Here’s some reasonable advice for the Democrats on Iraq. It’s from Michael O’Hanlon, one of their number who first had the temerity to write that the surge was showing some positive effects in Iraq.
The gist of it? Take credit for the surge since it probably wouldn’t have happened but for their 2006 election, their criticism of how the war had been going, their previous calls to send more troops, and the pressure all of it put on Bush—even though, by the time the surge was proposed, they were set against it. Although that position seems a bit tricky (”I was for a surge before I was against this surge before I was for it again”), it seems the only one with any chance of making sense, especially if things keep looking better in Iraq. It even has the advantage—and the rarity, in politics—of probably being true.
Whether the Democrats will take O’Hanlon’s advice or not remains to be seen. The fact that even John Murtha has now said he thinks the surge is working is a sign that it may be time for them to do so.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Yeah right, neo, now the Dems are trying to co-op the “success” of the surge–only the surge hasn’t succeeded yet–the political situation in Iraq is still unsettled. That was Patreaus’ standard for success. Please.
Also, I don’t know if you caught the news, something about an NIE report, how Bush may have misled the nation, again? Don’t know if you heard that one.
“That’s when you start going hmmm…because they (conservative bloggers) reach people who are influential…that’s what I mean about influential. Talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It’s a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs exactly what you say to them.”
–Bush advisor Dan Bartlett
“Meet the regurgitation chorus. So much more reliable than the MSM.”–Andrew Sullivan
Now will come all the posts about how the libs conspired to forge the NIE report to undermine Bush. I can hardly wait. Paranoia runs deep…
December 6th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
jim:
How “Bush may have misled the nation again”? “Bush” is the one writing the NIE, right? The one that said in 2005 that Iran was actively working on a nuclear program?
Weeeelllll, let’s see… have a look at this:
“Thomas Fingar, one of the three principal authors of the new and controversial National Intelligence Estimate, makes my point for me — or at least he made the point in 2001.
The most difficult thing a trouble-maker has to do to make an atomic bomb, he said six and a half years ago, is obtain the highly enriched uranium (or plutonium) for the weapon.
Yet Fingar concludes in the new NIE report that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003. He reaches this conclusion despite knowing that Iran today is obtaining highly enriched uranium by producing it IN PLAIN SIGHT.”
Mr. Fingar had a slightly different take in July:
“Just four months ago, Fingar told the House Armed Services Committee:
“We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons — despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.”
What happened between then — July 11 — and three days ago, when the NIE declared the Iranian regime probably stopped the weapons program four years ago?”
…and you believe ANYTHING these bozos say?
December 6th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
You could write slogans for the DNC! *laughs* Seriously though, if they take this tack, they will be splitting with their primary base (in sound bites if not reality). I think, in the end, it might actually work for them, as that fringe is ignored except by media and seemingly in-house Democrat functions and functionaries. People in the middle of the road neither know nor care about history. They live and vote as if today and only maybe a bit of yesterday and tomorrow existed. Actually, and unfortunately, this would be a favorable thing for “The Party of the People”. They can easily write off changing their minds as proof they aren’t stuck in the rut they truly live in. Plus, they could finally come out “for the troops”, on paper if not really.
Hush woman! Get thee hie! Bah, I am not too worried, we are talking about the Democrats. They actually used to be good at this stuff, now they know (and mostly correctly) that they do not have to worry. The people who vote for them do so without a thought. Who else could a criminal (who wants to vote, gets it auto here in Iowa after parole), welfare recipients, the babyboomers who are bust because of their lifestyle choices, and anyone who wants to do things which are immoral, unethical, or just socially out (think gays, drug users, torte lawyers as a sampling)?
December 6th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
That last was supposed to say, who else would these people vote for but a Democrat?
December 6th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
I feel positively psychic.
“…into your heart it’ll creep…”
December 6th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Just for you, jim:
“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”
December 6th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Sigh,
I haven’t read the comments or commented here in a very long time: I was sick of the snarky trolls who end their vacuous comments with ellipses, suggesting that their wisdom continues beyond the comment itself. So I come by to check out the comments after a couple years and find that the first comment is from a snarky troll who end their vacuous comments with an ellipsis.
December 6th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
jimfocus Says:
Do you ever hurt your back moving those goalposts around?
December 6th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
THe cynic in me says that it’s too early for the Democrats to claim credit for the surge. Better to wait until you know for sure that the surge has succeeded before claiming credit for it.
If so, then Bob Dylan really nailed it. Maliki could sing this to Murtha:
You got a lotta nerve
To say you are my friend
When I was down
You just stood there grinning
You got a lotta nerve
To say you gota helping hand to lend
You just want to be on
The side that’s winning
December 6th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Deep, Brad, very, very deep…
December 6th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Stumbley,
Who exactly is coming for you?
“…it starts when you’re always afraid…”
Btw, I’ve been lamely quoting Stephen Stills (sorry again, Brad)
December 6th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Ayatollah D’Souza
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070205/pollitt
December 6th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
If Iraq continues to go well, Dems will come around to claiming credit, just as Bill Clinton claimed credit for his administration, i.e. “WE stopped a millineum plot” when a border patrol officer used her senses to detain a potential terrorist in 1999.
Dems will claim credit over and over and over, until their claims become just as accepted as their claims that Bush lied over WMDs, and just as accepted as their claims that Clarence Thomas harassed Anita Hill, and just as accepted as their claims that higher taxes equate to more tax revenue for the government.
If Iraq continues to go well, Dems will become the heroes of Iraq. The eventual OIF War Monument will prominently credit Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi for leading us to victory - and I am not being sarcastic. It truly will - just as many of the 9/11 monuments either blame the U.S. for being attacked, or attempted to blame the U.S. before sufficient outrage prompted changes in the original designs.
December 6th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Truth,
D’Souza is a friend, of sorts, very likable fellow. But, yeah, the book gets out there. He thinks American conservatives and militant muslims actually have much in common, and should join up to smash “the Left,” whoever that may be. He equates gayness with murderers,etc. Most disheartening, he doesn’t even attempt to argue on spiritual grounds, sees religion as a means of controlling people. Pretty cynical stuff, but some may think he’s just being a cold-blooded truth-teller.
December 6th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Also: when Harry and Nancy write their books, we’re going to see a lot of this:
We were a tremendous help to the war effort behind the scenes. Sure, we had to do some public posturing, for political purposes. But behind the scenes, we were invaluable friends to President Bush, and to the troops, and to the Iraqi people. Behind the scenes,where there were no cameras, we went above and beyond the call - courageously and untiringly, again and again - for Pres. Bush, for the troops, and for OIF and the Iraqi people. OIF could not have succeeded without our tremendous, beyond-the-pale efforts. In fact, without us, i.e. if somebody else had been in our posts, we truly suspect OIF would have failed. We are just so grateful we could do some things for our boys and girls in uniform.
I am already sensing this story line, in current media, even before the historical rewrites come out in hardback.
December 6th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
“…step outta line…”
December 6th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
“…the man come and take you away…”
Please.
December 6th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
I love you, Stumbley.
“…think it’s time we stop.”
December 6th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
…and so interesting, jim that you would quote Stephen Stills, and “For What It’s Worth,” a song of the paranoid Left about conservatives depriving them of the right to congregate on Sunset Blvd., a paranoia about a fascist state that never materialized. Who’s petrified that their library records and phone calls are being monitored 24/7 by Bushitler? Who’s terrified that the rabid animals who populate our Armed Forces are raping, pillaging and torturing pretty much everyone they meet?
And when those of us who are concerned about actual countries who are actually threatening us, who have supplied terrorists with funds and weapons, who have taken hostages at our embassy, and are killing our soldiers in Iraq, we’re being unreasonably wary.
Who is truly paranoid, eh?
December 6th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Once again wishing all a Happy Chanukkah, and reminding that tomorrow is Pearl Harbor Day. A doubly bad day for trolls.
December 6th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
jimfocus,
Have you ever actually read your “name” and tried it? Give it a go big guy… or tulip boy, or girl/boy, or… whatever. Well, I initially thought to give it a shot. I realize my error. Carry on jimfocus.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Stumbley,
You’re right, there’s lots of irony in the song. Stills was also admonishing the demonstrators to not overreact and get paranoid. Stills was/is a devotee of Alinsky–if you practice civil disobedience don’t be outraged when you get cracked over the head, expect it. Stills is actually fairly conservative in his views. Very underrated artist. His favorite line in the song is people carrying signs, mostly saying “hooray” for our side–an unprecedented shot at some of the demonstrators from the rockocracy of the times.
Re: Bush, it’s becoming more apparent by the hour that Bush was less than truthful at his news conference, plus Cheney and he kept up the jingoistic rhetoric on Iran when they were both told in August that the intel was showng a much different situation.
Do you neocons realize how silly you look complaining about the NIE now? Why would anyone take you seriously on this subject ever again? You guys have been wrong on everything for the past 5 years. That’s Bush-Cheney’s problem, too. They have no cred left. Is this the de facto end of the Bush Adm.?
December 6th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Doom,
I prefer “Big Boy.” “Tulip Boy” second.
When neocons quickly run out of arguments they always come with the ad hominen. No game.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
When trolls run out of insults, they always whine about “the ad hominem”. No brain.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Sally,
You hot temptress, you. Did you draw your eyebrows on today?
Uh, btw, you have an argument? No.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Democrats standing up for America?
I’m not sure MSM punditry would survive the experience. Their failure to make Hillary! less than agonizing in one-on-one interviews comes to mind.
But to have them attempt to coopt success in Iraq… you must realize that we’re talking cognitative dissonance on a scale to level continents here.
Neo… they can’t stand up for success. Not because success is upon us, or even a nearly sure thing - but because if they allow that U.S. involvement in Iraq to be anything short of economic exploitation or some weird flavor of patriarchal white colonialism they’ll lose their base. They would violate The Narrative ™
LOSE the base it. Not merely inspire luminaries like Mother Sheehan to jump into political races.
The Left’s opposition to Iraq was never about outcomes. It was first and always about protecting their fantasy world where America is the first evil , plus the spice of BDS.
Other peoples’ children, as my mom used to say.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
You know what’s really deliciously funny in all of this? The neocons over the last week trying to “force” the dems to make remarks about the surge and how it’s working. Hello, what an idiotic approach.
Did you guys even hear what Patraeus said this week?
Please. How stupid.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
Okay, jim, you seem a relatively reasonable soul. I invite you to read this: http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/ (”Sources and Methods”) and let us know what you think.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
I’m pretty disappointed in the lack of a thread about the NIE and Bush knowing about the intel, yet still spinning the Iran bogeyman threats, and now getting caught with his poor little press secy having to “explain”…yes, indeed IS “is”. This time however, the lie is much more damaging that a BJ under the desk in the oval office.
My my…pretty amazing how some can get all lathered up over Clinton and at the same time slip right into the codependent children of Bush blaming the intel community and making excuse after excuse for the actions of one who has done more to damage our credibility in the world.
And you call yourselves therapists?
That explains it I guess.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Laura, same goes for you: read http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/ (”Sources and Methods”)
You should be worried.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
You neocons make me laugh. Snigger. (Oops, I didn’t mean to say that.) You’re all so stupid, nobody beleives you. You don’t even have arguments, like me. Like when I say that Bush is just dumb. And a liar. When he talks. A lying liar. Like all you neocons.
Try being like me or Laura, if you can (NOT!) Like when Laura just keeps repeating over and over and over, “It’s not working, it’s not working, it’s not working,…” Sometimes you can throw in another repetition, like “you make me laugh, you make me laugh, you make me laugh,…”
See, that’s how you argue!
Heebie, jeebie. (Fatty Arbuckle)
Did I mention that I’m an undercover ATF agent? And a social worker? I did? When?
Okay, well, I also used to play concert piano! For Procul Harem! Yeah! Bet ya didn’t know that, smart guys! Oh, And I’m a physio too, just like neo!
Hey, hugga muggah! (Jean-Paul Belmondo)
Whoop de doop. (Babe)
Ho, ho! (Bugs Bunny)
Asdfhsdfg! (From some movie. I mean filum. Look it up.)
December 6th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Laura,
I agree, it seems it’s change-the-subject time in high gear here in neoneoconland. Also, when they do talk about it, they zero in on the substance of the NIE, when the world and everybody else has rightfully pounced on Bush’s disengenuousness and ginning up war fears this fall when he knew there were potentially big holes in the story. His cred is gone.
Stumpley, I’m going to the link now and I will read it, promise.
“I understand the issues.”–Pres. Bush, 2 days ago
December 6th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
For cryin’ in a bucket! You sent me a blog? Written by who? Like I give a rat’s ass? jesus you really floor me pal. What, do you all get some daily memo sent out about what you’re supposed to push today, sort of like Nordstrom pushing a “certain fragrance”? It goes from drudge to all the sub sets and trickles down (reagonomics) to you! Fun to track back on that site you sent, story running in 2004 about the violence and trying to explain it all away.
Do you even realize that today we find out the millions more are missing in Iraq? That the Iraqis have what, about 4 weeks left to make some progress in this session and they aren’t moving the ball down the field, AT ALL? Did you hear what Patreaus has said about the “window” of opportunity?
No, you are too busy cheering for war and MORE WAR, regardless of what CAREER PROFESSIONALS
December 6th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
regardless of what the people who are charged with intel. And, NO DONT EVEN TRY TO SPIN THIS NIE AND LAST NIE…WON”T WORK.
You want war?
As long as it doesn’t cost you or your family anything. Bloodlust.
Hubris and ego makes a very deadly cocktail
December 6th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
“Do you even realize that today we find out the millions more are missing in Iraq? That the Iraqis have what, about 4 weeks left to make some progress in this session and they aren’t moving the ball down the field, AT ALL? Did you hear what Patreaus has said about the “window” of opportunity?”
You know, we could change Iraq/Iraqis to “the U.S. Congress”, and Patreus’ name to that of any historian/economist who has been sounding the warnings about our unfunded entitlements bomb, and it would fly like a bird.
Just saying.
It’s almost Christmas. Will our troops be home from Kosovo then?
Cheers.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
It’s what they do.
NY Times: A CIA officer, an employee at the agency for more than 20 yrs, including several years in a clandestine unit assigned to gather intelligence related to illicit weapons, was fired in 2004. This agent says that in the spring of 2001 that Iraq had abandoned a major element of its nuclear weapons program, but the agency did not share the information w/ other agencies or w/ senior policy makers. This agent says that just like in the Plame case, he brought unwelcome information on WMD in the period prior to the Iraq invasion, and retribution followed.
Sound familiar. Gee, how many people have officially come out to debunk bush and how many remain? Hmmm
Can he fire the whole intel community? I wonder. Well, there is that little National Security Directive.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Richard Clarke
December 6th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Millions and millions missing and Bush wants a blank check? That’s like giving an addict a (pick your poison) unlimited supply.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Looks like Laura is in need of another trip to the woodshed, the beneficial effects of yesterday’s trip having now worn off.
But seriously, we should defer to her when she characterizes something as “stupid,” because in that area, at least, she has extensive firsthand experience.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Laura has officially jumped the shark.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
And just for you, Laura, the blog is by Richard Fernandez, who as far as I know—being a Filipino living in Australia—has no ties to any Administration or neocon folks at all; he’s simply a very talented writer with some pretty interesting insights into the world’s situation (since he’s spent a lot of time in various and sundry countries over the years, you know, unlike those of us who sit in our basements with Cheetos [and why is that such a favorite smear of bloggers, anyway?]), so to erupt in such an infantile way as you did sort of colors how any of us should respond to you n’est pas?
December 6th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Now one of the neocons has to resort to a cloned troll attack on me. LOL. What, you’re tired of crapping all over Laura and her son? I wonder who would do such a thing? Man, I must really be getting to someone.
Desperate stuff. I know it’s been a bad 3 days for you, so I’ll try to understand the extreme, out of control anger of, some of you.
BTW, got any arguments? At least Stumbley’s got me thinking over several things, and he makes me laugh, too.
I was not ATF, that one really hurt.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
I’m just tired of the childish interjections. It’s like having a four-year old interrupting an adult conversation to babble about Thomas the Tank Engine and Pokemon.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
What’s wrong w/ pokemon?
Right, Occam, and the lame insults you cons constantly throw are so adult–give me a break–LOL
And you guys aren’t making many astute points lately.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Here’s what I said previously about the NIE:
“Wait, what was wrong with the NIE? I think it’s going to come out that we got some evidence or information about their program.
What is wrong with refining Intell based on new and current information?
Besides, it’s an Estimate. It’s not evidence in a court, it’s a best guess. The previous best guess, along with Amadinejad’s rhetoric, said that Iran was building nukes.
New info will show that he’s bluffing. That is the way the system is supposed to work.
It didn’t work with Iraq. Do you know why?”
As information reveals itself, national policy gets refined. I just don’t see the problem….
Of course we are betting our lives that the current NIE is correct.
How would you like to be in charge of betting American lives? Instead of just being poo-flinging monkeys?
December 7th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Jim, the truth is a total defense.
Debunking her nonsense (see yesterday’s thread re Cheney and money) takes time, during which time she’s produced two more risible points. Rebutting that rubbish, and thereby iInterjecting a note of rationality, is like trying to cut off the head of the Hydra: two more heads appear each time.
That’s why I’m focusing on the source, with ad feminam criticisms, which in general I would not do. The arguments themselves aren’t worth the effort to debunk.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:27 am
A. this blog is so funny it’s a gift, i’m serious….
B. “Do you neocons realize how silly you look complaining about the NIE now? Why would anyone take you seriously on this subject ever again?” - said jimf earlier…
C. December 7 th coming right up, something serious to ponder, have we learned anything? waterboarding isn’t very smart unless it actually is…
D. the nature of dhimmitude….
December 7th, 2007 at 12:34 am
perfected democrat says: dhimmitude is a dedicated christian soldier appeasing mo and his 1.5bil hoard by intimidating the jews into coming in by the side door at annapolis, and the jews come in by it… this all makes me very sad….
December 7th, 2007 at 12:50 am
Occam,
I think everybody gets frustrated with their opposition, especially someone as feisty and relentless as Laura, she’s a fighter. I was the first to post on this thread and I sorta predicted this would happen.
One thing I see here from the war supporters is a strong, sometimes intense patriotism attached to your views, which is fine. What many of you fail to acknowledge is that the opposition is just as patriotic as you–yet you guys insist it’s your province alone. From that comes an attitude that your opposition can just be dismissed. I might be overstating in an attempt to be brief, because I could go on. You go through this thread and honestly assess who’s been insulting and childish.
Another quick point, if a post so annoys you and you think so little of it, why do you respond?–just stick to your points if you feel it’s the truth. Or, why even let it get to you? If you are secure in your positions? I know my posts can be annoying, but I try not to be mean or polemic, but gently teasing and sarcastic, funny even? Sure. And I get a charge out of it when one of you gets a good one back at me.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Oh, Commme onnn! Now you’re tryng to imitate me!? Is that all you got?! You call that making “astute points”!?? You don even know what “astute” means, do you? I do. This is astute — me LOLing. Cause that’s what I do at you — I LOL. Sometimes, I ROTLMAO. And you can’t get more astute than that.
And look what you’ve done to poor Laura. You’ve got her wearing her fingers out typing in ALL CAPS, because lower case just doesn’t have the persuasive power she feels she’s been lacking up till now. But does she give a rat’s ass? Heck no! Atta girl, L! Keep typing those upper cases at em!
Now go away, or I will mock you again. Ha ha.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Why would anyone take you seriously on this subject ever again?” - said jimf earlier…
well jim, because the NIE is irrelevant, we all know the preponderant truth about the world we live in, from 14 year old thai girls beheaded on their way to school, to the wackos running iran right now, please don’t just hide behind the border and obfuscate the truth of their enthusiastic interest in wmd programs for the purpose of putting the westerners in their place, especially the jews; how dangerous the world is right now is partly because of kgb gangsters who are more smug than scared, because the russians have always been a little dumb… dumb makes a good dhimmi. mo’s hoards figure they have time and numbers on their side..
i trust john bolton a lot more than anybody left of center…. that’s why you should take me seriously jimmi dhimmi…..
December 7th, 2007 at 1:10 am
Yes, of course, we’re all “attached to our views”. The difference is that our views (mine and Laura’s) are right (actually, they’re left, but you know what I mean), and yours are wrong (yes, yes, they’re right, but wrong too — it is a paradox). I don’t know why you persist, I really don’t. Why don’t my annoying stupidities –
Boo-yaa! (Henry Winkler)
– drive you away, or silence you? I don’t understand. I mean, if your secure in you’re positions? Because really, your insecure, aren’t you? But look at Laura and I — nothing shakes our rock-thick confidence, not “logic”, not “facts”, not “changed conditions”, nothing! Or, as Laura would say, NOTHING!
December 7th, 2007 at 1:23 am
i hope john bolton doesn’t betray me like george bush and condi have at annapolis… next thing we’ll be drinking out of separate fountains…. i just finished reading wayne perryman’s “unfounded loyalty”…. fatah is just hamas lite… over and out for the nite….
December 7th, 2007 at 1:37 am
Some people are very, very angry on here.
No game.
BTW, I’m still LOL
December 7th, 2007 at 1:45 am
Perfected,
Right now I think Bush and the neocon advocates left in the adm. have blown it with the revelations of the NIE and how long they really knew about it. I agree that the accuracy is somewhat secondary, but what about their incompetence in managing the information?
Why do so many of you still support Bush, aren’t you angry at his incompetence?
cue the clone troll
December 7th, 2007 at 2:40 am
jim, it’s very interesting why you seem to blame the President for “incompetence,” when it’s clear from the bizarrely conflicting NIEs that you’re so fond of citing that incompetence is rife within the “intelligence” agencies. Why would you think that agencies that got 9/11 completely wrong, were (in your estimation) “wrong” on Iraq’s WMDs, “wrong” in 2005, when the very same person who was one of the authors of this now amazingly-true NIE said that Iran was actively working on a nuclear weapons program, why oh why are they suddenly absolutely rock-solid competent?
Either they’re (1) right, (2) wrong, or (most likely) (3) pretty much useless with respect to ME WMDs. I tend to favor (3).
History has borne that out. I wouldn’t blame the President for anything other than keeping any of those bozos employed.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:05 am
Hi Stumbley,
I just got through reading through the link you gave me–that site is fairly amazing, lots of issues raised re: the NIE–it has got me thinking in another direction, I’m going back to reread.
You also raise the same questions I have, in a way, about these estimates. You’re right, why should Bush trust these same people over and over. But also, why is he leaving these same people in place? He is the Chief Executive. After this latest dust-up how do you trust any of the ME intel we’re getting?
We’ve been told by Bush that he’s greatly strengthened our intel capability since 9/11. Really?
Anyway, after going to the belmont site I have to concede you some points–but I still hold to the other issue, Bush-Cheney’s mishandling of the changing intel on Iran–why in the world did they let McConnell get up there 3 days ago? He killed them.
Thanks for linking me to that site.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:56 am
According to an LA Times/Bloomberg poll of military families released this morning, nearly 60% of respondents now disapprove of Bush’s handling of the Iraq War. 60% now disapprove of the decision to invade Iraq.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:01 am
jimfocus,
No, I wasn’t arguing with you. I simply fail to see you with an argument. Some odd opinions, often based on the best new leftist ideas, meaning… not really interesting, correct, or in-line with being focused. I don’t care what you say, and won’t debate. It would be like debating drug use with a cocaine addict, pointless and with no points of mutual belief to cover the gaps, the results are meaningless. No, I just realized that your name was really off, then went off on a tangent. Tulip boy and big guy? Odd, but… it’s not my call… now.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Doom.
Don’t worry, I thought it was funny. BTW, the takes I’ve been posting really aren’t that far out. They’re, fairly mainstream. I try to include facts and quote informed sources. Like I’ve said over and over, when you neos & war supporters run out of argument (which is pretty fast) you often assume dismissive poses and hurl insults. Many of you make no valid points whatsoever, which your post demonstrates. And the anger and bitterness is off the charts.
Also, unfortunately, I’ve talked to a lot of addicts in my time, cocaine and otherwise. Almost all have great insight into what they’re doing, hate their addiction, but they can’t stop.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:26 am
… but they can’t stop.
Just to finish that thought: — not like me, for example, or Laura. We can stop any time we want to. Well, I can anyway. I just don’t want to … yet.
So you see, I’m not like some poor, addicted troll, who hangs around blog comment threads because he’s never got over a schoolyard obsession with taunting — like you neocons who can only hurl insults, not real arguments like these. And by the way, all my ideas are normal — not like yours, which are wierd. And look what a funny, sunny guy I am — I always think what you say is funny! Always yukking! Not like you neocons with your anger and bitterness. See, that’s because I’m a normal, regular guy, right smack in the middle of the mainstream, that’s me. Normal. I’m different from you. Really.
(Please, let me have the last word….)
December 7th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Jim, fair enough. It’s not frustration with the opposition per se, but with the silliness of the points. X and to some Chris White can be frustrating on the opposition basis. X strikes me as simply taking whatever position he thinks will agitate, with no attempt at consistency or fairness, and so I don’t bother reading his posts anymore.
But silly, irrational ramblings delivered in a childish style are irritating. Also, the transmogrification from earnest, concerned mom into addled leftist idealogue raises suspicions that the former persona was merely a vehicle for the latter.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:38 am
About Neo’s post…
Having everyone working on the same team for the same goal, doing whatever they do best seems like a no-brainer. (Can’t win by military might alone? Why not have all those inclined to non-military solutions sit it out and preach failure… makes sense to me. We’re missing half our team.)
I don’t mind the thought of the Dems taking credit if they can, if it gets them doing something other than constantly undermining our effort for political gain.
I know people who get mad at the idea but I think it’s important to remember that the issue is more important than domestic political advantage and take the high ground. Let the other guys wallow in the mud.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:39 am
But silly, irrational ramblings delivered in a childish style are irritating. Also, the transmogrification from earnest, concerned mom into addled leftist idealogue raises suspicions that the former persona was merely a vehicle for the latter.
With doublethink you don’t need such rationalizations for seemingly contradictory behavior or beliefs, Occam.
As for the Democrats co-opting the surge, I think they will have to make the same decision that the Sunnis made. Which is whether they should keep fighting and killing Americans, or whether they should join together as a team to benefit themselves. The Sunnis got hammered by Al Qaeda, so that made them change their minds about their pride and conceit.
I don’t see anything that has hammered the Democrats hard enough to make them lessen their preening pride and conceit. So while the Democrats can co-opt, they won’t decide to.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:41 am
We’re missing half our team.
Better that we go it alone with our presentation with half our team missing than to have the team show up and embarass us.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Wow, the clone troll complaining about trolls, still funny, sorry Sally.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:44 am
History has borne that out. I wouldn’t blame the President for anything other than keeping any of those bozos employed.
i blame Bush for keeping those bozos alive.
Bush’s problem has always been because he hasn’t killed enough people. That is why he gets all that Bush Hitler accussations. You think Hitler was called out when he was slaughtering people in the 1930s? No, cause he killed enough people. Stalin killed enough people and you didn’t hear people calling him the End of Humanity from the Left.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Laura is definitely a suspicious character. I wonder about jimfocus too. Who are these people? Why do they spend time on this blog? Maybe Bush should tap their phones and find out who they really are.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Hubris and ego makes a very deadly cocktail
Do you somehow believe, L, that just because you believe you speak for all those thousands of military families about Iraq, that you are somehow then… humble? As opposed to the military families and Americans that dont’ agree with your politics, that is.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Oh, I forgot to point out that I’m still laughing — see: ha ha. In case you missed that. Sorry everyone.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:49 am
Re my comment above, I was responding to Occam, but a bunch of others posted before I hit the post button.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Why do they spend time on this blog?
It is always better to find fault in others, than to deal with your own problems that you can’t solve, Promethea.
It is why Saudi Arabia exports religious war. It is also why Europe and Hollywood exports anti-Americanism.
Maybe Bush should tap their phones and find out who they really are.
I heard that his Stasi was so tied up in Iraq with executing babies and American malcontents that they have had to strip down the wiretapping teams to skeleton numbers. Hauling and incinerating all those bodies at night is a major manpower intensive business. Even with Haliburton contracted to do the disposal of the remains.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:57 am
-Lucretius
December 7th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
The clone troll is hilarious, I’m loving it, LOL. The anger is very entertaining. Now watch it spew some more. Oh, troll, watch the “i” before “e” business, it gave you away.
Prom.,
I am as I’ve described myself, no bull. I notice a lot of you demand extensive bio material from some, but tell little about yourselves. Why? Also, as far as my views being bizarre, I’m pretty much where 60% of military families are right now–the country is rejecting the neocon orthodoxy and the Bush’s incompetency overwhelmingly.
Swordfish.
December 7th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
And please, I’m begging now, please let me get in the last word on this. I mean, I know, I know, I’m loving this, really — see: LOL! ROTFPMP! (not literally PMP, that’s just a figure of speach, I mean speech) — but I’m getting tired, and I don’t want anyone to say anything that I don’t refute in my own unique way. By saying how weerd — wiird? — and funny they are. And of course how normal I am. Don’t you people read the polls, everyday? Can’t you see that the rest of the group has drifted away from you now, that you’re just going your own way!? How often do I have to tell you that! I’m busy taunting you about the polls every chance I get! How do you stand it?
Blowfish.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
jimfocus:
“Don’t you people read the polls, everyday? Can’t you see that the rest of the group has drifted away from you now, that you’re just going your own way!? How often do I have to tell you that! I’m busy taunting you about the polls every chance I get!”
I think the reason people on this board demand extensive bio material on you, is because for a former federal agent, you dont sound very professional. As a matter of fact Jim, you come off like a sullen teenager. Besides the snark and snide It seem lately, your argument on why neocon policy is the wrong policy boils down to an argument from popularity. All my friends parents let them smoke dope, why shouldnt I?
“I’m busy taunting you about the polls every chance I get! How do you stand it?””
Now, I ask you; Is that anyway for an adult to conduct himself?
Your grounded, go to your room.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Uh Harry, you were quoting the clone, that wasn’t me.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Hard to tell which one’s the clone, isn’t it?
December 7th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
again, the left’s entire argument rests on the supposition that the status quo with saddam’s regime, and related geopolitical relationships, would have been a reliable, safer long-term environment… thinking like a simpleton, failing to recognize that saddam was one of several megalomaniac gangsters, all feeding in one way or other off of each other, becoming more and more dangerous. removing saddam from direct power, along with the taliban, may not have solved all the problems, but it has diffused the situation to a certain degree. people are looking for simple, short solutions to a grim situation of boggling proportions, significantly more complex and dangerous than world war 2; combining a totalitarian religous dogma and sheer population mass that is the hydra of mo’s hoards with the current state of wmd and high technology; in addition to their ability to coerce and manipulate the dhimmi left into various forms of acquiescence, support and direct alliance. the bush hater left has succeeded in obfuscating the most compelling issues, moving shallow public opinion and polls to a certain degree, but doesn’t solve in any way the basic problems, of which rumsfeld early on simply said, “we’ve got to do something….”
people don’t respect and appreciate how much has been accomplished… some of my posts will appear to be disjointed rambling if your perspective is incapable of connecting dots (remember the dots?). recognizing that waterboarding is not morally acceptable, but preferential to accepting mass murder in certain cases, is not a “game”. LOL all you want, you are still just the good dhimmi do nothing crowd… a little solidarity in the war against america’s real enemies would go a long way.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Now you guys are depending on a clone troll to put me down–so much for your credibility. Look, I know it’s been a bad week for the neocon cause, so I understand your grumpiness–but could you make a point sometime? The ongoing insults and name-calling just proves one thing–you guys don’t have a defensible position.
Sally’s still very, very angry.
Stumbley, I’m still plowing through the belmont post a second time, but so far he’s raising some interesting possibilities, especially why Iran stopped in 2003, if they really did. Get back to you.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Sally’s still very, very angry.
Actually not. Mildly amused, though. Looks like the “clone troll” is just making your “points” a little more obvious, and maybe a little better. No wonder you feel put down.
Keep on plowing though, Jimmy. With our “bad week” and all, we enjoy the amusement. Try a good old boogah boogah, why don’t you?
Blowfish indeed.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Stop the cloning. It is a rather ridiculous method of trying to explain other people’s faults by emulating them.
Blackfive recently gave us a open source intel analysis of Qods Force operations in Iraq
I recommend people read it if they wish to gather some intel on Iranian operations.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Uh Harry, you were quoting the clone, that wasn’t me.
You weren’t the one that said that neo-cons demaned biographical information?
December 7th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Y, Harry was taking clone quotes and attributing them to me. Yes, you guys want bio information, yet never state any credentials yourselves. That tells me you only want to attack, little engagement in ideas.
I talk with authors, writers and columnists all the time, left, right and center, and I have identified some of them here–they don’t have a problem with me, I’ve known these folks for years.
And, you neocons on this site can’t make a consistent argument. All you guys ar doing is engaging in petty personal attacks (I predicted this is what you guys would do on this thread), which confirms what a terrible week it’s been for you, and how discredited the neocon orthodoxy has become. Most of the country was with you, now most of it is against you. Anyone who disagrees with you is juvenile, stupid, etc–as childish as it gets. It’s very funny to watch you guys act like, well, neocons.
Sorry Sally, you are obviously very, very angry–happy trolling.
Yeeeh Haaah! Indeed.
cue the clone troll
December 7th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
“60 % of military families are left-leaning liberals with a penchant for fascism and must hate America.”–neocon Rush Limbaugh, today
December 7th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Most of the country was with you, now most of it is against you. Anyone who disagrees with you is juvenile, stupid, etc–as childish as it gets. It’s very funny to watch you guys act like, well, neocons.
Sorry Sally, you are obviously very, very angry–happy trolling.
Yeeeh Haaah! Indeed.
Hey, that’s more like it, Jimmy. You were sounding a little down there a while back. No goomba goombas, no yee haws. Now you’re getting back to your old, rational self.
But, yeah, I must be pretty angry — you little therapist, you. And you’re pretty sorry.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
jimf: I talk with authors, writers and columnists all the time, left, right and center, and I have identified some of them here–they don’t have a problem with me, I’ve known these folks for years.
Too funny to let go: when you hear someone say that a group of people doesn’t “have a problem” with them, don’t you tend to think that maybe they do? Sounds like “they” — his mom? family members? — might tolerate jimmy at least, as long as he remembers his meds and keeps his yelps to a minimum.
And now remind us all again, jimmy — I’m really really really really angry, right?
December 7th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
jimfocus Says:
December 7th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
“60 % of military families are left-leaning liberals with a penchant for fascism and must hate America.”–neocon Rush Limbaugh, today
great joke, wonder what he really said in complete and correct context… laughing with you at you….
December 8th, 2007 at 2:54 am
Oh … one other thing. An example of how intelligent Petraeus is: though his tactical approach is clearly working, here is what he had to say about the strategy of the war in Iraq when asked in Congressional hearings in September:
Senator John Warner (R-Virginia): Do you feel that that [the Iraq strategy] is making America safer?
General Petraeus: [pause] … I believe this is indeed the best course of action to achieve our objectives in Iraq.
Senator Warner: Does the [Iraq war] make America safer?
General Petraeus: [pause] … I don’t know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted it out in my own mind.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:01 am
I supported the first Gulf War: I’m no knee-jerk pacifist or always anti-American brand of leftist. However, I think this war was a huge mistake, not because I don’t think the Islamo-fascist threat is serious, but precisely because I think the threat is serious, and I don’t think this war is a serious way of addressing the threat.
Also, I don’t think Bush can take much credit for the current turnaround in Iraq. The only reason we’re doing better now is because we have a much smarter general working with a much smarter defense secretary — both of whom are in there now as replacements to incompetent people Bush himself supported for far too many years. Furthermore, the fact that he FINALLY put competent people in these positions doesn’t validate the strategic decision to go to war in the first place — it simply means the tactics of a horribly flawed policy are now being done competently instead of incompetently.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:04 am
(My second comment, above, I wrote before my previous comment, but it didn’t post because of length, I guess, so I reposted a shorter version.)
December 8th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Mitsu Says:
December 8th, 2007 at 2:54 am
“I don’t think this war is a serious way of addressing the threat…..”
so what is?
December 8th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
it simply means the tactics of a horribly flawed policy are now being done competently instead of incompetently.
Whether a policy is right or not is based upon whether it is 1. workable and 2. working.
You admit the second while stating for the record that philosophically speaking the policy is fatally flawed. Yet the only guideline that decides whether policies are correct or mistakes is whether those policies end up doing what it was intended to do.
The philosophical assumption that says regardless of the facts on the ground, “I will still hold to the logical assumption that Bush’s policy is flawed to begin with”, is a philosophical debate. It is not a policy debate.
And that is why it is meaningless to argue whether Petraeus is working on a better tactic or strategy for Iraq. It isn’t even relate to the premise of whether Bush’s policy could ever work to begin.
Petraeus is: though his tactical approach is clearly working, here is what he had to say about the strategy of the war in Iraq when asked in Congressional hearings in September:
What you admit is that Petraeus doesn’t have anything to say on the Washington DC strategy for Iraq. He neither supports nor negates your assumptions, Mitsu. So it is neither here or there when you say “here is what Petraeus says”.
That tells me you only want to attack, little engagement in ideas.
Your premise that it is we who want to talk about people, instead of their ideas, is reversed by the evidence. It is not we who wanted to talk about ourselves, our lives, and our morality that justifies why our policies are correct. We cannot be blamed for the choices Laura and you make based upon your own interests and beliefs. Conservatives are not very closely tied to their political beliefs, since spirituality, God, and other belief systems always came first on the list of priorities. A simple belief in classical liberalism removes the need to identify oneself with a party or an ideological movement.
Do you not remember, Jim, that it was you who volunteered whatever information you chose to share? Nor are you ethically justified to label the actions of several individuals by the actions of any one individual. That is just another form of argumentum ad numerum. Just because one person does it, in your opinion, does not mean the group that you wish to vliify does it as well. Nor does it mean that just because the international group of lawyers and what not decides to condemn Bush’s actions, that this has to mean that any particular person’s position is right or wrong.
It is best to avoid mixing your identity matrix with a political position. If it was ever needed that you should change your political position, it would then be like committing (a small) suicide.
I already know it is a premise, because you assume that it (that bit about people wanting bio info instead of arguing the talking points) is true before you even start arguing it. At best, it is only good for a circular logic argument. It has no benefit to a discussion of ideas that don’t agree with each other.
I predicted this is what you guys would do on this thread),
True intellectual honesty avoids setting up proposals and then using a proposal as the justification for why the original proposal or proposals are correct.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
>so what is?
Going after our enemies in Afghanistan and the Pakistan tribal areas, pressuring Pakistan to get serious with them, working harder to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in as neutral a fashion as possible (perception of neutrality wrt to Islamic populations is an absolute necessity — we aren’t anti-Islam, we’re anti-people-who-are-attacking-us, anti-Islamo-fascism, etc.), applying diplomatic pressure to Islamic countries to democratize (Afghanistan could have been one of the first showcases of this, we could also have tried to support pro-Western sentiment in Iran, we could have tried to accelerate progress in Saudi Arabia towards liberalization). Iraq, quite simply, was one of the highest cost and lowest benefit operations one could have conceived in the face of a serious terrorist threat. One can argue, in fact, that it was not only a low benefit operation but hurt our security — the very astute Petraeus himself hints at this possibility in his testimony above (I always liked him but gathered even more respect for him after his testimony, above.)
December 8th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Ymarsakar,
I have no idea who you are — I just discovered this blog via Google yesterday. I am not one of the “you guys” you’re referring to, and I haven’t read your remarks above — I simply read the post and wrote a comment based on my thoughts about. I find your tone both uncalled for and insulting. If there were ever anyone interested in discussing ideas on their merits, in a reasonable and non-ideological fashion, it is me — you seem overwrought in your response. This is a serious subject and deserves serious discussion.
I’m not sure if you’re very clear on the difference between strategy and tactics. We live in a finite world with finite resources. Even if the Iraq strategy were to “work” as you put it, I would claim that it was not worth the time, money, and lives we have spent on it, in terms of the relative benefit we received from the operation in terms of increased security. Keep in mind here that we can never achieve perfect security — the question is, how can we best improve security given the resources we have available?
In addition, the Iraq war has had many negative repercussions in terms of our security — overall terrorist activity has increased since the war, and the number of terrorists has increased, according to a number of studies. Iraq has also made us look weak in ineffectual militarily — our military, which seemed invincible in the wake of Desert Storm and Kosovo, now appears to be a lot less powerful than it appeared before. I could go on.
The point here is not that the Iraq war had no security benefits but that these benefits were small, neutralizing a minor threat, and we could have spent the money and time far more effectively — and there have been many negative repercussions from the war. A poor strategy even if the tactics have improved recently — mostly because Bush finally succumbed to pressure and fired the incompetents he trusted for years.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Islam is at war with the world,, has been since 622AD.
The Europeans have been breached and their future is dismal , their future path is either they willingly become dhimmis, or a continent-wide civl war .
We’re going down the same path..
If we dont do something historical-changing in the very short-term then there isnt much hope in preserving our way of life as we know it.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Mitsu: I think this war was a huge mistake, not because I don’t think the Islamo-fascist threat is serious, but precisely because I think the threat is serious, and I don’t think this war is a serious way of addressing the threat.
There’s a simply-stated, entirely rational position on Iraq, with which I simply disagree.
The reasons for the disagreement have been stated numerous times, but are probably worth yet another summary, just as an exercise. For more detail, you should look into the archives of this blog.
- First, the islamist threat is not a national one, as previous, more familiar threats have been, but is cultural and regional. In particular, it goes far beyond Bin Laden and al Qaeda, both in time and place.
- Second, Iraq lies in the strategic heart of the oil-rich region which is the most virulent spawning ground for this vicious ideology.
- Third, the regime of Saddam Hussein, besides being one of the most tyrannical in a region of tyrannies, besides being actively hostile to its neighbors and to the West, besides having amply demonstrated its willingness to use WMDs, and to pursue nuclear weapons, also has had extensive ties to islamist terrorist groups and has actively sponsored them.
- Fourth, as is even more apparent now, the attack upon the Saddam regime led to a number of immediate improvements in the long geopolitical struggle against this very slippery and elusive enemy: “Libya disarmed. The Khan nuclear exchange programme was exposed. Syria withdrew from Lebanon” — and, of course, Iran apparently at least suspended its nuclear weapons program.
- And fifth, it is and was only ever one prong of a multi-layered strategy, that involved other theaters, like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, among others, and that includes diplomatic, intelligence, policing, and economic facets; and yes, America with its friends and allies, is fully capable of carrying out a struggle on all those dimensions; and yes, America has stalwart friends and allies, including newly strengthened ties to such as Canada, Germany, and France.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Vince P Says:
December 8th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
&
Sally Says:
December 8th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
(the last two posts i’m reading)
well put, probably true vince, we’re already taking our shoes off to check in for airline flights, and because of it the ticket prices are higher… what’s next?
and sally? all i’ve got to say is the calvary to the rescue!! i’m serious of course, you’ve distilled pretty much 90% of the real issues into one very relevant and concise post, thank-you, sincerely…
Mitsu Says:
December 8th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
blah, blah…..
grow up mitsu, there are some things you can’t talk your way out of, hindsight is truly 20-20, strategically we now have a logistically superior position, and i disagree totally for many reasons i’m too tired to need to explain to you, you need to read a lot more, like most bush hater liberals you’re full of sound bites short on substance; it partly depends on what you focus on, from my perspective saddam (a wmd all by himself) was no small potato; bush & company weren’t incompetent at the beginning, they were masterful in expediting the most difficult part of this engagement, now it’s time for the long slow grind of who prevails in the end; and when the environment transformed, bush was flexible enough to change course as needed…. i could go on and on….
again, thanks for the dynamite post sally!
December 8th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
I wish our government showed signs of understanding the sturuggle we’re in.. but the Democrats still act like it’s 1968 and the Republicans are around 1978.
The State Department and CIA have shown themselves to be CLUELESS.
A lot of the ex-generals from Iraq show themselves to be CLUELESS.
I’m dismayed that a lot of us normal folk did our homework…. we educated ourselves about islam, jihad, sharia, taqiya, dawa, etc… yet the people in charge still believe fantasies like the PLO wants peace.
I have no confidence.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
I find your tone both uncalled for and insulting. If there were ever anyone interested in discussing ideas on their merits, in a reasonable and non-ideological fashion, it is me — you seem overwrought in your response. This is a serious subject and deserves serious discussion.
Are you under some kind of impression that I was speaking to you, Mitsu, when I quoted jimfocus?
That tells me you only want to attack, little engagement in ideas.
Last time I checked, the bolded (quocted) portion was from jim, not you. Unless you and jim share certain identity matrixes that I don’t know about. I often reply to the author of the comments I bold. Don’t you think it was kind of mysterious why I shifted the subject to something else entirely in mid stream?
What you admit is that Petraeus doesn’t have anything to say on the Washington DC strategy for Iraq. He neither supports nor negates your assumptions, Mitsu. So it is neither here or there when you say “here is what Petraeus says”.
The bolded portion is the last thing I said to you, Mitsu. You may find it overwrought if you wish, but simply know that it won’t have any relation to what’s going on. Certainly it won’t be an argument about the merits, an argument I made and you countered with irrelevant and inaccurate claims.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
we aren’t anti-Islam, we’re anti-people-who-are-attacking-us, anti-Islamo-fascism, etc.
That is certainly the position held by CAIR and other people that seek to explain why Muslims are all of a sudden acting irrationally and with violence towards Western provocations. It must be because, just like Jena Six, there is some kind of institutional racism going on with the discrimination against Muslims and what not. That is what must be causing the over-reactance of Muslims in foreign lands protesting Western actions designed to incite hatreds and what not.
Such things are a nice propaganda line, but as a form of policy it was never designed to be.
There might be something to be said for the theoretical framework behind “divide and conquer”, but the actual policy application of it cannot be done by people that believe actually getting to meet Arabs in Iraq is going to sabotage the “divide and conquer” strategy they value so much.
How do people like Mitsu think that Arabs will know what Americans think, when Americans are far away in their UN air conditioned offices deciding what people across the world should do? It is far easier to hate people you have never met. It is far easier to hate people that you have never actually seen in action as the Iraqis have seen US Marines and Soldiers in action.
To ask Mitsu, it would be a good thing if Iraq had not occured. It would be a good thing if the Arabs were kept in ignorance and exposed only to credible Islamic propaganda. Yet this contradicts the stated goal of dividing the Islamic world into Islamofascists and regular more common Muslims.
That doesn’t reach the level of cognitive dissonance, but certainly it is counter-productive to subordinate your strategy to your tactics.
to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in as neutral a fashion as possible (perception of neutrality wrt to Islamic populations is an absolute necessity — we aren’t anti-Islam, we’re anti-people-who-are-attacking-us, anti-Islamo-fascism, etc.)
Arms merchants are also neutral given that they supply weapons to both sides so that both sides can continue the war. Such neutrality is of no benefit to the United States or Israel, however.
The basic idea isn’t all that bad, when you have someone like Petraeus applying it in the Sunni Triangle. The tribe of Al-Ameriki is seen as an honest broker now, able to intercede in favor of local Sunni communities against jihadists, terrorists, Shia militias, or the Iraqi central government. However, such things would not be seen as “neutrality” even though it has all the virtues of the neutrality policy you forwarded concerning I-P conflict.
Any kind of neutral position or diplomacy will always crash and burn because the people in charge of diplomacy are incompetent at best.
There would be a far higher chance of such things working if you use Petraeus’ counter-insurgency military strategy and apply it to the Jews and the Arabs. You may choose not to do so, though, if you are more loyal to a set of ideas than the people those ideas are supposed to be helping.
Afghanistan could have been one of the first showcases of this, we could also have tried to support pro-Western sentiment in Iran, we could have tried to accelerate progress in Saudi Arabia towards liberalization
Liberalization, as you mean it, is not the cure for tyranny but the precursor to it. Both the weaknesses of democracy and republics were present before the rise of Communism and National Socialism. And democracy and republics, when they start out, are definitely weak.
No diplomacy will ever stiffen the ability of locals to resist tyranny. Not even training and advising local military forces will do it. Only counter-insurgency could have a hope of creating liberty from the grassroots up. Every other kind of liberalization tries to use top down approaches. People believe that you can get a working society by simply commanding it from the top with elections or something. Or from the UN. Or because Jimmy Carter flew in to validate “elections”.
the very astute Petraeus himself hints at this possibility in his testimony above
Petraeus didn’t hint at anything. What you heard was what you wanted to hear.
One can argue, in fact, that it was not only a low benefit operation but hurt our security
As if you could simply get away with concluding that Petraeus “hinted” at a failure of US security by him saying essentially “no comment”.
Don’t confuse your beliefs with what people actually said.
Perfected democrat Says:
December 8th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
I tend to think there is a clear philosophical difference here on the emphasis of diplomacy, which doesn’t work and can’t work because the people working at it are incompetent, over the more effective methods that can actually help people. There is also the question of priority.
Diplomacy has a greater priority than actually solving the problems in the Middle East. This is since diplomacy is a low cost and non-confrontational tool by which things can be negotiated, otherwise known as haggling, whereas in war only one side comes out the victor. This obsessive need for “neutrality” so that both sides of a war “win” is bereft of the American tradition of Total War. Sherman and MacArthur has already given us the means by which both parties “win” a war. And it has nothing to do with negotiating a surrender while the war is being fought, btw. There is nothing that can change this philsophical chasm of belief. Talk before and after wars. During a war, talk is of limited use since there is nothing to talk about. If you could resolve your differences through talk, then Israel and Palestine would have been at peace for decades. People are at war because talking has already become ineffective. All these problems have been challenged and resolved by the ancestors of Americans.
Forsaking such American traditions and inheritance is pretty disgraceful all in all. Generations lived, fought, and died to give current generations the ability to throw all their work away. Forget American Total War, people think, now it is time to try neutrality, the UN, international law, and diplomacy.
It seems it ain’t broke but let’s introduce a totally untried solution to the mix anyways. Let’s see how that works out for us.
Regardless of what Bush is actually doing concerning global strategy, it will never matter given the differences in the “school of strategy” that Mitsu subscribes to, in comparison to the other schools available. One school teaches one thing, while other schools teach something completey different and probably mutually exclusive. What may be fact to one is illusion to the other. This is why war, Total War, is not seen the same way by the Left as it is by Jacksonians.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
First, the islamist threat is not a national one, as previous, more familiar threats have been, but is cultural and regional. In particular, it goes far beyond Bin Laden and al Qaeda, both in time and place.
Of course, and that’s exactly the point I was trying to make. We’re facing a threat which comes from non-state actors, and Iraq was a state actor.
Third, the regime of Saddam Hussein, besides being one of the most tyrannical in a region of tyrannies, besides being actively hostile to its neighbors and to the West, besides having amply demonstrated its willingness to use WMDs, and to pursue nuclear weapons, also has had extensive ties to islamist terrorist groups and has actively sponsored them.
Because Saddam was clearly identified with a state, he was deterrable. Obviously no state can directly attack the United States without the threat of massive, and perhaps catastrophic, retaliation. He was tyrannical, evil, and he used chemical weapons against his own people — but he was not suicidal.
Saddam had already shut down his WMD programs in response to American threats … and intrusive inspections could easily have prevented him from developing nuclear weapons. Chemical weapons are only loosely called WMDs — it turns out they’re no more effective, pound for pound, than ordinary explosives when it comes to killing people in combat situations. It’s nuclear weapons we should have been concerned about, and he was nowhere near getting them and never would have gotten them given any sort of intrusive inspection program. The guy was a petty self-interested bloodthirsty dictator — far less dangerous to the United States than someone willing to kill themselves for their cause, as are our true enemies.
Fourth, as is even more apparent now, the attack upon the Saddam regime led to a number of immediate improvements in the long geopolitical struggle against this very slippery and elusive enemy: “Libya disarmed. The Khan nuclear exchange programme was exposed. Syria withdrew from Lebanon” — and, of course, Iran apparently at least suspended its nuclear weapons program.
I will grant you Libya, but Iran could have been stopped by international pressure without the invasion of Iraq. Had we focused on Libya I am sure we could have stopped them as well, though it may have taken some military action on our part — but again, Qaddafi, like Saddam, is not suicidal, and therefore is deterrable.
And fifth, it is and was only ever one prong of a multi-layered strategy, that involved other theaters, like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, among others
One “prong” into which we’ve dumped countless billions of dollars far better spent on the other prongs, in my view. I think given the amount of money and lives and prestige we’ve burned on Iraq we could have come out with far better results with a different strategy.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Ymarsakar,
The fact that General Petraeus, while heading up the current effort in Iraq, cannot bring himself to say that the strategy is making America safer — it seems to me that this at the very least indicates that he is unsure whether it is making America safer. I.e., he’s intelligent enough to recognize that it isn’t as obvious as most neocons think that the Iraq strategy was a good idea. I think it’s pretty damning when your best general can’t even publicly support the strategy.
I think it’s pretty obvious Petraeus is brilliant, I’ve thought so all along, and I still think so. I’m hardly surprised that his tactics are working — I felt a “surge” approach might work from the beginning, in fact I wrote that prior to the surge (though I thought it should be larger than we ended up actually deploying). You keep addressing me with a great deal of virulent emotion as though I were some sort of anti-Bush liberal robot — I think for myself, thank you very much (though I admit I am politically quite liberal, I am often at odds with my liberal counterparts). For example — I don’t believe that a quick withdrawal from Iraq is likely to be a good idea at this point. I DO think, and have said from the very beginning, that I thought the Iraq strategy was a big mistake. It is hardly 20/20 hindsight operating here — I have a pretty good track record of accurate predictions on this subject.
I think it’s odd that you won’t admit that Rumsfeld et al were incompetent and made big mistakes in their running of the war. I should think that Petraeus’ recent success ought to bring this point home — though I disagree with the strategy, it seems nearly beyond question that the tactics and planning of this war were done horribly badly. Again, you can accuse me of being a knee-jerk Bush “hater” but I can assure you I don’t hate Bush, nor do I “hate” the military. If anything I am sorry for Bush, and I am very sympathetic to the military. The military is an honorable profession and the men and women who serve deserve carefully considered strategy and tactics, because they’re putting their lives on the line for our country. I simply believe that we have served them very poorly indeed through this strategy, for the reasons I stated above.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
You need to update your narrative.
The situation in Iraq pre-invasion was quite different than most people realize. This is uncoverd by the on-going translation of Iraq State Documents.
I suggest you read this
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=F715A709-2614-4EA5-967C-F6151F94A364
Some excerpts
Finally, there are some definitive answers to the mystery of the missing WMD. Civilian volunteers, mostly retired intelligence officers belonging to the non-partisan IntelligenceSummit.org, have been poring over the secret archives captured from Saddam Hussein. The inescapable conclusion is this: Saddam really did have WMD after all, but not in the way the Bush administration believed. A 9,000 word research paper with citations to each captured document has been posted online at LoftusReport.com, along with translations of the captured Iraqi documents, courtesy of Mr. Ryan Mauro and his friends.
….
The absolutists on either side of the WMD debate will be more than a bit chagrinned at these disclosures. The documents show a much more complex history than previously suspected. The “Bush lied, people died” chorus has insisted that Saddam had no WMD whatsoever after 1991 - and thus that WMD was no good reason for the war. The Neocon diehards insist that, as in Raiders of the Lost Ark, the treasure-trove is still out there somewhere, buried under the sand dunes of Iraq. Each side is more than a little bit wrong about Saddam’s WMD, and each side is only a little bit right about what happened to it.
The gist of the new evidence is this: roughly one quarter of Saddam’s WMD was destroyed under UN pressure during the early to mid 1990’s. Saddam sold approximately another quarter of his weapons stockpile to his Arab neighbors during the mid to late 1990’s. The Russians insisted on removing another quarter in the last few months before the war. The last remaining WMD, the contents of Saddam’s nuclear weapons labs, were still inside Iraq on the day when the coalition forces arrived in 2003. His nuclear weapons equipment was hidden in enormous underwater warehouses beneath the Euphrates River. Saddam’s entire nuclear inventory was later stolen from these warehouses right out from under the Americans’ noses. The theft of the unguarded Iraqi nuclear stockpile is perhaps, the worst scandal of the war, suggesting a level of extreme incompetence and gross dereliction of duty that makes the Hurricane Katrina debacle look like a model of efficiency.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
It’s not his job to determine if America is safer.. his job is to stablize Iraq . His job to implement the policy given to him by the civilian leadership.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Regarding total war vs. diplomacy. As I stated above, I am not a pacifist. I think that war is sometimes worthwhile and needed — as a last resort. You go to war when not going to war would result in a worse disaster than the damage caused by the war itself.
I don’t subscribe to a “philosophical” position in favor of diplomacy over war. In fact, I am vehemently opposed to “schools” which are centered around tactics without context. That is why I am not and never will be a “pacifist” — nor am I a warmonger, etc.
What I believe is that diplomacy, total war, limited war, etc., are all tactics that each have their advantages and disadvantages depending on the specific situation. To me, it’s a mistake to be in favor of “war” in general, or in favor of “peace” in general — you have to make the hard choice about what strategy or tactic is appropriate, depending on the situation.
What I do believe, however, is that war is inherently political, and it is crucial that one not only go to war reluctantly but be *perceived* as having been forced into going to war. In other words, there is a diplomatic consequence to going to war, and this is perhaps the most important consequence of all. If the entire world wanted to destroy the United States, we wouldn’t be able to stop it purely through military might. We have to use a combination of military strength and careful diplomacy as well as image management (yes) to reduce our overall risk level in the world.
The great Prussian strategic thinker Bismarck used a clever strategy of never attacking first. He would, instead, maneuver his enemies into attacking first, then retaliate with great force. Because it always appeared that he was merely defending himself against an unwarranted aggression, he did not create a balance of power effect against him, and he was able to unify Germany. He often rejected the advice of some of his advisors who wanted him to attack preemptively — he knew the political consequences of such a move would be disastrous.
When you DO go to war, however, I am in favor of going to war all-out. That is to say, while I think the Iraq war was a huge waste of our limited resources, and had many negative consequences, it was also done far too tentatively. We should have gone in with much greater numbers, as we did for Desert Storm. So I not only disagree with the strategy but also with the tactics. Don’t go to war unless you are forced to — and when you go to war, go in with overwhelming force. We didn’t do that with Iraq on either count.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:16 am
Regarding your link about Saddam possessing some enriched uranium, etc., all I can say is that I am very skeptical of these reports — Debkafile is hardly a reliable source of information, in particular. If we really had any hard evidence that Saddam had a functioning nuclear program, it seems pretty obvious the Bush Administration would have trumpeted this fact a thousand times over already.
However, as I’ve stated before — while I lend practically zero credence to the above link — even if Saddam had somehow acquired nuclear weapons (and even that link doesn’t indicate that he was about to do so), he would have been a deterrable state actor. He could never have used these against the United States without being wiped out of existence. He was an asshole, evil, whatever you want to call him, but he was self-interested above all. He wasn’t about to kill himself for virgins in the afterlife, he was all about what he could get in the here and now.
Futhermore, he was not about to give any such weapons to terrorists — Saddam didn’t even trust his own military, there’s no way in hell he’d trust some group not directly under his control (and Al Qaeda was a sworn enemy of Saddam).
I am not claiming, by the way, that Saddam was NO threat at all. I am saying he was a minor, containable threat. I am saying we have limited resources and cannot achieve total security: what we can achieve is the best security we can get given what resources we have. And I can’t see any combination of arguments that indicate the Iraq war was anywhere near the most cost-effective strategy we could have devised.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Of course Saddam didn’t have nuclear weapons… the whole point of the invasion was to ensure he never would.
It’s a red herring to say that his non-possession of nukes delegitimized the invasion… perhaps you forgot the discussions of the day back in 2002,2003… the fact that he was even considering restarting his program once the sanctions broke down was considered a valid provocation.
Your objection about Debka does not relate to the point I was making about the documents. The article’s inclusion of Debka is in regards to the Israeli air strike in Syria in the past month or so. It’s not what the conversion has been about up tothis point.. which is why i did’t include it in my quote.
I would kindly ask that you check out this link… it’s an indepth interview with the people involved iwth the translation of MILES of documents. I think it will be more credible than the first link which was just a summary
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=09F9FC90-1752-4965-8D02-D2EFD4FB112B
December 9th, 2007 at 12:44 am
Thanks, Vince P, for the interview, I read it. If it turns out to be true, then the situation is much closer to what I had assumed prior to the invasion: that Saddam was, in fact, still trying to acquire WMDs, but that his programs had been severely disrupted by international scrutiny. The absolute lack of evidence of WMDs after the war in fact surprised me greatly — I also wrote about this on a number of occasions. I, however, was opposed to the war *even though I thought Saddam was still trying to acquire WMDs* because I felt the political, military, monetary, blood, and other costs far outweighed the relatively meager benefits.
Nuclear programs are very difficult to conceal. I believe that there is virtually no chance Saddam would have ever been able to successfully build a nuclear weapon had we insisted on ongoing intrusive inspections. Note that the interview states that Saddam had the intention of restarting his programs after sanctions ended — I might add, that the Bush Administration, prior to 9/11, was in fact talking publicly about an end to sanctions (another move I opposed)! The United States could easily have forced the UN’s hand regarding intrusive inspections as long as Saddam remained in power. This would have been the appropriate solution, far less costly than invading, with far fewer negative repercussions to us. I would have supported an ongoing attempt to topple Saddam covertly — but an invasion I still believe was a mistake.
Again — even had Saddam somehow acquired nuclear weapons, they STILL would have been far less of a threat to us than the international Islamo-fascist terrorist threat is. That’s where we should have and still should be focusing our attention from a security standpoint, in my view.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:54 am
· “Abu Mohammed,” a former colonel of Saddam Hussein’s Fedayeen fighters, told reporters long ago that Iraq was training terrorists, including al-Qaeda.
Gwynne Roberts, Sunday Times, July 14, 2002
· Iraqi soldiers, captured during the early phases of the war on Iraq in 2003, revealed that al-Qaeda terrorists were present inside Iraq fighting alongside Iraqi troops Gethin Chamberlain, The Scotsman, 10-28-03
· Hamsiraji Sali, Commander of the al-Qaeda affiliate Abu Sayyaf, admitted receiving $20,000 dollars a year from Iraq. Marc Lerner, Washington Times, 3-4-03
· Salah Suleiman, revealed that he was a former Iraqi Intelligence officer, captured on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border shuttling between Iraq and Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Janes Foreign Report, 9-19-01
· Jamal al-Qurairy, a former General in Iraq’s Mukhabarat, who defected years ago, said “that [is] ours” immediately after seeing 9/11 attacks.
David Rose, Vanity Fair, Feb. 2003, and David Rose, The Observer, 3-16-03
· Abbas al-Janabai, a personal assistant to Uday Hussein for 15 years, has repeatedly stated that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden that included training terrorists at various camps in Iraq.
CNN, 7-23-2003
Gwynne Roberts, Sunday Times, July 14,2002
Richard Miniter, TechCentralStation, 9-25-03
· Two Moroccan associates of Osama bin Laden, arrested in Rabat in Nov 98, confirmed that Col Khairallah al-Tikriti, the brother of Iraq’s top Intelligence official (Mukhabarat), was the case officer in charge of operations with al-Qaeda in Kashmir and Manila
Jacquard, Roland, In the Name of Osama Bin Laden, Duke University Press, 2002, pg.112
· Wali Khan Amin Shah, an al-Qaeda operative in custody, told the FBI that Abu
Hajer al-Iraq had good contacts with Iraq Intelligence Services (reported to Senate Intelligence Committee)
Stephen Hayes, Thomas Joscelyn, Weekly Standard, 7-18-05
· Farouk Hijazi, former #3 in Saddam Hussein’s Mukhabarat, although he denies the well documented reports of his later meetings with bin Laden, Hijazi admits that he met with Osama bin Laden to discuss antiship mines and terror training camps in Iraq during the mid-90’s.
9-11 Commission, Staff Statement 15
· Abdul Rahman al-Shamari, who served in Saddam Hussein’s Mukhabarat from 1997-2002, says that he worked to link Saddam Hussein regime with Ansar al Islam and al-Qaeda.
Preston Mendenhall, MSNBC, “War Diary”
Jonathan Schanzer, Weekly Standard, 3-1-04
· Mohamed Gharib, Ansar al Islam’s Media chief, later admitted that the group took assistance from Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Scott Peterson, Christian Science Monitor, 10-16-03
· Mohamed Mansour Shahab, aka Muhammad Jawad, is a smuggler who claims to have been hired by Iraq to bring weapons to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan
Jeffrey Goldberg, New Yorker, 3-25-02
Scott Peterson, Christian Science Monitor, 4-03-02
Richard Miniter, TechCentralStation, 9-25-03
· Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi is a senior al-Qaeda operative. Although he has changed his story, he initially told his captors that his mission was to travel to Iraq to acquire poisons and gases from Iraqi Intelligence after impressing them with al-Qaeda’s attack on the USS Cole
Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard, 11-24-03
· An “enemy combatant