Of course, another violent weed will spring up to take his place. Like kudzu, these terrorists are. They can’t be stopped — so why bother even trying? Aren’t there other things we can be doing?
After all, somewhere in America, the bottom 10% of wage earners are, well, in the bottom 10% of wage earning.
And that simply most not stand!
From ABC News:
The U.S. command said Wednesday the highest-ranking Iraqi in the leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq has been arrested, adding that information from him indicates the group’s foreign-based leadership wields considerable influence over the Iraqi chapter.
Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, also known as Abu Shahid, was captured in Mosul on July 4, said Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, a military spokesman.
“Al-Mashhadani is believed to be the most senior Iraqi in the al-Qaida in Iraq network,” Bergner said. He said al-Mashhadani was a close associate of Abu Ayub al-Masri, the Egyptian-born head of al-Qaida in Iraq.
Bergner said al-Mashhadani served as an intermediary between al-Masri and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri.
“In fact, communication between the senior al-Qaida leadership and al-Masri frequently went through al-Mashhadani,” Bergner said.
“Along with al-Masri, al-Mashhadani co-founded a virtual organization in cyberspace called the Islamic State of Iraq in 2006,” Bergner said. “The Islamic State of Iraq is the latest efforts by al-Qaida to market itself and its goal of imposing a Taliban-like state on the Iraqi people.”
In Web postings, the Islamic State of Iraq has identified its leader as Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, with al-Masri as minister of war. There are no known photos of al-Baghdadi.
Bergner said al-Mashhadani had told interrogators that al-Baghdadi is a “fictional role” created by al-Masri and that an actor is used for audio recordings of speeches posted on the Web.
“In his words, the Islamic State of Iraq is a front organization that masks the foreign influence and leadership within al-Qaida in Iraq in an attempt to put an Iraqi face on the leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq,” Bergner said.
He said al-Mashhadani was a leader of the militant Ansar al-Sunnah group before joining al-Qaida in Iraq 2 1/2 years ago. Al-Mashhadani served as the al-Qaida media chief for Baghdad and then was appointed the media chief for the whole country.
Interesting. Our enemies employ the propaganda necessary to convince Americans that the fight for a free Iraq is lost — and that we should abandon the Iraqis to their fate — with the hope of stepping into the void and laying plans for a new Caliphate; while back home, anti-war agitators, wobbly Republicans, and cynical Democrats lap up such propaganda uncritically — even as many of the same people turn around and excoriate the US for using propaganda, surveillance, interrogation, and bank monitoring as weapons to fight our enemies.
Up is down, black is white, Joanie absolutely fucking can’t stand Chachi.
Some days I feel like we’re living in a Kafka story, or are all merely characters in an Orwell nightmare.
Seriously. I need to go sweat out some toxins.
And somewhere, timmy and the rest furiously click “refresh” on DKos and DU, impatiently awaiting their talking points…
““In his words, the Islamic State of Iraq is a front organization that masks the foreign influence and leadership within al-Qaida in Iraq in an attempt to put an Iraqi face on the leadership of al-Qaida in Iraq,†Bergner said.”
Speaking of reactionary leftist talking points…..
Another one bites the dust.
TW: same refinement….CUT IT OUT, JEFF!!!!!
Speaking of reactionary leftist talking points…..
They could always dust off the “trans-Afghan pipeline”.
NO AL-QAEDA FOR OIL!!1!!!
TW: dissolve U.S.N. (I shit you not)
so, we’ve turned the corner then? Boy am I relieved. I was getting worried after the NIE came out. Thank goodness the WH talking points have been reinforced by a guy captured two weeks ago.
Thanks, Tom, but I’ve never been to DU and have visited Kos maybe twice.
This is some good news, although it does always surprise me how so many people take Osama bin Laden at his word while thinking other Americans are lying to them. In this instance, why would we know anything this dude has to say unless certain people wanted us to. Knwoing that should give you pause. We, for instance, do not things Khalid Sheikh Muhammed told our government six years ago! David Hicks is not even allowed to tell what happened to him in US custody, but we get “real-time” news releases re: this.
I’m not saying it’s untrue, but it does give one pause. For instance, if Marcotte and Digby caught Dan tomorrow and demanded to know where Jeff was, wouldn’t Dan be wise enough to say “Jeff doesn’t exist. I made him for web traffic.”
Again, I am not passing judgment on the info, just noting how the most secret administration in history allowed this to be reported.
In the end, I’ll stick to the fact that we nailed a high up in AQI and, maybe he can tell us where in the Waziristan OBL or Zawahiri are. I would be very excited if the good Egyptian doctor was on his way to a US trial in Virginia or, even, a nice CIA prison in Romania.
Just my thought
PS Thanks Tom for the cartoon, though. That was special
How long before someone really smart brings it to our attention that we should “Question the Timing”?
Again, I am not passing judgment on the info, just noting how the most secret administration in history allowed this to be reported.
What was that about cartoon, timmy?
“Abu Shahid”? Lessee – ‘abu’ is an honorific and ‘shahid’ means splodeydope/martyr – why didn’t he die up to his name? Fer crying out loud – Arafat croaks from AIDS, the Paki mullah gets nabbed doing a runner while cross dressing and now Abu Splodeydope starts singing like a lark in spring as soon as he surrenders.I think islam needs a modification to shariah concerning truth in advertising.
Somewhere in Hell, Osama is wiping off another tear. Between screams.
“…just noting how the most secret administration in history allowed this to be reported.”
I don’t care who you are, that right there is funny.
I wonder, what would heet, timmeh and the rest of the Defeatist Caucus say if Gen. Petraeus was captured by AQI.
I realize that I am dense at times (govt worker and all!), but what exactly are timmah and heet trying to say?
You know, there is ground in-between dKos and HotAir. Such as, “It’s great that we’ve captured a high-ranking AQI leader, but what about the NIE that demonstrates that AQ is now stronger than ever 6 years after 9/11?”
That is, it is possible to be non-treasonous and not be all that gung-ho on our Iraq expedition.
(Coming on the heels of the “the (cyber) purge begins” post, the angry, reactionary comments designed to shut down debate–like TomB’s–are quite telling.)
All I’m saying is that it’s great we captured ab AQI guy and I hope he leads us to the big guys.
All the other tools are trying to say is that if you ain’t down with them, you’re either a liar or a useful idiot. And, and that if you’re one of the 70% of folks who oppose the war, then you’re not a real American.
You know, like you’ll say during your post.
“Real time”? Do you even bother to read the news? He was captured on July 4th. Two weeks ago.
Some “real time”.
It is a Kafka world — when Senators use “risk to soldiers” as a justification for redeployment. These are soldiers, not kids riding bikes. They are in “combat” — which IS risky!
Hell, they face risks during training!
The one that says Iran’s hosting al’Qaeda bigwigs and supplying the jihadis in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Or doesn’t that section matter?
Rho, I’d agree with your post except that heet as proven to be a disinterested asshole too many times to accord him/her any type of respect. As for timmah, well, he means well at times.
Now, onto your point in regards to the NIE assesment of AQ’s strengths…so? I was not a proponent of escalating Iraq into a full blown battle in the overall war on islamofascism. I’m sure glad that saddam is dead and gone and really believe that people who can fight back (Iraqis now) are much better off than people who can’t (Iraqis under saddam). But, I also thought this fight was better served in Afghanistan. Which brings me to my question. Do you really think that AQ has regained strength because of Iraq? I don’t. Our actions in Afghanistan was provocation enough for these shits. Hell, they started this war anyhow. Now, if your argument is that we should/could have concentrated on routing them fully in Afghanistan, if we didn’t escalate Iraq, I could empathize with that.
That’s the problem with this enemy, though. This war (overall war against the islamofascists) will never end. I am not sure of solution. They die not for state or party. They die for their god.
You know, there is ground in-between dKos and HotAir. Such as, “It’s great that we’ve captured a high-ranking AQI leader, but what about the NIE that demonstrates that AQ is now stronger than ever 6 years after 9/11?â€Â
The fact that you make a statement that a “National Intelligence Estimate” as “demonstrating” anything, show exactly where you are coming from.
But the answer is that AQ may be stronger somewhere, but is sure as hell isn’t stronger here.
Question: How strong would AQ be right now if we had treated 9-11 as a law enforcement issue?
That is, it is possible to be non-treasonous and not be all that gung-ho on our Iraq expedition.
Since I referred specifically to certain posters who don’t fit that hole, I’m not sure of your point.
(Coming on the heels of the “the (cyber) purge begins†post, the angry, reactionary comments designed to shut down debate–like TomB’s–are quite telling.)
Huh?
Here are my two comments from this thread:
“And somewhere, timmy and the rest furiously click “refresh†on DKos and DU, impatiently awaiting their talking points…”
They could always dust off the “trans-Afghan pipelineâ€Â.
NO AL-QAEDA FOR OIL!!1!!!
“What was that about cartoon, timmy?”
Smarmy? Yes.
Juvenille? OK.
Lacking depth. Perhaps.
But “angry, reactionary”?!
You’re out of your mind.
timmah, don’t be an idiot. I have never said ANYTHING like that. BTW, you can take your “policy by polls” and shove it up your ass. Capiche.
rho:
You see, to the swingin’ dicks here at PW, thinking about the Iraq war IS treason. In fact, “going with your gut” is the only way to operate. Unless you are writing a 5000 word essay on how awful people have misread nuanced words like “faggot” spoken by neocons and racists.
NIE, yesm but don’t miss the “CIE”…
The Caliphate Intelligence Estimate
…etc
I can’t. It betrays an ignorance of the situation in Afghanistan in relation to logistics and just where the Taliban are regrouping. How well would a US campaign against the FATA in Pakistan be? How many of the howler monkeys would be slinging shit about “invading a nuclear power!!!11!!!”?
Hence, Rob, the quotation marks…it’s not broadcast on Youtube, but, considering the past actions of the players involved, it’s basically right now.
But, you know, way to spot that tree in forest. Nitpick, a new hobby, by Robert Crawford.
What the hell are you talking about?
Oh, wait, aren’t you the genius who so mangled someone’s words as to turn a statement about the relative tear-resistance of the vagina and rectum into a call to rape women with knives?
Sure, people should give a rat’s ass what you think.
Is “Capiche” Polish? As for your anti-democratic sentiments, I’m glad you’re a bureaucrat. We wouldn’t want you to be swayed by the folks who pay your salary!
PS That little flourish aside, Polish, you will desperately care baout those horrible polls come November 2008.
And what the hell are you talking about?
From what I can tell, you’re simultaneously bitching that some information doesn’t get released quickly enough (for your tastes) and that other information gets released too quickly (for your tastes). So what’s the golden moment, the ideal time to release information? Or are you just picking and choosing what you bitch about in order to bitch about something?
Especially the part about “past actions of the players involved”. WTF are you talking about? Is this another one of those cases that you’ve come into the discussion assuming we know the point you’re trying to make?
Disdain for opinion polls is not “anti-democratic sentiment”.
“Oh, wait, aren’t you the genius who so mangled someone’s words as to turn a statement about the relative tear-resistance of the vagina and rectum into a call to rape women with knives?”
Gee, sorry I missed that one.
Back on topic, I can’t for the life of me understand how the Dems think surrendering in Iraq is a savvy political move. Are they really that addled to think that the non-nutroots of this country will award them the WH and/or a bigger congressional majority with this? Is the nutroot constituency that significantly large? Or is this simply cynical theater?
Uh. No. Maybe you are projecting?
As for your last sentence, maybe you should worry more about why nobody seems to give a rat’s ass what neocons think about much of anything anymore. In fact, they are the subject of ridicule for being perfectly wrong and on the wrong side of the facts for the past several years. Something to think about when pondering the relevance of this press release.
Which brings me to my question. Do you really think that AQ has regained strength because of Iraq? I don’t. Our actions in Afghanistan was provocation enough for these shits. Hell, they started this war anyhow. Now, if your argument is that we should/could have concentrated on routing them fully in Afghanistan, if we didn’t escalate Iraq, I could empathize with that.
I’ve said on several occasions that if we wanted to play nation-builder we should have proven ourselves with Afghanistan. Iraq was a mess waiting to happen, and I supported the invasion as recently as last fall.
I think AQ has gained strength for many reasons, one of which is our inability to capture bin Laden. (Maybe we know where he is and we’re just watching his front door to see who visits–a theory I’ve forwarded before–or maybe he’s dead and we’re letting AQ keep that under wraps for our own purposes.) But Iraq is certainly a factor. They have stymied us there, which makes them look good; our very presence is an AQ recruiter’s dream (Fight the Crusaders!); and we’re providing a lot of valuable training they can’t get from jungle-gyms in Waziristan. We’re the DeVry University for jihadists.
Whether Iraq is a minor or major factor, the fact remains that our current policies don’t seem to be working all that well. I’ll wait and see what Petreaus says, but if his pronouncement isn’t resoundingly positive–which I don’t see how it could be–it’s time to pack it up and come home.
I think our major problem is that we’re fighting a 4GW enemy with largely conventional tactics. (And, worse, force-multiplier tactics like smart-bombs which are great until they kill civilians.) You’d think we’d have learned from Nicaragua. I think that in order to effectively fight non-state actors like AQ you’ve got to get the local governments involved, which they will not do so long as we’re there to pull the wagon. Remember, the Caliphate has to start in the Middle East which means knocking over Assad and Abdullah who will be a lot less gentle than we have to be.
Will that work? I think so. Do I know it? Nope. Is what we’re doing now working? By many indicators, such as the NIE, the answer is no.
Rob Crawford:
The one that says Iran’s hosting al’Qaeda bigwigs and supplying the jihadis in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Sure, it matters. I sure as hell don’t think invading Iran, whilst trying to secure Iraq and Afghanistan, is a good idea. I don’t doubt somebody in Iran is interested in destabilizing Iraq as a proxy-war with America. Is it Mahmoud Immadinnerjacket? Beats me. I doubt it, though. But should we pack up our toys and go home, now Saudi Arabia has a compelling interest in keeping Iraq out of Shiite hands. Maybe that becomes a bloody civil war. Maybe it busts up Iraq into pocket-states of Kurdistan, Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia. All I know is I don’t think America can fix some 2000 years of Muslim bickering and it’s costing us a lot of blood and treasure to fail at it.
No, I assumed, Bob that you could read. I mentioned KSM and the fact that we don’t know what he told the government six years after his capture. I mentioned David Hicks cannot tell us what happened to him when he was in custody because the government would NOT release him without that promise.
So, when I point out the previously quiet government does want to release this info within two weeks, it strikes me as suspicious. Are you required to be suspicious? No.
“SEEMS SUSPICIOUS.” It’s the point of the entire rebuttal to Jeff’s “we must believe everything the news folks tell us that the government folks told them” theme.
You know, suspicion. Doubt. A lack of absolute certianity this early in a story. A desire to know why this information is released and other info is not. PW uses it when faced with the “lying” AP, but not with ABC? I thought ABC was part of the liberal media?
Now, let’s focus on the point of the post: it’s a good thing we captured this guy. Jeff thinks his story is true and points out how clever they are; I say we have reason to doubt the AQI’s claims, because I, for one, don’t trust Al Queda folks. If you have a point about the info in the post and the “wobbly Republicans” and “cynical Democrats” could you please make it?
I dunno… Congress has a 14% approval rating, according to Zogby.
That’s 9 points lower than the in October 2006, if you’re keeping score.
Kelly, here’s an analysis of the 2008, which shows why there is reason to be concerned, i.e. independents favor Dems by 16 points. The article does a recent survey of various polls to show that individual “R” candidates do pretty well against “D” candidates, but I will just add that’s until the Dems hang the “Iraq war” around the Republican nominee’s neck (which I think will be easy). At that time, the “R” will sink from site.**
**unless Nader and Bloomberg get into the General Election. They will pull numerous crazy lefty (Nader) and independents and moderate Democrats (Bllomberg) from the Dem candidate and everything will be up for grabs. Here’s the link to the essay: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/04/parsing_the_polls_is_the_white_1.html
And, just so you don’t think it’s some weanie lefty/commie opinion, Bob Novak said that the Republicans on the Hill can’t figure out how they’re gonna win this one. Here’s a link to the transcript. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19694666/page/6/
So, yeah, I see the fund-raising numbers and the polls and I think the longer our boys and girls are dying in Iraq, the more likely it becomes that a Dem will elected to the White House. The election will be a referendum on Iraq and that will bode poorly for whomever is on the “pro” side.
that’s my 2 cents
Something very like this has happened before.
Do a google search for “standard total academic view on cambodia” (or go here: http://jim.com/canon.htm) to learn how our elites convinced themselves the Khmer Rouge were not genocidal sociopaths, refused to believe anything that contradicted this view, and actually attacked anyone reporting anything that didn’t agree with their convictions. Result? A couple of million dead.
Our elites have convinced themselves the war is lost. It’s all they hear in their echo chamber. Nothing that contradicts this worldview can possibly be right, so why bother reporting it?
We also haven’t released all the records of Cold War operations. Hell, I’d bet there are still some WWII documents that are still classified.
Sometimes information has a long shelf life. It may be held to protect sources, capabilities, or just to keep the other side guessing.
What’s stopping him from squealing now? I doubt the Aussie’s would hand him back to us if he had credible allegations of torture.
“Previously quiet”? Where the hell are you pulling that from?
(And, hey, it’s actually possible to get the point you’re trying to make when you actually bother stating it.)
So which is more important — winning an election or winning in Iraq?
Keep in mind that abandoning Iraq is giving the enemies of civilization what they want, and that the costs — human and economic — will dwarf everything so far. Plus it’ll nicely set the stage for a much bigger, uglier war later.
Not all decisions are based on the prospects for the next election. I’ll be disgusted if Democrats take the White House in 2008, particularly if they enlarge their majorities in Congress. But I’d rather see a party hold to a goal it believes is critical than abandon it in order to garner the approving coos of the press.
“Comment by TomB on 7/18 @ 10:36 am #
And somewhere, timmy and the rest furiously click “refresh†on DKos and DU, impatiently awaiting their talking points…”
Hey, Tom, are you psychic or something?
It took heet all of 21 minutes, and timmuh 22 minutes to come up with mind-numbingly stupid replies.
Hey, Tom, are you psychic or something?
NOB, when my dog comes inside for a nap, the first thing he always does is lick his balls. It’s just something he does.
Timmy and the boys? It’s just what they do.
“So which is more important  winning an election or winning in Iraq?”
Is that a trick question?
timmah @ #33 – This is precisely the type of drivel that shows people that the Dems care more about electoral politics than doing what is right, finishing what we started, and other such silly noble ideas.
The only way that the war will get hung around the necks of the Republicans is if the Bush administration caves in to those that pander for our loss, and preach withdrawal, as withdrawal and a lack of patience are the only reasons we will every lose there.
Maybe Bush should just take your advise, close up shop, and head on home. Meanwhile, we can sit back, comfortable that none of the American military is fighting a warforoil, while we witness some of the largest genocides since the last time we turned tail and left before we finished our job.
Electoral politics trumps all, no?
Heet writes:
This is so compellingly stupid, dropped into the comments of a site that has posted, oh, 500 times or so about the Iraq war, that I hardly know how to respond.
The only thing I’ve ever argued approaches giving aid to the enemy is reporting and repeating things that have been thoroughly debunked as established truths in order to weaken US resolve and damage the party in power. That requires cynicism and an intent to deceive the public for political gain — with the upshot being that it gives our enemies a propaganda victory, demoralizes our troops, and makes our allies nervous and causes them to fence straddle.
As to the rest of your comment — if you believe I’m racist or homophobic for discussing intent in the language of semiotics (or for using too many words), just come out and say it. I’m comfortable enough with myself to know that such an accusation is horseshit. Aren’t you comfortable enough with the accusation to spell it out? Or do you feel safer hiding behind oblique swipes and intimations?
Christ, you’re a fucking coward, heet. The only conviction you have is a hatred for those who don’t think like you. Couple that with a outmoded sense of self regard, and you are a compote of arrogance and idiocy.
Sprinkle with mint leaves and serve in a gelato cup.
Jeffersonian pointed out on another thread that it appears that the Dems strategy is to force withdrawal now, so that Bush is still in office when the slaughter begins in Iraq, and they can hang it around his neck. An honorable way would be to win the Presidency, running on a platform of immediate withdrawal, and then deal with the consequences of their platform. As is, they want their policies to be implemented, but the opposition to be blamed in the ensuing genocide. Electoral politics trumps all for folks like timmah.
a compote of arrogance and idiocy.
Sprinkle with mint leaves and serve in a gelato cup.
Mint and gelato would do nothing to make that compote palatable.
NOBODY, I tell you! NEOCONS!!!1!
heet, you’re a fucking cartoon, buddy. And a poorly drawn one at that.
“heet, you’re a fucking cartoon, buddy. And a poorly drawn one at that.”
One word: Ted Rall.
Im just thankful for some good news.
really.
ALl the positive news about the surge has been drowned by the fact that most of our electorate and citizenry want us out by Thursday, week after next.
Or that the GOP is poised to take a 5-10 yr hiatus in terms of WH and congressional power.
really, i hope the bad guys leads us to more pricks.
Sometimes a win is just a win, you know?
I know exactly how to respond: Whenever Heet shows up here, his/her/its comments should be accompanied by an avatar of a weasel in a clown suit.
Fright wig, floppy shoes, red nose and all.
In spite of a lot of evidence (sadly) to the contrary, I still believe the average American voter is smarter than the average politician. Further, I think polls are pretty much useless but, nevertherless, it’s clear to me that Americans are pretty disgusted with Congress. The war is not popular (quick, name one that was!) but I don’t believe the majority want us to lose and are all too clear on the horrific consequences of a precipitous withdrawal. Deep down, the Dems know this but they’re too immersed in the closed-loop, media-fed echo chamber.
Me? I hope the Dems are stupid enough to keep this shit up. Signs look good.
rho,
You say that as if we’re not there. We are, but NATO is in the lead. Which means we’re in the lead. Afghanistan ain’t perfect either, but it’s a damn sight better than it was and they’re learning a whole new way of doing things, like a baby learning to walk.
They’ve stymied us there? How, by dying? By having the locals, who were once sympathetic, turn against them? Sure, they watch us do what we do and adapt, as any sentient enemy would. But what they’re learning more than anything is how to go to Allah.
On the contrary, they’re doing it, and they can’t do it without us. Yes, it’s taken them far too long to come around, and yes Maliki’s government is still dragging ass to an unacceptable extent. But to say they’re not trying to protect themselves and their own is a disservice to a lot of brave guys who are putting their asses on the line. Iraqi guys.
“…our very presence is an AQ recruiter’s dream (Fight the Crusaders!)…”
What will the message be if we give up? How do you honestly think that would affect recruiting?
“…our very presence is an AQ recruiter’s dream (Fight the Crusaders!)…â€Â
Looking at the pathetic attempts in Britain and elsewhere outside the ME, their “recruiting” isn’t getting very good candidates.
Jeff,
My real point is you spend all of your energy peering into the minds of the MSM (when they report on R misbehavior), anti-war types, and any perceived enemy while never wondering for a second about the motivations and intentions of the administration. You take them completely at their word but everyone else gets an essay that starts with amateur psychology and ends with the worst possible interpretation of their behavior.
I decided a long time ago that you and your site do not take opposition to your arguments in good faith. Insults are fun and all but it’s all just a game over here, nobody has any serious point.
rho,
There is a tendency among the opposition here to assume that any critical statement is an accusation of treason. In a recent comment in another post I was accused of calling John Kerry a traitor, which simply wasn’t the case.
It’s a matter of a desire to be offended, which trumps not only author’s intent, but context and syntax as well.
I subscribe to the theory that bin Laden is dead, but it’s not announced, not because we wish to let AQ keep a secret, but because we either cannot confirm it or cannot prove it to any given third party.
In respect to the amount of time it will take to finish nation building in Afghanistan, it won’t take any less time than it has in Iraq, or Bosnia/Kosovo, both of wich are similar works in progress, the major substantive differences being the respective levels of violence.
If you’re expectation of the September report is that all of Baghdad is pacified, then you are going to be disappointed. But the proportion 0f Baghdad that has come under Coalition/Iraqi control is increasing by about 10% a week with 60% being the last statement I’d heard. At that rate achieving 100% by September looks pretty good to me. Consider that St. Louis, MO is generally considered to be under the control of its local government, yet has the highest reported indicence of violent crime; control is not the same as zero violence. But you can expect it to be markedly less.
Speaking of local governments, at odds with your own statement, it’s the local governments that are making the fastest, best progress in committing to help us and fight AQ. Not sure what sources you are relying on to get the opposite impression.
TW: (argh–now it’s speaking Latin!) plebis injuria
And yet you keep coming back.
you spend all of your energy peering into the minds of the MSM … while never wondering for a second about the motivations and intentions of the administration. You take them completely at their word but everyone else gets an essay that starts with amateur psychology and ends with the worst possible interpretation of their behavior.
And if you reverse the polarity on that statement 180°, you get the average lefty blog. Your point?
Here’s a thought: people psychoanalyze their political opponents when (a) their actions seem ludicrous or dangerous or senseless (b) their actions seem to be cynical at best and evil at worst. Or in other words, when you disagree heartily with them.
Because we basically agree with the admin about Iraq, what Bush does with regard to same makes sense to us (even the bungles; honest mistakes), so what’s the point of psychoanalyzing something that makes sense?
Didn’t you surf the dextrosphere during the last immigration debate? Didn’t you see the psychoanalyses of the pres and the senate repubs and the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth and cries of “betrayal!” and suchlike? Those who accuse the dextrosphere of being in lockstep with the president really need to examine the podcasts and blog posts from a month ago.
Dude, the blogosphere is currently divided along these lines: pro-Iraq war and anti-. It makes for some interesting bedfellows; if the Big Issue Of The Day were something else, you’d find the blogs aligning differently: some former enemies would become allies and vice-versa.
If you want to read why Bush is a Malignant Narcissist, go elsewhere. We don’t read his actions that way, so we don’t pursue that path. Go figure.
I’ve said before that this is fun for me.
There is a huge chasm between psychoanalyzing the admin and considering their motivations.
And between your ears.
And there’s an even bigger chasm between considering motivations and completely making them up out of some whole demonic cloth.
“Comment by heet on 7/18 @ 3:57 pm #
I’ve said before that this is fun for me.”
Yep, a dyed in the wool masochist.
Any bets that at this moment he’s down in Mom’s basement, reading the denigrating statements aimed at his idiocy, all the whiile playing ‘yankee-my-wankee’.
Holy shit, NOB. I was making that joke before you even heard of the internet!
How do you “consider their motivations”? How do you know their motivations? Do you take them at their word when they state their motivation? If not, how do you determine to your satisfaction what their motivations are? If you count on a third party to determine the administration’s motivations, what are the motives of that third party?
How do you avoid getting into a feedback loop in which you decide the administration is acting in bad faith and interpret their every act and statement in that light? Do you ever cross-check their statements and actions with reports from other sources — taking into account the biases of those sources — and reassess your judgment?
Have you ever considered that the administration is acting in good faith?
I look at what they say and then look at what they actually do. Pretty simple.
Well, I certainly hope we didn’t violate his rights.
This is true, to a degree. I have never been able to figure the upside of engaging in an unpopular war just for shits and giggles, so I believe the President when he says that this is the strategy he believes will be most effective in fighting terrorism.
That is, I believe he is motivated by good faith — not oil conspiracies, or avengin’ Papa, etc.
But it’s ludicrous to think I walk in lock step with Bush, or haven’t questioned his motivations in other arenas. Look at my stuff on Harriet Miers. Or on Immigration Reform.
When I’ve encountered opposition to my arguments made in good faith, I’ve answered them in good faith. Ask Jeralyn Merritt, or the ladies at Feministe, or Cathy Young, or conservatives I fought during the Schiavo affair.
Look at the work I did considering the NSA issue — answering critics to the best of my ability, footnoting posts.
Look at the work I did trying to understand the chain of command and applicable law during the Katrina aftermath.
That you “decided” I don’t take opposition to my arguments in good faith doesn’t make it so. I take good faithed arguments in good faith. And I’ve never shied away from real debate.
Coming from someone who does nothing but snark and curse, that’s a laugh.
And, again, it is such a generalization that it’s impossible to take it seriously. Nobody makes any serious points? Are you kidding me?
Yes, we like to joke around. But we also talk about serious things here, and we do so in a serious way. That you don’t like what we say — or that we don’t happen to take you seriously, doesn’t mean that we aren’t serious.
It just means that we don’t find you particularly serious.
Now, either call me a racist or don’t. But stop tiptoeing around the edges like some little rodent.
I for one am glad Osama bin Laden hasn’t been captured or reliably reported as dead. Judging by the left’s fixation on him, if he is ever captured or killed the left would immediately declare the war on terror over. “Why are we still fighting” they’d bleat, “bin Laden’s dead.” Really, I think the left has no idea that there’s more terrorism sponsored by Iran than by bin Laden’s group.
Whenever some good war news is reported, the anti-war trolls have to come in droves to try to deflate any morale boost among the war supporters. I can’t remember the last time heet, timmyb and rho were seen all on the same thread. I’m looking for Perfessor Ric now.
tw: monstrous triage
It’s interesting to considering that Mashhadani; means from the Iranian town
of Mashhad. One of the high Sunni officials in the interim government had the same last name. I guess why he calls himself “Son of the Martyr” to distinguish himself. Of course since we know that Sunnis never collaborate
with Shia; that must be a mistake.
There is a huge chasm between psychoanalyzing the admin and considering their motivations.
No, honey, they’re pretty much the same thing. When you try to divine someone’s motivations, you have to rely on your understanding of human psychology. Unless you’re talking about a really specialized definition for “psychoanalyze,” in which case you’re talking about the technique that Freud started and that others have continued where you delve into the subconscious and junk.
In that case, you’re way off. To my understanding, neither Jeff nor anyone here has engaged in Freudian psychoanalysis of anyone. We just do what everyone else does: try to figure out what makes our ideological opponents tick, using whatever tools we have at hand, most of them coming from our own observations of human behavior.
As regards Bush’s motives, however, you need to remember something very important: Your cynicism is not evidence of Bush’s perfidy. Or Cheney’s. Or Rove’s.
Bush said that this Counter-Jihad would be a long slog — and it has been. He said that they wanted to establish a representative democracy in Iraq, and all of their actions have been aimed at that goal. That they have not worked yet is not an indication of bad motives but rather of a bad situation.
I’m not sure which actions indicate bad motives on Bush’s part. Having bad judgment (or not being able to predict the future) is not the same as having bad motives.
So, what do you think motivates Bush? Why did he invade Iraq? Please give clear examples of words that are obviously and deliberately contradicted by later actions.
“Comment by heet on 7/18 @ 4:46 pm #
Holy shit, NOB. I was making that joke before you even heard of the internet!”
I doubt that very much, I made the joke up.
[…] Goldstein: Some days I feel like we’re living in a Kafka story, or are all merely characters in an Orwell nightmare. […]
Heet, you’re a dick. Ad Homs are the ONLY thing that are appropriate for you. Now skulk away you old fart.
Timmy, you’re still as toothless and unserious as ever. Maybe the whole godbag dad and band nerd thing just ruined you for life. I don’t know and frankly don’t care. As for the important poll taken in November of 2008, well again you’re just flat out wrong. My side never wins an election. Sure, I agree with the R’s on more issues than the D’s, but am in NO way lock step with them. I know you’re just projecting, so again, no worries.
Rho, interesting reply and thanks for it. As far as nation building, I wasn’t even so much for that in Afghanistan as I’m not sure how well that will work in the middle east. I was just hoping to drop as many as these miserable pieces of shit as possible and MAYBE something good would come of it. As far as Bin Laden goes, the vast majority of these islamonuts aren’t in jihad for Bin Laden, who may or may not be dead, but for muhammed, who has been dead for 1400 plus years. Having their leaders being dead doesn’t seem to phase them. So, I disagree as to the role of Bin Laden insofar as their “motivation”. When it’s confirmed that he’s pushing daisies (or to be more geographically precise, poppies) there will be no letup for the fanaticized jihadi. Just another “martyer” to celebrate.
“our very presence is an AQ recruiter’s dream (Fight the Crusaders!)” This statement may indeed be true. However, again that would be applicable to Afghanistan too. Quite possibly not to the extent of Iraq as Iraq is afterall the desired home of the new improved caliphate (this time in brilliant technicolor and Hi Def. The beheadings are that much sharper!), but Afghanistan would have been a recruitment vehicle too for AQ. As it already is.
“We’re the DeVry University for jihadists.” LOL. While, again, not really agreeing with this statement, it was pretty funny. I actually did LOL…
our very presence is an AQ recruiter’s dream (Fight the Crusaders!)
And our withdrawal wouldn’t be? “Look, the true warriors of Allah defeated the kuffir! Now we know that Allah is on our side, because we just defeated the second superpower!”
Bin Laden and his cronies believe that he and his mujahideen are the proximate cause of the USSR’s fall. That turned out to be a good recruiting tool, too, because “if we can take down one, we can take down the other.”
We withdraw from Iraq prematurely, their narrative wins, and they get a whole country to play with. We establish a relatively stable consensual government that is hostile to jihad, their narrative loses. That doesn’t mean they won’t pull up stakes and go elsewhere; it does mean they won’t have Iraq’s oil and strategic location.
The Left really needs to recognize that the jihadis have their own reasons for doing what they do: sometimes, they’ll hate you no matter what you do, because what they really want is to conquer you — all of the other grievances are just individual tiles in a larger mosaic. And they’re not going to stop going after World Conquest until either they achieve their ultimate goal or they’re stopped dead in their tracks.
Remember, “all” Hitler wanted was the Rhine valley. So we let him have it. Then “all” he wanted was the Sudetenland. So we let him have it. Then “all” he wanted… ad infinitum.
You can’t appease fanatics by giving them only part of what they want and hoping they’ll stop.
I think we all know that you don’t take opposition to your arguments in good faith. What we didn’t realize was that our response to your snottiness has only kept you coming back.
New rule, everyone: Ignore the heetard.
“Our enemies employ the propaganda necessary to convince Americans that the fight for a free Iraq is lost.”
How many people in the United States actually are convinced by al-Qaida propoganda? Of course, there never has a “free Iraq” to fight for. The Kurds are relatively free but they reject the Iraq label and don’t allow the Iraqi flag to be flown. The Sunnis and Shiites have both imposed rigorous religious regimes of unfreedom in areas they control. The idea of a free Iraq was always a dream–a very profitable dream for weapon contractors, Haliburton, and Blackstone securities, a politically advantageous dream for Bush and Rove, and a new fetish object to dream about for the rest of the right-wing. But it never came into being and may not do so during out time.
But brilliant reference there to Joanie and Chachi. How does Jeff G come up with those little touches. So illuminating.
Something must exist first, before its fought for? The concept isn’t enough?
Glad you weren’t around to throw cold water on the Founding Fathers.
The Kurds don’t allow the Hussein era Iraq flags to be flown. They do fly the Qassim era flag. Can’t say I blame them too much, given their treatment by the Ba’ath. It just means that Iraq needs a new flag. But even that is a difficult and contentious proposition, yet Congress insits that an oil revenue law be hashed out right now.
Politically advantageous to the tune of 34% approval rating? Riiiight.
Generic Sunni and generic Shiaa areas are getting smaller each day, though you don’t acknowledge that.
I’m willing to fight for a dream, and in fact I do. What have you done lately?
I have it on good authority that Joanie once gave Chachi a blow job in the Paramount parking lot.
Why haven’t we captured or killed Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri?
Off topic but have you noticed how Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are starting to look like twins?
“How many people in the United States actually are convinced by al-Qaida propoganda?”
There are a couple hundred in Congress. Chuck Hagel, say.
To be fair, there’s a bit of synergy going on between left-wing propaganda and AQ propaganda. After the left started claiming that the motives for 9/11 included our failure to ratify Kyoto, that talking point started showing up in AQ tapes.
Apparently the jihadis have a good idea of where the weakest link is.
Or vice versa? The confluence between the AQ narrative and, well, yours, is unmistakable. For instance, they don’t give much thought to the civilians they slaughter either.
Just as there was never a free South Africa to fight for. And there was never a free American South to fight for. And there wasn’t a free Eastern Europe to fight for.
And there was never a free Kurdish Iraq to fight for, until we gave them the ability to establish one. Good point, Doc. But they’re not clamoring for secession, are they? They’re participating in the Iraqi government, right?
On the contrary, what’s helped to turn the Sunni tribes against AQ is their attempt to implement strict Sharia, chopping the fingers off of smokers and beating men who shaved their beards. Remember all the talk of how secular the Sunnis were and that they therefore could never be in cahoots with AQ? I do.
All those millions of death defying purple fingers? Never heard about that dream, eh Ric? Here, let me help you with that.
I detect fetish projection. Something about weenies, IIRC.
What’s that you were saying about the Kurds, Ric?
Jeff is a bright, clever fellow. That’s why so many people read him. And you? Not so much.
Yes, Jeff G. definitely fills a niche for right-wingers who want to be hip, and are up on all their pop culture references. Protein Wisdom reminds me of Gutfeld and Friends on Fox that way. None of that crudely bigoted Limbaugh and Coulter stuff. But he seems to labor when he tries to be serious.
This coming from the academic who just posted his second “Right Wingers as weenie boys” post.
Seriously!
Your selection of material to respond to is very impressive, perfessor.
Projection again. It’s you who’s laboring as you try (and fail) to understand Jeff’s serious writing. Happens a lot with the weaker intellects here.
Hmmmm…. I sense someone who operates only from what others tell him of Limbaugh.
Why do these comments keep wandering off the left side of the page?
Yes, I labor when I try to be serious, professor ummmmmmmm. This you know from your extensive analysis of my site archives, no doubt.
Here’s a tip for you: if you don’t like my “touches” and pop-culture references, don’t read them. I mean, I stopped reading your pseudo-intellectual social science claptrap after a single, self-deconstructing post so jammed full of predictable academic tropes that I felt like I was reading a parody.
I offered to debate you on racial constructs; you ran away, only to arrive back here from time to time to talk about how unserious I am.
Again: I’m willing to debate you on topics inseparable from your academic bailiwick. Either put up or shut up, professor. Because as I told you before, I’m not put off by condescension from academics — particularly those whose expertise happens to be in viewing all history through a lens of gender and racial oppression in order to justify their existence within the academy.
That’s gonna leave a mark.
Oh, for Robert Crawford, I read this today and thought you’d like to add it to our discussion of yesterday
“The question of whether al-Baghdadi exists and where he is doesn’t seem to be settled, though; the Los Angeles Times reports that Mohammed Askari, a spokesman for the Iraqi Defense Ministry, says that U.S. officials have been fooled by Shahid.
“Al-Baghdadi is wanted and pursued,” Askari said. “We know many things about him, and we even have his picture.”
And the New York Times talked to Bruce Reidel, a former CIA official, who said that though U.S. officials had long wondered whether al-Baghdadi was real, they need to be wary of the possibility that Shahid may be feeding them bad information.”
WHAT?!?!? An Al Queda guy might have lied! That never happens. I guess maybe we don’t know the whole story jest yet. To quote a resident genius: “You know, suspicion. Doubt. A lack of absolute certainty this early in a story. A desire to know why this information is released and other info is not.”
If you’d like to apologize….oh, more likely respond with the erudite “What the hell are you talking about.” Always makes you sound smart.
For Robert, why don’t you leave a link behind, Tim? It would help him read what you read.
Not that you’re unreliable. Just, well, you know. For the sake of completeness.
Why? The story shows it was from the LAT and the NYT. Is Rob incapable of going to their sites if he’s thinks I’m lying?
Timbot doesn’t know how to do hyperlinks. That’s the real reason he won’t start his own blog.
#
Comment by Ric Caric on 7/19 @ 8:15 am #
Yes, Jeff G. definitely fills a niche for right-wingers who want to be hip, and are up on all their pop culture references. Protein Wisdom reminds me of Gutfeld and Friends on Fox that way. None of that crudely bigoted Limbaugh and Coulter stuff. But he seems to labor when he tries to be serious.
Nah. More like Chris Hitchens when he was really cutting edge with a little Lenny Bruce thrown in. Maybe an accent like Abba Eban, but I only heard him once. Unfortunately you guys on the left have that lameass Al Franken. The last time he was funny was when John Belushi was alive. The only laboring around here is you trying to make sense, so I can understand why you’d think the opposite.
tw; 503-590 Castle Damn thing takes up a whole city block!
timb bleated:
No, Rob isn’t obligated to show your sources when you make a claim. You are.