Democrats & Liberals Archives

Stick A Fork In It...

…Iraq is done. President Bush tried to whip up support for his on (and on, and on) going Iraq adventure yesterday by redefining victory as merely reducing the insurgent’s ability to “threaten Iraq’s democracy”. Is that how low our expectations have fallen? It’s a far cry from the original goal of standing up a free liberal democracy and modern infrastructure as an example and inspiration for the region. Let’s face it, the only debate over Iraq right now is how to exit gracefully.

President Bush didn't offer any sweeping new strategy to disarm the government-controlled religious militias that are terrorizing Iraqi citizens and imposing strict Islamic Shariah Law; he didn't unveil massive new economic, reconstruction or infrastructure development plans; nor did he announce new diplomatic initiatives to settle Iraqi political disputes, curtail human rights violations perpetrated by Shiite-dominated government security forces, or build and strengthen democratic institutions like a free press, issues-based political parties, and an uncorrupt, independent, mullah-free judiciary.

Yesterday, President Bush merely lowered the bar for declaring victory in Iraq, defining it as "when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq's democracy." By that definition, we've already won a stunning victory and now we can leave. There's absolutely zero chance that Saddamists or foreign terrorists will ever take over Iraq, and for President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to suggest otherwise is just shameless politicking and fear mongering.

And it's fear-mongering so blatantly idiotic that Democrats and Republicans are united in denouncing Rumsfeld's evocation of Godwin's Law with his dippy equation of exiting Iraq with handing Germany back to the Nazis.

Early on, Democrats, Generals, and military analysts all suggested President Bush should commit more troops to secure Iraq. Democrats pleaded with the President to hand over Iraq's democratic transition to the UN when they offered to take it and provide tens of thousands of additional international troops. Democrats repeatedly pointed out that sticking to an inflexible arbitrary timeline for Iraq's political evolution -- regardless of the fact that the steamroller pace exacerbated divisions between Sunnis and Shiites -- was a bad idea. The transition should have been goals-based rather than a strict, procedural timetable that predictably left Iraq where it is now: in the midst of a civil conflict.

President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld insist that Iraq is not in the middle of a civil war. Former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi says, "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is." Who has more credibility at this point: the guy on the ground in Iraq, or the guys huddled in the Ivory Tower wing of the White House? The fact is, sectarian attacks are claiming lives every day and the only thing keeping Iraq from disintegrating is our men and women in uniform.

President Bush should not pull out of Iraq yet -- he broke it; he bought it -- but for God's sake let's deal with Iraq without the partisan spin. Building strong, true democratic institutions and traditions in Iraq will take decades -- if it ever happens. That's the reality. But judging by the lack of any new initiatives on President Bush's part, US involvement in actively shaping Iraq's political, social, and economic future has ended. Iraq is done, except for the fighting.

Posted by American Pundit at March 21, 2006 10:43 AM
Comments
Comment #134995

Hold it!

You say:

Yesterday, President Bush merely lowered the bar for declaring victory in Iraq, defining it as “when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq’s democracy.” By that definition, we’ve already won a stunning victory and now we can leave.

You also say:

President Bush should not pull out of Iraq yet — he broke it; he bought it — but for God’s sake let’s deal with Iraq without the partisan spin.

So, do we go or do we stay? I lost your idea. It seems contradictory.

Posted by: ILIndCon at March 21, 2006 11:16 AM
Comment #134999

ILIndCon:

Sounds to me like Bush is trying to have it both ways. The spin is making me dizzy. To bad he isn’t more worried about how to fix this than he is about his poll numbers. What other reason could there be for all the new press conferences?

Posted by: womanmarine at March 21, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #135001

The bizarre part was that President Bush didn’t offer any solutions. I guess were just supposed to be happy with Iraq’s socialist economy, theocratic government, and human rights offenses and wait until they decide to stop killing each other — and our troops.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 21, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #135007

AP,

I’m curious what your opinion is of Joe Biden’s sugggestions:

“First, instead of military preemption, we need a comprehensive prevention plan - - that includes but is not limited to military force — to defuse threats to our security long before they are on the verge of exploding. Second, instead of acting alone, we must build effective alliances and international organizations. Third, instead of trying to impose elections by force from the outside, we must work with moderates from the inside to build the institutions of liberal democracy. Let me discuss each principle.”

Please take time to read it in it’s entirety here:
http://uniteourstates.com/about/speeches?id=0005

Biden went into more detail here:
http://uniteourstates.com/about/speeches?id=0004

I’m not presenting this as part of a Biden ‘08 ploy, although I think we could do much worse, I just actually think he has good, sound ideas. He’s also flexible enough to change strategy if something isn’t working.

I see three options in Iraq:
#1) Increase troop strength 4 or 5 fold, which inevitably spells D-R-A-F-T which also spells “political suicide”.
#2) Get out ASAP which will leave Iraq a failed state, probably a Shiite theocracy patterned after Iran, and almost certainly a safe haven for terrorists.
#3) Adopt a plan similar to that Biden spells out which is in many ways not unlike Kerry’s plans.

OK, I’m leaving out option #4 which is to trust W that things are getting better every day. Of course as long as the Repubs “rule” we’ll continue with option #4. Options #1 and #2 are out of the question for Bush and Co. for obvious reasons and option #3 would require Bush walking into the UN with his ass in his hands which just ain’t gonna’ happen.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at March 21, 2006 12:17 PM
Comment #135010

KansasDem,

“First, instead of military preemption, we need a comprehensive prevention plan - - that includes but is not limited to military force — to defuse threats to our security long before they are on the verge of exploding. Second, instead of acting alone, we must build effective alliances and international organizations. Third, instead of trying to impose elections by force from the outside, we must work with moderates from the inside to build the institutions of liberal democracy. Let me discuss each principle.””

Where was this guy and his ideas prior to our invasion if Iraq?

This isn’t rocket science, these points were all brought up during the frenzy before we invaded, and all of these points were ignored by our ilustrious leader, because, as he said then, “I know what I am doing”.

Oh, the irony.

Posted by: Rocky at March 21, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #135016

Just saw a poll that should make Democrats happy.
More people polled believe Democrats could run the war better than Republicans.
That’s a near complete 180 since a year or so ago.
More and more, polls aren’t lookin’ good for Republicans.
Perhaps we’re about to see a repeat of 1992, except Democrats gaining seats this time?
Hmmmmm…not sure that will solve much, since they just take turns.
The “In-Party” abuses their newly found power, and the “Out-Party” tries to sabotage all of the “In-Party’s” goals, and dysfunction is the end result.
I suppose that’s better than letting the Republicans continue to have a free reign at growing even more corrupt.
Still, it seems the best thing would be to oust as many irresponsible incumbents as possible, and teach ‘em both a lesson?

Posted by: d.a.n at March 21, 2006 1:02 PM
Comment #135028

womanmarine:
“To bad he isn’t more worried about how to fix this than he is about his poll numbers. What other reason could there be for all the new press conferences?”

Indeed. But I don’t think it can help him at this point.

AP:
“The bizarre part was that President Bush didn’t offer any solutions. I guess were just supposed to be happy with Iraq’s socialist economy, theocratic government, and human rights offenses and wait until they decide to stop killing each other — and our troops.”

I totally agree. It’s so damn frustrating that Bush never has any solutions! Clearly he’s living in his own little fantasyland, while everything just keeps going to hell.

Kansas Dem:
“I’m not presenting this as part of a Biden ‘08 ploy, although I think we could do much worse, I just actually think he has good, sound ideas. He’s also flexible enough to change strategy if something isn’t working.”

I don’t like Biden and I don’t think he should get the nomination. When he campaigned for president in ‘88 he had to withdraw for plagiarizing parts of a speech by Neil Kinnock (British Labor Party) and for exaggerating his academic record. Don’t think this won’t be brought up again for swiftboating purposes.
Additionally, Biden voted yes on prohibiting same sex marriage, voted yes on the bankruptcy bill, and has a very mixed record with votes on civil rights and abortion. He also wrote a bill which wants to make it a federal felony to use certain devices that you can use to trick your computer into playing your music or use run a program. This bill will make someone who breaks this law (even if it’s to share music with your own family or with members of a band you’re in) eligible for five years in prison.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t understand why any Democrat would want to subscribe to these kind of conservative or corporatist ideologies, or wish to vote for them. IMO, neither would a swing voter. After all, why vote Republican Lite, when people can simply vote Republican?

Posted by: Adrienne at March 21, 2006 1:35 PM
Comment #135038

Very depressing yet informative article I read yesterday:
Iraqis Think U.S. in Their Nation to Stay

Posted by: Adrienne at March 21, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #135044

Adrienne,

It’s hell to be a moderate but, to quote Popeye the Sailor Man, “I yam what I yam and that’s all that I yam”.

Anyway I was trying to steer away from this being about Biden so much as to preempt the obligatory Repuglican response, “You Democrats never have any ideas”.

My deeper point is that we really must try like hell to take back every possible seat in the House and the Senate because W and his bunch aren’t going to change a dang thing in Iraq. We can either sit back and watch or fight tooth and nail, state by state, for every seat available no matter how much of a long shot each might be.

Believe me, we may not agree on every issue, but I’m on your side. BTW, I’ve never found myself totally in agreement with any politician on every issue, including Biden.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at March 21, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #135045

O.K. so lets say that Bush is the real weapon of mass destruction. (Aided by “shoot em up”V.P.) The real issue is will democratization of a major country in the Middle East bring about a long term calm and peace for the US? We are there,and no amount of hasty thinking will bring back one soldier. As ill-advised as the start of this war may have been,do we owe it to ourselves to rally around a realistic plan of quasi-democratic rule for the Iraqis or to just force a loss with a cut and run attitude?

Posted by: jblym at March 21, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #135048

Adrienne, ITA on Biden, and he is from 3 electoral votes Delaware, please. What is their state slogan, we may be smaller than Vermont, but we are bigger than Rhode Island? He is about 62 or 63. I thought he was older than that.

I have not moved past Evan Bayh in my mind yet, even though he would have to skip the Iowa caucuses. We need someone slightly more liberal than him.

And Bush is obviously better informed than Allawi about civil war in Iraq, right? This president seems more obsessed with the middle east than anyone yet. What do they have in the middle east that he wants? Hmm? It must be something that we use a lot of? What could it be?

Posted by: ohrealy at March 21, 2006 3:27 PM
Comment #135051

Kansas Dem:
“It’s hell to be a moderate but, to quote Popeye the Sailor Man, “I yam what I yam and that’s all that I yam”.”

Have you ever taken that online test that shows you where you are on the political scale? My results put me dead center in the middle of the left. On this blog, of course I’ve been painted as some kind of an extremist, but I know that ain’t what I yam.

I guess I’ve got a problem with qualifyers like “Moderate”, because I know that the Republican’s have been extremely successful at turning the words Liberal and Progessive into insults to the point where many on the left think they have to be “centrists” or “moderates” for any of their ideas to be taken seriously. I think we should start using the terms liberal and progressive proudly in defiance of that crap, and quit trying to qualify things for everyone else, you know? That’s literally letting the GOP define us and divide us up — and I strongly suspect that this is the reason we’ve been losing so many elections.

“Believe me, we may not agree on every issue, but I’m on your side.”

Good. Hopefully there will always be room for all of us on the left.

“BTW, I’ve never found myself totally in agreement with any politician on every issue, including Biden.”

Me either. The closest I’ve ever come to that is Feingold.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 21, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #135053

ohrealy:
“What do they have in the middle east that he wants? Hmm? It must be something that we use a lot of? What could it be?”

I believe it might be something as slippery as Bush’s grasp on reality. ;^)

Posted by: Adrienne at March 21, 2006 3:51 PM
Comment #135058

Re the UN offer to help. Help do what? Talk the terrorists to death? The UN does a lot of talking and not much acting. This was not a serious and practical offer. Can anyone think of cases where the UN established peace (without the U.S. and its allies doing the heavy lifting)?

Re Biden and other suggestions – that is what we all want all the time. It is much harder to actually do it. Let’s all anticipate problems and avoid them. That is good advice that is hard to follow. That is why everything is easier said than done and also why it is easier to predict the past than the future. The U.S. has essentially been following Biden’s advice in the case of N. Korea and Iran (before he gave it). Let’s hope it works. I don’t think you can call all this new ideas, however. BTW - I read the speech. Biden is very eloquent. Read the National Security Strategy. You will find that is also very reasonable and eloquent. You will also find most of the same ideas. Easier said than done.

Iraq has not gone the way I hoped or believed. On the other hand, it has not gone the way many feared. In many ways it is better. Before the war we prepared for a massive refugee crisis, oil wells burning, riots all over the Muslim world. We had no massive refugee crisis. The oil wells were not destroyed. The Muslim street did not erupt. There was no a wave of attacks in the U.S. and we didn’t lose tens of thousands of American troops in Stalingrad type operations. Most of the people on this blog predicted disaster in last year’s elections and bloody civil war. We had three successful elections. We still have predictions of bloody civil war.

We revise our plans and goals based on conditions and we are doing that. I think it is clear that we will not lose in Iraq and that there will be some form of democracy there. I am actually surprised how well Iraqis have resisted Al Qaeda and Baathists attempts to provoke widespread sectarian violence. If you want to see what that can be like, read about the partition of India in 1947 or more recently Rwanda. Maybe Iraqis are familar with that history.

Posted by: Jack at March 21, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #135060
On the other hand, it has not gone the way many feared. In many ways it is better. Before the war we prepared for a massive refugee crisis, oil wells burning, riots all over the Muslim world.

None of the above was predicted by anyone. We were told we would roll into Iraq with hardly any troops, be welcomed heros, and then roll home mission accomplished. Neocons must stop insulting Americans by telling them our crap situation smells like roses.

Posted by: Max at March 21, 2006 4:26 PM
Comment #135062

“theyll shoot me i dont care theyll shoot me in the back of the neck i dont care down with big brother they always shoot you in the back of the neck i dont care”
1984

It’s not a civil war. It’s ‘sectarian violence.’

“The tradition — the unspoken tradition: somehow you knew it, though you never heard it said — was that they shot you from behind; always in the back of the head…”

Call it the Negroponte solution. Negroponte, former Ambassador to Iraq and now head US intelligence agencies, knows it very very well. He instituted it in Central America, and now the Negroponte Solution is in play in Iraq.

Because of a series of disastrous decisions by the Bush administration, driven by the Republican domestic agenda, the Shias are taking control of a united Iraq. They want it united. The Shias want it all. That’s the way it’s going to be.

As the majority, the Shias won elections, and in a democracy, the 60% majority wins control. Before, the US fought the Sunnis as a Shia proxy. But with control of government comes power. The Shias control the Interior Ministry and the US trained/supplied military. Time to exercise power. Time for the Negroponte solution.

“I’ll shoot you, I’ll vaporize you, I’ll send you to the salt mines!”

The Death Squads will shoot Sunni males of fighting age until ‘sectarian violence’ ends. It will end when there are no more Sunni males in Bagdhad willing to resist. The numbers we see in the US will be drastically underreported. For example, in the four days after the temple bombing, 1300 assassinated victims showed up in the Bagdhad morgue alone. The official count was less than 400.

“they always shoot you in the back of the neck”

We’ll call it ‘sectarian violence,’ but it doesn’t really matter, because we don’t have any choice. This final solution for pacifying Iraq is still better than the other likely choices, which lead to regional war, chaos, or a fight simultaneously pitting the US against the Sunnis, Iraqi Shias, and Iranians.

What gross incompetence! What colossal ineptitude! What a bloody, bloody fool we have in the White House.

Posted by: phx8 at March 21, 2006 4:31 PM
Comment #135064

OK. So after reading these posts, this is where I stand:

The USA has a moral and legal obligation to restore order and prevent humanitarian crisis. I don’t think getting out of Iraq is wise, morally good or strategic at this time.

We don’t have a choice about conducting post-conflict ops. It is in our interest and in Iraq’s best interest and in Iraq’s neighbors’ interest to have a stable Iraq ruled by their own duly elected officials. Letting the former Baath party run things would only serve to restore the ugliness we saw with Sadaam Hussein. Are the Baathists acceptable? No, they aren’t.

Good discussion.

Posted by: ILIndCon at March 21, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #135067

Max

The Administration talked as you said, more or less. The opposition talked as I said, more or less, about terrible destruction, oil wells burning etc. You can do a quick google search as I did. Here are just a few that I found in about two minutes.

1m Refugees’ Will Flee Iraq War

Iraq may favor a city war, Stalingrad-style

Muslim Street

BTW – I almost forgot the prediction of a Turkish invasion to split NATO.

Neither the optimistic nor the pessimistic scenario actually played out. I guess that is normal.

Posted by: Jack at March 21, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #135069

If we are still in Iraq when the next president assumes the office in January 2009, he should immediately order the troops out, and the bases we built destroyed, regardless of any other considerations. You would think that Bush was the president of Iraq, instead of this country. Maybe he thinks he was selected as president of Pig Oil International, Incorporated in The Cayman Islands, of course.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 21, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #135071

Where have all the neocons gone?

I don’t see them here anymore. What happened to all the blustering, right wing trailer park whack jobs (you know the ones who just learned the term “on-line” had something to do with a computer, and was not the latest way to ingest methamphetamine)? Oh I kid the neocons - we all know they mean well (don’t they?). As much as I detest what they stand for, it made for interesting reading.

Posted by: Tmore44 at March 21, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #135079

Jack,
The worst case scenarios happened, but the time scales were wrong. For example, somewhere between 250,000 and 400,000 fled Fallujah when we destroyed most of it. As for the urban fighting isn’t like Stalingrad, but it is urban fighting, nonetheless; despite US rebuilding efforts, most basic urban services are in worse shape than before the invasion. Oil exports are far below what they were before the invasion, although the wells themselves weren’t destroyed. In one of those charming little ironies of war, Iraq actually collects more in oil revenues than before the invasion, because invading made oil prices increase so much. Turkey recently offered to provide troops for security in the Kurdish north. The Iraqis refused. I don’t think anyone would assume the Turks and Kurds are good buds, not yet. As for the Muslim Street- whatever that is- I’d just note a lot of protests keep happening, including sizable ones when Bush visited India & Pakistan.

So it’s kind of interesting- the worst case events seemed to come true- but the time scales strechted the events longer than anyone in the US anticipated.

See what television did to us!

Posted by: phx8 at March 21, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #135084

Regarding the question, “Why Are We In Iraq?”

Here’s the Short List, organised in inverse order of priority:

7.) To build democracy in the Middle East.

6.) To get the Bad Man who tried to kill Daddy.

5.) To make up for Daddy’s Missed Opportunity.

4.) To get some Free or Cheap oil.

3.) To leave a Legacy (War President) and roll out a New Product (War) to boost popularity after coup of 2000.

2.) To get some closed-door, no-bid war-profiteering contracts for Halliburton, Bechtel, URS, etc.

and the Number One reason why we are in Iraq IS:

1.) To create permanent or semi-permanent Intelligence Listening Posts and Military Bases right smack-dab in the centre of: Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the Gulf States - i.e., to have a “presence” in the Region.

Anybody who debates this is woefully bereft of any depth of knowledge of History, Geopolitics, and Realpolitik.

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 21, 2006 6:16 PM
Comment #135086

Adrienne,

given that:

- Bush has refused to give any timetable for withdrawal;

- that in today’s press conference Bush all but admitted that we ain’t leaving Iraq while he is in office;

- that the DoD is building three permanent military bases in Iraq;

is there any evidence to suggest that Bush EVER planned to leave Iraq?

Posted by: CPAdams at March 21, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #135087

AP

I got news for you.

We didn’t lose.

For the rest of 2006 until the run up to the mid-term elections,you have recited the Democtatic position well….replete with negatives.

Only the last paragraph do you say we have to stay until we fix it.

Let’s talk non-issues for a minute:

1.Two elections
2.Constitution ratified
3.Iraq 50% controlled by their own forces,soon to be 75% by summer’s end
4.Over 230,000 security in the field…double what it was the last year alone.
5.A government will be formed this year.Faster too than our very own country did it.

The effect?Let’s see:

1.ZERO attacks here in the USA four four and a half years now.
2.Bin Laden still in his cave.
3.Zero attacks here in the USA (I thought I’d repeat that one in case you forgot)

Effect on the economy?Let’s see:
1.4.8% unemployement rate…lowest in decades.
2.More jobs created this year than Japan and the EU COMBINED
3.No or little inflation.

Throw in a major hurricane,and the results stay the same.

Factor out the hurricane and the above numbers are even better.

No,my friend,Bush isn’t a dolt fiddleing while America burns.

Assholes like Helen Thomas and the Washington Press corps plus nitwit nationial networks have poisioned the well.

Plus Democrats (Reid,Pelosi,Feingold) who represent nothing…never have,never will…except spewing out hatred and vitrol.

You can talk Libby..I will talk the person who disclosed to the NYTimes the wiretap issue.

Think the American public doesn’t want Bin Laden’s calls intercepted?

Please.

Try writing one positive thing on Iraq…I dare you.One.I have read all your entries,…and I can’t find one on anything good that has happened there.

It’s that Singapore water…I told you before.:)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at March 21, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #135094

Don’t fret siclianeagle, there is a cure to your delusions.

Let your fingers do the walking to “Cult Busters!”

Maybe the liberals will pay for your treatment.

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at March 21, 2006 6:56 PM
Comment #135099

SE -

I don’t get the complaint of “all we DEMs see are the negatives.” To you think we are being to hard on the President? With everything lost and everything still at stake, can you make the argument of why we should cut this Administration some slack?

Posted by: tony at March 21, 2006 7:13 PM
Comment #135101

My only question is, if civil war breaks out in Iraq, how soon will all you neolibs uncork the champagne and party it down?!?!?

Posted by: Duano at March 21, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #135102

“My only question is, if civil war breaks out in Iraq, how soon will all you neolibs uncork the champagne and party it down?!?!?”

My only question is, if civil war breaks out in Iraq, who will you neocons give the first no-bid contract to?

Posted by: tony at March 21, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #135104

Whoever gets us the most oil, of course.

Posted by: Duano at March 21, 2006 7:31 PM
Comment #135111

“Whoever gets us the most oil, of course.”

So, now you know who will be popping those Champaign corks.

Posted by: tony at March 21, 2006 7:48 PM
Comment #135116

Aldous -

but I thought the Rape Rooms could only be run by freedom haters and evil doers….?

Posted by: tony at March 21, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #135125

American Pundit, don’t you think there is some danger of Iraq breaking out into civil war regardless of what kind of Democratic institution we instate?

Not to sound cynical, but the Sunnis and Shias have never gotten along.

Posted by: Zeek at March 21, 2006 8:07 PM
Comment #135130
Re the UN offer to help. Help do what? …Can anyone think of cases where the UN established peace (without the U.S. and its allies doing the heavy lifting)?

Umm… Last I checked, “the U.S. and its allies” are the leading UN members. But how about this: East Timor, Aceh, post-war Balkan peacekeeping, and Afghanistan to name a few.

Jack, I don’t mind the US doing the heavy lifting — we’re trained and equipped for that — but the UN is far more capable of doing post-war reconstruction and political transitions than the US Army.

Dr. Rice once said the 82nd Airborne shouldn’t be escorting kids to elementery school. She’s absolutely right, and she should have stuck to her guns. That’s the UN’s job.

AP

I got news for you.

We didn’t lose.

Define losing, SE. :)

Seriously, President Bush said our goal was to stand up a liberal democracy, modern infrastructure, and free economy in Iraq. He failed.

President Roosevelt set the goal of unconditional surrender for Germany in WWII. He was under a lot of pressure to water down that goal and things didn’t always go right, but he stuck to it.

President Bush, on the other hand, immediately backed off his war aims as soon as things got tough. He decided not to privatize the Iraqi economy, he chose to let the reconstruction fizzle out, he decided the religious militias didn’t need to be disarmed, and he accepted a self-contradictory piece-of-crap constitution that disenfranchises Sunnis, subjugates women, and gives the mullahs a veto over any laws that they think contradict the Koran.

Judging by Bush’s own war goals, he lost.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 21, 2006 8:25 PM
Comment #135133
American Pundit, don’t you think there is some danger of Iraq breaking out into civil war regardless of what kind of Democratic institution we instate?

Posted by: American Pundit at March 21, 2006 8:34 PM
Comment #135135

Now correct me if I’m wrong on the facts, I did Google to verify them the best I could…


Turkey is the only existing Muslim democracy. Turkey is also a strong US ally, housing many of our military bases.

Turkey was terrorized by the Kurds since the 1920s, after Ataturk (their national hero) established democracy there. The Kurds claim they are a separate people and want their own nation, carved from parts of Turkey, Iran and Iraq. While we can have sympathy for them, they were never in fact a nation or even a cohesive people, and they are, unquestionably, sheltering many terrorists.

In 2003, the USA moves in to defend the Kurds from Saddam’s chemical weapons etc. Don’t use chemical weapons on terrorists!! Was that a human rights issue? I suppose chemical weapons are bad, much worse than all those car bombs etc, so that’s why we help the men who terrorize our allies.

I know, it’s very confusing, too many ‘sides’. I’m certainly confused. Were we supposed to be in Iraq for fighting terrorists? But the Iraqis were already fighting terrorists… maybe the wrong terrorists, yeah that must be it.

Or are we in Iraq to promote democracy? Is that correct? My limited understanding of the Muslim religion is that they do not support democracy, which is why there is only one. It is against the Koran. You cannot question the unity of state and religion if you are Muslim. This is why there is civil war in Iraq. WE started it.

As much as I personally hate the way women are treated in strict Muslim countries, I cannot see how it is right for us to solve one human rights issue by violating so many others. Is this not a “holy war”, just as they claim? Are we not dismantling their religion?

With all that said about the murky state of US foreign policy, I do believe that since we started the war there, we must now continue to take responsibility for it, for as long as it takes. Three choices then:

1. Send over enough men to really dominate, and shove democracy down their throats.

2. Split the country down the middle, and let one half live in a democracy. Move the Berlin wall over there, so the women won’t escape from the bad half.

3. Find a system of government to which both sides can agree. By both sides, I don’t mean US, I mean the Iraqis.

Squeaky

Posted by: Squeaky at March 21, 2006 8:41 PM
Comment #135141

///
We should have supported an independent Kurdistan years ago. Turkey did not want it, and we screwed the Kurds. Ask an Armenian about Turkey and where their borders should be. Turks are a minority in Turkey. One Big European Lie is that no Christian has ever converted to Islam voluntarily, and that Muslims in Europe are foreigners. Turkey has a very mixed population of nationalities, including many Greeks and other small nationalities, plus the descendants of slaves from anywhere they ever fought a war.

OMG, SE is back from visiting his buddy C V Harrelson in prison.
and Hooray for Betty Burkes top seven list
///

Posted by: ohrealy at March 21, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #135150

Eagle,

Try writing one positive thing on Iraq
Easy. It’s a Republican war. They wanted, they “planned” it, and they got it. And just how big is that deficit?

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 21, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #135160

CP:

given that:

- Bush has refused to give any timetable for withdrawal;

- that in today’s press conference Bush all but admitted that we ain’t leaving Iraq while he is in office;

- that the DoD is building three permanent military bases in Iraq;

is there any evidence to suggest that Bush EVER planned to leave Iraq?

None that I’ve ever seen, CP. After all their f*ck-ups they’re going to make damn sure that they get their hands on a lot of that stuff which is as slippery as Bush’s grasp on reality, and as black as a plutocrats mercenary little heart. Though I think Betty also made some very good points about just why we’re likely to remain there forever.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 21, 2006 10:14 PM
Comment #135165

War is such a fine thing. Bush is such a good president. Write something positive about this:

officials at Baghdad’s main morgue had logged more than 1,300 deaths since the attack on the… shrine. Most of the dead had been shot, knifed or garroted, often with their hands tied execution-style behind their backs, the report said. It added that the blood-caked bodies of hundreds of men lay unclaimed…”

“they always shoot you in the back of the neck”

Bush is such a good president. Tell me, what kind of sights and sounds does a young man experience in the moments before he is executed? Or for that matter, a young girl? Because today:

“As the Iraq war entered its fourth year, of at least 15 more people - that of a 13-year-old girl among them - dumped in and near Baghdad. The discoveries marked the latest in a string of execution-style killings that have become an almost daily occurrence…”

“theyll shoot me i dont care theyll shoot me in the back of the neck”

In those final moments before the bullet, would you scream? Would you pray? Cyr? Would you say “Bush is such a good president”? Because yesterday:

Evidence of nightly sectarian violence among Sunnis and Shiites showed up at two Baghdad sewage treatment plants yesterday. Police said they found 14 bodies, bound hand and foot and shot execution-style.”

“I’ll shoot you, I’ll vaporize you, I’ll send you to the salt mines!”

What sounds? Someone else being shot next to you? The loud report, the almost unregistered scent of cordite mixed in with the coppery smell of blood, the stink of shit and piss as the guy on the other side loses control because the fear-

Yes. It’s going well. Aren’t we glad to contribute our part, you know, do our patriotic bit to help out. Yes. The day before yesterday:

“BAGHDAD - The bodies of 16 victims of shootings were found in different areas of the capital, police said.”

Slow news day? No. That was just Bagdhad. There were lots more in other cities and towns.


Posted by: phx8 at March 21, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #135166

Now come the mighty Sicilian Eagle replete with battle armour and happy that he has raised a few feathers with his lefty friends.

Elliot
Nice hearing from you again.I noticed you said nothing about numbers 1-3 on my mini ecomomic summary.
Instead I get the typicial “ya but” baloney..typicial of your party.
By the way,those numbers above are way better than anything that happened in the Clinton years….and he didn’t have a war best of my knowledge,anyway.

Deficit will be halved in 2008 anyway…it’s a non issue.

As far as it being a Republician war:How quaint.
Been to New York lately?Place called Ground Zero?Almost 3,000 dead…remember…done by Muslim fanatics…..remember?

If that is a Republician war,well yeah,I guess.What was the alternative?Kerry?Ya,right.

Aldous
Welcome back.Glad David reconsidered giving you the boot…you’re my favorite leftist commentator on the blog.I will give you a free shot as a welcome back gift today.

Tony

Now THERE is the nub….exactly how positive news have you seen about the war on ABC,CBS or NBC the last 2 years?

Media bais is very much an issue…did you see Helen Thomas today?…Great example of journalisn,wouldn’t you agree?Competely disgraceful.

AP
Yes we will certainly win…we never were losing except to you guys are who trying to get something going.Frankly,we came and we conquered.No,we kicked the living shit out of them.We crushed them.We obliterated them.Dig up Saddam’s two sons and ask them who won.

Now,a completely different question is this:can these morons govern themselves?Maybe ,maybe not.Are you suggesting that Saddam should be placed back in power?Are you suggesting that Bush shouldn’t have invaded Iraq in light of last week’s New York Times piece?Really?

No,the nub of the problem is that Bush gets a big red “F” for letting this nonsense…this media brainwashing go on for so long.

Re-reading these posts you would expect that we had a Custer’s last stand,that 5 US divisions got wiped out,that thousands of Americans are captive.

IF a Civil War does in fact break out,as it very well may,rest assured that our troops will not be massacred as that nit wit Gary Hart said on Bill Mather’s show a couple weeks ago.

In two seconds we can make a sandpit out of Bagdad…they know,I know it,and maybe you should think about it.

Again,AP,I ask…have you written ONE positive thing…one..about the war?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at March 21, 2006 10:27 PM
Comment #135170



ALL

Remember that nutcase jihadist who tried too kill college students last week? His name is Mohammed Taheri-azar.Remember him.On a scale of 1 to 10 he is a 1 in terms of being a dangerous fanatic.However,read his letter left in his apartment to give you an idea of who we are up against.


A local television station made available today a handwritten letter that Taheri-azar wrote on March 10 from prison, responding to its request for an interview, in which he explained his goals in the attack .

Here it is:
March 10, 2006

Amber Rupinta
111 Liberty St.
Durham, NC 27701

In the name of Allah, the merciful the compassionate

Dear Ms. Rupinta:

I’ve included a visitor’s application. I left a one page letter for the police in the bedroom of my apartment at 303 Smith Level Rd. A-34 but in brief;

I live with the holy Koran as my constitution for right and wrong and definition of injustice.

The Koran also spelled Quran is a scientific and mathematical miracle so there can be no doubt that it is from a supernatural source, i.e. Allah the creator and controller of all things. Those who follow the Koran, i.e. the truth, are members of one family, as the Koran states. Allah in the Koran gives permission for those who follow Allah to attack those who have waged war against them, with the expectation of eternal paradise in case of martyrdom and/or the living of one’s life in obedience of all of Allah’s commandments found throughout the Koran’s 114 chapters.

I’ve read all 114 chapters about 20 times since June of 2003 when I started reading the Koran. The U.S. government is responsible for the deaths and torture of countless followers of Allah, my brothers and sisters. My attack on Americans at UNC-CH March 3, was in retaliation for similar attacks orchestrated by the U.S. government on my fellow followers of Allah in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic territories. I did not act out of hatred for America but out of love for Allah instead. I live only to serve Allah by obeying all of his commandments of which I am aware by reading and learning the contents of the Koran.

I would be glad to have an on-camera interview.

Sincerely

Mohammed Taheri-azar

Now….any questions about who and why we are in the fight for our lives?

Posted by: Sicilianeagle at March 21, 2006 10:40 PM
Comment #135173

All
And away flies the mighty Eagle while taking off his armour…content in knowing that maybe…just maybe…one eyebrow has been raised….

Posted by: Sicilaeagle at March 21, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #135193
As far as it being a Republician war:How quaint. Been to New York lately?Place called Ground Zero?Almost 3,000 dead…remember…done by Muslim fanatics…..remember?

SE, if you have information that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, you should contact the White House immediately. So far they’ve failed to dig up any connections. :/

C’mon, SE. I thought you were smarter than that.

Frankly,we came and we conquered.No,we kicked the living shit out of them.We crushed them.We obliterated them.

So by your thinking, we also won the Vietnam War…

SE, you like to think you’re a student of military history. Do you recognize this: “War is a continuation of politics by other means.”

That’s more true now than ever. Getting “those morons to govern themselves” is the central goal in this conflict. The fighting and body counts are meaningless except where they advance the political and strategic goals, and our Commander in Chief failed to achieve those goals. He lost.

Stabilizing the region’s oil reserves was the main strategic goal. Because of the invasion, the region is less stable now and for the foreseeable future.

The political goal was to create a prosperous and free pro-US democracy in the region that would inspire other countries. It’s been a resounding failure.

We’re winning the battles, be we already lost the war.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 22, 2006 12:14 AM
Comment #135194

SE,

“And away flies the mighty Eagle while taking off his armour…content in knowing that maybe…just maybe…one eyebrow has been raised”

So, to you I will ask the same question that I asked Eric in one of his threads on the red side;

Can you honestly say, that without a shadow of a doubt, the United States has never, ever, backed an oppressive regieme in the Middle East?
Never looked the other way while a dictator ruthlessly tortured, and murdered the population of his country because we needed him to support our goals in the region?

SE, can you honestly say that America’s hands are totally clean over the time that has elapsed since WW2?

America has done great good in the world.

I would like you to assure me that we don’t have any blood on our hands from the process.

Posted by: Rocky at March 22, 2006 12:16 AM
Comment #135195
Again,AP,I ask…have you written ONE positive thing…one..about the war?

I’ll give you two things:

Our troops are performing admirably despite poor civilian leadership, poor planning, lack of overwhelming force, lack of clear objectives, and no exit strategy.

And Saddam was removed from power — but I can think of 50 ways we could have done that without invading and occupying Iraq.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 22, 2006 12:17 AM
Comment #135196

>>Re the UN offer to help. Help do what? Talk the terrorists to death? The UN does a lot of talking and not much acting. This was not a serious and practical offer. Can anyone think of cases where the UN established peace (without the U.S. and its allies doing the heavy lifting)?

Would someone please tell Jack that the heavy lifting is complete? Now is the time for the UN. Yesterday would have been better, and before this stupid war would have been best…I won’t comment to him directly…he’s climed into Cheney/Bush’s pants so many times he smells like him now.

Sillyan Duck,

>>Now,a completely different question is this:can these morons govern themselves? Maybe, maybe not.Are you suggesting that Saddam should be placed back in power?

No they can’t, and Cheney/Bush should have known that from the start, and we had zero business removing Saddam from power to begin with. He was no threat to us, he had zero to do with 9/11, and he was a stablilizing factor in regards the three main sects of Iraq.

Questions: Is Iraq more stable now than it was with Saddam in charge? Have we reduced the terrorist threat to America by our invasion of Iraq?

Posted by: Marysdude at March 22, 2006 12:18 AM
Comment #135200

Here’s what I’m talking about. CSIS analyst Anthony Cordesman has a scorecard of Iraq objectives:

  • Objective One: Get Rid of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction Threat: We achieved our objective long before the war. The main stated objective of the war was pointless.
  • Objective Two: Liberate Iraq: If crime, insurgency, and sectarian/ethnic violence are all considered, security for the average Iraq is now worse than under Saddam Hussein. Iraqis are freer, but the new political freedom is essentially the freedom to vote for sectarian and ethnic divisions. Some progress to be sure, but much more limited than the Administration claims. It will be 2007-2008 at the earliest before stability can be established — if it can. We essentially used a bull to liberate a china shop, without a meaningful plan to deal with the consequences. We have tried to fix the resulting problems, but we still don’t know whether we can salvage our early mistakes, and give Iraqis both real security and real freedom.
  • Objective Three: End the Terrorist Threat in Iraq: There was no meaningful threat in the first place. Neo-Salafi terrorism now dominates the insurgency and is a far worse threat. Al-Qaida now has serious involvement in Iraq, and native Neo-Salafi extremists will be a threat for years to come. The impact on the region has alienated many Arabs and Muslims and has aided extremists. The war may create Iraq Shiite extremists as a lasting regional problem, and has already given Iran leverage that has added a new risk of Shi’ite extremism.
  • Objective Four: Stabilize the Gulf Region and Middle East: The war has been extremely divisive. It has created a major new source of anger against the U.S. and new tensions over the U.S. military presence in the region. Iran, Turkey, and neighboring Arab states have all become involved in destabilizing ways.
  • Objective Five: Ensure Secure Energy Exports: There have been consistently lower Iraqi exports than under Saddam. The predicted increases in Iraqi production during 2003-2005 have never occurred, and will not for years to come. There has been no meaningful renovation of oil fields and export facilities and serious further wartime disruption. The previous problems have spilled over into the other Gulf exporting states.
  • Objective Six: Make Iraq a Democratic Example that Transforms the Middle East: Iraq is not a model of anything. Public opinion polls in region show that our invasion of Iraq, our inept public diplomacy, and our poorly handled efforts to inspire regional reform, have created new Arab fears of U.S., and serious distrust of U.S. efforts at reform in other countries.
  • Objective Seven: Help Iraq Become a Modern Economy: The flood of wartime spending, oil for food money, and aid money has put tens of billions of dollars into the Iraqi economy and raised the GDP and per capita income on paper. So have record oil revenues. Even the latest Department of Defense quarterly status report has oil export revenues dominating the Iraqi portion of the GDP, projects this percentage will rise sharply in the future instead of Iraq moving towards balanced development. Most new businesses are shells, minor starts ups or war related. Youth unemployment easily averages more than 30 percent nationwide and is 40-60 percent in the troubled Sunni areas. As yet, no meaningful sectorial reform in agriculture, state industries, or the energy sector. A shift to focused short term aid and letting the Iraqis manage more of the money may help, but our efforts to date have largely been a wasteful, and highly ideological and bureaucratic, failure.

…We may salvage the Iraq War to the degree we defeat the insurgency and give the Iraqis something approaching a unified and pluralistic government, although the odds are at best even. There is little or no chance of salvaging the war in terms of our broader strategic objectives.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 22, 2006 12:50 AM
Comment #135201

Marysdude, knock off the name calling. Critique the message…

Posted by: American Pundit at March 22, 2006 12:52 AM
Comment #135210

AP,

Sorry, but I wasn’t name calling, just associating…but I get your point. My address of issues was valid. Can I still play?

Posted by: Marysdude at March 22, 2006 1:51 AM
Comment #135216

SE,

As always you know how to stir up the hornets nest. You really do still trust Bush don’t you?

You must or you wouldn’t say, “Deficit will be halved in 2008 anyway…it’s a non issue.”

Pllleeeaaaase tell me you’re joking. That alone shows how deluded you are in your support of W and his ilk. You are obviously a “stand by your man, man”, LOL.

Still, based on your tenacity, if the bullets ever start flying you’re more than welcome to cover my back.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at March 22, 2006 3:03 AM
Comment #135222

Rocky

I will be than happy to answer the question if Craig won’t.

America hands,unfortunately,are dripping with blood from that area…and have been since the end of the First World War.

We have propped up dictatorships for decades there in our ever growing need for oil…to power cars,industry…you know…the “American” way of life.

Our history there is shameful…and there is no doubt in my mind why we are hated by the fanatics.

Every country…starting with Egypt and working east has been victimized by American greed.

That being said,the answer is why.

Let’s make a quick comparison:Who is responsible for our insatiable appetite for drugs in this country?….the poor farmer eeking out a living harvesting poppy plants,or the drug lords smuggling them in,or the American public who created the demand in the first place?

Our drug in the Arabian penninsula has always been oil…always demanded by the insatiable American appetite…and now further exaserbated by two new junkies…China and India,,,who potentially will have even larger appetites.

While we gorged ourselves for decades on cheap energy,they seetheed.

We get what we sow.

Added to the junkie America issue is the drug dealer BIG OIL…always looking to feed that habit quicker,more efficiently.

So,at the bottom of the pile are the American people..and THEIR greed.

Those propped up dictators were our pimps,nothing more,and it’s a god-damned shame ALL of us (well maybe except AP who uses a bike) are now users..with no end to our addiction in sight except periodic lip service.

Last I looked,Democrats..you know..the “poor and oppressed” people, drove GM trucks,Ford trucks…”Like a Rock”..no?

Marydude
Despite the insult (Thans AP for the comment but the Eagle is fully capable of defending himself),you raise an interesting question:Can the morons govern themselves?

Well,no.

I am of the opinion now (and this will seem racist,I think…maybe not) that most of the Arabian penninsula is a generation or two behind Western civilization.

Really,when they are enlightened as a group(I hate saying that) they are brilliant.After all,this is the birthplace of mankind,and the advances in art,sciences and mathematics over the centuries have been staggering).However,I don’t think there are enough enlightened ones in the area…far outnumbered by simple folk,who live day to day,are illerate or uneducated (some have literacy rates in the 50% range,but the threshold is very low for that stastistic…merely reading like a child suffices for those purposes I am told).

Thus,until a significant segment is educated,what we see is what we get,I think.

What’s the option…leaving them alone?If you are an isolationist,the answer is yes.I am not.

As Bush said,we fight them here so we don’t have to fight them there.

Same principle.


Kansas Dem

Nice hearing from you too.

Last week I was on David’s thread trying to straighten him out and watching Aldous get kicked off the blog..alas to no avail.But I really respect his effort to kick all the bums out and I hope he suceeds spreading the word.Despite our philospohicial difference,the guy is right on 95% of the time.

Yes,I like the president but not because I think he’s right all the time.

I remember Vietnam. Well.

I remember that the protest here by the likes of Kerry and his gang and Jane Fonda and her gang,and all the Hollywood nit wits back then helped to send a demoralizing message to our troops there,while sending an encouraging message to the enemy.

Back then,I made a mistake.

A mistake that I have regretted for over 3 decades.In my youth,I was innocent.Thus,I will fight to keep family squabbles where they belong…among Americans and at the ballot box….not in the newspapers and tv and blogs on the Arabian Penninsula.

I was told last week by someone that a Colorado paper,for example,printed all the latest advances made by the military againt IME’s…including technology not yet on the battlefield.

Within hours,that story had been translated into Arabic and posted on all the terror sites and blogs.Nice,huh?

Believe me,when a guy like Feingold calls for impeachment or censure or whatever that dolt did,Bin Laden smiles…and knows about it with the hour.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at March 22, 2006 7:26 AM
Comment #135227

>>Now,a completely different question is this:can these morons govern themselves? Maybe, maybe not.Are you suggesting that Saddam should be placed back in power?

se,

Your questions above…my response below…your last post did not answer mine.

No they can’t, and Cheney/Bush should have known that from the start, and we had zero business removing Saddam from power to begin with. He was no threat to us, he had zero to do with 9/11, and he was a stablilizing factor in regards the three main sects of Iraq.

Questions: Is Iraq more stable now than it was with Saddam in charge? Have we reduced the terrorist threat to America by our invasion of Iraq?


Posted by: Marysdude at March 22, 2006 8:35 AM
Comment #135230

Marysdude, play on.

SE, I know you can defend yourself. I was just reiterating Watchblog policy.

BTW, you never responded to my post. I suppose that means you’re blown away by my thoughtful and accurate assessment and have nothing to add. Thanks. :)

Posted by: American Pundit at March 22, 2006 9:03 AM
Comment #135234

AP

Actually,yours requires the most thoughtful response.

I will save it for later today.

I have to zip to Boston this morning to address a faculty at one of the schools there,so later on today,upon my return,the Eagle will grab a cup of java,light up a Dunhill,and tap away in response to my brilliant collegue from Singapore.

Posted by: Sicilianeagle at March 22, 2006 9:16 AM
Comment #135237

AP

Hold on there partner.You left out the opening two paragraphs:


By ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN
UPI Outside View Commentator

WASHINGTON, March 20 (UPI) — “Let me preface the following points with the statement that I do not oppose the Iraq war, and that I believe we have an obligation to the Iraqi people to pursue our current strategy, to try to end the insurrection and prevent civil war, and help them create an inclusive and stable government.

I believe that we have made major advances in creating effective Iraqi

forces, that the U.S. Embassy is now pursuing the best political approach it can in trying to create the government Iraq needs, and that we are making slow progress towards taking the aid process out of disastrously incompetent U.S. hands in Washington and making Iraqis responsible for their own economic progress. “


Only then does he list your posted points.He doesn’t oppose the war,he believes that we should pursue our current strategy,and to help them make a government that works.

AP…it’s a given that disasterous mistakes were made…I long ago conceded that point to you.Bush’s mistake was that he put faith in a military command still fighting the cold war…did you read about the fit Tommy Frank’s puilled when Wallace said that leaving behind the Saddam militia was a mistake…the guy almost got fired.

Plus Bremmer disbanding the army proved terrible too.

But,that was then,this is now.

New philospohy is working..and lessons learned too on how to defeat a asymetricial enemy in the next war too.

Geez…that didn’t require as much thought as I anticipated…he butressed my arguement,pal.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at March 22, 2006 9:28 AM
Comment #135240

SE, you’re making my point. The bar for victory was lowered to merely keeping the country from disintegrating. As Cordesman concludes,

“We may salvage the Iraq War to the degree we defeat the insurgency and give the Iraqis something approaching a unified and pluralistic government, although the odds are at best even. There is little or no chance of salvaging the war in terms of our broader strategic objectives.

Bush lost Iraq. He failed to achieve every single political and strategic goal he laid out, but maybe — if we’re lucky — we can avert open civil war in Iraq.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 22, 2006 9:39 AM
Comment #135246

sicilianeagle,

Again,AP,I ask…have you written ONE positive thing…one..about the war?

“No WMDs was found in Iraq”?
:-p

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 22, 2006 10:21 AM
Comment #135249

Sicilianeagle,

… “The Koran also spelled Quran is a scientific and mathematical miracle so there can be no doubt that it is from a supernatural source, i.e. Allah the creator and controller of all things.

Hey, if you replace Koran by Universe and Allah by, well, God, it sounds like pro-ID and fanatics islamists have this belief in common!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 22, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #135251

SE,

I was told last week by someone that a Colorado paper,for example,printed all the latest advances made by the military againt IME’s…including technology not yet on the battlefield.

Within hours,that story had been translated into Arabic and posted on all the terror sites and blogs.Nice,huh?

Yeah, stupid uncrypted english language than most people worldwide can read!

Maybe, even if you’re at war (I’m not, as I’m not american), someone at least in the Military complex can’t care less about keeping secrets… secret, but actually do care a lot about marketing and Defense contractors.
Weird War, indeed?

I guess this guy should be found, after he’s a traitor. The journalist(s) too. Jail all of them!

Believe me,when a guy like Feingold calls for impeachment or censure or whatever that dolt did,Bin Laden smiles…and knows about it with the hour.

You mean he smiles *before* he knows it!?
Weird Warriors. Really.


Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 22, 2006 10:52 AM
Comment #135275


SE,

Are you saying the war in Iraq is a war on terrorism? AND a war to help the average Iraqi family?

Seems like the White House is claiming that they moved the war with terrorists off our soil and onto Iraq soil (questionable claim), and that this is somehow a benefit to the Iraqi people. You can’t have it both ways, and frankly the whole thing makes no sense to me at all.

Also, the call for impeaching Bush has nothing to do with Bin Laden, and is based on the US laws that he has broken. Shall we now declare war on the Truth, to support the war on Terror? Sometimes the truth is terrifying, so be it.

Plus, I fail to see what Bin Laden has to do with Iraq - is he there?

Odd how Republicans think that Dems are anti-security. Someone “explain me” how they get this idea. On the other thread someone’s claiming that it’s the Dems who cause the illegal immigration problem. And yet, isn’t it caused by the people who want to hire cheap housekeepers? Wouldn’t that be mostly rich Republicans?

And whence comes the idea that protesting war is equal to despising soldiers? It is, I assure you, quite the opposite, notwithstanding the bad behavior of a few young’uns in the past.

~confused~
Squeaky

Posted by: Squeaky at March 22, 2006 1:33 PM
Comment #135358

Eagle,

Deficit will be halved in 2008 anyway…it’s a non issue.
Like I’m gonna believe that coming from someone who assured us all a few months ago that Bush’s popularity would be way up by now. Right.

And here are some other numbers for you:

Number of American dead in Iraq: 2,319. Number of American dead since “mission accomplished”: 2,182.
Number of Iraqi deaths: somwhere between 33,000 and 100,000. Cost of the war - $249,318,000,000 and rising. Number of wordwide terrorist attacks in 2003 - 175. Number of worldwide terrorist attacks in 2004 (the last year that figures were relased) - 655.

Eagle, you’re way too easy.

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 22, 2006 8:48 PM
Comment #135399

orealy and Adrienne wrote:

Hooray for Betty Burkes top seven list
I think Betty also made some very good points about just why we’re likely to remain there forever.

Thanks guys! I wondered if anyone had read what I postulated - because all I saw was the occasional tumbleweed blow through and all I heard was the chirping of a lonely cricket…

Of course, this is within keeping of Adrienne’s First Law Of Watchblog: when you make a truly valid point against Regressive Madness, the monkeymass responds with either Talking Points or Dead Silence.

That way, they don’t have to actually engage in Critical Thinking; they can just repeat the Magic Words or stuff their heads into an Undisclosed Location and ignore the sound of Truth whistling by.

Because we all know: the onset of a fresh breeze of Truth is a harbinger of the Winds Of Change to come - and Change is anathema to them.

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 22, 2006 11:32 PM
Comment #135416

Betty,
Your comments were good, others too. I read them. People rarely respond to my comments. There’s probably a good reason for that. Generally speaking, I think there are a couple reasons why Republicans are falling silent.

First, and foremost, they are wrong. When reporter Helen Thomas asked Bush ‘No, really- seriously now- why are we in Iraq?’ he could not answer the question. He could not give a straight answer. Bush made a lot of statements. He put Thomas in her place. But he never directly answered the question. It’s not a good sign when a president can’t give a straight answer to a straight question of such importance. Conservatives & Republicans are in the position of defending the indefensible. It can’t be much fun. It won’t be long before you’ll have a hard time finding people who will even admit to voting for Bush.

Second, there was never exactly a glut of articulate, intelligent conservative Republicans. I’ll resist the urge to make snarky comments, just observe that there weren’t many before, and as opinion polls indicate, there are even fewer now. While there are exceptions, the hard core Bush supporters left standing tend to be less articulate, shall we say, and rather ill-informed.

For some strange reason, the few Bush supporters left imagine posting a comment is like a right wing talk radio show: first, make sure the liberal is not too bright; then, toss out a devastating insult, and hang up before there’s a reply- maybe talk to empty air as if the befuddled liberal was still there, writhing from the flame. They imagine they are a MBL pitcher throwing a 105 mph sinking fastball. Unfortunately, the liberal at bat is McGuire, the pitch hangs over the fat part of the plate, and McGuire hits a space shot out of the stadium- and the batters on deck are all just as good.

Hopefully the midterms will put an end to some of the stupidity- we’ll see. Sadly, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

Posted by: phx8 at March 23, 2006 1:17 AM
Comment #135430

Betty Burke

Silent?Me?Talking points?Me?

Let’s see….Dems can’t talk about the economy this year….4.8% unemployment…lowest since the 70”s….5 MILLION jobs created…more that Japan and the entire EU combined….and 3.1% GNP…..yet I am sure the DEMS will still bitch about the tax cut.

However Americans are too busy working to listen.

Can’t piss and moan about the economy….and rest assurred that us not so intelligent Republicians are busy right now parsing out the stats on the above and have begun the job of driving home that message to Americans as we speak.

The ecomony will be a mid-term election issue…for the Republicians.

Elliot Bay

I grieve every day on those stats on casualities….as do you I am sure.

I noticed that you posted on Jack’s link on the red side…maybe others on this thread (AP for one) should look at the link and post there too for comment…while reading also the comments from three different blue commentators,one who called the reds “a prick”.

NOW that’s intelligence…and also against Watchblog’s critique the message policy.

Your loony left is far more loony than our loony right…and that’s the point.

Discount out the lunitic fringe on both parties and what you have left is a slice of thought still supports the war.Ask your Hilary about withdrawing…she is going to be your standard bearer isn’t she..ask her her views if we should cut and run…or is that a “talking” point?

Pardon me,but I have to run to an intelligence improving class now…we reds all should attend you know…taught by a smart blue prof too…either Gore or Kerry is his name…can’t remember it exactly…no..it’s Moore…nah…Murtha…,nope…Fiengold….Geez..can’t remember who it is but he’s really smart.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at March 23, 2006 7:23 AM
Comment #135436

phx8:

I cannot comment enough (and I don’t, so there!) on the quality of posts by both you and Aldous. Frankly, if it weren’t for the likes of you, Aldous, Adrienne, treehugger, et al., I don’t think I could stomach this place for any length of time. My apologies for taking anyone for granted.

It won’t be long before you’ll have a hard time finding people who will even admit to voting for Bush.

Never fear! The Diebold machines will remain loyal! ([whispered]*It’s built into their programming!*)

Second, there was never exactly a glut of articulate, intelligent conservative Republicans. I’ll resist the urge to make snarky comments …

*I* won’t! You see, [whispers again, pulling you aside]: the Kissingers and the Cheneys, the Pearles and the Wolfowitzes - they aren’t Ignorant; they’re E-V-I-L. *Knowingly*! And they’ve engaged on a thirty-year campaign to dumb down the American Electorate through underfunding public education (including public television). It’s all so they can get a pliable, easy-to-manipulate monkeymass of drooling, obese, NASCAR-watching, SUV-driving, easily-scared Consumers spreading Cheez-Wiz on their Wonder Bread and washing down handfulls of Prescription Medications with their Bud Lite. It’s a P-L-A-N, do you get it? And - here’s the Best Part - the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing people that he Didn’t Exist! They have done it by Delphic Gestalt: as in, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?!” They have colluded in their Boardrooms and their Staff Chambers until the lobbyists are actually writing the legislation, and NO ONE CARES!!!

Cool, huh?

And now, the Marching Morons are so busy downloading the latest tune from the new Corporate Idol so they can listen to it on their E-Pods, that they cannot hear the sawblades spinning up iin the abattoir (that’s a FRENCH word, Righties, so you know it must be bad!), and they will march right up in lockstep - with a GMAC-note in one hand and a Twinkie in the other - and lay themselves down for the slaughter (after a good Fleecing first, of course).

Silent?Me?

Oh, yes: of course…

Talking points?Me?

Well, actually - yes. You. [points at sicilianeagle] Yep. Talking Points are actually what you do best. For example:

Let’s see….Dems can’t talk about the economy this year….4.8% unemployment…lowest since the 70”s….5 MILLION jobs created…more that Japan and the entire EU combined….and 3.1% GNP…..yet I am sure the DEMS will still bitch about the tax cut.

However Americans are too busy working to listen.

Actually, you appear to have been Too Busy regurgitating Talking Points to have learned the Truth. According to the following links (which you must copy-and-paste with your mouse, manually providing the ‘http://’ bit yourself so as not to trigger the WatchBlog Antispam Robots), unemployment reached its Low in the year 2000, President Bill Clinton’s last year in office:

www.centrists.org/images/charts_and_graphs/unemployment_rate_1993-present.gif

encarta.msn.com/media_461544504/U_S_Unemployment_Levels.html

(Note the explanation of how to read the Misery Index in the following one):

www.miseryindex.us/indexbyyear.asp

and are presently at 5.1%, according to the CIA World Fact Book (the CIA works for us, sicilianeagle…), not the 4.8% you claim above. Further, the following countries presently have lower unemployment than the United States:

Bangladesh

Cuba

Iceland

Ireland

Japan

South Korea

Luxembourg

New Zealand

Norway

Singapore

Switzerland

Taiwan

Thailand

The U.K.

and (my personal favourite)

VietNam

But hey, don’t get your feathers ruffled, `eagle, `cause:

WE’RE #16!!! WE’RE #16!!! WE’RE #16!!! WE’RE #16!!!

Did a tumbleweed just blow through here?

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 23, 2006 8:25 AM
Comment #135445

Betty Burke, besides Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia election machinery are also problematic. Just getting enough machines is a problem in many districts. Sequoia made the news this morning. They always claim that any problems that occur with their machinery are the fault of the poll workers. They are like politicians with spin doctors, using talking points. The contributions to politicians should be illegal, $600,000 to Cheney from Diebold, and they should be prosecuted for kickbacks. But since we have a Rpblcn administration, Corporations have more rights than voters.

Posted by: ohrealy at March 23, 2006 9:40 AM
Comment #135469

Betty, don’t worry. Just because people don’t always reply doesn’t mean they don’t like your posts — sometimes we’re just too busy to reply to everything and everybody. Btw, phx8 is one of my favorite posters in WB, too, and Aldous is a brilliant satirist who never fails to completely crack me up!

ohrealy,
Have you heard that there is now another company to add to that list:
Hart InterCivic Whistleblower Warned of Texas, Ohio E-Voting ‘Fraud’ Concerns in 2004.
100,000+ Votes Were Errantly Added by Hart Machines in a Single County in Last Tuesday’s Primary via Flawed, Paperless ‘eSlate’ Touch-Screen System!
Former Hart Employee, Tarrant County TX Election Worker Notified State, Legal Authorities in 2004 About Serious Voting Machine Problems, Procedures…All Warnings and Complaints Ignored

Posted by: Adrienne at March 23, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #135513

///
Adrienne, speaking of 2004, I do not know if you have ever seen this site:

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/gallery/single/se2466.jpg/
It contains over 8000 photographs of people commiserating after the 2004 elections.
Many of the European posts include references to old europe, indicating that Rummy struck a nerve. It helps to see the faces of so many people on the same side. I am surprised that the site is still there. You can hit random and keep getting a different photo.

Ohio in 2004 is still controversial, I am glad that Barbara Boxer lodged a protest against the Ohio election results. People know more about what to watch. It is better than 2000 when thousands were not allowed to vote, just in Duval, County, Florida, which is Jacksonville, and the senate did nothing.

Besides the campaign contributions, there is also a revolving door between these companies, and the public officials who buy the machines.

Our primary was yesterday in Illinois. Thanks for the link. I have that blog under Steal this Vote, by Andrew Gumbel.
///

Posted by: ohrealy at March 23, 2006 3:05 PM
Comment #135583

sicilianeagle,

you made the comment that the “looney” left is far more looney than the looney right. REDICULOUS!!!

The looniest of the left do things like sabotage Hummers on new car lots or chain themselves to trees to prevent clear-cut logging. If their goals get met, gas and trees get saved.

The looniest on the right undermine the very constituion that is the very foundation of our democracy. …and that’s without even considering the REALY looney right-wing neo-nazi’s and skin heads forming churches in Idaho and preparing for race war. If their goals are met, people DIE.

So you are woefully WRONG!

RGF

Posted by: RGF at March 23, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #135750

Oh’Realy (a Fhine Irish lad, no doubt) wrote:

But since we have a Rpblcn administration, Corporations have more rights than voters.

Voters have Rights?!?!?

!!! - :o0

You mean, like the right to be represented?!?! To have a, a - voice - in Government??? So that they could - for example, and I’m just going out on a limb here - make decisions about their own life and health, without having congress pass Laws forbidding it???!

Well, I’m just gobsmacked!


Adrienne: nice link. Are you beginning to catch a little of my Revolutionary Fervour? Starting, perhaps, to come to the conclusion that Ballots are no longer an option for the American People to have their say? Joebagowingnuts and Southern Gentleman Jack think I’m a Dangerous Loonie - a “hater” (maybe even a Father-Raper!), who won’t provide them with the Journalistic Objectivity to allow for their side of the “debate.”

Of course, when the “debate” is not allowed at the Ballot Box, it might be time to go to the Bullet Box instead, just as Big Tam Jefferson warned us we would need to do.


RGF, you make a Point I have made time and time again: when Lefties go overboard, we get Ebonics. When Righties go overboard, we get Body Bags. It’s America’s choice. Or, is it… [cue spooky music and fade to black]

Posted by: Betty Burke at March 24, 2006 10:22 PM
Post a comment