From UPI/PJM:
Sunni Muslim leaders in Iraq’s violent Anbar province say they are ready to cooperate with the United States.
They are seeking to extend a temporary truce honored by most insurgent groups for last week’s elections but say they want the United States to reduce military raids and increase development projects for their vast desert province, The Washington Times reports.
Adnan al-Dulaimi, leader of a prominent Sunni bloc, said insurgent groups had prevented violence from interfering with Thursday’s elections, the newspaper said.
The truce resulted from weeks of negotiations between U.S. officials and insurgents.
Sunni religious leader Sheik Abed al-Latif Hemaiym told The Times in an interview in Amman that Sunnis were prepared to work with the United States.“We now believe we must get on good terms with the Americans,” Hemaiym said. “As Arab Sunnis, we believe that within this hot area of Iraq, facing challenges from neighboring nations who want to swallow us, especially the Iranians, we feel we have no alternative.”
WHEN WILL YOU FACE YOUR FAILURES, MR BUSH! WHEN WILL YOU ADMIT THAT THE SHAM CONSTITUTION YOU’VE CREATED IN IRAQ—BY VIRTUE OF NOT BEING PERFECTLY INCLUSIVE—IS AS MEANINGLESS AS OUR OWN CONSTITUTION HAS BECOME UNDER YOUR KINGLY CHARGE?
WHEN WILL YOU ADMIT THAT BY INVOCATING THE WAR POWERS ACT AND GATHERING INTELLIGENCE ON AL QAEDA AND ITS DOMESTIC CONTACTS, THE TERRORISTS HAVE ALREADY WON—THAT WE MAY AS WELL HAVE PRESIDENT USAMA BIN LADEN!
Having caught now excerpts from the President’s speech last night, I have to say that Glenn Reynolds has it exactly right—that the most striking thing about the performance was Bush’s willingness to take ownership of mistakes so that, conversely, he can take ownerhip of the victory, which he most certainly now sees as all but secured.
Down the road, the Reid/Dean/Pelosi Democrats will try to massage the historical record and airbrush from history the many rough edges of their “dissent”—they will characterize themselves as the tough critics who refused to be cheerleaders for a war they supported (see vote authorizing the President to go to war), however reluctantly (see Kerry, et al), but that they were willing to criticize so that the President and the military could change course and win. They will present themselves as the champion of the troops; as the champion of civil liberties; and as the champions of democracy.
And the only ones who will believe them are those who have deluded themselves about such things to this point.
Today, Tim Roemer, appearing on a FOXNews panel this morning, noted that we “can’t lose over there,” but that we can still lose the war if the President sticks to the failed plan of the last few months (which makes absolutely no sense: we can’t lose unless we lose?)—a plan that led to 15 million Iraqis voting, Sunni political engagement, and soon, one hopes, a permanent government and a finished Constitution. The Democrats are hoping to shape the narrative in such away that it was their pressure—from Murtha, Pelosi, Kennedy, and the whole cast of liberal Dem regulars—that, applied at the last minute, turned Iraq from a certain catastrophe into a glorious Dem-aided victory.
And Matt Yglesias, bless him, perfectly articulates what is certain to be the next big progressive refrain:
[…] if things are progressing as wonderfully in Iraq as Bush says, I hope that means we’ll see a steady drawdown of troops over the next twelve months and not just a return to the pre-election baseline of 130,000 or so.
Well, it’s not just Bush who says things are progressing “wonderfully” in Iraq, Matt (though Bush would probably say “steadily”)– add to him the majority of Iraqis, the military leadership of both the US and Iraq, and on and on and on—but hell, I’ll allow you what comes off as a bit of sneering disappointment.
After all—I’m a giver.
****
A nice roundup here.
Damn, I like to see a strong hand well played. Ol’ GW gave ‘em hell, and well deserved it was. The Dems are still tying themselves in gordian knots trying to find some way to make themselves look good on this. Lots of luck, guys, but don’t buy any Dem futures, if ya know what I mean. Nancy “Bug-eyes” Pelosi might even bite the big one after this debacle, and her in the safest of safe seats.
Out-freakin’-standing!
SB: waiting
and watching
BU-BU-BU-BUT BUST STILLLL LIED!!! Damn that Kristian Kapitalist Kowboy and his facism!!! We need to RETREAT now or else The Chimp will win!
Here here!!!!
Lets here it for the ROVIAN brain washing machine!! This is all I wanted for Christmas. All we have to do now, is wait and watch the Dems implode…….
By the way, where is PIATOR….??????
Can some one tell me what the Dems actually are for? I can’t think of one positive advancement of any policy that they have put forth.
Anyone??
One of the guy’s who lives in my brain is your stereo-typical Republican; power suit, grey hair, a little bit of a dork. I just caught him doing what I could only discribe as a horribly disjointed running man. It was painful to watch, but I can’t rain on his parade.
The same thing they did with the Cold War, in other words?
Shank: I think that was more of a rythmless version of “the robot”. Next time, try a black Republican.
They can at least dance. And, as a side benefit, you can sometimes catch oreos while standing near them. Yummy!
What does it say to the lefty meme that Sunnis (in a country with 165,000 fine young Americans on the ground) are worried that IRAN is going to invade? Of course, much of that concern is conspiratorial prattle they will answer. Unlike their 100% genuine, ‘Murkan conspiratorial prattle.
P.S.: Halliburton.
P.P.S: Stupid democracy…elections ruin EVERYTHING.
The biggest problem that the Dems face is that I am as unhappy with the Republican leadership as a human being is able to be on just about every subject, and despite that, I will still work as hard as humanly possible to ensure that the Dems, as they stand now, get nowhere near the seats of power. Which is just sad all around, but is reality.
Jeff, you loveable nincompoop–
Of course they’re going to get away with it. As Robert Crawford noted above, the Democrats haven’t taken many hits for their fairly shameful behavior in the second half of the Cold War. And they’re more or less dictated the narrative on the whole Indochina experience.
Last night I was reading Vonnegut’s new book, Man without a Country. (I also went to see Crossroads, when it was in the theatre. And Glitter.) While trashing the entire run of American history and praising home-grown socialists, he makes some idiotic comment about how lives were saved when the US forces left Indochina “because only then could order be restored.” In a just world, his copy editor would have thought that sentence was too blazingly stupid to leave in. Call me cynical, but I’m betting the Dems and their MSM helots get to re-write history one more time.
That said, it was still good to hear Bush in a feisty mood last night. And this morning, he sounded flat-out pissed. Pity it’s been so long in coming.
It sez our guys are intrinsically worth more than their guys so let’s get them out of there now.
It means that principles and sacrifice and honor are dead on the left.
It means the paper-shreddered and the gassed and the buried alive need to suck it up while we turn tail in time for Christmas. Or the 4th of July.
IT’S ALL BECAUSE OF THE BROWN PEOPLE!
Let me sum up Vonnegut: Better to be a slave on your knees than fight and risk your life on your feet.
Welcome to the Vonnegut century!
Glitter…
Shudder…
Utron, you and Jeff have hit upon the essence of why I vote Republican (even if I am p.o.’ed about the whole budget thing).
Can someone tell me JUST ONE foreign policy point about which these guys have been correct over past thre decades?
I’ve recapped this so many times, it borders on abuse–so I’ll just pick one out of many collosal wrongs: Anyone remember the nuclear freeze?
Just like today Reagan/Bush: warmongers. Soviets/Islamist Fascists: “If we sould only TRY to understand…blah, blah, blah.”
Seriously, Glitter?
Well, it’s not just Bush who says things are progressing “wonderfully†in Iraq, Matt (though Bush would probably say “steadily”)– add to him the majority of Iraqis…
Iraqis don’t count, doncha know. At least the ones without an IED or two in their shed…
Reading the comments to Iglesias’s post, it occurred to me: these are people who have given up. They never expect to be in power again.
And, since they never expect to actually, y’know, succeed, they’re free to do nothing but throw rocks. They’re going down and know it, and are determined to smash every window they pass on the way to the splat. After all, they’re never going to have any use for any of that stuff. Why leave it for the winners to use?
Self-fulfilling prophecy, of course, but what will they lash out against next in their petulant, pusillanimous disappointment?
Regards,
Ric
Utron, I hope you were wearing a tin-foil hat while reading to try to prevent your brain cells from jumping shit.
“ship” – although in hindsight, I think either could work.
QUAGMIRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don’t worry Jeff, we will remember the wonderful “support” we have received. And from whom.
Yglesias’ response is quite logical.
Give Bush’s laying the groundwork to take
ownerhip of the victory, which he most certainly now sees as all but secured.
then wouldn’t it be logical, given that victory is ‘all but secured’, to suppose that the war is almost over?
But let’s suppose that in 6 months (with continuing complaints about supposed “gleeful”
responses to the Bush Administration’s policy
failures), the insurgency is still continuing, the vast majority of Iraqis still want the US out, unemployment is still at depression levels, and we are still told that continued massive military presence (with increasing reliance by the US on air power, and a redeployment of troops more to those PERMANENT military bases for the long haul) is needed. Then what does it matter that we were told back in December that “victory was all but secured”? This line seems to be one where the risks inherent in the promise, as was the case in Vietnam, are not accepted by those who make it.
I suppose it could be said that such statements, even if they don’t turn out to be true, are good for “morale”. Well, we have been promised many things in Iraq—that the war and occupation would be financed by Iraqi oil, that the insurgency would be minimal and wouldn’t last, as it was just a symptom of the temporary state of affairs in Iraq, that rapid training of Iraqi forces would radically reduce (by now) the responsibilities of the US, and so forth. (And of course, that the Administration had proof of a near-imminent threat of WMDs, and in particular, that Saddam was lying when he claimed he didn’t have any—the immediate casus bellum for launching the war without Security Council backing and before the inspectors, who had extensive access, could do their jobs.
I know that this recitation sounds to the RW like glee at their failures, but how can you discuss policy rationally without looking at the track record of all the claimed and predicted “successes” that have turned out to be nothing but manipulated useful mirages?
Does this mean that us RWDBs can point at the track record of the Democratic party and their leadership (e.g., recent failures, spin, lies, internal disagreements, and assorted hysterical fits) as evidence they couldn’t organize or lead an orgy in a bordello, let alone put together a comprehensive and coherent national policy or (shudder) put a member of their party in the White House?
The answer is “yes”…..and I point this out because we basically have a choice between McChimpy BusHitler And His Evil Minions, and the loveable, friendly, care free, full of laughs crowd lead by Howie and his Dean-O-Maniacs.
TW: choice, as in give me one.
Wasn’t there a story about the Romans salting the ground so crops would not grow on land given up?
The great warrior Nancitus Pelosius, bound – and determined!
The great warrior Nancitus Pelosius, bound – and determined!
Can’t forget the noble Jonus Sans Testicules Kerry either.
Or his compatriot: Tedius Kennedeus
Or Howardius Deanio?
so much cheerleading, so little substance
The administration didn’t promise the things you claim, Cloudy. More inventions on your part.
cloudy, is that for your mood or is it your attempt to hide what is plain for most to see.
ron
so much cheerleading, so little substance
So much sanctimony, so little penis.
Oops, was that cheerleading? My bad.
Well, isn’t that pithy.
Penis? How can you tell when there is “more” or less “penis” in a commentary? (I will only assume that the author feels they have a lot of “penis” in their commentary, which is very much a good thing).
Or rather, given the lines about Kerry’s male organ, that it is the substance of the politics (that RW politics is, in the words of the character from Woody Allen’s musical comedy “Everyone Says I Love You”—a great film—more “virile”). I suppose that one of the ideas that lies behind a more repressive state, pursuit of militarism even when it is contrary to the national interest (as in the Iraq War, which has transformed Iraq into a greater long-term problem for our security than it was in Feb 2003, with the inspectors in there, and no Al Qaeda), and Robin-Hood-in-reverse economics, wanton environmental destruction, etc etc—all these things are certainly f%&*#ing things up, so they must be virile!
By the way, I agree that the Democratic Party does not have their strategy together as well as many on the RW, in part because I feel that in the leadership we have a problem of ‘getting with the program and justifying the lying’, the kind of deference to the right that many here exude a sense of expecting and desiring.
The much-protestated point that the Democratic Party leadership had failed over a period of decades to even call the leadership of the opposition party on systematically “deploying” (to use the term applied to it by a poster at this site) the epithet “Democrat” Party for a period of decades is indicative. Sure, it isn’t an issue to “prioritize” as among the most cataclysmic, and I don’t do so, but it sure reflects the problems with the Democratic Party, although it is important to dig deeper to bring to explicit light something that such Democratic Party leaders and rank and file politicians are loathe to do—namely underground repression. (I had a link on another thread to a long piece on that subject). At any rate, yes, I agree that the Democratic Party strategists leave much to be desired, and that this failure, this “blowing it” is neither accidental nor desirable.
English is your second language, right? Figures.
You’re one of those random word generators, aren’t you? Ha, good one! You really had me going there…
tw: Plant.
“(as in the Iraq War, which has transformed Iraq into a greater long-term problem for our security than it was in Feb 2003, with the inspectors in there, and no Al Qaeda), and Robin-Hood-in-reverse economics, wanton environmental destruction, etc etcâ€â€all these things are certainly f%&*#ing things up, so they must be virile!”
I count more than four falsehoods in one run-on sentence.
Long-term, Iraq was a security problem for us in Feb 2003 because we had no confidence that their WMD programs were shutdown, the sanctions regime that had contained them was breaking down and we had no reason to believe that Iraq would not soon return to an active development program. Inspectors were being prevented from further inspections. Al Queda was already in Iraq. There are no “reverse” Robin Hood economic policies, as we see post Bush tax cuts that in fact taxation of lower and middle class was cut as much or more than the upper class. Lastly, the “wanton environmental destruction” is a pure fabrication.
You are living down to my expectations.
Glenn’s observation has probably been noted in some Dem circles: “Hey, Bush isn’t running from association with this war anymore. But the polls say it’s still unpopular! Why is he taking credit for a failed operation? A fiasco? Doesn’t make any sense. Oh my God – maybe he knows something we don’t? Maybe there’s a breakthrough imminent? Hey – there was that huge turnout for the election, and very little fighting. That bastard – he knows good news is coming, and he wants all the credit for it? Hey! WE VOTED FOR THIS WAR TOO!”
When one is totally closed minded, any progressive criticism, more or less by definition, will “live down” to one’s expectations. It is a knee-jerk response.
Now, first, the inspectors in 2003 had incredible and incredibly unobstructed access. They were begging to be allowed to carry out their work and the French (EEEEEEEEWWWWWW) at the UN were proposing that the number of inspectors be tripled. You are right to point to the issue of confidence that the WMD systems weren’t there, but the point at which the inspectors had reached their point of diminishing returns had not been met.
Where do you get the idea that in 2003, as distinct from 1998, that inspectors were “being prevented from further inspections”? They didn’t seem to think so.
Now, did Al Qaeda have any significant presence in the portion of Iraq under Hussein’s control as of Feb 2003? I would be interested in any URLs from you that would suggest that they did, especially to sources that aren’t rabidly partisan. No, their presence broadened with the invasion and occupation, with hundreds of operatives coming into the country from outside, and recruiting further support in the country.
Now I agree that the characterizations of Robin Hood in reverse economics, and on the environment are conclusions presented without the case for them being made. But all you’ve done is to say ‘no it isn’t so’, and called that “pure fabrication”. Well, without going into the issue in detail, RFK Jr, someone for whom I will assume you have zero respect, and the NRDC have put together quite a record of such destruction. I am not going to go through the litany here. Simply asserting that it is all “pure fabrication” doesn’t make it so.
If you think, contrary to the opinions of the majority of Americans at this point, that the invasion of Iraq was a brilliant idea, then by all means give the Bush Administration credit for it. I don’t want to deny him whatever “credit” he may be due for this policy, and I don’t see Democrats running to take that credit away from him at this point.
But, when Bush tries to palm the BLAME off on to the Democrats (who deserve some for not more actively resisting his war policies, although given his position vis-a-vis Congress, and the support of a handful of Lieberman Democrats, such opposition couldn’t have stopped him from launching the war), that’s where I have a problem. They did NOT have access to the same intelligence (including the doubts not communicated to Congress, and other book-cooking) as the executive, and frankly it is silly to suppose that they would. Nor, given the extreme deference to the executive on foreign policy matters, especially Democratic-to-Repuglican rather than Repuglican-to-Democratic deference (I say this even as I strongly opposed the Kosovo War myself), is it appropriate to consider Congress’s authorization to use force as the source of the policy. It’s Bush’s baby and he should own it.
If you see the Democrats turn around and start trying to grab the “credit” for Bush’s success, I’ll be right there calling BS. But I haven’t seen it in 2004 and I don’t expect it in 2006 or any subsequent election.
Huh? You chose the moniker “Cloudy” for a reason, didn’t you?
Well, Cloudy, lets see. Hans Blix’ report to the UN Security Council contradicts you. And you don’t bother to back up anything else you claim. Typical.
As for Robert Kennedy Jr., I’m not surprised you are refering to such an fraud. His quackery actually costs lives, such as his nonsense on thimerasol and autism, debunked by my friend here. Not to mention complete hypocrite.
Quack and hypocrite – perfect company for you.
As noted on another thread, Robin (the thread about support for US surging), you make these statements about “contradiction” without spelling out what it is that supposedly contradicts what AND THEN AN ARGUMENT AS TO WHY THEY ARE CONTRADICTORY.
Avoiding the particulars, as I noted there, with an explanation in reponse to SOMEONE ELSE’S attempt to articulate what ‘contradiction’ you were presuming, makes it so much easier to dish out the accusation. I won’t bother to respond to the claim until you really SPELL IT OUT.
Again, you call RFK a hypocrite without bothering to spell it out. I gather that his opposition to a particular wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod is, in your presumption, “hypocritical”. Some at least ostensibly on the left have also so suggested.
Well, RFK Jr just wrote a spirited defense of his position on the wind farm issue in The New York Times [you know, that Commie rag]. I found it quite cogent, although you seem to be so governed by bias it seems unlikely you could even consider his case with any kind of objectivity.
<a href=”www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/opinion/16kennedy.html” target=”_blank”>
One thing that RWers should, however appreciate, and where I differ with what RFK Jr says about the issue here. It seems to me that building wind power offshore, where it is MUCH more expensive, as he notes, when there could be literally tens of thousands of windmills placed on farmer’s lands with little environmental harm or inconvenience, and in other situations ON LAND of similarly minimal ecological disuption, makes MUCH more sense to me than building them offshore anywhere. Even far offshore, where RFK Jr, who I have a lot of respect for even if you don’t, suggests they do much less environmental harm than near the Cape, they are very costly and obviously their construction and maintenance will be more environmentally disruptive than some alternatives.
By the way, it is all-too-easy to simply label people hypocrites and ‘contradictory’ and ‘living down to your expectations’—to play Alexehente—than it is to actually spell out your arguments and defend them, where they might be open to critique more easily. It is a strategy I am very familiar with—my dad used it all the time.