Writing in Der Spiegel, here’s Ullrich Fichtner:
Ramadi is an irritating contradiction of almost everything the world thinks it knows about Iraq — it is proof that the US military is more successful than the world wants to believe. Ramadi demonstrates that large parts of Iraq — not just Anbar Province, but also many other rural areas along the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers — are essentially pacified today. This is news the world doesn’t hear: Ramadi, long a hotbed of unrest, a city that once formed the southwestern tip of the notorious “Sunni Triangle,” is now telling a different story, a story of Americans who came here as liberators, became hated occupiers and are now the protectors of Iraqi reconstruction.
[…]
The world has become deaf to the word “peace” — at least when conversations turn to Iraq. It is as if the world were blind to the possibility that the situation in this country straddling the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers could be anything different from the constant stream of increasingly devastating films of the latest car bombings. For most people, Iraq has become nothing but a series of attacks, a collection of images of bombings and victims, a tale of failure, a book about historical guilt and a symbol of the moral decline of the United States of America.
But the real story in Iraq cannot be summed up in short news clips and quick, shaky television images. Body counts and names of the dead tell only part of the story of Iraq today. Research for this story took me on a three-week journey throughout the country, my fourth trip to Iraq in as many years. Under the protection of the US military, it led us to the northern city of Mosul and its suburbs, to Ramadi and to Baghdad. The military did not choose our destinations, SPIEGEL did. Apart from a few technical and strategic details, nothing was censored.
The trip included nighttime helicopter flights across villages and cities, journeys in Humvees through landscapes of burned-out buildings, rides in an armored personnel carrier through war zones and walks through both enemy territory and peaceful markets. This kind of travel is the only way for a Western journalist to work in Iraq. Without a military escort, reporting can only take place from afar, from the relative safety of well-guarded hotel rooms. Of course, hotel rooms aren’t the best vantage point from which to grasp the true complexity of the situation. At no point during this journey, even in places where there was gunfire or bombs had recently exploded, were the images entirely consistent.
The Iraq of today is not a single place that is easy to understand — it is a country mired in contradictions.
In some parts of the country, especially Baghdad, the situation is even worse than was feared, and in others, it is much better than anyone could have hoped. Traveling through Iraq, four years, four months and a few days after the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 20, 2003, one encounters a country undergoing radical change, not just a country in decline, not just a country falling apart, but also not a country that has been saved.
[…]
Earlier this year, thousands of attacks occurred every week, and hundreds died daily. It seemed that terror reigned supreme, that its resources were inexhaustible. But now the trend appears to be reversing itself. Terror is weakening, and its leaders, most recently al-Qaida’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are issuing dramatic appeals to radical communities not to give up the fight. This is a good sign. “They are no longer on schedule,” Petraeus says. “They have a problem.”
One is that Iraq has come a long way in developing its own security forces. There are now 194,000 police officers in uniform, and the Iraqi army has 154,000 newly recruited soldiers. These organizations are still not as fully functional as they should be, and there have been many reports of corruption and religious activities, but there’s been a noticeable shift nonetheless. In the past few weeks, the Americans were not the only ones capturing and killing terrorists. The Iraqis have also been successful. The local police forces, for example, regularly obtain information directly from the population that leads them to the terrorists’ weapons caches, training camps and bomb factories.
Something is happening in Iraq that is consistently concealed behind images of bombings. The situation that the White House and its deceptive advisors had erroneously predicted before their invasion — that the troops would be greeted with candy and flowers — could in fact still come true. That’s already the case in many places. It’s as if the terrorists have lost popular support, as if their acts of violence have driven the Iraqi people into the arms of the enemy, the Americans.
But there is little talk of these developments outside of Iraq. The world continues to debate the Bush administration’s lies, which hang over the entire operation like a curse, concealing its successes. The lies are legend, and they continue to color the picture the world paints of Iraq.
[…]
General Petraeus deals with this skepticism day after day, and he is losing the battle for public opinion. Whenever the terrorists score another major victory, when they successfully bomb their way into their own “CNN moments,” the television images seem more powerful than hundreds of reports coming in from his senior military staff that they have arrested thousands of terrorists. It is a war of images, and each new attack seems to trivialize the US military’s efforts — especially when reporters, their faces lit up by nearby flames, ask how many more American soldiers must die in this merciless war.
[…]
Those who believe that a speedy withdrawal of US troops would result in the problem capable of resolving itself are deeply mistaken. Though this premise might have rang true in late 2003 or early 2004, when terrorism had not yet stirred up the infernal forces of religious hatred, the situation today is different.
In the Iraq of 2007, that is, in its capital Baghdad, the respective factions in a future civil war are forming along religious lines, and so far only the Americans have been able to prevent it from happening. If the forces in Washington that are demanding the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq prevail, the country will descend into full-fledged civil war, complete with reports of horrific religious cleansing operations, large-scale massacres arising from the blind fury of fanaticism and acts of revenge against anyone who has ever dared to cooperate with the Americans.
[…]
There is no doubt that the greatest enemies of success in Iraq are in Tehran and Damascus. Many of the jihadists enter the country through Syria, and Iran supports the terrorists with weapons and money. During their operations, US troops often find brand-new mines and grenades produced in Iranian weapons factories, sometime still in their original packaging. Fighters from the Iranian Al-Quds Brigades are active on Iraqi soil, and there are terrorist training camps across the border in Iran. “Iran,” says Crocker, “wants to defeat the West on more than one front, and it also wants to make sure that Iraq will never pose a threat to it again.”
The ambassador has already taken part in three-way talks involving Iranian, Iraqi and American delegates, and the next round is about to begin. At these meetings, Crocker says, it is obvious that Maliki, though a Shiite, is truly not in Iran’s pocket. “The atmosphere at these meetings is frosty,” he explains, “I mean, really frosty.” But how do the Iranians explain their activities? “They don’t explain them. It’s very frustrating. There is a sort of total denial of reality on that issue.”
Petraeus will not be the only one presenting his view of the situation in Iraq to Congress this September. Crocker, too, will be called to account before the representatives of the American people. He knows that there will be tremendous pressure, and he is fully aware that everyone is hoping for a speedy withdrawal. But, he says, “I’m not going to be there to deliver some sort of agenda. I’ll be there to describe reality.”
According to Crocker’s reality, Iraq’s politicians will need another two to three years to complete important tasks. To do so they will require the presence of the US military. “Of course the surge can’t go on forever,” says Crocker, “and of course Iraq will have to participate in the costs of this operation at some point. But one thing is certain: We all need more time.”
When asked about critics of the war in the United States who are demanding an immediate withdrawal of US troops or a pull out by next April, Crocker can only shake his head in quiet disgust. Aside from the fact that the withdrawal of such a large combat force would take at least a year, logistically speaking, everything about these sorts of demands is unrealistic, he says.
“We Americans consider ourselves to be a moral nation, no matter how the rest of world might feel about it,” says Crocker. It is clear, from his expression, that what he says next is very important to him. “How will we feel if the movie doesn’t stop, even though we’ve pressed the ‘stop’ button? What if the movie just goes on? And gets even uglier? And even uglier after that?” Crocker makes a dramatic pause, clearly already practicing his best sentences for his appearance in Washington. “We’re talking here about the possibility of thousands of deaths, about religious cleansing operations, we’re talking here about the possibility that there could be no Sunnis left in Baghdad because they’ll all have been murdered, driven out or expelled. Is this what we want? And who will explain that to Americans?”
[…]
Every child in the city knows the story of how, on May 16, 2007, terrorists attempted to stage a massive attack. Using four car bombs, they first blew up two bridges across the Tigris River in the city’s northwest. A short time later, three other car bombs exploded in front of the headquarters of the district police. They, too, were packed with explosives, ripping craters into the ground the size of swimming pools. An eighth bomb struck a police station in the southeast. The attackers followed each of the bombings with an assault with rockets, machine guns and Kalashnikovs. It was clear, on that May 15, that the terrorists were intent on scoring a major coup. But they failed, and in doing so they lost their war.
The Iraqi police officers and soldiers, who until then had not been expected to perform well in combat, threw themselves into battle. Even the wounded refused to be carried off the battlefield, continuing to fight as best they could. Heroes were born on that day in May, the kind of heroes that the entire country sorely needs — not Sunni, not Shiite, not Kurdish or Assyrian or Turkmen heroes, but Iraqi heroes.
You run into these heroes in the streets, when you’re tagging along with 2nd Battalion of the 7th Cavalry Regiment. Its commander is Lieutenant Colonel Eric Welsh, who looks like a skinhead but is a true idealist at heart. He speaks freely of values, patriotism and freedom. He says: “Yes, it hurts, and yes, it’s tough, and of course everything’s dangerous here. But we’re not doing this for fun. We have a purpose. We want to give the people here a chance, that’s the truth, and let’s be honest about it: It will take decades for us to find out what is really going to happen here.”
Writes Jules Crittennden:
So now we see that a former grunt and a German are capable of doing a better job in Iraq than our own professional press, managing to talk to real people and unafraid to talk about the good as well as the bad, the progress that is being made, the utter necessity of blood, sweat and tears that is being expended. Again, why are the great American media organizations unable to manage this? They’ll be handing out Pulitzers for 2007, the year when the leading forces of American journalism failed an entire people, sought to condemn an entire region of the world, and were willing to see slaughter and chaos. I can’t wait to see what the august judges settle on as the exemplars of this year’s greatness. They don’t have a Pulitzer for shame. They don’t have one for sloth and cynicism. But then, they don’t really have Pulitzers for passion, moral purpose and people who buck genteel drawing room sensibilities, either.
One of the arguments on offer during the Beauchamp / TNR dustup was that “the nutters” were using a non-story to avoid having to face the mess that is Iraq — an argument that posited that being conservative or “pro-war” some how magically prevented one from being able to deal with separate stories separately and simultaneously. The argument was, of course, ludicrous on its face — demonstrably so, given that many of the same sites concerning themselves with the Beauchamp story were quite eager to juxtapose it against in-country journalism from people like Michael Yon, Bill Roggio, Bill Ardolino, et al, each of whom seemed less concerned with creating stories of “significance” (grafted onto to pre-conceived conclusions and meant to advance a particular political narrative) than with actually capturing the realities of the fight and its political fallouts.
And now, it’ll be the “nutters” who quote liberally from this story — not because it paints flattering pictures of Iraq (Fichtner is, in fact, quite hard on the Bushies for what he considers their early misleading promises), but rather because it presents its subject fairly, and with an eye toward longterm implications of the war, at least as it pertains to Iraqis.
If, as seems to be the case here, an erstwhile anti-war outlet can send a skeptical, Bush-bashing journalist to Iraq, have him spend time in actual war zones, and then publish a remarkably detailed story that is both hopeful of an “American” victory and — more importantly — insistent upon that hope — we can fairly conclude that the progress being made in Iraq is not some rightwing fantasy.
And given that the “nutters” have always had both idealism and long-term pragmatism on their side, the fact of real progress, coupled with the profound righteousness of the endeavor — deposing a despot and giving a country a real chance for self-governance, even if doing so was also in our own strategic interests — it is fair to conclude that, pace the hysteria of “real conservatives” like Andrew Sullivan or John Cole, it is not the “nutters” who are denying the reality on the ground in Iraq, nor is it the “nutters” who are incapable of separating out stories of attempted propaganda projects from an ongoing and difficult battle for the soul of a country taking its first difficult steps toward freedom, pluralism, and republican self-reliance.
Writes Ed Morrisey:
We moved from being hated occupiers to protectors when we finally started doing something to improve the situation on the ground. The Iraqis had seen us as arbitrary authority unwilling to risk anything to save them from both themselves and the terrorists. The new strategy of aggressive tactics and engagement with the enemy has impressed them and won the allegiance of ordinary Iraqis — and has taken the pressures off that otherwise could have been channeled into sectarian conflict.
If it’s true, as Ed notes, that Iraqis at one time viewed us with distrust, much of that had to do with our “realist” position in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. Coupled with this was our early belief that the Iraqis themselves would take charge of their own security and route the terrorists and those dead enders who stood in the way of an Iraqi democracy. But it turns out that the Iraqis were waiting to make sure of our commitment, and now — convinced that their “imperialist occupiers” have their interests at heart — they are beginning not only to greet us as liberators, but are working along side us to ensure that the liberation takes.
****
See also, Davids Miedienkritik, which notes that “less than a year ago, Der SPIEGEL published a magazine cover (depicted below) declaring Iraq a ‘Lost War’.”
Victor Davis Hanson explains the about face thus:
the universal human desire to be associated in the here and now with the assumed winning side  and to shun perceived defeat  trumps them all. Throughout this war, that natural urge explains most of the volatile and shifting views of our politicians, pundits and media as they scramble to readjust to the up-and-down daily news from Iraq.
And so it is with the latest positioning about the surge that to a variety of observers seems successful  at least for now.
More, from IP and Allah at Hot Air — who notes that the WaPo had precisely the same take last week.
****
related
Excellent piece. Unfortunately, it must be all lies and deception because Fichtner had military support and assistance in his travels. So, you know, LIES!!!
I’m interested to see what the MSM treatment of this will be. Who wants to tell Harry Reid that the bucket he’s been hauling around for the past 2 years has a hole in it and all his precious blood has been running out?
My husband and I just lost one of our oldest, closest friends in Afghanistan on Sunday. It reduces all the anti-war rhetoric to a tinny hollowness. He knew the truth. He was willing to sacrifice his life for it. None on the Left have that kind of power and they never will.
First, my condolences to Zelda, her husband and her friends.
Second, I’m giving Jeff and y’all a heads up that I’m currently working on a much longer piece — but from a different angle — that relates to this subject. It may take a few days to finish, so don’t worry if you don’t see my name ’round here extensively.
It’s about a mid-level band struggling with its own limitations in the harsh light of stardom.
It will be… link-rich.
Zelda – My sincere condolences.
Simple words can never make up that void, but as time goes by, you will focus more on the heroism of the person, being willing to lay down their life for a cause greater than self, than on the loss.
That is of little help at this time, I am sure.
Great piece! Funny though, I’ve been hearing the very same optimistic tone from my returning military friends & family for quite awhile now. They’ve, to a man, each used the words “You’re not seeing the true story in the media..”
tw: Revolution came … Turing always knows just the right words.
Be well, Zelda. I hope you and Jethro draw strength from one another, and know you have more friends pulling for you than you realize.
In the meanwhile, I hope that our domestic media feels the wind changing, and begins to offer coverage that offers hope and comfort to our side of the conflict (for a change).
I am so sorry, Zelda. My condolences and sincerest thanks to his friends and family.
Condolances to you and your family, Zelda and Godspeed to your friend the hero. May we take a minute to give thanks to God for those extraordinary people who willingly put themselves in harm’s way for all of us.
I think that the recent positive changes in reporting by msm outlets and some Democrat presidential hopefuls has more to do with General Petraeus’ upcoming report on the surge. They’ve been telling us all along that we need to listen to the Generals as they have paraded Clinton-era antiwar retired military types in front of the cameras. Now they need to get out in front of what they know is going to be relatively positive report from the one guy who is in a position to know the truth. By moderating their current rhetoric they can then say, “Yes, that’s because you’ve finally started listening to me, but it is too little too late.” I especially expect this type of response from Hillary.
This is all just to distract us from the fact that Bush waged this war to make money via Halliburton. Fools. Look at the facts before your eyes. Bush declared war on Iraq. Halliburton is making money in Iraq. Bush must be getting it somehow, I just know.
BECAUSE OF THE CYNICISM!
– The kind of personal commitment, as shown by Zelda’s moving post above, is the “real” in the real world that gives everyone who really cares “real” hope for America’s future.
– Cast against the back drop of partisan bickering, agenda driven cynacism, and defeatist attitudes the denizens inside the beltway are presently reveling in, Washington looks more and more the problem, and not the solution, to so many of our counries problems.
– Yet the idea that our military leadership, and even more, right down to the soldiers in the trenches, have more common sense and understanding about the true stakes in this global clash of ideology than our so called “leading political minds”, actually is a sign of hope for our very survival.
– The Left marches enexorably to the drums of worn out idea’s of isolationism, and seige mentality, flying in the face of the “realities” of 21st centuary globalism, and insisting on cultural suicide, while the right seems to be mired in “partriotism”, and calls for national pride, concentrating on imaginary bromides, delusions of “good news”, “nation building”, and the spread of Democracy, while steadfastly ignoring the true difficulties involved in the monumental task of effective multicultural stability and co-existance.
– And yet it would seem that we as a people press on through it all, throwing off the distractions, and voices of defeat, to do the jobs, and make the sacrifices that are “real”.
– To all the family, and friends, and most of all those loved ones that have made that supreme sacrifice, we all owe an unpayable debt of gratitude and reverence. Because of them, and theirs, each of us can be proud to be Americans.
– Let not the jackels of politics steal meaning from those sacrifices, nor tarnish their legacy. That is the least we can do.
Condolences, Zelda. Please relate our thanks to the family.
“…it is fair to conclude that, pace the hysteria of “real conservatives†like Andrew Sullivan or John Cole, it is not the “nutters†who are denying the reality on the ground in Iraq…”
Well, since all you deadender 28%-er Bushlicking Christianist nutters (as opposed to us, the Last True Conservatives) are so busy worshiping St. Terry Schiavo and teaching creationism and hating the gay and denying the morning-after pill to teenage girls and hating the gay and denying the scientifically-proven guilt of America for global warming and did I mention hating the gay and praying for George Bush (the horror!)… we just naturally assumed you were wrong about Iraq, too.
Our bad!
Hugs and Kisses,
John and Andy
“Our bad!”
– Actually that cop to plea would support a sort of sincere, albeit misguided intent, whereas there exists only the evidence of willfull stupidity. But thanks for playing.
Zelda – my deepest condolences to your friend’s family as wel as yourself and your husband.
First off, Zelda, my condolences to you and your friend’s family. I am deeply indebted to him for his ultimate sacrifice.
Secondly, this story is very good news indeed. I wasn’t a proponent of escalation in Iraq, but knew that once we made the decision we had to follow through. It sounds like that follow through is making gains. As an opponent of the Iraq battle, this makes me reasess my earlier concerns. I still wonder if western style Democracy can take root however, in the face of constant jihadi war mongering.
Regarding the likes of St. Andrew, Johnny Cole and other “true conservatives”. My lord have these people lost their mind. I made a visit to a couple of places that frankly, frightened me. One is Lawrence Auster’s web site, amnation. Reading Mr. Auster’s missives about anything to do with President Bush, one would think that you have wandered into a lefty looney bin. The vitriol for President Bush is amazing. It’s a shame, too. because he does seem to be a very intelligent man. Same goes for site number two on my mini tour of “traditional conservative” sites. Taki’s place, I believe it is called. A couple of the writers absolutely hate, that is not too strong of a word, President Bush. It’s like a schoolyard whine fest among the commentors in there. Calling Bush a drunk, an idiot, Hitler, fascist, emperor, etc…At least in regards to foreign policy, more preceisely the Iraq Battle, there is no difference between the radical loonies on the left and the “tradional conservatives”. Oh, yeah, you can put the Lew Rockwell Libertarians in that camp, too. It was an eye opening experience and makes you truly understand that politics can indeed make some strange bedfellows.
Agreed, but they’ve already begun laying the groundwork for the dismissal of Petraeus via some ham-handed attempts to blacken the public’s perception of soldiers and through recent and not so subtle mentioning of the supremacy of civilian authority (yearly Kos?) This mainly got play on righty blogs as some sort of repudiation of the chickenhawk meme but the greater point was that having said Bush should listen to the generals the Dems are now free to ignore them at their leisure.
Make no mistake here, the surrendercrats are not throwing in the towel and as long as there is a chance of failure they’ll be agitating for total pullout just as soon as the political winds come back around.
Thomas – I think this is actually the first salvo of their reaction to the Petraeus report. Don’t have the link here at work, but lst time I remember this guy raising his head was… October of 2006. Now he wants to “turn up the volume”? Expect a fraught roi analysis come September is my bet, conjoined with economic alarmism and a minimization of progress in Iraq with heavy emphasis on the costs. I’d bet you start seeing evidence of such a strategy reflected in the angles of media polling questions here pretty soon. Or not, but, if we’re speculating about September, that’s my best guess.
lst = last
ThomasD – Hell, Senator Reid already told us that he would not believe Gen. Petraeus if the report was encouraging. The Dems, aided by their willing accomplices in the media, voted to authorize the war, and then ever since, have managed to hold every conceivable position – more troops, less troops, listen to the Generals, don’t care what the Generals say, finish what we start, strategic redeployment to Okinawa – so why should they do anything different now. If the report is positive, and you can mark my words, they will either – 1) dismiss Gen. Petraeus as a partisan hack, 2) run away with the goalposts, or 3) claim their positions made the successes possible.
– JD – I expect #3 will be the loons page from their gamebook. something along the lines of:
 .See, we told you that threatening to leave Iraq would force the Iraqui’s to start lifting their own weight, and look how well its working. We support our troops, and this proves it!â€Â
– Yet another glorious “victory†for the bizzarro based community, something along the lines of the Lamont victory in Conn.
– Fortunately, I’m sure most of the electorate will see through this feckless claim, when various writers shovel truck sized proportions of a review of antics of the far Left anti-war crowd for the past 7+ years, but they have no choice but to try to get away with it, because a stable Iraq and a viable WOT success, continues to be the 800 lb gorrilla in the 2008 election cycle for the Dems, and their crazy aunts in the political attic, the Kos Klowns.
While it is nice to see Der Spiegel reevaluating its position on Iraq, there is still plenty of silly stuff in this article, such as where they suggest that it would have been a good idea to just pull out immediately after the invasion in 2003.
Agreed, Robin, but we’ll take what we can get from the left-leaning (did you notice the “Bush lies” that got us into this war?) Perhaps even leftist journalists are tired of promoting a scenario where the worst theocratic totalitarian thugs win the day.
Methinks also that the comptroller general of the US should stick to financial matters and leave the feckless historical analogies to Andrew Sullivan. The only difference was the very big stretch of Roman downfall as opposed to the perfunctory Nazi reference.
He has a PHD, you know. BECAUSE OF THE ENGLISH NATIONAL EDUCATION SYSTEM!!!!
“He has a PHD, you know. BECAUSE OF THE ENGLISH NATIONAL EDUCATION SYSTEM!!!!
– Which is to say he is one of the lucky ones that escaped with his life…..
If not his common sense…
“In some parts of the country, especially Baghdad, the situation is even worse than was feared, and in others, it is much better than anyone could have hoped. Traveling through Iraq, four years, four months and a few days after the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 20, 2003, one encounters a country undergoing radical change, not just a country in decline, not just a country falling apart, but also not a country that has been saved.”
Wow. That’s a pretty stern repudiation of all those liberal hacks is the MSM who characterize the Iraq occupation as less than successful.
Seriously, I think the analogy of moving goalposts is no longer adequate; there’s about 25 different goalposts scattered around the field, with a kicker in front of each one claiming to have scored the game-winner. An article like this one, which largely eschews the disgraceful practice of pre-chewing the news and packaging the message right in there next to the facts, allows all those nice folks who don’t balk at the politicization of foreign policy to claim a victory. Which says more about everybody else than it does about Fichtner.
Mr. Fry:
Would you please expand a little on this part of your comment? The green tea may be wearing off and the office mold spores mar have rotted my frontal lobe but I’m not seeing your point here.
Thanks in advance!
– OT – – Dan “MemoGate” Rather saddals up again –
AP – Returning to the national news stage once again, Dan Rather restarts his firebrand type of hard-hitting investigative journalism, by taking on the voting machine industry in a timely expose’ of the potential cheating, and or inaccuracies, of touch screen voting machines, and the questionable practices of their foriegn manufacturers. Tonight on your local affilliate stations.”
– Hmmmmm, seems like this may be one of those “I question the timing” Kodak moments. Apparently the ghosts of Election day 2000, and 2004, won’t RIP until every living Dem that had anything to do with them is dead.
[…] Jeff Goldstein points out that our treacherous realpolitik in the 80s and 90s have put us in this situation and that George Bush’s “audacity of hope” coupled with the tenacity to face down evil even though doing so is very difficult, is starting to bear real fruit. If it’s true, as Ed notes, that Iraqis at one time viewed us with distrust, much of that had to do with our “realist†position in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. Coupled with this was our early belief that the Iraqis themselves would take charge of their own security and route the terrorists and those dead enders who stood in the way of an Iraqi democracy. But it turns out that the Iraqis were waiting to make sure of our commitment, and now  convinced that their “imperialist occupiers†have their interests at heart  they are beginning not only to greet us as liberators, but are working along side us to ensure that the liberation takes. […]
What I’m getting at there, BJT, is that articles that paint a picture of Iraq that isn’t squarely in the Cheerleading or Doom’n’Gloom categories are practically newsworthy in their own right. This is a pretty serious matter, this war thing, not only for the practical consequences of the operation but for the policy precedents that spring from it, but to read the newspapers and the blogs you would think it’s a horserace. So when someone like Fichtner writes an article like this, there’s a brief lull where folks say “golly, that’s refreshingly even-handed” and then the film speeds back up and the whole thing is picked apart by people who want to say “see, this even-handed source thinks the war is going well too” or “see, this even-handed source thinks Iraq is disintegrating as well” in order to reinforce their prior positions.
And my contention is that that’s not healthy for the country. Fichtner’s piece has its share of flaws, but it gets the important thing right, which is that no clear trend is observable. Lost in the success/failure frame is the fact that there are such things as inadequate progress and temporary setbacks, and barring a sea-change it is the ability to weigh those things that is going to decide the correct path for the US in Iraq, not the daily carping of those who have tied their political fortunes to the accuracy of their 2002 handicapping of Iraq’s chances at becoming a viable state, which is really just noise.
Please don’t take this as sarcasm or snark, but that really isn’t an epiphany. This site is filled with comment threads where we’ve chewed over the effect of that mentality on the political discourse, going back as far as the site goes.
If your point is that we’re participating in trying to drag Fichtner into service of “Cheerleading” the war, I rather suspect those of us who have watched the “Doom’n’Gloom” side monopolizing the narrative for four years are aware of what we’re doing and wishing we didn’t have to.
…wishing we didn’t feel like we had to.
I think that’s closer to what I was trying to say.
Let me take this from a different angle. It seems like many discussions (in general) focus on whether one supports the war effort, and therefore, our soldiers that are sacrificing and putting their lives in harms way, or whether some people so much hate Bush (for no reason) and want us to fail in Iraq to prove a political point. At least that’s my take on it.
We are there now, and as a country, we have a huge responsibility. The whole thing is very complicated, but somehow we now have to try to have the best possible outcome; that’s obvious.
However, because, as president Bush said many times, the decision to go to war is one of the most important decisions (if not the most) a president can make, and because there are questions about whether the reasons for war were made up on purpose and with prior intent, then until that issue is not resolved, there will continue to be discord and political hostility. Was attacking Iraq really the last possible option, as Bush has said? Was intelligence cherry-picked in order to fit an already made decision? Where people who tried to warn the country about the possibility that there were no reasons to attack Iraq intimidated or silenced, or attacked? (Some point to the Valerie Wilson issue on this). There are many unsolved questions. If, as many people believe, the administration knowingly made up reasons to attack Iraq, then that could raise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.
So the discord will continue and people will continue attacking each other at a base level: against the war = traitor and loony left; pro-war = approve of Halliburton and many others making off with the profits of war. These are two extremely simplified characterizations of each side, but that’s where we end up with the debate.
Was intelligence cherry-picked in order to fit an already made decision? No, see the Senate Intelligence Report.
Were people who tried to warn the country about the possibility that there were no reasons to attack Iraq intimidated or silenced, or attacked? Nope.(Some point to the Valerie Wilson issue on this). Some still believe in Santa Claus, but that does not a serious argument make.
“The whole thing is very complicated, but somehow we now have to try to have the best possible outcome; that’s obvious.”
It really isn’t that complicated at all, Luis, unless you believe the majority of Iraqis really prefer living in explosion prone shitholes. If you believe, as most of us do, that the majority would prefer to live in peace and prosperity, then we just have to outlast the bad guys, same as good men have had to do since we fell out of the trees. (Or bit the apple, if you prefer)
Unless you can go back in time, the rest of your post has squat to do with what our plans should be now. We are there, we need to work for the best possible outcome for the future.
——————
Was intelligence cherry-picked in order to fit an already made decision? No, see the Senate Intelligence Report.
Were people who tried to warn the country about the possibility that there were no reasons to attack Iraq intimidated or silenced, or attacked? Nope.(Some point to the Valerie Wilson issue on this). Some still believe in Santa Claus, but that does not a serious argument make.
——————
JD: These questions are not settled, as you surely know. We can get into some real hard facts on this if you like. Many of these things are being investigated right now. The same way I don’t believe in Charriots of Fire coming down from the clouds, I don’t believe in Santa Claus; just wanted to clarify that.
nonono. This debate can end in a generalized apathy. See Kosovo, for example. Generally speaking, the Democrat people are not front and center with strategic foreign policies goals as the centerpieces of their campaigns.
They like other issues more better, like mandating vacation time and giving Grandma free shit. There is very likely a time to come where Iraq is to be portrayed not as an American foreign policy success, or as a spectacular failure, but as about something the American people are largely disinterested in.
This time will come, and our media will tell us that what we are interested is the healthcare, or the new bridges and improved highways for the children, or the wage gap between them over here and them over there, or about how the temperature is more higher than what the United Nations feels the thermostat should be set at.
One of the requisite skills associated with critical thinking is the ability to recognize that, yes, actually, the questions have been settled.
Just sayin’.
and also I like Santa.
———————-
It really isn’t that complicated at all, Luis, unless you believe the majority of Iraqis really prefer living in explosion prone shitholes. If you believe, as most of us do, that the majority would prefer to live in peace and prosperity, then we just have to outlast the bad guys, same as good men have had to do since we fell out of the trees. (Or bit the apple, if you prefer)
Unless you can go back in time, the rest of your post has squat to do with what our plans should be now. We are there, we need to work for the best possible outcome for the future.
———————-
B Moe, I’m sure it’s very simple to you, and how could anybody see any other way. I get that. I think over 2 million people have become refugees, anywhere between 60,000 and 600,000 (depending on who you believe) civilians may have perished as a direct result of the war. The majority of professionals (Doctors, Lawyers, Professors) have left in fear. Daily life is hell. That’s a direct result of the war. Is it going to get better in the future? We all hope so. Was it worth it in lives (both American, and Iraqis) and treasure? That’s the questions that has not been answer yet. Were there other options to deal with Saddam (taking a more multilateral approach)? Hence the debate. You are not just arguing with me, as you may know, but with the overwhelming majority of the American people. I can direct you to some reliable data on this.
Don’t be so dramatic, Luis.
It is what it is, so there you go.
– Luis –
– Let me clear up some of the confusion for you. The general positions of the two sides is not “mysterious”. Its a simple matter of political expediancy for both sides, and its based on one over-riding historical fact. “The United States electorate has never chnaged horses in the middle of an ongoing war”. Period.
– The Dems, and by proxy the Leftnutz ,face 4, 8, possible even more years of political wilderness, (the minor moderate Congressional majority at present not withstanding) if they can’t head off any sort of success in Iraq/Afghan/WOT et al. that the Reps can lay claim to. Everybody that doesn’t live under a rock knows this. Rinse and repeat. It will come to you.
– In the mean time its starting to look grim with each day of the slightest “good news” from the battle front. Doesn’t take a brain surgeon to devine what effect that will have on the Lefts BushCo demonization campaign. Its a really bad bet, but what else could they do, just sit and pat the Administration on the back the past 7 years and say “good job”, hoping to get a few bones thrown their way.
– They’ve invested the whole farm in this EuroMarxist “big lie” ploy, and now they’re hanging on by their finger nails, praying it all works out, and Iraq does indeed prove to be the new Nam.
– The worst senario for them tracks with exactly what you’re seeing, a very slow dragged out turn around, but that is generally the way things happen in this sort of “war”. Classically insurgencies have taken 10 years + to run their course. Time is what they don’t have, even more so than the Reps., particularly if real solid gains can be shown.
– So they demonize on, without letup, because the only other recourse is tacit acceptance. Notice that has nothing to do with “reality”, other than the reality of partisan politics. Which when you think about it, is a pretty cheap reason to sell out your country. But I suppose that would be a peronal opinion in some sectors.
– Anyway. I give the Left 1 chance in 5 to make a success of their Bash-Bush campaign, morphing the real situation, the Islamiat Jihad on the West, into a paper tiger strawman fight with a man who’s carreer is almost over. Dumb, but neccessary from the SecProgg viewpoint I suppose.
You and I in a little toy shop
Buy a bag of balloons
With the money we’ve got
However, because, as president Bush said many times, the decision to go to war is one of the most important decisions (if not the most) a president can make, and because there are questions about whether the reasons for war were made up on purpose and with prior intent, then until that issue is not resolved, there will continue to be discord and political hostility. Was attacking Iraq really the last possible option, as Bush has said?
Was intelligence cherry-picked in order to fit an already made decision? Where people who tried to warn the country about the possibility that there were no reasons to attack Iraq intimidated or silenced, or attacked? (Some point to the Valerie Wilson issue on this). There are many unsolved questions. If, as many people believe, the administration knowingly made up reasons to attack Iraq, then that could raise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.
You really haven’t been paying attention, have you?
tw; XXXVII requested. No. I requested a V ocho.
feets – was that a sneaky chicken joke?
“I think over 2 million people have become refugees, anywhere between 60,000 and 600,000 (depending on who you believe) civilians may have perished as a direct result of the war. The majority of professionals (Doctors, Lawyers, Professors) have left in fear. Daily life is hell. That’s a direct result of the war.”
I didn’t say it was easy, Luis. I didn’t say it didn’t suck. What I meant was our goals aren’t complicated, getting there won’t be quick or easy, and how we go about it shouldn’t hinge on any real or perceived past political treachery or gamesmanship. I don’t see how fucking over the people of Iraq to get back at Bushco and the Neocons should be an option, and if it is not then let’s put it behind us for the moment and get the job done. United, like it says in the title.
no BB, I just saw your yellow balloons and how you were talking about how this war stance they’ve taken might have unforeseen consequences for the Democrats. I really don’t think I could have been more oblique if I was on acid though.
Luis – I am presuming that the 600,000+ figure is from the Lancet study, which may be the most debunked survey in history.
happyfeet – a poem for you.
Summertime in the Midwest
HOLY HELL
IT IS HOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Where people who tried to warn the country about the possibility that there were no reasons to attack Iraq intimidated or silenced, or attacked?
Well, were there?
How about the rest of the world? There is a solid record of the leaders of the U.N., Germany, France, Russia, and more, all receiving Oil for Food bribes from Saddam, yet not ONE of them ever suggested Iraq did not posess WMDs. Prior to the war that one fact was gospel by everyone that didn’t troll for dates at Burger King.
Now how the hell did Bush “intimidate or silence, or attack” these people into silence?
It’s been so unseasonably cool here, Los Angeles, and glad I have no travel I think until fall. Chicago in September. It’s always been nice then in the past there.
I think over 2 million people have become refugees, anywhere between 60,000 and 600,000 (depending on who you believe) civilians may have perished as a direct result of the war.
How do you hide 2 million people and 600,000 corpses?
Because, let’s be honest here, if there were refugee camps or huge piles of dead bodies, the media would be reporting on them every day.
Your numbers are a fantasy.
However, your concern for the brown people brings up a question; why do you fret over the safety and welfare of the Iraqis now and not while Saddam was in power?
“The majority of professionals (Doctors, Lawyers, Professors) have left in fear.”
U betcha. Just like the majority of nobles got out of town when the terror started in France and every noble in Russia wanted to get out of Russia in 1919. You can’t blame them, if you’re current status was dependent upon your birth status, and the helots had taken over, you’d run like a rabbit too.
If only the Platagenets had the courage to stay…
Will it be a white rose or a red rose?
I thought we were closer to the “end of history”.
“…Because, let’s be honest here…”
– Now Tom, lets face it….thats a gargantuan disadvantage to the Left in any debate…How could you….
ACCURIST!!!
why do you fret over the safety and welfare of the Iraqis now and not while Saddam was in power?
Silly fool, because I had the good sense to do all my killing out of sight so sensitive souls like Rusty wouldn’t have to, you know, look at it.
– Anyway feets….thanx for the poem….My bitch says its really sweet…..
you bet
“The majority of professionals (Doctors, Lawyers, Professors) have left in fear.â€Â
And if we leave, and the country devolves into anarchy, will they then return?
You’re doing nothing but bitching and moaning here. You have added nothing to the conversation.
. Were there other options to deal with Saddam (taking a more multilateral approach)?
Ahhhh, the magical “multilateral approach”.
How in God’s name would we get any kind of “multilateral” support, when the leaders of many western countries were in the pocket of Hussein?
BMoe, pardon me for being so audacious as to question the revealed truths. That’s why I loved this place. I learn something every day. Let me share with you a few facts:
—-
“Out of the population of 26 million, 1.6 million Iraqis have fled the country and a further 1.5 million are displaced within Iraq, according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. In Jordan alone there are 500,000 Iraqi refugees and a further 450,000 in Syria. In Syria alone they are arriving at the rate of 40,000 a month.”
—-
Very bad of me for using the word “refugee” so liberally. It may be 1.6 million, or 5 million if you ad all the numbers; something like that. But let’s call it displacement.
I’ll wait for your revealed truth as to why these numbers are wrong…. We’ll move on to the other well-stated point you are putting forward…
I can direct you to some reliable data on this.
No you can’t, Luis. Your mind is as empty as your website. Don’t tell me what you could do, just do it.
I have a question for you, Luis. What do you think of a mile high earthen berm between the Palestinian West Bank and Israel? Do you think that would be feasible? It would prevent attacks from both directions and save a lot of lives, right?
BMoe, regarding “brown people”, let me just say that I never make any judgement or opinion based on the color of the skin of anybody. I see any man, regardless of his color, religion, etc. as just that: a man. And each man to me is equal to the other, unless I’m able to ascertain through observation and reason the character of the man.
I’m not convinced Luis, what else you got?
Very bad of me for using the word “refugee†so liberally. It may be 1.6 million, or 5 million if you ad all the numbers; something like that. But let’s call it displacement.
And by removing all our troops, the refugees will return?
a mass of undifferentiated refugees
A few things to “mull” over Luis, in your newfound search for truth.
– As refugee’s, which in many cses one could debate on the terms of that word, why would you suppose that Syria is the target country to flee too? Could it be there is some compelling reason for a certain large number of a certain “sect” to get out of Dodge? (Hint: under Hussein, roughly 80% of the population was ruled over, and not nicely in any sense of the word “ruled”, by roughly 20% of the rest of the population, again of a certain sect. I think there might be reasons there to be mined, wouldn’t you say.)
– I wonder how many Kurds are among the so-called refugee’s, and wouldn’t that also raise some questions.
– Lastly, would it be possible to think of a war, particularly one that occured in a sectarian devided country, let alone one with tri-sectarian demographics, where there was no dislocation or refugees if you prefer. would be a tough one I think.
– Even lastlier, do you imagine maybe there would have been a good deal fewer “refugee’s”, if the Iraqui’s thenselves had fewer intersect axes to grind, giving the insurgents from saudi, and all parts Middle East lest grist for the Jihadist mill. Little of which has anything to do with america’s presence, but rather takes advantage of same. But I digress.
– Isn’t it nice the way things can be thoughtfully considered Luis, in the absence of all those nasty “agenda’s”, and partisan malaprops?
For one thing, I suspect the ones who fled to Jordan are of a better class of refugee than the ones who took off for Syria.
I love Nena. At the end, we’ll be standing wistfully in the smoking ruins of civilization, but at least it will be poignant.
Worry Worry
super scurry
call the troops up
in a hurry
For one thing, I suspect the ones who fled to Jordan are of a better class of refugee than the ones who took off for Syria.
Hence the glaring lack of refugee camps.
Remember the start of the OIF? There were all kinds of reporters at the Iraq/Jordan border where there had been camps set up for tens of thousands of people. They kept waiting for the hordes, only to end up with a couple of stray goats and some old woman who looked a lot like Tariq Aziz in drag.
Jeff G – Nena and her 99 Luft Balloons ?
“For one thing, I suspect the ones who fled to Jordan are of a better class of refugee than the ones who took off for Syria.”
Different tribes, mebbe. “Better class” – vide France, revolution.
After all, the Jacobins had Reason on their side. Eggs, omelettes, etc.
Man, I’m impressed with the intellectual heft here! I will pass on the childish attacks typical of the bankrupt right-wing nuts, and will stick to facts and real debate hoping that the serious adherent of the right wing policies will jump in here.
Regarding the issue of whether the world, or for that matter, Iraq, is better off without Saddam, I think that argument is based on distorted logic. There are horrible dictators and atrocities happening right now, like the nut running Zimbawe, and the Genocide happening right now, right under our watch, in Darfur. One can argue that if we decide to invade these territories and spent 1 trillion dollars, and the lives of, let’s say, 5,000 U.S. soldiers, and whatever collateral damage in civilian casualties, at the end of the day, and maybe after 10 years or so, we may prevail. But was it worth it?
In Iraq, we may prevail at the end of the day, and things may work out, but the same question remain: what was the cost, and was it worth it?
Just today 175 were killed in bombings. The situation is very perilous. You had a Sunni faction that controlled a majority Shiites under a brutal regime that killed hundreds of thousands during several decades. There is deep-seated hatred caused by that history. They are trying to set up a united government, but the Shiites are wary of giving up too much control to the Sunnis (for historical good reasons). So the Shiites really can’t cracked down to harshly on Shiite militias, as that would be seen as treason. In the meantime, as the civil war continues, more reasons for vengeance accumulate. In the middle of that you have our soldiers trying to keep a lid on things. Then 200,000 weapons can’t be accounted for, and many of them may be in the hands of enemy combatants. Billions of dollars are missing.
So all this stuff is happening, but at them same time the hope is that somehow we can help in the reconciliation process and we can help in building of a sovereign, and strong nation, friendly to the U.S. Some say (based on expertise) that at the end of the day there will be a Shiite theocracy installed in Iraq, courtesy of the misguided policies of George Bush.
But many here would put all that nonsense aside, and just focus on the word “winning”.
It is something to observe people half a world away cavalierly touch on the notion that, “yes, nobody say it was going to be easy; it’s hard to help build a country after a way.” Yes, people who haven’t the foggiest idea of what real violence and shooting and explosions is all about; it’s easy to say that.
War is hell, and before a mighty country like the U.S. commits its forces to war, you need leaders that are smart enough to know when to put our men and women in harms’ way. The jury, the American people have decided that George Bush is not that man, at least for now, as the overwhelming majority do not agree with his war policies.
thanks – I wasn’t trying to take credit for that, just when it came to it I wasn’t sure I wanted to go there. The whole cd is worth a listen really. Not all dance new wavey stuff, they slow it down quite a bit for a lot of it. About half the songs are in english.
– According to King Author, poignantcy is definately overrated.
TW: binding stockmen …. Oh alright…..drag them to the stockades, and then off with their heads… Damn Saxon infidels….
The overwhelming majority of Iraqis did not agree with Sadaam’s war policies, but you’re all cool with that. They lost somewhat more than 4,000 troops in their wars if I recall. Was it worth it? Hells yeah says Luis.
Look Luis. If you won’t answer my questions why should I answer yours?
The recent poll I saw said that well over half of the US did not want the troops pulled out of Iraq right away. So you’re wrong. Again.
“Is it worth it?” That’s your question. My question is “Got a better idea?”
Well, do ya, punk?
Regarding the issue of whether the world, or for that matter, Iraq, is better off without Saddam, I think that argument is based on distorted logic.
You failed to explain to us exactly what that “distorted logic” is.
Unless “hey, there are other bad guys out there too” is what you call an explanation.
I’ve noticed Luis writes a lot but doesn’t really say anything…
Does he know that stuff stays there at least as long as JG stays healthy? Luis, you should know that he works out – the synergistics, they are core.
[…] this morning, Zelda wrote of the recent loss of a close friend in […]
– Luis – Of all the feckless lies, and prefabricated “truths” of your idiotarian gaggle, the notion that somehow the natural distaste of any American with a shred of decency can be woven into a specific blame-fabric of the Iraqui war, and yes even the Chimpies handling of it, which assumes that the Jihadists are going to do everything as predicted, and just roll over and make it easy for you, is simply self-serving mendacity to the extreme.
– You know it, I know it, everybody knows it, and yet you will continue to write inventive crap like that without hesitation. Its the “narrative” so it must be true. Bullshit.
– You would not want to put the question of the Right versus the Lefts approach to any issue you can name, including Iraq, on a sinmple majority basis. you just would not. Its total phoney blustering, and simple to say, in the absense of such an acid test. Don’t say you would because we both know that would be a lie.
– Distaste for war, which is normal, even doubts about certain aspects of this one, accepting for the moment that anyone could have done better, amplified to support “Bush the Monster” and “everyone is against this war”, is as I said, just plain envagling BS.
– Now how about we get back on track? …. and btw, it hasn’t gone unnoticed that you’ve slid past every point I’ve made, probably because to your closed mind they’re just blasphamy against the “narrative”. Sort of the equivalent of holding your hands over your eyes and going lalalalalalala.
egarding the issue of whether the world, or for that matter, Iraq, is better off without Saddam, I think that argument is based on distorted logic. There are horrible dictators and atrocities happening right now, like the nut running Zimbawe, and the Genocide happening right now, right under our watch, in Darfur. One can argue that if we decide to invade these territories and spent 1 trillion dollars, and the lives of, let’s say, 5,000 U.S. soldiers, and whatever collateral damage in civilian casualties, at the end of the day, and maybe after 10 years or so, we may prevail. But was it worth it?
Yes, but none of them have a track record of using WMDs and the potentil to build more. like Saddam did.
Just today 175 were killed in bombings. The situation is very perilous. You had a Sunni faction that controlled a majority Shiites under a brutal regime that killed hundreds of thousands during several decades. There is deep-seated hatred caused by that history. They are trying to set up a united government, but the Shiites are wary of giving up too much control to the Sunnis (for historical good reasons). So the Shiites really can’t cracked down to harshly on Shiite militias, as that would be seen as treason. In the meantime, as the civil war continues, more reasons for vengeance accumulate. In the middle of that you have our soldiers trying to keep a lid on things. Then 200,000 weapons can’t be accounted for, and many of them may be in the hands of enemy combatants. Billions of dollars are missing.
I’ve been reading that the shia ansd sunni populations in bagdad and environs are actually helping each other. Seems they have a common enemy. Al Queda.
So all this stuff is happening, but at them same time the hope is that somehow we can help in the reconciliation process and we can help in building of a sovereign, and strong nation, friendly to the U.S. Some say (based on expertise) that at the end of the day there will be a Shiite theocracy installed in Iraq, courtesy of the misguided policies of George Bush.
So you want gurantees? Cite your sources.
War is hell, and before a mighty country like the U.S. commits its forces to war, you need leaders that are smart enough to know when to put our men and women in harms’ way. The jury, the American people have decided that George Bush is not that man, at least for now, as the overwhelming majority do not agree with his war policies.
Here’s a hint. It’s a global war on terror.
The majority didn’t agree with lincoln either. Go figure. But it’s nice to know that you think liberty is only reserved for western countries. Backward brownskinned people just don’t have the intelligence, eh?
thanks for playing, bye.
tw; discipline 1923
Here is a better question, for you, Luis. What are/were the possible and probable costs of our not acting against Saddam?
I call BS. The American public re-elected him, and that was the only “poll” that mattered. If they want to get rid of him, let Pelosi and Reid pander to the nutroots and impeach him. The leftist supporters are practically salivating at the idea. All that will accomplish is to have President Cheney ;-)
Sometime, the Left is going to have to come up with a position that is not “not-Bush”. Maybe Pelosi and Reid having some responsibility will do that to them. I think we may have seen some of that with the “domestic spying / terrorist surveillance program” legislation. But, going forward, it will take actual policy positions, thought out in the real world.
I can tell you this, one thing the Dems do fear is winning the White House while there are still troops in Iraq. Then, they would be forced to make some real decisions, and I would almost be willing to bet that in the face of real world challenges, rather than sniping from the sidelines, that the nutroots will be quite disillusioned by the choices they will make.
They remember how they hung all of Viet Nam on the shoulders of Nixon, and they do not want to be faced with that decision for themselves.
“at the end of the day there will be a Shiite theocracy installed in Iraq, courtesy of the misguided policies of George Bush”
Is a Shiite theocracy a bad thing, Luis? Are you biased against the Shiite religion, Luis? Are you a religious bigot? Are you a hater, Luis?
Let me see now. If that happens then because of the Sunni attack on America on 9/11, George Bush will have taken the middle of the Middle East and turned it from Sunni to Shiite. Sunni and Shiite are now on the brink of a wide spread sectarian war and Bush has just agreed to arm the Sunni with a bunch of brand new high tech weapons. You should be really happy, religious bigot that you are, Luis. But the rest of us would like at least a chance to prevent massive bloodshed. The rest of us would like to at least try to spread Democracy to the Middle East. The rest of us think the American lives and treasure spent would be well worth it if hundreds of millions of people living in real freedom in the Middle East would end the Middle East as a source of terrorism for all time. So sorry if that’s just too idealistic for you, Luis.
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
John F. Kennedy
Inaugural Address
Friday, January 20, 1961
– Ok. so basically Luis is actus, with a few more manners, but a Typing Telephone Pole(tm) none the less.
That may be one of the single greatest quotes from an American President that I can recall. Lincoln had some classics, but this one so clearly taps into the ideal of the American spirit. Damn, that is one Kennedy I can praise, without hesitation. He was right on defense, right on taxes, and much closer to today’s Republicans than today’s Democrats.
http://theyellowballoon.tripod.com/
Luis plan to spread liberty around the world.
a) Socialized medicine for everyone (except high party officials).
b)
Raise taxes.Take away everyone’s guns (except high party officials).c) Raise taxes.
d) Raise taxes again (what are they gonna do, whine?).
e) Raise the bottom 10% of people from poverty. Except then the next 10% would be the bottom. Rinse, repeat.
f) Send diplomats to every hostile country with lots of free money so they’ll love us again.
g) Conscript some new diplomats and print a lot more money.
h) TW: $1.50 divert. Times a billion or ten. High party officials need a little incentive.
Oh Luis, accosted by the PW thought police. Another poor slob who bothered to argue in good faith. Poor fucker.
I will be anxiously awaiting this awful Dem defeat, mentioned above by Big Bang Karnak, that will come when Iraq is a shining city on the hill. Yes, hang that one around their necks. The proof of the coming VICTORY is in one even-handed article that dares to say Iraq isn’t a sea of blood. Oh, and some fringe righty blogs.
Ya know, part of me is heartened by such hard-core delusion. I don’t know why, but it does.
grammar are my friend.
“The proof of the coming VICTORY is in one even-handed article that dares to say Iraq isn’t a sea of blood.”
Part of me is heartened that you are just another powerless dweeb typing on the intrawebs
You ain’t gonna be one of the high party officials, heet. Not never, not no how!
– …in one even-handed article…
– heet, I don’t blame you. If I were on you side of the fence, I’d be busy minimizing too…… Oh…and whistling past the cemetary a lot…
– And no I don’t think you’ll be one of the party officials….if for no other reason, you woun’t have the brass to kill when its called for, in fact you’ll be horrified when you realize TEH CAUSE demands it of you..it will ne seared…..seared into your mind….sort of similar to Cambodia, and the magic hat thing, but not exactly like that, nore like the granade in the ass thing….yeh…..the geranade in the ass, and that other granade and exploding rice jug thing…..Maybe a little bit like the fake but accurate memo’s…. or that missing ammo dump, yeh so it turns out it never existed…so what…..it probably would if the military had its way…. or the widespread torture that turned out to be two guys and a broad……or how about that Plame thing…..got her and her hubby pissed off, so they really showed those NeoCons, except well maybe that isn’t going so well what with the judge saying she outed herself, and well then Joe got 1 out of 9 right at least….He really did go to Africa..,he had too, she put her job on the line getting him recomended…..damn ingrates those Bushies……Hey heet…..get the phone….I think its Cloe calling you…….
Big Bang – Come on now, Joe Wilson got to drink some good mint tea while he was over there. Hell, he might have even left the hotel.
Oh, and by the way … A Yellow Balloons primer:
Oh Luis, accosted by the PW thought police. Another poor slob who bothered to argue in good faith. Poor fucker.
Starring “Luis Mendoza” (so-call) as Carl Showalter and the PW Commentariat as Gaear Grimsrud.
TEH POOR DOOMED BASTARD !!!
– Thanx for the bio JD…..didn’t know some of that…..
– THIS WEEKS HOT ALBUM – “Bring me the head of Luis Mendoza” – words and music by Cantanfloss – Instraumentals by Jeff Goldfarb and his dancing armadillo band – arrangements by Peter Sellers check http://www.this.sux.the.big.one.com for details…..
Some of you guys have really drank the kool-aid. I didn’t believe it was possible to brainwash people, but I’m beginning to wonder.
I won’t get to deep into this, since I want to go slow in getting you out of the wild-eye hateful brainwashed stupor that some of you are in, but here is a little nugget of info. so at least you don’t say you weren’t told your exact condition:
—
In her book Leo Strauss and the American Right, Shadia Drury elaborates on Strauss’ view that a political aristocracy must necessarily manipulate the masses for their own good. The Straussian worldview, according to Drury, contends that “perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what’s good for them.â€Â
—
Another good example of what’s being demonstrated here is covered in a very good article title: Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush
Here’s a little excerpt; I hope you find it heartwarming:
—–
The aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
—–
Some of you are a classical example of this. One day you’ll thank me for letting you know. Once you can think on your own, and not adhere to a crazy and bankrupt dogma, you’ll feel free!
I’ll try to read all the diatribe and answer the best I can, since it’s hard to have a sane conversation with the obtuse. I’ll try.
Oops, forgot the links:
Leo Strauss and Intelligence Strategy
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2004/0402nsai.php
Enjoy it …Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush
Now, getting back to the diatribe, where to begin? Regarding Lincoln, I just finished reading the book Team of Rivals, a biography of Abraham Lincoln, by Doris Kerns Goodwin (a presidential historian). Among the many valuable lessons you get from the book, one thing is clear: Lincoln’s character and magnanimity is the antithesis of anything the right wing conservative movement represents today in the U.S. The fact that he placed his biggest political rivals in his administration, and the fact that he was killed for wanting to free the slaves against the advice of many in the political and business class of the day shows the type of man he was: the greatest president this country has ever had. Men of small minds surround themselves with “yes” men, and shun opposite and diverse opinions.
Here’s a good article that shows exactly why our current president is no Lincoln:
Bush in the Bubble
“He has a tight circle of trust, and he likes it that way. But members of both parties are urging Bush to reach beyond the White House walls. How he governsâ€â€and how his M.O. stacks up historically.”
Link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10417159/site/newsweek/
Regarding Iraq, my comment about the establishment of a Shiite theocracy follows concerns expressed by many experts, including people in the Bush administration that such an outcome would not be, (1) the initial objective, and (2) a problem because presumably they would align themselves with Iran, with which we are having some issues right now.
Regarding spreading democracy, that is the craziest claim I’ve ever heard. You don’t spread democracy through the barrel of a gun. People who claim this just show how ignorant they are; they make such a claim out of their very limited experience they have about the world outside the U.S. People in that region have thousands of years of history, of customs. You have kingdoms and you have theocracies.
In the U.S. it took almost 150 years to reach a situation where we can actually call democracy, as just some decades back black people, and women couldn’t vote, or even ride in the front of the bus. It’s absurd to say you are going to spread democracy in the Middle East. This statement has nothing to do of whether I would like to see that happen, which of course I would. It has to do with living in the reality-empirical-based word, rather than the loony-dogma-hate-filled- world.
Regarding public sentiment, here are some numbers:
“Nearly half the public, 46 percent, says the U.S. presence in Iraq is creating terrorists who want to attack America.”
“Just 26 percent of Americans say they approve of how President George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq”
“29 percent of Americans say they approve of the president’s performance, while 65 percent disapprove.”
“In the wake of the Minneapolis bridge collapse, meanwhile, 64 percent of Americans say they want increased spending on rebuilding and repairing roads and bridges, and 56 percent say they would support increasing taxes to do so. ”
Finally, some real loonies on the right are so desperate to hold on to power, that they are wishing another 9/11: Columnist Comes Under Fire for Saying “We Need Another 9/11 Attack” – Leave it to John Gibson and Fox Noise, sorry FoxNews to say something like this.
Many on the right, the ilk of John Gibson are just waiting for something like that again. They can’t wait to use it as an excuse to finally take over the country and establish a sick right-wing state. But let me back off and admit that I know that nobody here feels that way, as that would be truly crazy, for real.
Good God, Luis. Gibson didn’t say that, nor did he endorse it. Read the transcript.
Oy.
Regarding spreading democracy, that is the craziest claim I’ve ever heard. You don’t spread democracy through the barrel of a gun.
You’re making assertions as fact, but events seem to belie them.
Worked for Germany and Japan. They’ve hardly bothered us since 1945.
tw; wronguess, slit. appropriate.
“You don’t spread democracy through the barrel of a gun. People who claim this just show how ignorant they are; they make such a claim out of their very limited experience they have about the world outside the U.S. People in that region have thousands of years of history, of customs. You have kingdoms and you have theocracies.”
You should stick to cutting and pasting other people’s words, Luis. Japan’s Shintoism, Emperor worship, was the official state religion when WWII ended. It’s still practiced today. Despite Japan’s “thousands of years of history, of customs” democracy was established in the occupation and still florishes. So you’re wrong. Again.
Hey, I thought we all agreed never to link to anything again? Didn’t we?
tw: laws Japan
No fucking way.
Regarding spreading democracy, that is the craziest claim I’ve ever heard. You don’t spread democracy through the barrel of a gun.
Konichiwa Luis-san.
BTW, I sit in awe at the amount you are able to write and still aviod most of the points brought up to you.
Ah, Luis is citing the (unsourced) origin of the “Reality Based” meme. Funny, innit, how that line so neatly fits the left’s prejudices? Some people might approached an un-sourced quote with such rhetorical value a little more cautiously.
And, really, Luis, you showed such promise.
*sigh*
Citations? That are accurate? That didn’t come from Media Matters half-quoting someone? That didn’t come from an anonymous source? From someone who has a snowball’s chance in hell of making it happen?
Because, really, that just makes you sound like one of the loons that predicted Clinton would cancel the 2000 elections and set himself up as dictator.
I think heet should begin to pay closer attention to who is arguing here in good faith. Luis has reverted to form: we are all cartoons, brainwashed because we worship power, and of us all, only Luis can see through the lies, having read a couple books.
Certainly a convenient way to claim intellectual supremacy without having to do the hard work of thinking.
Of course, some of us here might be more versed in the philosophy that Luis believes he’s introducing us to than he himself is, and may have, in fact, written academic papers critical of their very premises.
But that doesn’t matter. Luis thinks having a library card and the ability to name drop and condescend is the same as having the ability to reason.
Heet, on the other hand, has simply become a one trick pony: any time someone argues with a dissenting view from the left here, they are “ganging up” on the poor truth teller, because this is a hive mind filled with “thought police.”
Any time someone argues with a dissenting view from the right here, heet either avoids the thread or ignores the dissent and goes right on with his lines about thought policing.
It’s really rather sad and tiresome. But hey, when your intellectual cupboard has nothing in it but a box of Wheat Thins, you tend to show people your crackers.
Rob C – Sssssshhhhhhhhhh !!! Don’t give away the secret. President Bush, with the help of the military, and the Lord of the Underworld, VP Cheney, are planning a military coup, where President Bush will ascend to the altar of Grand Inquisitor and Dictator in Charge of All Things Evil. Rove’s retirement is simply so he can slink around in the shadows getting everything lined up. Don’t let the secret out.
My God, you guys (some) really live in a Strauss-induced deception. It’s astonishing! Regarding unsourced quotes, just google “President Bush Approval” or some similar term and you’ll get all the sourcing you want.
Regarding Japan, Germany and Iraq, I don’t even know where to begin. Japan and Germany; they were conventional wars; they had homogeneous societies; they weren’t divided between religious sects. Iraq was kept together by a brutal dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of members of the majority (and minority) sects to keep control. The novice student of this sort of thing knows that once you remove the dictator, the country would fall into chaos. There were brave military leaders (U.S.) that pointed this out at the beginning of the war and said we would need hundreds of thousands of soldiers and the possibility of instituting a draft, and they were promptly marginalize and pushed out (they weren’t playing in fantasy world of the Bushies).
Here’s a report on the reasons Iraq, Japan, and Germany are different:
U.S. Occupation Assistance:
Iraq, Germany and Japan Compared
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33331.pdf
What to do now? Have no idea. That’s what you call a quackmire. I only know that when the Democrats take over, they will have to deal with the mess, but at least we’ll get back people who know how to run a government. Between the dozens of criminal indictments of actors in this administration, and working on putting the country back together (the U.S.) and gaining the respect of the world again, they’ll be able to figure out how to get us out of this situation.
————
Luis has reverted to form: we are all cartoons, brainwashed because we worship power, and of us all, only Luis can see through the lies, having read a couple books.
————
Jeff, I don’t believe that. I know there are many views here, even though the tendency is conservative. That’s why now I began to use the term “some of you”, etc.
Luis – Why should anybody be concerned about an approval rating. The only ones that truly mattered were in Nov. ’00 and ’04. At that time, your candidates were weighed, measured, and found wanting.
Did anybody ever argue that there would not be a vacuum created when Saddam was deposed? Or, did you just feel like displaying your ninja skills on that defenseless strawman?
Name, and give evidence, of even 1 person that was pushed out. And before you say Shinseki, go do your homework.
Who will be criminally indicted, and for what?
To this point, what evidence have the Democrats given you that they have any substantive positions on the war, outside of being the opposite of President Bush?
Which of course means that anytime someone agrees with a strong leader, they must necessarily be dupes. QED.
We must, therefore, only “follow” and support weak leaders. It’s the only way to prove we haven’t been taken in by a political aristocracy bent on controlling us.
Of course, it means we are now slavish followers of the dictates of Strauss filtered through Drury, but then, that’s just nitpicking.
Really, Luis. It’s not enough to read and quote. You have to understand and apply.
Instead, you wield books you’ve read like they were part of your CV. In that way, you remind me of a lot of grad students who tried to bullshit their way through programs by using the right names in the right contexts, aping the arguments made by their professors (with the occasional minor dissent thrown in for show of independence) — and thinking that just because they passed, they had received an education in their field rather than an education in how to manipulate office politics.
Luis, desperate for more talking points, blurted:
Provide proof of someone besides yourself claming they can spread democracy through the barrel of a gun. Then prove that’s what we’ve done in Iraq and Afghanistan, as opposed to, oh I don’t know, knocking down thugocracies via a barrel of a gun and then helping the people they were ruling set up democratic-style governments.
The fact that you characterize our efforts in Iraq as forcing people to vote by the barrel of a gun only shows how ignorant you are. Or perhaps you are hoping that other people are ignorant and will believe your claims?
Ok. The people in Iraq are “conditioned” by history to not challenge the existing regime. Bush’s insight is that if this acquiescence is channeled to a government founded upon the consent of the governed, then we will have created an enduring model for social change in a part of the world the left dismisses as hopeless. Democrats will become much less fond of historical analysis when the record indelibly shows the strenuous efforts they made to perpetuate oppression in the Middle East. Luis, in his little way, will be a part of that record.
Aw drat, I missed Luis’s application of the “the poor brown people aren’t ready for voting and constitutions and things like that” crap.
…and we’re supposed to be in thrall to some “induced” deception? Someone’s projecting.
TW: hostages general
“That’s what you call a quackmire.”
WTF is a “quackmire?”
Quackmire 6 up, 2 down
quackmire (n): muddy edges of a duck pond
I enjoyed sitting on the edge of the bank and feeding the ducks. However, my feet soon got stuck in the quackmire
A final thought on Iraq… A couple of weeks ago I was at BWI (the airport near Washington, D.C.), and as I was boarding the airport shuttle, a very young soldier boarded and sat next to me. People in the bus were looking at him. I started talking to him and asked him if he joined the Army recently (since he looked so young). He said he was going into his second tour. His first tour lasted more than a year and it was in one of the most violent areas. I asked him about how he felt about going back, and to my surprise he looked down at his boots, put his head down and just made a movement with his shoulders as to say “I don’t know how I feel.” He couldn’t answer. I saw sadness and fear in his eyes. That doesn’t take anything from the fact that he is a hero. He is going back to a duty his country has assigned to him. But you will always notice that a man that has seen war with his own eyes will talk about it in a very different way that a man who has it, like people who were able to get five draft deferments during the Vietnam war (Cheney), or got their dad to help them avoid going to war by staying back in the National Guard, and not even fulfill his duties then (Bush).
I’m glad to hear that the word “draft” is finally being used. Let’s all of us as a country really show our support for the war by sending our sons and daughters to fight in it, instead of breaking the brave soldiers we have right now who find themselves with extended tours, and going back again and again (so-called back door draft), or dangling $20,000 in front of the faces of predominately poor and middle class kids who probably would never see that type of money at once, in their lifetimes. We can start by enlisting a couple of Mitt’s kids; maybe 3 can serve the country by working on his dad’s presidential campaign, and two can go to a real war, so at least we have the poor, the middle class, and the sons of the privileged serving our country side by side.
…..”WTF is a “quackmire?
– A gay mud wrestling bar for ducks…..
>yawn
Luis – In case you haven’t noticed, we have an all volunteer military. Is it surprising that a soldier could be scared at the prospect of returning to battle? Nope. It is natural, to be expected. That they do their jobs in the manner in which they do, despite their fears, is what makes them heroic. The rest of your post is typical boilerplate leftist tripe, about how poor and uneducated our soldiers are. Try again.
CHIKENHAWK MEME ALERT!!
ALERT!! ALERT!! ALERT!!
“You know have two minutes to reach minimum safe distance.”
know = now
bleh
Yep, there must be a Truthiness to Power checklist or something Luis is going over.
“…I’m glad to hear that the word “draft†is finally being used…”
– Ah…..so we finally get to the real gist of your pedantic yammering….you’re scared……Isn’t that just precious.
– Well Luis Canada’s changed a bit in the past few years, and no longer welcomes draft dodgers with open arms, but you’ll always have Paris…. what a fucking wuss. There you go Luis, join the activists to whine for every government pork barral handout you can get, then bitch and whine, and refuse to fight for your country. Real patriot you are yes sir. Asswipe. Go run home to mommy….
– I said 4 years ago that you wouldn’t hear a peep from the asshat SecProggs just by issuing all of them life time deferments, because thats what its really all about for them.
– Charlie Rangle knows. All he has to do to make the coward monkeys dance is get in front of a mike and say the word “draft” several times. Dance monkeys, dance.
IIRC, Luis claimed to be 41. Not exactly draft material.
More likely he’s hoping to use fear of a draft to help his bunch regain power. You know, like back in 2004.
I liked how the Dems proposed a draft, and then tried to scare people by saying Republicans would institute a draft.
Luis is just tap dancing around the chickenhawk meme. He has manners.
Oh, you mean when Charlie Rangel wrote the bill and then voted against it? Yeah, funny that.
– If I was Luis, I wouldn’t want to stand to close to the word “chicken”…..
Hey Luis, if having served in the military during wartime gives you some “ultimate moral authority” about issues of war, then my six years in the Navy during Desert Shield/Storm should add some added heft to what I’m about to post:
Stop quoting lefty dillhole talking points (in numerical order, even) and get with the program.
tw: among leaders
STOP IT!!
—————————-
Which of course means that anytime someone agrees with a strong leader, they must necessarily be dupes. QED.
We must, therefore, only “follow†and support weak leaders. It’s the only way to prove we haven’t been taken in by a political aristocracy bent on controlling us.
Of course, it means we are now slavish followers of the dictates of Strauss filtered through Drury, but then, that’s just nitpicking.
Really, Luis. It’s not enough to read and quote. You have to understand and apply.
Instead, you wield books you’ve read like they were part of your CV. In that way, you remind me of a lot of grad students who tried to bullshit their way through programs by using the right names in the right contexts, aping the arguments made by their professors (with the occasional minor dissent thrown in for show of independence)  and thinking that just because they passed, they had received an education in their field rather than an education in how to manipulate office politics.
—————————-
Well Jeff, it’s obvious I’m not as smart as you are, as a recurrent theme of your observations about my positions is that I am just repeating and regurgitating stuff to fake people out. I guess by admitting that, this may be my first lesson, so you are making progress in teaching me how to argue. In that vein, I’ll love to take you on on your challenge.
Regarding the book about Lincoln (and let me be very clear here so you don’t think I am just repeating stuff), as a reader, one thing that I found very profound was his willingness to invite political rivals who thought he was less than they were, to join his government. He was able to take many different ideas and points of views to come up with very well thought-out decisions.
I am contrasting that with the way the current administration operates, a topic that has been well chronicled, as I’m sure you know. The current administration surrounds itself with dogmatic ideologues and pushes out anybody who is not a a loyal Bushie. In the meantime they politicize government institutions to an unprecedented level making a concerted effort to remove scientific findings and reports that do not coincide with their political ideology, put oil industry lobbyists in charge of environmental agencies, who are then caught illegally changing reports’ language (then had to resign in shame and go back to work for the oil industry).
The politicization of science has risen to unprecedented levels (The politicization of science occurs when government, business or interest groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research which differ from the majority view, or influence the way the research is disseminated, reported or interpreted.)
Here are some examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicization_of_science
“Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released survey results that demonstrate pervasive political influence of science at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). [2] Of the 997 FDA scientists who responded to the survey, nearly one fifth (18.4 percent) said that they “have been asked, for non-scientific reasons, to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information or their conclusions in a FDA scientific document.” This is the third survey Union of Concerned Scientists has conducted to examine inappropriate interference with science at federal agencies. The Department of Health and Human Services also conducted a survey addressing the same topic which generated similar findings”
“In 2004, The Denver Post reported that that George W. Bush administration “has installed more than 100 top officials who were once lobbyists, attorneys or spokespeople for the industries they oversee.”[4] At least 20 of these former industry advocates helped their agencies write, shape or push for policy shifts that benefit their former industries. “They knew which changes to make because they had pushed for them as industry advocates.”
“Also in 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a report, Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration’s Misuse of Science[5] which formally made the charge that the Bush administration was putting political ideology over science”
“”A growing number of scientists, policy makers, and technical specialists both inside and outside the government allege that the current Bush administration has suppressed or distorted the scientific analyses of federal agencies to bring these results in line with administration policy. In addition, these experts contend that irregularities in the appointment of scientific advisors and advisory panels are threatening to upset the legally mandated balance of these bodies.”
Regarding civil rights ….
—-
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is quietly remaking the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, filling the permanent ranks with lawyers who have strong conservative credentials but little experience in civil rights, according to job application materials obtained by the Globe.
The documents show that only 42 percent of the lawyers hired since 2003, after the administration changed the rules to give political appointees more influence in the hiring process, have civil rights experience. In the two years before the change, 77 percent of those who were hired had civil rights backgrounds.
In an acknowledgment of the department’s special need to be politically neutral, hiring for career jobs in the Civil Rights Division under all recent administrations, Democratic and Republican, had been handled by civil servants — not political appointees.
—-
Regarding the influence of the religious right, it is also well documented that the Justice department has been staffed by an unprecedented number of unqualified religious fundamentalists
Scandal puts spotlight on Christian law school
—-
The title of the course was Constitutional Law, but the subject was sin. Before any casebooks were opened, a student led his classmates in a 10-minute devotional talk, completed with “amens,” about the need to preserve their Christian values.
But even in its darker days, Regent has had no better friend than the Bush administration. Graduates of the law school have been among the most influential of the more than 150 Regent University alumni hired to federal government positions since President Bush took office in 2001, according to a university website.
————–
So I stop here, since I need to make my conclusion and see what grade you give me. There are many other examples of government by ineptitude, fundamentalism, and dogma. Also criminality. I’ll be glad to list people being investigated, and also those who have been convicted.
So by looking at all this together, it is clear (to me) that the administration has undermined science, as well as the very foundations of governance in a democratic system.
To that, you ad the ability (with the right’s consent) to detain any person indefinitely and without legal recourse, and to take anybody’s property, also without due process (and with the consent of the right wing movement), and we got ourselves a problem here. A government run by ideologues, dogmatic, in the pocket of corporations, who is undermining the core of what American governance is all about: unprecedented.
JeffG, now I’ll wait for your grade. I tried to put together some examples from what I consider reliable sources, and then tried to interpret the meaning. I’m sure under your eyes I probably fall way short, but I’ll keep trying so one day I will see these things as the total opposite of what I see right now, a la Strauss. I’ll get there!
OK, now you’re just being dishonest. The left has clustered around that “reality-based” vignette for years, yet no one’s bothered to actually produce the person who made all the noise about us being an empire and able to create our own reality. How is buying into a story with an almost classical urban legend construction “reality based”?
And how does gesturing madly in the direction of popularity polls make that story any more plausible?
Hell, I submit that because polls are easily manipulated, reliance on them as a sign of correctness is much more in line with your accusations against Straussians. The press runs months of stories about how bad everything’s going, never minding to put the facts into context or to even report the accomplishments, then run a poll of their audience to find out that the audience believes things are going poorly! Then they report the results of the poll as if it’s news that telling people nothing but negatives makes them feel negative!
Who’s working hard to create their own reality?
Oddly, it’s only being used by people who oppose our mission in Iraq. I wonder why that is?
Poor, greedy lil soldiers — dangle a check in front of them, and they’ll march right off to war! Almost like dragging a $20 bill through a trailer park, right?
Ok guys, once again you are 100% right (in every sense of the word). You guys are going to make me go running to one of the leftist blogs (never been to one)! But this is more challenging, and fun. Once JeffG kicks me out, then I’ll move on. Then you won’t have “Luis” to kick around any more :-)
Luis – Now you are just being naive, or agressively ignorant. Did President Bush put conservative in positions? Sure. Did President Clinton put liberals in the same positions? You bet. That is the prerogative of the Presidency, to the victor goes the spoils. It is illustrative that you have to go back to Lincoln to find a President that populated offices with people of differing political perspectives. That was likely more a sign of the times, with evolving political parties, and domestic turmoil, coupled with being a great man.
So tell us, Luis. Should a President appoint people to the Energy department with experience in Child Care? Should we appoint people to Education with experience in Physics? Some of the appointees came from the industries to be regulated. Call me crazy, but I would prefer energy people making decisions about energy, not Greenpeace or ALF.
You speak of this as unprecedented, when in fact, it is the norm. There is no grand conspiracy. No quest to undermine democracy. It is politics. Is it perfect? Not by a long shot.
BTW – Not marching in lock-step with Kyoto and anthropogenic global warning does not constitute the politicalization of science. Science is not founded on consensus, nor shared ideology.
————
Poor, greedy lil soldiers  dangle a check in front of them, and they’ll march right off to war! Almost like dragging a $20 bill through a trailer park, right?
————
They are brave and they are heroes. All our soldiers are. When a soldier has served two or three tours and he decides to move on, if he comes from a family of modest means, offering $20,000 to stay in is a desperate attempt by the government. The right is so out of touch, that you get your front runner comparing his kids helping him with his campaign, to serving in war. At least there was an outcry about it. It would be great to see, as a patriotic gesture, the sons and daughters of the Mitt Romney’s of the world to raise their hand and serve their country. I’m sure we’ll also make better decisions about when to go to war.
I brought Cheerios for the ducks. I wonder if Cheerios are good for ducks? I know that they prevent birth defects cause it says so on the box. Folic Acid. Are turtles in this pond? Turtles are so cool. I shouldn’t have worn these shoes.
“Once JeffG kicks me out, then I’ll move on. Then you won’t have “Luis†to kick around any more :-)”
You play the victim card well, Padawan.
—————
Luis – Now you are just being naive, or agressively ignorant. Did President Bush put conservative in positions? Sure. Did President Clinton put liberals in the same positions? You bet. That is the prerogative of the Presidency, to the victor goes the spoils. It is illustrative that you have to go back to Lincoln to find a President that populated offices with people of differing political perspectives. That was likely more a sign of the times, with evolving political parties, and domestic turmoil, coupled with being a great man.
—————
Man, you guys love the word “ignorant.” With all the protein I’m getting here one day I may grow a brain. JD, it is unprecedented. Never before has any other president done what Bush has done with the politicization of government agencies. Yes, there is always change at the top, but changing findings about scientific reports to serve the interest of corporate masters: that has never happened before. Changing and removing information about health, sex, contraception, etc, from government Website to serve the interests of a misguided and obtuse puritanical minority: that has never happened before. These are facts, and they are well-documented, and my friend, no, you can’t make your own reality, again, a la Strauss.
That explains the way they shuffled Colin Powell out of SecState so quickly.
You do realize the UCS is not a non-partisan group, don’t you? And where’s the equivalent report for the Clinton years?
WTF are you talking about? Kelo? That decision pissed the right off immensely; the desire to limit or reverse Kelo has been a major political position on the right ever since. Hell, the issue of takings had been bubbling up on the right for years.
And consider that Thomas was against Kelo. Are you writing Thomas (and Rehnquist and Scalia) out of the conservative movement? Or that Bush issued a (admittedly symbolic) executive order forbidding the feds from exercising eminent domain for handing the property over to private interests? Or that of the five congresscritters listed who introduced anti-Kelo laws, four were Republicans?
Where are you getting your information on the beliefs of conservatives? DaliyKOS?
Why, no one has EVER fired that many US attorneys! Well, except when Clinton fired all of them.
Usually scientific reports are changed to serve the interests of political groups and activists.
Really? Tell me — was it conservatives who demanded we ignore the epidemiology of AIDS in the west? Why is AGW constantly touted, when the science is at best equivocal? Why are construction projects blocked to protect the “fairy shrimp” — which is just a fresh-water version of the fricking sea monkey?
If anything’s unprecedented, it’s the clamor of claims of events being unprecedented. It’s as if the history of the Republic reset on January 19th, 2001.
————
Where are you getting your information on the beliefs of conservatives? DaliyKOS?
————
Ok Rob, that does it! Today finally I’m going to check DailyKOS. Everybody keeps talking about it. You made me do it…
There are so many trollish distortions in Luis’ statements that it’s not worth the effort to correct them. But as far as the “democracy” distortion goes, 12,000,000 purple fingers are adequate refutation. That they only had sectarian slates to choose among, in effect, was a structural flaw in the design of the elections which Iraq and the US will be regretting for some time to come. It was a sloppy quickie solution to obtaining “balance”, to which many secular Iraqis objected loudly at the time.
This is a demonstrable lie. Maybe you never noticed it before. Maybe you did not care when it was your own party doing it. Maybe you are just not aware of the nature of politics. Be that as it may, it does not make your statement true.
“However, your concern for the brown people brings up a question; why do you fret over the safety and welfare of the Iraqis now and not while Saddam was in power?”
A good solid misdirection to be sure. Perhaps it’s because while Saddam was in power, the perception of American competence, moral authority, and power-projection capabilities wasn’t being gambled on a nation-building exercise in the Middle friggin East, otherwise known as That Part Of The World Where Poorly-Conceived Western Nation-Building Exercises Go To Die, More So Than In Any Other Part Of The World, Mostly.
And if this gamble fails, and the US is either forced to abandon its efforts in Iraq or expand the theatre of war beyond a manageable parameter or two, and the world has to cope with the nation that birthed that great Kennedy quotation diminishing in influence, then YES, the world would have been better off with Saddam Hussein in power. Yeah, I said it. Boo!
So certainly, with that in mind, we HAVE to succeed in Iraq, and anyone who thinks we can fail there, for political expediency or whatever, is deluding himself, because the consequence is terrible. But given the Bush administration’s track record as far as management goes, and given their willingness to blend political advantage in with national security and other weighty matters, I think they have abdicated the right to say “We’ll make this work if you lend us your trust and support.” In the absence of a Republican candidate who will agree with that statement, we’re left (ha!) with Democrats, some of whom appear to have the sense and restraint to take the situation in Iraq seriously without subordinating their policy to their other stated task of repudiating Bush’s domestic politics.
Well said, Rob. Well said, indeed.
That was me, sorry. Forgot to switch back.
Luis —
You are messing up my comments section by not embedding your links. Please use the proper format.
I don’t have time to write posts, take care of a kid, answer every challenge thrown at me by a commenter, and fix links.
How could you type that without your computer throwing up? Sense? Restraint? Take it seriously? Without subordinating policy to their BDS? Where to even begin with this one?!
Rob;
Re: epidemiology of AIDS;
Epidemiologically speaking, treating AIDS patients with life-extending drugs which do not eliminate the possibility of transmission is the very best way to extend and prolong the epidemic. Short of a cure or vaccine being available, the proper epidemiological choice is total isolation or euthenization. Ain’t life a beach?
————–
Why, no one has EVER fired that many US attorneys! Well, except when Clinton fired all of them.
————–
Rob, Come on’. Please; it’s perfectly alright (and has happened before) for a new administration to replaced the US Attorneys from the previous administration. What is unprecedented (look it up) is to replace a handful of US attorneys with the objective of affecting political outcomes (allegedly). Congress wants to find out if this is what happened, but the administration won’t cooperate. So the tug of war will continue until we get to the bottom of it.
————————-
You are messing up my comments section by not embedding your links. Please use the proper format.
————————-
Ok, I’ll make sure to use the proper format if I use links again. Got it.
Let’s see, Luis. I noted that your citing Strauss as some sort of final arbiter of personality based on the type of leader one votes for runs into problems in that it (rhetorically) precludes one from ever voting for a particular kind of leader, lest that person run afoul of Strauss and be branded a bleating dupe by those who have uncritically adopted his asinine dictate.
You responded by posting excerpts from the Union of Concerned Scientists (whose political leanings have been widely remarked upon), a link to a story about a Christian law school, and some nonsense about Kelo.
So grade-wise? D.
I’d have given you an F, but you did butter me up with that bit about how much smarter I am than you. And we conservatives are nothing if not all about corrupt ethics.
Luis – What is unprecedented is the amount of BS allegations that are thrown against the wall, much like a toddler eating spaghetti for the first time. If the allegations make it unprecedented, it is because nobody has ever been stupid enough to make allegations like that. The Dem Congress wants to micromanage how the Executive operates. This is purely partisan, and you know it. The Administration won’t cooperate because it is privileged information, just like when Clinton, and Bush, and Reagan, and Ford, and Carter, and Nixon, and LBJ, and Kennedy claimed.
“Oh Luis, accosted by the PW thought police. Another poor slob who bothered to argue in good faith. Poor fucker.”
Well let’s see,
“BMoe, pardon me for being so audacious as to question the revealed truths. That’s why I loved this place. I learn something every day. Let me share with you a few facts:
…(a bunch of refugee statistics)…
I’ll wait for your revealed truth as to why these numbers are wrong…. We’ll move on to the other well-stated point you are putting forward…”
When I said nothing about refugees, then this…
“BMoe, regarding “brown peopleâ€Â, let me just say that I never make any judgement or opinion based on the color of the skin of anybody. “
When I said nothing about “brown people”, his only response to anything I actually said was:
“It is something to observe people half a world away cavalierly touch on the notion that, “yes, nobody say it was going to be easy; it’s hard to help build a country after a way.†Yes, people who haven’t the foggiest idea of what real violence and shooting and explosions is all about; it’s easy to say that.”
To which I say, fuck you, you pompous ass. How do you know what kind of foggy notions I do or don’t have, and you still haven’t managed to come up with one damn proposal of what you think we should do in the future. Your phoney ass “politeness” doesn’t hide the fact that you are just another political shill trying to use other peoples lives to get you a sugar daddy elected. Honest to God I don’t know how you fuckers sleep at night.
We are in Iraq now; remember, “If you break it, you own it.” I have to admit that I won’t even come close to suggest what to do there. We are going to have to deal with it for years to come, and I hope the outcome is good for Iraq and for the U.S.
My criticisms of the Administration, and Bush, is not based on hatred or partisanship. I’m just a concerned citizen and those are my views based on my interpretation of what I see. I understand most people here disagree 100% with it. If I saw a Democratic president doing these things, I will criticize her the same way. But therein lies the issue of political ideology. For me, what’s important are issue related to what I see as the curtailment of Constitutional protections. Seeing a President advocate universal health care (like every other industrialize nation); I would see that as a good thing, and the right would see it as an act fascism.
——————
To which I say, fuck you, you pompous ass. How do you know what kind of foggy notions I do or don’t have, and you still haven’t managed to come up with one damn proposal of what you think we should do in the future. Your phoney ass “politeness†doesn’t hide the fact that you are just another political shill trying to use other peoples lives to get you a sugar daddy elected. Honest to God I don’t know how you fuckers sleep at night.
——————
My friend, BMoe, is not about politeness. The easiest thing in the world is to retort to “fuck yous” and that sort of thing. It’s easy to seat at a keyboard and start spewing stuff like that off. But since it makes you feel better, then that’s what you have to do. I’m just expressing my opinions, as this is a place for people to exchange ideas and points of views, and so far nobody has told me that only point of view is accepted. That’s all. But your retort is noted.
Ain’t gonna’ happen.
Please reconcile this for me, Luis. For starters, show us how universal healthcare fits in with the American spirit, but more importantly, the Constitution which you claim to respect. Since Czar Bush is curtailing your civil rights, it should be relatively easy for you to give us examples. From my perspective, unless you happen to be found on a battlefield, your civil rights have not changed one iota under the Bush administration.
“The easiest thing in the world is to retort to “fuck yous†and that sort of thing.”
No Luis, the easiest thing in the world is to avoid the hard problems and spout pretentious bullshit based on hindsight. What exactly do you think we should do about Iraq RIGHT NOW? I don’t give a shit about why we are there or who caused it, that hog is for the historians to butcher. What I want to know is what is you strategy for the FUTURE?
No, what’s easy it criticizing style instead of substance.
And left unanswered.
“How could you type that without your computer throwing up? Sense? Restraint? Take it seriously? Without subordinating policy to their BDS? Where to even begin with this one?!”
How about we start with the leading Democratic candidate (for now) Hillary Clinton, who has pointedly asserted that she does not support immediate withdrawal? Doesn’t that even hint at rational behaviour? Clinton is ambitious, she’s going to advocate whatever course of action she believes will carry her through the general election, ergo she is not going to peg her Iraq policy to Bush’s destruction, but to her own advancement regardless of his plight. She’s all about herself, not all about anti-him. Therefore, she demonstrates the aforementioned sense and restraint. It may be for the wrong REASONS, but we’re concerned with outcomes here, right?
“How do you know what kind of foggy notions I do or don’t have, and you still haven’t managed to come up with one damn proposal of what you think we should do in the future. Your phoney ass “politeness†doesn’t hide the fact that you are just another political shill trying to use other peoples lives to get you a sugar daddy elected.”
Railing against the intentional fallacy in one sentence and then resorting to it in the following one? Classy. I honestly don’t know how you sleep at night, with rhetorical tactics like that. ZING!
————–
No Luis, the easiest thing in the world is to avoid the hard problems and spout pretentious bullshit based on hindsight. What exactly do you think we should do about Iraq RIGHT NOW? I don’t give a shit about why we are there or who caused it, that hog is for the historians to butcher. What I want to know is what is you strategy for the FUTURE?
————–
BMoe: There are two separate issues here, and I’ll try to be as simple as possible (the either or thing the right likes).
Regarding the war, is a tall order for a civilian to make any recommendations. But I would start by making sure we don’t lose track of 200,000 weapons that were broker by private contractors (who pocketed the money), and now those weapons, after having been issue to the Iraqi military, can’t be tracked down. Anyway, first start with proper accounting, and efficient leadership. Remove as much as you can the war profiteers, and stop removing people assigned to keep track of the resources being spent. Remove the corruption.
Eventually, it may be that they will have to come up with some sort of federal system, dividing the country into three autonomous regions. I’ve seen a lot of plans out there, and I think this may be the eventual solution. But I know people have many different ideas.
I don’t advocate being irresponsible and just “go home now” and let the country to fall into further chaos. Regarding that issue, is too complicated for me to make recommendations. We need to have capable leaders (politicians, generals, etc.) to come up with the right long-term solution. That’s how much I can say about that.
Regarding whether there were lies and deception to take us war, as a country, I think it is imperative that that issue is resolved, one way or the other. I think that in a democratic system based on the rule of law, nothing short of it should be expected.
I tried to the best of my ability to answer your question directly, but if you are left wanting, let me know.
As opposed to the Democrat Congress that just did it’s level best to force withdrawal through defunding? Well, yeah, Hillary’s rational. She’d like to be elected President, you know.
So, OK, that’s one candidate. Who else you got?
Gabriel Fry, are you for real? Finally I read something intelligible. Hope is restored.
“Regarding the war, is a tall order for a civilian to make any recommendations. But I would start by making sure we don’t lose track of 200,000 weapons that were broker by private contractors (who pocketed the money), and now those weapons, after having been issue to the Iraqi military, can’t be tracked down.”
Why such small ambitions, Luis? Why not go all the way back to WWI and warn Britain what a clusterfuck they were about to create? Or is you time machine only capable of a week or two just now?
Christ, what an idiot.
“Railing against the intentional fallacy in one sentence and then resorting to it in the following one? Classy. I honestly don’t know how you sleep at night, with rhetorical tactics like that. ZING!”
I suppose I could go back and cut and paste all the evidence of my assertion that Luis has strewn about the thread, but I assume “most” regular readers here are intelligent enough to see it for themselves. You are the reason for the “most”.
————-
#
Comment by B Moe on 8/15 @ 11:53 am #
“Railing against the intentional fallacy in one sentence and then resorting to it in the following one? Classy. I honestly don’t know how you sleep at night, with rhetorical tactics like that. ZING!â€Â
I suppose I could go back and cut and paste all the evidence of my assertion that Luis has strewn about the thread, but I assume “most†regular readers here are intelligent enough to see it for themselves. You are the reason for the “mostâ€Â.
————-
BMoe, yes it would be very interesting to provide this thread to a debate, or political philosophy class and have it analyze it. It would be a great exercise in contemporary discourse.
When I was a kid, my daddy used to beat me for doing bad stuff. Broken noses, black eyes, etc. One time I broke a dish and said sarcastically “Oh, I suppose you’re going to beat the hell out of me now?”
He smiled and said “Yup” and then beat the hell out of me.
Sometimes, just ’cause you’re smart enough to predict criticism, doesn’t mean it ain’t valid. Fight on, Luis, now that you’ve seen the glint in their eye means their probably gonna be takin’ off their belt.
Here’s my summary:
(1). We need competent leadership to deal successfully with the war in Iraq. It is my opinion that we haven’t had that thus far.
(2). If there were lies and deception at the highest government levels to take the country into a war, that needs to be resolved one way or the other. It is my opinion that we were deceived, and I based that on reading many sources of news, books, etc., and by observation. None of it is because a visceral hate of Bush, or anybody.
(3). Government agencies, especially career public servants, should not be politicized. Especially, if the politicization is being orchestrated by religious fundamentalists, as I think that one of the most dangerous things for a democracy is mixing religion and government.
(4). Before we go to war again, the whole country needs to be behind it and know it was the last resort. And one of the best ways to assure that is by having a draft where everybody is subjected to serve, including the sons and daughters of the privileged. So I support the draft. In a volunteer-only system the preponderance of the recruits are going to come from the middle and lower class, which could then lead to a situation where the decision-makers regarding war, don’t have a real personal stake in it. My opinion.
“OK, that’s one candidate. Who else you got?”
I think Obama has been bludgeoned with the “inexperienced” tag enough that he and his people have had to throw a lot of energy into “realist” policy ideas, the sort of thing that looks hard-minded and practical. And what looks more hard-minded and practical to a Democrat than advocating continued engagement in Iraq? That’s two, and if those flags get enough salutes, the rest of the pack will follow.
“Finally I read something intelligible. Hope is restored.”
Thanks, Luis. Hey, why don’t you paint a target on me while you’re at it?
Rob, Come on’. Please; it’s perfectly alright (and has happened before) for a new administration to replace the US Attorneys from the previous administration.
Is it unprecedented (tho not ILLEGAL) to replace a handful of US attorneys (whatever the alleged meme)?
Congress wants to find out (read go looking for a scandal) if it’s perfectly alright for THIS administration to replace the US Attorneys.
So the Congress will spend time getting to the bottom of this circle jerk instead of , say, passing legislation to dangle $40,000 in front of soldiers so that could CHOOSE to grab it or NOT.
——————
#
Comment by Gabriel Fry on 8/15 @ 12:19 pm #
“Finally I read something intelligible. Hope is restored.â€Â
Thanks, Luis. Hey, why don’t you paint a target on me while you’re at it?
——————
Gabriel, no reason to. I haven’t seen you write anything stupid yet.
(1). We need competent leadership to deal successfully with the war in Iraq. It is my opinion that we haven’t had that thus far.
PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF MEASUREMENT OF COMPETENCE. HOW DO WE KNOW COMPETENCE? OR WILL WE KNOW WHEN WE SEE IT?
(2). If there were lies and deception at the highest government levels to take the country into a war, that needs to be resolved one way or the other. It is my opinion that we were deceived, and I based that on reading many sources of news, books, etc., and by observation. None of it is because a visceral hate of Bush, or anybody.
PLEASE DEFINE ONE WAY AND THE OTHER WAY.
(3). Government agencies, especially career public servants, should not be politicized. Especially, if the politicization is being orchestrated by religious fundamentalists, as I think that one of the most dangerous things for a democracy is mixing religion and government.
GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE POLITICIZED. ELECTIONS ARE BY DEFINITION POLITICAL. DOES THAT MEAN THAT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES SHOULD BE STAFFED AND RUN BY CHILDREN OF MONARCHS AND OTHER SUNDRY ROYALTY OR PERHAPS AGNOSTICS AND ATHEISTS ONLY?
DO WE PROPOSE THAT GOVERNMENT BE SEPERATE FROM RELIGION AS WELL AS SEPERATE OF RELIGION? TO BECOME A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE SHOULD ONE RENOUNCE ANY RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION?
(4). Before we go to war again, the whole country needs to be behind it and know it was the last resort. And one of the best ways to assure that is by having a draft where everybody is subjected to serve, including the sons and daughters of the privileged. So I support the draft. In a volunteer-only system the preponderance of the recruits are going to come from the middle and lower class, which could then lead to a situation where the decision-makers regarding war, don’t have a real personal stake in it. My opinion.
DEFINE WHAT IS CRITERIA OF “BEHIND IT”? AND WHAT IS THE THRESHOLD THAT NEEDS TO BE MEASURED TO ASCERTAIN THAT “IT” IS FIRMLY “BEHINDED” BY THE CITIZEN. PERHAPS THE OFFSPRING OF EARLS AND DUKES AT THE FDA, FTC, SEC, HUD, ETC SHOULD BE EXCLUSIVELY POLLED ON THIS MATTER AS ASKING THE BODY POLITIC WOULD BE SAME AS “ELECTING” A RESPONSE WHICH WOULD INVALIDATE THE WHOLE POINT OF KEEPING POLITICS AND POLICY SEPERATE. FURTHERMORE DEFINE PRIVELAGE? MORTGAGE AND 2 CARS ENOUGH OR SOME MULTIPLIER OF POVERTY LINE, NUMBERS WOULD BE GOOD.
yes, if we’re gonna commit to a war let’s do it in the least efficient manner possible! whose been complaining about incompetent leadership? but at least you’ll feel better about it.
——————–
yes, if we’re gonna commit to a war let’s do it in the least efficient manner possible! whose been complaining about incompetent leadership? but at least you’ll feel better about it.
——————–
Maggie, do you think that our military is properly constituted right now? Have you follow any news about “our broken” military? Have you heard the term “back-door” draft (extension upon extension of military tours)? Have you heard about the scandals related to how this administration have been treating returning war veterans? All these issues have been widely covered. Right now, the military is even lowering requirements so people up to 42 years old can enlist; people who have criminal records; people who do not meet physical fitness requirements. They ought to go to Yale, and Harvard, and Princeton and the top colleges and universities and recruit from there as well.
Gabriel,
Obama Introducing Bill Mandating Withdrawal Of All Troops From Iraq By March 2008
Let me guess: He was for it before he was against it! Where have I seen that before? And how many does that make now? I think we’re back to one.
tw: judgment compare
To add to your policy prescriptives there was this:
How does all of this help out the Iraqi’s? Going forward that is ….
TW: Literary Oriental: Wang Chung to you to
Problem with that is the ones who would draw up the draft and provide the necessary infrastructure to institute and enforce it would be some of those privileged. And, as a self-proclaimed political cynic, I have to think they would throw in a loophole or two.
Ya, they should go to UC Santa Cruz, too. Thing is, they’ve got a bit of a problem recruiting at Harvard and Yale. The whole being banned thing sort of cramps their style.
Plus, only people who don’t stay in school and do well get stuck in Iraq.
and do you realize how much larger and how many more resources our military would need to keep people that don’t want to be there in line?
the “broken military” has been predicted for how many years now? yes, it’s a concern, but not a certainty.
the rest of your post is such alarmist crap I can’t cover it in detail while I’m at work.
“And what looks more hard-minded and practical to a Democrat than advocating continued engagement in Iraq?”
Judging from what I have seen on the Democrat blogs, pretty much anything else.
———-
Problem with that is the ones who would draw up the draft and provide the necessary infrastructure to institute and enforce it would be some of those privileged. And, as a self-proclaimed political cynic, I have to think they would throw in a loophole or two.
———-
Shawn, you are absolutely right, and that’s why it will probably never happen.
Why are we talking about a draft? The military doesn’t want a draft. The Republicans don’t want a draft. The Democrats don’t want a draft. Who wants a draft is leftist hippies so they can protest it, just like in Vietnam. Pitifully unimaginative little creatures, these. Why is this loser whining about recruiting standards, and then proposing that we draft a bunch of out-of-shape passive-aggressive hippie drug addict losers to fight for us?
“me guess: He was for it before he was against it! Where have I seen that before? And how many does that make now? I think we’re back to one.”
You’re oversimplifying the legislation. From the press release: “The plan allows for a limited number of U.S. troops to remain as basic force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi security forces. If the Iraqis are successful in meeting the thirteen benchmarks for progress laid out by the Bush Administration, this plan also allows for the temporary suspension of the redeployment, provided Congress agrees that the benchmarks have been met and that the suspension is in the national security interest of the United States.” So it’s not a full withdrawal, its aim is twofold, as far as I can tell: 1. apply diplomatic pressure to the Maliki government in the form of the threat of withdrawal; 2. address the “management issue” by providing a certain degree of congressional oversight to the president’s actions, short of the scorched-earth purse-string option. It seems almost… reasonable. It predicates continued US sacrifice on the achievement of US goals. Novel idea, eh? So I think we’re back to two, given that the bill contains the option of continued US military presence at current troop levels.
Its aim is to give a bunch of loser Democrats and some lame-ass Republicans something to vote for so they can back out of their loser cul-de-sac and say “Look mama I hepped!”
We can only hope that coincides with what is best for our country, our troops, and the people of Iraq.
The draft will not happen so long as an all-volunteer military is the best method of constituting our military. The current constitution of the military has been determined to be the one with the most efficacy for the military. Should that no longer be the case, I will let the military tell us so, not pacifists, legislators politicizing the issues, and liberals who only reference the military to sneer at the men and women in uniform, or for photo ops. To date, they are fine with the way things are, and that is good enough for me.
Luis
1) I think President Bush is competent. They have made a plethora of mistakes, but that does not make him incompetent. It means there is a battle underway that has never been engaged prior to this time. It is new, we are learning, and adapting.
2) Which lies and deceptions are you speaking of? Most, if not all of them have been thoroughly debunked, but we will be happy to do so again. Most of what has been claimed to be lies were either misrepresentations of what was actually said, or differences of opinion on policy positions.
3) Government agencies are political. Your suggestion that people of religion should not be invovled in political positions would preclude the vast majority of Americans from serving their country. Should only non-practicing people be allowed. Atheists only? The idea that we are near, or will ever be near a theocracy is laughable, but there are plenty of examples of actual theocracies out there.
4) The entire world was behind the various reasons for our going to war, just not actually behind doing something about it. Unanimity of the populace is impossible, so therefore, we could never have everybody behind it. Since you suggest that we had not exhausted the available alternatives, what do you think could have and should have been done prior to going to war? Now, which of those things do you think that Saddam would have complied with?
————–
#
Comment by happyfeet on 8/15 @ 1:34 pm #
Why are we talking about a draft? The military doesn’t want a draft. The Republicans don’t want a draft. The Democrats don’t want a draft. Who wants a draft is leftist hippies so they can protest it, just like in Vietnam. Pitifully unimaginative little creatures, these. Why is this loser whining about recruiting standards, and then proposing that we draft a bunch of out-of-shape passive-aggressive hippie drug addict losers to fight for us?
————–
happyfeet, That’s very profound. Maybe you can have standards by which you can determine the fitness for duty. I think that’s the way it has been done in the past. If you care to get out of that mental cave you’re living in, you may also become aware that the dreaded word “draft” was mentioned by Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute (“it ‘makes sense’ to ‘consider’ military draft”). He is the president’s new “war czar”.
““And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation’s security by one means or another,†said Lute, who is sometimes referred to as the “Iraq war czar.†It was his first interview since he was confirmed by the Senate in June.”
Once again the cheap shot, shooting-from-your-mouth without knowing what you’re talking about comes true. But it fall flat under the weight of your bankrupt ideology. My friend, it is being considered. It’s not being said by a hippie.
Congress can do something about it right now, Gabriel. Your Dems can vote to immediately de-fund the war. If they really had the will or the spine, they could do so. They do not.
Luis, I talked about Lute’s comments here. He says nothing like what you intimate he said. He never used the word “draft” either.
I piss on you head.
And don’t call me profound.
Loser.
As I’ve watched this thread unwind over the last two days thanks to the mental dump being taken here by Luis (who I originally thought to be a leftie of the most decent sort), the words of Mike Patton ring in my head:
“Would anyone tell me if I was getting…stupider?”
“My friend, it is being considered.”
Right along with NASA’s consideration of a manned mission to Mars. Accession and retention numbers remain on target and I haven’t read of any plans to increase force levels. The invasion of the UK is also “an option on the table” and the plans to do so also exist. Lute wasn’t exactly “making news” – except among those just a tad desperate for agitprop fodder.
happyfeet, the reason his comments cause such public consternation is because he said this:
“I think it makes sense to certainly consider it [the draf], and I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table, but ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation’s security by one means or another.”
Here’s the entire interview: ‘War Czar’ Concerned over Stress of War on Troops
Regarding the peeing thing; my God, are we in 9th grade here or something?
Today, the current means of the all-volunteer force is serving us exceptionally well. – Douglas Lute
I piss on you head.
Ok, now that some of you guys have shown your extraordinary ability to be right, and having discussed my views, I’m moving on… This place is really amazing, with the intellectual heft being demonstrated here. I’ll read everything again and try to get some of your wisdom.
I piss on you head again.
Come on Luis, one more post!
You’re due to be right about something eventually.
“2. address the “management issue†by providing a certain degree of congressional oversight to the president’s actions, short of the scorched-earth purse-string option. It seems almost… reasonable.”
I guess it is reasonable as far as any Congressional usurpation of the Executive’s Constitutional mandate can be seen as such.
Sorry luis. The site was anything but objective. At least one of the authors is a member of moveon.org. Drink up. Your koolaide is getting warm.
I can’t read the left side of the comments anymore. There’s a joke to be made here, for certain.
Well, except for the people who kept listening to him because he followed that immediately with this:
IOW, “we’re doing just fine here, and that’s not my call to make” You don’t have to be really smart to grasp that, you just have to keep reading past the part of the quote you can use to serve The Narrative™.
Wouldn’t you be terribly concerned if the “War Czar” wasn’t concerned about the stresses that ongoing operations place on the people under him?
Gabriel – that seems to be an IE thing I think. Firefox handles it better it seems.
#206 is more amusing when you go back to Luis Mendoza’s snide remark after the partial quote he provided:
Let me guess: you either didn’t read the entire interview or were hoping no one else would. You were saying something about bankrupt ideology? About deception?
Luis also talked about about Bushco’s assault on science, which is, like so much else, to Luis’ obvious amazement, UNPRECEDENTED!
Two words, Luis: Norman Borlaug.
Beyond that, I haven’t much to offer, except to say that clearly Luis would be happier with a group of philosopher kings running the country.
Applicants must not worship, or show faith; must have read Strauss and Said; minorities preferred, but only those who hold the “right” positions (as decided upon by people like Luis).
Yield: UTOPIA!
Do you think the government should have a policy to attempt to stop global warming? If so, how do you square that with your belief that mixing religion and government is dangerous?
So, basically, you’re all for involuntary servitude if it makes the US less effective on the international stage.
Question: would you stop forced labor at military service, or would you go so far as to include forced labor for public works?
If you’d bother to pull your head out of the echo chamber, you’d know that he didn’t bring it up; the “journalist” interviewing him led him to the subject. In other words, all he was doing was answering a question and stating what everyone already knew — the selective service still exists, and it’s a political decision whether it’ll ever be activated.
Still waiting for luis to come up with something that isn’t a gratuitous assertion by himself or someone he’s read.
Luis,
You are, in fact, wrong on virtually every point you’ve made.
You even have a link to the text of the LG Lute interview and you can’t see that when the LG was going to give a narratively valueless answer, the interviewer interrupted him to rephrase?
why there won’t be a draft:
1. recruiting is currently able to maintain authorized staffing levels, so the
only reason for a draft is to expand current forces, which Congress has not
authorized to a degree that cannot be fulfilled by current methods.
2. current draft law is discriminatory, in that females are neither registered,
nor can they be drafted. this is a violation of civil rights and federal law.
therefore we will need a new draft law, and complete registration for all
persons eligible under it. all ages eligible, as well as both sexes, regardless
of parenthood or marriage status, as well as that of sexual orientation will
have to be selected and compelled to serve, or the law is discriminatory and
therefore illegal and unenforceable.
3. Congress refuses to fund current equipment needs. therefore it is to be
expected that they will be unwilling to fund additional equipment sets for any
new units. troops without equipment are worse than useless.
4. Congress will also have to reopen facilities closed under BRAC to house,
train and deploy these new forces. given that the properties in question are
either undergoing or have already completed conversion, the new owners will
need to be compensated for this “taking” and the bases rebuilt for the military.
the other alternative is to purchase land and construct new bases. the
environmental process alone for any of this will take years, thereby delaying
the ability to use either type of facilities for the forces in question.
5. Since it would be unfair to have two tiers of payment in the service, all
currently serving members must have their current contracts bought out, and
be offered the choice between that, or re-enlisting under the new draftee
pay scale. anyone opting for the early discharge will be exempt from the new
draft, since the breech of contract was by the government.
therefore, before a draft can actually be held, Congress must pass a new,
nondiscriminatory, draft law, that draws from all able bodied citizens. the
only allowable exception for those between the current ages for service people
will be possession of an honorable discharge & DD-214 showing completion of
the basic 8 year service requirement. everyone else between the ages of 18-42
must be eligible, except for those physically incapable of any useful military
service. after all, paraplegics can hold down office j*bs, with accommodations,
and that frees up someone else to do other duties.
Congress must also allocate funding to buy all needed equipment and facilities
to support the new, larger, military, and the facilities need to be available
prior to start of the draft. equipment must be available as new soldiers are
processed.
furthermore, Congress must authorize & fund a buyout for all currently serving
personnel to fulfill their contracts.
6. Watering down the NCO Corps. A greater number of more broadly
motivated troops will require a greater number of NCOs, and smaller
team sizes to keep everything moving, so anyone with requisite time
and any kind of experience becomes NCO material.
7. Larger Squads, platoons, companies—Fewer troops per supervisor,
creating samller teams, more temas will be needed to produce squads.
This leads to a procurement problem in trying to keep one tema or
squad on a vehicle, or set of vehicles. More and different equipment
required.
8. Not only pay would be rolled back, but all Soldier welfare
programs, with no need to compete with the marketplace for recruits.
9. Return to “wall to wall” counselling in basic training required to
handle those who demonstrably do not want to be there–this in the
face of continuing “kinder training” initiatives.
10. New units will require officer sets. Return to “Shake and bake”
OCS to produce at least the junior leaders required.
11. Either draft period will have to be increased (currently 2 years
by SSA), or draftees not eligible for many MOSs as nearly their entire
period of service would be consumed in training. Double the period; 4
years of conscription is probably too long, but would be necessary.
Restrict MOS’s; the highly sought technical, medical MOSs (CS) would
be unavailable, and draftees would be relegated to Combat Arms and
Combat Service Support. Consider the politics of telling a young
person that they may not train on computers or medicine but must be a
rifleman or a truck driver. Other senarios: The young person is a
male minority, or simply from an economicaly disadvantaged
background. Or this is a female and now may not select CA MOSs
either. Something really wrong with forcing someone into a course and
then continuing to restrict their choices.
12. Once you have the requisite places and capacity to train the
influx of new troops (if you aren’t going to train more and faster,
why bother?) you now need more than current levels of Cadre to do the
training, exacerbating 6 and 10 above.
13. Continuation and advancement of privatization of functions in
combat areas would either be reduced (no need for contractors when we
have all the warm bodies we need) creating a requirement for still
more warm bodies, accellerated (by having more contractors, we can do
things more cheaply with regard to down stream personnel costs
(pensions, healthcare, education))) exacerbating 11, or altered
(eliminiate contracting for CSS functions and concentrate then only on
the technical and medical areas where the Army can no longer train
enough people in an effective timeframe) getting 11 on steroids.
Additionally, all Army doctrine would have to be rewritten as changes
in squad, platoon, and company makeup fundamentally alters their
employment.
(h/t: redc1c4 for the first half of that list.)
Then there’s your opinion concerning volunteers coming from the lower and middle income groups. Both the Heritage Foundation and the CBO>/a> have found that not to be true.
As for the whole reduced standards and quality of recruits shtick see here. Guardsman explains it all better than I could because, well, he’s a recruiter. Be sure to follow his links too.
So, perhaps the whole right/wrong thing doesn’t work for you because you’re speaking from the heart. Instead of following your emotional sense of what must be true, you might try a bit of research.