Andrew Sullivan exclusively reports that security in Iraq has improved because the US has set up security walls around neighborhoods and along highways, based on e-mail from a reader whose son is in the Army and stationed in Iraq.
Apparently, Sullivan failed to notice or follow this story when it was reported by Reuters, the New York Times (and sister pub the International Herald-Tribune), the Christian Science Monitor, Stars & Stripes, the AP via ABCNews, FOX, MSNBC and CommonDreams, NPR, CNN, Newsweek, the Washington Post, and USAToday, to name a few… back in April.
He also seems to have missed the wire reports on the effectiveness of the walls in Baghdad.
He certainly seems to have missed Noah Shachtman’s piece for Wired noting that the barriers in Baghdad were also necessary to free up troops for operations against insurgents in Diyala province and elsewhere.
Inasmuch as he did not link it, it also seems that he missed the CSM story that ran yesterday on this very topic.
For someone who writes so often about Iraq, I’m beginning to wonder whether Sullivan really does his homework, or whether he is reduced to “just airing” whatever anti-Bush conspiracy theory happens to be floating around teh Intarwebs.
Update: Sullivan ran with this scoop as Marines are taking down barriers in Ramadi (h/t mishu) and Marine Corps Maj. Gen. W.E. Gaskin says that he believes the postive trends in Anbar province are “permanent.”
Update x2: Sullivan’s Atlantic co-blogger Matthew Yglesias:
I think one has to reply to this that while a society cannot function all walled off like this, it can’t function in the midst of constant anarchy either.
Which shows more sense than Sullivan, though Yglesias then suggests the walls are inspired by Belfast, when in fact it is a classic counterinsurgency tactic.
Too much navel-gazing on Sully’s part, methinks.
How does that old saying go? Don’t attribute malicious intent when stupidity could explain it. And/or vice versa.
We pay every bill, manage every facet of governance. The government at every level is a joke. The ministries are controlled by one faction (Shia). They have almost no experience or education. A bunch of guys walk around in suits and look important while they do nothing.
The local governments (to use the term loosely) are a collection of gangsters and strong men concerned with consolidating power and lining their pockets with cash from kickbacks of U.S. construction projects.
It is, indeed, an exclusive report. That was the writing of the soldier, not Sullivan.
…A bunch of guys walk around in suits and look important while they do nothing….a collection of gangsters and strong men concerned with consolidating power and lining their pockets with cash from kickbacks…
Was the soldier describing Baghdad, or DC?
I’m thinking Karl read only the lead…
“What’s Working In Iraq.”
Read the letter from the soldier. Karl’s post makes no sense at all.
Karl’s post makes no sense at all.
“…to me.” See, you forgot the words “to me” on the end there. Watch me do it: “To me, Karl’s post made perfect sense.”
Well he’s kind of in a bad place now. If he admits the Surge is working and things are getting better he’s flipping back to his pre-gay marriage tantrum. If he does that he’ll have no friends or readers left.
Sarcastic has proven itself to be quite the sensationalist previously. I am far more willing to listen to Karl than some anonymous idiot that would have us believe we are not winning, when we are. Fuck off.
Was the soldier describing Baghdad, or DC?
Boston.
The only thing Sullivan wrote was the lead. All else was from the soldier or the father of the soldier.
I thought this was what you wanted, first hand reports from the front. He must be a phony soldier. Yeah, that’s it…
Have some perspective, guys.
For perhaps 40% or more of the moonbats, Sully’s effusions will be the first time they ever heard of any of this.
Regards,
Ric
Phony or not, he seems to have a bit of a problem with the brown people, what with their lack of a work ethic and all…
Hmm. And here’s Michael Totten walking with Marines taking down barriers in Ramadi.
I’ll take Sully’s correspondent’s word that he’s the father of a disgruntled soldier (because I’m such a trusting sort). I’ll also acknowledge that he’s not the only soldier over there to express dissatisfaction over the progress that’s been made, the strategy and tactics used to make such progress, the quality of his officers and the civilian leadership, the quality of the food, or the weather.
His experience is useful, and is valuable as a perspective on progress in Baghdad. I won’t belittle his opinion or his service, but I will say that his opinion is quite a bit different from that of the majority of guys serving over there that I’ve spoken to or read.
Sully has a very old and well-documented habit of using letter-writers to say things that he lacks the courage to say himself. In this case, it’s obvious to me that Sully would like to promote the idea that things are totally screwed up and hopeless, but he’s unwilling to come out and say it because he’s afraid of it being thrown in his face when he’s proven wrong.
This way, he can easily fall back on his time-worn favorite excuse: this was a message from a reader that I thought deserved to be heard and discussed. Never mind the fact that every such message conforms to the narrative Sully prefers, and never mind the fact that every such message is really just a fig leaf he can use for plausible deniability in the future.
It’s a very old game, and we’ve been aware of it for ages. Now, let’s ask the soldier in question if he’s cool with his dad using his words to allow Sully to use his words to make an argument Sully’s not willing to make in his own words, shall we?
I think this is the kind of thing you’d call another blogger a ‘liar’ for…
Sullivan isn’t saying that walls are breaking news. The obvious point of the story is that the down-turn in violence isn’t really a result of things genuinely getting better. That the walls are invoked is secondary – I think any reader gets that. This is really a Gleens-like mis-representation of the link.
I cry ‘mendacity”!
squid – Well said, well said indeed. If it is not a letter, it is an email. Either way, it never ceases to amaze me that he only feels compelled to share and discuss the letters that he receives that comport with his worldview.
It has been said by others, who I cannot name, that steve buggers goats. Frequently.
Before launching into the letter, the father says it was sent to him “some time ago”. He doesn’t say how lnog ago and, in Iraq, that matters quite a lot.
I think ever since Sully has got into high dudgeon over gay marriage he has almost reflexively attacked republicans and the right. His views have and remain extreme an unuanced, before he turned on the Iraq war the tone of his support for the operation was sanctimonious, with serious invocations of Orwell and warning that those who do not fight fascism support it. (I have supported the overall effort, but even then found Sully’s tone arch.)
Following pounding of gay marriage as his moral litmus test, he got worse. Now Christianists, or theodemocrats (as he now calls them were on the same plane as Islamo-Fascistcs (a term he now disowns, maybe because it distracts from the christian fundamentalist enemy). He Now seems to be stuck to a rather hard left narrative downplaying any success in Iraq, and salting discussions with an obsession with torture. His view is that waterboarding is torture and can’t be successful, again ignoring recent evidence that it has worked, and that enemies who hate us will grossly exaggerate any real or perceived abuses of human rights, or that their objections would lead them to the human rights respecting Al-Quaeda or other terrorist groups.
So it is suprising that Sully really doesn’t read the news he putatively reports? No. Facts don’t drive him, just deeply held biases, which facts may or may not support.
It’s odd he chooses Orwell as his inspiration, in tone and substance his work has been and remains far removed from the total dedication to rigorous adherence to facts and logic that Orwell embodies. Sully’s is pique, whether he was a so called conservative or a newly minted moral harpy on the issues of gay marriage, torture and the war in Iraq.
I look forward to more exclusives from Sully. At best, I might get to review old news. But more likely, I’ll just read about whatever hobby horse he so proudly and priggishly rides.
S. Ristic,
I’m certainly not suggesting we are dealing with a phony soldier, or that what he wrote was inaccurate (broadly speaking).
I am suggesting — and everyone else seems to get this — is that what Sully reprinted is not news by any stretch of the imagination. The walls have been covered extensively. I could have produced at least as many links for the stuff about the Iraqi gov’t, but thought it would be overkill.
Sully reprinted this without comment, so he presumably thought the content was in some way enlightening… when the only thing it told me is that Sully seemingly doesn’t pay much attention to what’s going on Iraq for someone who blogs aboiut it all the time.
steve,
Yes. I agree he is trying to suggest that the down-turn in violence really doesn’t meant things are getting better. Because he is a fool. And one who didn’t grasp the that the walls were much more than a tactic, but a prerequisite to the other ops in Iraq, as Schachtman (no Iraqmonger he) pointed out.
PS: Even I would not suggest that Sully would argue that things are actually worse now. It is obvious that conditions have impoved in Iraq. This is Sully implying on the cheap — without stating it and having to defend it later — that it’s all on the verge of collapse beneath the surface. And to do this he has to hide behind an e-mail and the presumed ignorance about the wals.
Baghdad has checkpoints? Horrors.
Really, it was always a quagmire. A neatly and tightly compartmentalized quagmire, more like an apartment building, really, but a quagmire nonetheless.
Karl – You are civil, to a fault. steve has shown no inclination to accurately portray a quote, our his opponents views in an accurate manner. At best, he is a contrarian.
If you would like to see first hand evidence of what’s happening within ‘the walls’ in Iraq, BBC’s Newsnight (Mark Urban) reports tonight from on the spot. Even the biased Beeb admits it might be working (with reservations of course).Many US troops on the spot interviewed. My admiration for the guys at the sharp-end increased from a point that was already very high. Worth a watch. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm
Let’s face it; for some, Iraq will not be a success until the government recognizes gay marriages.
And just to complete the circle, if Sully’s point was how fragile the situation remains, that story has been covered by the AP, the CSM, the NYT, the BBC, ABCNews, the Chicago Tribune, AFP, and so on.
Guess Sullivan missed those stories also.
I thought there weren’t any gays in Iraq.
Oh. Wrong country, probably.
“PS: Even I would not suggest that Sully would argue that things are actually worse now. It is obvious that conditions have impoved in Iraq. This is Sully implying on the cheap  without stating it and having to defend it later  that it’s all on the verge of collapse beneath the surface. And to do this he has to hide behind an e-mail and the presumed ignorance about the wals.”
Yeah – I agree with you completely about what he’s saying. Where I disagree with you is that he “has to hide behind an e-mail and the presumed ignorance about the wals.”
He never said he was ignorant of the walls, and I don’t think he’s trying to sneak around about as far as saying everything’s on the verge of collapse – he’s more or less stating it. It’s not a subtext – it’s the whole point of the post. And where does he say he’s ignorant of the walls? I think you’re just taking the wrong things from his post – but in good faith. I was kidding about your lying, of course, because these sorts of mistakes of interpretation are always called ‘lies’ around here, which I find funny.
steve,
If you haven’t noticed that Sullivan routinely hides behind reader e-mail, you really need to hop back on the turnip truck. He’s not “more or less stating it,” the proof of which is that the sum total of Sully’s contribution to the post is “A reader writes.” If things continue to improve in Iraq, he’ll never cop to agreeing with the e-mail — he’s “just airing” it.
As for the “lies” thing, apparently you missed the the years-long chant of “Bush lied, people died” on your side of the aisle, despite two independent investigations concluding otherwise. That you attribute the knee-jerk “lie” accusation anywhere else amuses me.
Oh, please. There’s a political party in this country that has made hay by claiming the president said Iraq was an imminent danger, that Saddam tried to by uranium from Niger, that he served a plastic turkey to troops in Iraq, and that going into Afghanistan was all about building a pipeline.
If we’re a bit quick on the accusations of lying, it’s because history has taught us that’s what to expect.
Was the soldier describing Baghdad, or DC?
Muncie. Right, JD?
And how much i the Atlantic paying this writer?
Damn! Why did Bush’s censors let a letter like that get out of Iraq? Someone track down that soldier’s unit so they can be punished!
Ah, Muncie. Not quite as bad as DC, Chicago, Youngstown, OH, but a cesspool of corruption nonetheless.
Ironic how andrew only sees fit to publish the “letters” that happen to say something he believes but is unwilling to overtly state. Instead, he hides behind the words of the anonymous letter or email.
Steve, don’t you think that the timeframe in which this letter from the anonymous solider to his anonymous father was written would be important.
Oh, I got another letter today.
A writer writes. … Steve buggers goats AND sheep.
Dear JD,
steve buggers little boys too.
Love,
A Reader
Just throwing it out there for discussion.
I think one has to reply to this that while a society cannot function all walled off like this
They’ve apparently never watched The Real Housewives of Orange County.
If they don’t like that for an example of functioning society, perhaps they could call the walled areas “Hutong”s.
Andrew who? I used to read a reasonable chap by that name four years ago. When he stopped being reasonable, I stopped reading. Lewis Carroll is so much more clever.
The Real Housewives of Orange County – I have to admit to enjoying this particular bit of 60 minutes of MILF reality programming.
Well, well, well. Another object lesson in blinding flashes of the obvious.
I suppose his blog’s requisite pithy quote under the masthead says it all…
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”
Guess Andy had a struggle-free day.
When Yglesias is the voice of reason, there are issues.
Nice work Karl! I think the “Back in April” would benefit from with a bolding
“…to name a few… back in April.
ANDREW YOU HACK! SCHMUCK!
“Here is what he wrote me some time ago.”
Just how long ago was that, I wonder? I note that Andrew didn’t post the message in full (discontinuous blockquotes); I suspect that part he liked — and probably his only real reason for posting it at all — was the Orwell reference. How could he resist that self-affirming bit? The rest just served to put a little flesh on those barren bones.
BTW, has anybody got the count of how many times Andrew has belabored other bloggers for posting quotations without comment?
It is unwise to attribute to malice alone that which can be attributed to malice and stupidity. – I believe I said that.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/11/malice-and-stupidity.html
JMH
Without the any deteils of the email – date/time – one has to wonder how many PRO war parent email’s Andrew has ignored? Needle in a haystack?
Karl
Sully reprinted this without comment, so he presumably thought the content was in some way enlightening… when the only thing it told me is that Sully seemingly doesn’t pay much attention to what’s going on Iraq for someone who blogs aboiut it all the time.
Indeed. And thanks for nailing misinformed warrior S. Ristic with it.
BTW, has anybody got the count of how many times Andrew has belabored other bloggers for posting quotations without comment?
Seems to be an easy charge actually.
MayBee
They’ve apparently never watched The Real Housewives of Orange County.
I love you.
The LA Andrew likes to visit is “walled off” too…LA is far more “gated” city than Iraq I am sure- Arrianna Huffington lives in a “walled off” community too. Arrianna’s could be a sanctuary city as far as I am concerned too.
You’re beginning to wonder about that?
Sullivan blew what ?!
I cannot believe that took 48 comments.
It is very strange to complain about the problem of ‘civil society’ and ‘walls’ when one of the most notorious towns that the US went into in Iraq had *that* as the very first priority. In actually reading the reports of those who had been there, and are there in many cases, we get an entirely different view of Iraq than through the MSM and the black/white nature of those on many parts of the political spectrum.
That the very first thing those in a community want is the walls around their family compounds to be *rebuilt* tells me much more about the nature of that society than the emplacement of barriers for COIN work. COIN work eyes a day of removal of such barriers and the restoration of civil society; walls around one’s home to protect one’s family bespeaks of a long lasting problem of that society with regards to a level reaching down to families. That those walls around homes were *traditional* in that town speaks volumes about the long term history of Iraq and that particular area of it.
Of course Andrew Sullivan won’t look at that… I find that very strange as it points to long-term problems and the possibility of new solutions to help that society integrate and extend trust once the COIN barriers are removed to those within their society so that walls around houses become a relic of the past, and not an immediate need for the present.
JD
Ahh, Youngstown Ohio, our former congressman is in prison for corruption (only 3 different indictments over the years, or did he say beam me up one too many times.) The first indictment was for taking $150 in bribes after being elected sheriff but before actually taking office, he claims that he took them only so he would know who was corrupt. Plus all the other mob business we’ve had over the years. We also had the third highest murder rate in the U.S. for 2006. (Actually I live about 10 miles from Youngstown and that’s too close.)
The only reason Andrew wouldn’t like the barriers is that it is just yet another impediment to gay marriage. After all, that’s the one topic that trumps battling terrorism.
Was the soldier describing Baghdad, or DC?
Detroit.
“A society cannot function walled off form each other.”
So Europe and the U.S. are allowed to have their history of fortifications and walled villages, but that’s because that was in “history”. You know, “back then” – when it was necessary to build walls in order for societies to function. But this is now, so Iraq is not entitled to have walls and “forts” because those are things only allowed in “olden times” and these are modern times. Why do these Iraqis think that they have the right to go through their own history. C’mon Iraqis! You need to skip all that and just be a functioning society. This is 2007 not 1795.
………and another thing. Why are there still men who are not really geeked about having another man’s testicles resting in their eye sockets for relaxation? I mean, that’s such an ancient way of thinking. A society really can’t function until every last person is gay, right? The time is now to reach-around history and felch a new future, sounding the rusty trombone of liberty.
………or not.
“Here is what he wrote me some time ago.”
How long ago, Sully?
Context matters.
I think you guys are missing the point sristic is making. That is, only Lefties are allowed to deconstruct writings. Those not on the Left may not comment even about the apparently clear meaning of words until the Lefties have decided what the ‘really’ say.
oops, in #51 that should have been $150k
HAH!
Via HotAir:
“… we present the inception of the Sullivan Torture Index (STI).
The STI is measured very simply: It is solely a function of the number of times the word “torture†or a derivation thereof (â€Âtortures,†“torturing,†etc.) appears on Sullivan’s blog. Only references on the front page, before jumping to earlier posts, are measured, which appears to include a couple of days’ worth of posts. In all likelihood, it will be measured randomly rather than daily.
Yesterday’s STI stood at 12, while today it has jumped to a bullish 32.”
http://malcontent.biz/blog/?p=1423
alppuccino
“A society cannot function walled off form each other.â€Â
Since the middle east is stuck in the 1400’s you would think walls were ok, right?
Clearly Sullivan is heartsick and chagrined by the gob-smacking vileness of it all.
Gob-smacking, sir. Gob-smacking.
For me, Sully started to go downhill when that big dumb RINO got elected Governator of KaleeForneea. Reading his full-on man-crush fulminations made me feel icky inside.
“I think one has to reply to this that while a society cannot function all walled off like this, it can’t function in the midst of constant anarchy either.”
Obviously this person has not seen a gated community that are all over this country. Or secure condos up and down Park Ave. NYC. Or office buildings with guards in dark suits with certain bulges displayed.
She lives in Oregon?
What, you’ve never heard of the Walled-Off Astoria?
Can’t have that. Otherwise, we might have to admit the Israeli’s are right to build a wall.
How long ago, Sully?
Context matters.
Does it matter for Karl, as well? The Christian Science Monitor article he cites is from last April. “The US military hopes its barrier will prevent deadly attacks. Iraqis worry it will worsen economic, sectarian problems.” Why don’t we revisit the Monitor?… 12/10/2007:
“Abu Nawas – once witness to frequent suicide car bombs and mortar attacks – now hums with activity of a different sort. The newly fortified area is patrolled by Humvees and guarded by US-funded private security companies that search every entering vehicle and scrupulously monitor shopkeepers and residents – and occasional intrepid visitors.
For Hassan Abdullah, a cabinetmaker, that spells bad business. “It’s worse than the Green Zone,” he exclaims. No customers come in. He can’t even deliver orders, he says.
It’s not just Abu Nawas that’s starting to resemble a fortress. Walls like those around the ultrasecure Green Zone, where US officials and Iraqi dignitaries live and work, are rising around neighborhoods all over Baghdad – new “Green Zones” protected by US-paid Iraqi neighborhood guards.
Creating civilian havens is a cornerstone of the US counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq. While many here are grateful for the newfound calm, they say the price is an increasingly segregated city that is starting to feel like a collective cage. In many cases, the US military is keeping tabs on male residents by collecting fingerprints and retinal scans.
And you dip shits compare that to Orange County and Park Avenue…
Sarcastic drops in to completely miss the fucking point again.
Alpuccino – That was a classic!
Karl – That was a big fat hanging curveball that I could no longer resist hitting.
Think carefully, Ristic: while the walls have remained from April until now, is there anything else that might have happened in Iraq in the last eight months that may have changed the quoted soldier’s perception of recent progress? Anything that might have changed his outlook for future progress?
If you wish, we’d be happy to provide you with a few pointers to help you with your studies. You might want to ask Sully to be your study partner, while you’re at it. Lord knows he could use some help with his current events.
Al – that made me laugh out loud… total …erm… spit-take… #55 is seriously great.
Enoch – Should I even dare look up what felching is?
Somebody should have stopped me from googling that. Thanks a fucking lot. And I consider you folks to be friends. Friends don’t let friends google felching.
Alpuccino – You have made me laugh, and throw up a little in the back of my mouth, all in the same day. That has to be a first.
Why do I get the feeling that half these posts should end with
…good day, sir!
“Comment by S. Ristic on 12/12 @ 11:16 am #
How long ago, Sully?
Context matters.
12/10/2007
Lot’s of dead terrorists under the bridge since then.
The posters here were right.
You are totally clueless.
JD —
I guess you shouldn’t Google rusty trombone then, either.
S. Ristic,
Thank you for making my point. The CSM — and many others — had the story. Which is what made Sully’s posting of the e-mail (as though it was telling us something) so frickin’ funny.
Karl,
It is true that much has changed since that CSM article was published last April. Why don’t we visit yesterday’s edition of CSM?
Iraq’s Sadr uses lull to rebuild Army csmonitor
The Mahdi army rebuilt in the south. The Sunni loyalists to Saddam armed and rebuilt with our own cash to the west. And the USA where it has always been, in the middle being played for a sucker. Gen. Petraeus says the USA cannot impose a military solution, but the Iraqis can… when fighting breaks out between the Mahdi and Sunni loyalists whose side do we take? What is your strategy in Iraq, Karl? How long can the US monitor a religious war? Have you seen any significant political solution between Shia, Sunni and Kurd? What are you winning in Iraq, Karl?
Let’s look back at the soldiers’ letter that Sullivan cited:
“So, in short, I don’t see a Capitalistic Democracy sprouting along the Tigris. I see the little boy (The U.S. Army) with his finger in the dike. If we remove our hand, it all goes away.”
What do you see, Karl?
Yet another who screams defeat in the face of success. What is it, Sarcastic? Is it that you despise President Bush so much that you cannot stand to see success, or is it that you do not think that the brown people can live under a democracy?
Since the “letter” was pre-surge, how does the condition on the ground, in the past, at that solider’s location, at that specific point in time, even qualify as relevant to today’s situation?
JD, Have you received notice on the date of the letter? Please share.
As for the Iraqis living under a democracy, it won’t be anything you like, JD. Those purple fingers you adore voted in a majority party named The Supreme Council For Islamic Revolution.
You are right, I do not know the date. Maybe Andrew Sullivan, Patron Saint of the Perpetually Gob-Smackingly Outraged, can directed us towards that information. Oh, that’s right. He identified nothing. No way to verify.
Who gives a flying fuck if I do not like it, Sarcastic? All I care about is that the Iraqi’s get to live under the blanket of democracy, instead of under the yoke of oppression. So long as they are collectively engaged in their own self-determination, I am pretty cool with it.
How bad is your reading comprehension skills, Ristic? Because that article doesn’t say what you think it says.
“As for Sadr’s intent, his spokesman in Najaf, Salah al-Obeidi, says: “We have new visions for what the Mahdi Army will do in the next phase.”
Mr. Obeidi explains that most Shiite parties have embraced the political process wholeheartedly and accept the presence of US forces, while the Sadrists, who continue to oppose it, need to keep their Army as a “national resistance force.”
Did you miss the key element there? Let me bold it for you:
…most Shiite parties have embraced the political process wholeheartedly and accept the presence of US forces…
That is called progress, you can cheerlead for the terrorists and more chaos all you want, but your side is losing.
S. Ristic,
I’ll try to put this very simply.
You are taking the position that there is still plenty that is and can go wrong in Iraq.
Guess what? For the most part, I agree with you.
Let that sink in.
Got it?
If so, consider that the reason that I agree with you is that I am reading the same things you are, including — but not limited to — the many stories I have linked in this post.
So when Sully reprints an e-mail that says all of those same things as though they are news, or the inside scoop from the front, I laugh, because it suggests that Sully isn’t paying as much attention to Iraq as I suspect even you are. Indeed, you have put far more effort into this thread than Sully could muster for his own paid blogging.
However, I confess that I am questioning my assumption regarding your general level of understanding things, inasmuch as this is my third (and final) attempt to explain what everyone else already gets.
Feel free to post more doom & gloom links. They don’t detract from my point about Sullivan. To the contrary, they prove my point.
“All I care about is that the Iraqi’s get to live under the blanket of democracy, instead of under the yoke of oppression. So long as they are collectively engaged in their own self-determination, I am pretty cool with it.”
Funny, isn’t it, JD, that that is exactly what liberals used to be in favor of?
“Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq.”
“A free Iraq will be an ally in the war on terror, and that’s essential. A free Iraq will set a powerful example in the part of the world that is desperate for freedom. A free Iraq will help secure Israel. A free Iraq will enforce the hopes and aspirations of the reformers in places like Iran. A free Iraq is essential for the security of this country.”
Why did Bush feel the need for such soaring dumbfuckery, when all he needed was… “So long as they are collectively engaged in their own self-determination, I am pretty cool with it.â€Â
“Why did Bush feel the need for such soaring dumbfuckery”
Just another BDS afflicted moonbat. Nothing to see here.
“Why did Bush feel the need for such soaring dumbfuckery,”
“And you dip shits compare that to Orange County and Park Avenue…”
You were warned – all of you. And yet you walked right into S. Ristic’s trap and then he sprung it. And now all that’s left for the world to look upon, are your tattered clothes and bleeding cuts left by the above razor swipes. And I have a feeling that this little S. Ristic person has a whole arsenal of knives more whetted than the cutlass and rapier he unsheathed on your unsuspecting and exposed asses.
I don’t know about you guys, but I picture this Ristic fellow in a tweed jacket with the elbow patches over a t-shirt that says “Don’t debate me dumbfucks, I WILL HERT YOU”
Better to give this rattler a wide berth lest he strike again.
BTW Ristic: dipshit is one word. geez.
huh, I’m picturing a lawyer in Indianapolis named timmy. close enough.
That was timmy? No wonder he sounded so smart.
I don’t know for certain al, but he has that angry, personal attacking, answer demanding tone that a certain troll loved.
maggie,
Where you read “anger” I read “lonely”. And where you got “personal attacking”, I got “cry for help”. And finally, where you felt a “demanding tone”, I caught “a whiff of bowel”. Let’s agree to disagree.
The Miami Dolphins are taking a break to rebuild too.
I think the Dolphins would still be giving a lot of points to the Sadr Army.
So lemme get this straight…
He says…umm…
On second thought, lemme not get this straight. The eagerness to embrace doom is so pungent as to defy textual analysis.
Oh, but you’re just trying to point out Troof, to curdle Imperialist ChickenHawk Fantasy with the strong wine of Reality? Okay, slick, let’s grant your talking points out of hand. All of them. Let’s say Iraq is Land of Doom, Blood, Death, and Did We Mention Doom? Let’s say Bush is a babbling goose-stepper with the brains of a stoned monkey. Let’s say the Jihadis are mad as hell, and they’re not going to take this anymore.
So what the fuck do we do about it? Not about Iraq, to which the obvious answer would be “RUN, Motherfuckers, The Media’s There!” Nor about Chimpy McSmirkaHitler, who’s done in Jan. ’09 anyway. I mean about Al Qaeda, and Hezbollah, and Nuke-You-ler Iran, and the Towlie-Ban, and all the folk that want to make us dead.
I’ll just wait over here until you can scrape your skull of a suggestion. I only ask that it be something to do, not something to not do.
Take your time.
Andrew,
The first thing I would do is take advice from people who were right from the very start.
Like these people.
When people start linking rollingstone as a political source, and call Jon Stewart’s comedy bit a news program, it is not hard to understand how big of idiots they have become.
WE ARE LOSING, RE THUGLIKKKANS ! LOSING, I TELL YOU !!one1 LOSING oneoneoneoneoneone
oh, our fave, Weasely Clark! How’re things in Kosovo? WHEN ARE OUR TROOPS COMING HOME!!!one!!!!eleventy!????
maggie – eleventy … great word.1!!!!1!!!!!!!!1!!!!!eleventy!!!!1!!!!!!!!!one!!!!!!!!
We will only be in Kosovo for one year. One year. Over a decade later …
check!
hmmmmm, where have I heard this before?
ding! *maggie takes a drink*
Idiotic Rolling Stone:
Gen. Merrill “Tony” McPeak
Air Force chief of staff, 1990-94
We have a force in Iraq that’s much too small to stabilize the situation. It’s about half the size, or maybe even a third, of what we need.
Trustworthy Pentagon:
Q: Do you think that the words “anarchy” and “lawlessness” are ill-chosen —
Rumsfeld: Absolutely. I picked up a newspaper today and I couldn’t believe it. I read eight headlines that talked about chaos, violence, unrest. And it just was Henny Penny — “The sky is falling.” I’ve never seen anything like it! And here is a country that’s being liberated, here are people who are going from being repressed and held under the thumb of a vicious dictator, and they’re free. And all this newspaper could do, with eight or 10 headlines, they showed a man bleeding, a civilian, who they claimed we had shot — one thing after another. It’s just unbelievable how people can take that away from what is happening in that country!
hey, guess what year it is!?
Guess who was right in 2003 and who was wrong?
Eristic’s key debating points are sooooooo 2004.
I want to start listening to people who were right.
Another who was right.
well, they decided to retire and backseat drive instead of lead, so maybe that’s not such a good idea? and sure, parts of what they said were right and parts of it we’re doing, such as adding more troops. and…. taking a while. and not leaving. they kinda contradict each other in subtle ways, so maybe you could also pick one?
which one was “more right”?
Your assessment of right and wrong are long since OBE. I have no idea what you were saying in 2003, don’t particularly care, seeing as you are either ignorant of current events or willfully choosing to discount them, it’s not likely you were any better at prognostication then.
So if this is the debating path you wish to take how about defining what you mean by right an wrong. Your usage doesn’t appear to conform to the common definitions of the words.
from the Time article:
” a precipitous withdrawal would be a mistake.”
“So what is to be done? We need fresh ideas and fresh faces. That means, as a first step, replacing Rumsfeld and many others unwilling to fundamentally change their approach.”
check!
Title of the Time article:
Why Iraq Was A Mistake
so?
i mean really, am i only supposed to read the title, see that’s it’s written by one of hundreds of retired generals and go, “OHNOES!” promptly proceed outside and set myself on fire? or do I look at what he suggests doing, see that we’ve already done it over a year ago and go from there?
cause you have yet to answer the question:
I thought Michael Vick was a bad draft selection for the Falcons. I thought Petrino was a really bad choice for Head Coach. You think I should be the next Head Coach, now? I was right after all. Or should we just disband the team?
Action Items:
1. Seek advice from retired Generals
2. ???
3. ???
What comes after #1? You know, the part where you actually do something.
You act like Newbolds’ call for Rumsfeld to resign was greeted with universal acclaim. Here is an example of the reaction he got from those who now smugly offer “check!”, as if they considered it the right advice from the start…
It’s the same bullshit you throw around in here. “We’re in this fucking mess together and even though you were against it from the start you owe us a solution.”
KKKwagmire !!!!!!!eleventy!!!!!!!!1one
How dare you ask me for a solution! Good DAY, Sir!
Ristic manages to ignore the first word of the first of Pablo’s action items, JD. What makes you think he’s going to correctly interpret any response of yours?
Idiots.
There are no solutions. There are only bad options. That is a result of marginalizing those who were right from the very start.
You were wrong.
They were right.
I want to start listening to them.
Which “them” are you going to start listening to?
Yeah, that’s what I fucking thought.
Same shit since we went after the Taliban. Screaming yourself horse at the guy making mistakes in fighting the enemy, and absolutely zero help in even framing the debate to be about dealing with the actual enemy.
You sir, are fundamentally not serious. I’ll take a hundred wrong George Bushes over somebody who lets the world slip away for fear of Making a Mistake. Because in war, the victorious power never errs. Everyone knows that.
So go ahead, tell everyone that you don’t owe us any answers. Tell the world that your Magic Hypnotic Diplomacy Ring will solve everything. Tell yourselves that Of Course We Smart People Know Just What To Do, and that There Are No Solutions, Only Bad and Less Bad, so it all sounds so world-wise and grim and tragic.
Ignore the fact that the enemy has a Solution all figured out, and is utterly unfazed at the pyramid of human skulls he has to construct to carry it out. Cause that would be giving into Fear, and Fear makes you a Nazi. No Kidding. I read a novel once that made it all SO clear…
Or if you’d like a more detailed version of the same argument, find it here.
yeah, well, I was hopped up on extra coffee and sudafed last night. anyway, better to attempt something than to just sit on your ass and complain. as has already been covered.
and um, yeah, who are we supposed to be listening to again? cause it seems like someone did listen to some people. The Dems were given most of what they asked for (before they were elected) after the 2006 election. (more troops, different strategy, different leaders) but they still aren’t happy. makes me think the only thing they really want is to be contrary.
Democrats were before WMD before they were against them. Various general officers have widely varying opinions relative to the way the war is being fought. Isn’t there a word for when you choose to pay attention only to people who are saying things you agree with?
no, you only owe a solution if you’re going to keep bitching about it. lead, follow, or get out of the way.
“I want to start listening to them.”
No you don’t, you want to hang around here being an annoying dipshit running his mouth and saying nothing. You want to start listening to them? Then shut the fuck up and go listen your little ears off.
I’ll take a hundred wrong George Bushes over somebody who lets the world slip away for fear of Making a Mistake. Because in war, the victorious power never errs. Everyone knows that.
Well, then… Here is what I’d like to see in the general election campaign:
Dem. candidate lines up on stage with military and civilian policy makers who warned that Bush was making mistakes.
vs.
Rep. candidate lined up on stage with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith.
There is a distinction to be made between a Stupid War on Terror & a Smart War on Terror. I want to listen and take advice from those who were right about Iraq. You want me to solve it all in a comment thread? Get fucked.
could you please point out this “right” and/or wrong you keep talking about? for instance, you could start with where Bush has said this would be easy and short.
S. Ristic
I’ve been reading your sanctimonious drivel in this thread and it’s time to speak up.
The fact of the matter is that nobody was completely right about the war in the runup to the war.. You’re being a false chest thumper when you talk about lining up all those who were “right” against those who were “wrong.” We had another faux analyst from Indianapolis who was prone to making similar, absolutist statements.
Was Wesley Clark right? He oppossed the war but had damn little to say about securing the country or the insurgency before the kickoff. What he talked about most was the massive casualties and the quagmire that awaited the troops invading the country, just as he did before Desert Storm.
Was Hillary Clinton right? Oops, voted for the war, my bad! John Edwards? Well Kerry’s idiot people pressured him into voting and now he’s apologised. What stand up guy!
You could count on one hand the number of people who predicted the breakdown in civil order and the resulting insurgency but there were no more who predicted that the Republican Guard would fold like a cheap Mah Jong table. Any stern warnings about Iran sending Quds operatives to make trouble? Anyone? Bueller? That’s just the tip of the analysis iceberg. If you are prepared to put forth that your opposition was based upon a crystal clear understanding as to how the war would go then you would be a liar, as would just about anybody else delusional enough to make that claim.
What makes you so obtuse is the shallowness of your thinking. You know that just because you opposed the war that that singular moment of shining clarity makes you RIGHT! The fact of that matter is that it represents something far less: It’s only your opinion even now, not revealed truth. You are not some biblical prophet having been given a sign that your holy vision has been redeemed. Your just another Monday Morning geopolitical strategist beating his chest and screaming “I was right!!!”
When you are done making holy pronouncements and want to debate in a serious way, then moses, come down off of the mountain and engage. Until then, piss off.
Well, fuck your little lopsided contrivances. We’re not talking about the election, we’re talking about the war. What do you do? If you can’t answer that simple question, you really ought to STFU and go back to listening to people who make you feel righteous.
I’d like a kitten!
As no one is ever completely right about a war before it happens.
Of course, I did not give you the easy out of using WMD’s as the RIGHT argument. Again, if you said that there were none, you are more right than Bush but not completely right. You need to expand the argument a little to define right in a way that doesn’t sound arrogant and condescending.
Based upon your performance above, I’m not hopeful.
Very mature. Now see if you understand the difference between solving it all and making some cogent points. Believe me when I tell you that no one expects you to solve anything.
“There is a distinction to be made between a Stupid War on Terror & a Smart War on Terror.”
Yes, there is, genius. Here’s your fucking kewpie doll. Now make the fucking distinction. A Smart War on Terror looks like What Exactly? Don’t point at the old generals. YOU tell ME what it looks like. Use your own prior knowledge of history and your own estimation of how these things have been done and say “Rather than invade Muslim Countries and attempt to democratize them, I would do X.”
I’m not asking you to solve shit. I’m asking you to step up to the plate and a) offer a counter-strategy, and b) argue why it will work better than what we have been doing.
Complaining that “the current strategy is fucked,” is a) arguable, and b) useless. Everything gets fucked in a war. I never bought for a minute that we’d be marching through Baghdad through a field of thrown flowers. I knew we’d have to grind out a peace. Would’a been nice, in my estimate, if the higher-ups had thought to bring good ol’ fashioned CIW to the table in 2004 or 2005, but that’s awfully fucking easy for me to say.
I’m a reasonable man. I support the current effort, because I don’t see any that are better. A serious loyal opposition would offer one, instead of pissing and moaning and gnashing their teeth (or, since this is politics, concomitant with PaMaGtT).
You don’t even need to come up with one today if you don’t feel up to it. Can’t say as I would blame you. Think it over, come back, and say “here’s my idea.” I might dislike it. I might think it’s laughable. But I’d take you a hell of a lot more seriously for having the patience to offer it.
And that’s about as far across the aisle as I’m willing to reach.
except this boredom problem I’ve been having lately.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Is it just me or does S Ristic suffer from the “Timmah” syndome of sanctimonious declarations?
Hmmmm….
well, except he dropped the “repeating people’s names while demanding answers to stupid questions” thing. but otherwise, yeah, darned close. “My Generals….let me show you them. but please don’t read what they’ve written about not leaving Iraq.”
You got a kitten? Woo Hoo! Go, maggie, go maggie, go maggie….
aw, no kitten. but I may have won a couple iphones. or else someone has gone to a lot of trouble to steal my identity. developing…..
I don’t know why I bother. I suppose that being a Christian should make me somewhat immune to those who would probably treat my religious beliefs with contempt but at the same time make generalized pronouncements that would have Isaiah looking askance.
“We opposed the war and … and … and … WE WERE RIGHT! ALL OF YOU WERE WRONG! PRAISE GAIA!” [fart]
Um, what were we talking about? Kittens? Popera? Josh Grobain’s fishnet stockings? :-)
KKKwagmire !!!!!!!eleventy!!!!!!!!1one
How dare you ask me for a solution! Good DAY, Sir!
Rumsfeld is an idiot. Clark hasn’t even got us out of fucking Kosovo yet, and nobody was/is even fighting back. Brilliant, I tell you. Brilliant.
Sarcastic knows better than everyone! What about the thousands of officers that think you position is naive, moronic, and even dangerous. But, you and Wesley are smarter than everyone.
Eristic,
What has LG Newbold said since April 2006? A lot of things have changed.
The fact of the matter is that nobody was completely right about the war in the runup to the war..
Even when someone comes damn close, there is a Loyal Bushie employing twisted logic to shoot him down.
How right was this guy?
19 December 2002
IAEA Says It Has No Evidence of Prohibited Iraqi Nuclear Activities
How right was Shinseki?
From the beginning, military experts warned Washington that the task would require, as Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki told Congress in February 2003, “hundreds of thousands” of troops. For the United States to deploy forces in Iraq at the same ratio to population as NATO had in Bosnia would have required half a million troops. Yet the coalition force level never reached even a third of that figure.
How right was this historian in Feb. of 2003?
we’re imperialists? really?
Shinseki was playing the same game that Army Chiefs had played for a long time–highball the force estimates, portray the mission as too great a commitment in hopes the civil authoriteis would change thier minds. It hadn’t always worked, but it did often enough to try it.
Your…historian…, yeah he’s just wrong.
You, and perhaps the IAEA, were willing to accept a declaration that was materially incomplete. Others were not. Had Saddam not been deliberatly playin ha shell game wiht this information things might have shaken out differently.
How right was he? You have no idea. What different result would a bigger footprint have made in ’03, and how do you know it would have been different? The only thing we can know for sure is that had we put more troops in, we’d have more dead Americans.
There are two reasons that things are going as well as they are now. One is an increase in troops, though not to the levels Shinseki advocated. The other is a change in attitude among Iraqis who were vehemently opposed to the American presence in ’03. Both are crucial to our current success.
OTOH….BERETS FOR EVERYONE!!!
Let’s not forget that Saddam, a vile and treacherous psycho to be sure, was no complete dummy. No one expected him to have in place loyalist troops prepared to carry out insurgent operations (Feydaken) well financed with hundreds of weapons caches and his tribal brethren to provide aid and comfort. It’s still mind boggling to me that he would make as huge a bluff about WMD’s as he was purported to have made and still planned for his elite troops to fold like a cheap card table! Wouldn’t you like to know what sort of vision that demented asshat had for this strategy? What, I’ll live in a stinking hole and become a muslim folk hero?
Even at the troop levels that Shinseki advocated (and keep in mind that his advocacy was as much for the campaign as it was for securing the country) there are no guarantees that they would have made a significant difference in establishing order. The biggest bad assumption (IMHO) was the expectation of a functioning civil authority that would continue to function (a la France in WWII) after the combat operations were over. Again no one forsaw the complete disintegration of municiple structure, another legacy to Saddam’s ham handed rule.
There was significant good will amongst the Iraqi people at the beginning of the libereation which got slowly pissed away by chaos, lack of security and infiltrating foreign fighters. None of any of the above were predicted in any great detail by anybody although one could admit that civil service personnel needed to be part of the structure much earlier.
I couldn’t help but notice, Ristic, that you took the bait on WMD’s. That particular conundrum, while an easy snark, has nothing to do with the right or wrong of the management of the liberation or current strategy going forward. I have yet to see you offer any cogent responses for what happens from here, other than the digital equivalant of waggling fingers, thumbs in your ears andf a high pitched “nyah, nyah, nyah!!
You’re just not a very serious commentator, are you? Of course you’ve got that whole “Go. F@#k. Yourself!” thing down pretty good.
BJ,
Re: The biggest bad assumption…
How can you say that no one foresaw the complete disintegration of the municipal structure when it was the very policy of the CPA to disintegrate the municipal structure? Anyone with a connection to the Baath Party was tossed. The municipal structure was dissolved overtly by Bremer. For you to say that this was not foreseen is beyond specious. It was policy.
Finally, the reason I avoid making a cogent response to what should happen from here forward is that, like you, I recognize my own limitations. I do not think there is a clear set of solutions, and that is why I keep repeating a preference to listen to the advice of those who were marginalized by their opposition to administration policy. Today, I trust Shinseki more than Myers and Pace. I trust El Baradei more than Feith. I trust Gates and Newbold more than Rumsfeld, and would go as far to say that if Gates had been in there from the start, Wolfowitz and Feith would not have been present in the Pentagon as a pernicious influence.
Paul Wolfowitz was recently hired by the State Department. That dismays me, because he was wrong about Iraq being perfectly situated to pay for its’ own reconstruction. That was a significant mistake on his part. I don’t want to rely on his advice from here forward. I want to rely on those who knew he was wrong. I can’t understand why you find that extraordinary, or wrongheaded. It seems like common sense.
Well, except for if you were really listening, you would notice that none of your heroes have a fucking clue what should happen from here forward either, they are too busy second guessing and flinging big hand fulls of I Told You So. When you hear any positive advice from any of them, get back to us.
At least Eristic is honest. He’s only smart enough to bitch and moan and he’s willing to admit it.
Incidetnally, you’d think his common sense would also be able to tell that nothing in Iraq is finished yet. Just in too much a defeatist rush to declare a debacle.
How right was Shinseki?
You mean this last time? He wasn’t too wrong. The time before that, though, when he was hawking a Cold-war era motorized howitzer in a time when such a thing would be just as useful as tits on my dead grandpa? Dead wrong. And wasn’t Shinseki the same guy who passed out black berets to the whole fucking Army? Good choice, there, General.
See, you have to have had a history of being right. Having been right once, in retrospect, is not very useful.
And citing Krugman…oh, Jesus, is your Google broken? What did Krugman have to say about Enron, for example, while he was on their board?
Can’t get more wrong than that, I think.
Slartibartfast,
Fixed, just for you.
Fred Barnes is just as stupid directly on the Fox News transcript as he is second hand on Krugman. No big deal, though. Happy to adhere to your standards of linkage…
You’re making even less sense than usual, S.
What did Krugman have to say about Enron, for example, while he was on their board?
Must I do all of your research?
CPA was determined to remove the Baath party elements within the central government and the ministries. Much of the local structure, including most of the local police forces, were not party organs but had local tribal connections. The breakdown in order with the resulting looting was due in large poart to the police forces concern about the Fedayeen, not the Coalition forces. The bigger mistake was in assuming that other Iraqi’s, including those from the almost useless INC, could be quickly integrated onto the CPA at the local level. This reflected a flawed understanding of the local tribal loyalties that even Saddam paid homage to from time to time, as it suited his purpose.
The military campaign actually succeeded too well. Absolutely no one, nada, zilch though that the Coalition troops would run so completely and quickly roughshod over Saddam’s “elite” troops and that they would fade so quickly, many to take up pre-planned insurgent positions dedicated to disrupting the Coalition and terrorizing any locals who cooperated with the “occupiers.”. Foreign fighters spurred by al qaeda miobilized and infiltrated more quickly and effectively than anyone expected (another in a long list of intellegence failures.)
Keep in mind that despite all of these problems and challenges, two nationwide elections have been held with well over 60% participation and a government is in place, albiet a shakey one. With the new strategy of aggressive clearing and holding and reconciliation with the local tribal authorities has produced the first views of widespread security and a modicum of hope. All of this despite the dire projections of Shenseki, Krugman, et al. It’s time to stop worrying about the ones who were more right and not and start working on solutions that don’t involve throwing up our hands and letting the place slaughter itself.
After all, we’re not dealing with a video game here. Nor are we keeping the astral accounting book looking to balance debits and credits with absolutist arguments for right and wrong.
Te very fact that none of those have offered any cogent suggestions other than “we were right, let’ get out” means you’re still listening to the wrong people. At least some of those end up in the “blind squirrel/nut” category, minding there own self interest by defending their historical perspective without a vision or an awareness of the future opportunities.
CPA was determined to remove the Baath party elements within the central government and the ministries.
No problem accepting this, as it proves my point. The central government ministries certainly extended their influence down to the local level. I stand by my assertion.
On the subject of cogent suggestions… It seems that Sen. Graham set a timetable for the current operative suggestion, and might be ready for Plan B.
Iraqis may be about to learn a hard lesson. They think they have an elected government. Sen. Graham is ready to pull the plug.
The fact that the Baathists extended their influence down to the loval level does not support your contention. Most of the local authorities were based upon tribal and family ties rather than party ties. It wasn’t the collapse of the civil authorities per se that created the vacuum but the complete collapse of the local police and Baathist party militias. Those militias became pre planned insurgencies (or, probably most, just went home.) The p[olice wsere afraid of the Fedayeen and found themselves within a rocka nd a hard place, electing to jump shi.
We’re going to argue degrees until out fingers bleed. How about some acknowledgment that no one was univeraslly “right” or “wrong” in the planning and execution of this enterprise? If your bottom line carved in stone contention is that the thing is a complete and utter failure, then you are arguing a partisan rather than a policy position. There have been successes and there have been benchmarks. There have been problems and there have been heartaches. Welcome to war. You are free to argue that the positives haven’t been enough to justify the original action and we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I still reject your arbitrary definition of “right” in pre war planning.
Oh and as far as Graham goes, he’s blowing in the wind or posturing for Maliki’s sake. He’s got no more authority to decide who runs the duly elected government of Iraq than Al Gore, despite whatever influence he thinks he might have over aid and support. Certainly the government needs some pressure applied to bring more Sunnis into the process, but much of that reconciliation is now taking place at the tribal and province level. Maliki’s big test will be to leverage this good will into a real coalition government that can fairly share oil revenues and find a way to govern by cooperation and compromise rather than by corruption and back stabbing. The provincial tribes need to be convinced that the govenment will be responsive to them rather than hiding in the green zone.
The jury is still out, with all due respect to Sr. Graham. There certainly hasn’t been much news from the good Sr. since that veioled threat over a month ago.
Well, here is where I truly think we differ. You see Maliki acting on behalf of American interests, working toward a coalition gov. and revenue sharing. I see Maliki as playing us for suckers, enabling the Mahdi army to rebuild during the surge, as he sees us throwing cash and arms at the Sunni tribes out west. Why the hell should he disarm the Shia militia when he sees us creating a Sunni force?
I’m tempted to say I admire your optimism, but I’m not sure that is the right choice of words.
If you think that the alignment between Maliki and Sader is anything other than an arrangement of convenience, you haven’t been paying attention.
You also completley discount the influence of Hakim and SCIRI, the other major player in UIA. That’d be a mistake. Not that Hakim is any more interested in doing “right things” than Sadr is; both are milstones around the neck of Maliki that he also cannot do without.
Further, what viable alternative at Prime Minister exists other than Maliki? Since you think Graham harbors aspirations of kingmaker, who would he choose to elevate?
That would be working on behalf of Iraqi interests.
You didn’t do any research, you embedded a link. Links are easy to embed, but the “research” part comes in reading them, and deciding whether they contain anything relevant to the discussion. Relevant, as in being either supportive or dismissive of some conversational point.
Speaking of links, the very first link on the page you linked to is broken.
This one isn’t, though, until Herrdoktorprofessor conveniently rearranges his archives, again.
Don’t make me form your arguments for you.
No where in anything I wrote did I say that Maliki was working for “American interests.” You ignored a sizable chunk of what I wrote to make a point that had no basis in any of my opinions.
I am not so naive to assume that Maliki is working for anybody’s interests but his own, his family’s and his tribe. He has a tough job balancing the Sistani (relatively) moderates with the Sadr theo-thugs along with many of the whining Sunnis mostalgic for their past prestige and positions. Democracy is brutally difficult in a culture that has virtually no historical experience with the institution.
That having been said, as hard as it is, the relative success of such a venture smack dab in the middle of the Middle East would have long term positive geopolitical benefits to both the people of said region and the long term security of Western Civilization. That alone makes it worth the effort, optimism or no.
I’m still waiting for a response on the falseness of your absolutist “right” or “wrong” conclusions.
Slartifartbast,
You asked, specifically, what Krugman had to say about his experience at Enron. I provided that information. Is a simple thanks too much for you?
I did? I think you’re confused: I didn’t ask what Krugman had to say about Enron after Enron fell apart. We’re talking about which people predict correctly, not people’s hindsight visual acuity.
Although his prediction of how the relative severities of Enron and September 11 will be remembered has yet to come even close to coming true. But that’s a different flavor of wrongness.
Well, there isn’t much about Enron in the material you provided, unless you have a keen interest in how their employees dressed. If Krugman had known that Fastow was cooking the books his comments might be interesting.
Re: Absolutist right or wrong conclusions.
At this point, the sphere of public opinion is set. Let Rumsfeld make his case against Shinseki.
That, and they’re the very model of a modern corporation. It’s almost as if the paradigm shifted, and Krugman got it completely wrong.
If Krugman had ever predicted that Fastow was cooking the books, he might be the kind of person you’d want to start listening to. But as it is: not so much.
Public opinion is rarely “set” about anything, while yours is embedded (heh) in concrete. Stop projecting your absolutist position on the rest of humanity.
FOR THE HUMANSES!
From which we will initally determine that Rumsfeld was mostly right about the force level necessary to win the military campaign and Shinseki was mostly right about the force necessary to reasonably secure the country. Further degrees of right or wrong will be hashed out in classrooms and history books over the years, none of which will produce the sort of crystal pure “rightness’ that you closed mind has attained. In your mind.
Nuance: The other white meat.
BJ – Why are you trying to be all reasonable with an idiot? A position that was not arrived at by reason will not be changed with reason.
youngstown ohio real estate