connecticut Citizen Action Group. In all of these districts the organizers, veterans and military families, and activists are using field operations, coalition building, paid and earned media strategies, volunteer events and cutting edge online organizing to turn up the heat on Republican members of Congress who are blocking a safe end to the Iraq war.
"I think since the war began, for over 4 years, we've done a great job as a movement of going out there and saying, ‘We oppose the War,'" Matzzie says. "But we haven't always brought the responsibility back to the politicians who are allowing it to happen. So we're changing the rhetoric from ‘I oppose the War' to ‘I oppose, [for example], Senator Coleman because of his support on the War.' And that politicization of the war policy helps put the fear into politicians, which is essential…. Ultimately the war ends because the politicians choose their own survival over sticking with Bush. That can be achieved only in the hometowns of these politicians where they count their votes."
The impact the campaign is having is already evident in the hundreds of videos activists are shooting (such as footage of Representative Mark Kirk ignoring an Iraq Vet). Americans Against Escalation in Iraq gave organizers $125 reusable video cameras – called " The Flip" camera – that plug into a USB port on a computer. The training of the organizers and activists is clear as they confront war supporters in an aggressive but normally courteous manner, and stay on message.
In addition to on-the-ground organizing, Matzzie says Americans Against Escalation in Iraq are countering the White House spin through the use of PR professionals. "We have for the first time a national, daily counterpoint to the White House and the media," he says. "We have PR professionals across two public relations firms and on our own payroll who are working every day to provide a counterpoint to the Bush administration in the press."
Iraq Summer will culminate with Take a Stand Day on August 28th. There will be about 60 town meetings held in targeted districts (the representatives are invited to attend – so far, no takers). In those communities where Representatives already support an end to the war there will be vigils to echo the message that it's time for Congress to take a stand – over 2,000 such vigils are planned. Matzzie says that MoveOn, Working Assets and True Majority are among the groups that will get the word out about Take a Stand Day nationwide.
Americans Against Escalation in Iraq doesn't plan to close shop when Congress reconvenes. If its fundraising success continues, it plans to keep its staff through December, adjusting its targets as needed.
"Ultimately what we have to do is make sure that the Republicans know we're not going away," Matzzie says. "We're gonna be in their faces until the war is over. If they still vote wrong, we're gonna stay in their face… And the sooner the politicians know that the sooner the war will end…. [And] if the Democrats don't hold Bush's feet to the fire this fall there will be dozens of primary challenges next spring."
There are some in the antiwar movement who think the Iraq Summer strategy isn't doing enough to hold Democrats feet to the fire. CODEPINK, for example, has occupied the offices of Democratic legislators who voted for a timetable but failed to limit war funding to a fully funded troop redeployment only (as opposed to Bush's escalation). In a recent article in The Hill, one CODEPINK activist called MoveOn "very conservative."
Matzzie, however, suggests that there isn't a problem with these diverse tactics. He notes that the partner organizations of Americans Against Escalation in Iraq usually take on the Democrats, but this apparatus takes on "mostly Republicans."
"It's gonna take a wall of opposition from the entire political spectrum [to end this war]," Matzzie says. "We're facing down a determined and isolated president. We're facing down the Republican Party, the entire foreign policy establishment, the military-industrial complex, Arab governments throughout the Middle East who don't want us to leave mostly because they don't want to deal with the problem, a Sunni insurgency, the Shia militias that are conducting ethnic cleansing…. There is a mosaic of people who are working to end the war. We saw work that was not being done, and we went to fill that vacuum. And that's what we're doing. And this apparatus is there, and it's well exercised, and at necessary times it can turn against any target any where in the country, regardless of their party."
Matzzie believes that the most important thing right now is "Outside the Beltway pressure on the politicians."
"What's most important now is that people know that there's a big showdown on the war this fall," Matzzie says. "We need people in their home districts to be marching and going to their town hall meetings, and making phone calls, and talking to their neighbors…. We have a genuine shot at bringing some troops home this fall. It might not be that we're able to win complete redeployment before the next president is elected but if we can bring home 60,000 troops that's 60,000 families who can sleep with a little more comfort."
It will be up to the entire mosaic – the entire "wall of opposition" – to stay in the faces of every Republican and Democrat until every soldier comes home.
This post was co-authored by Greg Kaufmann, a freelance writer residing in his disenfranchised hometown of Washington, DC.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Damn, ZERO, you beat me to the same message!
The uber Lefties can't get `their' own pols to act and now, out of desperation or too much time and money or w/nothing better to do, thinks it can stare down `vulnerable' GOPs!
Shit, topics are improving at TN but less time to peruse! BTW, Stocks are on sale just about all across the board, even WalMart is getting down into `intresting' levels.....wonder if my Limit Buy will execute today????
Posted by Happy at 08/14/2007 @ 12:16pm
How about directing this energy toward pressuring our leaders, and/or future leaders, into real diplomatic efforts with neighboring countries. It's becoming more clear that these willy-nilly statements like "end the war NOW" should include ideas on "HOW we end the war now."
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/14/2007 @ 12:28pm
"The national campaign has a staff of 100 people, a multimillion dollar budget, and a tall order as it embarks on this effort to unify opposition to the Iraq War in advance of the Petraeus report in September. "
Are they afraid Petraeus might have something positive in his message? Multi million dollar budgets? Couyldn't that money be better spent on the returning solidiers for their care and theri well being?..
We all know who are opposed to the Iraq war, so whats the point?
Posted by john maasch at 08/14/2007 @ 12:29pm
unfortunately i doubt that voting alone will pull american troops out of iraq. 4 giant bases are being constructed at a cost of literally untold billions. a new forbidden city in the form of an embassy is being constructed in baghdad.
no, they're not going anywhere. politicians will pay lip service, bringing home a few troops here and there, but the military presence is long-term.
the american elite is not going to let their new base of mid-east dominance slip away. they learned their lesson after their puppet, the shah of shahs, (despot of despots) was deposed in iran. from now on they won't rely on proxies. any trouble with iraq's oil fields and ¡wham-o! team america will be right there to defend "freedom" (the freedom to drive your suv to the white castle drive-thru).
vote for whom you may (unless it's kucinich or ron paul), the troops are there to stay.
however, good luck to these people on their quixotic quest to bring sanity to our times.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2007 @ 12:30pm
Posted by MATTMAN 08/14/2007
don't forget the war ended a long time ago--remember mission accomplished.
this is an occupation
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2007 @ 12:32pm
Shit, topics are improving at TN but less time to peruse! BTW, Stocks are on sale just about all across the board, even WalMart is getting down into `intresting' levels.....wonder if my Limit Buy will execute today????
Posted by HAPPY 08/14/2007 @ 12:16pm
Damn Happy, you are just so darn proud of yourself aren't you? Pat yourself on the back for me will ya? You neat happy little guy, you.
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/14/2007 @ 12:34pm
Are they afraid Petraeus might have something positive in his message? Multi million dollar budgets? Couyldn't that money be better spent on the returning solidiers for their care and theri well being?..
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/14/2007 @ 12:29pm
Of course Patraeus will say positive things: "Things are looking better, improving, blah,blah,blah." It's called rhetoric. People aren't blindly buying it like they used to though.
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/14/2007 @ 12:38pm
Couyldn't that money be better spent on the returning solidiers for their care and theri well being?..
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/14/2007 @ 12:29pm
if your anything like HAPPY, you're benefiting from all the carnage (both physical and financial) wrought by this occupation.
why don't YOU personally pay for the long-term care of a vet. let him/her live with you. dress their wounds. insert catheters. clean bed pans. explain to them why their legs or arms are less important then your financial gains.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2007 @ 12:39pm
Matzzie, however, suggests that there isn't a problem with these diverse tactics. He notes that the partner organizations of Americans Against Escalation in Iraq usually take on the Democrats, but this apparatus takes on "mostly Republicans."
If Matzzie wants to use his resources to end the war, then he needs to field viable candidates in 'all' anti-war congressional districts, not just Republican districts, because as we all know, Rahm Emanuel recruited and ran pro-war AIPAC Democrats in anti-war congressional districts, and won.
We must face the reality that Republicans beholden to defense and oil lobbies AND Democrats beholden to AIPAC are the chief reason we are continuing the war. Targeting candidates from both parties in anti-war districts just makes good sense if you are serious about ending the war.
Posted by Metteyya at 08/14/2007 @ 12:42pm
this is an occupation
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/14/2007 @ 12:32pm
Label it as we may (war, occupation, surge, escallation), pulling out without a plan for continuint stability and minimizing violence will be bad for the middle east and ultimately the world. True, it will be great for the soldiers, their families, and America, but we've got to be responsible and clean up after ourselves. Hindsight's 20/20 but we shouldnt' have gone there in the first place. Dick Cheney himself made the quote back in 94 that going after Saddam would result in an unwinnable quagmire." I guess he should have heeded his own advice. I guess that's not really hindsight then, is it?
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/14/2007 @ 12:45pm
It's becoming more clear that these willy-nilly statements like "end the war NOW" should include ideas on "HOW we end the war now."-----Posted by MATTMAN 08/14/2007 @ 12:28pm
Can't be done. Somebody will be unhappy. Either it's "Out now and fully out, no 'redeployments', no permanent bases" and when the inevitable civil war comes, the Dems get blamed for "losing Iraq"....or "semi-withdrawal, AKA redeployment, and we're sill in Iraq for 2-5 years, while the political solution is negotiated for what will seem like forever".
I'm in the camp of "Get out now" and let the Iranians, Syrians, and Saudis work it out for themselves, split up the country (Iraq), or whatever. It keeps Americans from dying and nobody can claim that the eventual solution is "American-imposed". The risk?....regional war and $150-200 a barrel...but that's the risk anyway.
Posted by Mask at 08/14/2007 @ 1:09pm
this is an occupation
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 08/14/2007 @ 12:32pm | ignore this person
an occupation with air strikes
is
a
war.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 1:20pm
without a plan for continuint stability and minimizing violence will be bad for the middle east and ultimately the world.
go ahead, Matt. take a shot at it. HOW?
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 1:22pm
Posted by MASK 08/14/2007 @ 1:09pm
I've gone back and forth on this one. (flip-flopper- I know.) It just seems like a recipe for further chaos for the people of that region to pull out without a significan strategy for stability. The fact is though, diplomacy with Iran and Syria has really not been attempted, so at the very least, it should be. Not that anyone expects to resolve centuries old conflicts. We've got to de-escalate, use puppet mediators (without the appearance of US influence for political appeal).
I know it's pointless to say this, but we just should not have gotten involved with this war!
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/14/2007 @ 1:32pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/14/2007 @ 1:20pm
I won't pretend to have an answer to that, but a good start would be to elect a new leader who starkly contrasts the objectives of Bush and Cheney, and who will at the very least attempt diplomacy in that region. It needs to be made clear to the people there that a change of the guards in the US means a shift in policy in the middle east and de-escalation in violence.
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/14/2007 @ 1:37pm
an occupation with air strikes
is
a
war crime.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2007 @ 1:45pm
an occupation with air strikes
is
an
affront to jesus
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2007 @ 1:46pm
I know it's pointless to say this, but we just should not have gotten involved with this war!
Posted by MATTMAN 08/14/2007 @ 1:32pm
mattman you're right on one point: if you get stung by a hornet, your best defence is not to take a big stick (schtick) of "shock and awe" and swat aimlessly at the wasp's nest!
however, on the pointlessness of pointing out the pointy heads that pointed the stick:
how else are we going to avoid history's incessant repetitions if people are not constantly reminded of what incompetence truly means?
axis of evil
excess of evil
excessive evil
Knievel McEvil
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2007 @ 2:03pm
After reading Tom Engelhardt's "What Progress in Iraq Really Means," the following thought occurred to me.
One argument against immediate, unconditional withdrawal has been what I call the "bloodbath argument." There will be a "bloodbath" if we leave. (In fact, several comments on this thread make this argument.) Here is the problem with this argument.
1) As if. Folks, THERE IS ALREADY A BLOODBATH IN IRAQ and the U.S. is the one who turned on the faucets. I know this is considered arguable, but if you accept The Lancet's figures for Iraqi deaths, there have been, at the very least, several hundred thousand innocent Iraqis killed since the start of the war and occupation. Even the Bush's administration's lowballing of this figure puts it in the high tens of thousands, which would STILL be a "bloodbath" in by any rational standard.
2) There may actually be LESS of a "bloodbath" AFTER WE LEAVE. Once the Iraqis get things sorted out among themselves (and be honest, is the U.S. REALLY helping this process?) things should settle down a bit, or so I would argue. In FOUR YEARS, the anarchy, chaos, suffering, and death HAVE ONLY GOTTEN WORSE. And we expect it now to improve IF WE STAY? Folks, this country is being ruled by madmen, incapable of realism or logic.
Posted by w_m_bear at 08/14/2007 @ 2:07pm
Posted by W_M_BEAR 08/14/2007 @ 2:07pm
Those are good points. I am admittedly unsure on this issue because the underlying point is that NOBODY KNOWS what will happen if we leave. We DO know what will happen if we stay, since we've only seen more of the same. I guess I fear that things will get worse. Things are obviously bad now, and hopefully they'll get better in leaving to let the region sort itself out. Who are any of us to say, however, that we really haven't seen the worse case scenario yet? The instability of the middle east has world war III potential.
I'm wise enough to know that my humble opions mean nothing ultimately anyway. Washington's a blue state anyway, so I really need not bother to vote.
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/14/2007 @ 2:19pm
The instability of the middle east has world war III potential.
no, it doesn't. there are no actors in the mideast that could compare to the combatants in both world war. Syria is not going to attack the EU, and Iran cannot attack the US.Israel will not attack Egypt and the less said about Iraq the better.
will Turkey attack Iraq? not if the want to play ball with the EU. will Saudi intervene in Iraq? notachance. they have no military capability, no matter how many arms they buy from us.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 2:30pm
I won't pretend to have an answer to that, but a good start would be to elect a new leader who starkly contrasts the objectives of Bush and Cheney, and who will at the very least attempt diplomacy in that region. It needs to be made clear to the people there that a change of the guards in the US means a shift in policy in the middle east and de-escalation in violence.
Posted by MATTMAN 08/14/2007 @ 1:37pm | ignore this person
oK, I give up. who?
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 2:31pm
oK, I give up. who?
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/14/2007 @ 2:31pm
I'm liking Obama more and more, though I wouldn't assert that he's the answer to solving all that is wrong with the middle east. Again, I'm not like others on this site who know everything, because I'm well aware that I don't. I do believe that the less the US has to do with the ME, probably the better (for us and them). I'm not convinced that leaving without playing a pivotal role in securing the region is the most responsible move we could make. I do respect your opinions. What are your thoughts?
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/14/2007 @ 2:45pm
what distresses me regarding these discussions (both micro and macro) about who should take "the helm" is the fact that it always concerns playing the same old game, maybe to "the left" or "the right", but it's always the same ol', same ol'.
we (earthlings) need an american leader who realizes that the u.s. should wait to be asked for help, instead of telling nations they need help, all the while maintaining a global network of "helper" bases ready to go "a-helpin'" at the beck and call of a few rich dudes.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2007 @ 3:07pm
I wonder if there is any "Tet" type surprise planned for a week or two before Patreus is scheduled to give his report?
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/14/2007 @ 3:17pm
Nonetheless, anybody that is foolish enough to believe anything this administration or one of its lackeys has to say is dumber than dirt.
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/14/2007 @ 3:19pm
Posted by MATTMAN 08/14/2007 @ 1:32pm
Problem with a "negotiated settlement" are the players. Iran doesn't trust us (we obviously don't trust them). The Shiia Gov't of Iran don't trust the Sunnis backed by the Saudis (who reciprocate)....and they ALL don't want us as "broker" for fear of being "sold out".
If Jim Clyburn (Majority Whip) is right, it may not matter. He said just a week ago that if Petraeus' report is at all optimistic...he may lose the "Blue Dog" Democrats and that means no Bush veto over-ride is possible, and a likely "May 2007 Surrender" repeat by Pelosi and Reid.
Which means funding the occupation until Bush leaves office in Jan. 2009.
Posted by Mask at 08/14/2007 @ 3:29pm
You point to the Tet Offensive of '68! MTS, which was a solid victory for the Vietnamese nationalists, but I think the better "surprise" analogy is the feared "October Surprise" of neo-cons whose deal with the Iranian revolutionaries insured Ray-gun's victory over Carter in '80 by guaranteeing the US embassy hostages would NOT be released prior to election day. They in fact were released with great unspoken irony on inauguration day, recall.
Posted by lewwelge at 08/14/2007 @ 3:30pm
What are your thoughts?
Posted by MATTMAN 08/14/2007 @ 2:45pm | ignore this person
withdrawing our military is not the same as leaving the region. we need to address the problems diplomatically. but we cannot make war and peace at the same time.
with american help a peace deal was reached between Israel and Egypt and Jordan. let's build on that success. stop branding nations as enemies.
the fact that the puppet gov't we installed in Iraq consists entirely of Iraqis who are and were clients of Iran. they all have spent the last 20 years there. so Iran is obviously a player in the region, with many interests in Iraq. we should capitalize on that. sign a non aggression pact with them.
our troops have accomplished nothing, on the contrary. they should all come home. make a deal in Iraq. a cease fire in exchange for the withdrawal of troops.this will all take years. we have destroyed, nearly, Iraq the country and Iraq the society, more destructive than Saddam, Bush will always live in infamy, kinda like OJ.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 3:35pm
"October Surprise" of neo-cons whose deal with the Iranian revolutionaries insured Ray-gun's victory over Carter in '80
this was treason, and they should have been charged with it. I'm sure Bush Sr.'s fingerprints were all over this.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 3:37pm
Posted by MASK 08/14/2007 @ 3:29pm
Any doubts that Patraeus' report will be optimistic?
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/14/2007 @ 3:45pm
"...controlling American life through the Judiciary activism rather than the free will of American voters because Americans won't listen?" Posted by FREIHEIT 08/14/2007 @ 3:41pm
Hmm.. I seem to remember judicial activism playing a crucial role in the outcome of the 2000 Bush victory.
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/14/2007 @ 3:47pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/14/2007 @ 3:35pm
So which candidate with actual potential for victory do you endorse to acheive your above listed objectives? (Which sound reasonable, I may add.)
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/14/2007 @ 3:48pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/14/2007 @ 3:41pm | ignore this person
this is a smear.
the war was started for political reasons. your dishonest posting accuses the dems only of politicizing the war. that is a lie and you have been posting this lie repeatedly.
since we were not attacked and could not have been attacked by Iraq, this war was a political stunt, undertaken because we could.
the repubs will not clean up the mess they have made in Iraq, it will be up to a dem to do so.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 3:51pm
Posted by MASK 08/14/2007 @ 1:09pm
Let me give you a lift....nothing new...
I agree, All-In or All-Out! May the next POTUS make the decision of his/her lifeime as Job One!
Posted by Happy at 08/14/2007 @ 3:56pm
Any doubts that Patraeus' report will be optimistic?
Posted by MATTMAN 08/14/2007 @ 3:45pm |
Not a doubt in my mind. Not 100% Rosy Scenario, but he wouldn't have been chosen IN THE FIRST PLACE if "he didn't think we could win"...so it'll be "Sure, there are some setbacks" and "Of course, the Baghdad Gov't hasn't done everything we'd hope for"....but a lot of "Buts" and "give us another 6 months and you'll see even more improvement".
Then it's a matter of how the Dems take it and run with it, Repubs too.
My fear is the September supplemental will be passed with a set goal....March 2009, well after Bush leaves office. Which will give the PONTI, RIO BRAVO, BARRY, etc. Crowd what they, Limbaugh, and Fox News will need.....a Democrat "losing Iraq".
Which brings up an interesting point, if by Fall 2008, things are still rotten in the State of Iraq....will Giuliani, Romney, or Thompson....throw the race?...to prevent being stuck with the inevitable disaster? Dubious...but who knows?
Posted by Mask at 08/14/2007 @ 4:09pm
And even worse and more threatening, reports out of the media are saying the situation in Iraq is actually improving?
Shouldn't that be good news to every American?
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/14/2007 @ 4:04pm
The timing just seems a little uncanny, what with Sept right around the corner...
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/14/2007 @ 4:11pm
You point to the Tet Offensive of '68! MTS, which was a solid victory for the Vietnamese nationalists, but I think the better "surprise" analogy is the feared "October Surprise" of neo-cons whose deal with the Iranian revolutionaries insured Ray-gun's victory over Carter in '80 by guaranteeing the US embassy hostages would NOT be released prior to election day. They in fact were released with great unspoken irony on inauguration day, recall.
Posted by LEWWELGE
Militarily it was a huge defeat for the Viet Cong; it's effect on the US public's views of the war were on target.
Those in Iraq wanting the US out immediately should have something big planned for the two or so weeks before Patreus is scheduled to submit his report.
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/14/2007 @ 4:15pm
Which brings up an interesting point, if by Fall 2008, things are still rotten in the State of Iraq....will Giuliani, Romney, or Thompson....throw the race?...to prevent being stuck with the inevitable disaster? Dubious...but who knows?
Posted by MASK 08/14/2007 @ 4:09pm |
It wouldn't be a bad long term strategy for the right. Dump a failed Iraq war into the lap of a Democrat president to fix. Lay all of the blame on him/her (probably her), then gather support for 2012 on the "see how bad the democrats fucked up!!" ticket.
The dem president had damn well better fix Iraq, at least as far as the US is concerned for the future of democratic controll. With that said, I'm thinking yanking the troops would be the best symbolic move the democrats could immediately do with their presidency. Chalking up that victory would be tough for repubs to trump in 2012. Conversely, a smart move from R's could be to pull troops for their own benefit as well. Then, they aren't so great at thinking long-term.
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/14/2007 @ 4:21pm
No, I correctly identify the democrats as ALSO politicizing the war.
this is the first time I have seen that. about time.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 4:30pm
The risk is what if Americans don't see it that way with their own eyes? My opinion only, but the moderate anger against Republicans in 06 isn't going to carry over to 08. The Democrat base is much more divided than the republican base.
Isn't that right Cindy?
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/14/2007 @ 4:19pm |
I think that the far left, though unhappy with Clinton, would rather see her elected than repeat the mistake of 2000 in splitting the left vote. The left is getting the "baby steps" to the left approach as a necessary strategy in taking back America from the reactionary right.
Who will the all-powerful religious right support? Is pro-abortion Romney their guy? Or how about pro-abortion Romney? Or Former pro-abortion Fred Thompson, now anti-abortion Fred Thompson? Which one of these guys will potentiate the problems of the world toward doomsday, the issue that matters most the the extreme religious right?
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/14/2007 @ 4:33pm
The risk is what if Americans don't see it that way with their own eyes? My opinion only, but the moderate anger against Republicans in 06 isn't going to carry over to 08. The Democrat base is much more divided than the republican base.
Isn't that right Cindy?
Posted by FREIHEIT
And yet the Dem leadership refuses to impeach or do anything else other than run their mouths. Impeaching Cheney, or at least Gonzales, could serve to rally the so called left, as well as educate the ignorant with what this administration has done. That might require some Dems showing their asses, though.
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/14/2007 @ 4:33pm
"Who will the all-powerful religious right support?"
Posted by MATTMAN
Those people are by definition gullible, simple, confused. You could make cross impressions in dog shit, tell them it's chocolate, and they'll eat it up. Hell, they voted for Jr twice!
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/14/2007 @ 4:37pm
Victory in Iraq mean Democrat losses in Congress -----Majority leader in House even said that it would cause democrats problems if things got better in Iraq---how sad.
Posted by Len Mosse at 08/14/2007 @ 4:40pm
"Who will the all-powerful religious right support?"
Posted by MATTMAN
All you've gotta do is wave the flag around, claim to be "born again" and call evolution a theory. It's kind of like jingling shiny keys in front of a parrot.
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/14/2007 @ 4:47pm
(US victory being Iraq functioning as a liberal democracy, free press, freedom of religion, stable economy, new markets, rights for homosexuals, Iraqi Oil revenue leading to investment capital, innovation, a reduction of poverty and ignorance in the region).
Posted by FREIHEIT
That's something they do not have to worry about.
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/14/2007 @ 4:49pm
Posted by MATTMAN 08/14/2007 @ 4:21pm
I think it's a fair guess that they threw out Bob Dole in 1996 for a calculated purpose. War hero and moderate, but an old man with a public personae as a sour-puss...against the "dynamic and gregarious incumbent President"? Dubya could have run, even some popular Repub governor, but nobody wanted it because they smelled defeat...so they "gave it to the guy who had waited the longest for it" and lost.
"Throwing" 2008 has its advantages and disadvantages. The advantage to the Repubs, we've noted, it puts Iraq in Hillary's hand-bag and allows the talk radio guys to say "See! Put a liberal AND a woman in charge and they lose a war we were on the verge of winning!" (yes, it's asinine...ever stop them before?)
It gives the GOP the chance to re-build...re-take Congress in 2010...and run one of JOHN MAASCH's "real conservatives" or some Reagan clone (Huckabee, Romney, if they don't get it this time...or even new blood like Matt Blount or Charlie Crist).
"President Hillary" can succeed or fail. If she fails, she won't have the liberal base behind her (she'll move more Right if she gets in trouble). Things will have fallen out in Iraq, one way or the other, but the Spin Machine will get all the blame put on her.
The disadvantages are, of course, trying to do it and not get caught...heheh...pissing off the GOP base and exposing "the plan". It also means losing more seats in Congress (making a "take-back" more difficult). And it risks that Her Majesty actually succeeds, and you're on the outs for a generation.
Fun to kick around, but I doubt it'd really happen. Best way to win...is to win. LVLIB is already onboard even for Giuliani, while the ZERO/Empty Crowd are threatening to stay home if they don't get Kucinich. GOP can still win 2008, and then (if needed) blame the Democratic Congress for "losing Iraq".
Posted by Mask at 08/14/2007 @ 4:50pm
Majority leader in House even said that it would cause democrats problems if things got better in Iraq---how sad.
Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/14/2007 @ 4:40pm
I hadn't heard that LEN....what was his exact quote and where?
Posted by Mask at 08/14/2007 @ 4:51pm
"Hmm.. I seem to remember judicial activism playing a crucial role in the outcome of the 2000 Bush victory.
Posted by MATTMAN 08/14/2007 @ 3:47pm "
Actually, no,it didn't.The law played a crucial role as it should have...even if the election declared a tie, it ends up in the HOUSE and Gore loses even more.
Judicial activism would involve legislating from the bench and finding laws that do not exist in current law...what the SC did in 2000 is enforce the laws already on the books and not let ALGORE selectively sue his way into the WH or hold a never ending recount until he "got a victory".
Would have been moot anyway if ALGORE could remember where Tenneessee was or if Tenneessee could stomache him.
Posted by john maasch at 08/14/2007 @ 4:54pm
All you've gotta do is wave the flag around, claim to be "born again" and call evolution a theory. It's kind of like jingling shiny keys in front of a parrot.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/14/2007 @ 4:47pm
The religious right is a significan base for the repubs. Actually, I've heard that many churches have begun to lean left, due mostly to environmental concerns (not the evangelicals though). Then they've got their fiscal conservatives of course. Their last demographic is the working class guys whose best interest it would really be to vote democratic, but who are more often than not duped into voting for guys like dubya "cause he's the kind of guy you'd like to go have a beer with." I see the Chritian right as a tough challeng for the right this time around with no candidates really on their knees in front of them.
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/14/2007 @ 4:57pm
"I wonder if there is any "Tet" type surprise planned for a week or two before Patreus is scheduled to give his report?
Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/14/2007 @ 3:17pm "
Actually, Tet was a military victory for America if I understand the history and a defeat for the insurgents...we gave no ground, lost no battles and wiped out a large part of the enemy...the defeat came at the hands of Walter Cronkite, when he decide we lost, and for that, he owes an apology to all the troops he "supported", but not the war.....
Posted by john maasch at 08/14/2007 @ 4:57pm
"Posted by FREIHEIT 08/14/2007 @ 3:41pm | ignore this person
this is a smear.
the war was started for political reasons. your dishonest posting accuses the dems only of politicizing the war. that is a lie and you have been posting this lie repeatedly. "
JR,
Many people believe the dems do politicise the war, and that fact theybelieve this doesn't mean it is a lie or the truth...just because many here believe Bush lied, doesn't make it the truth...
I believe the Dems HAVE politicised the war, for without doing that, they have no campaign...another truth, if the Iraq situation woiuld stablize before the 08 elections, the dems would be finished for a long time...and deservedly so.
Posted by john maasch at 08/14/2007 @ 5:03pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH
And where were you? Hiding on a campus somewhere. But, of course, you did support the war, huh? Just from afar. What a patriot. What's that CCR song?
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/14/2007 @ 5:04pm
"if the Iraq situation woiuld stablize before the 08 elections"
Posted by JOHN MAASCH
If if and buts were candy and nuts, oh what a grand Christmas we'd all have.
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/14/2007 @ 5:05pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/14/2007 @ 4:54pm
Judicial inactivism, rather. Let's see, the secretary of state in charge of ensuring a fair election works on dubya's campaign in the state that dubya's brother is the governer. A conspiratorial election theft ensued by purging voter rolls of thousands of eligible democrats. Where was the judicial oversight in all of that?
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/14/2007 @ 5:07pm
Actually, Tet was a military victory for America if I understand the history and a defeat for the insurgents...
Posted by JOHN MAASCH
You and your ilk do not understand the history. It's a guerilla war and that involves much more than winning on the battle field.
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/14/2007 @ 5:10pm
Maasch-We waged total war on Viet Nam for years and couldn't defeat them just as others in their past could not defeat them.They never would have surrendered or stopped fighting and the cold war would have just continued heating up if we had stayed.Viet Nam was,according to war supporters,a battle of the cold war.We lost that battle,but won the war and that's what's relevant.You must admit that it's nice not to have to be so concerned about nuclear holocaust.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/14/2007 @ 5:11pm
MTSPENCE05, Well, first off, Evolution IS a theory.
Posted by FREIHEIT
A theory that has withstood the test of time. That's the way the scientific method works--you attempt to disprove a theory. It's not a damn hypothesis.
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/14/2007 @ 5:14pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY
The Soviets were happy to watch the US waste men and material in Southeast Asia. Just as the US benefited from the Soviet quagmire in Afghanistan. (And to a lesser extent, Iran enjoys watching the US flounder in Iraq.)
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/14/2007 @ 5:18pm
MTSpence-The Soviets were also happy about selling arms to the other side as were the Chinese.Wonderful source of propaganda,profit, and fun for them.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/14/2007 @ 5:20pm
"And where were you? Hiding on a campus somewhere. But, of course, you did support the war, huh? Just from afar. What a patriot. What's that CCR song?
Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/14/2007 @ 5:04pm "
Banging your mother during the protest rallys..
..and warning her about getting pregnant..as she better be careful of the guys she has "dates" with..I am the offspring of some bankers(thats how I paid for some of my college, bank stocks, and the other half I paid myself by working, not robbing),and warning her about having a bank robber for offspring...
(I think she should have had an abortion, but, here you are MT)
and look, what a surprise...a bank robber for a son... dispensing political advice and economic advice to...nobody..
Posted by john maasch at 08/14/2007 @ 5:21pm
Ouch! Let's keep it above the belt, old man.
Bankers? I thought they were doctors. Is your story changing yet again, old man?
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/14/2007 @ 5:29pm
And all those unfortunate young men without bank stocks got a one way ticket to Vietnam while you were safe and sound on a campus. (Yeah, yeah, you worked for a year and a half once the war was over and it was safe to leave the advantages of being enrolled.)
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/14/2007 @ 5:31pm
And, chances are, your mother isn't sure who your father is, old man.
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/14/2007 @ 5:33pm
Some are doctors and some are bankers and some are farmers and some are workers...but none are bank robbers..
and my father is dead.
Posted by john maasch at 08/14/2007 @ 5:51pm
Sure they are.
I'm a convicted bank robber (and a veteran). You're a war dodger. I know which is worse. Too bad you're lacking the morals, ethics to discern the difference. (Anybody can hide out on a campus while mommie and daddy pay for their tuition. Hell, you can't even do so much as admit you dodged the war.)
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/14/2007 @ 5:59pm
"And all those unfortunate young men without bank stocks got a one way ticket to Vietnam while you were safe and sound on a campus.'
Yup,I was safe at home along with millions of others and so did those with high draft numbers and so did those who never went to school at all and so did those who went to work right out of high school and so did those who went to school, quit, and went back to school, and so did all those who ran to Canada, and so did those who robbed banks...or committed other crimes and so did those who got married, and so did those who got divorced, and so did those who went to work on the farm and so did those who never registered for the draft at al..
all of the above, includidng myself..all of those which make up the majority of American males during the time the VN war raged and was lost by politicians...all of these and the millions more...never joined any branch of the service...
and the fact that you did makes you, what? A hero? a genius? a model citizen?...anything good that it made you was nullified by your own hand...
and the millions of us, a majority who did commit a crime, or serve in the military...we just exercised our freedom of choice.....and pursued our happiness..inspite of you...we celebrated our constitutional rights, defended by the servicmen of the US WITHOUT judgements from them about us, except from the likes of you, I guess a common theif....one who is no position to judge anyone..in fact it is you should be serving more..
10-20 perhaps?
Stop judging others in light of your past..it looks silly.
Posted by john maasch at 08/14/2007 @ 6:08pm
Posted by MASK 08/14/2007 @ 4:50pm
Sounds futile for the dems by that projection. Here's another possibility: the dems win the presidency and do a great job of restoring faith in government and leadership. The middle class re-emerges and the non-partisan general populace takes notice. In other words, the return to the Clinton 90's, the idea of which has got Hillary on track to the whitehouse. IF that Clintonian era is restored, I'd say the republicans will have a tough fight in future elections and real left wing candidates will become real players.
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/14/2007 @ 6:09pm
Banging your mother during the protest rallys..
..and warning her about getting pregnant..as she better be careful of the guys she has "dates" with..I am the offspring of some bankers(thats how I paid for some of my college, bank stocks, and the other half I paid myself by working, not robbing),and warning her about having a bank robber for offspring...
Posted by JOHN MAASCH
I hate to see such a "distinguished" and "successful" businessman as yourself stoop so low. Especially when deigning to address a convict such as myself. It truly is a shameful site to behold.
"...and the fact that you did makes you, what? A hero? a genius? a model citizen?...anything good that it made you was nullified by your own hand..."
No, just that much better than you, old man. (And nothing is nullified; there is no taking away the time I spent in service.)
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/14/2007 @ 6:16pm
I don't have to admit to anything wrong, as I have done nothing wrong...you on the other hand..are a con..a thief, a common loser..so your line ...
"Too bad you're lacking the morals, ethics to discern the difference."
Means nothing coming from you..hardly an insult, more of a joke met with guffaws...
This makes you a criminal and nothing more..you soiled your service..you are a veteran alright..a veteran criminal...nothing more. And it makes you a loser is the first degree...
..shall we ask your family what YOUR legacy might be?..Do you think the first thing that will jump into their heads, minds, and souls, wil be..well, EMPTY was in the military, cleaned latrines and was a hero...or will it be...after a few mumbles, something about banks falls off their lips...with what?, PRIDE in the fact you were in the military? Thayt this makes it acceptable? Or maybe, they could say, "well, he didn't kill anybody!" SHIT.
Think they would rather have the shame of one who was able to go to school, provide for his family, create taxes , build a business and a life, help send others to school,..think that might be viewed as a negative or does it really matter that YOU view it as a flaw of some sort, given your ah, past? You past, like mine, will never go away..your past and present is shit..you can wear it proudly..
The few, the proud, the incarcerated..our nation turns its lonely eyes to you? I think not.
Go sell it some where else...not many buyers here, although, if there are buyers , you have come to the right site here at the Nation, but my guess you would get a short play else where in the land..
now, I can make you go away...bye..bye..
Posted by john maasch at 08/14/2007 @ 6:22pm
"No, just that much better than you, old man. (And nothing is nullified; there is no taking away the time I spent in service.)
Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/14/2007 @ 6:16pm
Really? I think you shit on your service, your country, and your family...what do you think they would say..honestly?
That I am the problem? I can give them a future..what can you give? Intelligent advise..on..how the country works? on how honorable people live.on how to build wealth for you and yours...or how to survive the booking process?
Please...beat. it.
Posted by john maasch at 08/14/2007 @ 6:26pm
....the return to the Clinton 90's,.....
Posted by MATTMAN 08/14/2007 @ 6:09pm
Lest you forget, Bill had a GOP-controlled Congress! IF Dems control ALL after 2008, if the country is not already on the cusp of the next recession, mark my word, a rather large recession will hit before 2010!
Why? the arrival of Dem total control will mean the direction of economic & tax policies will make a decisive about-face, be it slowly or rapidly, from that guided by the GOP since 1994! The economy (& investors like me) will make adjustments but there will be heavy costs to all classes, more so the middle and lower.....just hope the national Dems can react better than the pols in Michigan have so far...otherwise, a recession bordering on or outright depression is NOT out of the question! No fear-mongering......just my lack of faith in Dem pols!
Posted by Happy at 08/14/2007 @ 6:26pm
Posted by HAPPY 08/14/2007 @ 6:26pm
I, for one, can hardly wait to see how much more gas supplies increase for the US because of a tax on oil profits..and I am sure an increase will not be felt at the pump by the guy who is hurt by increases in prices the most..the lower and middle...and I can hardly wait to see how well those same people fare when the DEMS demand Walmart turn their work force into welforce...as higher prics get passed on to the consumer...dancing in the streets, I am sure.
Ah, yes, DEM controled govt...coming for your heath care soon...
Posted by john maasch at 08/14/2007 @ 6:32pm
That I am the problem? I can give them a future..what can you give? Intelligent advise..on..how the country works? on how honorable people live.on how to build wealth for you and yours...or how to survive the booking process?
Please...beat. it.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH
Build wealth on the backs of Third World labor? Lessons from a damn salesman? What, how to lie, cheat, suck ass, old man?
No. I did my crime, accepted responsibility, admitted my guilt, and did my time.
You are living a lie, old man. You dodged the war. You lie, rationalize, but you know the truth, and you cannot escape from the truth.
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/14/2007 @ 6:34pm
"...all of those which make up the majority of American males during the time the VN war raged and was lost by politicians..."
But rather than continue with the "Are too!" "Are not!" nonsense, let's return to your malignant ignorance of history. Politicians did not loose the Vietnam war (any more than the Socialists "stabbed Germany in the back" in 1918). Guerilla wars are not conventional struggles. It's sad to see that such abject ignorance still survives after all those years and lifes were wasted in Southeast Asia. No wonder the US is losing lifes and billions in Iraq in this day and time.
Money can only buy so much, old man. Knowledge, wisdom, intelligence, objectivity--you can't purchase that at Wal-Mart, you old fool.
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/14/2007 @ 6:43pm
The tax about face will come...for the wealthy. I don't see that hurting the lower and middle classes, especially when minimum wages will increase. The burden of the working poor will lessen under left leaning leaders. Most people in debt have mounting medical bills. National healthcare and other public assistance programs are in place to build the nation from the bottom up, ease the burdens of "putting food on our families." Worried about the gas tax? Get a more fuel economical car, or take the bus.
Posted by MATTMAN at 08/14/2007 @ 6:45pm
" Knowledge, wisdom, intelligence, objectivity--you can't purchase that at Wal-Mart, you old fool.
Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/14/2007 @ 6:43pm '
Share with us, once again, on how it is that you have purchased, er,come by, ah, yours? You are the fool..for all to see.
Posted by john maasch at 08/14/2007 @ 6:47pm
The tax about face will come...for the wealthy. I don't see that hurting the lower and middle classes,......Worried about the gas tax? Get a more fuel economical car, or take the bus.
Posted by MATTMAN 08/14/2007 @ 6:45pm
I'm curious, exactly how many recessions have you lived through as an adult...in this case, I mean post-college, or at least as a self-supporting adult (if you're not a graduate)? The ending part of your comment leads me to believe, you have no first-hand experience w/a down economy!
Posted by Happy at 08/14/2007 @ 7:56pm
"The tax about face will come...for the wealthy. I don't see that hurting the lower and middle classes, especially when minimum wages will increase."
The fact is you don't see a problem is precisely the problem..taking more from the rich never helped any poor person, it just makes the rich less so...if the investor and risk taking class stops taking risks because the govt steals the rewards for taking that risk, it is the poor and middle class who suffer, since the wealthy investors are those creating jobs...not govt hacks..
You should never want the govt to conficate others property or fruits of their labor..when they take all they can from the weathy or because they moved their wealth away from the tax man, and the govt claims they are short, it is then they come looking for another source of funds....you.
Posted by john maasch at 08/14/2007 @ 7:56pm
and Gore loses even more.
he could hardly have lost more.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 8:00pm
.the defeat came at the hands of Walter Cronkite, when he decide we lost, and for that, he owes an apology to all the troops he "supported", but not the war.....
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/14/2007 @ 4:57pm | ignore this person
yes, ONE newscaster said something, and the whole country turned on a dime. Maasch, that's about the most stupid thing you have posted, and you've posted some beauts.
I will tell you why the country turned against the Vietnam war. because of the Pentagon papers. it was by reading the truth, and realizing they had been lied to, and that we were on the wrong side, the corrupt side, in Vietnam. we would still be fighting there, had we not left.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 8:08pm
and Gore loses even more.
he could hardly have lost more.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 08/14/2007 @ 8:00pm
He would have lost in ther House by a large margin.
And for many of us he has lost more ...he lost credibility with his movie and his over doing hype about end of the world in 10 years because of global warming hysteria..no one really takes him seriously outside the hard left politicos...
Posted by john maasch at 08/14/2007 @ 8:10pm
Most never read the pentagon papers..in my opinion, what lost the war was the way it was managed and fought...politicians and not the military being turned loose... 12 years war and no real victory? Waste.
Truth be known, the Vietnamese should have surrendered immediately, given the fact that losing to the US results in massive aid, economic favors and presto...South Korea...Vietnam could have had the same help..instead...they work for 26 cents a day...and can claim victory..goodie for them, I guess.
Not to mention millions murdered after we left and boat people by the...boat load...refugee camps in Thailand....anyway...Iraq will be worse if we bolt..
and we are not leaving, even if Franks object of worship wins the WH..we will stay.
Posted by john maasch at 08/14/2007 @ 8:16pm
Mask===== believe I said earlier that Clyburn was the Majority leader, my memory let me down, he is the Majority Whip.
Congressman James Clyburn, the House Democratic whip, said yesterday that good news on the Iraq war "would be a problem for us" Democrats.
Yes, winning a battle for freedom "would be a problem" for Democrats. It's a sad state of affairs for that party and its partisans. Imagine their "problems" if and when Iraq's democracy stands on its own.
Clyburn is particularly concerned about the House's 47-member Democratic "Blue Dog Caucus" that, in contrast to the Democratic leadership, tends to be moderate on most issues.
Posted by Len Mosse at 08/14/2007 @ 8:56pm
Imagine their "problems" if and when Iraq's democracy stands on its own.
hahahaha. ok, now what if this doesn't happen? if Iraq doesn't improve? then we should kick the repubs out of gov't forever. let them wither like the Whig party.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 9:13pm
So Johannes---are you one of those partisans who doesn't want our efforts in Iraq to be successful?---are you willing to have Iraq fall into turmoil for your parties political benefit? What is your answer to those who are saying that things are improving? What is going to be your answer if General Patreaus says things are better and we are on the road to victory? Are you another Little Johnny Nichols (in your case Little Johannes Rolf)---someone so small minded that they put their politcal agenda ahead of their country? Does your country only come first when they are doing what you want them to do? I will be gone for the next few days but I will try to get back and check your answers---on second thought no I won't --I know your answers-you have proven over and over again that you and Little Johnny Nichols are political twins---your agenda before country---of course maybe you still consider Germany your country.
Posted by Len Mosse at 08/14/2007 @ 9:44pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 08/14/2007 @ 4:46pm
Ha, ha, you're a cheeky bugger Frei. I never frequent any right wing forums, probably because I realise a sycophant is lurking in all of us. This very earnest site is a hoot but do you have to be so nice before twisting the knife.
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/14/2007 @ 10:17pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/14/2007 @ 9:44pm | ignore this person
I am an american. I have never held a german passport, though I did live there for 11 years. my mother's family is and was german. my father's family austrian. I was born in austria.
when Petreus gives his report, he is a partisan operator and I don't expect an independent assessment,
but let's say he comes and says I have no progress to report. what then? will the administration say, yes, it's a disaster and we should never have gone in there? no of course not.
so, if he reports moderate progress, will that somehow sanitize this tragedy? no, of course not.
this war has been a disaster for four years. it will not improve for one month or two.
the country has had it with this war. that will not change.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 10:24pm
do I want the US efforts in Iraq to be successful? the question is so preposterous. it's just not possible for it to be successful. millions of refugees, hundreds of thousand dead and wounded. where is the success. Iraq could overnight turn into the hanging gardens of Semiramis, and it would not make the war a success.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 10:26pm
After finally having finished "Fiasco," I have come to believe as an article of faith at this point that a successful counterinsurgency operation could establish a stable Iraq within 8 to 15 years.
I have also come to the tragically sad conclusion that we don't have a snowball's chance in hell of conducting a successful counterinsurgency operation. In assessing Ricks' distillation of the various elements that are hallmarks of such successes, it should rise to the level of at minimum criminally negligent that the bone-headed fuck-uppery that this administration has managed to engage in at every key opportunity has led to the establishment of an entrenched and hardened infrastructure that will defeat our own counterinsurgency efforts.
I hope and expect that Petraeus will give an honest assessment of the gamut of elements that are required for the conduct of a successful counterinsurgency. I also expect that he will highlight the tactical successes that the armed forces have achieved that have been consistent with a successful counterinsurgency campaign.
However, General Petraeus can do nothing to effect the first and foremost element of every successful counterinsurgency in recorded history short of advocating a military coup. Successful counterinsurgency campaigns must be directed by civil authorities whose view of the world is broader than the vista afforded to them by their own rectums.
If were are to commit to putting Humpty Dumpty together again, as an American public, we are going to be compelled to direct all of our national resources toward that end, forgetting about our own social needs and focusing rather on enriching the fucking bastards that got us into this shithole to begin with.
Thirdly we will be required to mourn the loss of our sons and daughters, their loss of their youth and to honestly bear the fruits of our national folly and bloodlust for half a generation or more.
If someone can enunciate an alternative vision that doesn't create a vacuum into which the worst of possible outcomes may be fermented, please do your country a great service and step forward.
As much as I bitterly detest the conclusion I have reached, I will vote for the Democratic nominee, support an administration decision to wage a successful counterinsurgency and personally do everything in my power to make the (non gender specific) sons of bitches accountable to the American public for every policy decision they make and every dollar they spend in that effort.
I will never forget nor will I forgive the the Republican CONSERVATIVE architects of this disaster, the press that whored themselves to power, or the Quislings in what should have been an opposition party that conspired to commit the unspeakable empirical horror that we unleashed at the dawn of the 21st century.
Posted by canaar at 08/14/2007 @ 10:34pm
Posted by MATTMAN 08/14/2007 @ 6:09pm
True, but she can't do it without fiscal conservatism, not Katrina vanden Heuvel's "a trillion here, a trillion there" on every pet project the Left has dreamed of for 40 years.
She closes the deficit, with minimal tax hikes, and builds up a surplus (and "lockboxes" it to reduce the Nat'l Debt)...she'll do all that.
She goes nutty and tries to "New New Deal" it, tax and spend, it'll blow up in her face and you'll see that "Reaganism" isn't dead quite yet.
Posted by Mask at 08/14/2007 @ 10:35pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/14/2007 @ 8:56pm
LEN, What was Clyburn's QUOTE...and cite the article and source of that article you're getting that from?
Posted by Mask at 08/14/2007 @ 10:36pm
Posted by CANAAR 08/14/2007 @ 10:34pm | ignore this person
pretty good.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 10:43pm
The death toll was the highest in a concerted attack since Nov. 23, when 215 people were killed by mortar fire and five car bombs in Baghdad's Shiite Muslim enclave of Sadr City. And it was most vicious attack yet against the Yazidis, an ancient religious community in the region whose members are considered infidels by some Muslims. The bombings came as extremists staged other bold attacks: leveling a key bridge outside Baghdad and abducting five officials from an Oil Ministry compound in the capital in a raid using gunmen dressed as security officers. Nine U.S. soldiers also were reported killed, including five in a helicopter crash.
da surge is goin' good
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/14/2007 @ 10:59pm
Posted by CANAAR 08/14/2007 @ 10:34pm
If a successful counter-insurgency is effected that does mean that Iraq will probably be well on the road to becoming a successful pluralistic society with the enormous potential of its natural resources and large educated elite (thanks to Saddam) driving it to economic prosperity. That outcome will have been due to the agitation for the overthrow of the Saddam regime in the 1990s and the implementation of that goal by the present administration. That is the inescapable conclusion. How well or badly that was done will be the domain of future historians.
Though there seems to be a general fear across party lines about the closeness of the Maliki government to Iran this may just prove to be a positive. Perhaps Americans get too paranoid about tin pot regimes like Iran (as well as bigger ones like that in China) and Maliki may be just the circuit breaker needed for better dialogue between America and Iran. Most of the other Sunni regimes are pro-American and Syria is on OK terms with Iran. That leaves Iraqi Sunnis (and even in that group it is more likely that it is the left over Saddamists who are really worried about Iran) who will need some special symbols of acceptance from the Shia majority government to bring them onboard.
Iran shares a border and is a trading partner so if Iraq is to prosper it needs to live in peace with all its neighbours so the bottom line is that a Shia dominated government is more likely to build and maintain those bridges than any other.On the other hand most Iraqi Shiites are Arabs, not Persians, which gives them (in government) a foot in the Arab camp as well.
Incidentally it was nice to see that they are a very relaxed bunch who take their holidays when they are due and won't let anyone including the mighty US move them any faster legislatively than they feel is proper in terms of getting consensus. A bit like your own congress when it comes to stopping the war.
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/15/2007 @ 12:49am
Death toll soars to 175 in Iraq suicide bombings Blasts that injured at least 200 targeted small Kurdish religious sect
MSNBC News Services Updated: 4:54 p.m. PT Aug 14, 2007
BAGHDAD - Four suicide bombers struck nearly simultaneously at communities of a small Kurdish sect in northwestern Iraq late Tuesday, killing at least 175 people and wounding 200 more, Iraqi military and local officials said.
The bombings came as extremists staged other bold attacks: leveling a key bridge outside Baghdad and abducting five officials from an Oil Ministry compound in the capital in a raid using gunmen dressed as security officers. Nine U.S. soldiers also were reported killed, including five in a helicopter crash.
Posted by Lillian at 08/15/2007 @ 01:45am
Anyone who says 'the surge is working' or 'things are getting better in Iraq'...
...is either a delusional moron...
...or a Republican right-wingnut...
...plain, simple, undeniable!
Posted by Lillian at 08/15/2007 @ 01:49am
Yeah I've been reading little hints here and there in the MSM that the 'new' stradegy just started and it's been just a year, like we don't get it that it's been years and hsuB has already said they've been adjusting the whole time, and for years it hasn't worked. Sure it'll improve eventually when enough Iraqis are dead or left the country... The problem is
Week 235: 08/12/07 10
Week 234: 08/05/07 20
Week 233: 07/29/07 22
Week 232: 07/22/07 14
Week 231: 07/15/07 19
Week 230: 07/08/07 7
"I respect the jury's verdict," hsuB said in a statement. "But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."(07/02/07)
Week 229 07/01/07 28
Week 227 06/24/07 15
Week 226 06/17/07 36
Week 225 06/10/07 22
Week 224 06/03/07 19
Friends of his from Texas were shocked recently to find him nearly wild-eyed, thumping himself on the chest three times while he repeated "I am the president!" He also made it clear he was setting Iraq up so his successor could not get out of "our country's destiny." (05/29/07, 7:56 PM ET)
Week 223 05/27/07 30
"It could be a bloody -- it could be a very difficult August," hsuB said.(05/24/07 7:17PM EDT)
Week 222 05/20/07 34
Week 221 05/13/07 29
Week 220 05/06/07 25
Week 219 04/29/07 21
Week 218 04/22/07 25
Week 217 04/15/07 19
Week 216 04/08/07 23
Week 215 04/01/07 33
Week 213 03/25/07 11
Week 212 03/18/07 14
Week 211 03/11/07 30
Week 210 03/04/07 15
Week 209 02/25/07 19
Week 208 02/18/07 18
Week 207 02/11/07 16
Week 206 02/04/07 24
Week 205 01/28/07 23
Week 204 01/21/07 21
"It may be summer, late summer before the people of Baghdad can feel safe in their neighborhoods," Casey said. ( 01/19/07, 6:33 PM ET)
Week 203 01/14/07 39
Bush wants troop surge to fix 'mistake' (01/11/07)
Week 202 01/07/07 9
Week 201 12/31/06 9
Saddam Hussein Long Dropped Hung (12/30/06)
Week 200 12/24/06 28
"I haven't heard the word 'broken', but I've heard the word, 'stressed'." hsuB (12/19/06)
Week 199 12/17/06 21
"I'm Sleeping A Lot Better Than People Would Assume..." hsuB (12/14/06)
Week 198 12/10/06 20
"It is a report that brings some really very interesting proposals, and we will take every proposal seriously and we will act in a timely fashion," [the Iraq Study Group (ISG) offers] "an opportunity to come together and to work together on this important issue." (12/6/06)
Week 197 12/03/06 34
Week 196 11/26/06 16
Week 195 11/19/06 13
Week 194 11/12/06 16
Week 193 11/05/06 15
Week 192 10/29/06 20
Week 191 10/22/06 17
"We've never been stay the course" hsuB (10/22/06)
Week 190 10/15/06 30
" 'Stay the course' means keep doing what you're doing. My attitude is: Don't do what you're doing if it's not working -- change. 'Stay the course' also means don't leave before the job is done." hsuB (10/11/06)
Week 189 10/08/06 23
Week 188 10/01/06 30
Week 187 09/24/06 15
Week 186 09/17/06 17
Week 185 09/10/06 14
Week 184 09/03/06 23
"We will stay the course." hsuB (8/30/06)
Week 183 08/27/06 22
Week 182 08/20/06 15
Week 181 08/13/06 7
Week 180 08/06/06 13
Week 179 07/30/06 12
Week 178 07/23/06 13
Week 177 07/16/06 14
Week 176 07/09/06 8
Week 175 07/02/06 6
Week 174 06/25/06 14
Week 173 06/18/06 16
Week 172 06/11/06 8
Week 171 06/04/06 20
Week 170 05/28/06 10
Week 169 05/21/06 13
Week 168 05/14/06 16
Week 167 05/07/06 15
Week 166 04/30/06 19
Week 165 04/23/06 17
Week 164 04/16/06 11
Week 163 04/09/06 21
Week 162 04/02/06 23
Week 161 03/26/06 10
Week 160 03/19/06 4
'ISG/Baker-Hamilton Commission (3/15/06)
Week 159 03/12/06 10
Week 158 03/05/06 7
Week 157 02/26/06 9
Week 156 02/19/06 16
Week 155 02/12/06 10
Week 154 02/05/06 13
Week 153 01/29/06 11
Week 152 01/22/06 14
Week 151 01/15/06 11
Week 150 01/08/06 6
Week 149 01/01/06 31
Week 148 12/25/05 15
Week 147 12/18/05 10
Week 146 12/11/05 14
"Quiet, Steady Progress" hsuB (12/7/05)
Week 145 12/04/05 14
Week 144 11/27/05 21
Week 143 11/20/05 13
Week 142 11/13/05 28
Week 141 11/06/05 18
Week 140 10/30/05 29
Week 139 10/23/05 19
Week 138 10/16/05 23
Week 137 10/09/05 22
Week 136 10/02/05 19
Week 135 09/25/05 18
Week 134 09/18/05 15
Week 133 09/11/05 9
Week 132 09/04/05 7
Week 131 08/28/05 10
Week 130 08/21/05 14
Week 129 08/14/05 14
Week 128 08/07/05 15
"We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq." hsuB (8/4/05)
Week 127 07/31/05 36
Week 126 07/24/05 23
Week 125 07/17/05 9
Week 124 07/10/05 12
Week 123 07/03/05 9
Week 122 06/26/05 8
Week 121 06/19/05 14
Week 120 06/12/05 21
Week 119 06/05/05 30
Week 118 05/29/05 13
Week 117 05/22/05 28
Week 116 05/15/05 8
Week 115 05/08/05 24
Week 114 05/01/05 12
Week 112 04/24/05 16
Week 111 04/17/05 13
Week 110 04/10/05 10
Week 109 04/03/05 10
Week 108 03/27/05 9
Week 107 03/20/05 7
Week 106 03/13/05 6
Week 105 03/06/05 5
Week 104 02/27/05 14
Week 103 02/20/05 18
Week 102 02/13/05 20
Week 101 02/06/05 8
Iraqi Free Elections (1/31/05)
Week 100 01/30/05 15
Week 99 01/23/05 61
Week 98 01/16/05 9
Week 97 01/09/05 12
Week 96 01/02/05 17
Week 95 12/26/04 11
Week 94 12/19/04 21
Week 93: 12/12/04 14
Week 92: 12/05/04 14
Week 91: 11/28/04 27
Week 90: 11/21/04 17
Week 89: 11/14/04 34
Week 88: 11/07/04 67
Week 87: 10/31/04 7
Week 86: 10/24/04 16
Week 85: 10/17/04 3
Week 84: 10/10/04 31
Week 83: 10/03/04 10
Week 82: 09/26/04 12
Week 81: 09/19/04 16
Week 80: 09/12/04 22
Week 79: 09/05/04 26
Week 78: 08/29/04 8
Week 77: 08/22/04 14
Week 76: 08/15/04 23
Week 75: 08/07/04 9
Week 74: 08/01/04 18
Week 73: 07/25/04 5
Week 72: 07/18/04 11
Week 71: 07/11/04 12
Week 70: 07/05/04 20
Handover (6/29/04)
Week 69: 06/27/04 11
Week 68: 06/20/04 13
Week 67: 06/13/04 8
Week 66: 06/06/04 6
Week 65: 05/30/04 17
Week 64: 05/23/04 16
Week 63: 05/16/04 14
Week 62: 05/09/04 14
Week 61: 05/02/04 25
Week 60: 04/25/04 28
Week 59: 04/18/04 12
"And that's why we're going to stay the course in Iraq." (4/16/04) hsuB
"And my message today to those in Iraq is: We'll stay the course." (4/13/04) hsuB
Week 58: 04/11/04 30
"And so we've got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course." (4/5/04) hsuB
Week 57: 04/04/04 66
Week 56: 03/28/04 12
Week 55: 03/21/04 10
Week 54: 03/14/04 17
Week 53: 03/07/04 14
Week 52: 02/29/04 2
Week 51: 02/22/04 2
Week 50: 02/15/04 6
Week 49: 02/07/04 8
Week 48: 02/01/04 4
Week 47: 01/25/04 15
Week 46: 01/18/04 10
Week 45: 01/11/04 6
Week 44: 01/04/04 11
Week 43: 12/28/03 9
Week 42: 12/21/03 12
"We're just going to stay the course." hsuB (12/15/03)
Week 41: 12/14/03 7
Week 40: 12/07/03 12
Capture of Saddam (12/13/03)
Week 39: 11/30/03 5
Week 38: 11/23/03 10
Week 37: 11/16/03 10
Week 36: 11/09/03 26
Week 35: 11/02/03 34
Week 34: 10/26/03 13
Week 33: 10/19/03 9
Week 32: 10/12/03 12
Week 31: 10/05/03 6
Week 30: 09/28/03 10
Week 29: 09/21/03 5
Week 28: 09/14/03 11
Week 27: 09/07/03 6
Week 26: 08/31/03 5
Week 25: 08/24/03 8
Week 24: 08/17/03 8
Week 23: 08/10/03 7
Week 21: 08/03/03 11
Week 20: 07/27/03 7
Week 19: 07/20/03 16
Week 18: 07/13/03 9
Week 17: 07/06/03 12
"Bring them on." hsuB (7/2/03)
Week 16: 06/29/03 5
Week 15: 06/22/03 11
Week 14: 06/15/03 8
Week 13: 06/08/03 4
Week 12: 06/01/03 7
Week 11: 05/25/03 13
Week 10: 05/18/03 9
Week 9: 05/11/03 6
Week 8: 05/04/03 7
"Mission Accomplished" hsuB (5/1/03)
Week 7: 04/27/03 3
Week 6: 04/20/03 7
Week 5: 04/13/03 9
Week 4: 04/06/03 21
Week 3: 03/30/03 41
Week 2: 03/23/03 51
Week 1: 03/20/03 9
Total_____ 3699 dead
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/BY_DOD.aspx
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 02:13am
Anyone who says 'the surge is working' or 'things are getting better in Iraq'...
...is either a delusional moron...
...or a Republican right-wingnut...
...plain, simple, undeniable! "
Posted by LILLIAN 08/15/2007 @ 01:49am
or Llllian is an incompetent military analyst 8-)
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/15/2007 @ 02:36am
Posted by LRJONES4 08/15/2007 @ 12:49am
If a successful counter-insurgency is effected that does mean that Iraq will probably be well on the road to becoming a successful pluralistic society with the enormous potential of its natural resources and large educated elite (thanks to Saddam) driving it to economic prosperity.
No.
And as for the crowing - Wasn't our job. Nice to be able to sit all cozy and secure down under a half a globe away from the conflict and watch the Yanks piss away a generation of resources trying to fix something it wasn't theirs to break though.
Posted by canaar at 08/15/2007 @ 06:46am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/14/2007 @ 11:30pm
That's right, Larry. But not in the way LEN meant it, "hurt the Dems ELECTORALLY"...but hurt them in their effort to end the war.
Something majorities of Americans support. (Even your "better numbers" from CBS for Bush are still in the low 30s)
Posted by Mask at 08/15/2007 @ 07:25am
Fatigue cripples US army in Iraq
"Exhaustion and combat stress are besieging US troops in Iraq as they battle with a new type of warfare. Some even rely on Red Bull to get through the day. As desertions and absences increase, the military is struggling to cope with the crisis
Peter Beaumont in Baghdad
Sunday August 12, 2007
The Observer
The Americans he commands, like the other men at Sullivan - a combat outpost in Zafraniya, south east Baghdad - hit their cots when they get in from operations. But even when they wake up there is something tired and groggy about them. They are on duty for five days at a time and off for two days. When they get back to the forward operating base, they do their laundry and sleep and count the days until they will get home. It is an exhaustion that accumulates over the patrols and the rotations, over the multiple deployments, until it all joins up, wiping out any memory of leave or time at home. Until life is nothing but Iraq.
Hanna and his men are not alone in being tired most of the time. A whole army is exhausted and worn out. You see the young soldiers washed up like driftwood at Baghdad's international airport, waiting to go on leave or returning to their units, sleeping on their body armour on floors and in the dust.
Where once the war in Iraq was defined in conversations with these men by untenable ideas - bringing democracy or defeating al-Qaeda - these days the war in Iraq is defined by different ways of expressing the idea of being weary. It is a theme that is endlessly reiterated as you travel around Iraq. 'The army is worn out. We are just keeping people in theatre who are exhausted,' says a soldier working for the US army public affairs office who is supposed to be telling me how well things have been going since the 'surge' in Baghdad began.
They are not supposed to talk like this. We are driving and another of the public affairs team adds bitterly: 'We should just be allowed to tell the media what is happening here. Let them know that people are worn out. So that their families know back home. But it's like we've become no more than numbers now.'"
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2147052,00.html
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 07:35am
Republicans warn Bush of US fatigue over Iraq war
· September make or break date, White House told
· President pleads for more time for surge plan [stay the course] to work
Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Friday May 11, 2007
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2077262,00.html
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 07:41am
"As of June 30, 2007, government figures show 1,001 contractors had died in Iraq since the start of the war. It is understood that the list below is incomplete."
Making the current figure of US casualties in Iraq closer to 4700.
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/Contractors.aspx
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 07:51am
Casualties by Month
Mar-03 202
Apr-03 340
May-03 55
Jun-03 147
Jul-03 226
Aug-03 181
Sep-03 247
Oct-03 413
Nov-03 336
Dec-03 261
Jan-04 188
Feb-04 150
Mar-04 324
Apr-04 1213
May-04 759
Jun-04 588
Jul-04 552
Aug-04 894
Sep-04 709
Oct-04 650
Nov-04 1431
Dec-04 544
Jan-05 497
Feb-05 415
Mar-05 371
Apr-05 597
May-05 575
Jun-05 513
Jul-05 477
Aug-05 541
Sep-05 545
Oct-05 605
Nov-05 399
Dec-05 413
Jan-06 289
Feb-06 342
Mar-06 496
Apr-06 433
May-06 442
Jun-06 459
Jul-06 525
Aug-06 591
Sep-06 790
Oct-06 781
Nov-06 548
Dec-06 702
Jan-07 639
Feb-07 517
Mar-07 618
Apr-07 649
May-07 655
Jun-07 744
Jul-07 608
Total 27,186
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/woundedchart.aspx
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 07:58am
The following is a list of U.S. Fatalities who have died in hospitals in Germany and The United States. Some have claimed that The Department of Defense does not report these deaths, they are obviously mistaken. Note: these deaths are included in our overall totals
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/Dow.aspx
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 08:01am
And as for the crowing - Wasn't our job. Nice to be able to sit all cozy and secure down under a half a globe away from the conflict and watch the Yanks piss away a generation of resources trying to fix something it wasn't theirs to break though.
Posted by CANAAR 08/15/2007
What then were you suggesting? Hanging around as a sort of penance? This is the job of perhaps a generation. Have you got what it takes?
No-one is cosy we all want to see a better world. Iraq can become another monumental US stuff up or it can redeem itself and make something out of the mess, the mess that has been Iraq for decades, not only for Iraqis and the ME but for the reputation and confidence of America.
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/15/2007 @ 08:35am
Since the war in Iraq began soldiers effected by Depleted Uranium toxicity have undergone a media blackout. While the U. S. Media and DoD jointly turn a blind eye to the truth about what soldiers are being exposed to in Iraq, and the longer the public is ignorant to the goings on....then the DoD can continue bleeding the war chest, and the caskets will continue to be draped in an invisible cloth.
Shamefully, the U. S. mainstream media has held the dirty hands of the Washington power players who are making a bundle off the manufacturing of DU at the expense of our military men and women. Our soldiers will continue to be seen as disposable by those that govern, until mainstream media shakes the dust off the democracy, and freedom of truth---that they conveniently tucked away long ago. We must fight for our lives....for no one is looking out for us anymore.
CNN VIDEO LINKS of show:
[Part 1 - Feb. 5] http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_freevideo/~3/86824503/index.html
[Part 2 - Feb. 6] (not available in cnn.com) http://smartvideochannel.com/search.aspx?q=depleted+uranium&v=search&t=v ideo
http://tinyurl.com/28kwg8
--People are sick over there already..." A s of May, 2002, 221,000 Gulf War I veterans were on medical disability, and 56,000 more were seeking such status. And the outlook for Veterans of the current war in Iraq doesn't look good either. "People are sick over there already," said Dr. Doug Rokke, former director of the Army's depleted uranium (DU) project. Asaf Durakovic, director of the Uranium Medical Research Center, conducted a three- week field study in Iraq in October of 2003. Durakovic, a former military doctor for the U.S. Defense Department who studied the health of veterans after the 1991 Gulf War, said tests show that the air, soil and water samples contained "hundreds to thousands of times" the normal levels of radiation. "This high level of contamination is because much more depleted uranium was used this year than in (the Gulf War of) 1991," Durakovic told The Japan Times. The Pentagon used some 300 tons of depleted uranium during the Gulf War. Durakovic puts the amount used in the latest war on Iraq at 1,700 tons. Rokke said today's troops have been fighting on land polluted with chemical, biological and radioactive weapon residue from the first Gulf War and its aftermath. In this setting, troops have been exposed not only to sandstorms, which degrade the lungs, but to oil fires and waste created by the use of uranium projectiles in tanks, aircraft, machine guns and missiles. "That's why people started getting sick right away, when they started going in months ago with respiratory, diarrhea and rashes -- horrible skin conditions," Rokke said. "That's coming back on and they have been treating them at various medical facilities. And one of the doctors at one of the major Army medical facilities -- he and I talk almost every day -- and he is madder than hell."
Be aware that they may try to categorize your DU-related symptoms as PTSD and treat it with tranquilizers. The Veterans Administration has too often helped to cover up problems like Depleted Uranium and Agent Orange. Together We Can Win: Although the VA may be reluctant to cooperate, with perseverance it is possible to get your claim approved. While the process may seem difficult now, we know that from past experience it is possible to fight and win compensation for your disability. Veterans who suffered from Agent Orange and fallout from Atomic Testing won compensation and recognition after struggling with the VA. The VA is required by law to test you and provide compensation. It is important that everyone affected by DU file claims with the VA; working together we can break through the cover-up and force the VAto recognize this problem.
Contact us at SNAFU (212) 802-4459 or du@join-snafu.org for more information. About VA Disability Disability compensation and pension are VAentitlements that make up for your loss of income when you become disabled.
The DoD has established a specialized care center at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, DC to provide therapeutic care after the CCEP exams The center attempts to provide intensive programs directed at improving the functional status of patients experiencing disabling symptoms involving pain and fatigue. However, reports from many veterans who have participated in this program do not give it a high rating.
Are you suffering from symptoms consistent with Gulf War Syndrome? Together, we can obtain justice and compensation for the victims of this tragedy. The victims of the Atomic Tests and Agent Orange were lied to and denied compensation for years. Through organizing, sharing information, and putting public pressure on the Pentagon, soldiers and their families defeated the government coverup and obtained the compensation owed to them. We can do the same. Contact us at 212-633-6646 or du@join-snafu.org Page 11 11 Support Network for an Armed Forces Union www.join-snafu.org (212) 633-6646
http://tinyurl.com/22kpmf
October 21, 2005
Radioactivating Mosol, Iraq
According to the International Action Center article Iraqi cities 'hot with depleted uranium' reporters have measured radiation levels that are between 1,000 and 1,900 times higher than would normally be expected in parts of Iraq.
http://www.sprol.com/?p=269/
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2006/08/71585
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/4.html
http://impeachforpeace.org/impeach_bush_blog/?p=2603
http://tinyurl.com/2exqyb
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/30/1411222
http://www.counterpunch.org/goff08062003.html
http://www.rense.com/general64/du.htm
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 08:48am
How unfortunate to read this:
"The debate was set up in the spring as leading towards a September report," Matzzie says
Followed by this:
Iraq Summer will culminate with Take a Stand Day on August 28th.
The logical "culmination" of an "Iraq Summer" program aimed at leading up to the Petraeus report in September would be to join in the effort to assemble massive forces in DC for the massive march that is planned for September 15 [sept15.org], the precise day of the release of the Petraeus report, followed by a week of other actions, including marches in Congress, lobbying, and direct action. Sadly, neither MoveOn, nor "Americans Against Escalation in Iraq" (ugh!), nor United for Peace and Justice, have seen fit to endorse that incredibly well-timed event, because it was initiated by the ANSWER Coalition. Three words: get over it! Stopping the war is the overriding consideration.
Sept. 15 in DC - Be there!
Posted by stevenpatt at 08/15/2007 @ 09:30am
Posted by STEVENPATT 08/15/2007 @ 09:30am
Yeah, can't for the life of me figure out why the mainstream anti-war guys don't want to hang out with the radicals?!?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 08/15/2007 @ 09:51am
Posted by LRJONES4 08/15/2007 @ 08:35am
Please feel free to share with us how you are helping with the "job of a generation".
Posted by srjenkins at 08/15/2007 @ 09:59am
Posted by LRJONES4 08/15/2007 @ 02:36am
And your experience that gives you the right to claim Lillian is an incompetent military analyst. Do you have any military experience?
Posted by srjenkins at 08/15/2007 @ 10:00am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/15/2007 @ 07:51am
Fools we have six contractors to add to that list (no soldiers yet). Two who were training Iraqi Police, were killed in their vehicle, when it was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade, in an ambush, south of Baghdad a few weeks ago.
A third Aussie doing the same job and who was with them, touched them and knew they were dead, after the grenade struck, got out alive and was back in Aus being interviewed on the TV a few hours ago. He said in effect: we get paid very well, but we are not there just for the money, we want to help the Iraqis as if we don't no one else will. He said when he started a year or so ago the police were mostly crooks but there had been a great change because of the training and they were becoming real professionals.
I guess he was in his late 30s with a wife and kids but said this was the most fulfilling job he had ever had and that he would be returning. When asked how long will it take to get Iraq right, he replied that it took 35 years with the IRA and Iraq still has a long way to go. When the interview finished I realised it was pre-recorded as the interviewer said he was now back in Iraq.
I also heard the wife, of one of those killed, in an interview some days ago. She said her husband just loved that sort of excitement and danger and nothing would keep him away from it. She said, I know he realised he faced ever present death but he would not have exchanged that job for any other that was available. He had had several tours of duty with a security company based in UAE under contract to the US military.
Just a perspective on why some volunteer for this sort of kamikaze job.
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/15/2007 @ 10:11am
If the US chooses to see this mess through it's going to take around ten years, according to the experts. (Is the situation in Iraq an insurgency or a civil war?) And that means a draft. A draft taking the sons and daughters of America will change things drastically. (Is Canada still a refuge for Americans fleeing a draft? Or have the laws been changed up there since 'Nam?) Plus all those tax dollars flowing to the occupation over the span of a decade.
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/15/2007 @ 10:14am
Mask, this is for you:
"How many more of these goddamn elections are we going to have to write off as lame but "regrettably necessary" holding actions? And how many more of these stinking, double-downer sideshows will we have to go through before we can get ourselves straight enough to put together some kind of national election that will give me and the at least 20 million people I tend to agree with a chance to vote for something, instead of always being faced with that old familiar choice between the lesser of two evils?
I have been through three presidential elections, now, but it has been 12 years since I could look at a ballot and see a name I wanted to vote for. In 1964, I refused to vote at all, and in '68 I spent half a morning in the county courthouse getting an absentee ballot so I could vote, out of spite, for Dick Gregory."
Hunter S. Thompson in Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72
35 years have passed, yet the first part of this passage could have been written today - except update 20 million to 40 million.
I didn't know who Dick Gregory was until yesterday. Right now, he's my candidate for 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Gregory
Posted by srjenkins at 08/15/2007 @ 10:19am
And your experience that gives you the right to claim Lillian is an incompetent military analyst. Do you have any military experience?
Posted by SRJENKINS 08/15/2007 @ 10:00am
Well SR is it not a possibility that Lillian is incompetent in this discipline? Fair maiden Lillian and I have occasionally crossed swords but I think that is the only thing approaching military experience either of us have.
BTW which military experts are acceptable to you in assessing the surge and is that assessment based on your own military expertise or just an anti-war bias? (theirs and yours)
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/15/2007 @ 10:25am
Wish I could attend every anti-war rally including 9/15 and would hope all progressive organizations would demonstrate solidarity, if not consolidation, at this/these demonstrations.
On the topic of the religious right, their identities and influence, I have an insight gained through interaction with a public school principal in Big Education who, like many power-intoxicated autocrats, successfully marginalized people/posts she couldn't dominate. Her ideological failing/error hinged on her conflation of the terms "tolerance" (her "least favorite" word!) and "acceptance" (something no one can, nor should be coerced into giving).
Posted by lewwelge at 08/15/2007 @ 10:26am
LRJONES If a successful counter-insurgency is effected that does mean that Iraq will probably be well on the road to becoming a successful pluralistic society with the enormous potential of its natural resources and large educated elite (thanks to Saddam) driving it to economic prosperity.
And if Santa Claus existed I'd be getting more free goodies for Christmas. The point is that any drop in attacks or US casualties in June and July simply reflects regular seasonal rhythms (i.e., they have traditionally dropped in the hot months) and not the success of the surge.
Incidentally it was nice to see that they are a very relaxed bunch who take their holidays when they are due and won't let anyone including the mighty US move them any faster legislatively than they feel is proper in terms of getting consensus.
Further, the political progress that the surge was supposed to facilitate simply hasn't happened. No progress on revenue sharing, reversing de-Ba'athification, etc.. Given, for example, Sistani's stated opposition to reversing de-Ba'athification, the August knock-off would appear to have more to do with a lack of political will than an interest in taking the time to do it right.
Posted by brunowe at 08/15/2007 @ 10:30am
HSUBFOOLS please stop making these ridiculously long posts. We are more than capable of following links to lists of monthly casualties (and your interspersed quotes give very little added value) and articles.
Posted by brunowe at 08/15/2007 @ 10:31am
Please feel free to share with us how you are helping with the "job of a generation".
Posted by SRJENKINS 08/15/2007 @ 09:59am
Well at least some of us are aware of the possibilities SR. That may be square one but you blokes aren't even there.
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/15/2007 @ 10:38am
Please feel free to share with us how you are helping with the "job of a generation".
Posted by SRJENKINS 08/15/2007 @ 09:59am
Well at least some of us are aware of the possibilities SR. That may be square one but you blokes aren't even there.
Posted by LRJONES4
In other words, nothing.
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/15/2007 @ 10:41am
Iraq Extrication: The Main Necessity
To extricate one's arm from a toilet, it may be a necessity to first let go of the large shiny object you've wrapped your fist around. I've been laughing for a day or so now. The source of humor was the description of the Iraq situation from one of the usual 'inside' narcissistic bright minds. He said that figuring out the Iraq situation was like "playing three dimensional chess in the dark while you are being shot at." The actuality of how to deal with and accommodate or not accommodate the various parties goals and motives in Iraq is logically inordinately simple. A. America can neither stay in Iraq nor leave Iraq and have easy, cordial, aligned interests with any eventually arising central dominant force/government.* B. If America semi 'stands down' behind a multinational force the chances for a settlement and a hopeful future for Iraq (and the region) brighten. C. Alternatively, if America insists on a continuing presence they should henceforth implement a tri-part Iraq. Post establishment of same, the U.S. could implement massive aid to each faction and a return to the time honored foreign policy of "bribe-the-dictator." The metaphor I prefer for the Iraqi quagmire is that America forcefully shoved its arm into a deeply murky toilet to retrieve a bright shiny object. To extricate itself it simply needs to unclasp its rigid grasp and withdrawal will proceed unencumbered by an occupier's interests. This simple and logical opinion arrives at the same conclusion as that of the Iraq Study Group. Their advice was: A. Inform the Iraqis et al that the U.S. will eventually disassemble their major bases in Iraq and leave. ("Let go of the shiny object!") B. Form a multinational force (preferably with Arab country participation) to oversee security and policy making for Iraq. ("Take your arm out of the toilet.) Craig Johnson
*(Should a reader want to test the underlying logic statements for A. above, the statements are: U.S. plus sole Shia government equals non ending Sunni war. U.S. plus dominant Shia central government equals non ending Sunni war. U.S. plus Sunni government equals non ending Shia war and probable Iran incursion. Shia plus Sunni government is only possible with fundamental U.S. stand down in arms and policy.)
What is the bright shiny object that the Bush/neocons hold so dear in Iraq? Oil? Democracy? Arms for arms sake? Defeat is politically unthinkable. Israeli security? Illumination would be helpful. No? POLL
What shiny object holds attraction for the neocons in Iraq?
Oil - 2 votes 28%: Israeli security 0 votes: Democracy 0 votes: Mid East presence 0 votes: stability 0 votes: Lust for show of force 0 votes: $$ Arms expansion 0 votes: Avoiding the blame 1 vote - 14%: All of above 5 votes - 71%:
7 Total Votes
Posted by cognitorex at 08/15/2007 @ 10:47am
LRJones-Why would anyone need a military expert to say whether or not the surge is working?If there is a significant decrease in violence throughout the entire country then it's working and if we only see a decrease in violence in some areas and an increase in other areas then it isn't working and is nothing more than putting extra cops in a high crime area which never accomplishes any permanent.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/15/2007 @ 10:53am
Posted by SRJENKINS 08/15/2007 @ 10:19am
Well, I love ol' Doctor Gonzo (the original Gonzo, not the mis-applied term for the AG). But he was an apathetic. Are you?
If not, care to give me 2-3 things you want to see done to change things (outside of "voting" of course) and how they would get implemented?
Posted by Mask at 08/15/2007 @ 11:01am
Well SR is it not a possibility that Lillian is incompetent in this discipline? ---Posted by LRJONES4 08/15/2007 @ 10:25am
LR, if we postulate that LILLIAN is incompetent on military matters, we must postulate the same of you.
So...you accept the possibility that you are wrong and the Surge is a failure? If so, what factors would prove you wrong?
Posted by Mask at 08/15/2007 @ 11:04am
Further, the political progress that the surge was supposed to facilitate simply hasn't happened. No progress on revenue sharing, reversing de-Ba'athification, etc.. Given, for example, Sistani's stated opposition to reversing de-Ba'athification, the August knock-off would appear to have more to do with a lack of political will than an interest in taking the time to do it right.
Posted by BRUNOWE 08/15/2007 @ 10:30am
B
I like your seasonal fluctuation idea but I'm not sure that's what the game is all about. I thought it was about more security bit by consolidated bit in every widening circles but I guess we will have to wait to see what Petraeus tells us. I take it he will give us some objective measures to chew on.
I read somewhere that the political goals set for the Iraqis,though OK will, in and of themselves do little to stop the violence in the short term. The only shorter term option for that, it seems, is an effective counter insurgency operation. If the political benchmarks are merely there as a guillotine to withdraw war funding then so be it but it should be fairly obvious by now that much more time is required for the political situation to jell. Even if the legislation could be forced through on a minimum of votes it will be better in the long run if time is allowed for a broader consensus to be achieved.
I've thought for some time that Maliki needed to be replaced but I'm not so sure that he is not a stronger character than we assumed and the right man for the job. The measure of that is his weathering of the Sadr ministers going walk about and the way he is handling the present Sunni defection. The holiday thing was a bit tongue in cheek but it does point up that if the experiment in democracy is going to work it will be done in an Arab way.For example I noticed he had called a summit over the Sunni defection but all they were doing was sipping tea or whatever Iraqis do when they socialise and weren't discussing the problems or even have an agenda. The suggestion was that's how they do things there and they may well socialise a bit more before they get fairdinkum about getting the Sunnis back on board.
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/15/2007 @ 11:10am
Posted by LRJONES4 08/15/2007 @ 10:25am
I doubt anyone reading or posting here is an expert military analyst. My point in asking the question is that by making that comment you imply that both she is wrong and that you are somehow more informed on the topic. I think we have clarified that second point.
Now, the remaining question is: Is she wrong when she questions the intelligence/motivations of someone that believes that "surge is working" or "things are getting better in Iraq"?
And the problem with answering that question is the problem of defining what "working" or "better" mean and the defined mission of the surge. He know the mission. Bush told us:
"Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html
I don't find this particularly, "well-defined" but let's start here.
"U.S. officials say civilian casualties in Baghdad are down by half. But they wouldn't provide specific numbers, and statistics gathered by McClatchy Newspapers don't support the claim...The number of car bombings in July actually was 5% higher than the number recorded last December, the statistics show, and the number of civilians killed in explosions is about the same."
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070815/NEWS07/70815036 8/1009
Now the fact that the military is telling one story and another source is telling another, doesn't it make you question whether we should be relying on "military experts" to make these judgements for us? In any event, I'm not getting the feeling of "Mission Accomplished" here.
Let's move on to the benchmarks. Try Cockburn's article for a critique.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2765574.ece
Notice what benchmarks are going well and which aren't. Bush said in the speech above that: "The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security." Are security benchmarks where progress is being made?
If you think Cockburn is biased, look for other sources - like this one from the L.A. Times.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-security20jul20,0,48 92547.story?coll=la-home-center
And the interesting thing for me is that most of the right leaning folks go for the feel good empathy pieces or manage to carve the picture down to some point where they can talk about something positive.
Violence is down in X province (using the military numbers, which we have seen might be cooked)! Yon says things are going great! (clearly an independent mouth piece the army has cultivated for its info war)! Et cetera.
I understand wanting everything to turn out well. But let's not delude ourselves or worse delude others. All you have to do is look at the kind of nonsense that was posted to this very thread to see that there is some merit to Lillian's claim - specifically that many people that believe these things are invested in a particular outcome (irrespective of the facts) or believe those that do. There is very little that passes as a critical assessment of what is in fact going on there that any reasonable person (not just military experts) taking a careful look at this issue trying to understand it will come away with an unqualified "the surge is working".
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-security20jul20,0,48 92547.story?coll=la-home-center
Posted by srjenkins at 08/15/2007 @ 11:14am
LR, if we postulate that LILLIAN is incompetent on military matters, we must postulate the same of you.
So...you accept the possibility that you are wrong and the Surge is a failure? If so, what factors would prove you wrong?"
Posted by MASK 08/15/2007 @ 11:04am
Well mask I was just suggesting a possibility to SR, who no doubt is a gentleman and probably thought Lillian's honour was being besmirched by an ignorant Aussie. Lillian may for all I know be a lecturer in counter insurgency at West Point. But she at this stage is obviously travelling incognito.
But given that neither Mask or Lillian or SR or LR has any formal academic military training (foot soldiers don't count or we'd all be experts) and someone blurted out to one of us:
"who says 'the surge is working' or 'things are getting better in Iraq'...
...is either a delusional moron...
...or a Republican right-wingnut...
...plain, simple, undeniable! "
Would you or Lillian or SR or I say: This is a powerful conclusion from someone who obviously is a highly credentialed military expert? I don't know about you I think I would say give me a peek at your facts and analysis first, dear Lillian.
Now that's the secret. How did General X arrive at this conclusion and what is the factual information upon which it is based, is it accurate, is it in its historical context, is there logical rigor throughout the analysis and are the conclusions valid? That is the sort of approach that those of us who have never lifted a pen in anger will be asking of General Petraeus (and Lillian if the chance presents itself).
Presto! No military training required. Just an ordinary sort of head that is not used exclusively for holding one's ears apart.
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/15/2007 @ 11:58am
August 15, 2007
Surge Success Refuted
Leila Fadel of McClatchy:
BAGHDAD -- Despite U.S. claims that violence is down in the Iraqi capital, U.S. military officers are offering a bleak picture of Iraq's future, saying they've yet to see any signs of reconciliation between Sunni and Shiite Muslims despite the drop in violence.
VVVvvvvVVVVvvvVVVvvvVVvvvVVvvv
And while top U.S. officials insist that 50 percent of the capital is now under effective U.S. or government control, compared with 8 percent in February, statistics indicate that the improvement in violence is at best mixed.
U.S. officials say the number of civilian casualties in the Iraqi capital is down 50 percent. But U.S. officials declined to provide specific numbers, and statistics gathered by McClatchy Newspapers don't support the claim.
The number of car bombings in July actually was 5 percent higher than the number recorded last December, according to the McClatchy statistics, and the number of civilians killed in explosions is about the same.
http://tinyurl.com/2d2kmr
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 12:05pm
Posted by LRJONES4
Why don't you go over there yourself and see how it's working?
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/15/2007 @ 12:06pm
I can't speak for Lil, but I imagine her scepticisim is a result of this administration's wanton mendacity. From perverting science, birth control, the Justice Dept, to fabricating rationales for invading Iraq, this WH has always went with what it wants to believe (with irrationaly ideology) and not with the facts.
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/15/2007 @ 12:11pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 08/15/2007 @ 11:14am
SR it's past my bedtime(2am). I was doing a bit of design work tonight(checking the maths)on a process plant we are designing when I got sucked into this thread.I need to be more disciplined. So I'll have a look at your post later.
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/15/2007 @ 12:13pm
"U.S. officials believe extremists are attempting to regroup across northern Iraq after being driven from strongholds in and around Baghdad, and commanders have warned they expected Sunni insurgents to step up attacks in a bid to upstage the report.
Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, the commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq, said last month that he proposed reducing American troop levels in Ninevah and predicted the province would shift to Iraqi government control as early as this month. It was unclear whether that projection would hold after Tuesday's staggering death tolls.
"We are still digging with our hands and shovels because we can't use cranes because many of the houses were built of clay," Qassim said. "We are expecting to reach the final death toll tomorrow or day after tomorrow as we are getting only pieces of bodies."
"The car bombs that were used all had the consistent profile of al-Qaida in Iraq violence," U.S. military spokesman Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner told reporters in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.
The U.S. military issued a statement putting the death toll in the Qahataniya bombings at 60. The Iraqi estimate of more than 200 deaths was based on body counts from local hospitals and morgues to which U.S. officials had no access.
The Yazidis are a primarily Kurdish religious sect with ancient roots that worships an angel figure considered to be the devil by some Muslims and Christians. Yazidis, who don't believe in hell or evil, deny that.
The Islamic State in Iraq, an al-Qaida front group, distributed leaflets a week ago warning residents near the scene of Tuesday's bombings that an attack was imminent because Yazidis are "anti-Islamic."
The sect has been under fire since some members stoned a Yazidi teenager to death in April. She had converted to Islam and fled her family with a Muslim boyfriend, and police said 18-year-old Duaa Khalil Aswad was killed by relatives who disapproved of the match.
A grainy video showing gruesome scenes of the woman's killing was later posted on Iraqi Web sites. Its authenticity could not be independently verified, but recent attacks on Yazidis have been blamed on al-Qaida-linked Sunni insurgents seeking revenge."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070815/iraq/
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 12:17pm
Posted by MASK 08/15/2007 @ 11:01am
1. Build democratic institutions at home - greater government transparency, greater diversity in media and information distribution, and fixing the system of elections so it is bipartisian, independent and free (National Holiday and no charging for political advertisements) would be three good places to start on that front.
2. Foreign policy - Get out of Iraq. Support international law, The World Court and the development of an independent, international peace keeping force; international criminal investigation force that can deal with global terrorism, organized crime, arms trading, sexual and other forms of slavery, and so forth; and an international disaster relief organization to deal with suffering that comes from disease, natural disasters, armed conflict. etc. Stop supporting dictators because they support our "interests" or because it is politically expedient - such as Saddam. Radically reduce spending on the military.
3. Equity - Commit to finding ways to bring the Gini coefficient down; a standard level of preventative health care, particularly for children and those without health insurance coverage; free access to a college education for the poorest of families (subject to taking a full load and to performance requirements) and better subsidized access for everyone else that brings the average indebtedness of college students down by half; building and providing of short-term dormitory style shelters for the poor (with a requirement to work to maintain the facility to stay there or a minimum fee based on minimum wage and the work that is required if they have other employment); develop a national food depository and food service to feed those that go hungry (also requiring work in exchange); a development of an conservation corps to offer jobs to people that would have otherwise went into the military - similar pay scale and working environment.
I probably missed a few things, but it's a good start. Queue all the "where will the money come from?" arguments. When you think that, see that bolded item. For all those that would talk about the impact on business, if you can't offer a better proposition than bartering labor for food or a job that isn't better than doing some form of manual labor for the conservation corps for minimum wage, you have no business being in business.
Oh, Mask - know of any candidate this is going to come out for more than one or two of these things? Maybe Kucinich? Again, like the guy's politics but he is worse than Thompson's descriptions of McGovern in terms of his appeal.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/15/2007 @ 12:19pm
Posted by LRJONES4 08/15/2007 @ 11:58am
Another step must be taken...backwards. To wit, that the general chosen to oversee "the Surge" was CHOSEN by the Administration.
Now, is it likely that they chose a critic or even someone who was "neutral" to the idea of "the Surge"...or a supporter, who would tend to support the idea of its success.
This is no attack on General Petraeus. He may honestly feel he can "win this thing". But it's interesting to note that the man who PRECEEDED him, General Casey, is now expressing doubts as to the likelihood of success in Iraq.
Posted by Mask at 08/15/2007 @ 12:27pm
14/08/2007 200 Iraqis slaughtered by suicide truck bombs
Yikes! Just Imagine what "Escalation" would look like. So is this "Iraq Summer" Campaign in Baghdad or in the Hamptons?
Posted by jchicas at 08/15/2007 @ 12:30pm
What's changed?
PETRAEUS IN THE FIELD
He Wrote the Book. Can He Follow It?
By Sarah Sewall
Sunday, February 25, 2007; Page B03
"...if you hold the president's strategy up to the light of Petraeus's doctrine, there's only one conclusion you can draw: You can't get there from here. The Bush plan is burdened with three main deficiencies: too few capable U.S., allied and Iraqi counterinsurgent forces; weak U.S. efforts at promoting political and economic reform; and corrupt or feckless Iraqi institutions and leadership. The administration's strategy may have changed, but the supporting components have not. And even if the general asks his chain of command to address these shortfalls, it's unlikely that fixes can be found.
According to the new counterinsurgency field manual, the proper "troop-to-task" ratio for Baghdad requires 120,000 U.S. and allied security forces. During his confirmation hearings, Petraeus carefully predicted that the present numbers will rise to 85,000, but only with some important caveats: if there is a full surge of 21,500 additional U.S. troops (recent administration hints of stopping deployments midway through the increase raise questions about this, however), and if you count all Iraqi security forces (which presumes that the troops both report for duty and prove capable -- both large assumptions). If you also count private American and foreign security contractors and the Iraqi guards that protect government ministries, the counterinsurgent numbers increase by tens of thousands.
.......
Petraeus's counterinsurgency doctrine also holds that 80 percent of any counterinsurgency effort should be political. Yet the military has always been the 800-pound gorilla in Iraq. Petraeus is politely urging other government departments to play larger roles, and in particular to increase economic assistance to support the security effort. But the State Department can't even fill the civilian slots on the planned additional provincial reconstruction teams it is sending to Iraq; it has asked the Defense Department to provide military officers instead of foreign service officers. And no one has much confidence that State, Treasury or Justice Department support in Iraq will suddenly become effective -- particularly if security continues to disintegrate.
Finally, there is the field manual's mantra: It's the host government, stupid. Petraeus rightly points out that the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is still young -- the fourth in 3 1/2 years. Bush's strategy is to provide the government with enough confidence and breathing room to make tough decisions and take decisive action. All good, except that virtually none of the institutions comprising Iraq's government function as advertised. Both the security apparatus and civilian agencies lack effective oversight or a meaningful national identity. The army, police and intelligence agencies are riddled with sectarian divisions and militia influence, while corruption and a lack of expertise erodes public trust in civilian bureaucracies that still cannot provide prewar levels of services.
Breathing space for this Iraqi government may provide life support, but not a cure. Only a soup-to-nuts overhaul focused on carefully vetting and training personnel and holding them accountable -- for years -- could realistically stem the rot. Given limitations in U.S. capacity and will, this is not feasible.
In addition to facing these jarring realities, an administration happy to return Petraeus to Baghdad should consider whether insurgency is even the right label for the sectarian bloodletting in Iraq. If it's really a civil war or worse, as the recent National Intelligence Estimate concluded, how much can an under-resourced counterinsurgency effort accomplish? In civil conflict, security requirements become paramount, in part because the political space for compromise has all but vanished. Stopping a civil war requires still more of the very resources and time that Petraeus currently lacks.
Placed in charge this late in the game, Petraeus should not have to carry the burden of Iraq's probable failure. Yet there is a silver lining in his appointment. Petraeus has the expertise to identify shortfalls and the likelihood of failure, and he has the credibility to force a political response. Even the president would have to take his assessments seriously. Petraeus vowed to provide forthright, professional military advice regarding the mission in Iraq. He testified that, by late summer, he should know whether the strategy is working. He promised to alert not just his immediate military superior, but Congress as well, if the strategy cannot succeed."
http://tinyurl.com/34obm8
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 12:56pm
The number of car bombings in July actually was 5 percent higher than the number recorded last December, according to the McClatchy statistics, and the number of civilians killed in explosions is about the same.
http://tinyurl.com/2d2kmr
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 12:58pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/15/2007 @ 12:32pm
I know my posts are long LVL and you have a hard time understanding that official sources might be flat out lying or at the very lease massaging the numbers - despite the fact that there is at least one occasion where I pointed out to you that the successful terrorist prosecutions from 2 years ago that you got from some official source was later debunked. I would have thought you would have learned something from that experience. Particularly, the idea of consulting multiple sources, including those critical of your position.
Your quote: "The number of truck bombs and other large al-Qaeda-style attacks in Iraq have declined nearly 50% since the United States started increasing troop levels in Iraq about six months ago, according to the U.S. military command in Iraq."
My quote: "U.S. officials say civilian casualties in Baghdad are down by half. But they wouldn't provide specific numbers, and statistics gathered by McClatchy Newspapers don't support the claim...The number of car bombings in July actually was 5% higher than the number recorded last December, the statistics show, and the number of civilians killed in explosions is about the same."
Now, you can argue that there is something wrong with my source - Detriot Free Press is "liberal media" or some such nonsense. But don't come in here and expect me to buy the military line just because they said so.
It is also possible that both are true since your quote specifically limits the discussion to "large al-Qaeda-style attacks" - a good example of the efforts to cut the conversation down to a point where you can say something positive.
Please do be careful when you claim someone is misstating the facts and promoting agendas. I could say the same of you and your parroting of the U.S. government's line.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/15/2007 @ 12:59pm
LVLIB....I kind of forget, what's the excuse for why we NOW (after 4 years of occupying Iraq) think that going from 70 truck bombs a month, from 130 truck bombs a month....is a "postive sign"?!?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 08/15/2007 @ 1:06pm
I counted only 5 weeks this whole year we had less than 15 casualties during one week; two during the last 3 months. If it's getting better then these numbers would be going lower not climbing:
Post-invasion weekly average of total US casualties to date
1/7/2007 - 1/13/2007-- 14.8
1/14/2007 - 1/20/2007-- 14.9
1/21/2007 - 1/27/2007-- 14.9
1/28/2007 - 2/3/2007-- 15.0
2/4/2007 - 2/10/2007-- 15.0
2/11/2007 - 2/17/2007-- 15.0
2/18/2007 - 2/24/2007-- 15.0
2/25/2007 - 3/3/2007-- 15.1
3/4/2007 - 3/10/2007-- 15.1
3/11/2007 - 3/17/2007-- 15.1
3/18/2007 - 3/24/2007-- 15.1
3/25/2007 - 3/31/2007-- 15.1
4/1/2007 - 4/7/2007-- 15.2
4/8/2007 - 4/14/2007-- 15.2
4/15/2007 - 4/21/2007-- 15.2
4/22/2007 - 4/28/2007-- 15.3
4/29/2007 - 5/5/2007--15.3
5/6/2007 - 5/12/2007-- 15.4
5/13/2007 - 5/19/2007-- 15.4
5/20/2007 - 5/26/2007-- 15.5
5/27/2007 - 6/2/2007-- 15.6
6/3/2007 - 6/9/2007-- 15.6
6/10/2007 - 6/16/2007-- 15.6
6/17/2007 - 6/23/2007-- 15.7
6/24/2007 - 6/30/2007-- 15.7
7/1/2007 - 7/7/2007-- 15.8
7/8/2007 - 7/14/2007-- 15.7
7/15/2007 - 7/21/2007-- 15.7
7/22/2007 - 7/28/2007-- 15.7
7/29/2007 - 8/4/2007-- 15.8
http://icasualties.org/oif_a/CasualtyTrends.htm
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 1:35pm
I'm wise enough to know that my humble opions mean nothing ultimately anyway. Washington's a blue state anyway, so I really need not bother to vote.
Posted by MATTMAN 08/14/2007 @ 2:19pm
MATT - THANKS FOR YOUR RESPONSE TO MY POST...
I regret not having the time to get involved in the real give-and-take of these Nation threads. If there's any such thing as "Democracy in action," I think this may be it (or at least a good part of it -- The U.S. is a distributed oligarchy not a democracy; let's make it one!)
Anyway, along these lines, I find that it works to think of voting as a form of self-expression, kind of like going to church in some ways (if that analogy appeals to you -- honestly, it doesn't to me). I live in MA which, although it undergoes weird spasms of Republicanism from time to time (Mitt Romney being a prime example) is, by and large fairly reliably Democratic, especially in Presidential elections. (MA was the only state to give its electoral votes to George McGovern in the 1972 election against Nixon, I'm proud to say!)
I still get out an vote and when I vote, I don't just vote, I VOTE, DAMMIT! (That's voting as a form of self-expression.) I frankly don't give a rusty fuck (excuse my Francais) if it "makes a difference" in the outcome, it's important because it's MY vote.
Posted by w_m_bear at 08/15/2007 @ 2:08pm
LvLiberty-It isn't just the far left that does not believe anything Bush says.Most Americans do not find Bush to be credible and it will be Bush and not the military that decides if the surge is working or not.You do not decide who loves America nor do you decide who is a traitor.Treason is not defined as disagreeing with you nor is love of country defined as agreeing with you.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/15/2007 @ 2:19pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/15/2007 @ 1:52pm
My obvious bias is for the truth. Something our current military leadership and the current administration have provided precious little of.
I have in fact provided an counter-example that at least suggests the government is fudging the numbers. But apparently "third-party" sources are suspect for you while you let the "official" numbers go down without even a glimmer of critical thought.
Irrespective of the fact that the administration has lied, repeatedly. It has cooked the books, repeatedly. They actively work to conceal what they are doing in our name, hiding behind national security, executive priviledge and practically any other excuse they could come up with. But, yet you believe.
I'll tell you what I believe. Some is either true or false. If true, it is a fact. I don't care much for Ronald Reagan but in one thing I am his disciple. He said, "Trust but verify."
When you try to verify government sources and they turn out to be wrong, repeatedly, what is the appropriate response? Continue believing? Or making a greater effort to verify?
Apparently, in your mind, the second is equivalent to taking everyone else's word over the government. It's hating America. It's supporting Hamas.
We've seen this before in our history. We even have a word for it. It's called McCarthyism. Update communist with terrorist or Iranian sympathizer and you have your script.
You may have your list, but the only person hating America is you. Questioning people's loyalties, restricting debate to "acceptable" topics and being closed to any other perspective other than the "official" one, I can't think of anything more un-American.
As an American, let me also promise you one thing. The day we cross the Rubicon and turn the Republic into a dictatorship, is the day this pacifist will start looking for those who made it possible, in his sights.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/15/2007 @ 2:59pm
LvLiberty-There aren't many on the left or right who want to overthrow the government so you're talking about a small minority of people.Those few do not represent the left anymore than the right wing whackos in places like Montana,Idaho, and Arkansas represent the right.There just aren't that many real communists or neo nazis around anymore who wish to use violence to overthrow the government.
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/15/2007 @ 3:25pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/15/2007 @ 3:08pm
Please feel free to point out my speculations rather than relying on vague notions about my emotional state and my so-called bias.
What would you guys do if you couldn't ask about how someone feels? Must be all that compassionate conservatism makes you want to feel everyone's pain, even if it's not there. Perhaps that's the true appeal of Iraq. Other people's pain is your gain.
And the fact that you have plenty of criticisms - apparently that you share in another forum - and the War is well down on that list. Man, please share with us these critical issues? Not tough enough on abortion? Not giving enough to abstinence education? What is GWB doing exactly that is keeping you up at night?
Posted by srjenkins at 08/15/2007 @ 3:26pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/15/2007 @ 3:08pm
You and your anti-war cohorts however attribute everything to malicious, or evil intents.
Mostly, I think it is incompetence and hubris. But please, tell me more about what I think. I might learn something about myself.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/15/2007 @ 3:29pm
How you and those like you can say that you don't hate the US is beyond understanding. What I usually get in response from folks like you is some diatribe about loving the US for what it could be if it were more like the socialist/pacifist utopia that you long for.
For me, the US (including during the Bush Admin) has been the government that has been about achieving the greatest overall good for the world in the history of governments. Despite all of our flaws and weaknesses, I have not read nor seen a better place.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/15/2007 @ 1:52pm | ignore this person
People like ¬v¬ don't under the purpose for our government of co-equal branches, nor the concept of checks and balances. What he'd really love is servicing the dic'tator philosophy of the hsuB/cHeney admin.
The flaw and weaknes with the hsuB/cHeney admin is that it wants to be a unitary exec-- a dictatorship. And that is anti-constitutional, anti-law, anti-American. Funny that that is what ¬v¬ is in love with about hsuB/cHeney admin.
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 3:32pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/15/2007 @ 2:50pm
What gives you away ¬v¬, a DU eater, is that you gloat because less of our troops have died rather than being thankful. Don't forget that those are totals for the year that was 2007... that year hasn't happened yet and there's still time for hsuB/cHeney to create a regional war by flooding the region with weapons-- yet I hope I'm totally wrong about those totals. I'd prefer that you laugh at me than to have more of our troops slaughtered.
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 3:40pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/15/2007 @ 2:08pm
No, I got the numbers, just had a bit of prepositional trouble...should have said-
" kind of forget, what's the excuse for why we NOW (after 4 years of occupying Iraq) think that going to 70 truck bombs a month, from 130 truck bombs a month....is a "postive sign"?!?!?!?
See, my point was...SEVENTY truck bombs a month isn't that spectacular, Reverand.
If I had said to you in 2003, "I oppose going into Iraq. Sure we'll stomp Saddam, but we'll be in an insurgency war that will see SEVENTY truck bombings a month (Plus, just saw on the msm.com site that they just had the worst week ever!)"....you'd have poo'poo'ed it like Cheney telling Stephanopolous that "The war won't cost $200 Billion, more like $50 Billion".
This is exactly what I predicted. The "good news" of the Surge is the "Titanic" crew telling us "Well, we WERE sinking 3 feet a minute, now we're only sinking 25 inches a minute...don't listen to the naysayers who say we won't make it to New York!"
Posted by Mask at 08/15/2007 @ 3:41pm
er, people like ¬v¬ don't 'understand' the purpose...
(I guess I just can't 'stand' ¬v¬...)
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 3:43pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/15/2007 @ 3:31pm
So, we have moved back to rational discussion? Good. I prefer it.
They collected the data themselves, so they, therefore, are the source. Do you ask the U.S. military who provides their statistics?
If you went to the site, you would also see that they track it daily. It states:
"The daily Iraqi violence report is complied by McClatchy Newspapers Special Correspondents in Baghdad from police, military and medical reports. This is not a comprehensive list of all violence in Iraq , much of which goes unreported."
Violence from today: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/212/story/18928.html
So the question, where is the problem in the methodology? And how exactly is the U.S. military getting its numbers? Do we have reason to believe their numbers are better?
Posted by srjenkins at 08/15/2007 @ 3:43pm
LL I find it traitorous as defined in our constitution when you want to overthrow our current form of government and substitute something entirely different.
Treason is actuallly defined as "only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.". Even if one were to accept your McCarthyite nonsense about posters here wanting to replace the current government with a "socialist, pacifist utopia", it would hardly constitute treason. The precedent of the Burr trial means the levying war is limited to participating in actual hostilities against the US. Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), has a good discussion of the origins and meaning of the clause.
For example-- "Treason of adherence to an enemy was old in the law. It consisted of breaking allegiance to one's own King by forming an attachment to his enemy. Its scope was comprehensive, its requirements indeterminate. It might be predicated on intellecutal or emotional sympathy with the for, or merely lack of zeal in the cause of one's own country. That was not the kind of disloyalty the framers thought should constitute treason."
and
"Historical materials aid interpretation chiefly in that they show two kinds of dangers against which the framers were concerned to guard the treason offense: (1) Perversion by established authority to repress peaceful political opposition"
Posted by brunowe at 08/15/2007 @ 4:20pm
By Julian E. Barnes and Peter Spiegel,
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers August 15, 2007
"Administration and military officials acknowledge that the September report will not show any significant progress on the political benchmarks laid out by Congress. How to deal in the report with the lack of national reconciliation between Iraq's warring sects has created some tension within the White House.
Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.
And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report's data.
The senior administration official said the process had created "uncomfortable positions" for the White House because of debates over what constitutes "satisfactory progress."
During internal White House discussion of a July interim report, some officials urged the administration to claim progress in policy areas such as legislation to divvy up Iraq's oil revenue, even though no final agreement had been reached. Others argued that such assertions would be disingenuous.
"There were some in the drafting of the report that said, 'Well, we can claim progress,' " the administration official said. "There were others who said: 'Wait a second. Sure we can claim progress, but it's not credible to . . . just neglect the fact that it's had no effect on the ground.'
"Who cares how many neighborhoods of Baghdad are secured?" the official said. "Let's talk about the rest of the country: How come they have electricity twice a day, how come there is no running water?"
http://tinyurl.com/yth78o
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 4:20pm
LL
But as wars go, this one has been very negligible in loss of US life to this date. The left as epitimized on this site and the MSM act as if we were suffering losses comparable to Nam or WWII. All loss of life is tragic, but the minimal loss of life by those who have willingly laid down their lives in service to their country has yet to be put into historical context by the MSM or the anti-American anti-war crowd.
The historial context is that the invasion and occupation of Iraq haven't advanced our national security one jot. It has diminished our diplomatic power, it has siphoned resources away from our war effort in Afghanistan, it has made an enemy in the form of an overwhelmingly Iraqi insurgency where we didn't have one before.
Posted by brunowe at 08/15/2007 @ 4:23pm
And now they're talking of using the DRAFT...
Where Have All The Young Republicans Gone?
Daniel Brook
Posted August 15, 2007 | 10:26 AM (EST)
...
"I thought my own take on American politics might be similarly skewed. I'm 29 and I can practically count on one hand all the young Republicans I know. I'd always figured that was because of the circles I run in. But at long last some hard survey data is coming out on the subject of young people and politics. And it's confirming my initial hunch: there really are no young Republicans.
Well, almost none. Only 35 percent of young voters consider themselves Republicans. That's down from 55 percent in 1991.
Mainstream pundits tend to attribute this overwhelming anti-Republican shift to the experience of coming of age under George W. Bush, a deeply unpopular Republican president. Some on the right even blame The Daily Show for brainwashing a generation.
But the real reason, I think, for the leftward leanings of today's young people is fear of, and in many cases experience with, downward mobility.
In a recent New York Times/CBS News/MTV poll of 18-29 year olds, 48 percent of respondents said they expected their generation to be worse off than their parents'; only 25 percent who expected it to do better. This is particularly shocking coming from the young. What has drowned the traditional optimism of youth? For many, it is reality. For older Americans, further along in their lives and careers, with homes and even pensions, the retreat of the state and triumph of the market in recent decades hasn't been felt as starkly. But for young people, this harsh new unequal America of "you're-on-your-own economics," as economist (and Huffington Post contributor) Jared Bernstein calls it, is the only America they have ever known.
The social contract has been upended in recent decades and the burden falls squarely on the young. Most young people don't even know what a pension is -- not that they have much time to worry about retirement when facing the more pressing concern of finding healthcare in the here and now. Even for young people with a college degree, health insurance is no longer assured. In 2000, 70 percent of entry-level jobs for recent college graduates included employer-provided health insurance. Today less than 63 percent do. And those college degrees now come with an average of $20,000 worth of debt.
In the face of these new challenges facing young people, the federal government has had almost nothing to say. Federal support for student aid has languished under Bush; universal healthcare is a non-starter with the current administration. In an America in which decades of government inaction on higher education funding and healthcare now means a college degree guarantees five-figures worth of debt but doesn't guarantee a job with health insurance, a shift to the left is a rational response. No surprise then, that The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found in a March poll that young people hold a more favorable view of government than other Americans. Young people know they need government and want it to act on their behalf."
NOT.
http://tinyurl.com/ynn3me
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 4:45pm
Why do repub new cons, servicers of dic'tator phylosophy, hate America?
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 4:55pm
er, philosophy.
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 4:55pm
Why do y'all bother with libertyliar? He is the same brainless conformist that supports all regimes around the world, through out history. In Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Franco's Spain, Khomeni's Iran, the Holy Roman Empire's Inquisition, there were millions just like libertyliar, providing the blind obedience required to support an irrational, oppressive apparatus of control. He is the pups raised to be vicious guardians of the system in The Animal Farm.
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/15/2007 @ 4:57pm
This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.
http://tinyurl.com/75ge
Posted by LVLIBERTY1
And he is completely oblivious to the irony.
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/15/2007 @ 4:59pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/15/2007 @ 4:35pm
I suspect not. Despite your assertions otherwise, I don't see any real indications that you would engage in any serious introspection.
Is "any serious introspection" code for coming around to your beliefs that killing Muslims is going to save Western civilization? Yeah, you're right. Any serious introspection of that sort is not going to happen on my end. So sorry to disappoint.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/15/2007 @ 5:14pm
Posted by MTSPENCE05 08/15/2007 @ 4:57pm
Hear that whimpering? See the grasping for anything - claims of hating America, bias, those scary Muslims? Every time I experience it I see the face of bankrupt conservative culture peering over the cliff's edge with a smug, self-satisified smile that thinks winning is barely holding on.
And I think to myself, perhaps a few swift kicks with the heel of my boot will send this abomination spiraling back into the abyss into which it belongs. Let is begin the process anew and take a few decades to crawl back up to the precipice.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/15/2007 @ 5:36pm
those who have willingly laid down their lives in service to their country on a wild goose chase. for nothing. so that whichever despot rules Bagdad and makes nice with us?
and those nice Iraqis. that sacrifice was certainly worth it, when you consider the revenge and settling of scores manifested in mass bombing attacks. they are blowing each other up far more than they're blowing us up. the US is the enabler in these attacks, an unintended consequence perhaps.
so we're talking about far bigger numbers than the paltry few thousand our gung ho australian suggests we not get so hysterical about. and what do we have to show for it? what do the Iraqis have to show for it?
in the early day of medicine, it was customary to bleed people, to make them better. this was the cure, to take a lotta blood out of your system. the mortality was, for this and other reasons, very high.
and so it is with Iraq. The US believes they can bleed Iraq back to health. a few more air strikes and eight to ten years more, that'll do it, I swear. winning is always just around the corner. and don't get me started on the role the illusion and myth of "winning" plays in the american psyche.
we hear about how many Iraqis we're training. training in what? urban guerilla warfare? it would seem they should teach us.
and they do it a lot cheaper. the war is costing the US one trillion dollars. the war is costing the"insurgency" 59 cents.
these IEDs were laying around in plain sight, after the invasion, we are told. both equipment and personnel desert the Iraqi army for the rebels, I mean al qaeda in Iraq, I mean anti Iraqis,...the other side.
quit pestering me about the unaccounted for weaponry. they were misplaced, I tell you.
and you don't have to pay suicide bombers. they work for a cushioned seat in the hereafter.
how are ya gonna go up against that with a young kid marine, on his fourth tour, who just realized that Saddam did not do 9/11?
we are expected to show patriotism for the war as if Iraq was the 51st state. excuse me. bleed into the sand, for years and years. for the safety of our children? who incidentally will be stuck with the bill.
the war cheerleader crowd here cannot say enough nice things about war, and all its manifestations. we can even the score for that defeat in the crusades, which were a two hundred year war the west lost. and they say the factions in Iraq have century old grudges. our super christians have them beat by a mile.
they actually hype the war as better than your average war, a fight for freedom like the revolutionary war, or the american civil war, see it's just like that, and Bush is really Lincoln. don't you see?
history will place its laurel wreath on Bush's brow, a few decades hence, posthumously perhaps, he will be bathed in a golden light, and many airports will be named after him. in Bagdad too.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/15/2007 @ 5:50pm
Just so's long as history doesn't look at the US citizenry the same way they did Germans that played dumb about the holocaust atrocities happening all around them...
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 5:57pm
And I think to myself, perhaps a few swift kicks with the heel of my boot will send this abomination spiraling back into the abyss into which it belongs. Let is begin the process anew and take a few decades to crawl back up to the precipice.
Posted by SRJENKINS
More like don't forget to check the bottom of your shoes before going in the house.
Posted by mtspence05 at 08/15/2007 @ 5:57pm
And now they're talking of using the DRAFT...
Where Have All The Young Republicans Gone?
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/15/2007 @ 4:45pm
And then there'll be even less repubs replicating... a r0vian circular math inevitability perhaps.
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 6:17pm
"BAGHDAD -- Rescuers used bare hands and shovels Wednesday to claw through clay houses shattered by an onslaught of suicide bombings that killed at least 250 and possibly as many as 500 members of an ancient religious sect in the deadliest attack of the Iraq war.
The U.S. military blamed al-Qaida in Iraq, and an American commander called the assault an "act of ethnic cleansing."
The victims of Tuesday night's coordinated attack by four suicide bombers were Yazidis, a small Kurdish-speaking sect that has been targeted by Muslim extremists who consider its members to be blasphemers."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070815/iraq/
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 6:27pm
From the r0ve blog:
Well like the nazis, when they started losing battles, they lost the war-- repub new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy, will end up in a deep bunker somewhere close to hell with a pistol in one hand and a straw dildo, sent from a masked admirer, in the other; then BAM.
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 6:30pm
Speaking of ethnic cleansing/the article pasted above, is it just me or does anyone else find it curious that these two articles came out simultaneously:
1. Gingrich: Young Americans 'Massacred' by Illegal Immigrants
By EUNICE MOSCOSO, Cox News Service, Wednesday, August 15, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Tuesday he is "sickened" that President Bush and Congress went on vacation "while young Americans in our cities are massacred" by illegal immigrants.
Gingrich said that Bush ought to be furious at the failure of bureaucracies to protect the American people.
In addition, he said the president should call Congress back into a special session for three days to pass a bill in honor of the slain students.
The measure should order the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security to outsource the development of an identification system to check the legal status of felons and have it up and running by Jan. 1, 2008, he said. He added that the government should withdraw federal aid from any city, county or state that refuses to participate in checking the legal status of arrested felons.
http://tinyurl.com/22muzc
XXxxXXXxxxXXXxx
2. U.S. to Expand Domestic Use Of Spy Satellites
By ROBERT BLOCK, August 15, 2007; Page A1
The U.S.'s top intelligence official has greatly expanded the range of federal and local authorities who can get access to information from the nation's vast network of spy satellites in the U.S.
The decision, made three months ago by Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, places for the first time some of the U.S.'s most powerful intelligence-gathering tools at the disposal of domestic security officials. The move was authorized in a May 25 memo sent to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff asking his department to facilitate access to the spy network on behalf of civilian agencies and law enforcement.
http://tinyurl.com/ysc5x8
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 6:43pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/15/2007 @ 6:43pm
Looks like big brother just moved from the white house, into my local sherrifs dept.
It took longer than anticipated, but 1984 is almost here.
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 08/15/2007 @ 7:06pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/15/2007 @ 6:32pm
That list is hilarious!
Oh, wait, you were being serious.
Nevermind.
Posted by Malcontent at 08/15/2007 @ 7:08pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/15/2007 @ 4:48pm
Larry, 2500 years ago a genius of a man in China (remember the one you wanted to nuke in 1950) wrote a series of truisms about war.
His name was Sun Tzu, the writings became "The Art of War". It is studied by every military student in the world now, as well as business people; even ministers probably.
In Chapter 2, line 6, Sun Tzu said "No country has ever benefitted from a prolonged war."
It has been proven true, time and time and time again. Terrorism is crime, not warfare. And Iraq will be a failure (if not already), not success. And the longer we're in it, the more we will suffer, not less.
Posted by Mask at 08/15/2007 @ 7:18pm
It took longer than anticipated, but 1984 is almost here.
Eric
Posted by MALCONTENT 08/15/2007 @ 7:06pm
I seem to be not so much surprised as wondering why they're letting everyone know what they've been doing for quite some time already. Like we didn't know they had that capability? My paranoid side says something bigger is coming so we feel comforted by the government's all seeing eye/control of the situation. Me thinks it's a different kind of alien presence about to be disclosed! Hey, I said it was my paranoid side.
In anycase, it looks like 2008 is shaping up to be a 1984 vs which candidate? Whom will it be to clean up the mess the hsuB/cHeney frat admin left? Even when they're impeached, a mess is left; Iraq, our constitution, our environment are some specifically.
Well, as the article below states-- Al's no longer saying he's fallen out of love with politics and he's never going to let it happen, only just not quite planning on it, yet...
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Gore Says He May Re-Enter Politics Again
"I may re-enter politics at some point in the future because I'm only 59 years old," Gore said. But more telling: "There is no single candidate that is putting forward a comprehensive argument about the environment or making climate change a priority," he said.
Can this finally be a concrete sign that Gore's taking the initial steps back into the political scene so as to set the stage for a surprise announcement early this Fall? Will we soon here Gore say something like: "Yes, it's true. A couple of months ago, I stated that I might someday enter politics again but not the presidential race in '08. But I have now come to the conclusion that I can indeed make the biggest contribution to our great country, and have the greatest impact on the issues I hold near and dear to me--climate control and putting an end to the Iraq war--if I seek the highest job in the land."
Stay tuned. Could get real interesting from here.....
http://tinyurl.com/yqxbxg
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 7:34pm
Yeah, I see Al doing it. Better capable of cleaning up the mess too.
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/15/2007 @ 7:38pm
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/15/2007 @ 7:34pm
Don't expect a straight answer, but will try again...
Even in YOUR mind, what's the latest that Gore can announce and win the nomination? Or can he arrive at the Dem Convention in August '08, tell everybody he wants it, and the Hillary/Obama/Edwards delegates just fold and swoon and change their votes?
Posted by Mask at 08/15/2007 @ 7:48pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/15/2007 @ 6:32pm
Your list is...unique. I can't say we share any concerns.
I can agree that there would be a drastic improvement in quality of health and capacity if people made better lifestyle choices. But I think pretending this is a "solution" is about as good as saying all those poor people should just get a job.
My wife works in a public hospital. There are shortages of nurses, beds, doctors trained in particular specialties, etc. Further, compensation rates are low and decreasing as more private hospitals get more selective about the HMOs they accept. End result, capacity problems and network effects.
It's also hard to address a problem early, say hypertension, if you don't know you have it because you don't have insurance to cover a basic physical and blood screening.
The other stuff is a bit outlandish. Democrats are not much different than Republicans and have been more than willing to cooperate. Much more so than Republicans when they were in power. Not that both parties aren't opposite sides of the same coin - but your whining about cooperation sounds a bit hollow.
Worrying about domestic spending while funneling billions to war and "defense" strikes me as rather odd. Fiscally conservative used to mean across the board. Now, it's just another way of saying I want money spent on my programs and not anything else.
Global warming needs no comment from me. I'd probably agree with your concerns around education - more diversity and local focus in that area would be good I reckon. But the reality there is that states do a horrible job funding education and think lotteries are some kind of magic funding source. We shouldn't be gambling for education.
As a political reality, you mess with Medicare you are going to have to deal with going back into the abyss. Older people vote and they care about healthcare.
Reviewing this list is interesting for me because I can get behind the idea that we should be energy dependent. I can get behind the idea of fiscial conservativism. I can see the arguments for slow change and limited government involvement in markets with many buyers and many sellers.
I even sympathize with the idea behind limited government in general. I just don't think it works when wealth is concentrated, like in corporations. It also means you have a lot of poor, hungry people that are externalities. Poor, hungry people don't have freedom in any meaningful sense of the word and ultimately they will revolt if it isn't addressed.
Shoot. I'd even vote for a conservative libertarian over HRC. But the problem is that the "conservatives" that get elected have ideas around the so-called "culture of life", gays and lesbians, dreams of empire/crusade and a self-righteous ruthlessness that leaves the rest of the population reaching for a flask of Wild Turkey, hoping to get the horrible taste out of their mouth. I don't have time for that type of conservatism.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/15/2007 @ 6:36pm
Finally, something we can agree on. Downfall is a movie worth watching.
Posted by MASK 08/15/2007 @ 7:18pm
You could have cited the Spartans - who were against prolonged war because it trained your enemies in how to fight you.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/15/2007 @ 9:10pm
I have been praying for ALGORE to enter the race..he may yet return to save the day for....!!!......republicans, hopefully, conservative republicans.
the fur flying between ALGORE and Hillary would be worth the price of a ticket!!!......
Posted by john maasch at 08/15/2007 @ 9:30pm
You could have cited the Spartans - who were against prolonged war because it trained your enemies in how to fight you.
Posted by SRJENKINS 08/15/2007 @ 9:10pm
Frankly, SRJ, I think LVLIB believes that "God is on our side" or more precisely "on George Bush's side" and that Sun Tzu (a Chinese and therefore heathen and suspect) or the Spartans (pre-Christianized Greeks) despite the fact 1000s of years of warfare have proven them right...don't matter.
Posted by Mask at 08/15/2007 @ 9:59pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/16/2007 @ 05:50am
Which doesn't mean you fight it by putting 120,000 guys into the middle of a civil war in Iraq, while letting bin Laden roam freely in Pakistan, let the Taliban re-emerge in Afghanistan, or say "torture is okay if WE do it" and then wonder why nobody thinks we have the moral authority we had after 9/11.
BTW, "as long as it takes" isn't an answer anymore. We're going bankrupt, so you either come out and say you're for a tax hike to pay for your "non-traditional, generational war" or you give us a cut-off date for flushing the money down the toilet.
Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 09:07am
Also, by the way...are you nuts?
"If you anti-war types won't listen to conservatives...."
followed by a story from---
"http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060905-7.html"
So the White House Press Office is NOT "conservative"?!?!?!?
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/16/2007 @ 05:50am
Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 09:09am
Right you are. The idea of Bush cooperating too much was not one that occurred to me.
If you are going to go the strict constitutional route, then defense is centered on ideas of repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Attacking another country doesn't count as defense. It's counts as aggression.
Actually, we are in less than complete disagreement. I think much of modern medicine is quakery. It still doesn't change the fact that medical tests, surgeries and other aspects of modern medicine are both useful and necessary. When an Amish kid has a brain aneurysm that bursts, he sees a neurosurgeon - typically one that has to provide the service gratis. He doesn't go home and drink tea or eat garlic.
Global warming is simple to understand. Go to your garage. Turn on your car. Wait. Eventually the idea of a closed environment and exhaust will make an impression on you. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to then think of a few cars in a warehouse. Or millions of cars and the environment. You don't really need a climate scientist to tell you that are some point, there is going to be a problem. Do you? And you know what, keeping a few trees around isn't off-setting the damage.
Let me ask you this, is your cafe going to solve the homeless and hunger problem in your area? Even if all the churches in your area were doing it - and we will pretend for a moment that there isn't a limited market for this, would it solve the problem?
You see, there's lots of discussion about what could happen or what you in particular are doing. But the bottom line is that there are still homeless, hungry people - even after you have contributed your profits. That is the undenable and inescapable truth that makes government involvement necessary.
If you think you can solve the problem without government, show me the money. Start in your community. Create the model. But right now, the model doesn't exist - and my money is that the model cannot exist, without government and without taxing people that enjoy the greatest benefits of society.
The fundamental flaw in conservative thinking is this argument about what COULD happen. It's again this appeal to emotion - pick yourself up by your bootstraps, where there is a will there is a way, Jesus will solve all your problems and other such nonsense.
I'll grant that it is possible for people to succeed. But I don't grant that it is possible for everyone to succeed - which the whole of conservative philosophy rests on this one incontrivertible falsehood and tries to spin it as personal responsibility when it is really a form of societal irresponsibility.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/16/2007 @ 09:18am
Posted by MASK 08/15/2007 @ 9:59pm
I won't pretend to understand where LVL is coming from on this clash of civilizations. There is a logic, but to me, it is a logic of madness.
For example, let's read Nasrallah:
"What do the people who worked in those two [World Trade Center] towers, along with thousands of employees, women and men, have to do with war that is taking place in the Middle East? Or the war that Mr. George Bush may wage on people in the Islamic world?" he asked me. "Therefore we condemned this act -- and any similar act we condemn...Nasrallah has only disdain for bin Laden and the Taliban..."It is unacceptable, it is forbidden, to harm the innocent," he told me, reflecting on Iraq. "To have Iraqis confronting the occupation army, this is natural. But if there are American tourists, or intellectuals, doctors, or professors who have nothing to do with this war, they are innocent, even though they are Americans, and it is forbidden. It is not acceptable to harm them.""
Apparently, he's doesn't support the 9/11 attacks and condemns attacks like them. He isn't in league with AQ. He has some ideas about innocence and is condemning the United States government as the Great Satan, but it doesn't extend to individual Americans not involved in making those policy decisions.
I'm not making an apology for Nasrallah. But I do want to make sure we give this a little more thought that knee-jerk acceptence of a White House press release.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/14/AR200607 1401401_pf.html
Posted by srjenkins at 08/16/2007 @ 09:38am
LL I guess someone forgot to tell the terrorists that they are merely guilty of a crime and not engaged in a war. The following language sure says war and not criminal activity.
bin-Laden can say war until he's blue in the face, it doesn't qualify his gang of thugs as belligerents anymore than his use of the word fatwa to dignify his pronouncements makes him an Islamic scholar. Actions such as 9/11 and the attacks on the USS Cole and the embassies were criminal conspiracies. Since bin-Laden had the support of Afghanistan's de facto government, that situation requires a military response and qualifies as a war. Otherwise, tracking down their cells in Europe, the Maghred and elsewhere is an intelligence-police matter.
Posted by brunowe at 08/16/2007 @ 09:57am
Posted by BRUNOWE 08/16/2007 @ 09:57am
I wasn't aware of any real historical record of criminals seeking to rule the world (or even just portions of it)? Perhaps you can enlighten us?
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/16/2007 @ 11:04am
I was going to ask BRUNO something similar.....guess he thinks Bin Ladin is head of Spectre and we are in a "stirred, not shaken" `reality' show..."My name is Bruno, James Bruno."
OK, I'll take the financial angle to James BRUNO.....How exactly is Spectre, under Bin Laden, making their fabulous wealth, assuming that has been the goal of all criminal enterprises in the history of mankind! By shorting stocks before each major terror attack in London, NYC, Madrid?
BTW, LVLIBERTY, thanks for all the research, not only useful refreshers for our regular `battles' here but also for drive-by visitors!
Posted by Happy at 08/16/2007 @ 11:20am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/16/2007 @ 11:02am
Care to share what the off the budget expenses are for Iraq? I'm sure my budget would look fantastic if I could just pretend I don't have to pay taxes or rent. But I do. Just like you have to pay for little wars of adventure.
Let's so a little research shall we?
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/pdf/budget/tables.pdf
Page 23. Unified budget deficit of -248 billion. Projected for next year? Same. Year after? Same. Can we come out of fantasy land now?
Posted by srjenkins at 08/16/2007 @ 11:56am
Posted by HAPPY 08/16/2007 @ 11:20am
Research is not what you get from White House Press reports and AP.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/16/2007 @ 11:57am
the government produced a deficit of $157.3 billion for the budget year that began last Oct. 1. That's a substantial improvement from the red ink figure of $239.6 billion produced for the corresponding 10-month period last year. ----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/16/2007 @ 11:02am
Those are good numbers, LVLIB...now....how much of the supplemental spending we've put into Iraq was counted against that budget?
Need a hint? The Meso-Americans (Olmecs or Mayans) invented it about 36 BCE.
Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 12:09pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 08/16/2007 @ 09:38am
Sorry, SRJ, I don't cut Larry any slack. He's made his feelings known on numerous occasions that he thinks, of all things, Bush is "pulling his punches" in how to "really" deal with Islamic terrorism.
Please, LVLIB, correct me if I'm wrong, but it involves carpet bombing Iran if needed.... then trying to find some Iranians who will be sympathetic to us (after killing their neighbors) to arm and then overthrow the Teheran regime (those who weren't vaporized by an air-fuel bomb detonated over the Parliament building).
Then Syria....then the Palestinian territories (may just "stop holding back the Israelis")...then anybody else who says anything bad about us, a squadron of B-2 Stealths or a volley of Tomahawks awaits them. Then torture for the prisoners we capture, as long as they survive (HAPPY for that one).
After all, we ARE the "good guys"!
(Oh, and apparently since the deficit is down to a "manageable" $157 Billion every 10 months...we can spend another HALF A TRILLION to do it!)
Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 12:15pm
Research is not what you get from White House Press reports and AP.
Posted by SRJENKINS 08/16/2007 @ 11:57am
LIBERTY,
SRJ wants me to be more specific! I mean quotations of past speeches, fatwas, etc.....not necessarily opinions or conjectures! I don't have time to decipher what people say...if some one says he's at war w/us, and follows w/actions, it's war!
Posted by Happy at 08/16/2007 @ 12:49pm
Posted by MASK 08/15/2007 @ 11:01am
If not, care to give me 2-3 things you want to see done to change things (outside of "voting" of course) and how they would get implemented?
Posted by SRJENKINS 08/15/2007 @ 12:19pm
Extensive list. Then...nothing. I took the bait and everything Mask. Were you just hoping I wouldn't have anything to say and you could start grouping me with "Empty Spence" as you call him or what? Or were you really just curious? Now, I'm curious.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/16/2007 @ 12:54pm
Posted by HAPPY 08/16/2007 @ 12:49pm
Nah, Happy. It's work. There's no doubt about that and there are more profitable ($$) ways to spend your time. I'd be Happy if you were more skeptical - not just of LVL but of everyone, including me.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/16/2007 @ 12:58pm
Or were you really just curious? Now, I'm curious.
Posted by SRJENKINS 08/16/2007 @ 12:54pm
I'm really curious, SRJ. Because it HAS to involve the construction or "build-up" of a third party (which has been going on since the "Greens" in the 80s and they haven't won a SINGLE national seat)...
or a hope that the Democrats will implode, the Repubs drive the country into the ground, and then the Dems resurrect themselves as McGovernites or something and get swept back in the midst of a national crises or depression.
Protest marches do nothing. "Progressive" organizations are peachy keen, but there are dozens of them already and zip from the Dems. And blogging is...well...we're hardly changing the world HERE, are we?
So...what's left?
Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 3:56pm
Written by a German in a brutally honest, harsh-lit multi-part article in Der Spiegel. The dirty secret the world doesn't want to know. America, in heavy sacrifice of blood and treasure, is doing something right in Iraq. Quick version follows below.
Ramadi is an irritating contradiction of almost everything the world thinks it knows about Iraq -- it is proof that the US military is more successful than the world wants to believe. Ramadi demonstrates that large parts of Iraq -- not just Anbar Province, but also many other rural areas along the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers -- are essentially pacified today. This is news the world doesn't hear: Ramadi, long a hotbed of unrest, a city that once formed the southwestern tip of the notorious "Sunni Triangle," is now telling a different story, a story of Americans who came here as liberators, became hated occupiers and are now the protectors of Iraqi reconstruction.
… The world has become deaf to the word "peace" -- at least when conversations turn to Iraq. It is as if the world were blind to the possibility that the situation in this country straddling the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers could be anything different from the constant stream of increasingly devastating films of the latest car bombings. For most people, Iraq has become nothing but a series of attacks, a collection of images of bombings and victims, a tale of failure, a book about historical guilt and a symbol of the moral decline of the United States of America.
But the real story in Iraq cannot be summed up in short news clips and quick, shaky television images. Body counts and names of the dead tell only part of the story of Iraq today. Research for this story took me on a three-week journey throughout the country, my fourth trip to Iraq in as many years. Under the protection of the US military, it led us to the northern city of Mosul and its suburbs, to Ramadi and to Baghdad. The military did not choose our destinations, SPIEGEL did. Apart from a few technical and strategic details, nothing was censored.
...
There is no doubt that the greatest enemies of success in Iraq are in Tehran and Damascus. Many of the jihadists enter the country through Syria, and Iran supports the terrorists with weapons and money. During their operations, US troops often find brand-new mines and grenades produced in Iranian weapons factories, sometime still in their original packaging. Fighters from the Iranian Al-Quds Brigades are active on Iraqi soil, and there are terrorist training camps across the border in Iran. "Iran," says Crocker, "wants to defeat the West on more than one front, and it also wants to make sure that Iraq will never pose a threat to it again."
Don't believe Der Spiegel to be a right wing conservative rag---same magazine that compared Bush to Hitler. When reports come in that success is within our grasp, will the democrats go for it or will the snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for political gain.
Posted by Len Mosse at 08/16/2007 @ 4:37pm
Two more snippets below from an eight page Der Spiegel article on Iraq.
Page 4
Those who believe that a speedy withdrawal of US troops would result in the problem capable of resolving itself are deeply mistaken. Though this premise might have rang true in late 2003 or early 2004, when terrorism had not yet stirred up the infernal forces of religious hatred, the situation today is different.
In the Iraq of 2007, that is, in its capital Baghdad, the respective factions in a future civil war are forming along religious lines, and so far only the Americans have been able to prevent it from happening. If the forces in Washington that are demanding the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq prevail, the country will descend into full-fledged civil war, complete with reports of horrific religious cleansing operations, large-scale massacres arising from the blind fury of fanaticism and acts of revenge against anyone who has ever dared to cooperate with the Americans.
Page 8
Every child in the city knows the story of how, on May 16, 2007, terrorists attempted to stage a massive attack. Using four car bombs, they first blew up two bridges across the Tigris River in the city's northwest. A short time later, three other car bombs exploded in front of the headquarters of the district police. They, too, were packed with explosives, ripping craters into the ground the size of swimming pools. An eighth bomb struck a police station in the southeast. The attackers followed each of the bombings with an assault with rockets, machine guns and Kalashnikovs. It was clear, on that May 15, that the terrorists were intent on scoring a major coup. But they failed, and in doing so they lost their war.
The Iraqi police officers and soldiers, who until then had not been expected to perform well in combat, threw themselves into battle. Even the wounded refused to be carried off the battlefield, continuing to fight as best they could. Heroes were born on that day in May, the kind of heroes that the entire country sorely needs -- not Sunni, not Shiite, not Kurdish or Assyrian or Turkmen heroes, but Iraqi heroes
Posted by Len Mosse at 08/16/2007 @ 4:44pm
Don't believe Der Spiegel to be a right wing conservative rag--
that's exactly what it is.
Posted by johannesrolf at 08/16/2007 @ 5:08pm
LEN,
That was an excellent non-partisan piece of reporting on humanity!
Yesterday, 4 suicide truck bombers killed ~500 in Iraq.....a minority group within Iraq that, to my knowledge, had little to do with the War.....they incurred the wrath of AQ....read up and ask, what is AQ's goal other than create casualties and headlines here!
Posted by Happy at 08/16/2007 @ 5:12pm
Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 3:56pm
At the heart of it, Mask, I'm pragmatic. I have a pretty good idea of where I'd like to see things go. I'm under no illusion. It will take decades - if it is going to happen at all.
Once you have a vision, it gives you another way of evaluating the current election cycle. Instead of asking myself, is HRC a better candidate than Giuliani? I'm asking myself, is helping to elect either moving me closer to the government I'd like to see?
By voting, whomever I vote for, I'm letting the political parties know that my vote is available, but they have to start coming to my vision to get that vote.
Is either major candidate talking about building democratic institutions, foreign policy based on supporting international law or domestic equity? No? Then, I'll look for a third party candidate that is or vote for myself.
Now, your criticism is that this isn't effective. You need to support the players that are closer to your position so at least something gets done that is in the ballpark.
But I'd argue the opposite. In the long run, it's better if Democrats lose in the short term if they advocate policies that are not starkly differentiated from Republican positions. Iraq? Foreign policy? Free trade? Surveillance society? Limiting the power of big business when it is in the public interest? The parties don't differ much of these and many other issues. That isn't to say that there aren't relevant differences - but there need to be more relevant differences.
People are willing to try something else, when they lose. If they win, why fix what isn't broken, right?
Your arguments about Bill Clinton are an excellent illustration. Just as a thought experiment, what do you think the Democrats would be prepared to do if they had been locked out of the White House since 1980? It would have been terrible for the country, but we would be in a completely different place than we are now.
Let's flip it the other way. Let's assume the Republican party splinters and a wing develops that wants to bring more of government down to the state level, fiscially responsible federal government and a restricted idea regarding foreign policy. I'd be more likely to support such a group over current Democratic policies, because if for no other reason, it's different and it has some of the elements I am looking for.
Personally, I don't care how it happens - emergence of a third party that displaces a major one, shift in the ideas in a major party, or what not. And yes, it is an unfortanate fact that these kinds of changes seem to primarily occur when there is crisis and social unrest - the Sixties, the Great Depression, the Civil War.
It is likely we will look back on 9/11 as another such time, and I believe both parties are in desperate need of reconstruction and soul searching to find some goal to aspire to beyond a crass money/power-grab and cheap imperial ambitions. We need change, and we aren't getting it.
Now imagine this, HRC wins. It might very well delay this necessary soul searching out a few Presidential cycles while people keep believing in a move to the right strategy - and in the meantime, we get much of the same.
I think Obama and Edwards are on to it - except they think a nice veneer on the old style is going to do the trick. I think we need a bit more than that. Warren Buffet supports both Obama and HRC. I think that speaks volumes.
I disagree with you on some of the other comments. Protest marches do something. If I ride 20-60 hours on a bus to march in D.C. or if I march down a street lined with cops in riot gear and hickory sticks, there is a sense of empowerment, of using your voice that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the end of the Iraq war comes as a result. I've never felt more like a citizen - including my military service - than when I was doing these things.
Blogging is similar. It may not be changing policies, but I can tell you my thinking is a lot sharper when I engage people in my life - because I've worked on all my arguments and learned the facts here. Not to mention just being better informed all the way around.
As for the more concrete grassroots, electoral politics and working with a larger group of people to impact policies and bring about this government I have in mind, I'm still thinking about what I personally am going to do about it. Right now, I'm just doing a lot of thinking and that is enough.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/16/2007 @ 6:06pm
that's exactly what it is.
I guess when you're as far to the left as you are Little Johann you think everything is a right wing rag---are you still crying over losing the 1980's version of Pravda as your paper of choice?
Posted by Len Mosse at 08/16/2007 @ 6:23pm
Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/16/2007 @ 6:23pm
Given the frequency Der Spiegel is cited here by those that identify as right or conservative, I'm sure you can understand why JOHANNESROLF might come to that conclusion. Can't you Len?
Posted by srjenkins at 08/16/2007 @ 7:29pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/16/2007 @ 7:40pm
Fighting for your country is different than participating in the political life of it. Soldiers execute policy. They rarely are involved in shaping it. USMJ Articles 117, 118 and how 134 is used all discourage it. In fact, I never felt less like a citizen than when I was in the military.
It's an ugly truth but truth none-the-less.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/16/2007 @ 8:29pm
In the long run, it's better if Democrats lose in the short term if they advocate policies that are not starkly differentiated from Republican positions.----Posted by SRJENKINS 08/16/2007 @ 6:06pm
Hasn't that happened, SRJ? 12 years of Repub Congresses. 6 years of "one party rule" (GOP rule that is) and what did the Democrats do in 2004? Go with Dean and his revolutionaries...no, they went with the Establishment Democrat moderate-to-liberal Kerry.
Point is...you have to look at history and lessons learnt from it. When the Democrats ran classic liberals (McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis) they lost. When some "iconoclastic governor out of Vermont" who wanted to immediately get out of Iraq ran for the nomination in 2004....the voters of the Democratic Party rejected him (not the Party, voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina chose Kerry over Dean).
When they were in the Old Left they lost. Now, when Bill Clinton ran in 1992, he moved to the Center (promising welfare reform, a Third Way, etc.) and won...and won again in 1996 (Yes, I know I'm repeating myself but the point is that your "thought experiment" DIDN'T happen).
WHAT would have happened if the Dems had been locked out of the White House for the last 26 years? They'd make Zell Miller look like Dennis Kucinich right now. They would have done ANYTHING to get back in the power and the "conventional wisdom" would be "They need to move MORE to the Right...look at the Repubs!"
Now I know your "theory"...that if they lost for 25 years, they "get back to their progressive roots"...but they TRIED that. They tried after Reagan twice...and failed. They tried to re-take the Congress for 12 years doing that. When did they win? They ran a lot of "Blue Dogs" (like Jim Webb) and took over in 2006 after the Repubs screwed up.
Note that...the GOP screwed up (Abramoff, Foley-gate, budget deficits, corruption, etc.). It was a shoo-in for the Dems...so...why didn't they "move back to the Left" and make it even MORE of a shoo-in and sweep up all those "voters who would vote Dem if only they were more progressive"?
Because they don't exist...atleast not in great numbers. That "half of all Americans that don't vote" ARE NOT going to vote if the Democrats become "pure progressives" or a "real opposition party"....those folks...just don't care. And NO, it's not "made up of people like yourself who see no difference"....it's made up of poor, working class, and middle class folks who don't have ANY faith in the Government or politicians....they would trust Dennis Kucinich anymore than Hillary Clinton.
Want to get the agenda you want...don't ask for "20 years of Dems on the outs, so they clean up their act"....ask for "20 years of Dems in power, so that they feel SAFE in moving to the Left" after doing the small, incremental changes and WINNING BACK THE TRUST of the American people to liberalism and Government.
But despite your dreams, a left-wing "3rd Party" will do one thing...over and over and over and over (as it did in 2000 with Nader...even as John Anderson did in 1980 for those who were liberal, but felt no love for Jimmy Carter)....it will GUARENTEE the continueing victory of the Republicans.
That is why the GOP will do everything they can to help you. It will NOT result in "Democrats leaving the Dems to become Greens"...or the "Dems moving Left to woo back the Greens"....it will result in a split between those who will think "The Dems didn't move ENOUGH to the Left, I'm staying Green"...or those Blue Dog Dems, even moderates, saying "This party is becoming full of socialist tree-huggers...maybe the Repubs will take me in" (ala Zell Miller, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Joe Lieberman, etc.).
Both of which will KEEP the Left split in two...and the Right able to win by keeping their loyal base happy (with some crumbs like a Schiavo stunt)...and keep winning the Middle by pointing over at the Dems and/or Greens and saying "Look at those nutty liberals, fighting amongst themselves for YEARS now...want THEM protecting your kids from terrorists and pornographers and taxing the hell out of you for their wacko ideas IF they EVER get power?"
Final note....look at the polls, lots and lots of them. This country is NOT "progressive" the way you want the Dems to be....sure you can find support for some items IF "phrased right" (health care, education, Iraq of course but that won't last forever, trade)...
but this country overwhelmingly supports the death penalty, will your "new new Democratic Party"? If they "fudge" on it, be ambiguous...they're being dishonest. If they oppose it outright, as the "pure progressives" want, they lose the general public.
THAT, right there, is one of the reasons your plan won't work.
Posted by Mask at 08/16/2007 @ 9:08pm
I wasn't aware of any real historical record of criminals seeking to rule the world (or even just portions of it)? Perhaps you can enlighten us?
Those anarchists of the late 19th century who embraced the idea of "propaganda by deed" also had a political agenda--their suppression was achieved not by armies but through intelligence and police tactics. And no, HAPPY, they weren't led by Ernst Stavro Blofeld.
What makes them criminals isn't their ambition but their methodology. They don't wield armies, they have no state, they go out of their way to target civilians.
How exactly is Spectre, under Bin Laden, making their fabulous wealth, assuming that has been the goal of all criminal enterprises in the history of mankind!
Getting donations from well-wishers (directly or indirectly from siphoning it off from Islamic charities), and moneymaking front businesses. Don't forget the bin-Laden had a considerable sum to use as seed money.
Posted by brunowe at 08/16/2007 @ 9:18pm
SR---Given the frequency Der Spiegel is cited here by those that identify as right or conservative, I'm sure you can understand why JOHANNESROLF might come to that conclusion. Can't you Len?
That's the point SR. Der Spiegel was a magazine that was highly critical of our involvement in Iraq. They even compared Bush to Hitler. The magazine has done an about face. They did their homework and came to a different conclusion. Everyone who is calling for immediate withdrawl need to take as second look at the situation and realize that this is a winable situation and that we are now on the right track. The problem is that the left has so much politically at stake here that they may not be able to back off of their demands of immediate withdrawl. It sadly has become a situation where victory in Iraq would mean defeat for the left.
Posted by Len Mosse at 08/16/2007 @ 10:28pm
Getting donations from well-wishers (directly or indirectly from siphoning it off from Islamic charities), and moneymaking front businesses. Don't forget the bin-Laden had a considerable sum to use as seed money.
Posted by BRUNOWE 08/16/2007 @ 9:18pm
Gee, for a world-wide `criminal enterprise', AQ sure don't know much about making serious dough! And here I am, thinking the head honchos are mostly highly educated.....
I mean, one good, well-constructed accounting scandal can net billions and you know we've already proven we can't find them!
Posted by Happy at 08/16/2007 @ 11:02pm
Gee, for a world-wide `criminal enterprise', AQ sure don't know much about making serious dough! ?
When you have large chunks of the civilized world going after your funding sources, making money becomes considerably harder.
Everyone who is calling for immediate withdrawl need to take as second look at the situation and realize that this is a winable situation and that we are now on the right track.
Which right track is that? The one where there is a totally dysfunctional government or the one where violence is simply pushed out of one area into another?
Posted by brunowe at 08/16/2007 @ 11:31pm
When you have large chunks of the civilized world going after your funding sources, making money becomes considerably harder.
Posted by BRUNOWE 08/16/2007 @ 11:31pm
OK, there is some merit to that argument.....still, if money was the final objective, there are far less violent way to make much more....like charging $20 million for shipping less than $1 million worth of goods over 6 years to the US Gov't!
Last go-round: Then, explain to me, how do they convince the suicide bombers to sacrifice themselves, wait, the 72-virgins (criminal Spectre type of course, for compatibility) in paradise, right?
BTW, I should have used "My name is Bond, Burno Bond"! Sounds cooler than James Bruno! :)
Posted by Happy at 08/17/2007 @ 12:31am
Last go-round: Then, explain to me, how do they convince the suicide bombers to sacrifice themselves, wait, the 72-virgins (criminal Spectre type of course, for compatibility) in paradise, right?
Never said that money was the final objective. These are criminals by virtue of their methods, not their aims. Further, the best methods of stopping them (with Afghanistan as the exception) involve a combination of intelligence and police work.
Posted by brunowe at 08/17/2007 @ 12:46am
It is for this very reason that the ALF (Animal Liberation Front) and others like them are deemed terrorists and not simply criminals. The world doesn't recognize ideological warfare as simply criminal activity.
Terrorism is simply a particularly nasty form of criminal activity, defined by political aims. Groups like the ALF are hunted down the same way that groups like the Mafia are. You don't send armies after them, you send the FBI. Your reference to them proves my point.
What criminal objective is achieved in blowing up innocent children, especially those of your same faith?
What do you call targeting innocent children except "criminal"?
Posted by brunowe at 08/17/2007 @ 04:13am
What's changed?
PETRAEUS IN THE FIELD
He Wrote the Book. Can He Follow It?
By Sarah Sewall
Sunday, February 25, 2007; Page B03
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/15/2007 @ 12:56pm
Fools, did you notice the date? It is now mid August in a very dynamic situation in which the initiative has clearly swung in favour of the US, you may as well pulp that ancient history. Back to the drawing board for you.
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/17/2007 @ 06:42am
Posted by MASK 08/16/2007 @ 9:08pm
Go with Dean and his revolutionaries...no, they went with the Establishment Democrat moderate-to-liberal Kerry.
And how'd that turn out?
...you have to look at history and lessons learnt from it.
Let's look at McGovern. McGovern's problem was he ran in the primaries as a left candidate, won the nomination, and then started to try to appease the Democratic Party establishment - the Meanys, Daleys and Kennedys.
It resulted in two terrible Vice Presidential picks, Democratic party hacks taking over the operation of the campaign and more problematically, it demonstrated to the voters he didn't mean what he said back there in the primaries. I'll not mention the fact that in the end, the Democratic bosses didn't support him because it was more important for them to keep control over the party - which they would have lost if McGovern would have won.
Want a modern day example? You don't have to look too far. John McCain's sinking ship is partly because he's on record as despising conservative Christians and then because he thinks he can't win without them, he started giving speeches at places like Bob Jones University and courting them. He now recieves the contempt he so richly deserves.
When they were in the Old Left they lost. Now, when Bill Clinton ran in 1992, he moved to the Center (promising welfare reform, a Third Way, etc.) and won.
If Ross Perot was not in the picture, Bill Clinton would have lost. Fact. This fantasy about how he won because he moved to the right needs to end.
They'd make Zell Miller look like Dennis Kucinich right now.
Fine by me. Lots of room there for a third party to emerge that does in fact represent my interests. I'm not wedded to the Democratic party at all.
...ask for "20 years of Dems in power, so that they feel SAFE in moving to the Left" after doing the small, incremental changes and WINNING BACK THE TRUST of the American people to liberalism and Government.
I don't want people "moving to the left". I want people that are left - heart and soul. Shoot, I'd even take a hard core libertarian over any of these people shifting one way or another because at least he means it and we have some things in common.
And we already know what 20 years of Democratic power looks like, and it isn't much different than 12 years of Republican rule. That's the problem. In the end, are the people wielding power of labor that much different than people wielding the power of congregations. I submit, there isn't much difference.
I'm also fully prepared to do without Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman. They should join the party that most is in line with their ideology. If there is room for them in the Democratic party, it suggests there is something fundamentally wrong with it.
As for what Americans will or will not vote for, how about we start fielding some candidates with some different ideas, get media coverage that does more than simply support the establishment and see what people vote for - rather than relying on polls?
Posted by srjenkins at 08/17/2007 @ 07:21am
Posted by LEN MOSSE 08/16/2007 @ 10:28pm
Len, I can think of many reasons why the publication may have done an about face - that have nothing to do with looking at the facts on the ground in Iraq. Perhaps they simply misjudged their readership and changed their coverage accordingly? Too wild and crazy of an idea for you?
And your sad attempts to make this about what the left needs to make them politically relevant shows you don't have any ground to stand on here. Whenever it comes down to what your opposition may be feeling, it's time to start looking at why your are for something. If that's all you got, then you've got nothing.
World War II was fought and won in less time than we have been in Iraq. By any objective standard, progress is not being made in Iraq. And you want to talk about the fact that a German political magazine changed its mind or why its failure might help the so called "left"? You see how bankrupt these arguments are?
You've had longer than WWII. Show that the job is getting done. If you can't, then pay the price for supporting bad decision making and stop whining that the "other side" is holding you accountable and is going to have to come in and figure out how to do something with the mess you've made.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/17/2007 @ 07:34am
A. LR, if we postulate that LILLIAN is incompetent on military matters, we must postulate the same of you.
B.So...you accept the possibility that you are wrong and the Surge is a failure?
(If so, what factors would prove you wrong?)
Posted by MASK 08/15/2007 @ 11:04am
I missed this little problem because I was trying to do my "homework" as well as trying to keep up with the variety of opinions at the time.
Postulate A. Here are the possibilities:
1. Lillian and LR are both incompetent.
2. Lillian and LR are both competent.
3. Lillian is competent and LR is incompetent.
4. Lillian is incompetent and LR is competent.
3 & 4 are not independent of 1 & 2. It seems to me that you don't have enough information to postulate A. What sez you?
However there are other possibilities:
5. Lillian's sources are competent which may imply LR's sources are incompetent.
6. Lillian's sources are incompetent which may imply LR's sources are competent.
7. Lillian's and LR's sources are incompetent.
8. Lillian's and LR's sources are competent and Lillian understands and hence interprets her sources correctly but LR misunderstands and hence misinterprets his sources.
9. The reverse of 8.
So when it comes to your possibility B you can see it does not follow from your postulate A. Possibility B follows from: The quality of my sources, my ability to understand and interpret those sources correctly and very importantly my ability to understand interpret and if necessary to reject, on valid grounds, contrary sources or parts of them.
(The factors that would prove those wrong (who do not see the surge as a failure) must have, at the top of the list, a conclusive blow to the assertion that the initiative has been wrested from the insurgents. That is because it is only on that basis that further gains can be made).
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/17/2007 @ 08:30am
LR-Jones is no GI-Joe:
What's changed?
PETRAEUS IN THE FIELD
He Wrote the Book. Can He Follow It?
By Sarah Sewall
Sunday, February 25, 2007; Page B03
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 08/15/2007 @ 12:56pm
Fools, did you notice the date? It is now mid August in a very dynamic situation in which the initiative has clearly swung in favour of the US, you may as well pulp that ancient history. Back to the drawing board for you.
Posted by LRJONES4 08/17/2007 @ 06:42am
LR-Jo,
You miss the salient point once again, 'downunder', and it 'wares' thin. The point is is that Potraeus wrote the book after years of experince in 'actual combat', (unlike yourself). Everything he knows won't work is what he's being 'commanded' to do. Now he's being 'commanded' not to speak publicly about how it didn't work and rapidly aging hsuB habitually lies about it. That you sop it up so readily only exhibits your own failed attempts at independent reasoning. A few months of lies do not negate decades of truth. Attempt one more time to absorb that, harder, try harder, keep trying,...
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2007 @ 08:51am
BS does not alter the physics of gravity, physics do. hsuB has no physics, just BS.
Posted by hsuBfools at 08/17/2007 @ 09:04am
Posted by SRJENKINS 08/15/2007 @ 11:14am
SR Lillian is quite capable of looking after herself. That simply was not one of her better forays into a topic.
Though you try to stand apart from rooting for your team as distinct from most of the anti-Iraq war supporters here, you do seem to me to be too ready accept the independent bona fides of "expert" commentators. As an illustration of what I mean there is a well known (to Australians) right wing foreign correspondent who had supported the war from day one until the war began to look very shaky just prior to the surge. For several months into the surge all he could see was a lost cause but in the last month or so he is trying to give the impression that he never had any doubts. Now perhaps that NYT report by two hot and cold progressives is the mirror image of our foreign correspondent but the point is there are too many of that type to take any commentators too seriously on this war. We have a journalist Paul McGeough who makes Alexander Cockburn look like Bush's mouth piece (on the war not GW) in comparison. Then there is the Independent's Fisk or our own John Pilger who all have an angle and thus selectively report and comment in a way that is consistent with their particular POV on the war.
It is probably somewhat true of those on the right but as it does not have, as does the left, an undergirding philosophy and ideology there is probably less conscious effort to shape the war according to any particular world view. The problem is more likely to be what particular interests it is beholden to but those interests are never likely to be ideologically rigid, in the monolithic sense, as the leftwing media generally appears to be. Ever heard a good news story from say Fisk out of Iraq? Why not? Or from any other left wing journalist with the exception of Hitchens, who has been dis-fellowshipped, and one or two others. The answer should be obvious. They are selecting according to their prejudices for a particular audience. Nothing wrong with that except it must by its nature lead to a dumbed down audience. In that case it may become nothing more than a mirror image of a denomination of fundamentalists with their own exclusive brand of revealed "religion".
It seems to me then one needs, at least as far as is possible, to be one's own collector of information and "commentator" by being eclectic in the choice of sources.
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/17/2007 @ 09:50am
Posted by LRJONES4 08/17/2007 @ 08:30am
Your logic is missing the point. In your original post, incompetence was an adjective for military analyst. Nobody here is a military analyst - competent, incompetent or otherwise.
In the larger framework of the discussion, it is both a red herring and a mild ad hominem attack because ultimately, you don't need to be a military analyst to make a judgment about whether the surge is working or whether progress is being made and Lillian is capable of making that judgment as well as anyone. Your post suggested both of these false things and Mask and I were calling you on it.
A charitable rendering of her argument:
1. It is obvious the surge is not working/progress is not being made in Iraq.
2. If 1, then those that maintain otherwise either don't understand the facts or have an agenda.
C. Those that maintain otherwise either don't understand the facts or have an agenda.
You need to undermine premise 1 and you did it by using the strategy outlined above.
It you wanted to go that route, it would have been better if you had some data, military analyst opinion or whatever that suggested that the surge is working. Then you would be in a position to make an argument from authority about why Lillian thinks she is in a better position to assess the situation than your source - General X or whatever. But the problem there is you would have to find a source that you can claim doesn't have an agenda, or you are sunk by her argument.
You might be able to find a convincing source - although I've yet to see anyone offer one here. But I suppose it is possible.
In any event, you jumped the gun.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/17/2007 @ 10:09am
Posted by LRJONES4 08/17/2007 @ 08:30am
There is another flaw in your logic. It postulates that you and LILLIAN cannot "both be wrong". You can.
Her assessment of Iraq may be more optimistic than the reality. It MAY BE actually worse than even she thinks.
Additionally, YOUR assessment of Iraq may be more pessimistic than the reality. It MAY BE actually better than YOU think.
Also as far as sources go, needless to say BOTH of you (in fact, ALL of us) are subjective in our acceptance of the "sources" that we accept as factually accurate. Anything positive about Iraq from a source...you'd accept that source as "accurate". In fairness, it might be argued that those of us who oppose the war would do the opposite, but equal.
Objectively, the preponderance of sources indicate that Iraq is in the middle of a civil war between Sunni and Shiia and a minority of Al Qaeda operations (10% of attacks is the figure I've seen). There are counter-sources which denied the civil war...uptil just recently. They now accept the "civil war" model.
Logically, those counter-sources should now be suspect since they were wrong about it "not being a civil war". As well as the numerous wrong assessments they made of the occupation earlier.
Dick Cheney said the war would cost "no more than $50 Billion". He said in 2004 we were "in the last throes of the insurgency".
Do you agree he is a bad source? If so, there are numerous others, who you must also reject. (Bill Kristol and numerous other neo-cons) If not, then your competence based on your sources is proven incompetence.
Posted by Mask at 08/17/2007 @ 10:25am
Posted by LRJONES4 08/17/2007 @ 09:50am
I have no doubt Lillian can take care of herself. I simply respond to those things that catch my eye - and your zinger managed to do that.
But moving on to your most recent post. I'm under no delusions. Everyone has an agenda and a POV. As Hunter S. Thompson put it, "With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms."
It is probably somewhat true of those on the right but as it does not have, as does the left, an undergirding philosophy and ideology there is probably less conscious effort to shape the war according to any particular world view.
This can only be called fantasy. Suggesting there is a united left is just as laughable as saying there is a divided right. Go to a local event featuring a coalition of people on the right and left and tell me which is more disciplined and united.
I've been to peace marches focused on Ending the War in Iraq and there was a group that wanted to talk about Cuba. I maybe can see an argument about the need to discuss Palestine - but I think given the context, both discussions have lost the plot. And this happens all the time as is illustrated here daily at The Nation.
On the other hand, conservatives are much better at staying on point. Clash of civilization Christians and businessmen looking for access to natural resources have a better sense that if they focus on the main thing, they are more likely to get what they want.
It seems to me then one needs, at least as far as is possible, to be one's own collector of information and "commentator" by being eclectic in the choice of sources.
Couldn't agree more.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/17/2007 @ 10:55am
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/17/2007 @ 10:34am
Any time you wish to engage in a discussion of logic with me, please feel free LVL. And save yourself the bother of defining the terms, you needn't bother.
Let's take care of the first piece.
1. How did LRJones attempt a red herring (divert from the original issue)?
Given Lillian's argument, bringing in military analysts, is a red herring. In fact, arguments requiring military analysts - most would provide a great example of begging the question (her argument implies it is obvious - to anyone) as well. I didn't bring it into the discussion because LRJ didn't present much of an argument.
2. What you and Lil are engaged in (as are most leftists on this site when it comes to Iraq) is a logical fallacy.
I'll answer this question as soon as you, specifically and not in this vague way, identify exactly WHAT question is being begged. I'll even give you a very specific argument to work with:
1. The mission of the Surge is defined as follows: "help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs."
2. Help them protect the local population implies that the local population is safer as a result.
3. If they are not safer, the Surge has not accomplished its mission.
4. They are not safer. "The number of car bombings in July actually was 5% higher than the number recorded last December, the statistics show, and the number of civilians killed in explosions is about the same."
C. The Surge has not accomplished its mission.
It's not as complicated, clear or as pretty as I'd like - but it's a step away from this awful vagueness you conservatives love to cling to hoping to hide the bankruptcy of your ideas. Just like you hide behind "supporting the troops" rather than stepping up and actually defending the failed policies you support.
Oh, and good luck on pursuing that weak "begging the question" line of thought.
Moving on to your argument. Clearly, it's an appeal to authority. The obvious approach is to suggest that the President is motivated by his agenda rather than his expertise - therefore even if he or his advisors have expertise, they may not be sharing it with us.
I'd also argue that if a military analyst can't lay out the case that anyone can understand and agree with his line of thought, it is begging the question. How do we know we should go by the authority of this analyst? I'm questioning the authority. Your assertions that it is authoritative is "begging the question".
All any of us can do is render an opinion on the success or failure of the surge. That opinion will obviously by shaped by our bias for or against the war.
Strangely, this invalidates your own argument. If it is all opinion, then anyone's is as good as anyone else's right? Personally, I'd agree with this statement. No one can make a definite statement about whether the Surge is a success or failure (although it depends on how we have defined those terms). However, as in most things in life, we can still make an educated guess and what is more likely given the evidence.
Military analysts provide the evidence. But they shouldn't be making the call.
Which I suppose, it simply comes down to who's opinion matters, who is making the call. Argument based on raw power and raw power, as we all know - is frequently wrong.
I'd appreciate in the future if you were a little more specific - what question is being begged, your actual arguments, etc. If you want to go the logical route, I can do that - but you are going to have to change your game a bit so what you are attacking and what you stand for are less vague. See my argument above as an example.
Posted by srjenkins at 08/17/2007 @ 1:09pm
With all of the yelling and protesting, we, the American people and the Democrats, have not exhibited the moral courage to really fix our problem...Why isn't impeachment obvious...Damn, are we as spineless as he is arrogant and dumb?!! Are we ashamed to admit to the world that as an electorate we were? America, stand up, admit the mistake, and erase the stigma from our legacy!!
Posted by newsweek1945 at 08/17/2007 @ 3:08pm
Come on, Bush has sent more of our youth to needless death than the terrorists did!
Posted by newsweek1945 at 08/17/2007 @ 3:10pm
To imagine that there is a mission in Iraq is to think that we really had a legitimate reason to be there in the first place. Such bull!!!
Posted by newsweek1945 at 08/17/2007 @ 3:15pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 08/17/2007 @ 10:09am
SR interesting topic with a little game in logic courtesy of Mask. We are 14 hours ahead of you and I don't do my best thinking and typing when I'm asleep so it is not always possible to be with a topic when it is being developed.
My line to Lillian was an endeavour to get her to justify her characterisation of pro-surgers as delusional morons aka "those who don't understand the facts or have an agenda" (don't know about your morons but Aussie morons are rarely agenda driven) and Republican wingnuts. Unfortunately I don't qualify for the latter so it leaves me in a bit of a pickle.
It does seem axiomatic to me that a declaration on the surge, which I think we all agree is still being prosecuted, is really a matter for military analysis of the counter-insurgency type. Granted none here may be qualified in that discipline but it doesn't stop any of us, including Lillian as shown by that statement, offering "expert" opinions that we have appropriated from a variety of sources. Sources we hope are either military/counter-insurgency experts or reporters who are accurately reporting what is occurring and what the experts are saying. Perhaps then for the pedantic, "amateur military analysts" would have cleared up the confusion and allowed you to see that far from being a red herring it is about all we have at present to make anything approaching a valid assessment about the surge.
Of course there are plenty of qualified military analysts at home (in the US) and on the ground in Iraq who claim the surge is going more or less according to plan. If you are interested in informing yourself you can google up that opinion in spade loads.
Does Lillian, or do you, as you support her statement, include Petraeus and those with him, on the ground and who have a ringside view of the operation, in the "delusional moron" or "Republican wingnut" categories, because you will find lots of comment coming from those quarters claiming that the surge is working and is backed up by what is being observed on the ground in Iraq.
You and Lillian surely can only think that all these specialist witnesses are liars (for Bush?). One wonders on what basis the Lillians and SRs base their opinions, if not on the input of the "on the spot" specialists?
Many of the anti-war proponents here seem to confuse their prognosis of the war (which may or may not eventuate) with the objective reality (by using the only sources of information that have any validity, unless demonstrated otherwise) of what is happening at this moment in Iraq as a result of the surge.
Posted by lrjones4 at 08/18/2007 @ 08:22am
It's a shame that you don't go away and save the sane world a lot of grief!
Posted by john cooke at 08/18/2007 @ 12:46pm