Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe Senate majority leader is being portrayed as an awkward duck who doesn't look the part and can't talk it either. Harry Reid, it's true, is given to saying the most inappropriate stuff, opinions that disturb Washington pundits and the third-string political consultants who appear of TV talker shows. They tut-tut and scold. The kinder ones think he must have misspoken. Others insist Democrats should give him the hook and replace Reid with a more responsible leader.
What did the man say? "This war is lost." "The President is in a state of denial." A few years back, Reid shockingly called Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan "one of the biggest political hacks we have in Washington."
What do these and other outrageous remarks have in common? They are all true. A political leader who speaks the truth in unambiguous ways is naturally suspect in the capital city. But he ought to become a hero in the hinterland where citizens dwell. People who care need to rally around Harry Reid now and express their feelings because the political establishment is coming after him. White House slime agents are leading the campaign
Reid is being caricatured in ways designed to destroy his legitimacy and influence. If it really tries, the press can accomplish this. Remember how leading newspapers depicted Albert Gore as an egotistical goof back in the 2000 campaign?
Honk if you like Harry Reid. Bloggers, unite and bite back in his behalf. Washington Post columnist David Broder (a friend and former colleague of mine) is the chief tut-tutterer among media influentials. Broder took a truly ugly swipe at Reid in today's Post by comparing him to Alberto Gonzales, the "dead man walking" attorney general.
But wait a minute. Gonzales is ruined goods because he lied and disremembered and ran away from obvious facts. Harry Reid is guilty of the opposite behavior – saying aloud what most everyone in Washington knows to be true. Shame on you, David.
The cynical presumption among Washington "wise guys" is that Reid's remarks are bad politics. Some things can't be said, even if they are true. The insiders are wrong, wrong, wrong about that too.
Reid has an old-fashioned quality that sounds unhip to media junkies, but he is a savvy, tough politician known among insiders for an old-fashioned loyalty and willingness to stand up in a fight (ask labor leaders if you doubt this). A week ago when Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with Bush, the majority leader told the president to his face that Democrats knew the White House was coming after them with slurs. Reid said he intended to fight back sound bite for sound bite.
That's essentially what the Senate leader is doing now. It can pay big dividends with the American public, never mind Beltway pundits. The disgust with this president and his war is general throughout the land. People do not want David Broder's version of "bipartisan" compromise" on war-making. They want out. And they want Democrats to stand their ground.
If you want to understand Harry Reid, think back to another Harry who was also feisty and blunt – President Harry Truman. Running in 1948, Truman was ridiculed by major newspapers as a hopeless loser. But voters picked up the beat and they gave him a surprise victory.
On the campaign trail, Truman would encounter voices from the crowd shouting, "Give ‘em hell, Harry." The president would respond, "I don't give them hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's hell."
This is Harry Reid's old-fashioned politics. The country desperately needs it.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Mr Greider, I'd LOVE it if Harry Reid was Harry Truman...but he ain't.
Yes, he DID say "the war is lost"...and then he panicked and issued this statement
"As long as we follow the President's path in Iraq (my bolds), the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course and we must change course. No one wants us to succeed in the Middle East more than I do. But there must be a change of course. Our brave men and women overseas have passed every test with flying colors. They have earned our pride and our praise. More important, they deserve a strategy worthy of their sacrifice."
He smelled what was coming and tried to play some defense by adding the caveat "As long as we follow the President's path", thereby hinting that the war COULD still be won, if things are only done "slightly differently".
If he had stood by his original declaration, your (and my) praise might have been deserved. But it would have meant NO back-pedal "defense" when the charges (like LVLIBERTY's and Limbaugh and the rest) started.
Posted by Mask at 04/26/2007 @ 1:17pm
It's, of course, not a bad thing to have an opposing point of view posted on this progressive website. If I was so inclined to I might do the same on a "conservative" website.
Unfortunately we rarley see a genuine "opposing viewpoint" in these threads, but all too often we get the thoughtless drivel spewed above.
There isn't even one coherent, sensible thought in that spewing of raw sewage "Lvliberty1".
I kindly suggest you return to your Ordovician dwelling place. You know, the time of bivalve mollusks.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/26/2007 @ 1:22pm
B_KOOL, if you want a clear idea of how LVLIBERTY's view, devout Christian and follower of the Prince of Peace that he is, of war and how they should be fought by those who AREN'T "wimps, cowards, and traitors"....I offer this example on the topic of the Korean War--
BLOG | Posted 01/10/2007 @ 11:47am Comments for "Surge Homeward" by Katrina vanden Heuvel
"3-5 nuclear weapons against China and a threat to Russia to keep in line or they would have been next would have given the world a much better opportunity for peace than we have seen as a result of not letting MacArthur achieve the victory that we should have."--- Posted by LVLIBERTY1 01/10/2007 @ 4:32pm
Posted by Mask at 04/26/2007 @ 1:31pm
I have absolutely no pity for those who can't stand the obvious truth when the words "loser" and "lost" are accurately applied to them and their ridiculous escapades.
I actually agree with about half of what Broder said in the linked article. Harry Reid has a lot of problems. The biggest is that he leaves himself wide open to criticism because he doesn't pay enough attention to telling a consistent story.
But I support him here. He's telling the truth in plain language. The real problem is the thumbsucking frauds working out of the White House. They deployed the mightiest military machine in the world against a dictator everyone hated, and still managed to get pinned down by a bunch of hotheads with K-Mart bombs and crappy little rockets.
They're a bunch of losers. It can't be said often enough.
Posted by MyParadigm at 04/26/2007 @ 1:39pm
It's difficult to sort out what "LVLiberty" said. Shall I try?
He claims
(1) that Democrats love only their own wars, and (2) that Osama bin Laden loves them because they always surrender and run when the going gets tough.
Where to begin? One might ask which wars fought in this century were the "Democrats' own." I believe the World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War, the occupation of Afghanistan and (until 2006) the present Iraq War all had bipartisan support. (Not to mention the numerous military interventions in Latin America and elsewhere, which I suppose we'd all rather forget.) Which war did the Democrats ever support that the Republicans opposed? Well, okay, I suppose there was the NATO intervention in Bosnia. Does anybody still care about that one?
Then there's the difficulty of combining the claim "Democrats support only wars that they love" with the claim that they "always surrender when it gets difficult." Is the problem that Democrats love the wrong wars (and which would those be, since Republicans love the same wars 90% of the time)? Or is it that they fail to love difficult ones? What about that lovely civil war that ravaged Somalia? Should we still be bogged down there as well?
(Hint: If your soldiers are suicide bombers, then obviously your first problem is RECRUITMENT. If we want to defeat Osama bin Laden, then we need to make his recruitment problem HARDER. Occupying land that radical Muslims regard as sacred makes OBL's job EASIER.)
What are the Democrats supposed to do? Are they obligated to love every war that Republicans love? Should they pursue difficult wars until either our last enemy or the last one of us bites the dust?
Thank you, "Mask," for providing context for Harry Reid's seemingly bold remark. Maybe we should not praise the man too hastily. The old East German saying still applies: "You understand what politicians mean by looking not at their mouths, but at their hands."
Posted by JakobFabian at 04/26/2007 @ 1:41pm
at least one Democrat still gets it right. Senator Leiberman went on the floor of the Senate to rip the traitorous Reid.
Traitorous??? Pointing out that our current approach is doomed is traitorous?? Turn off the Sean Hannity for 5 seconds, take a deep breath, and think, actually think, about what you are saying. The current administration cooked the evidence to get us into Iraq, an invasion that was the greatest gift ever given to Al Qaeda, and the person who points this out is traitorous???
The War in Iraq was a defeat in the struggle against terrorism the day we invaded.
To have the courage to stand up and flatly state one's genuine disdain for the policies of the President is much more patriotic than going along with the President no matter what.
Posted by BlueSpark at 04/26/2007 @ 2:01pm
Posted by MASK 04/26/2007 @ 1:17pm
I have to agree with you, Mask. Not only is Harry Reid no Harry Truman, he's no George McGovern either. But hey, you go with the anti-war (sort of) senators you got. Reid has firmed up a bit on the whole issue since last fall (Pelosi's example?)
Posted by w_m_bear at 04/26/2007 @ 2:16pm
It's no wonder that Bin Laden saw in Somalia that Democrats will always surrender and run when the going gets tough. They don't have the courage or convictions to actually defeat evil (nor do those who support their cowardice). They are wimps, cowards, and traitors and that is the most polite thing one can call them.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1
Too bad big, tough, war dodger Georgie Jr didn't get Osama in Afghanistan when he had the chance.
Has not Patreaus himself said that the problems in Iraq cannot be solved militarily?
Posted by mtspence05 at 04/26/2007 @ 2:35pm
Posted by W_M_BEAR 04/26/2007 @ 2:16pm
Sort of a re-working of the old Rumsfeld line...
"You fight AGAINST the war with the politicians you've got, not the ones you wish you had!"
hehe
Posted by Mask at 04/26/2007 @ 2:35pm
Has not Patreaus himself said that the problems in Iraq cannot be solved militarily?
Posted by MTSPENCE05 04/26/2007 @ 2:35pm
WASHINGTON (AP) - Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday that conditions in Iraq may get harder before they get easier and will require "an enormous commitment" over time by the United States.
He said more than that, MTSP....
Posted by Mask at 04/26/2007 @ 3:18pm
It's no wonder that Bin Laden saw in Somalia that Democrats will always surrender and run when the going gets tough. They don't have the courage or convictions to actually defeat evil (nor do those who support their cowardice). They are wimps, cowards, and traitors and that is the most polite thing one can call them.
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/26/2007 @ 1:04pm
except it was the REPUGS who insisted on cutting and running from Somalia. it was the Repugs who DEMANDED it.
Your revisionist history bullshit doesn't work luvvy boy.
You are dead ass wrong.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/26/2007 @ 3:18pm
GOP Sen. Kay Hutchinson said:
I supported our original mission, which was humanitarian in nature and limited in scope. I can no longer support a continued United States presence in Somalia because the nature of the mission is now unrealistic and because the scope of our mission is now limitless. . . . Mr. President, it is no small feat for a superpower to accept setback on the world stage, but a step backward is sometimes the wisest course. I believe that withdrawal is now the more prudent option.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/26/2007 @ 3:21pm
GOP Sen. Robert Dole said:
I think it is clear to say from the meeting we had earlier with–I do not know how many Members were there–45, 50 Senators and half the House of Representatives, that the administration is going to be under great pressure to bring the actions in Somalia to a close.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/26/2007 @ 3:21pm
Mr. Greenwald quotes a few other Republican Senators who advocated for an immediate withdrawal from Somalia, while President Clinton advocated finishing the job.
Fuck you luvvy.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/26/2007 @ 3:22pm
If anything, Clinton understated his own defense. After the U.S. troops were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, numerous conservative senators and representatives -- mostly Republican along with some conservative Southern Democrats -- demanded that Clinton withdraw all American troops immediately, insisting that the U.S. had no interest in Somalia and that not one more American troop should die there. They gave speeches stoked with nationalistic anger and angrily demanded immediate withdrawal, and even threatened to introduce legislation to cut off all funding for any troop maintenance in Somalia.
Clinton -- along with Democratic senators such as John Kerry -- vigorously argued against immediate withdrawal, in part because of the concern that America would look weak by panicking and abandoning its mission at the first sign of trouble (just like President Reagan did in 1983 when he immediately withdrew U.S. forces from Lebanon after the attack on U.S. Marines). Clinton had to virtually beg to be allowed to keep troops for an additional six months (and he even increased American troop levels) to stabilize the situation, demonstrate U.S. resolve and a commitment to the mission and, most of all, avoid a panicky, fear-driven retreat.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/26/2007 @ 3:30pm
luvvy got smacked.
Posted by Hman23 at 04/26/2007 @ 3:40pm
I get so sick of hearing that revisionist crap.
Cut-n-run is the province of tough guy Repugs, starting with the inventor, Ronnie Ray-gun.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/26/2007 @ 3:42pm
Posted by DR DECIBELS 04/26/2007 @ 3:30pm
Doc, I'm a Clinton fan. But you DO realize that defending him on Somalia....puts you at odds with "The Nation" AND other U.N. fans?
The Nation comment | posted October 17, 2002 (November 4, 2002 issue) Subverting the UN by Richard Falk & David Krieger
"But as President, Clinton contributed to the post-cold war decline of the UN by abruptly reversing course on Somalia in 1993 after eighteen Americans were killed in the Black Hawk Down incident. Rather than accept responsibility for that debacle, the Clinton Administration blamed the UN."
Posted by Mask at 04/26/2007 @ 3:48pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/26/2007 @ 1:04pm
Here's the LVLIBERTY1 Money Quote: They don't have the courage or convictions to actually defeat evil
LVLIBERTY1 lost the war he says he fought in, and we aren't winning the war brought to us by his political messiah. Instead of bitching about Democrats, maybe he should be asking his God why we aren't getting a little more help with defeating evil.
Posted by nathanhale at 04/26/2007 @ 3:57pm
Exercept from a lengthy speech Joe Lieberman gave on the Senate floor today, directed at Dingy Harry (all bold are mine):
....In sum, you can't have it both ways. You can't withdraw combat troops from Iraq and still fight Al Qaeda there. If you believe there is no hope of winning in Iraq, or that the costs of victory there are not worth it, then you should be for complete withdrawal as soon as possible.
There is another irony here as well. For most of the past four years, under Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the United States did not try to establish basic security in Iraq. Rather than deploying enough troops necessary to protect the Iraqi people, the focus of our military has been on training and equipping Iraqi forces, protecting our own forces, and conducting targeted sweeps and raids--in other words, the very same missions proposed by the proponents of the legislation before us.
That strategy failed--and we know why it failed. It failed because we didn't have enough troops to ensure security, which in turn created an opening for Al Qaeda and its allies to exploit. They stepped into this security vacuum and, through horrific violence, created a climate of fear and insecurity in which political and economic progress became impossible.
For years, many members of Congress recognized this. We talked about this. We called for more troops, and a new strategy, and--for that matter--a new secretary of defense. And yet, now, just as President Bush has come around--just as he has recognized the mistakes his administration has made, and the need to focus on basic security in Iraq, and to install a new secretary of defense and a new commander in Iraq--now his critics in Congress have changed their minds and decided that the old, failed strategy wasn't so bad after all.
What is going on here? What has changed so that the strategy that we criticized and rejected in 2006 suddenly makes sense in 2007?
The second element in the plan outlined by the Majority Leader on Monday is "the phased redeployment of our troops no later than October 1, 2007." Let us be absolutely clear what this means. This legislation would impose a binding deadline for U.S. troops to begin retreating from Iraq. This withdrawal would happen regardless of conditions on the ground, regardless of the recommendations of General Petraeus, in short regardless of reality on October 1, 2007.
As far as I can tell, none of the supporters of withdrawal have attempted to explain why October 1 is the magic date--what strategic or military significance this holds. Why not September 1? Or January 1? This is a date as arbitrary as it is inflexible--a deadline for defeat.
How do proponents of this deadline defend it? On Monday, Senator Reid gave several reasons. First, he said, a date for withdrawal puts "pressure on the Iraqis to make the desperately needed political compromises." But will it? According to the legislation now before us, the withdrawal will happen regardless of what the Iraqi government does. How, then, if you are an Iraqi government official, does this give you any incentive to make the right choices?
On the contrary, there is compelling reason to think a legislatively directed withdrawal of American troops will have exactly the opposite effect than its Senate sponsors intend. This, in fact, is exactly what the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq predicted. A withdrawal of U.S. troops in the months ahead, it said, would "almost certainly lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict, intensify Sunni resistance, and have adverse effects on national reconciliation.".....
A true American patriot.....even if you disagree w/his take on the Iraq War! I could even accept his liberalism, as candidate on either side's ticket!
Posted by Happy at 04/26/2007 @ 4:00pm
I'm a Clinton fan....
Posted by MASK 04/26/2007 @ 3:48pm
That includes Hillary (as we have come to know)!
Roughly a year ago, I posited at Corn.com that I wasn't sure HRC was going to be the Dem Nominee--this was even before the Magic Negro's (for those that don't have a life, substitute MN w/Barrack Obama) rise to prominence.
With the HRC/MNBO gap narrowing (rather remarkably I might add) in the most recent poll, it becomes ever more interesting to see how your comments will evolve to face the likelihood of an MNBO vs. GOP Nominee Election!
Posted by Happy at 04/26/2007 @ 4:12pm
Posted by HAPPY 04/26/2007 @ 4:00pm
If Lieberman knows how to win a war, why didn't you vote the Democratic ticket in 2000?
Posted by nathanhale at 04/26/2007 @ 4:12pm
Posted by HAPPY 04/26/2007 @ 4:12pm
Given your penchant for misconstruing what "I said" or "support"...let me be clear about Hillary.
I don't like her. I don't trust her. But like Don Corleone and Hyman Roth, I'll work with her if she's the nominee, because Chuck Hagel can't win the GOP nomination and stop this idiocy in Iraq.
If it's Barack Obama...I'll vote for him. If it's even Dennis Kucinich, I'll vote for him and hope the little guy doesn't take it into his head to ban beef jerky and BB guns.
But Bush has pushed me out (as he did in 2004) and unless Rudy, Maverick John, or "Save Us" Fred Thompson come out for a timely withdrawal plan ....I'll pull the "D" lever in November of 2008 and PRAY that Hillary follows her husband's example for post-1994 middle-of-the-road politics!
Posted by Mask at 04/26/2007 @ 4:19pm
(Hint: If your soldiers are suicide bombers, then obviously your first problem is RECRUITMENT.
Jake, the opposite is true. they seem to have an inexhaustible supply of suicide bombers. does that tell you something?
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/26/2007 @ 4:45pm
Happy,
I've wondered for years what "dingy" means when applied to Senator Reid.
I assume you wouldn't use the term without understanding it.....care to enlighten me?
Posted by freedomplease at 04/26/2007 @ 4:48pm
Posted by MASK 04/26/2007 @ 3:48pm
I don't toe anybody's line - I follow the truth.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 04/26/2007 @ 4:49pm
Posted by FREEDOMPLEASE 04/26/2007
from what I found on "the Google" it seems to be a play off of "Dirty Harry"
Posted by Hman23 at 04/26/2007 @ 4:58pm
From today's post on davidcorn.com:
... This retired general told me the McClatchy story was accurate. He called it another indication that the military mission has been lost and that the United States was stuck in the midst of a situation akin to a civil war. What ought to be done? I ask. He lowered his voice: we have to start bringing the troops home. ...
Joe Lieberman, as quoted by HAPPY above, is just plain lying about the situation. Or, more charitably, he just doesn't know what he's talking about.
To repeat: the war is lost. And when you've lost a war, you go home, if you still can.
Posted by MyParadigm at 04/26/2007 @ 5:17pm
Posted by MYPARADIGM 04/26/2007 @ 5:17pm
He says, she says, and Lt. Col. Rick Francona says below! I do add, declaring "war is lost" as you, MASK, Dirty Harry & assorted others, are beyond non-supportive, it's obscenely pulling the legs out from under the troops! May God have mercy on your (fill in the blank)!
Breaking faith with the troops
Francona: Setting timeline for Iraq pullout does not support the troops
COMMENTARY By Lt. Col. Rick Francona Military analyst MSNBC April 26, 2007
Posted by Happy at 04/26/2007 @ 5:56pm
To repeat: the war is lost. And when you've lost a war, you go home, if you still can.
Posted by MYPARADIGM 04/26/2007 @ 5:17pm | ignore this person
it could be a long bloody retreat.
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/26/2007 @ 6:33pm
I'm sure your inbred, fundamentalist hick grandchildren will understand what he meant.
Posted by mtspence05 at 04/26/2007 @ 6:35pm
Posted by HAPPY 04/26/2007 @ 5:56pm
HAPP, this war has killed 3300 and you want to allow more of that to happen (atleast until, according to your previous statement on the Surge failing, atleast early to late 2009).
The horror I (and others) propose is to stop those young Americans from dying. So I think it's obscene that you want those troops to LITERALLY lose their legs to try to prove your world-view which has already failed, is right and letting the man who started it "off the hook" by putting the withdrawal onto his successor (and likely blame the inevitable collapse of Iraq on THEM in a blatently partisan way).
Posted by Mask at 04/26/2007 @ 7:55pm
Give 'em Hell Harry! And thank you for having the balls to stand up and say what should have been said ages ago. Instead of the "business as usual" sheepishness of the last congress & senate. Finally somebody stood up & said "this is wrong" instead of "yes Mister President ... anything you want ... we will blindly follow". LVLIBERY1 needs to do a little research somewhere besides Savage-Nation / Sean Hannity & Rush Limbaugh. Face the truth LVLIBERY1, the President & his croanies ARE crooked liars, this war was nothing more than a left turn into what the Bushy's thought would be the ultimate control over the world. (notice the amount of OIL under Iraq). Dont worry about bin Ladin! When we have all that oil the rest of the world WILL follow US! Sorry. Harry may be a little rough around the edges, and he may not be the most eliquent man on the Beltway, but the people of his state elected him to represent them. I think its a shame that the people of this country are so busy hiding behind party lines, that they cant think for themselves. Harry speaks the truth and rather than say 'give 'em hell Harry', they berate him. What a marvelous society we have become. Whatever happened to standing for "TRUTH, JUSTICE & THE AMERICAN WAY"?
Posted by KatzInTexas at 04/27/2007 @ 01:35am
...this war has killed 3300 and you want to allow more of that to happen....
Posted by MASK 04/26/2007 @ 7:55pm
The Left/Anti-War crowd always has/had a structural advantage, unfortunately a perpetual one, in its arguments against any war that goes off plan (or even one on plan). That is, it can always point to the casualties that our own media, increasingly the `Blood & Guts Chasers', is just so tickled to bring it to us non-stop!
What the Right/Pro-War crowd can NEVER do, is to quantify, to the Left's satisfaction, how many more future lives will be saved by the contentious War and how definitively America & the world will be better off.
The debacle in and withdrawl from Somalia, cited by Liberty above, is pretty clear as to how it had spawned far bigger problems....but even now, how can we `quantify' the damage of Clinton's policies of running away from that little War?
Posted by Happy at 04/27/2007 @ 11:23am
"lost"-- The trouble is not that Harry Reid said it but that he was wrong. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) got it right on the Senate floor April 26: "In respect to accusations about defeat and surrender, the question becomes: Defeat by whom and surrender to whom? We won this war 4 years ago. The question is, When do we end the occupation?" He went on, "Iraq has been in turmoil for thousands of years. It will be in turmoil of one kind or another long after we leave. The U.S. military is not going to change the societal makeup of Iraq. . . the chaos the administration is now predicting is exactly the chaos their invasion has brought us in the first place--instability in the region, a loss of American prestige, a rise in the influence of Iran, an increase in terrorist activity."
Posted by J.V. Reistrup at 04/27/2007 @ 12:23pm
Posted by J.V. REISTRUP 04/27/2007 @ 12:23pm | ignore this person
you are correct. that quote is far more nuanced. at the same time what Reid said was truncated, and misrepresented.
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/27/2007 @ 12:28pm
What the Right/Pro-War crowd can NEVER do, is to quantify, to the Left's satisfaction, how many more future lives will be saved by the contentious War and how definitively America & the world will be better off.
Posted by HAPPY 04/27/2007 @ 11:23am
No, HAPP, what the Right can never do (it seems) is admit they made a mistake, even when SEVENTY PERCENT (70%) of the American public has determined that it was a mistake.
And little confused....you've already admitted that if the Surge doesn't work, you'd SUPPORT A PULL-OUT by early to mid-2009.
Why are you willing to "run away from this little war"? Shouldn't we stay "as long as it takes", even beyond a failed "Surge"?!?!??!
Posted by Mask at 04/27/2007 @ 1:26pm
No, HAPP, what the Right can never do...
Posted by MASK 04/27/2007 @ 1:26pm
The Right has admitted many mistakes in the execution of this war but NOT the initiation of it to remove Saddam.
Just as you corectly pointed out as to your actual position on Hillary ("Accept" but not enamored-unlike Frank), I will again point out that I'm no neo-con and would feel no obligation to babysit the full gestation period of Iraq's transition to a hoped-for democracy. But I'm not the CIC nor have his burdens...in my old-fashioned mind, I owe my country and the men fighting the war, my full support until such time, the CIC decides otherwise.
As an analogy, I disagree wholeheartedly with many, many social programs but as long as they are `in progress', I support the efforts of those involved and hope the outcomes are reasonably close to as intended.
Lastly, I miss the "Y".....bring it along!
Posted by Happy at 04/27/2007 @ 2:23pm
Why are we mucking about in Iraq in the first place? We were lied into it by Wolfowitz, and especially Cheney. How can any war that was pre-emptive, illegal, unnecessary, immoral and against the wishes of most of the world have any positive conclusion at all? The adjectives "pre-emptive, illegal, unnecessary, immoral" should precede any discussion of the Iraq War.
Posted by motamanx at 04/27/2007 @ 2:36pm
I just loved this characterization of Harry Reid. America does need heroes. We've had far too many zeros lately.
If Democrats, liberals, and common sense patriotic Americans are paying attenton, I don't think the press can discredit Harry Reid the way they did Albert Gore and others.
Actually, the more dramatic story will be the fall of an arrogant and incompetent administration that tried and (hopefully) failed to restructure the US government to empower it to be able to spy on, arrest, imprison, or torture anyone (citizen or not) without recourse.
Posted by joepanzica at 04/27/2007 @ 2:45pm
Posted by MASK 04/27/2007 @ 1:26pm
No, HAPP, what the Right can never do (it seems) is admit they made a mistake, even when SEVENTY PERCENT (70%) of the American public has determined that it was a mistake.
Citation, please?
Posted by pontificus at 04/27/2007 @ 4:08pm
It seems to be a common tactic of the pro war folks to ignore the issues, facts, deaths and numbers of wounded troops, they never discuss the issues, instead they specialize in attacking the messenger, any messenger. Good job war lovers you are successful again. I am not discussing the issue.
Posted by Leefeller at 04/27/2007 @ 4:21pm
Citation, please?
Posted by PONTIFICUS
Here is one - not quite 70%, but perhaps Mask was rounding up.
All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not?
Worth fighting 33% Not worth fighting 66% No opinion 1%
Source: TNS / Washington Post / ABC News Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,141 American adults, conducted from Apr. 12 to Apr. 15, 2007. Margin of error is 3 per cent.
Posted by Hman23 at 04/27/2007 @ 5:26pm
Posted by HMAN23 04/27/2007 @ 5:26pm
I think my problem with MASK's statement regarding the Iraq war is with his characterization of it as a mistake. The costs of the war have been terrible, but we went to war based on our best judgement. And when I say we, I mean most if not all politicians and a solid majority of the country. True, there was a solid minority against the war, but there is a solid minority in this country against Bush getting up in the morning, before and after 9/11 and the Iraq War. To say this minority was 'right' is the same as saying a stopped clock is right once a day; technically true, but not terribly enlightening. We see the same knee-jerk Bush hatred on this forum every day, in many ways. It's not based on facts, it's based on emotion, partisanship, and the way the followers of the urban religion of leftism despise all infidels, for the most part. MASK is one of the exceptions to this rule, and for this MASK is often reviled here, as is anyone who declines to participate in this kind of Pavlovian loathing.
I think it's understandable that a majority of the country now views the war as not worth the costs. The costs have, indeed, been terrible, especially to those in our armed forces who have borne the brunt of it. But the benefits of Bush's anti-terrorism strategy have been very good too; this country has been spared another 9/11 and there have been few if any successful attacks against the US since 9/11. And despite the chaos in Iraq, that country is, IMHO, much better off than under the mass-murdering Saddam. At least now they have some hope, something the left never deigned to offer them.
What the country has to ask itself, is what the left has to offer as an alternative to Bush. Pacifism, blame-America first, defeatism, and self hatred do not seem very promising at this point. But it looks like we just may get it. Jimmy Carter II, anyone?
Posted by pontificus at 04/27/2007 @ 9:15pm
Hey, another 'innocent' citizen of the world has been rounded up by Bush's jackbooted thugs and sent to Gitmo! Quick somebody get this guy an ACLU lawyer!
A top al-Qaeda commander linked to a string of international terror attacks has been captured trying to enter Iraq and is in US custody, the Pentagon said today.
Abd al Hadi al-Iraqi is perhaps the most important figure to be captured since 9/11 and his detention is a major blow to Osama bin Laden's terrorist network. He is currently being held by the Americans in the High Value Detainee Programme at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Posted by pontificus at 04/27/2007 @ 9:28pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/27/2007 @ 9:15pm
Well Said!
Posted by Happy at 04/27/2007 @ 9:51pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/27/2007 @ 9:15pm
Noticed that some in the media are anticipating a "compromise" between Bush and the Democrats over timetables being attached to funding. If we restrict the idea of forging a compromise on troop deployment levels to the relevance of al Qaeda in Iraq it shows that there is really only room for capitulation and not for compromise.
How can a common new direction (for the war) be forged between positions that are based on radically different premises? Iraq is either the most important place to militarily confront al Qaeda, as the Republicans claim, or it is not, as the Democrats tell us.
If the Democrats are correct then there is no reasonable argument, on that ground, against an immediate withdrawal of US troops.
However if Iraq has now become the only place, at present, where al Qaeda can be substantially degraded in terms of manpower and resources (remember al Qaeda in Iraq, in October 06, claimed 4000 of its fighters had been killed in Iraq since the start of its campaign against the Coalition forces) then this is obviously the war that should receive most support in terms of equipment and human resources. A routing of al Qaeda in Iraq surely would have devastating psychological effects on the whole movement.
Afghanistan in contrast was not essentially about al Qaeda and is still not. It was only in that country by courtesy of the Taliban. The Taliban has a different set of political objectives from al Qaeda and thus does not, per se, represent the same potential long term threat to the US mainland and other Western style democracies, in Asia and Europe, as al Qaeda does.
Thus to suggest, as many Democrats do, that the real fight against al Qaeda should be taking place in Afghanistan rather than in Iraq is a flawed proposition because it ignores those realities.
Posted by lrjones4 at 04/28/2007 @ 08:07am
LRJONES4 04/28/2007 @ 08:07am
How about if you stop ignoring the reality that there was no al Qaeda presence in Iraq before we presented a handy target, and run that argument by us again.
Honestly, this "fight them over there" rationale is the stupidest idea since the demonic possession theory of disease.
Posted by MyParadigm at 04/28/2007 @ 09:32am
Posted by MYPARADIGM 04/28/2007 @ 09:32am
Honestly, this "fight them over there" rationale is the stupidest idea since the demonic possession theory of disease.
Oh really. Where would you have us fight them?
Posted by pontificus at 04/28/2007 @ 11:00am
Posted by LRJONES4 04/28/2007 @ 08:07am
A routing of al Qaeda in Iraq surely would have devastating psychological effects on the whole movement.
I'm not sure we can rout them without taking on Iran and Syria, and even the funding sources in Saudi Arabia in some fashion. Bush and co doesn't seem to be addressing that part of the equation very well, in that sense we're losing the Vietnam War all over again. It would be foolish to take on Iran in a conventional war, which I'm sure Bush knows. Perhaps what we need is a new policy of containment, similar to the way the USSR was bottled up. Again, I dont' see anyone, Republican or Democrat, putting forth such a visionary strategy.
Afghanistan in contrast was not essentially about al Qaeda and is still not. It was only in that country by courtesy of the Taliban. The Taliban has a different set of political objectives from al Qaeda and thus does not, per se, represent the same potential long term threat to the US mainland and other Western style democracies, in Asia and Europe, as al Qaeda does.
Thus to suggest, as many Democrats do, that the real fight against al Qaeda should be taking place in Afghanistan rather than in Iraq is a flawed proposition because it ignores those realities.
Is there really a Democrat who takes that argument seriously, even if they do attempt to argue it? I really doubt it. If there's a Democrat (other than the ostracized Lieberman) that has a good-faith strategy to combat terrorism, and presents a reasonable alternative to George Bush's strategy, I'm unaware of them.
Posted by pontificus at 04/28/2007 @ 11:07am
that's right, My, fight them over there, where they blend in with the population, have the support of a great number of that population, where it costs billions a day. compared with fighting them here, where they stand out, have nearly no support of the population, and where we have police AND army, and FBI etc to bring to bear on them. of course it's a stupid slogan, that's all they got, but it worked like a charm for a time, but we can still examine it logically.
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/28/2007 @ 11:37am
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/28/2007 @ 11:37am
have nearly no support of the population,
I wouldn't say that, JR! I think you and your ilk have got more in common with the terrorists than you think. I mean, think about it. You both hate George Bush and America. You both think the detainees in Gitmo need to be freed. You both think George Bush is the world's biggest terrorist. Sounds like a pretty solid basis for a relationship to me.
Besides, why not fight them here? Who says we can't take a few more Oklahoma City-type fertilizer bombs? A few more WTC I-type attacks! After all, anything the opposite of George Bush is good in your world, right JR?
Posted by pontificus at 04/28/2007 @ 11:50am
How about if you stop ignoring the reality that there was no al Qaeda presence in Iraq before we presented a handy target, and run that argument by us again.
Honestly, this "fight them over there" rationale is the stupidest idea since the demonic possession theory of disease.
Posted by MYPARADIGM 04/28/2007 @ 09:32am
Para,
It may appear stupid to you and expressing it in those terms is like likely to lead you astray, so could I suggest that it appears that way to you because you are dogmatically committed to your position, rather than arriving at it with all the facts in your field of vision and an untrammelled mind.
It is irrelevant, how they got there, to the proposition that Iraq is the best place in the world today for the Iraqi/US forces to systematically degrade al Qaeda in Iraq and hence very probably demoralise the whole movement, if successful in that task.
All that needs to be shown is: 1. That it is there. 2. That it is suffering relatively massive losses, in terms of its fighters killed and those deaths are primarily (some blow themselves up) due to the action of Iraqi/US military forces.
(As far as the Iraqis are concerned, all the polls I'm aware of indicate 95 plus % hate al Qaeda, which is a bonus in that there is a massively large Iraqi cheer squad rooting for the degrading of al Qaeda. This fact is not necessary to the "argument" for going after al Qaeda in Iraq but it is encouraging to know that the Iraqis are apparently quite happy for the Coalition forces to assist the Iraqi security forces in this aspect of the war).
Posted by lrjones4 at 04/28/2007 @ 12:01pm
I was delighted to see a US senator tell the plain truth in plain language. The truth is, we lost the war in Iraq as soon as we decided to stay and occupy it. Anyone who knows anything about Mesopotamia's long and troubled(to say the least) history knew that when Bush/Cheney Inc started beating the war drums after 9/11. I am willing to bet none of the right wing bloggers posting hysterical accusations at the Democrats have ever bothered to really study the history of that region. Here are some undoubtedly over-simplified facts: 1)Saddam and Al-Qaeda hated each other. 2)Shia Islam is diametrically opposed to the Wahhabist Sunni radicalism(ie our good friends the Saudis) from which Al-Qaeda sprang. 3)Iraq is an artificial country created by the British Empire upon the mess of forced population relocations done by the Turks to preserve their previous empire. 4)Iranians are not Arabs, they are Indo-Europeans, mainly Persians, who fundamentally want to party like us westerners. Leave them alone, and sooner or later the mullahs will lose a LOT of their current power in that country.
Finally, no one, not Bush, not George Washington, can ever impose a democracy on a people and culture that have absolutely no historically democratic leanings. Democracy must be home-grown, or it will never survive. Look at Russia's current oligarchy as an example. Of course the war is lost; Bush's stated objective of starting the flowering of democracy in the Middle East was never anything but doomed. Maybe Bush himself believed it(he is a pretty ignorant fellow), but Cheney never did. All he saw was huge untapped oil reserves in Iraq, ready for exploitation. The problem is you can't defend hundreds of miles of pipeline from people determined to blow it up so you can't use it.
It is not a defeat to recognize reality and walk away from a bad situation. Unfortunately, we are going to have to keep some troops in the surrounding area for quite some time, but that doesn't mean we have to just keep throwing them into the meat grinder that Iraq has become just so ignorant, spoiled people with adolescent mentalities can say "We won!" This is not a sporting event.
Posted by ohiobogy at 04/28/2007 @ 12:11pm
but we went to war based on our best judgement.
hahahaha, now I get it, it's parody. yes ponts you are funny
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/28/2007 @ 12:22pm
"Iranians are not Arabs, they are Indo-Europeans, mainly Persians"
,The Afro-Asiatic Family is dominated by Arabic, an important modern and classical language. It is the language of the Quran and of Islam. It is spoken in many Middle East and North African countries and studied outside that region. There are many regional variations and accents.
The most widely studied language family in the world is the Indo-European. There are a number of reasons for this:
Many of the most important languages of the world are Indo-European. These languages are official or co-official in many countries and are important in academic, technical and world organisations. Examples: English, Spanish, French, German, Russian.
Indeed, more than half the world's population speak one or more of these languages either as a mother tongue or as a business language.
Languages that are essential in multinational contexts or with large numbers of speakers. Examples: Portuguese, Hindi, German, Bengali.
Some of the great classical languages of religion, culture and philosophy were Indo-European. Examples: Latin, Greek, Persian, Sanskrit, Pali.
Languages that are scattered around the world as their speakers are part of diasporas. Examples: Greek, Yiddish, Polish, Armenian, Romany, Kurdish, Italian, Punjabi, Gujarati.
from a most wonderful site
:http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_indoeuro.html
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/28/2007 @ 1:02pm
"Iranians are not Arabs, they are Indo-Europeans, mainly Persians"
,The Afro-Asiatic Family is dominated by Arabic, an important modern and classical language. It is the language of the Quran and of Islam. It is spoken in many Middle East and North African countries and studied outside that region. There are many regional variations and accents.
The most widely studied language family in the world is the Indo-European. There are a number of reasons for this:
Many of the most important languages of the world are Indo-European. These languages are official or co-official in many countries and are important in academic, technical and world organisations. Examples: English, Spanish, French, German, Russian.
Indeed, more than half the world's population speak one or more of these languages either as a mother tongue or as a business language.
Languages that are essential in multinational contexts or with large numbers of speakers. Examples: Portuguese, Hindi, German, Bengali.
Some of the great classical languages of religion, culture and philosophy were Indo-European. Examples: Latin, Greek, Persian, Sanskrit, Pali.
Languages that are scattered around the world as their speakers are part of diasporas. Examples: Greek, Yiddish, Polish, Armenian, Romany, Kurdish, Italian, Punjabi, Gujarati.
from a most wonderful site
:http://www.krysstal.com/langfams_indoeuro.html
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/28/2007 @ 1:03pm
darn
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/28/2007 @ 1:04pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 04/28/2007 @ 11:07am
Of course Ponti it is unlikely that the Dems (except poor old Harry) really believe that Afghanistan is the place to fight al Qaeda but I suggest they use it to fool a too gullible public or as a diversionary tactic to use on the similarly impaired, rather than admit to the unthinkable. (ie Bush was right about al Qaeda in Iraq even if he was wrong before he was right. Which lucid approach most Dems,for historic reasons, should feel at home with).
It seems pretty obvious now that ineffective military leaders combined with the administration going to sleep on the job, wasted a few precious years in Iraq. Whether the new strategies and tactics initiated with Petraeus can turn things around is an open question. It does seem that whatever happens with the appropriation bill there will be plenty of time and resources to give Petraeus a fair go at implementing and testing his counterinsurgency ideas. The response of the Iraqi government to the new military regime will also be important but at least it seems to be playing its part by a more or less even handed approach to the militias. If that progresses it will tend to isolate al Qaeda and make it an easier target.
I don't think al Qaeda as a quasi religious/political movement will fade away and it will probably need monitoring and controlling for many years yet, even if it suffers further major set backs as it did in Afghanistan and even if the stuffing is knocked out of it in Iraq.
Posted by lrjones4 at 04/28/2007 @ 1:05pm
wasted a few precious years in Iraq.
say what? try 3,000 plus american soldiers, 60,000 plus Iraqis, 400 plus billions wasted. unbelievable, these kind of posts.
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/28/2007 @ 1:35pm
Although I do like Reid, I have to admit I don't agree with the comment. Here's why. It's not a war. It can't be won, it can't be lost. There is no goal, there is no end-game, there is no identifiable enemy. War is their metaphor. Reid's comment is as meaningless as the GWOT. It does, however, provide a great spin for republicans. The reason the withdrawal dates are so effectively called "surrender" dates is because we perpetuate the war metaphor. It is a misadventure, international policing, nation building, international social work with American resources (and lives). We should withdrawal so we can use our resources to eliminate the Taliban, scare the North Koreans, give the Iranians pause, prepare for a Pakistani coup, stay ahead of the Chinese, make a meaningful decision about Darfur and truly prepare for terrorist acts against the U.S. I'd rather Reid say "We won, the war is over-let's go home."
Posted by jimmytodd1234 at 04/28/2007 @ 3:43pm
'd rather Reid say "We won, the war is over-let's go home."
Posted by JIMMYTODD1234 04/28/2007 @ 3:43pm | ignore this person
that would be a lie. after four years of hearing the war drums, I would not expect them to comprehend the subtlety of your very valid argument.
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/28/2007 @ 5:06pm
Thank You Mr.Greider for so clearly saying what millions of us are really thinking. Yes, Harry Reid does have it right. This war has been lost by years and years of incompetence. The President just could never get it right. He did not listen to the one guy in his administration who knew how to wage war: Colin Powell. And now, whether Harry Reid's detractors like it or now, it is really too late. What an abysmal failure this war has been! Reid is right. Pelosi is right. Cheney is wrong. Bush is wrong. And guess what: the American people know it. And the incoherent responders to your article don't seem to get the most important point of all. Harry Reid saying the war is lost is just a description of what is really happening. His words didn't make the failure happen. It happened before he spoke them. And Cheney's words don't change the facts either. The war is lost. Period. Now we just need to get out, come home, and wait until we get a President who can try to fix this awful mess.
Posted by mccjk85 at 04/28/2007 @ 11:56pm
April 28, 2007
Iraq, and the Truth We Dare Not Speak
We must win American hearts and minds.
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online
....The fostering of democracy by a Republican president only alienated his dour realist base. Yet his idealism did not even win as recompense faint sympathy from supposedly Wilsonian Democratic opponents. Indeed, they now sound like Bob Taft isolationists. The fiercest critics of the brave struggling Iraqi elected government remain liberal Senate Democrats, not Republicans.
......President Bush stayed on after victory to offer consensual government, unlike his father in 1991. As a reward, he won criticism from the critics of Bush I for now attempting what they once so loudly advocated.
....But there is another, more worrisome dynamic at work here. I would call it the "them sons of bitches" sentiment that is usually better left unspoken.
By any honest assessment, the great majority of Iraqis are brave citizens who voted en masse for change, at great risk to their safety. Kurdistan is a stunning success. It belies stereotypes that Muslims can't govern themselves peacefully, practice consensual government, or create vibrant economies. Tribal sheiks and clerics in Iraq hate al Qaeda as much as we do. They suffer far more losses in trying to rid their country of such killers. American soldiers testify to the friendliness and support of the Iraqi people.
But that American alliance with freedom-loving Arabs is not what is reported. Instead the public hears and sees two quite different things. The two are antithetical to each other.
.......Turn on the television and the reporting is all hate: a Middle Eastern Muslim is blowing up someone in Israel, shooting a rocket from Gaza, chanting death to America in Beirut, stoning an adulterer in Tehran, losing a hand for thievery in Saudi Arabia, threatening to take back Spain, gassing someone in Iraq, or promising to wipe out Israel. An unhinged, secular Khadafi rants; a decrepit Saudi royal lectures; a wild-eyed Lebanese cleric threatens -- whatever the country, whatever the political ideology, the American television viewer draws the same conclusion: we are always blamed for their own self-inflicted misery.
Fostering democracy in Iraq is called imperialism. But then so is the opposite of backing a strongman in Pakistan or Egypt. Billions sent to Egypt, Jordan, and Palestine goes unmentioned or is considered too paltry. Millions of Muslims saved in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Indonesia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Somalia means nothing. One Koran wrongly said to be flushed is everything.
A sense of imbalance is everywhere. Imams call Jews "pigs and apes." The Pope is threatened for his dry recitation of history. Cartoonists, novelists, filmmakers, and opera producers are all promised death or beheading, while the worst sort of racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian hatred is broadcast and published in state-run Arab media.
Yet the Muslim community in the Untied States, at least if defined by its self-appointed collective leadership, is mostly heard and seen decrying "Islamophobia" inside America, suing on allegations of discrimination, and damning the effort in Iraq. Rarely are voiced furor and anger at the illiberal regimes that drove Arabs out. Even rarer is expressed some sort of gratitude for the liberal regime that welcomed them in. Or, at least, that is the impression imparted to Americans by their media that provides them with sounds bites and live video streams in lieu of travel to and study of the Middle East.
The net result is the American voter is tired and saturated with negative imagery. Public opinion polls are notoriously fickle. But most show a sharp increase in negative views of Muslims in general. A 2006 Washington Post poll suggested that nearly half of all Americans had a negative view of Muslims -- far higher even than was even found shortly after September 11.....
This popular sentiment, to the extent it is ever voiced openly, is, of course, attributed to "intolerance" and "prejudice." But the real catalysts are the endemic violence and hypocrisy that appear nightly on millions of television screens. When the liberal Left says of the war, "It isn't worth it," that message resonates, as the American public rightly suspects that it really means "They aren't worth it.".....
So here we are in our eleventh hour. A controversial and costly war continues, in part so as to give Arab Muslims the sort of freedom the West takes for granted; but at precisely the time that the public increasingly is tired of Middle Eastern madness. In short, America believes that the entire region is not worth the bones of a single Marine.
.......Americans -- who in the end alone can win or lose this war.
©2007 Victor Davis Hanson
Anyone interested in the Iraq War (beyond those mainly `in it' for the unfortunate politics of today), should read Mr. Hanson's lengthy analysis. The Big Picture problem is radical Islam and its chilling effects on all Muslims and the buidling backlash in America and the West (read "While Europe Slept" and see how the West MAY lose).
Posted by Happy at 04/29/2007 @ 12:37am
Mr. Hanson's lengthy analysis.
analysis? hahahaha, a confused muddle is more like it.
Posted by johannesrolf at 04/29/2007 @ 12:31pm
analysis? hahahaha, a confused muddle is more like it.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 04/29/2007 @ 12:31pm
I'm having real doubts about your being an artist/writer/researcher! Mr. Hanson is an accomplished intellectual and if you are a `writer', you would surely know that...unless of course, you are just an ad copy writer on Madison Ave.!
Speaking of writing and writers: You really should pick up NYT Bestseller "While Europe Slept" by Bruce Bawer, Ph.D.-English, your fellow New Yorker. He is a gay author and has spent years and years living in several European countries beginning in the late 1990s'. He had believed in Europe as a gay liberal's paradise....even more so than his native New York.
I gained much understanding as to why America was/is the `safe enemy' and why Europe is slowly but surely, exterminating its own cultures through its version of multiculturalism which in practice, is far more insidously racist than America's version of being a true melting pot!
Also revealing, in Bawer's book, is why the 40+ million European Muslims overwhelmingly vote "liberal" even while they despise the underlying foundations of European liberalism & of course, its inherent sexual equality/freedom & homosexuality! They are using willing European liberals to smooth the way to an Islamic Europe.
Posted by Happy at 04/29/2007 @ 7:23pm
Reid is right but his delivery is atrocious. Len hoffman
Posted by lenhoffcpa at 04/29/2007 @ 7:43pm
Posted by HAPPY 04/29/2007 @ 7:23pm
You really buy that Islamic-Europeans are voting liberal, to help "pave the way for an Islamic Europe"....and not because conservative Europeans, like LePen, are vehemently anti-Islamic immigrant?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 04/30/2007 @ 09:42am
Posted by HAPPY 04/29/2007 @ 7:23pm
...and not because conservative Europeans, like LePen, are vehemently anti-Islamic immigrant?!?!??
Posted by MASK 04/30/2007 @ 09:42am
MASK, MASK, MASK:
LePen is such a rarity among Europeans....A pol that recognized the way Europe is fast becoming `Eurabia'....he would be what liberals/progressives would `accuse' of being a `Reactionary' and of couse, a Racist (which he could be).
Despite my posting here (and at Cron.com), I am NOT nearly the political junky you are (& a highly knowledgable one at that). I have only read one of Bernard Lewis' book on Islam ("What Went Wrong") and "While Europe Slept" in my own atempt to understand 9/11 and how the future may play out. You really need to understand how Europe is allowing flagrant disregard for native laws in their deference to Muslim cultural norms such as forced marriages (almost always imported from outside Europe), spousal abuse......
Victor Hanson's article hints at a future that is filled with exactly what we all hope to avoid--Clash of Civilazations/Cultures. Western media & forsight-less Liberals, very unfortunately, are key `tools' of radical Islamists!
Posted by Happy at 04/30/2007 @ 10:03am
Reading Happy (what an appropriate name as in Tom Lehrer's reference to powdered happiness) and his quotes from Lieberman makes one wonder how these people function in the real world. Specifically, where Lieberman says we can't withdraw troops from Iraq and still fight al Qaeda, why not? If we aren't there, the Iraqis will be more than capable of getting rid of al Qaeda all by themselves and who knows more about them than the Iraqis? Also, how can you rationalize the recruitment success that the Iraqi occupation has given al Qaeda worldwide with fighting terrorism?
Lieberman somehow equates sending 30,000 troops now with the necessity of having 300,000 (ten times that number) troops. If you are going to escalate, 30,000 isn't more than spitting in the ocean.
Calliing the date arbitrary is silly. You pick a date based on when it is feasible to do the preliminary preparations to get them out of there. Would you rather just leave them there for all eternity? There isn't anyother option because there is no possibility short of exterminating all Iraqis that will bring a military victory.
And the most ludicrous statement is that somehow the war and occupation of Iraq is going to save lives. We have already been responsible in four years for the deaths of more people than Hussein was in his whole life, not counting the Iraqi/Iranian war that we supported and share responsibility for Furthermore, our presence is recruiting and training more terrorists who are more and more a danger to everyone. What don't we stop digging while we can still climb out of the hole?
Posted by danmiller at 04/30/2007 @ 1:10pm
Pontificus seems to be laboring under the delusion that fighting al Qaeda and terrorism is a military operation. By far the most success that we have had against them has been by police actions, not military. For anyone to claim that we have killed 4,000 in Iraq is to forget that our presence there has recruited vastly more to their side. Running a business on those numbers is a quick trip to bankruptcy.
If he wants to know where we should fight them, it is by NOT acting as their recruitment and training officers. Then they would not exist. Pull out of Iraq and let the Iraqis, who don't want them there in the first place because they have been killing Iraqis as well as Americans, purge them. You fight them in the intelligence and police services of the world cooperating with each other, not by trying to dictate to the rest of the world.
Posted by danmiller at 04/30/2007 @ 1:20pm
Oh, Luvvyboy, Pontipukus and Don't-Worry-Be-Happy...
The following from Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton (US Army Ret.):
May 1, 2007
President George W. Bush The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President,
Today, in your veto message regarding the bipartisan legislation just passed on Operation Iraqi Freedom, you asserted that you so decided because you listen to your commanders on the ground.
Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice. In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear -- most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops' peril.
The legislation you vetoed today represented a course of action that is long overdue. This war can no longer be won by the military alone. We must bring to bear the entire array of national power - military, diplomatic and economic. The situation demands a surge in diplomacy, and pressure on the Iraqi government to fix its internal affairs. Further, the Army and Marine Corps are on the verge of breaking - or have been broken already - by the length and intensity of this war. This tempo is not sustainable - and you have failed to grow the ground forces to meet national security needs. We must begin the process of bringing troops home, and repairing and growing our military, if we are ever to have a combat-ready force for the long war on terror ahead of us.
The bill you rejected today sets benchmarks for success that the Iraqis would have to meet, and puts us on a course to redeploy our troops. It stresses the need for sending troops into battle only when they are rested, trained and equipped. In my view, and in the view of many others in the military that I know, that is the best course of action for our security.
As someone who served this nation for decades, I have the utmost respect for the office you hold. However, as a man of conscience, I could not sit idly by as you told the American people today that your veto was based on the recommendations of military men. Your administration ignored the advice of our military's finest minds before, and I see no evidence that you are listening to them now.
I urge you to reconsider your position, and work with Congress to pass a bill that achieves the goals laid out above.
Respectfully,
Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA, Retired
Um, oops.
Let's quote one paragraph above again, for great truth.
"Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice. In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear -- most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops' peril."
Who's a traitor now? (Yeah, I know, it must be Eaton. Because criticizing the C-in-C is the same thing as treason. At least if you live in a dictatorship, which is obviously what you want.)
But wait, we're not done yet.
Bush Has Gone AWOL by General William Odom
The following is a transcript of the Democratic Radio Address delivered by Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.) on Saturday April 28, 2007:
"Good morning, this is Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army, retired.
"I am not now nor have I ever been a Democrat or a Republican. Thus, I do not speak for the Democratic Party. I speak for myself, as a non-partisan retired military officer who is a former Director of the National Security Agency. I do so because Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, asked me.
"In principle, I do not favor Congressional involvement in the execution of U.S. foreign and military policy. I have seen its perverse effects in many cases. The conflict in Iraq is different. Over the past couple of years, the President has let it proceed on automatic pilot, making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and cannot be rescued.
"Thus, he lets the United States fly further and further into trouble, squandering its influence, money, and blood, facilitating the gains of our enemies. The Congress is the only mechanism we have to fill this vacuum in command judgment.
"To put this in a simple army metaphor, the Commander-in-Chief seems to have gone AWOL, that is ‘absent without leave.' He neither acts nor talks as though he is in charge. Rather, he engages in tit-for-tat games.
"Some in Congress on both sides of the aisle have responded with their own tits-for-tats. These kinds of games, however, are no longer helpful, much less amusing. They merely reflect the absence of effective leadership in a crisis. And we are in a crisis.
"Most Americans suspect that something is fundamentally wrong with the President's management of the conflict in Iraq. And they are right.
"The challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq; it is how to recover from a strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place. The war could never have served American interests.
"But it has served Iran's interest by revenging Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in the 1980s and enhancing Iran's influence within Iraq. It has also served al Qaeda's interests, providing a much better training ground than did Afghanistan, allowing it to build its ranks far above the levels and competence that otherwise would have been possible.
"We cannot ‘win' a war that serves our enemies interests and not our own. Thus continuing to pursue the illusion of victory in Iraq makes no sense. We can now see that it never did.
"A wise commander in this situation normally revises his objectives and changes his strategy, not just marginally, but radically. Nothing less today will limit the death and destruction that the invasion of Iraq has unleashed.
"No effective new strategy can be devised for the United States until it begins withdrawing its forces from Iraq. Only that step will break the paralysis that now confronts us. Withdrawal is the pre-condition for winning support from countries in Europe that have stood aside and other major powers including India, China, Japan, Russia.
"It will also shock and change attitudes in Iran, Syria, and other countries on Iraq's borders, making them far more likely to take seriously new U.S. approaches, not just to Iraq, but to restoring regional stability and heading off the spreading chaos that our war has caused.
"The bill that Congress approved this week, with bipartisan support, setting schedules for withdrawal, provides the President an opportunity to begin this kind of strategic shift, one that defines regional stability as the measure of victory, not some impossible outcome.
"I hope the President seizes this moment for a basic change in course and signs the bill the Congress has sent him. I will respect him greatly for such a rare act of courage, and so too, I suspect, will most Americans.
"This is retired General Odom. Thank you for listening."
General Odom has served as Director of the National Security Agency and Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer. In his address, General Odom will discuss why he believes President Bush should sign the conference report on the Iraq Accountability Act.
Posted by siegeljd at 05/02/2007 @ 12:26am