August 23, 2005
What The Hell Happened?
As the Bush administration scrambles to lower expectations for their dysfunctional little war-child, Iraqi leaders continue to bicker over their new constitution in a manner reminiscent of that scene in “Lawrence of Arabia”. How did glorious visions of a pro-US, free-market, model liberal democracy in Iraq devolve into acceptance of a balkanized, Islamic fundamentalist regime and terrorist training ground, with strong ties to Iran?
Many people are going to blame the Iraqis themselves, arguing that they're too violent/despotic/ignorant to take advantage of the historic opportunity we handed them. That's just wrong. Some will say you can't install democracy at the point of a gun. The Japanese will tell you it's possible, if you do it right.
No, the Iraqi occupation's root cause of failure lies at the feet of President Bush, who time and again put domestic political concerns ahead of victory in Iraq.
After the fall of Baghdad, our old-European allies all offered to send peacekeeping troops to Iraq - including the military police and civil affairs officers necessary to keep order and maintain infrastructure - in exchange for United Nations management of the occupation. In a fit of hubris, President Bush turned them down,
The Bush administration has abandoned the idea of giving the United Nations more of a role in the occupation of Iraq as sought by France, India and other countries as a condition for their participation in peacekeeping there, administration officials say."The administration is not willing to confront going to the Security Council and saying, 'We really need to make Iraq an international operation,'" an administration official said. "You can make a case that it would be better to do that, but, right now, the situation in Iraq is not that dire."
Then, embarrassed by an unforeseen insurgency and eager for an election-year victory, president Bush discarded plans to reform Iraq and accelerated plans to hand over the government to Iraqis,
The United States has backed away from several of its more ambitious initiatives to transform Iraq's economy, political system and security forces as attacks on U.S. troops have escalated and the timetable for ending the civil occupation has accelerated."There's no question that many of the big-picture items have been pushed down the list or erased completely," said a senior U.S. official involved in Iraq's reconstruction, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "Right now, everyone's attention is focused [on] doing what we need to do to hand over sovereignty by next summer."
To meet the new artificial deadline (which just happened to coincide with the beginning of the Democratic Party's convention in Boston), the Bush administration gave up on plans to privatize Iraq's socialist economy, abandoned a secular, liberal constitution, decreased the number of Iraqi security forces being trained, and backed away from disarming the factional militias which keep Iraq perpetually on the verge of civil war.
If the plan was to give the Republican Party an edge going into the 2004 elections, then "mission accomplished". But handing over sovereignty at that point sure didn't help Iraq or America.
Then came the Iraqi elections. Despite warnings that they'd be meaningless - even detrimental - without the willing participation of Sunnis, President Bush insisted on holding elections because any delay might be seen as failure of his Iraq policy. All concerns were brushed aside, and now Sunnis are underrepresented in the government, leaving them even more bitter and disaffected.
Oh, and don't forget the terrorists who've used Iraq as a live-fire training ground for more than two years now. From the start, the biggest concern has been that there just aren't enough troops on the ground to secure the country. This is so obvious that one wonders why the Pentagon generals who insist otherwise aren't being sacked.
But they're only doing as the administration signaled they should. Time and again, the Bush administration told us there is no need for additional troops, and shrugged off requests by L. Paul Bremmer at the CPA, and military commanders on the scene because a sustained military commitment of the size necessary to crush the insurgency and secure the borders would send President Bush's poll numbers spiraling even lower.
Instead, the Bush administration is lowering expectations for victory in Iraq, as its leaders quibble over whether medieval Islamic Shariah law should be "the" main source, or merely "a" main source of Iraqi law; over whether women should have no rights, or some rights (except where they conflict with the Koran); over how large an armed militia each religious and tribal faction can retain; and over how little power a central government can have, and still constitute a coherent state.
The failure in Iraq was not inevitable. It was the result of decisions made, one after the other, on the basis of what was good for the Bush administration and the Republican Party, rather than what was good for Iraq and - most importantly - for America.
“…who time and again put domestic political concerns ahead of victory in Iraq.”
Somebody correct me if I’m wronng, but weren’t the dems going on and on during the election about how W. was ignoing domestic issues to fight his “little war”… which is it fellas, cause it can’t be both!
Mike, domestic political concerns, like winning an election, are not the same as domestic issues, like creating massive, record-breaking federal budget deficits.
Anything else I can help you with?
Posted by: American Pundit at August 23, 2005 11:30 AMNot to mention the right to live/die episode (Terry Shiavo). Campaigning for SS reform also
used alot of man hours too. I am sure there was more, but I have been somewhat preoccupied with Rove (Where the hell is HE, now? and of course Tom Delay?)
The “soaring deficit” is in fact now decling amid record tax revenue, $262 billion more than expected. Looks like the tax cuts worked. What else ya got?
Posted by: Mike B. at August 23, 2005 12:10 PM—-
The “soaring deficit” is in fact now decling amid record tax revenue, $262 billion more than expected. Looks like the tax cuts worked. What else ya got?
—-
It just means less of a deficit than originally expected. Considering it was suppose to be another record setting deficit (4 years in a row?) it’s now just a really bad deficit. We still pilling up debt, just at a slower pace. (I think the deficit was suppose to be $400B - $262B = $138B in deficit.)
Look on the bright side. At least GOD is talking to Pat Robertson!!!
_________________________________________________
Pat Robertson Says U.S. Should Kill Venezuela’s Chavez, AP Says
Aug. 23 (Bloomberg) — Television evangelist Pat Robertson told viewers the U.S. should kill Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to prevent the Latin American country from becoming a “launching pad” for extremism, the Associated Press said.
Chavez, 51, has repeatedly accused President George W. Bush of backing efforts to topple his government, a charge the U.S. denies. The U.S. has alleged Venezuela is using its oil to undermine democracy in Latin America. Venezuela, the U.S.’s fourth-largest oil supplier, has threatened to cut off supplies.
“We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability,” Robertson said yesterday on the television program “The 700 Club,” AP reported. The cleric founded the Christian Broadcasting Network, based in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Killing Chavez, who is visiting Cuba, would be cheaper than starting a war, AP cited Robertson as saying. The U.S. can’t allow Venezuela to become a “launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism,” he said, according to AP.
(AP, 8-23)
$262 billion more than expected in tax revenues? Where did this come from? Wouldn’t mind some link to read about this as I haven’t heard anything at all about additional revenues. Who is paying them as we all see that corporations have had their taxes cut to the bone and the middle class has received only about $300 in tax cuts. Don’t understand how cutting taxes can bring in more tax revenues.
Posted by: Richard S. at August 23, 2005 12:27 PMMike B.-
The reductions in the deficite are an improvement.
The tax cuts, though, even if they are responsible for this immediate improvement, have contributed to trillions of dollars in debt. That debt will be an anchor tied to our GDP for the next few decades. Not only that, but the debts from our deficit are being financed with interests, so you’re not really saving the taxpayers money. Check out the budget sometime, and you will see that about 300 billion dollars goes towards paying our debts every fiscal year. That is our nation’s previous deficits being paid off.
The mechanism for dealing with this debt are the treasury bonds you see commented upon on business shows and segments. Two of the biggest holders of these bonds? The Chinese and the Japanese. We’re financing the fortunes of competitors.
So, rejoice about these tax cuts all you want. Just don’t pay too close attention to the terms of this deal with the fiscal devil.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 23, 2005 12:28 PM“Kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.”
I guess Robertson is just giving God a little job security…
Da’ Christian’ATOR!
Posted by: tony at August 23, 2005 12:29 PMAlthough the 2005 deficit is lower than predicted, the CBO expects the fiscal outlook over the next decade to be unchanged from that predicted in March. If the laws and policies currently in place did not change, the deficit is set to shrink slightly over the next few years according to the CBO’s projections. The deficit will then start to decline more sharply after 2010, reflecting the tax increases scheduled to occur after the expiration of tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003. By 2015, the baseline deficit would decline to 0.3% of GDP.
What else ya got?
Tony, you are too kind regarding the deficit. Even with the revised estimates, the increase to the deficit will be well over $300 billion this year - higher than any other deficit increase, except under this President.
The United States budget deficit is expected to total $331 billion in 2005, representing an $81 billion decline from the deficit recorded in 2004, thanks in large part to a surge in corporate tax receipts, the Congressional Budget Office said in its latest budget outlook update.
It’s really $412B - $81B= $331B
Posted by: Burt at August 23, 2005 12:37 PMRichard:
Here is the theory on tax cuts increasing tax revenues. Taxes get cut, giving people more money to invest/spend etc. This boosts the economy, which in turn creates more people or entities to be taxed.
The end result is that you tax more people but you tax each person less. It appears to be working, though we’ve had other discussions in here that suggest that the deficit and economy are far too complex to be altered solely by one variable such as tax cuts.
Side note to all:
Its interesting to see people who railed against the tax cuts, saying they would harm the economy NOW say that the tax cuts are working, but just not well enough. Nice shift.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 23, 2005 12:54 PMMike,
Looks like the tax cuts worked.
Please explain this! After the last round of tax cuts there is a modest up-tick in the economy. However, the two previous and LARGER tax cuts produced no such gains in the economy or revenue. In fact, both worsen after those larger tax cuts. Back in ‘93, after the Clinton tax package, the economy, and revenue roared. Call me crazy, but I think there is more to the pace of the economy then tax cuts. If tax cuts were the main component, we should have been awash in funds after those earlier massive tax giveaways.
Time to quit messing around.
This Iraq Bullhockey could be solved in one day.
Divide the country in three pieces - trying to be fair. People can stay where they like but the Kurds would control the North, Shiite’s South, and Sunni’s Central. Have all the religion and rules you want. All oil production and revenue would be nationalized and distributed fairly by a board with equal representation and the UN. Anyone who doesn’t want to play ball gets a visit from the air force.
Let the chips fall where they may. I’m sure there are 47 reasons why it can’t work, so it would take a prez who can make a decision and stick to it - Hey, we have that.
Posted by: Ms Schwamp at August 23, 2005 12:59 PMAP:
Try a little harder to hide your glee at any mistakes that were made.
Then came the Iraqi elections. Despite warnings that they’d be meaningless - even detrimental - without the willing participation of Sunnis, President Bush insisted on holding elections because any delay might be seen as failure of his Iraq policy. All concerns were brushed aside, and now Sunnis are underrepresented in the government, leaving them even more bitter and disaffected.
So 80% turn out is meaningless? Didn’t the Shia and Kurds give the Sunnis more representation than they deserved as a show of good faith?
Oh, and don’t forget the terrorists who’ve used Iraq as a live-fire training ground for more than two years now. From the start, the biggest concern has been that there just aren’t enough troops on the ground to secure the country. This is so obvious that one wonders why the Pentagon generals who insist otherwise aren’t being sacked.
I believe the unspoken plan is to hunker down in the green zone until enough Iraq’s can be trained to secure they’re own country. This is to minimize U.S. casualties. You put 300,000 troops in there and put a soilder on every corner and our casualties double. Can you imagine how long it will take to read the names on Nightline? Posted by: jimf at August 23, 2005 01:15 PM
Hey, Mike B. Weren’t those Capital Gains Tax Cuts? Even if they did “work,” it just means that investors made more on dividends, which don’t get pumped back into the economy quite as easily as ordinary income, unless people are willing to spend their retirement accounts. I guess that’s more and more of a possibility with each Enron.
Posted by: Mike at August 23, 2005 01:16 PM—-
Divide the country in three pieces - trying to be fair. People can stay where they like but the Kurds would control the North, Shiite’s South, and Sunni’s Central.
—-
Worked wonders for Israel and Palestine…
WAIT! WAIT! WAIT! WAIT! WAIT! WAIT! WAIT! WAIT!
Let me get this straight…
First you all were bitching, pissing and moaning about “BushCo” installing a “Western Style Democracy” in Iraq…and now you all are bitching, pissing and moaning because it ISN’T???
Would you all PLEASE make up your minds????
Posted by: Jim T at August 23, 2005 02:44 PMGood article AP.
I think you are right on every single point.
All we can try to do now is look on the bright side (I’m in that mood today, so bear with me), namely, that the Neocon’s are finished. Kaput! They will soon be gone, and even if we end up with Republican’s in the White House again in the future, they’re definitely going to be the ones who have a firm hold on sanity, and don’t even vaguely resemble the dangerous, totally illogical clowns that are in there now.
Posted by: Adrienne at August 23, 2005 02:54 PMPundit…
From the start, the biggest concern has been that there just aren’t enough troops on the ground to secure the country. This is so obvious that one wonders why the Pentagon generals who insist otherwise aren’t being sacked.
What??? Did I just hear a DEMOCRAT call for a DRAFT???
Aldous!!! Where are you? You’ve got a traitor in your midst!!!
Holy shades of Viet Nam and Lyndon Baines “That Son-Of-A-Bitch” Johnson!!!
Not enough troops on the ground, huh? Well, let’s do the math, shall we?
More troops = more targets for terrorists.
More targets for terrorists = more dead soldiers.
More dead soldiers = “I told you so” from the Democrats.
No thank you very much…
—-
First you all were bitching, pissing and moaning about “BushCo” installing a “Western Style Democracy” in Iraq…and now you all are bitching, pissing and moaning because it ISN’T???
—-
No.
First, we were pissed that Bush lied to get us into Iraq. It’s the WMDs, stupid. (paraphrasing, not aiming this at you…)
Second, we were pissed because Bush tried to weaseled his way out of responsibility on WMDs by saying it was all about Democracy.
Third, we are pissed because Bush is failing completely at installing democracy. Iraq may end up more devastating to our interests as a Pro-Iranian government than previously under Saddam.
But through it all, we are pissed because Bush has cost the lives of 1900+ American lives, the ruin of thousands of other American lives, the death of up 100,000 Iraqi citizens… all for continually shift rationales and perpetually vaporizing benefits. (Not to mention $300B+… and big ‘ole pot of shit stew we will get to eat for years to come.)
Posted by: tony at August 23, 2005 02:59 PMNot enough troops on the ground, huh? Well, let’s do the math, shall we?More troops = more targets for terrorists.
More targets for terrorists = more dead soldiers.
More dead soldiers = “I told you so” from the Democrats.
Yup, dead soldiers aren’t people to Jim T. Just negative spin. Beautiful stuff.
Posted by: Burt at August 23, 2005 03:10 PMMike B, we are still adding one third TRILLION dollars to the national debt near 8 TRILLION, What else you got? Not a veto pen to be found anywhere…
More troops = more targets for terrorists.More targets for terrorists = more dead soldiers.
Well, not really. Unless you assume that when we say more troops we intend to pack more of them into each truck, or have them stand around in bigger groups. The terrorists/insurgents are not limiting their attacks because they can’t find troops to attack. Seriously, you think they just sit around, thinking “hey, we’ve got this great bomb we just made, but darn it! there are no soldiers within walking distance! I guess we’ll just dismantle it and go home.”?
More troops means more control, which means fewer deaths. It means a quicker resolution, which also means fewer deaths. And fewer deaths are always what the democrats have been pushing for.
tony…
First, we were pissed that Bush lied to get us into Iraq. It’s the WMDs, stupid. (paraphrasing, not aiming this at you…)
Granted.
Second, we were pissed because Bush tried to weaseled his way out of responsibility on WMDs by saying it was all about Democracy.
Granted.
Third, we are pissed because Bush is failing completely at installing democracy. Iraq may end up more devastating to our interests as a Pro-Iranian government than previously under Saddam.
Uhhhh…itn’t that THEIR choice? Uhhhh…isn’t that’s what’s called…Oh, I don’t know…”freedom”?
Burt,
Yup, dead soldiers aren’t people to Jim T. Just negative spin. Beautiful stuff.
What? Address the issue, please. Would more soldiers in Iraq produce more casualties? Yes…or No. Please don’t try to “spin” the issue.
Posted by: Jim T at August 23, 2005 04:06 PMWhile I agree most of the failure lies at the hands of those who planned the “reconstruction and create democracy” stage, the Iraqis do bear some responsibility in this. Especially the Sunni who have developed that “I’m going to take my marbles home if I don’t get what I want” attitude.
I realize it’s hard for them to be in the miniority now after years of being on power, however they have no one but themselves to blame for their refusal to participate in the elections. Technically they have more seats and more of a say than they deserve from an election stance.
They continue to threaten even now that they will advise all the Sunni to not vote for the constitution. What will that gain them since they are in the miniority? Nothing, except the ability to complain and cause more division.
Sooner or later they have to either start working with the others or be left out of the whole process.
Posted by: Lisa Renee at August 23, 2005 04:08 PMJim T.,
See the excellent post by Brian Poole.
Lisa,
Who could have possibly anticipated that the Sunnis would get upset about being cut out of the oil revenues? Certainly not this short-sighted administration.
Posted by: Burt at August 23, 2005 04:21 PMJim T
I am simply explaining why I am pissed (and maybe why DEMs in general are pissed.) Are you happy to have a less-effective government than Saddam’s government in Iraq (for American goals… terrorism, oil, etc.) for the cost of 1900 Americans + $300B in debt? Yea, I know it is up to them, and that is called ‘freedom’ (?!?!) but if you can walk away with nothing gained from all that this has cost us, that’s disturbing.
Posted by: tony at August 23, 2005 04:23 PMSooner or later they have to either start working with the others or be left out of the whole process.Great, let’s force regime change on the Iraqis and then blame them if it fails. By the way, an equally correct way to rephrase your last statement would be “Sooner or later the others will have to start working with the Sunnis or else civil war is guaranteed.” Posted by: Charles Wager at August 23, 2005 04:38 PM
Ok, let’s waive purple thumbs in the air!
Oh. Wait a sec.
The Sunnis didn’t participate in the vote, and now they’ve been shut out of the process of creating a consititution.
There’s zero change the constitution will be approved as it stands. The Sunnis will vote against it, which means the government will be disbanded, and…
We’ll have another chance to wave purple thumbs in the air! Yeehaw!
AP,
Good post. But I think Iraq’s cooked.
The terrorists are already there by the hundreds, and the civil war is already underway.
Time to withdraw the troops.
Posted by: phx8 at August 23, 2005 04:47 PMIt’s pretty apparent that World War III has started with one side formally declaring war long before September 11.
The whole “Bush Lied” mantra has been a joke from the inception.Dean,Kennedy,Kerry and Moore….now that’s a magagement team for sure.
Truth is that there are roughly 100 million people(roughly 10% of the world-wide Muslim population and twice as many as there were Nazis during the World War II by the way) who consider us infidels and want us dead not because of our politics but rather because of our religion.
This 10% has hijacked the Muslim religion.The other 90% have cowered for decades as the Wahhabi sect spread its manure all over the world.
Kennedy is now like his father.As the Nazis were exterminating European jews,his father as ambassador to England was screaming the isolationist position.
Like father like son.
Bush is right.
Better blood be spilled there that here.
Why can’t you see that?
Sicillian Eagle,
Bush is right. Better blood be spilled there that here. Why can’t you see that?
Comments like yours are why I call Republicans weak kneed, weak willed and weak on terrorism.
The chicken hawks are so damn frightened by terrorists, that they’ll allow U.S. soldiers (aka other people’s kids) to be sent to the middle east as sitting ducks so that terrorists can kill Americans over there and not bother with their cowardly butts at home. What a way to support the troops!
Once Republicans grow a backbone, maybe they’ll be able to deal with terrorism in a rational way - like actually focusing on capturing the terrorists such as Bin Laden and Zarqawi, instead of providing them targets of distraction!
Posted by: Burt at August 23, 2005 04:59 PMBurt
Thanks for the personal attack….but that’s par for the course,isn’t it?
You haven’t a clue what the special operators are doing either in Iraq or Afganistan…not a clue.
25 million people are engaged there is something that was a dream to most of them 5 years ago….Talk of a constitution.
Then again,that doesn’t count,does it?
Or the fact that Libya shit their pants so bad that the disarmed in two seconds flat.
No my friend,cancers like you and Kennedy are what’s wrong.
Three decades ago this type of talk sent a bad message to troops in Vietnam and helped grow balls on the North Vietnam emeny.
Why don’t you just mail a check to Bin Laden?It’s quicker nowadays I’m told
Remember D Day?
Do you think military inteelligence then knew about the hedgerows full of Nazis?
3,000 died ther in 90 minutes.
Remember Gettysburg?
Think that battle was planned?
Bad intelligence.
Fast forward 5 decades.
You’re the president for 9 months.Then Sept 11th happens.3000 plus dead.
The heads of the CIA,Mossad,British Intelligence,Egyptian Intelligence all confirm WMDs.
Cia calls it a “slam dunk”
What do you do?
To do nothing would be beyond irresponsible.Hyeanas like Kennedy and Kerry saw the same intelligence that Bush did.
Check the record.
Check their vote.
Here is the problem…and it’s been here long before IRaq…it’s the Wahabbi Sect of Saudi Arabia,and the madrasses in Pakistan,Syria,Egypt,Sudan,and 13 other countries.
This is a war…a world war….wake up before it’s too late.
Burt Thanks for the personal attack….but that’s par for the course,isn’t it?
Not a personal attack. I paint all Republicans who blindly back Bush’s failed policies with the same brush. Sorry you took it personally. Believe me, your thoughts are unfortunately not very unique.
You haven’t a clue what the special operators are doing either in Iraq or Afganistan…not a clue.
Thanks for educating us.
25 million people are engaged there is something that was a dream to most of them 5 years ago….Talk of a constitution. Then again,that doesn’t count,does it?
Excuse me while I dry a tear with that Constitution. That’s all it will be good for once the Sunnis get done with voting it down. And excuse me if I sound glib. I take no joy in noting that the Iraqis appear to be closer to civil war than ever.
I guess it must be me, but I don’t recall Bush telling us before the war began that it would be fought so that Iraqis could “talk” about a constitution.
Or the fact that Libya shit their pants so bad that the disarmed in two seconds flat.
Not surprising that you would bring up this discredited argument. It’s well known that the LIbyans began disarming and moving toward normal relations with the outside world during the Clinton administration. And to their credit, the Bush administration continued the process.
No my friend,cancers like you and Kennedy are what’s wrong.
Maybe if you push for more stem cell research, you can remove cancers such as myself.
Three decades ago this type of talk sent a bad message to troops in Vietnam and helped grow balls on the North Vietnam emeny.
Yes, I’m sure those suicide bombers are reading Watchblog and other liberal blogs looking for reasons to blow themselves up. But back to my original question. You’ve told us what will grow balls on the North Vietnamese. I ask what will it take to grow balls on the chicken hawk Republicans?
Why don’t you just mail a check to Bin Laden?It’s quicker nowadays I’m told
I guess you would know, considering your support of Bush’s failed policies allow Bin Laden to continue to roam free with no accountability for his actions.
Posted by: Burt at August 23, 2005 05:28 PMSicillian Eagle,
You are the one who needs to wake up. It is the President that you support who is in bed with the Saudis and considers Pakistan to be our second biggest ally in the war on terrorism.
Posted by: Burt at August 23, 2005 05:30 PMBut where the hell are the democrats? Yeah, it’s fine to blame the Bushies: They deserve the finger-pointing, and I think it’s safe to say most of the plantet (except the Christian conservatives) loathe and are baffled by convervative “values”. But where is the democratic leadership and vision? I’m fed up with them, too! Fill the leadership vacuum in the democratic party, and let’s start trying to steer this country and the world back in the right direction!
Posted by: ADean at August 23, 2005 05:33 PMBurt
Thanks for the comments Burt…they are humorous….completely off base and incoherent,but humorous.
For three posts now I have been hammering on the root cause of this war…the poison spread by the Wahabbi sect…and you ignore the concept cpmpletely.
Surely you heard of them….even in the Clinton days…..
Think they will go away if we withdraw?
Think that they will be content sluaghtering the Christian community that remains in Iqaq?
Again a dose of history by friend:
We eliminated the Nazi scourge and the Japanese nationalist scourge by pretty much eliminating an entire generation and re-educating the subsequent one.We didn’t placate the animals then…why should we do it now?
Let’s see…Sadaam gassed what..300,000 Kurds?Geez,sounds like he himself was a WMD.How many Shia have turned up in shallow graves?
Think all that money of his really is in the bank somewhere?
Weak kneed?Hardly.Think Mike Moore has the testicular fortitude to lead?How much money did he make anyway on that cartoon?Has he finished counting it yet?
Dean?
Picture Dean and Khommenhi.
hehe.
He’d come back wearing a burka.
Kennedy?Naw…..no booze in the Mid-East….
Kerry?The jelly fish?Didn’t he vote 97% of the time with Kennedy?Hmm….Ted had 2 out of 100 votes then….
Listen my friend:Exactly what is the Democtatic plan on Iraq?Exactly and specificially what is it?
Does anyone have the fainted idea?
Wow, talk about incoherent and off base! What Michael Moore’s money has to do with anything is beyond me.
Most democrats that I respect are calling for an increase in troops in order to properly secure Iraq and its borders and swiftly train the Iraqis to police their own country, so we can finally get out of this mess. The Bush Administration has rejected those ideas. Democrats are also calling on renewed focus in catching Bin Laden too, but apparently that is just too much for the Republicans to handle.
Posted by: Burt at August 23, 2005 06:09 PMThe Republicans are suffering from tunnel blindness on the issues. They point to an increase and revenues and say Supply Side tax rates work… and neglect the billions of dollars added inside and outside of the budget to the national debt, which is an economic dead-weight.
They point to 80% voter turn out, a legitimately impressive number, but fail to consider the consequences of so few among that fraction being Sunni. They talk about constitutions, but agains forget that crucial minority. If they reject it, it may be the last straw for a society on the verge of civil war.
I don’t blame folks for seeing silver linings. I blame folks for being so intent on seeing them that they don’t come in from the rain. Illusions carried on for too long will keep people from solving their problems in time to keep their troubles from multiplying.
P.S.- Democrats have been entertaining that Ideas for quite some time now. I even featured that idea in my last post. Of course, we couldn’t be possibly in favor of a stronger military response than the Republicans, could we? Well, we are. We have no illusions this war is going right, and therefore no illusions that we can wait this one out with weak manpower in the field.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 23, 2005 06:44 PMBurt:
“Most democrats that I respect are calling for an increase in troops in order to properly secure Iraq and its borders and swiftly train the Iraqis to police their own country, so we can finally get out of this mess. The Bush Administration has rejected those ideas.”
Their refusal to bring in more troops all along is exactly why we should demand that we pull out of Iraq now. Neocon ideas obviously don’t go beyond “staying the course” (in other words, failure), and none of them have an exit strategy or appear to be developing one. They’re just letting our guys die and keeping everyone there by stop loss through numerous tours of duty.
Any day now our soldiers will be officially fighting Iraq’s civil war — yet the Neocon’s just announced that the troops that are there now are going to stay for at least four more years!
It’s bloody insanity!
The Democrats & liberals have provided many ideas, and opposed many ideas provided by the Bush administration.
However, the Bush administration is in charge, particularly when it comes to a case like this, one of foreign policy. Republicans control the House, the Senate, & the Executive Branch.
There’s no point in sending more troops as long as the Bush administration continues to ‘stay the course.’ Now, if we were talking 200,000 more US troops, maybe then, but that’s not possible.
It seems highly likely that the current Iraqi government will dissolve in October.
The will be no ‘course’ to stay on after the constitutional referendum.
Maybe we could fix the vote, or just pretend a constitutional referendum doesn’t count, for some reason, & keep going anyway.
But at this point, we’re throwing good money and good away without a realistic chance of success.
Partition the country. Tell the Kurds to go their own way, depend upon the Peshmerga for security, and think of us as friends. Tell the Shias to do the same.
Have a long talk with the Sunnis about their prospects as an independent nation in central Iraq. Negotiate. The time when more troops would make the difference has come and gone. Time for the Iraqis to live with the consequences. Same goes for us.
Posted by: phx8 at August 23, 2005 07:48 PMBurt -
—-
-No my friend,cancers like you and Kennedy are
-what’s wrong.
Maybe if you push for more stem cell research, you can remove cancers such as myself.
—-
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZing! Ha! Thanks for that one… :)
Posted by: tony at August 23, 2005 08:54 PMSicilian Eagle -
I’ve read, and re-read you post… and I think I have only one question: Huh? WTF?
Sorry, but there’s a lot of conjecture and a hand full of questions… and a stab a the DEMs, but what exactly are you trying to say? (I like the part about Moore’s testicles… but again…???)
Posted by: tony at August 23, 2005 09:00 PMMy only comment would be that next time (next time?) we actyally concentrate on winning the war first, holding the elections second and rebuilding the country third.
Oh, and BTW, let’s use the locals to rebuild the country, and use the local building materials too while we’re at it.
Sicilian Eagle,
You don’t have a clue about VietNam, do you?
Posted by: Rocky at August 23, 2005 11:20 PMBack again after cleansing my soul of this Democratic jibberish.
Sine I appear to be the only clear thinker amoung this rabble,I have decided to spend one hour a day on this blog in the vain hope of instilling here to the great unwashed at least one coherent thought.
Is Kennedy now in favor of more boots on the ground in Iraq?
Last I heard John McCain made the rounds on the talk show months ago with this very proposal.
The president is very clear on this….if his ground commanders request additionial troops they will get it.Thus far they have indicated that present troop levels are sufficient.
Now what…do the Dems want to trash the entire Joint Chiefs of Staffs too?Blame Bush on that one too,right?
Speaking about that dim wit Kennedy,isn’t ironic that a guy who got thrown out of Brown University for cheating,then leaves a single woman to float upside down in his car on the Cape,then embraks on a two decade drunken binge on the Hiil while screwing everything except the crack of dawn…isn’t is ironic that this bum sits on the Judiciary Committee?
His cheating episode at Brown alone would preclude him from admission to the bar (except,of course,those serving alcohol)in all fifty states.
I’ll be back tomorrow raedy and willing to take any any all on.
That’s the Republician way,you know……
Nice country America.huh?
Sicilian Eagle,
“The president is very clear on this….if his ground commanders request additionial troops they will get it.Thus far they have indicated that present troop levels are sufficient.
Now what…do the Dems want to trash the entire Joint Chiefs of Staffs too?Blame Bush on that one too,right?”
Meanwhile we’re getting our asses kicked.
You might think that Mr Bush would go over someone’s head on that and call for more troops, just in case.
You guys on the right bitch and moan about how little good news gets out of Iraq, you might take into consideration that 52 journalists have died there. It’s not the safeist place on the planet right now.
BTW, we lost the war in VietNam the same way we are losing this one.
Good news is more important than facts.
Rocky
Getting our asses kicked?By who?You believe that crap that the liberal media feeds you?
More people have died in the USA by guns that the 1800 brave who have perished for their counrty thus far.
Somewhere in the USA,a cop is killed every 72 hours.
Check out the Nationial Police Chiefs association web site for more scary details about this counrty.
Every hear about Shay’s Rebellion?
Happened during the formation of our constitition.
I was with a guy yesterday who just returned from Mosul.He was there for a year.An engineer.In twelve months,his outfit buit 27 schools,a water treatment plant,and an electricial station.Cost for everything there:$7 million.
Did you read about that in the Times?Course not.Thery were too busy giving Abu Grabe 58 front page stories and shitting all over Bush.
Talk to the vets.They know what unbelievable good has occured.
Getting our ass kicked?Jesus,what planet you from?
sicilian eagle,
“I was with a guy yesterday who just returned from Mosul.He was there for a year.An engineer.In twelve months,his outfit buit 27 schools,a water treatment plant,and an electricial station.Cost for everything there:$7 million.”
And yet Bagdhad hasn’t had reliable water or power since we invaded. We can’t secure Bagdhad Airport. Hell, we can’t even secure the road to Bagdhad Airport.
Go figure.
So, how many American soldiers died in the last two weeks?
How many in the two weeks before that?
Death throes, right?
How many Iraqis have we trained this week?
You know that no matter how many of them we kill, more take their place and kill some more of us.
Posted by: Rocky at August 24, 2005 12:39 AMSic eagle - Do you have any mil service or are you just another of the keyboard commandos? Call Shenseki “shitski”? I’ll go Zell Miller on your butt. I served under Shenseki and he was a good commander. His only sin was being honest about what could (did) happen in Iraq.
BTW fool - use a spell checker once in awhile.
Dispense with the name calling Vet24 if you wish to retain your privileges to express your opinion here. Critique the Message, not the Messenger. — WatchBlog Managing Editor
So 80% turn out is meaningless?
jimf, the total turnout was 58%. The turnout in Sunni provinces was less than 2%.
I’m curious, do you watch a lot of FOX News? Because it’s a fact that people who mostly get their news from FOX News are misinformed.
I believe the unspoken plan is to hunker down in the green zone until enough Iraq’s can be trained to secure they’re own country. This is to minimize U.S. casualties.
Yikes! So, Republicans are just giving up? I am so proud to be a Democrat.
BTW, If that’s the Republican plan, how come the Bush administration has been dragging its feet on training Iraqis?
More troops means more control, which means fewer deaths. It means a quicker resolution, which also means fewer deaths.
Exactly, Brian. Thanks.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 24, 2005 02:45 AMThe president is very clear on this….if his ground commanders request additionial troops they will get it.
Sic Eagle, Bremmer at the CPA and commanders on the ground all requested more troops. They were shot down. I provided sources in the original article, which you apparently didn’t read.
Now what…do the Dems want to trash the entire Joint Chiefs of Staffs too?
I’ll spank ‘em when they deserve it. I just did it recently.
Quote your sources.
LOL! You’ve shoveled out post after post of BS with no sources.
Sic eagle - Do you have any mil service or are you just another of the keyboard commandos? Call Shenseki “shitski”? I’ll go Zell Miller on your butt.
Thanks, Vet24. I’m always amazed at how quickly Republicans turn on our troops. To disagree with the troops is one thing, but to be so disrespectful just shows how some Republicans use our troops as political props, to be slandered and smeared if they dare to contradict the GOP talking points. I am so proud to be a Democrat.
BTW, critique the message, not the messenger. It’s the only rule we have here, please observe it.
Good Morning Americian Pundit,Burt,Rocky and all my other slightly lost Democratic bretheren:
Re-reading my past posts I realized that I did not indeed use my spell check….didn’t think it was necessary as it is,after all,a Democratic section and I thought it would go unnoticed.
My apologies to the partially unwashed then.
Getting back briefly to the point :Not one of you made mention yet to the underlying cancer of the Wahabbi sect and its influence in the region for the past 5 decades.Why?
The religious importance of the philosophy dwarfs the politicial implications by a factor of 100.
Plus,I doubt that many here have a proper understanding of Islam.The religion,pure and simple,has been highjacked.
An excellent book(and believe me,this guy isn’t a Republician) that I have recommended to many in order to get a proper understanding of Islam and both its followers of peace and jihad is No God But God by Reza Aslan.The first half of the book,is terrific before it goes off the deep philosiphicial end,but facinating reading noneth less.
Finally,I want to thank the editor for this exchange of comments between me and you.
The are patriots on both sides of the aisle,but surely you must first have a historicial understaning of the region here.Seriously,how many of you read the 9/11 report cover to cover?Did you Pundit,Burt,Rocky et al.?
By the way,I like writing without spell checking…a pleasant break from reality.
Not one of you made mention yet to the underlying cancer of the Wahabbi sect and its influence in the region for the past 5 decades.Why?
Because everybody knows Wahabbism is a bad thing. That’s old news. Democrats already have a plan for dealing with it. …Fat lot of good it’ll do with Republicans in charge.
Seriously,how many of you read the 9/11 report cover to cover?Did you Pundit
Of course. I’m very well read. Most of us are. Watchblog is where the intellectual elite hang out. I’m also partially unwashed, though I’m not sure how you knew that.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 24, 2005 09:41 AMSicilian Eagle-
All that stuff is just excuses. You accept them because the alternative is those damn liberals being right. I don’t accept them because the alternative to rejecting them is allowing things to get worst. We can and we must ask the best from our elected officials. Anything less and they’re not doing their jobs. If you want to shut us up, the best way to do that is to take away any good reason we have to complain.
And that means winning this war. So get off the National security high-horse, stop blaming the liberal media for how things have turned out, and start getting your legislators and your president’s noses to the grindstone. We don’t want to lose this war here, and its sad you have to lie and say we do in order to keep your politicians in office.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 24, 2005 10:32 AMSteve
I am not blaming the liberals for anything except a basic misunderstanding of the issue in the Mid-East
I have comments that I would like to make on the constition issue there by the way.
Why don’t you write a piece so I can respond?
I can write an opposing piece to geth the issue fleshed out because it is linked with this discussion.
By the war,I was once onbe of you….a liberal opposed to the Vietnam war.As the years passed,I wisened up.
Why don’t you write a piece so I can respond?
Of all the people to say this to, he picks Stephen, the author of 136 posts on Watchblog, second only to David. How amusing.
Posted by: LawnBoy at August 24, 2005 11:09 AM—-
By the war,I was once onbe of you….a liberal opposed to the Vietnam war.As the years passed,I wisened up.
—-
Glad you mentioned this - I completely missed it in your last round of posts.
As far your petty insults and wise-ass remarks… if you take them up several notches, maybe they’ll be worth responding to. (Or, you could try actually make points or discuss something we can respond to.)
Posted by: tony at August 24, 2005 11:32 AMSicilian Eagle,
Reading your posts this morning, I actually felt my IQ drop by several points.
Wahabiism is the problem? Gee, ya think?
Either get your facts straight or give it a rest.
Posted by: Rocky at August 24, 2005 12:41 PMWhile I agree the constitutional government we have should be the destination for those of the Middle East, I believe the Journey will by necessity be different. We have a few centuries lead on them in terms of Democratic government.
I think the main thing sabotaging the Constitutional process right now is that the underlying law and order has not been fully established. Without that law and order, the efficacy of the constitution is greatly reduced.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 24, 2005 12:48 PMAP:
I’m also partially unwashed, though I’m not sure how you knew that.
Always had an aversion to that behind the ear thing myself. LOL
AP:
The failure in Iraq was not inevitable. It was the result of decisions made, one after the other, on the basis of what was good for the Bush administration and the Republican Party, rather than what was good for Iraq and - most importantly - for America.
Agreed. Planning and execution. Pretty basic stuff, or at least should be, for the CINC and top brass. I think there is a lot of blame to go around. Assigning the blame is a matter for history and historians. At this point, one step back, take a breath, commit brain cells to thought and planning, then execute decisively.
Talked to my brother in law again this weekend. He is still convinced at least the military portion of this thing is still winable. Real fascinating guy. He hit his max years in grade or he would still be in the Maring Corp (colonel) after 33 years. Got a lot of respect for him and his opinions militarily.
The hearts and minds thing and installing democracy is, to state the obvious, a much tougher nut. He agrees that, at this point anyway, if it doesn’t turn into a broad international effort, it won’t happen. The Afghan/NATO example still holds.
Posted by: Chi Chi at August 24, 2005 03:48 PMChi Chi,
“Talked to my brother in law again this weekend. He is still convinced at least the military portion of this thing is still winable.”
Quite a few of us here still think it is winable.
The problem is convincing those that make the decisions that there will come a time that it won’t be, and that time isn’t that far off, and unless we make some changes in our stratagies, that time will be sooner than we think.
The leadership of our country made assumptions going in that turned out wrong, and as a result we ended up with less support than we should have had.
You know, that peskey “hearts and minds” thing.
It turns out the security mistakes that we made were a bigger threat to acomplishing our goal than we originaly thought.
Posted by: Rocky at August 24, 2005 04:13 PMRocky:
The leadership of our country made assumptions going in that turned out wrong, and as a result we ended up with less support than we should have had.You know, that peskey “hearts and minds” thing.
You’re dead on right. I think the support was greater immediately following the “mission accomplished” babble than it is now—by far.
As time marches on, our choices deplete, our support wanes, and our Pres looks more and more like the poor decision maker that he clearly is.
Vote independent. Throw out the bums.
How can Iraq be won “in a military sense”?
We don’t have the available troops, or the aid of our allies, which would be needed to put sufficient boots on the ground to win.
Sunni insurgents & foreign jihadists have differing motivations, but one goal they share; the withdrawal of the US from Iraq.
We’re ‘staying the course,’ and the course is heading for an unacceptable conclusion. There is no chance the Sunnis will approve the constitution. Either we fix the election, ignore the process & proceed with national elections without the Sunnis, or disband the Iraqi government and start anew.
No mainstream Republican or Democrat wants to say it, but withdrawing makes sense. I know, I know. Republicans don’t want to admit they’re wrong. Democrats don’t want to appear weak on defense. Neither wants to concede the liberals & Deaniacs were right on this, and that we never should have invaded in the first place.
But we’re there now, and staying simply defies common sense. US withdrawal takes away the motivation for the foreign jihadists & their suicide bombings. That would go a long way towards establishing domestic stability. US withdrawal also takes away the nationalist Sunni insurgents & the secular Baathists motivation for war. They may choose to fight the Shias in a bloody civil war- that’s their choice, and most likely they’ll go for it out of pure ethnic/religious hatred- but if they’re smart, the Sunnis will resist the urge to fight the Shias. They must know they’ll lose.
Partition the country, and give the Sunnis the help they’ll need without an overt US presence.
The currect course is heading towards a predictable disaster. Time to withdraw in a carefully managed, planned, controlled manner. It should not be done precipitously; the Bush speech painting withdrawal as having to be an “immediate withdrawal” is the usual administraton baloney. It can be done in a way that works to the advantage of both us & the Iraqis.
Time to go.
Posted by: phx8 at August 24, 2005 05:12 PMphx8:
US withdrawal takes away the motivation for the foreign jihadists & their suicide bombings. That would go a long way towards establishing domestic stability.
Please define stability. How could even a well timed abandonment provide anything toward stability?
How can Iraq be won “in a military sense”? We don’t have the available troops, or the aid of our allies, which would be needed to put sufficient boots on the ground to win.
I didn’t say it could be won with current troup levels. “In a military sense” means striking up the band again and doing what should have been done from the beginning, and what military people I know have been harping on for sometime since the “mission accomplished” fiasco.
Restart military offensives, with additional troups, beginning in the south east and driving northwest. Search every house, scour every grain of sand, look behind every door. It takes time. It takes manpower. It would require sealing select borders. It is not neat and tidy, but it is doable.
It is crap or get off the pot time. I suggest a heavy load of decisive military action followed by decisive civil affairs action. Stop the “get out now” rant and decide on an effective plan to rid the area of terrorists (not to include those who simply do not agree with the constitution as written) and assist, with their own assets, to rebuild infrastructure, business, homes, jobs.
Posted by: Chi Chi at August 24, 2005 05:39 PMI don’t think this has been a military problem since Saddam fell. This is now about finding someway, anyway to keep Iraq from sinking into complete decay. Military solutions are about killing/disabling the other side’s military: there is no military for the other side. The insurgence - the violent opposition to our forces is a side-effect to a dysfunction society, and a military does not set up a functioning government.
The problem is, we’ve left the space open far too long for us to simple write a document and then leave. All the possible sides are jockeying for power and how will listen to our advice now? We are the occupying force - and have nothing long term in this new battle.
We could leave tomorrow - or leave in 5 years… and no ones will know till we’re gone whether those in power in Iraq will choose Civil War or compromise. From what I’ve seen lately… I’m not optimistic.
Posted by: tony at August 24, 2005 05:51 PMChi,
Using decisive military force would work, but it’s wishful thinking. It sounds great, but it’s just not a realistic option. We don’t have an extra hundred thousand troops to deploy, and people don’t believe Iraq is important enough to institute a draft. Carpet bombing would work, and it wouldn’t require troops; but again, we lack the national will to slaughter huge numbers of innocents in the name of a War on Terror.
Withdrawal would create stability, at least in the short term, for a period of a few months. It seems counterintuitive, but think about it- many attacks, especially attacks by nationalist insurgents, target US troops. Withdraw US troops, and the conflict for Sunni Iraqis changes from a fight against foreign US troops to a political fight. Give the Sunni Iraqis self-determination & their own country, and it becomes a matter of keeping them from going after the Shias.
The British had it right in the 1920’s. Control Iraq by co-opting the Sunnis. Putting the minority Sunnis in control of a colonial Iraq as a whole is no longer a viable strategy. However, pay them off financially, and set up a state, and it just might work.
The Republicans won’t speak up, and the mainstream Democrats won’t say anything either. Screw ‘em. If the Republicans can’t come up with new ideas, and the Dems are afraid to voice their ideas, who needs them?
Agreed, Chi. Either do it all the way, or do it much differently, or don’t do it at all. I’m saying, don’t. Change the path. Throw the gauntlet down for the Sunnis. It’s time to change. The current course is heading towards an unacceptable outcome. It’s foreseeable, and it’s not acceptable.
Posted by: phx8 at August 24, 2005 06:03 PMPhx8-
I think our withdrawal will not improve things, because I don’t think the sunni insurgents are going to go back to peaceful means just because we’ve left. I think they’re going to turn on the Shia and enact their bloody revenge. Why should they give up the power at the end of the rifle because ours aren’t pointing at them anymore? Without us there, the power they can dictate that way grows.
Stephen,
No question, US withdrawal from Iraq carries huge risks. The risks have to be weighed.
Practically speaking, we’re already fighting a civil war as proxies for the Shias, against the Sunnis.
I’m… well… amazed the writing of the Iraqi constitution went so badly. That was supposed to be the easy part. But just as the Sunnis did not participate in the election, they also did not participate in the creation of the Iraqi constitution. Now the chances of three Sunni provinces rejecting the constitution on 10/15 are nearly certain (unless we find some way to put in the fix, or simply ignore the process).
At that point there will no longer be a ‘course’ to stay on.
The Kurds can take care of themselves. The Sunnis won’t go after them because the Peshmerga are extremely effecient and extremely brutal. They will not feel the constraints suffered by US troops.
If we begin withdrawing now there might be some way to prepare the Shias to defend themselves. They’re certainly in better shape than the Sunnis, and have Iranian backing.
It’s rather cynical, but let the Iraqi Shias & the Iranians face down the Sunni insurgents and Saudi jihadists.
Posted by: phx8 at August 25, 2005 12:23 AMphx8-
Problem is, that gives the terrorists their opportunity to set up shop in the failed state that would inevitably result. Also, if this thing degenerates into civil war, it’ll make everything we experienced before look like a day in the park. And yes, I think we will get drawn back into it.
Stephen,
“… That gives the terrorists their opportunity to set up shop in the failed state that would inevitably result.”
Too late. Zarqawi & the “Al Qaida in Iraq” organization are already well established. Despite a bounty of, what, $25 million, no one will turn him in.
A hellacious civil war is a distinct possibility. Perhaps, as we withdraw, we can set up a secular Baathist regime to keep the lid on in central Iraq. Deny the new regime the Kurdish & Shia oil revenues, but pay out of pocket & prop up the new state. It certainly wouldn’t cost more than the hundreds of billions already poured down the rathole, the vain attempt to maintain a colonial illusion called ‘Iraq.’
Posted by: phx8 at August 25, 2005 01:15 AMZarqawi isn’t in Iraq as far as anyone knows. He was wounded and smuggled out. His last tape a couple of weeks ago appeared to be made back in Afganistan. He is probably hangin with his homeboy Osama.
Posted by: jchfleetguy at August 25, 2005 02:25 AMAmerican Pundit and Stephen Daugherty
You are correct when you say you are well read. Both of you write well and effectively get your points accross.
This does not mean that you are correct all the time however.
I believe both of you thought Kerry was going to be the next president,so you were incorrect at least once.
Despite your best shots,a majority of the American public backed President Bush.
Today’s polls on Bush are down,but if those two matched up again tomorrow,the results would be the same.
Even Churchill got the boot after WWII I believe.
I read the Dems solution to the Wahabbi(S13)issue and it is certainly not old news.
In this county virtually every Mosque- sponspored school issues textbooks loaded with Wahabbi principles.
Please show me again where that is in S13 as I missed it.
Money for education programs as articulated in the bill end up lining the pockets of the politiciially connected.Useless.
How does one”dry up” hot beds of terrorism by the way?With a public relations blitz?
I disagree.
These people ,pure and simple must be eliminated,destroyed,obliterated first,and the residual re-educated.
We need to get their attention.
Here is a parable:
A city slicker went to Vermont once on holiday and was walking down a beautiful county road.
He saw in the middle of that road a mule sitting there and a farmer trying to get it him to get up.
The slicker asked the farmer how he planned to do that.
“You have to talk nice to the mule” the farmer said.”Here..I’ll show you”
Looking around he found a big stick on the side of the road and picked it up and smacked the mule on the head.
The mule,startled,sprang up and walk off the road.
The slicker was confused.
“I thought you told me that you had to talk nice to the mule”he said.”I don’t understand”
“You do have to talk nice” said the farmer
“But first you have to get his attention”
Here’s the point.
Instead of “drying up” the hotbeds of terror,we have to cut off the money…and not in the manner that presently employ.
With a few clicks of a mouse,the right people can swiftly clean out bank accounts anywher,anytime.
In other words,we have to take it.
Now is the time to take the gloves off.
This simplistic statement is crucial:One of the four pillars of Islam is almsgiving.Every minute of the day,24/7 wealthy Saudis are doing what their beliefs taught them.Giving money to the insurrency.This money flow is unending.Dry up the money ,you dry up the insurrency.
Please reference where in S13 or any other Democratic plan the medthodology to do this.
By the way,I think that a concept like this has to be done covertly.and not as part of a publicilly discussed proposal.
Guys, I never believed any of the shit coming out of the White House since 2000, and I certainly don’t believe it now. Anyone that believes the BS that we are interested in Iraq’s “freedom” is just kidding himself. These guys act with no ones best interest in mind but their own. Got It? Throughout history, we haven’t cared about what kind of government a country had, as long as they cooperated with the US. All of a sudden we have this administration that cares about freedom? Puleeeeeeease!!!!!!!The idea is preposterous at best and criminally idiotic at worst.
Bush acted, not out of magnanimity, but selfishness, like we always do (Not that there’s anything wrong with that; after all that is what made this country great). It’s just that he has had to change his story so many times as to why he did what he did (WMD’s… no, WMD programs… no, WMD program intentions…no, Saddam was a bad guy….no, we want them to have, um, um, freedom! Yeah, that’s the ticket, freedom! Plays well with our idiot base, after all, they wouldn’t know real freedom if it hit ‘em in the ass, just ask the Dixie Chicks CD Burning Brigade…but it sounds good, particularly if you repeat it again, and again and again…..
No folks, the current uproar that you hear are the multitudes of Americans waking up to the Emperor with no clothes….He’s on his own now, Rove is on a post Bush mindset, planning his rule of the Republican Party, and how the Party will play a more active role in daily American life…Paranoid? You betcha…
Just notice how the Right pushes the envelope…In a saner time, it would be considered sacrilege to trash the mother of soldier killed in a war, regardless of her attitude toward the president. Pretty soon, no one will be safe from attacks and smears.
When one of Bush’s boys, Robertson, openly prays for the death or illness of Supreme Court Justices, so they can pack ‘em with their kind, and nobody notices…….When he has the balls to call fore the assassination of a leader that he doesn’t agree with, mind you all under the guise of religion and paying no taxes..and what is Bush’s reaction? By saying nothing, he implies acceptance…
People, we need to act, and act now. Media, wake the F—- up! Military, insist on doing the right thing and demand a plan from the civilian leadership. Remember how emasculated you felt after Vietnam? Don’t let it happen again! American Citizens, forget the politics and the Culture War and demand the truth from the Bozo’s
running the country. I’m tired of hoping that 3 years will pass quickly so this guy moves on…What kind of a country are we going to have after 3 more years of this shit????
But just as the Sunnis did not participate in the election, they also did not participate in the creation of the Iraqi constitution.
Hold on there, pardner. We knew the Sunnis weren’t going to participate in the election, yet President Bush, the Shiites, and the Kurds held it anyhow. Same for the constitution. It’s far more correct to say that the Sunnis were shut out of the election and drafting.
I don’t want to defend any of these guys - a constitution drawn up by either or both the Islamist Shiites or Sunnis wouldn’t be one I’d want to live under - but lets look realistically at what happened.
I wouldn’t want to be a Sunni in Iraq right now. These guys are being systematically targeted by Shiite and Kurdish militias. Sunni mosques are being bombed, Sunni clerics are being assassinated, and the Kurds - with the willing help of the Shiites - are pushing Sunnis out of their only oil-revenue producing city, Kirkuk.
Sunnis want an Iraq that guarantees them the same opportunities for security and prosperity that the Shiites and Kurds have, but neither the election nor the Shiite/Kurdish drafted constitution do that.
But like I said, I’m not going to defend any of these guys too hard. When Allawi’s coalition of Muslims wanting a secular constitution got trounced in the election, the idea of a free-market liberal democracy in Iraq went out the window.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 25, 2005 10:47 AMWe don’t have the available troops… to put sufficient boots on the ground to win.
phx8, yes. We do. And Democrats are trying to convince Republicans to authorize raising another 100,000 troops over the next five years to sustain operations in Iraq and meet our obligations elsewhere.
No mainstream Republican or Democrat wants to say it, but withdrawing makes sense.
No, phx8. It doesn’t. Already, we see terrorists who were trained in Iraq targeting US ships elsewhere in the region. It’s only a matter of time before they hook up with others who can get them a valid US passport.
The latest insurgent attacks in Baghdad display new tactics that al Qaeda is testing in the live-fire training ground that President Bush allowed Iraq to become. These new tactics will be refined and used in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Philippines, Chechnya, Thailand, and elsewhere.
Iraq must be secured. Period. President Bush got us into this crap-hole, and now it has the potential to explode all over us and the world unless the insurgency is crushed and Iraq is secured.
President Bush’s Iraq adventure made the United States less secure, and Democrats are the only ones with the guts to put forth the obvious solution. Iraq is now what Afghanistan was before 9/11: a training base for al Qaeda. We must do whatever it takes to shut it down - and that doesn’t mean Bush’s lame-ass plan to hunker down in the Green Zone until the Iraqi government tells us to go away.
This does not mean that you are correct all the time however.
Yeah Sic Eagle, my wife reminds me of that. There was the time she said I didn’t need to get her anything for Valentine’s Day…
But anyhow, I’ve got a damned good track record on politics. If I’m ever wrong about something, go ahead and point it out.
With a few clicks of a mouse,the right people can swiftly clean out bank accounts anywher,anytime…
That sounds like a really bad Clancy novel - like that “Teeth of the Tiger” fantasy he shoveled out last year. When I’m not ignoring all the good advice I got about talking politics in polite company, I’m programming. I can tell you for sure, you’re scheme to clean out bank accounts won’t work.
And even if it were possible to hack into banking systems around the world, those guys keep soft and hard backups. You might make some Saudi princes paupers for a day, but by the next they’ll be back in business.
No, you’re idea (with more stuff exploding) might make for a good summer blockbuster, but the only way to shut down those accounts is with the cooperation of the institutions and the countries in which they operate.
These people ,pure and simple must be eliminated,destroyed,obliterated first,and the residual re-educated. We need to get their attention.
First, you need to frame the extermination of 1.4 billion Muslims in such a way that Middle-America doesn’t think you’re criminally insane.
Seriously, Sic Eagle, while I guess that makes for a fun daydream - kinda like all those Chuck Norris movies where he goes back to Vietnam and kicks their ass like we should have done in the first place - nobody in a position of authority and responsibility supports anything like that. Not Democrats, and not Republicans.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 25, 2005 11:31 AMAP:
Hold on there, pardner. We knew the Sunnis weren’t going to participate in the election, yet President Bush, the Shiites, and the Kurds held it anyhow. Same for the constitution. It’s far more correct to say that the Sunnis were shut out of the election and drafting.
I’m not sure holding an election or drafting a consititution after the Sunnis said they would not participate equates to shutting them out of the process. Is there more to the puzzle I do not know? Please educate me.
Posted by: Chi Chi at August 25, 2005 11:50 AMAs for the constitution, Sunnis were actually physically shut out of the negotiations and presented a finished document to accept or reject (not that it seemed to matter much either way to the Shiites and Kurds).
As for the election, the Sunnis (mostly Sunnis who wanted a secular govt, BTW) had some valid concerns about security (it always comes back to security) and the legitimacy of the election process.
These could have been worked out to ensure Sunni participation, but it would have meant postponing the elections - something the Bush administration (and the dominant Shiites and Kurds) refused to do. Here’s a useful FAQ.
Also, keep in mind the original plan was to have the Iraqi expats we installed as leaders - who wanted a secular government - draft a (presumably secular) constitution before holding an election. After Bush spurned UN assistance, the CPA didn’t have the moral authority to oppose Grand Ayatollah Sistani’s demands for an immediate election that would place Islamist Shiites in the driver’s seat.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 25, 2005 01:09 PMIncidentally, this may be a good update, on this third day, on what the issues are: http://baghdadee.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=491&view=findpost&p=4783. A couple of quotes that speak against some errors here:
“Representatives of Iraq’s three main factions - Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds - have agreed to wording describing how Islam will influence legislation, the distribution of oil revenue and the government’s structure
The constitution currently says the central government in Baghdad will distribute oil and gas revenue to the regions based on population. But poorer regions and those neglected under Saddam’s rule will also initially get a higher cut, the draft says. Sunni leaders worry that means more money for Shiite and Kurdish areas.
The draft identifies Islam as “a major source†of legislation and prohibits the creation of laws that contradict its teachings. It also prohibits the creation of laws that contradict democratic principles and basic human rights, a provision secular Iraqis hope bars Iraq from becoming a hard-line Islamic theocracy like Iran … Kurds, who are Sunni Muslim and generally secular, joined Sunnis in opposing the strong Islamic state advocated by some Shiites … One of the most contentious issues has been the placing of “experts†on sharia, or Islamic law, on the Iraqi Supreme Court. The exact number of experts and the method of choosing them will be assigned by a law enacted by a two-thirds vote in the national assembly[The Kurds and Sunnis have the power to block Shia here] … Also at issue was whether to have sharia judges administrating civil cases, such as marriages, divorces and estates. On Wednesday, negotiators agreed to let individuals choose the type of judge[Sharia or Secular] to hear their case.
Kurdish and Shiite political groups hold 258 seats in the 275-member National Assembly and could pass the constitution. But the referendum could be voted down if two-thirds of voters in three provinces reject it. Sunnis dominate at least three of Iraq’s provinces. Additionally, U.S. and Iraqi officials have been striving to include Sunnis into the political process as a key strategy in dismantling the mostly Sunni-driven insurgency.The Sunni will vote in October. The Constitution cannot ignore them if it is to be passed. They will vote in December; and will take seats in the Assembly.
Oh, any notion that the Sunni will accept a personal country is silly - there is no oil on their land. They are the chief opponents (see article) to provisions that would give them the right to have their own semi-autonomous region.
Posted by: jchfleetguy at August 25, 2005 01:11 PMAmerician Pundit
Whoa there partner.I didn’t mean eliminating the World’s Muslim population.(I’m not completely insane…only partially)What I meant is to that segment(the fanatics) that are incorrigible.
I believe that we can learn a lot from the “real”Muslim faith…unfortunately it’s been highjacked and the tail now wags the dog.
I am embarrased to say that I never read Clancy either.I am ,however,translating Cicero(“Let them hate so long as they fear”) again.
On the computer highjacking of money I did hear Colonel Hunt on a panel a few weeks ago suggesting that very.(He’s my favorite…the military guy on O’Reilly that reminds me of Curtis LeMay)
His idea was to use the same methods that were used against the drug cartels.
I do believe rather strongly that if the money stops then the insurgency runs out of gas.
I have read and recommend Sun Tsu’s works,especially the 13 principled piece “Art Of War”.
Written about 350 BC,his military principles I believe are still used today by the Chinese and Russians as well as all our military academies.
One principle is “To defeat the enemy you must become him”
Adapt to the environment,anticipate his strategies,think like him.
That’s what I mean when I say we have to take the gloves off.
Another principle that I use in my line of work is “To cath the bear,dress like a sheep”
Chinese bowmen would kill a sheep,skin it,and then drape the skin over a bowman in the middle of a field.The blood scent would lure the bear who would be killed by other bowmen laying in wait in the weeds.
The insurgents are using that one on us now,although I am sure that our guys have used it a time or twenty too..
In my line of work getting people to drop their guard has proven an effective technique and is something that I enjoy.
By the way,thanks again for commenting on my post.
I enjoy your thoughts.
(I don’t watch Chuck Norris movies either.Being a compasionate conservative,I prefer Cinema Paradiso.)
What I meant is to that segment(the fanatics) that are incorrigible.
Then that’s a big, duh. Everybody accepts that. Destroy the terrorists and work with the Muslim community to deter new recruits.
That’s the whole basis of the Democrat’s Senate bill S.13: Authorize 4,000 more special ops troops to root out and kill the incorrigables, and get those Muslim kids out of the radical madrassas.
I’m familiar with Sun Tzu. I particularly like:
“to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.”
Sorry. That’s Senate bill S.12.
Posted by: American Pundit at August 26, 2005 11:35 PMPundit
The bill appropriates $150,000,000 over time but limits expenditures to $20,000,000 a year.
Since only 6 universities offer arabic studies degrees nationwide,that sum is paltry(20 mil buys the paper clips,that’s it)
Ten times that amount is necessary plus a nationial awareness campaign to generate the urgency of the matter.
Hundreds of thousands of documents and communication intercepts go untranslated,and every day more and more get thrown on the pile.
Computer generated translations are useless here as regionial dialect and slang are primarily used with very subtle intonations and meanings.
This problem in my view is much more urgent than boots on the ground.
We send in another 40,000 or so,and if they lack the necessary linguistic intelligence they end up being targets instead of an asset.
Once this facet is built up,THEN send more boots in ,but only if necessary.
