On the cusp of nationwide elections in Iraq—as insurgent Sunni Arabs eager to join the political process “actively support the voting, reportedly promising to provide security at polling places, and informing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorist elements that they oppose any effort to disrupt the elections”—it strikes me that those left arguing that the insurgency is really but a manifestation of Iraqi nationalism have placed themselves in the strange position of having to maintain that, well, the real Iraqis aren’t Iraqi at all, but are rather those non-Iraqi fighters who continue the insurgency, or at the very least, that these foreign fighters (and those who provide them with aid and support) are the only ones left who are really acting in the best interests of Iraq. Which puts a whole new spin on identity politics, I should think.
Just thought I’d mention it.
It’s okay, Dems are becoming quite proficient at having to eat their words, or at the very least contradict themselves every few months. The over-under (in number of days) on any given Dem supporting one side of a debate and then switching to the other side of the debate is approximately 283. Of course, it’s funny to see that as the War in Iraq continues, the unders win with greater consistency.
The insurgency is a creation of EEEVILE Neocons, Joooosss, Halliburton, and Chimpy while the elections are a creation of….
…
…
ummm, we’ll get back to you.
Can’t you see we are loosing! It’s a catastrophy! A quagmire!
Why can’t anyone see?
I FEEL LIKE I’M TAKING CRAZY PILLS!!
Their only refuge these days is the principle “When the facts are against you, change the facts.” Before too long, the history of the Iraq war will be rewritten just as the history of the Cold War was – as something “we” won because we all stuck together while heroic Democrats moderated the warmongering tendencies of Evil Republicans, though always keeping victory in mind.
Unfortunately, this still works to some extent.
KEEP SPINNING GOLDSTEIN! Those Syrians and Iranians are SAVING Iraq from ITSELF.
And just who is going to look out for the interests of the Iraqis if not the foreign jihadis? You don’t really expect the Iraqi sheeple to know what’s good for them, do you?
It’s kind of nice that way–the left is coming to think of Iraqis as simply Americans with a tan. Can’t be trusted to make their own decisions.
Exactly right, David C.
I’m predicting that in 10-15 years time, it will be all “oh, Bush just got lucky. The real hero of the Iraq campaign is [insert name of middle eastern leader here]. Everyone knew that islamofascism was doomed to failure. Gosh, I wish we had a common foe like al queda to unite us, instead of having these knock down drag out fights over the insolvent social security system and the resulting crushing tax burden. Sigh. Those sure were the days!”
Fred and David C.—I’m 52 and I watched the same revision tried with regard to whether Reagan’s policies hastened the end of the Soviet Union. It didn’t work then, and it’s not going to work ten years from now when they discuss Iraq and a changed Middle East.
And as long as we are on the subject, and it’s Iraqi election time, let me extend my thanks and admiration to this blog’s readers who are in the military. Not many of us can claim to have had our hands on the tiller when the big ship History altered course, but y’all did. You’ll never have to tell your grandkids, “Well, I shoveled shit in Louisiana.”
TW “service,” I kid you not.
PATTON’S words so eloquently put…..
What Salt Lick said.
hey, i was in iraq for the first (jan 30, 2005) election AND i went to louisiana to shovel shit..isn’t someone supposed to call me an imperialist stooge-icon (sounds like some kind of humorous transformer) and tell me how bush lied about zarkawi blowing up the levees?
okay, well, i’d accept adulation and blowjobs then…
And just think, Bush is the “worst President ever”. Just think what those troops could have done if led by the “best President ever”.
Next year is going to be a showcase of political ignorance. If the Dems continue on with their strategy of claiming defeat at the same time coalition forces are drawn back and Iraq’s government and infrastructure improves, they’ll look stupid and weak. But they’ll probably walk that road because they still think messaging is everything and ideas are nothing. Stupid Dems.
It won’t stop. Ever.
At least, that is how it appears to me.
Hey, if it’s good enough for Baltimore, it’s good enough for Baghdad.
Karl,
Then why don’t you send over John Waters?
Back when I used to tour Kos and DU, I saw plenty of comments about how any Iraqi who voted was a traitor and stooge of Halleeburton and the Joooooos.
In other words, the only real Iraqi is a slobbering savage with a gun, a bomb, and a head-chopping knife, fighting to the death in order to keep his country a third-word craphole ruled either by a fat greasy dictator or madmen in turbans.
But it’s Bush who’s a racist. He’s so racist that he wants third-worlders to live in freedom and be masters of their own destiny.
Bastard!
Oh, and thanks for your service, Thomas Foreman. I wish I’d done something as significant with my life as you have with yours. Oh well, hindsight is 20/20.
Thanks for the kind words, but dude…that soooo wasn’t a blowjob. Put up a c-note for a hooker in the Pittsburgh area and I’ll consider myself thanked!
Halleeburton? Is he related to HalleBerry?
Put up a c-note for a hooker in the Pittsburgh area and I’ll consider myself thanked!
Really a C note?
Wow the times have changed in Pittsburgh. I remember when a warm beer and $20.00 earned you a friend for the night…..
$20 and a warm beer? Good lord, that won’t even play in my college burgh of Indiana, PA. One of the greatest signs of societal progress today is that women have become just as shallow and superficial as men, so you need a stack of Jacksons and some sort of $6/bottle imported crap…
Oh! Knock on the door…damn, not a hooker, or likely to be one…
I need to start http://www.throwasoldieragoodtime.org for returning vets like me who lost all ability to communicate with women in BusHitlerCo’s War for Blood, Oil, Doooooom and Stuff
LEAVE NO ERECTION BEHIND (you)!!
You can get a hooker for $100 in Pittsburgh?
TW: easy. How do you do it, Goldstein?
OMG, I just thought of a way our anti-everything friends can REALLY support the troops but not the war…
When a red-blooded soldier boy comes home from war, he needs a lil love, but often lacks the social gear to get it done.
Soooo, after a shower to wash off the patchouli, our anti-war lady friends can blow, suck, fuck and take it in the pooper from our heroic contract killers. Can we get Kos begind this?
Yeah, that’s pretty much how it sounds, too.
I read Kos. Nobody there calling the voters stooges. Most people are hopeful that good will come. Hopeful, and mistrustful of Bush et al.
But, Jeff, I didn’t get the part about where since so many vote, that means the “insurgents”. the purported real Iraqis, must all be foreigners. I don’t see the connection.
Presuming I understand what you said, and I may not, I have a few thoughts. First, I don’t think even the Pres calls all the insurgents terrorists any more. I have the impression that he has admitted that only a small fraction of the resistance, or whatever you call it, is made up of foreigners. Something less than 10%. IOW, most of the people shooting back at Americans, and IEDing them – along with Iraqi police and army – are in fact Iraqi. I’d bet that a lot of them vote with more than guns, too.
And second, in the loose way that often characterizes these discussions, you presume that those of us who oppose this war seek a bad outcome. We don’t. We fervently hope that after the massive expense in blood and treasure that Iraq goes well.
You see, it’s this, Jeff. Nothing has gone according to plan. No WMDs, no flowers, no mission accomplished, no peace. No Bin Laden. No honor, no responsibility, no honesty, no plan, just wishful thinking and glib, self serving excuses when mistakes are recognized at all.
The votes are good things. Are they the harbingers of more good to come? I surely hope so, even though my heart’s desire is to see Bush fall drunk on his ass. I don’t take kindly to being lied to, and he owes me one. He owes ALL of us one. Even you guys, who forgive him his mistakes. Perhaps I am less charitable. Perhaps I expect more of the President of the United States.
Ok, I expect a LOT more of the President.
But Dec 15 is the next step in finding out how it all plays out.
Let us all hope together for good things for Iraq, and for us.
Jake
You need to either wise up or get used to it, because if you stay this ignorant you are facing a lifetime of it.
If the Iraqis really are competent to direct their own affairs without outside direction, that’s all the more reason why they shouldn’t. UNILATERALIST!
Wear Your Support for the Troops
Yes, I fear that too, BMoe. A lifetime of lies. As for the ignorant part, no, I don’t suffer from that particular issue.
No shame in not knowing things. Not learning when you find you don’t know, now that is foolish.
Jake
Jake, nothing has gone according to plan? You are hilarious. In fact, almost everything is going according to plan, and some things are going better than plan – like the formation of a democratic government which the Bush administration actually thought would take longer and was pushed into doing sooner by the Iraqis themselves.
You are indeed clueless Jake.
Quoth Jake;
“You see, it’s this, Jeff. Nothing has gone according to plan.”
Name one war in which they did.
“…no honor…”
Our troops know better, which is why morale is so high. There is nothing but honor in the sacrafices our country has made so that almost 50 million people have a chance at liberty. To quote a Democrat with spine: “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.â€Â
“I don’t take kindly to being lied to, and he owes me one. He owes ALL of us one.”
Show me this evidence you liberals have that Bush knew for a fact that Hussein had no WMDs or WMD programs. Till then, keep your opinions to yourselves. There is no crystal ball hidden at the White House.
Jake,
You say you don’t hope Iraq comes to a bad end now, but you forget that all of your posts on this blog can still be read. That certainly isn’t the impression you’ve left up to now. Likewise you claim all the folks over at the Daily “screw them,” Kos aren’t anti american and don’t hope for a bad out come either. But you also forget that we can all go over to Kos’s site and read all that has been written there.
What you are, in fact, doing is telling me that what you have written and what Kos has written and what Kos commenters have written says the absolute opposite of what it actually says.
That’s not very impressive. It’s not very brave either. If you’re going to hope for a terrorist victory at least have the courage to stand by your guns. All this back tracking makes you look an ineffectual facist sympathizer.
Oh, and you assertion that the folks forming the insurgency aren’t foriegners, but are true blue Iraqis sort of confirms what Jeff pointed out doesn’t it? You seem to be claiming that the murderers are more legitimate than the murdered. Are you?
Bush didn’t know, so that’s reason enough to invade? Not.
Everything is going according to plan, SP? That has a certain hollow ring to it. Particularly followed as it is by Scott’s comment. See, I think a plan that has 32k + Iraqi deaths, 2k + American deaths (these are by the Pres’s count) most of which ocurred AFTER mission accomplished, IEDs increasing in numbers nearly 3 years after the so-called mission accomplished, that has Abu Ghraib, taking Fallujah, what, 3 times, assassinations of Iraqi leadership, a “green zone” with NO American journalists outside it, the cost in the hundreds of billions of $’s when the administration said it would take merely a handful of billions to repair Iraqi infrastructure and a measly $50 billion to prosecute the war – if that’s all according to plan, that plan is totally screwed and one *I* never saw before the war.
No, nobody saw that plan because it didn’t exist. Neither did the whole election thing. All that was ginned up after the fact when Bushco suddenly realized they had a peace to win, and they were sucking badly at getting it done.
Finally, Scott, you confuse the honor of soldiers doing a hard and nasty job with that of a country that finds it condones torture, not of some radical holding the keys to a nuclear bomb, but of “suspected” insurgents, that condones black prisons and special rendition. There is nothing honorable there.
Jake
Corvan, find a word of mine that says I don’t want Iraq to go well. It ain’t there. What IS there is that I don’t expect Iraq to go well, and I think we are there for the wrong reasons and that staying when we will leave eventually anyway will make things worse, not better. Of course, it will be easy to find that I think we were misled – lied to – about the gravity of the situation in Iraq.
To not want Iraq to go well is reprehensible. Like I said, as much as I want Bush to fall on his ass, I don’t want people to have to die to make it happen. If Bush were the least bit competent I might even think we had a reasonable chance. As it is, our – the joint Iraqi/American “our” – prospects are pretty dim.
Jake
Jake, you seemed to imply that the insurgents are the true Iraqis in you prior post. is that your position? Also, you seem to be arguing that democracy isn’t worth even one death to defend? Do you believe that? Additionally you seem to be implying that Iraqis are not capable of democracy. Do you believe that as well?
Finally, I have to ask do Islamic terrorists bear any responsiblity for any of the deaths in the War on Terror? Any of them at all?
Jake, are you saying that this war, or any war could be planned in such a way that there would be no one dying at all?
If not, well, the how many casualties would a “proper” plan have?
tw army – as in haven’t seen you around Carlyle Barracks or Levenworth Command and Staff.
Corvan, as to the second part of your post, I am not sure we read Jeff’s post the same way. It was not exactly clearly written. I am confident he had it clear in his mind, but I confess I read it over several times and I am still not sure I understood his point.
I think Jeff said the “insurgents” are foreigners. Even the Pres disagrees with that statement. If 90% of the insurgents are Iraqi, which is how I remember the Pres’s quote, I don’t think you can avoid the fact that it IS Iraqi’s who are fighting the occupation. I don’t know how many thousands of Iraqis are actively involved, but we don’t seem to have made any dent in their numbers. They keep shooting at us and planting bombs.
Jake
Jake,
Again, all you prior posts are on record. I don’t have to make any claims. It’s all there fore everyone to see. Same as all the things at the Dialy Kos. Anyone who wishes to check can look back. In your case, they won’t find the work of a depressed man who suspects the worst but is hoping for the best. What they will see is an angry man wishing destruction on his political enemies, but not Islamic terrorists.
You say that if Bush were the leat bit competent that Iraq might be a success. I take that to mean that you believe that democracy is something worth fighting for, and that a democratic Iraq is a good and noble goal which should be supported by all Americans?
Monkeyboy, I don’t know how many deaths are acceptable in a just war, other than many. In a bullshit war of choice, zero.
Ask me a hard one.
Jake
Jake,
You didn’t answer the question. Instead you lcaim that jeff dind’t mean what he clearly wrote. You say the insurgency is made up of Iraqis, you don’t say whetehr you feel the the insurgency is made up of the legitimate representatives of Iraq. Is that what you believe or not? I’m not trying to yank your teeth out. I’m just asking you to say what you truly think, not what you hops will sound the best.
Jake,
Now you say that this is a bullshit war. Does that mean that a democratic Iraq isn’t a good and noble goal that all Americans should support? And is the insurgency the true voice of Iraq or not? I want to know what you think.
I’m still waiting for an answer Jake.
Corvan, you’ve got it right now. I wish political destruction on men and women I perceive as lying hypocrites who are everything antithetical to my conception of what it means to be an American. If that is what you meant to say all along, then I agree with you.
Which changes nothing about what I hope for Iraq. I hope for the best.
And where did you get the bs idea we were in Iraq because of Islamic terrorists? Even Bush is backing away from that line of crap. Saddam was an evil man, but he was secular to the core.
Is democracy worth fighting for? That’s a simple answer – yes. So, ok, Corvan, if we are going to export democracy at the barrel of gun, to misquote a chinese communist demigod, where next? Which of our good buds are we going to take down? Musharef? The House of Faud? Where to, Corvan? How much of the world should we remake in our image? ALL of it? That would be hubris beyond all imagining. But if you can’t make that leap, then you got no cards and you better fold, ‘cause your hand sucks big time. We picked on Iraq NOT because it wasn’t democratic, but because we could and we wanted to. All the rest was made up after the fact.
Good and noble, my ass. We pick and choose who we hold high, and who we fell low, and democracy doesn’t have a goddamn thing to do with it.
Jake
Jake;
I thought that your point was that 2k casualties were the result of no planning, so I asked what plan you had in mind that would guarentee less casualties. Apparently the answer is “don’t go to war”.
Exporting democracy at gunpoint is an interesting idea. Are you saying that Iraqi’s don’t want democracy, and we are forcing it on them? I thought that kind of thinking went out of style among democrats in 1865.
TW dark – as in darkies shouldn’t vote.
Okay Jake,
I think you’ve made your anger plain. I just want to make sure I understand the rest of waht you say. Democracy is worth fighting for, except for anywhere outside of the United States. Is that your position? And since Saddam was a secualr monster he should not have been opposed. Is that your position? You also say that you hope for the best in Iraq yet you wish political destruction on the only man that was willing to remove Saddam and go about building a democracy there, and the only man that seems to be willing to defend that democracy as it finds it stride. Let’s assume you get your wish, if George Bush was removed as President should the next president defend and supposrt democracy in Iraq? Are Iraqis capable of Democracy, do they deserve it, like we do? And you’re still avoiding one question. is the insurgency the true voice of Iraq?
As to the true voice, I don’t know. The Iraqi’s themselves seem to be ambivalent on the subject. Officially, they maintain that those attacking American armed forces are not terrorists. To me that implies that when it is all over, may such a day come soon, they want to reintegrate the “resistance” into the Iraqi mainstream. Which kind of says, yes, it is PART of the true Iraqi voice.
But so are all the voices calling for peace, for an end to sectarian violence, for the rule of law. Does a country have but one true voice? Do you and I speak the same? Is your voice more true than mine?
Jake
Jake,
You still didn’t answer the question. I asked what you think, not what you think everyone else thinks. Now what you think might happen down the road. Do you think the insurgency is more legitimate than those who aren’t invovled in it? It’s a simple question that calls for you to say what you, personally believe. What do you believe, Jake?
Also, do you believe that Iraqis are capable of democracy. Do you believe that democracy should only be fought for inside the boundaries of the Unites States of America? What should a hypothetical president, not George Bush, do about Iraq right now? I’m not asking for talking points. I’m asking what you think.
Corvan, you put words in my mouth, and attribute to Bush feelings that he has never had, not in my estimation.
If we don’t belong in Saudia Arabia, we don’t belong in Iraq. It’s that simple, Corvan. You don’t get to quibble on this whole democracy issue. If you are gonna export it, then get busy and plan for the next take over. If you’re not, then admit democracy was never the issue, it has become a convenient cover.
In fact, if you think about it, it seems to me that Saudia Arabia is a far greater exporter of terrorism than all the other Islamic states put together. Think about the 9/11 hijackers. Mostly of Saudi birth. Where does/did most of the money for the madras hate schools come from? Saudia Arabia. I bet there is Saudi money going to fund Iraqi insurgents right now.
But the Saudis are our buds, Corvan. They are not a democracy, they are an extemely repressive monarchy. Why don’t we take them out? They have more oil, to boot.
If you’ve got a philosophy, Corvan, you’ve got to stick to it, otherwise it becomes a convenient fiction, honored more in the breaking than the observing.
Jake
Still, you haven’t answered the questions. Still you haven’t told me what you believe. Let’s take them one at a time, maybe that will help. Are the people who make up the insurgency more legitimate than those who don’t? Answer this one question wihtout evasion…yes or no. You can explain all you want why you feeel that way after you answer yes or no. Please give me an answer.
I told you what I think – I don’t know. I try to take the Iraqis own words as a starting point. If you are asking ME if I think the insurgency is legitimate, then I answer yes, I do. What does legitimate mean under these cirumstance? To me it means that are fighting for what they believe to be their country. Do I approve of bombing civilians, of bombing Iraqi army and police personnel, of bombing American soldiers doing the best they can? No. I am beyond angry that we have put our soldier, these men and women from every city and town and farm community in the US, in that position.
Just so you know, I would consider armed resistance to an invader of Oklahoma legitimate, even if the rest of the damn state thought it was perfectly ok.
Ok, I might move to CA first, but you get the idea.
San Diego sounds good. It’s gonna get cold here again.
<sigh>
Jake
Okay, if the insurgency is legitmate, then the rest of us should support its goals, right?
Jake,
Should we support the insurgency’s goals?
Jake?
Jake, it’s hard to have a dialog when I’m the only one talking.
Corvan, I hope we ARE supporting it’s goals, at least some of them, especially those bits about getting the hell out of Dodge (or Baghdad)someday, but even more, I hope the goals of the majority of Iraqis can be realized – a relatively secular nation, with a freely elected and responsive government, and equitable laws equitably applied.
That’s what I hope. That’s my version of the china shop rule.
We have two sources of disagreement – whether or not we should be there, and when we should leave. Other than that, we don’t hold such different positions.
Ok, you are kissin’ Bush’s ass, and I refuse to adopt that position, but otherwise, not so different.
Wars suck, Corvan. Being dead is permanent. I think you need better intel and better reasons before you start sending somebody else off to die for you.
Jake
Jake:
All wars are wars “of choice.” That’s a meaningless phrase.
And to quote John McCain, “The only lie is that Bush lied.”
1. Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq
a) Found no evidence of attempts to influence analysts to change intelligence.
b) Found that Joe Wilson’s report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, actually bolstered the case.
c) Found that contrary to Wilson’s assertions and even the government’s previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush’s January 2003 State of the Union address.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html
2. The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction (Robb-Silverman Commission)
a) Found that the Presidential Daily Briefing contained similar intelligence as the National Intelligence Estimate given to Congress but expressed it in more alarmist and less nuanced language.
b) Reported that the intelligence in the Presidential Daily Briefings was not markedly different than the intelligence given to Congress in the National Intelligence Estimate.
c) Found no evidence that intelligence analysts were pressured into issuing false aseessments.
http://www.wmd.gov/report/
3. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission)
Found no evidence that Bush manipulated intelligence.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/
4. Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction (Lord Butler Report)
Found no evidence that British intelligence–much of it used by the U. S.–was distorted.
http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/
5. Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of Dr. David Kelly (Lord Hutton Report)
Found that British Prime Minister Tony Blair did not manipulate intelligence, much of which was used by the U. S. This report forced two heads of the BBC to resign.
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/
6. David Kay, former head of Iraqi Survey Group
Testified to Senate Armed Services Committee that U.S. intelligence analysts were not pressured into giving false assessments of the threat posed by Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/
7. Charles Duelfer, former head of Iraqi Survey Group
Stated that U. S. intelligence analysts were not pressured into giving false assessments of the threat posed by Iraq.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/roberts050304.html
8. Australian Government’s Report of the Inquiry into Australian Intelligence Agencies
Found no evidence that the Office of National Assessments (ONA) was influenced by policy or political considerations to conclude–as did U. S, and British intelligence agencies–that Iraq had significant WMD stocks.
Link.
Thomas Foreman–You wouldn’t want a blowjob from me. I’ve never given one. Since this would be to thank you for your service, I think you should seek out someone who knows what he’s doing.
Hoo-ah!
That is just plain wrong. The “insurgents” are Sunni Bathists who were a minority in Iraq that maintained their power over other ethnic groups through an iron grip of intimidation, subjugation and torture. They are not now fighting for their “country”. They are fighting to retain as much of their top dog status as they can, and presumably from fear of what may happen to them once a more democratic and egalitarian society emerges in Iraq.
Again, bullshit. That’s a false analogy. Oklahoma is not Sadam’s Iraq. If there existed now in Oklahoma a situation where a minority held sway over the majority through brute force and intimidation, and you were a member of that minority, perhaps even one who had actively participated in torturing and brutalizing, and that society was then disrupted by invasion, and you then took up arms against the invader in a vain attempt to restore the old order, or failing that to at least save your own skin, THEN your analogy may begin to make sense.
Actually the insurgency’s goal is to restore Baathist power and put Saddam Hussein back on his throne. Which is, of course, diametrically opposed to the goals of the majority of Iraqis. Is placing Saddma back on his throne one of the goals you hope America is supporting?
With “competency” no doubt being determined by his having a (D) after his name. Because in real-world terms, he’s had a spectacularly successful foreign policy, despite it not being the one he wanted to pursue.
Only someone blinkered by ignorance or partisan fervor could come to a different conclusion; you’d either have to be judging events against a standard of perfection (not uncommon), or ignoring the positive because it is politically undesirable (too common).
Aided and abetted, of course, by foriegn infiltrators from SA, Syria, France, etc. who are piggybacking on the cause to fight the Great Satan.
Pointless, corvan.
Jake goes on as he started out: as a chauvinist bigot. His logic is perfectly circular, and therefore perfectly self-contained. George Bush cannot be approved of because he is a liar and makes mistakes. He is a liar and makes mistakes because he is George Bush. Round and round and round.
He also has no concept of a “deep game”. In fact, the attack on Saddam was an attack directly on the heart of the Saudi regime, but because it was an indirect one against the philosophy and the politics, instead of going in with guns blazing to occupy Makkah and Madina, Jake can’t understand it. Oh, he might agree that it’s possible, but would maintain that George Bush couldn’t think of that because he’s too stupid, and the fact that (by Jake’s assertion) Bush didn’t think of it proves that he’s stupid. Round and round and round.
And the real reason for the attack on Iraq zooms right by his head, because he’s a chauvinist. He doesn’t believe, deep in his heart, that there is such a thing as a different culture. They’re all the same, and all the same as his culture, and motivations (whether of heroism or villainy) have to be understood within the context of a left-liberal American urbanite’s knowledge and experience. So, since Bush is obligated (according to Jake) to behave according to the insulting stereotype of a right-wing Death Beast, it follows that any stated motivation of Bush’s (especially if it comports with Jake’s own motivations, or would if it weren’t Bush stating it) must of necessity be false. Bush doesn’t say what Jake expects him to say, so Jake puts words in Bush’s mouth that fit with Jake’s stereotype, and calls Bush a liar for saying that. Round and round and round.
And of course not “getting” Osama is a failure, right, Jake? Hunting Osama down and killing him is tribalist revenge right out of the Stone Age (or the back country of Arabia), fit only to generate retribution and hero-worship, whereas causing Osama to fail cuts directly to the quick of both the man himself and of the movement he directs. But that’s too subtle. Bush can’t have thought of it, because he’s George Bush, and George Bush (or, rather, the strawman Jake erects and puts a “George Bush” nametag on) isn’t subtle; he can’t be, because he’s stupid, and the proof that he’s stupid is that he isn’t subtle. Round and round and round and round.
I’ll give Jake this: he’s here, reading our posts and responding to (some of) them, rather than just vegging out to the group ommmmm at DU or Zuniga’s. But it does get tiring. From time to time a Jake shows up, delivers the Word from the High Places Howard Dean inhabits, tossing thunderbolts of Wisdom down to the huddled masses. We then patiently unravel the tangle, or start to, and of course anytime the Prescribed Worldview starts to be threatened the poster departs, never to be heard from again, and we get to start over again in a couple of days. It’s the good fight, and we have to do it, but God the hundredth repetition gets boring as Hell.
Regards,
Ric
Jake,
Answer me, please. Is restoring Saddam Hussein to power an insurgent goal America should support?
What concerns me is that Jake says the insurgency is legitimate, and that we should be supporting at least some of its goals. I’m trying to figure out which ones. Putting Saddam back in power, crushing the Shia or ending the nascent democracy? I’m trying not to put owrds in his mouth. I want to know what he believes.
Honest question: does everything in your life go according to plan?
I ask because it’s almost a cliche among people with even the least exposure to military history that “no plan survives contact with the enemy”. Because, you see, when you do something, they react, and their reaction may not be one of the ones you predicted in your plan—if so, then you can either follow your plan and die by the numbers, or improvise and win.
There’s an entire science built up around this idea.
Which surprised everyone, because literally everyone thought he had them. I remember anti-war people predicting tens of thousands of American casualties due to the gas and bio weapons Saddam would unleash.
Um, what the hell are you talking about?
The troops were welcomed as liberators. Ask the troops themselves. Ask them how the press reacted to those welcomes, too. No, not everywhere, but the majority of places.
There have been a hell of a lot of missions accomplished. Just because you’re ignorant of what the phrase means doesn’t mean it’s not true.
And what the hell does peace have to do with it? Did you expect peace just four years after 9/11? Or are you defining “peace” to mean “we don’t resist” or “nothing in the news that disturbs me”?
You want us to invade Pakistan? Because that’s where he’s hiding. Or is this, once more, the silly “Iraq was a distraction” canard? If so, then you might want to talk to the US (and NATO) servicement who have been in Afghanistan the entire time. If you think MORE troops were needed in Afghanistan, then you should look at a map of the region and ask yourself where the vehicles, ammunition, food, and other supplies for those troops would come from.
But enough about the peace movement.
(If you’re talking about the administration, then you’re again exposing yourself as either ignorant or blinded by partisanship.)
What are you talking about? I keep hearing this “they won’t admit mistakes”, but never hear just what the hell the mistakes are supposed to be, and which mistakes were never corrected.
And to make it clear—I’m not saying there haven’t been any mistakes . But I don’t see why the US should have weekly press conferences detailing our mistakes. In reality, making mistakes is an essential part of accomplishing something in an imperfect universe. Grown-ups realize that, accept that, and don’t go around with a perfection-or-perdition attitude.
Tom W, I will have to review the pdf’s carefully, because the excerpts I have read, particularly of the Senate report and the 9/11 commission do not support your version of what they say. As for the daily reports, what I have read places MUCH more emphasis on the intel difference between what the Pres got and what the house and senate got.
And, Doc, sure they are Sunni Baathists. Excepting in the south, where they are Moqtada’s Mahdi Army. And of course, there are Sunnis and Shia killing each other with great gusto. I still don’t get how the Sunni Baathits are illegitimate because that want what they had. Becuause so far, the Shia seem to be holding their own in the killing department. Getting even seems to be pretty high on their list. Either way, they want THEIR country back, even if much of the rest of the population does not.
And y’all need to get off the D thing. I voted R my whole life, not that I don’t regret some of those votes now, but I am become a yellow dog democrat, and I’ll stay that way until such time as “conservative” begins to mean something in the republican ranks.
As for Hillary, before someone brings her up, the fact she WON’T stand against the war ensures that I will work against her, but if she wins the primary, I might gag, but I’ll vote for her before I’ll vote for anyone the R’s are talking about right now.
That’s if any of them survive in politics to ‘08.
And the point about Oklahoma is still the point. Whatever side you are on, if it’s your home, some will be willing to fight. Denying that much is to miss much of the issue in Iraq.
Jake
Jake are you saying that fighting to return Saddam Hussein to power is a legitimate goal?
Because what they had was evil.
Robert,
That’s what is most disturbing about Jake. He seems to support a terrible evil in the name of “peace.” As if allowing Saddam and those like him to slaughter hundreds of thousands in an orderly fashion is much preferable to a war in which thousands die. If I’m wrong Jake please correct me. I’m not sure this fits in with his assertion that he “hopes for the best” in Iraq. I guess it depends upon what one thinks the best is.
A good analogy for the Ba’athists is the “insurgency” that grew out our civil war (after all that “mission accomplished” BS at Appomatox)
The KKK was also a group that was fighting “for what they beleived in”, which of course was that a minority had a natural right to debase and rule certain others.
Some left to join the democratic process as did some Aafricaners, and some didn’t.
tw- race Jeff how do you do it?
Jake,
If you don’t appreciate being lied to, you’re gonna hate Jeff’s latest propaganda post above. You oughtta check it out before you continue shooting those pursed lips of yours off all over the place.
And please tell me, do you believe that fighting to return Saddam Hussien to power is a legitimate goal?
Jake, you establish that you are willing to shill for Arab fascist dictatorships for this one sentence of yours:
“I still don’t get how the Sunni Baathits are illegitimate because that want what they had. “
Now that we know you’ll apologize for mass murderers to attack the Bush administration, we need know absolutely nothing more about you.
Because we know enough to know you are part of the enemy.
Monkeyboy that’s the point. Under Jake’s reasoning no evil anywhere can ever be opposed…not the Klan, not Bull Connor, not Jefferson Davis, not Joe Stalin, not any of them. Every strong man with a gun becomes a power unto himself. They, in effect, argue in support of everything they claim George Bush is. Again, Jake if I’m wrong correct me.
Jake:
All I did was cull the conclusions from the reports themselves. If you don’t think the reports support those conclusions, take it up with the commissions.
See, I don’t think you believe your own statements. When you say that the Sunni insurgents are fighting for their country, I think you know full well that in reality they’re fighting to put either a Ba’athist dictatorship back in power, or an Islamofascist theocracy. You don’t believe for a second that they’re patriots fighting to free Iraq from occupation. If they were, they wouldn’t be slaughtering civilians at marketplaces.
I think you take it as an article of faith that Bush lied, and asking you to reconsider is like asking a devout Muslim to deny that Mohammed is the last prophet. It’s a tenet of your religion, which is Bush Hatred.
I really want to jump into this one, but I just can’t see a good talking point to go after…Jake has made several factual errors, but in such an incidental manner that it would just be nitpicking on my part
However, if such incidental errors keep adding up, Jake may lose what precious little credibility he has in understanding this war.
But Jake, the PDBs were more inflammatory and put a greater emphasis on Saddam’s WMDs. What happens to your notion that Bush was lying then?
Liberals always tend to think with their hearts, and thus get drawn down blind alleys by their emotions. They swoon for the romantic revolutionaries like ‘Che’, they admire the ‘terrorist chic’ of the Bieder-Mienhoff gang and they are hypnotized by charismatic tyrants like Castro.
They have had an infantile crush on the ‘underdogs’ since at least the Spanish Civil War, and thus find themselves rooting for any murderous gang that challenges U.S. power.
They seem to forget that the archetypal romantic “Resistance Fighter”, the French anti-Nazi underground, are not widely admired because the fought the occupiers of their country, they are admired because the fought the Nazi occupiers of their country.
Resisting a foreign occupier is only admirable when the resistance is based around preserving liberty. There is nothing admirable about fighting to preserve a home-grown tyranny against a foreign power intent on giving your country liberty.
I love the smell of an idiot getting piled on.
Uh, yes. Not knowing for sure whether or not Saddam had WMD stockpiles on hand, when given every reason to believe he still did and no complete cooperation from Saddam even in the face of the last round of inspections… yes. That was a very good reason to invade.
Especially since, as we now know, Saddam was waiting until the sanctions were off and the world’s attention was elsewhere before starting up his WMD programs again.
How could you not get that? Did you forget or were you born in 2004?
Sortelli is exactly right. On of the conditions of the Cease Fire Agreement was that Saddam was responsible for making sure we Would Know if his WMD program was up an running. He did everything in his power to hinder us, up to and including shooting f’king missiles at our recon aircraft. That was an ACT OF WAR.
End of f’king excuses.
Well, you know, the Jews who are Zionists aren’t “real” Jews. I foget how the argument goes, but i did read that in some convoluted lefty position paper not too long ago.
Also, the left delegitimatized the Iraqis several years ago, when it held huge anti-Iraq-war rallies all over the globe, where no Iraqis spoke from the podium, at all, as far as I have been able to tell. The Iraqi opinion on invading Iraq to get rid of Saddam was not sought.
A message from an Iraqi, for Jake:
Dogpile! LOL!
I am still reading.
I am working on the nuclear centrifuge part of the Senate report. I keep seeing Winpac in everything. Anybody know who this Winpac is?
Jake
WINPAC
Or…
This is getting spooky. First I find out Ric Locke has been sneaking around Cambria County and now we hear that Tom Foreman went to school at Indiana University of PA, in nearby Indiana County (once voted to have the ugliest men in college, really). Here I sit in Johnstown not hearing a thing.
Did someone give out new secret Protein Wisdom decoder rings and forget to give me one? How the hell am I supposed to hear about the meetings?
Oh, and Jake, I enjoy a sideshow as much as the next guy. And I really admire your flexibility. But the human pretzel has been done enough already.
Untangle yourself and try something else.
Oh and Jake? Stay away from the White House with that pretzel posture. The Secret Service, y’know…
holeee crap…where to start with this Jake jokester?
So if we can’t make everything in the whole effin world right, we shouldn’t try to make anything right? Nice philosophy, tool. You must fit in nicely with the “screw em” crowd.
Jake? Jake?
TomB, the meetings are every alternate Thursday in Nanty Glo..I forget the chick’s name who lives in the apartment, but she’s quite the little dynamo, if you know what I mean…
And not to be anal, but it’s “thom” I have my reasons…
It’s his view of the insurgency as legitimate I want to explore. I wish he would expand on that… I mean, if you view the insurgency as legitimate you have to view Saddam as legitmate too. If they’re legitmate don’t you have to support them, at least a little? That’s what I’m trying to understand.
And I’ll have you know, TomB, that I quite enjoy IUP having the ugliest men in college…so a polished turd like me looks super by comparison…
Ok, so I read some of the Senate report on the NIE. Here is the important chunk, I think:
3: Overall Conclusions – Weapons of Mass Destruction
(U) Conclusion 1. Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence.
Further, the report was broken into two parts – the first an assessment of the intelligence, which is the report we have, and second a report on how much political pressure was applied to give such crappy results. That part we are still await. The chairman is a republican, you understand.
What’s worse, the declassified NIE released to the public and to the buld of the Senate and House had quite a bit of the qualifying language in the original removed, leading to statments that were “nuanced” in the original but sounded like statements of fact in the doctored version.
Not that the original NIE wasn’t doctored.
Jake
Jake, now you are just outright lying.
The second report is not a report on political pressure to doctor intelligence. That has already been addressed, the committee interviewed hundreds of analysts and none reported pressure to alter intelligence analysis.
The second report is on how the intelligence reports were used by the administration.
Jake,
If the insurgency is legitimate is the goal of placing Saddma Hussein on the throne once more liegitimate?
Sheer stupidity.
Jake, ambiguous or, at times, faulty intelligence is not the same thing as cooking the books. You suggest that either A) the administration put huge political pressure on the analysts to cook the books–an assertion that has been denied by, well…EVERYONE (except those of you who hold it as an article of faith) or B) the benchmark of effective intelligence collection and analysis is perfection. Boy, the Clinton Administration was so much better at this–like in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam.
Hypothetical: You neighbor has a history of violent activity and is under a court order to prove that he no longer possesses firearms. He provides no such proof and has his hands in his pockets all the time and shouts “Death to Jake!” at every opportunity. Can the police move in?
TW: “grow” in the imperative form including “up”
Jake if you answer Wisbones question could you answer mine too?