The Uncovered War: Permanent Bases in Iraq

Looked at in a clear-eyed way, almost all the strategies floating around Washington at this moment for "redeployment" or "phased withdrawal" are not actual withdrawal plans. They are complex schemes for hanging on to some truncated imperial presence at the heart of the oil lands of the planet -- and as such are doomed to fail. Like Richard Nixon's Vietnamization program (which withdrew American ground forces while ratcheting up the use of American air power), these are Iraqification policies. But to grasp what they might actually mean, you need to be able to assess two key aspects of our Iraqi venture that mainstream newspapers essentially have not cared to cover–first and foremost, the permanent facts-on-the-ground the Bush administration has been so intent on building there since 2003.

As the New York Times revealed in a front-page piece by Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt on April 19, 2003, just after Baghdad fell, the Pentagon arrived in the Iraqi capital with plans already on the drawing board to build four massive military bases (that no official, then or now, will ever call "permanent"). Today, according to our former Secretary of Defense, we have 55 bases of every size in Iraq (down from over 100); five or six of these, including Balad Airbase, north of Baghdad, the huge base first named Camp Victory adjacent to Baghdad International Airport, and al-Asad Airbase in western Anbar province, are enormous -- big enough to be reasonable-sized American towns with multiple bus routes, neighborhoods, a range of fast-food restaurants, multiple PX's, pools, mini-golf courses and the like.

Though among the safest places in Iraq for American reporters, these bases have, with rare exceptions, gone completely undescribed and undiscussed in our press (or on the television news). From an engineering journal, we know that before the end of 2003, several billion dollars had already been sunk into them. We know that in early 2006, the major ones, already mega-structures, were still being built up into a state of advanced permanency. Balad, for instance, already handled the levels of daily air traffic you would normally see at Chicago's ultra-busy O'Hare and in February its facilities were still being ramped up. We know, from the reliable Ed Harriman, in the latest of his devastating accounts of corruption in Iraq in the London Review of Books, that, as you read, the four mega-bases always imagined as our permanent jumping-off spots in what Bush administration officials once liked to call "the arc of instability" were still undergoing improvement.

Without taking the fate of those monstrous, always-meant-to-be-permanent bases into account--and they are, after all, just about the only uniformly successfully construction projects in that country--no American plans for Iraq, whatever label they go by, will make much sense. And yet months go by without any reporting on them appearing. In fact, these last months have gone by with only a single peep (that I've found) from any mainstream publication on the subject.

The sole bit of base news I've noticed anywhere made an obscure mid-October appearance in a Turkish paper, which reported that the U.S. was now building a "military airport" in Kurdistan. A few days later, a UPI report picked up by the Washington Times had this: "Following hints U.S. troops may remain in Iraq for years, the United States is reportedly building a massive military base at Arbil, in Kurdish northern Iraq."

Kurdistan has always been a logical fallback position for U.S. forces "withdrawing" from a failed Iraq. But so far nothing more substantial has been written on the subject.

There is, however, another symbol of American "permanency" in Iraq that has gotten just slightly more attention in the U.S. press in recent months--the new U.S. embassy now going up inside Baghdad's well-fortified Green Zone and nicknamed by Baghdadis (in a sly reference to Saddam Hussein's enormous, self-important edifices) "George W's Palace." It's almost the size of Vatican City, will have its own apartment buildings (six of them) for its bulked-up "staff" of literally thousands and its own electricity, well-water, and waste-treatment facilities to guarantee "100 percent independence from city utilities," not to speak of a "swimming pool, gym, commissary, food court and American Club, all housed in a recreation building" and it's own anti-missile system. Ed Harriman tells us that it's a billion dollar-plus project--and unlike just about every other construction project in the country, it's going up efficiently and on schedule. It will be the most imperial embassy on the planet, not exactly the perfect signal of a sovereign Iraqi future.

Again, few have had much to say about the embassy project here, a rare exception being an August Dallas Morning News editorial, "Fortress America: New Embassy Sends Wrong Message to Iraqis," that denounced the project: "America certainly needs a decent, well-defended embassy in Baghdad. But not as much as ordinary Iraqis need electricity and water. That our government doesn't seem to understand that reality could explain a lot about why the U.S. mission is in such trouble."

Of course, as we learned in Vietnam, even the most permanent facilities can turn out to be impermanent indeed and even the best defended imperial embassy can, in the end, prove little more than a handy spot for planning an evacuation. But if the Iraq Study Group doesn't directly confront these facts-on-the-ground (as it surely won't), whatever acceptable compromises it may forge in Washington between an embedded administration and a new Congress, things will only go from truly bad to distinctly worse in Iraq.

Next: The Uncovered American Air War (Part 2)

Comments (51)

1. I think Mr Engelhardt is looking at "old news" and wondering why it isn't "new news".

   Those bases and embassy WERE part of the "old Iraq plan" that the Administration drew up...that probably ended sometime after 2004.

   In a year, or so, they will be empty shells, taken over by varioius militias or whatever form the "Government of Baghdad" takes...but they're certainly not going to be "Ft. Apaches" with contingents of Marines fighting off Iraqi insurgents like the Airborne guys surrounded at Bastogne in 1944.

   They WERE part of the old Iraq plan of Bush & Co....now, they're white elephants who will probably be converted to "Museums of the Imperialist American War"....not used by any American solider or diplomat.

   Posted by Mask at 11/17/2006 @ 08:40am

2. MASK,

   I am a firm adherent to the notion that "seeing is believing". When I see U.S. troops withdraw from Iraq, then I will believe it. You are right, initial U.S. planning was to stay in Iraq forever. However, how do we know that that is not still the plan, stay in Iraq forever? With Democrats in Congress hiding behind the Baker/Hamilton Commission and playing the cyncial game that it's Bush's problem let him deal with it, that puts the President in the driver's seat doesn't it? What makes you think Bush's plan for Iraq still isn't stay forever with huge mega bases and such?

   Posted by POSEIDON at 11/17/2006 @ 08:53am

3. What makes you think Bush's plan for Iraq still isn't stay forever with huge mega bases and such?

   Posted by POSEIDON 11/17/2006 @ 08:53am

   It's UNSUSTAINBABLE, politically. NOBODY wants to stay.

   No Repub wants to "inherit" Iraq in 2008 and they're going to push Bush into a "Baker-Hamilton" cross-bred with "Murtha". Dems scared s***less of being linked to Iraq collapsing under a pull-out, but they can't keep playing WORD GAMES on the war, or their base will kill them.

   If Bush keeps "stay the course which is not 'stay the course'"...his own Party will desert him and "hint" that they might "go along" with the liberal Dems on "serious investigations" (i.e. impeachment bills).

   I don't see anyway we're not re-deployed to Kurdistan (maybe western Iraq) and Kuwait before Christmas 2007 (and the real start to the 2008 Primaries).

   Posted by Mask at 11/17/2006 @ 09:05am

4. Tom sums it all up in this nutshell from (gasp) Texas- "America certainly needs a decent, well-defended embassy in Baghdad. But not as much as ordinary Iraqis need electricity and water. That our government doesn't seem to understand that reality could explain a lot about why the U.S. mission is in such trouble."

   45 dead this month, no closer to victory. Cakewalk. When does the music stop?

   Posted by crabwalk at 11/17/2006 @ 09:23am

5. Does Chimpy have his plastic turkey ready to fly?

   Posted by crabwalk at 11/17/2006 @ 09:24am

6. Pentagon is going to ask Congress for $127-160B more for 2007 (on top of the $70B already approved for 2007).

   It's costing just a tad more than the vaunted "think tanks" and Wolfowitz said it would cost back in 2002!

   But hey, let's repeal the estate tax and make the top heavy tax cuts permanent because it's not fair that the current population should have to actually pay for the war....it's fairer if future generations should have to pay!

   Posted by freedomplease at 11/17/2006 @ 10:34am

7. Mask,

   Since when is "UNSUSTAINABLE" mean anything to George W. Bush? If we were talking about anyone else but Bush I might agree with you. Although your logic is very sound, it does not stand up to scrutiny with the current White House and Congressional occupants. I would wager that American troops will be in full combat mode by the beginning of the 2008 primaries "Redeployment" is another euphemism for "stay the course". The only sure fire way to end the war is withdrawal. Anything else less than that is stay the course lite.............

   Posted by POSEIDON at 11/17/2006 @ 10:51am

8. Some sort of US led (not UN, not NATO led) major presence will be in place up to and including the 2008 elections.

   You think that Hillary, Obama, McCain, Gulliani or whoever want to dilute the Emperor level powers now concentrated in the Executive branch by withdrawing???

   Hell, McCain is calling for MORE troops!

   Posted by freedomplease at 11/17/2006 @ 11:00am

9. CRABWALK,

   Liberation and liberal democracy were never the real reasons for the war to begin with. Those were just inserted in as throw enough mud to the wall and see what sticks policy. Let's go through the litany, shall we?

   1. Weapons of Mass destruction 3. America was in imminent danger from attack by Iraq (unmanned arial vehicles) 3. Ties to terrorists groups, namely Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda 4. Alleged ties to the Sept 11 War against Terror 5. Remake the Middle East 6. Fight them there so we don't fight them here 7. Liberate Iraqis from Saddam Hussein 8. Establish Democracy in Iraq 9. Stop terror groups from getting their hands on the oil in Iraq 10. Stop the Iranians from taking control of Iraq 11. Establish safety for the state of Israel

   Must we go on? I am quite sure that there are about 100 more rationales rolled out since last night for this war on Bush's list that I have forgotten to mention...............

   Posted by POSEIDON at 11/17/2006 @ 11:01am

10. If there was a constitional requirement that all wars must be fully paid for by the generation that is fighting the war (in other words tax increases) does anyone think we'd ever have gone into Iraq?

    If it isn't important enough to pay for it, why is it important enough to send kids to die for it?

    Posted by freedomplease at 11/17/2006 @ 11:06am

11. The situation in Iraq after three and a half years of effort is an Iraq that is worse for all concerned compared to three and a half years ago. It isn't going to get any better the longer we stay. If the past is an indication then it will get worse. Whatever is going to happen when we leave is going to happen regardless of when we leave. It's pathetic that apparently it's now some of the "liberals" who want to continue occupying Iraq. "Everything is different now." 58% of House Democrats voted FOR this invasion and occupation. They weren't failing to honestly criticize this depredation because they feared political backlash. It was because they were and are advocates of this depredation.

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/17/2006 @ 11:06am

12. You think that Hillary, Obama, McCain, Gulliani or whoever want to dilute the Emperor level powers now concentrated in the Executive branch by withdrawing???

    Hell, McCain is calling for MORE troops!

    Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 11/17/2006 @ 11:00am

    So is Hillary, she's just saying it under her breath now. The Democrats aren't going to do anything.

    Posted by fromredbird at 11/17/2006 @ 11:11am

13. "Redeployment" is another euphemism for "stay the course".

    Posted by POSEIDON 11/17/2006 @ 10:51am

    POSEIDON, John Murtha's plan (HJ-73) is called "redeployment"?!??!

    Posted by Mask at 11/17/2006 @ 11:12am

14. FREEDOMPLEAS,

    I'm all for it! Let's live for today! Cut taxes until there is no more revenue to speak of!

    America has the absolute dumbest government on planet earth. Bush and Congressional Democrats and Republicans continue to whine about China's failure to live up to its agreements in the WTO and using currency manipulation, etc. to harm the United States economically. What on earth do these people expect? We continue to finance our tax cuts and runaway spending by borrowing from Chineses, South Korean, and Japanese Banks. What on earth makes these idiots believe that China will listen to anything America has to say when it is America's leading banker and lender? CHINA: Really? do you want us to clean up our human rights record? When you stop borrowing from us, then we might consider it. America is in no position to bargain with or pressure China, period...............

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/17/2006 @ 11:14am

15. FREEDOMPLEASE,

    America's worldview does not allow for logic to prevail in matters of war and peace. -------------------------------------------------------------------

    If there was a constitional requirement that all wars must be fully paid for by the generation that is fighting the war (in other words tax increases) does anyone think we'd ever have gone into Iraq?

    If it isn't important enough to pay for it, why is it important enough to send kids to die for it?

    Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 11/17/2006 @ 11:06am | ignore this person

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/17/2006 @ 11:17am

16. MASK,

    I am well aware of that Mask, I am not for redeployment, no matter whose silly idea it is................When America gives up the ridiculous and foolhardy notion of empire, then the safer it will be.................

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/17/2006 @ 11:18am

17. good stuff, Neptune, er Poseidon

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/17/2006 @ 11:22am

18. CRABWALK,

    A dirty little unspoken secret: In the Grand scheme of things, both Democrats and Republicans in government and the American people as a whole have the same worldview when it comes to foreign policy. Both parties and the nation at large believe that the United States is Lord, Master, and Ruler of the Earth and both political parties seek to impose the American will on the rest of the globe. The only difference between them is methods. Democrats (with noted exceptions) prefer global empire lite in using international institutions as cover for global hegemony. Republicans and neocon fanatics, on the other hand, feel that if the rest of the world does not kiss America's boots, then they will be made to do so by force; bombed until they do, often, in unilateral fashion. Reference Richard Armitage's conversation with Musharaff in Pakistan to illustrate this point. That is what the continued war in Iraq is all about. It's not about chaos will break out if we leave, (as if one hundred plus murders and two car bombs a day is not chaos) it is we will not be told by anyone when we shall leave. I feel sorry for people who voted for the Democrats on November 7 thinking that they would seriously force Bush to leave Iraq in short order or seriously change our foreign policy in general. No such happenings there.

    This explains why the Senate and the House will sell nuclear weapons to India. Dems/Reps alike wish to contain and eventually provoke China into a new Cold War.................But in Short, the above paragraph sums up America's worldview on foreign policy.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/17/2006 @ 11:23am

19. Perminant bases? But what about "antiwar" Murtha's Airwar Plan? Democrats demand that the bases be outside Iraq's borders so we can bomb them at will and everyone can go back to sleep. It'll be just like Kosovo! Won't that be nice? Thank goodness the democrats are in charge, 'cause now we'll win the war! Whoot!

    Posted by AlanSmithee at 11/17/2006 @ 11:25am

20. JOHANNESROLF,

    Neptune, bite your tongue!

    Seriously, I call it the way it is. Democratic voters have to understand that the worldview of the Democrat Party is no different than the GOP. Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, et al do not wish to leave Iraq, the Democrats in mass just voted to give India nuclear weapons, they would not vote against a war with Iran, and with the exception of John Edwards, all these presidential wannabes have not repudiated their vote for the war on Iraq. In light of all that, on one can say with a straight face that the GOP and Democrats are not the same on foreign policy.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/17/2006 @ 11:55am

21. JOHANNESROLF,

    Neptune, bite your tongue!

    Seriously, I call it the way it is. Democratic voters have to understand that the worldview of the Democrat Party is no different than the GOP. Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, et al do not wish to leave Iraq, the Democrats in mass just voted to give India nuclear weapons, they would not vote against a war with Iran, and with the exception of John Edwards, all these presidential wannabes have not repudiated their vote for the war on Iraq. In light of all that, on one can say with a straight face that the GOP and Democrats are not the same on foreign policy.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/17/2006 @ 11:56am

22. JOHANNESROLF,

    Neptune, bite your tongue!

    Seriously, I call it the way it is. Democratic voters have to understand that the worldview of the Democrat Party is no different than the GOP. Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, et al do not wish to leave Iraq, the Democrats in mass just voted to give India nuclear weapons, they would not vote against a war with Iran, and with the exception of John Edwards, all these presidential wannabes have not repudiated their vote for the war on Iraq. In light of all that, on one can say with a straight face that the GOP and Democrats are not the same on foreign policy.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/17/2006 @ 11:57am

23. JOHANNESROLF,

    Neptune, bite your tongue!

    Seriously, I call it the way it is. Democratic voters have to understand that the worldview of the Democrat Party is no different than the GOP. Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, et al do not wish to leave Iraq, the Democrats in mass just voted to give India nuclear weapons, they would not vote against a war with Iran, and with the exception of John Edwards, all these presidential wannabes have not repudiated their vote for the war on Iraq. In light of all that, on one can say with a straight face that the GOP and Democrats are not the same on foreign policy.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/17/2006 @ 12:07pm

24. to say "they're all the same" is too facile. they are not all the same. the repubs in power are far far worse.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/17/2006 @ 12:16pm

25. FROMREDBIRD,

    McCain's a joke. He has made it clear that he is kissing the toes of Falwell and company because he realizes that the far Christian right holds the key to anyone who wishes to win the GOP primary.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/17/2006 @ 12:22pm

26. Poseidon, that's a god , right. So, anything you write would be scripture. Please remember to make your comments illusory, difficult to parse and if possible full of doves, gogs, and lions.

    I say poop or get off the pot. Another 50k troops minimum, if we can find and train them. Contractors that know what they are doing, backed by armed US/Arab soldiers, not mercenaries. Build the hospitals and schools like we were supposed to, under heavy guard. Rebuild the electric, water and sewage plants, under heavy guard. Take land and hold it till done with the project.

    Or begin phased withdrawal, end date Dec 07. Let Poseidon sort em out.

    Regardless, we should not be building permanent bases or the worlds largest embassy. Does this one have a large enough helipad to handle all the last to leave?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/17/2006 @ 12:26pm

27. We are now going to spend 125 millions (paid to a private contractor- Parsons? Bechtel?) to build a courtroom in cuba. While I am pleased to see that some actual justice may, MAY, be meted out, does it have to cost so darn much?

    Didn't we win a war back in the 40's with the military doing it's own laundry and serving food?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/17/2006 @ 12:32pm

28. JOHANNESROLF,

    You're in a state of denial, JOHANNESROLF. I know people don't like to admit when they are wrong or that their heroes are not really heroes, but also-rans, has-beens or frauds. I have already outlined the fact that the United States has won the war:

    1. Saddam is in prison waiting to be hanged 2. Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction 3. Iraq has no ties to Al Qaeda or Bin Laden 4. America and Israel are not under threat of imminent attack from Iraq 5. Iraqis have liberated from Saddam's rule and have elected their own permanent government

    Other than imperial ambitions and the stealing of Iraq's oil, explain why we are still there getting good Americans and Iraqis killed?

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/17/2006 @ 12:33pm

29. Posted by POSEIDON 11/17/2006 @ 11:18am

    Well, POSEIDON, if you're "to the Left" of even the "Murtha Plan"....you're kind of on your own, politically.

    There's NOBODY (ref: David Corn's latest) who's calling for anything like "total pull-out of the entire region on Day 1, Hour 1 of July 2007".

    Posted by Mask at 11/17/2006 @ 12:39pm

30. Too much jumping around here, one page or another for us slow folks, please.

    Posted by POSEIDON 11/17/2006 @ 12:33am-Good 'ol American Pride.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/17/2006 @ 12:41pm

31. MASK,

    Agreed that I am on my own politically. And that is because I CATEGORICALLY REJECT IMPERIAL AMBITIONS. Iraq is not ours to bomb, loot and plunder at will. The oil does not belong to us. American's can't figure out why the rest of the world hates us and why we are always in someone's cross-hairs. This is why. Imperial overstretch.................

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/17/2006 @ 12:46pm

32. CRABWALK,

    Do try to keep up, Lad/Lass.............(LOL)

    ------------------------------------------------------------------ Too much jumping around here, one page or another for us slow folks, please.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/17/2006 @ 12:47pm

33. All,

    Those who think the war should continue are still trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.................IT WILL NOT WORK!

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/17/2006 @ 12:49pm

34. Posted by POSEIDON 11/17/2006 @ 12:46am

    Well...no offense...but...sorta leaves you "out of the loop" on influencing policy doesn't it?

    The Blogosphere Left have been for "Murtha" from the beginning and will accept its implementation as a "victory", even (as you say) it's not any different from "stay the course".

    And Democrats in DC have been "tepid" about even "Murtha" lately...praying for a CYA from "Baker-Hamilton", which doesn't look like it's coming.

    Posted by Mask at 11/17/2006 @ 1:06pm

35. MASK,

    I don't totally agree with you. While on the outside looking in initially, radical ideas only take shape when someone fights to make them happen and see them implemented. Remmeber, for some, freedom from slavery was not always the norm in this country. But this only proves my point in a previous post when I correctly point out that the worldview of Dems. and Reps. is completely alike. They only differ in methods used to achieve the worldview.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/17/2006 @ 1:11pm

36. CRABWALK,

    Funny!(LOL) Remember, you are part of my watery domain and as such, are under my dominion.................

    ------------------------------------------------------------------ Poseidon, that's a god , right. So, anything you write would be scripture. Please remember to make your comments illusory, difficult to parse and if possible full of doves, gogs, and lions.

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/17/2006 @ 1:16pm

37. All,

    Well, ladies and gentlemen, time to sign off. I must apply for my passport so I can get to planet Neptune prior to planetary armegeddon! Have a nice weekend all and remember, there is no logical reason to continue this failed war except VANITY........

    Posted by POSEIDON at 11/17/2006 @ 1:29pm

38. Remember what the pwoggie bloggies at The Nation say, Poseidon. "You're helpless if you actually make demands on your candidates before you vote for them. So just shut up and vote - then they're sure to listen to you after you give them everything they want." That's our pwoggie motto!

    Posted by AlanSmithee at 11/17/2006 @ 1:43pm

39. Other than imperial ambitions and the stealing of Iraq's oil, explain why we are still there getting good Americans and Iraqis killed?

    Posted by POSEIDON 11/17/2006 @ 12:33am | ignore this person

    what an absurd waterlogged post. where have I EVER defended the war in any way?

    when you say they're all the same you are cutting the ground from under those that voted AGAINST the war, mostly dems. their vote against the war proves that they are NOT ALL THE SAME.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/17/2006 @ 1:48pm

40. Here's one reason why the construction of the Goliath Embassy and permanent military bases in Iraq escape prime time news: you can't sell it. News is a commodity that's bought and sold like anything else; like any commodity too, it needs some persuasive marketing muscle to get sold.

    Imperialism would be a very hard sell in America. After all, we did revolt against an imperial power. Prior to the Iraq war too, the President paid some pious lip service to America's desire NOT to meddle in the affairs of the new Iraq. Public discourse forbids imperial fanstasies.

    So we all can stand in front of the mirror, smile and claim that anti-imperialism is in our DNA and we are the only superpower in history to renounce any imperialistic aim in our foreign policy.

    No news is good news.

    Posted by markws at 11/17/2006 @ 2:18pm

41. They only differ in methods used to achieve the worldview.

    Posted by POSEIDON 11/17/2006 @ 1:11pm

    Interesting situation of pessimism we're seeing ...after such a massive Democratic victory. Anger, cynicism, hopelessness...these are the things you'd expect if Dems HAD LOST (along with more "Diebold hacks" of course).

    Quick survey of the lib/Dem posters shows a few "FRANKGRITS" who still dream of the Dems as the "knights in shining armor saving us from the GOP dragon"....but a lot more of those like yours that don't seem to think "the Revolution has come!".

    Posted by Mask at 11/17/2006 @ 2:30pm

42. Oh, almost forgot Posedion. When dems say they're against the Iraq bloodbath, that doesn't mean they're prepared to actually do anything about it. What they mean is: "I vote for prowar democrats and send the DNC money on a regular basis, but personally I'm against the war, so my vote is really antiwar. See?"

    Pwoggies learn this bullshit from The Nation and similar democrat party rags. Witness the bullshit list of mostly prowar dems the mag's beltway punditwits endorsed (but didn't have the guts to publish on paper.) It's this kind of magical non-thinking that's bought us two more years of war in Iraq.

    Posted by AlanSmithee at 11/17/2006 @ 3:51pm

43. Posted by ALANSMITHEE 11/17/2006 @ 3:51pm | ignore this person

    so what's your advice?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/17/2006 @ 4:15pm

44. so what's your advice?

    Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/17/2006 @ 4:15pm

    He has no advice.

    Only slightly less irritating than the somewhat-effective "pure progressives" who try to drive out moderate and conservative Democrats from power....

    are the INEFFECTIVE "pure progressives" who sit on the sidelines and mock EVERYBODY and slap themselves on the back and congratulate themselves for being so "pure"....oh and vote Nader and makes things 1000X worse than it would be with one of the "Dem sell-outs" in charge!

    Posted by Mask at 11/17/2006 @ 9:54pm

45. "U.S.-Iraqi forces raid Shiite stronghold"

    that's right a Shiite stronghold. wait a minute, arent't the Shia "our" Iraqis? isn't the US installed gov't Shia? in a civil war everyone fights against everyone. time to get out, but fast.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/18/2006 @ 11:15am

46. Posted by MASK 11/17/2006 @ 9:54pm

    That's a lot of gall for a useless do-nothing crackpot-realist status quo pwoggie bloggie.

    Posted by AlanSmithee at 11/19/2006 @ 12:24am

47. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 11/17/2006 @ 4:15pm

    Here ya go:

    http://democracyrising.us/content/view/19/2/

    Posted by AlanSmithee at 11/19/2006 @ 12:33am

48. "who sit on the sidelines and mock EVERYBODY and slap themselves on the back and congratulate themselves for being so "pure"."

    Posted by MASK 11/17/2006 @ 9:54pm

    Thank you Mask, for finely encapsulating your MO in one sentence. Couldn't have described you better myself.

    Eric

    Posted by Malcontent at 11/19/2006 @ 09:39am

49. Posted by MALCONTENT 11/19/2006 @ 09:39am

    ZING!

    Posted by urmygyro at 11/19/2006 @ 2:11pm

50. Posted by MALCONTENT 11/19/2006 @ 09:39am

    But I'm not "pure", nor make any claim to it, Eric.

    There are policies that I support that liberals would love...and hate. And policies that I suppor that conservatives would love....and hate.

    ALAN claims to be purer than YOU, because he's "more liberal", not that he's more moderate.

    Posted by Mask at 11/20/2006 @ 09:01am

51. Posted by ALANSMITHEE 11/19/2006 @ 12:24am

    We're the only kind that WIN, ALAN....deal with it.

    Posted by Mask at 11/20/2006 @ 09:02am