Greetings from Brazil! Why do I hate, rather than dislike, the Bush movement? Because Pres. Bush, Veep Dick Cheney, ex-SecDef Rumsfeld, senior U.S. government officials and military officers and… John Hindraker all suggested that Iraqi insurgents were trying to influence the midterm elections, when the deadliest sectarian attack in Baghdad since the American-led invasion just happened yesterday.
The idea that the sectarian violence in Iraq, which has been spiraling out of control since the beginning of the year, had anything to do with trying to make Democrats win the election was always as transparently false—stupid even—as it was repugnant. Sure, terrorists tried to foment sectarian violence in Iraq by bombing mosques as far back as August 2003. Sure, terrorists bombed a mosque in Baghdad right before the landmark elections in Iraq. Sure, there is evidence, including wiretap transcripts (probably from illllllllleeeeeeeegal wiretaps), supporting the theory that the Madrid train bombing was carefully timed to take place three days before a national election in hopes of influencing Spanish voters to reject a government that sent troops to Iraq. Sure, Osama bin Laden delivered a videotaped message launching a Michael Moore-esque attack on Bush right before the 2004 US presidential election. Sure, Hindraker linked to an article where leaders of Islamic Jihad expressed their hope that Democrats would make gains in the 2006 midterms. Sure, al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Hamza al-Muhajir said after the election that: “The American people have put their feet on the right path by…realizing their president’s betrayal in supporting Israel…So they voted for something reasonable in the last elections.” And yes, casualties of types declined in recent weeks prior to the latest spectacular attack.
But that’s not why I hate them. No, I hate them because all of them talked about what “insurgents” and “terrorists” might want to do, instead of lumping them in with sectarian militias and revenge killings, as I do. Because it’s only if you conflate the motives of every violent group in Iraq that you can blow a gasket over someone saying that terrorists may try to inflame pre-existing sectarian tensions to further their own agenda. I hate that Cheney said that “I can’t say that they make a specific decision for a particular act,” and that Bush said Tom Friedman “could be right,” because that sort of language makes it much more difficult to set up the straw man that they believe that ”All the increased violence in Iraq was just about the midterm election, not a sign of a spiraling civil war.” Examining the possible motives of different groups is a display of nuance on the part of the Bush movement. And I hate nuance. It’s the stock and trade of lawyers. And I hate lawyers.
But the worst offense of the Bush movement is that they “used a senior military official to make the disgusting claim that the violence in Iraq was related to a desire to help Democrats win the midterm election.” A senior military official could not possibly be basing that statement on the information he gets from the field. No, Cheney or someone clearly had his hand up that military official’s butt, working his mouth all the way from another country. And more than anything, I hate sock-puppetry.
Greenwald is one of those bloggers who appeals to those who without cause believe themselves wordly and educated—you know, the kind of people who like to pretend they know things, and who hide their core ignorance behind rote recitation of talking points prepared for them by an insider’s list of political operatives—but who in actuality are a collection of the easily led and intellectually superficial, prone to willful blindness and in a constant state of rhetorical gamesmanship.
That this sockpuppeting cutout has garnered so many supporters, despite the transparency of his maneuvers (which, let’s face it, they’ve been pointed out so many times that its become rather tedious) is a sign that his readers are either completly dull, rabidly fanatical, or else are so enthralled by the emperor’s bare ass that they refuse to tell him to go put some pants on.
Or at least have the courtesy to get himself properly bikini waxed.
Let’s see,
Yesterday, a two hour battle between Sunni insurgents and the Shiites who were guarding the Iraqi Ministry of Health raged right outside the “Green Zone” for two hours and there was no response from either the U.S. military or the Iraqi “army” who are supposed to be defending the Iraqi government…
I don’t think anyone in Iraq believes America or the Iraqi “government” has any influence left there…why would the waste time trying to “influence” us?
http://tinyurl.com/seg95
uh, did you get that link right? cause i’m not seeing length of time. also how do you go from “Iraqi security forces” to “Shiites who were guarding the Iraqi Ministry of Health”? just curious.
Good question. I look forward to seeing mb’s answer.
maggie k-
The Iraqi Sec. Forces stood by and watched is what was reported – unless you are disputing that, what does it matter what sect they hail from? Security forces indeed. Don’t lose the larger point in picking at the minor stuff.
Would you dispute that the Iraqi “police” are more than a front for Shia death squads? Could you in any way frame their performance as encouraging?
Jeff G – Can you do any better than attacking the source? Like actually refuting an assertion or two? Hold the bikini wax jokes – I am still fighting the visual on that one….
The Shiites guarding the Iraqi Ministry of Health were members of al-Sadr’s militia.
They were called in because American and Iraqi troops were too “busy” to defend a ministry of the Iraqi “governemnt.”
Next up, the fall of the Green Zone itself…
uh, actually, I’m finding conflicting reports. though it may just be a time of publishing/correcting issue.
it just seems to me that a lot is being inferred from these reports.
Monkyboy has popped himself a little boner! How cute. Don’t gloat just yet, you might be stuck with your dick in your hand.
Well, if things are going so well in Baghdad…
Why is Bush meeting the Iraqi PM in Jordan next week?
http://tinyurl.com/y7fxls
okay, could you please explain to me how one “stands by” and yet repels an attack? because I haven’t seen a report where the Ministry of Health was overrun.
How do you know this? because I would think Reuters would be consistent in identifying militias. *looks at picture at top of post* never mind.
Jeff’s comment is immediately followed by the monky.
I QUESTION THE TIMING!!!
BTW, Maggie, you don’t suppose none of those details are in the monkylink is because he got them from some tinfoil hat merchant and knew that wouldn’t fly here?
Note the monky still has offered no source for the claim that the Mahdi Army is guarding the Health Ministry. It might well be true, but monky claims require verification.
Having a link that does not support what one writes is so… Greenwaldian.
And john,
Here’s what the monky link says:
To recap: Iraqi security in forces were there and not only fought, but drove back the gunmen.
Additional forces from the Defense Ministry had not arrived “so far,” whenever that was. There are any number of possible, reasonable explanations for that, not least of which was that the security forces already there did their job. Another might be that military logistics for an attack coming from surrounding buildings might take more than a moment to assemble—not that the monky has demonstrated any expertise in the field of military logistics.
monky then tries to change the subject;
Maybe because he was already meeting with King Abdullah, as part of a more multi-lateral approach to the war, dimwit.
Why wouldn’t King Abdullah go to Baghdad, I wonder? Why not make that important symbolic gesture? Cowardice? These oily crown princes are a greasy joke.
What’s up with the obligatory bodies “displaying signs of torture”? What exactly are these signs, and for what purpose? We’re sure these signs are put there before death? If the sectarian killing did not leave victims with “signs of torture”, would the sectarian violence lose momentum? Lengthy torture seems like a lot of work to perform on seemingly randomly selected members of the other sect. It seems unlikely that the ubiquitous torture is a massively coordinated intelligence gathering scheme, and more time spent on the torturing leaves less time for the killing. Has anyone seen any reporting that explains this?
Karl,
You’re like the last guard defending the bridge while the rest of the neocons scamper across to “Blame the Iraqis” land.
Some might call you noble…
He can see the finish line! Don’t stop, monkyboy! Keep Pounding! You deserve this!
cynn:
You would have to ask him, though the visit has been in the works since before the latest big attack. Maybe because the King sees having the Prez come to Jordan as a sign of status. Heads of state often do, even when they or their people are not fond of the US.
monky:
A nice, substantive response from you. Really refuted everything I wrote. I am shamed.
Still no link for that bit about the Mahdi Army guarding the ministry, though.
At least no one will have to call you noble.
happyfeet: Good question; I pondered this myself. It seems almost a gratuitous reference in the media. What’s the significance? I have concluded that such “torture” of captives maybe leads to the identities of other likely targets. Or, it could be a pre- or post-mortem trope used to send a message. From what I understand, the politics there are nasty and beyond control, so who knows?
Cynn – it still seems worth examining, since doesn’t “the identities of other likely targets” mean like, other Sunnis or Shiites. If either became difficult to find and identify, well, it seems the other side could declare victory. My guess is that the torture is meant to inflame, but if that’s the case, I tend to suspect that people are confusing post-mortem disfigurement with torture. But without knowing what these mysterious signs are, it’s kind of hard to say.
Are things going well? Can’t say I ever recall you ever suggesting otherwise, monkyboi, and this news suggests they’ve gotten damn worse, the Democrat Plan finally on the table and all.
But does it really matter? See, if you were actuse—and some say you are—you’d just claim Bush has no responsibility for Iraq. Consider the Vintage Pelosi thread and the great migrant worker fraud therein. Surely Bush’s underlings are to blame. Hell, I blame the European ninnies, but that’s just me.
See, Bush means well (like Pelosi) and intends to win Iraq (about Pelosi, who knows?) Which I’m sure he would if the Left hadn’t worn its intolerant scorn for democracy-seeking brown people on its collective sleeve.
Anyway, by actard’s reasoning, shouldn’t this vindicate Bush, like Pelosi gets a pass by intending to legalize all those illegal workers currently in her likely employ? Surely you know Bush’s heart like acturd knows Pelosi’s?
With the election over, probably she’s hiring in droves, too, anticipating her own immigration reform and the inevitablity of raising wages three or four times over.
Of course, maybe Bushco is just doing paybacks now they’re over too, huh? Surprised you haven’t trotted that one out here yet. At any rate, you kids are in charge now, so have at that Planâ„¢. Quick.
The resemblance to this latest leftist rhetorical flameout should be fairly applied, wouldn’t you agree?
So back off, spunkyboy. Rules is rules. And we ain’t nuthin’ around here without consistency. Just concentrate on keeping your stuff straight…even when the Left loses a hand in the process.
we can connect all incidents in Iraq and Spain because of the mooslim hive mind.
Karl: Would you agree that buy-in and support for a free Iraq from other Middle East countries is essential now? If so, how does it happen?
actus, I totally don’t get you.
happyfeet: Oh, yah baby it’s ugly there (according to the MainStreamMedia, which is so suspect). It’s so inflamed that no amount of PrepH can chill it. Look for the next assassinated class to be the engineers who might stand a chance of fixing the infrastrucure.
Cynn – I’ve been wondering about that too – It seems likely that if Iraq were to fail, we’d see a Free Kurdistan, with lots of drama with respect to whether Europe and the UN would deign to recognize the new democracy in the neighborhood. There would be no “partitioning” of the rest – the Shiites would dominate, violence would continue. I think we could then look for a coup attempt that would empower parties that would render Iraq a defacto Iranian proxy. You would THEN I think, see buy-in and support for a free Iraq from other Middle East countries, countries who would assist the remaining Sunnis in continuing the violence, and empowering them to bring the campaign into Iran proper.
Cynn:
Welcome to the club. Here, I think he’s saying that it’s improper to point to instances of muslim terrorists trying to influence elections to suggest that other muslim terrorists might do the same. Because having seen it work in Spain, why would some other terror group try to imitate it?
It depends on which “other Middle East countries” you mean. Current events in Lebanon should give pause to the so-called realists who think that Iran and Syria are going to be helpful in Iraq—at least not at any price the US is willing to pay. Involving other countries, like Jordan, is important. One way to get the predominantly Sunni regimes in the region to be more helpful would be to suggest that if they don’t help, we will cut a deal with Iran and Syria—which they certainly don’t want. For that matter, Jordan apparently has been helpful since Zarqawi stupidly attacked that country.
As for the “signs of torture” issue, I think the point is that the sectarian violence is often carried out in this manner—taking a drill press to the skull, etc. I took the reference as suggesting that this is why certain killings are classified as sectarian violence, as opposed to “regular” criminal activity or the work of foreign fighters. I don’t know that such is a safe assumption at this point, but it’s what I think was meant.
6gun,
I consider Iraq to be a test of all the right’s social and military policies…even if they don’t these days…
The Democrats plan…pull out now…pretty simple, and a good chance for success.
Don’t forget, the Democrats don’t take over America until January.
Monky, so if Iraq fails, this will validate the Democrats’ plan for a totalitarian and terrorist-harboring Middle East? The isolationist fantasies of Democrats aside, it seems likely that in your scenario, the dominos will all start falling on the Democrats’ watch: Afghanistan, Pakistan, full-blown jihad in India, Islamic revolution in Egypt. Which will be ok cause the minimum wage will be like $7.50 by then and we’ll just about have that global warming thing licked…
happpyfeet, I am not an analyst for this region. I only pay the bills. I can’t imagine the Kurds getting their own nation, because we don’t have the guts to support that.
I see the whole region falling along sectarion lines as you describe (it’s like scissors, rock, paper), and we desperatly align ourselves with the oil powers. It boils down to that. And in a sick way, it almost justifies the role of our misbegotten troops. But I can’t say exactly how.
Hey cynn – I’m as clueless as the next guy about what’s happening in Iraq – the media, well, sometimes I wonder if they are telling the whole story. It seems almost as if they try to make things sound, well, worse than they might actually be. Who knows? I wasn’t prognosticating, I was intrigued by your question of what it would take to see “buy-in and support for a free Iraq from other Middle East countries.” The scenario I described is pretty much all I could come up with.
It’s interesting that nobody actually anwered the question in a sraightforward way. Pure talk-around. Oh, and try to sound less phony. Baiting people isn’t nice, although it’s legitimate, I suppose.
Oh bullshit. Had the “right” not been concerned with Democrat PC for five years, this conversation wouldn’t be occuring.
Define success, idiot. Success in losing what’ll undoubtedly amount to an entire region, and from that, likely that half of the planet in your lifetime?
Pretty Simpleâ„¢, huh?
Hehe.
Cynn – apologies – I didn’t mean to be baiting anyone – I sincerely think that it’s extremely unlikely that other Middle Eastern countries are going to seriously engage Iraq in a supportive way. Mostly because of domestic political concerns – they all have their autocracies to defend. However, in that these are in large part Sunni autocracies, I can see how they might find a strategic interest in using the Iraq conflict to the detriment of Iran. And I will try to sound less phony. I just started non-lurking this week and maybe I haven’t found my voice yet.
Cynn, I thought I directly answered your questions. I think it’s important to get the Sunni countries involved, and the most likely way to do so is to point out that the US alternative is dealing with (and thus bolstering) Iran and Syria.
And given the accusatory tone of your last comment, I’ll note your questions had nothing to do with the original post. Should I assume you’re a troll and a phony because you didn’t directly address the topic? I didn’t, but maybe I was wrong.
If he allowed some guest bloggers out of his fans, they’d probably imitate his stylized posts.
Well, if things are going so well in Baghdad…
Why is Bush meeting the Iraqi PM in Jordan next week?
Next week the faith of the Bush Cult, i.e., those with “Protein Wisdom” will be truly tested when Maliki doesn’t show because Sadr has told him not to.
Will you continute to prostrate? Undoubtedly.
But the rest of us, the sane ones, will simply sit back and watch as the Iraqi PM realizes that Sadr has more say in what happens in Iraq than Bush ever will.
As an American, I care about American power. And Bush, and his enablers, have done more to diminish the power of the US than any other elected public official in the history of the Republic.
Why do I hate Bush?
Because next week, when maliki fails to show, Bush will blame the Democrats.
I hate Bush because he is not a real man. He will be snubbed, and, like the coward he is, he will blame his political opponents.
Bush will tell us the Maliki did not travel to Jordan because Dems won the House and Senate. And worse, the denziens of this blog will believe it.
Okay, who left the door unlocked?
– al Sad’r is overplaying his hand, just as we always susspected he would. I’ll reserve judgement until I see how Bush/Maliki handles the situation. So far al Sad’r has survived simply because he supports Maliki, actually is propping him up in the Iraq parliament. At some point, that won’t be enough, and with the public warning he nay have already crossed the line. If Bush has any balls, he’ll suspend the constitution, dump Maliki, take out al Sad’r, and install a puppet gov of moderates, until the militia’s can be brought under control. If anyone gives in to al Sad’r, then basically you can kiss Iraq goodbye. Except for the Kurds, we have nothing left we can do there.
What will our <a href=”http://boortz.com/images/020205_purple_fingers.jpg>purple fingered congressmen</a> say? Are they still in congress?
mkultra, you sound so very bitter. Did you have some zip-skippy use in mind for “American power” that has been somehow thwarted? Looking around the world, our relations with Australia, Japan, India, Indonesia, China have never been better. We have working relationships with Libya and Pakistan that were previously unimaginable. We are conducting military exercises with Vietnam. We are more engaged in Africa than at any time in our history. We have a free trade deal with Central America, were instrumental in restoring democracy to Liberia, are the leading power looking to resolve the situation in Darfur, and have implemented a completely re-engineered approach to foreign aid.
You explain how walking away from international trade, disallowing foreign investment, augmenting autocratic oil states by refusing to develop domestic resources, sending a “non-confrontational” ambassador to the UN, having tea with Syria and Iran, abetting repression in North Korea, embracing neo-Marxism in South America, exposing our intelligence-gathering methods, liberating Guantanamo, and unilaterally imposing limits on carbon dioxide emissions while China and India freely exploit the competitive advantages they have attained are measures designed to augment American power.
Did that sound phony?
actus – at this point why sould anyone give a fuck. whatever bush is doing, he should be doing something else. Where ever bush is at, he should be somewhere else. The SecProgg mantra. If I were he I’d just ignore the idiotarian yammering, and do what needs to be done. He’s already passed on several opportunities to take action. None of the options were ever all that good. Back Maliki, and you have the Iranian problem. Back the Sunni’s, and you’re basically back to square one. the only thing worth protecting at this point are the Kurds. It happens they have a larger militia and presense now than any of the other factions. Give the Kurds their own province, and let the Shia’, and sunni’s slug it out. Attack the fight between them, only if Iran tries to get directly involved.
– Lets us keep our basing there in the country, but essentially removes us from the civil war thats enevitable.
– In the ME, you’re either in power, trying to get in power, or dog meat. It’s their way of life. You want to take out al Sad’r before you do the pullout to the Kurd position in order to limit Irans influence.
how defeatist
how defeatist
– Actually its the only practical way to attain a satisfactory situation there for our interests, and you should be all for it because its the closet thing you could latch onto as a pragmatic way to declare a Democratic “plan”, which they never had. You’re overlooking an opportunity. It’s one thing, not to have a plan. Quite another, to mis the chance when one finally falls in your lap, or are you second guessing yourself now?
I’m really quite supportive of your redeployment ideas.
Yes actus, that does sound defeatist, and frankly a bit genocidal as well – the Sunnis would be slaughtered; the characterization of the situation as a “civil war” would be extremely short-lived. Both of you might think about taking a step back and reflect that in all likelihood, for the next two years, America will keep its promise to the Iraqi people. It may come to pass that in January of 2009 that promise will be broken, and you can both nod approvingly.
As flowers bloom each spring they rot in the fall. Calm down, what is happening is going to happen. There isn’t a “purpose” in it as much as there is an action of it.
This is what is happening. The fall is necesary for the spring. It didn’t have to be this way, but it IS this way, isn’t it?
– Lets hope BushCo feels the same way. I emailed Condi, not that I’m arrogant enough to think someone hasn’t thought this all out already, and a hundred other senario’s as well. But did it anyway.
– roc – You cannot force people to be civil toward each other, particularly when warring, and power by gunshot is their basic way of life. We have two options. Attack all the insurgent/militia strongholds, basically taking out a good portion of Ramadi, Baghdad, Faludjha, and any other militia/al Qaeda’/Hadjideen strong holds. That can’t be done without a hell of a lot of “collateral” damage. Much more than we’ve seen up til now. So either we end up doing what it takes, or we let them sort it out. Which would you rather we do?
– Defeatism is not the opposite of Pragmatism, and we’re still there if Iran tries to tip the balance.
Well, I’m not sure I’d call “filled with fallacies of argument so glaring that anyone with even basic rhetorical training could spot them, exploit them, and then turn them back upon their author in a way that would leave him licking his wounds” stylized, exactly, but then, I’m not you, actus.
Which, incidentally, I thanked the Pilgrims for yesterday.
That, and those bitchin’ hats.
Hehe, BBh,
…when warring, and power by gunshot is their basic way of life.
We’re the ones who invaded two countries.
Let’s hope Iran can clean up the neocons messes…
Oh yes monkeyshit. I’m just absolutely sure the Middle East has been the very model of stability for 1500 years, until the arrival of the evil NeoCons. You are so fucking whacked out on your own anti-West disembling bullshit, you’re not even an interesting “objet de dérision” anymore. Get some new writers, or something.
were we really supposed to be thanking the pilgrims? I’ve been doing this thanksgiving thing all wrong.
“anti-West?”
I don’t think the neocons can claim they represent any portion of the Western world, BBh.
They had their shot, were proved to be completely wrong about everything, and got the boot.
The West will now attempt to clean up the mess…and make a note to never let those clowns control anything…
This I’ll largely agree with, but I think you have to infer from it that the power struggles and violence we are working against in Iraq are not fundamentally dissimilar from what would have ultimately transpired. Ahmedinejad came to power in 2005, and I really don’t see how he would have looked at a Sunni minority ruling over a Shiite majority next door as anything but an opportunity to destabilize Iraq, threatening European interests at a time when Europe was in a position to forestall the emergence of a unified response to its pursuit of nuclear weaponry. What other lesson can we draw from the war in Lebanon? The carnage we see in Iraq is indeed the carnage we were hoping to prevent, but having failed to prevent it, we are still in a far far better strategic position than President Gore could have ever hoped to face.
– Yes happy. thats the side of the equation monkeydizz. and his ankle biting gaggle, carefully ever fail to mention. Where things might stand with Saddam still in power, and Iran under that nutcase Ahmedinejad pursuing aggrssion even faster, using Saddams threats as more incintive to scare his people into going along with any crazed plan. Contrary to what monkey and his pals try so hard to portray, the “NeoCons”, as he likes to paint everyone with, didn’t “fail” anything. In point of fact, if we manage some sort of stability in iraq, it will be a monumental achievement, because it will be a first in history on several levels. Trying to wrangle in a stable conclusion between three secular, warring factions, is unbelievably complex, and probably only even possible because at least we’re getting cooperation from the Kurds. That gets it down to two warring factions, much more managable, but still vastly difficult. In the mean time we’re there, with possible moves that we would not have had.
monkey, and his cohorts hate those nukes on station, and our presense even more, because it effectively stalemates all their utopian Socialist plans. Fuck them, and the Marx they rode in on.
You guys are the big government spenders with a penchant for wars of “liberation,” BBh.
Marx plays for your team, not mine.
I was wondering when we’d get to the imaginary Gore presidency comparisons.
Comparing the neocons record to actual reality is too painful now, I guess.
*Yawn*
It’s dismaying how invested the Democrats have become in preventing this from happening. The Iraqi people defied Al Qaeda and voted in their millions – America has already achieved a victory in the region that will indemnify the legacy of George Bush for generations. Future Democrats will invoke Lieberman, and future Republicans will have the grace to let that pass.
What victory was that, happy?
Maybe the MSM forgot to cover it?
*Gaze*
You know what? I have ringworm on the top of my left foot, towards the instep, halfway between my big toe and my angle. It’s about an inch in diameter.
I blame George Bush.
Ankle, not angle.
happy – It all comes down to one simple fact. Way back just after 9/11, the dems, particularly the Marxist wing of hard left SecProgg anti-american haters, came to the horrifying conclusion that a victory, and smooth transition in Iraq would put paid to a Republican “stasis”, more or less, most pointedly the historic truism that the electorate never jump ship in the middle of a war.
Especially a successful war. Ergo. Dem plan from that day on; any way to undermine, obstruct, badmouth, demonize, at any and every opportunity, or face 14 more years of Rep power and President.
Problem is they’ve only managed to shift the stalemate in Congress. Nothing has really changed, and now they’re caught because too much of a substitive defeat in Iraq gets hung on their watch, and they end up losing for different reasons. In that way, the whole political situation mimics FDR’s years.
For the Dems, that prospect was worse than whatever fallout would occur over an Iraqi bloodbath. The Left really cares about the Iraqi’s, and any other “identity” group that’s a handy foil. But the carrying is political, not humane. If a lot of Iraqi’a have to die to derail the Rep express, well omletes and eggs you know. Always a great deal of room under the “Big Tent”, along with idiotarian cross-purposes, and Draconian chaos.
The Reps are awash in a lot of years of stupifying power. The Dems are like a never ending video loop of a clown car circus act. They got in with no plan, only to find there’s not even a plan for a plan. That’s why you’re hearing calls for hands across the aisle, bi-partisan cooperation, ect ect, and “cut and run” has sort of quietly exited stage left.
Monkyboy – the MSM, the Democrats, Saudi Arabia, France, the UN, and most of the cast of The View are all firmly on record in support of a Middle East status quo that is crumbling further every day. What has changed is that democratic values are tangible in that region in a way that they have never been before. Give Iraq a new tyrant, and watch the insurgents that the Democrats have so much vested in become the freedom fighters of Michael Moore’s fantasies. There’s your victory.
monkybutt sez:
It’s a test of the Iraqis, you babbling moron.
Just what do you think of them?
Come on…is it a secret?
What is this mysterious victory Bush had that will cause future Americans to chisel off, say, George Washington’s visage from Mt. Rushmore and replace it with W’s?
BBh,
Are you saying people shouldn’t point out the 150,000+ Iraqis who have died while under the protection of the U.S. military?
– If the original Dem cut and run plan comes to fruition in some manner, monky-twit, something they now seem to be trying mightily to avoid suddenly for, my gosh we’ll never know reasons, we’ll do a recap of Iraqi deaths after that phase and run a comparison. You might actually end up hating your own side more than the NeoCons when the dust settles.
– We’ll also be able to run itemized “reasons of death” in that event, so you won’t be able to lump them all under US forces as the cause. Aside from all those deaths, which I understand would just be a nettlesome inconvienience to your political aims, all that comparing would be very embarrassing for your side I’m sure. I expect an all out civil war will be good for a few more million, but you’ll always be able to blame Bush for the cut and run.
– Then we can just retreat back here, wait a few more years for the Wahhabists to regroup, and for the next attack on our shores. Hell of a great “plan”.
BBH – I largely agree, and I can’t help but wonder if the mission of the Baker Commission is to lay the breadcrumbs for the Democrats to follow out of the cul-de-sac they’ve wandered into. What is certain is that terrorism will continue to threaten the U.S. and the West irrespective of Iraq’s fate, and the Democrats haven’t begun to get a handle on what their approach will be when blaming George Bush begins to ring extremely hollow.
Going back to what I said earlier monkeybreath, defeatism is not the opposite of pragmatism.
You’ve been listening to your own anti-NeoCon rhetoric for soon long, you’re about to possibly make the classical mistake of “anything has to be better than this”. I wonder how many pols have said that down through history, just before they stepped off the cliff.
Well, BBh:
The Democrats don’t take over until January, so we don’t really know what they will decide on yet.
I appreciate the reason the neocons are trying to spread the meme that the Democrats will choose to “Stay the Course” though.
We don’t really know what will happen after we withdraw from Iraq, do we?
My guess is that far fewer Iraqis will die than if we stay.
The Democrats don’t take over until January, so we don’t really know what they will decide on yet.
The Dems can’t “decide” anything without a fair amount of cooperation from the Reps and the Pres. the one thing they could do, cut off appropriations, would be the kiss of death for ‘08. Ask Pelosi, not exactly a political mental giant, if she wants to step in front of the camera’s and explain why her party is jerking support out from under the military. that could happen. Sure it will. You’re not to clear on the concept of how government/Congress works unless you have a 60 seat majority, are you. the dems are in a lose/weak possible win spot, and they know it. they started right in abandoning the anti-war talk, so yes we do know what they intend to do, and cut and run is off the table.
Some friendly advice Monkyboy: You guys won’t get credit for the people who don’t die when beat a retreat, just for the ones that do.
Can you imagine any politician facing the voters in ‘08 if we’re still in Iraq?
It’s true that if the Republicans are willing to go all out, they could keep our troops in Iraq for another 2 years (provided the Iraqis don’t boot them out).
But, I don’t think that would be a winning strategy for them.
Why? Do you honestly think they’re killing each other because they don’t like us?
Monkyboy – Kofi Annan said we should stay. Glad that’s settled.
My guess is that far fewer Iraqis will die than if we stay.
– Then I suppose you think if we based in the Kurdish province, our nere presense would modulate the intensity of civilian deaths in the Shia’/Sunni “re-ordering”. what it seems is, that once a SecProgg memorizes a talking point its seared. seared into his memory.
– Hehe
Whether you guys want to admit it or not, we’re the ones who brought the violence to Iraq.
It’s a fair bet it would leave with us…
monkybutt, you really need to wipe that one up. Iraqi history did not begin in March 2003.
You didn’t answer my question. Do you honestly think they’re killing each other because they don’t like us?
Muslims killing Muslims. Do you really think we created that, monkybutt?
It’s a fair bet it would leave with us…
– What’s a fair bet, is if we cut and run monkeybag, it will follow us right back here. You won’t find what you seek through cowardice. Sear that into your memory.
How do you define cowardice, BBh?
Do somehow consider yourself brave if you advocate that America should continue to operate Iraq as a charnel house on the off chance it may prevent an imaginary attack on America sometime in the future?
I’d say there’s a better chance the violence we started in Iraq will “follow us right back here” if we continue to occupy Iraq…
So you’re saying that if Americans are killed by a terrorist attack on US soil while US troops remain in Iraq, that this will vindicate a decision to leave Iraq? Dems were emphatic that Iraq had no connection to terrorism, and so it was wrong to occupy Iraq. Now you’re saying that if Iraq has a connection to terrorism, it is wrong to occupy Iraq. How do you define cowardice?
No, I’m saying…
We pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia after 9/11, just like Osama asked us to.
I imagine if we continue to occupy Iraq against the wishes of a majority of Iraqis, they’re gonna get tired of politely asking The Decider to pull his troops out and follow al Qeada’s route instead.
It’s not like the Republicans have taken any steps that would actually prevent a terrorist attack on America since 9/11…
And we voted for Democrats in November, just like Islamic Jihad asked us to. Do you even read the anchor post before you chime in? Now you’ve ruined it. It was meant to be satirical.
Funny stuff indeed.
Here’s some more comedy:
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1746712006
How long before these guys figure out we have a border that thousands of people freely stroll across every single day?
Well now that you’ve gone and blabbed it all over the Internet, I guess we’re well and truly screwed. G’nite, Monkyboy, I feel like we’ve made a lot of progress.
Karl –
from AP: “BAGHDAD, Iraq – Revenge-seeking militiamen seized six Sunnis as they left Friday prayers and burned them alive with kerosene in a savage new twist to the brutality shaking the Iraqi capital a day after suspected Sunni insurgents killed 215 people in Baghdad’s main Shiite district.
Iraqi soldiers at a nearby army post failed to intervene in Friday’s assault by suspected members of the Shiite Mahdi Army militia or subsequent attacks that killed at least 19 other Sunnis, including women and children, in the same neighborhood, the volatile Hurriyah district in northwest Baghdad, said police Capt. Jamil Hussein.”
what else ya got, Karly-anna?
You mean, there was no violence in Iraq before we got there?
The gassing of the Kurds and the mass slaughter of women and children was done non-violently?
Saddam had his enemies thrown alive into industrial shredders—non-violently?
Saddam tortured and brutalized the Shia at will—non-violently?
Saddam’s sons kidnapped young girls off the streets and brought them to rape rooms for gang rapes by squads of Saddam’s goons—non-violently?
The Iran v. Iraq war—which lasted 8 years and cost 1 million casualties—was a non-violent event?
Iraq’s invasion and rape of Kuwait was a non-violent event?
Saddam’s payment of $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers was an expression of support for non-violent acts?
Saddam set every oil well in Kuwait on fire – non-violently?
If you wish to make an argument that there was less violence under Saddam than there is now, proceed to do so. Proceed to show us how the death totals now are worse—if you can do so.
But do not try to assert that “we brought the violence to Iraq”—at least not to anyone who is conscious.
So we’ve just been lucky for the last 5 years, even though being in Iraq is supposed make them want to come kill us?
Not according to the NYTimes and the LATimes who have done their partisan part in exposing/destroying the programs which demonstratively foiled terrorist plans and financing.
And we pulled all the troops out of Somalia, and Beirut, and all the rest, just like they asked us to, and all of those attacks STILL kept coming.
They think they already own the entire world – their religion tells them so. If all it takes to get us to kowtow to them is to blow up some civilians, what makes you think they would willingly give up a winning strategy?
Just how nicely will we have to ask them to stop killing civilians? What possible carrot can we offer to replace the fulfillment of their religious duties to convert or kill every living person?
(BTW, you dodge a lot of “inconvenient truths”. But I’d love an answer to this one: Given a choice between conversion to Islam, dhimmi-tude or death, which would you choose?)
Did that sound phony?
If it’s true it ain’t phoney. You could,though, add more sarcasm ‘cause it makes you sound more worldly and sophisticated.
Should the US unilaterally pull it’s troops out of Iraq in the next year there’s money that says there will be a significant terror attack or attempt on the CONUS within a year after that.
Hey john —
Provide links. It’s not that we don’t trust that you’ve extracted the nut of the story perfectly and without bias or acontextualization, it’s just that…well, you know how we Reaganesque trust but verify folks are.
Beyond that, we’d of course like to know how “nearby” was the army post, whether or not the army knew of the killings before they occurred (it seems to me that grabbing somebody out of prayers, dousing them with kerosene, and lighting a match can all happen in a matter of moments, and that—unless you actually have somebody guarding the mosque, they wouldn’t even find out about the horrific killings until long after the deeds were done, making any failure to intervene a rather dubious description.
Of course, I don’t have enough info either way to make any determination, but under the scenario I hypothetically posit, “failure to intervene” equates with “failure to be everywhere at once and to see into the future.”
And please, knock it off with the Karly-anna stuff. Else somebody without the proper social graces begins referring to you as, say, johnny-jihad.
Totally, don’t be a meany-meany name caller. We’re trying to seriously debate what to do with Iraq here. Its very important we know how nearby that barracks was.
– Which part of “matter of moments” didn’t you understand actus?
Of course, actard is also invited to express which choice he would make, too, as are any others who think the war against Islamofascism is a misguided effort.
A) Accept Islam
B) Become accustomed to dhimmi-tude
C) Choose to stand up for what you believe in
In the immortal words of the Trio from Toronto, “if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice”.
TW: Of course, you could continue to ignore these “inconvenient truths”, but you had34 you chance to be taken seriously
Surely acturd believes “moments” could be years, BBh, much as Genesis contains eons writ as days. “Matter of years” is as valid as “matter of moments” when you mean to be misunderstood.
Besides, in the Counselor’s world, it ain’t nugatory unless the court says it’s nugatory.
At any rate, in this way actard daily delivers the most spectacular of all defenses of leftism. Well, actyrd and spunkyboi. The pair of them keep me coming back, my political conversion to their idiocy and deceit somehow made imminent by their own pathological lack of shame. Yawn.
Not to be a meany-meany name caller, but naturally there appears to be some question as to the veracity of the story that actus and friends would very much like to be true. Because if it’s true, they can rend their garments and pretend they care for the wellbeing of anyone other than their own failed ideologies, which from what I can see tend to mutate depending upon what their political opponents are up to.
I mean, anybody here think either actus or monkyboy were GHW Bush supporters? Or that they were fans of Kissingerian realism?
Yeah, I thought not.
Anyway, Curt from flopping aces has more here.
john didn’t provide links. Wonder if that was intentional…
Anyway, here’s a bit from a follow-up AP report:
Yes, but how can we believe the dullard killbots of the neocon empire?
Well, that’s a choice you’ll have to make for yourselves, but should you wish to, you might factor in the following information dug up by Curt:
Well, Curt. He could, perhaps, be both. After all, allowing one’s ideology to color one’s behavior toward one’s own country seems to be one of those universals that crosses the bounds of Otherness with little or no need for cross-cultural translation.
john,
Nice to have you back after a prolonged absence. In addition to the factors mentioned by Jeff, you are aware that there’s friction between the police and the army, aren’t you? You don’t think there could be some politics behind the charged leveled by a single source, do you? See, that’s why knowing which sect the players belongs to matters, contra your very first “contribution” to the thread.
Jeff was nice enough to mention the Karly-anna thing, but I had a nice chuckle over it, wondering what the basis for it is. I don’t think I’ve written anything particularly Pollyannish in this thread, unless you consider noting that monky’s own link reported that the gunmen were defeated as such.
I see actus is back, too. One the post made memeorandum, I’m not shocked that GiGi’s fanclub made its appearance. I like that after responding to specific incidents raised by the monky and john, actus criticizes people for doing so, because “We’re trying to seriously debate what to do with Iraq here.”
Really? monky wrote:
and
Which strikes me as decidedly unserious.
And actus has not written a single serious thing about what to do in Iraq in this thread so far, which is just actus being his usual dishonest self.
And who made actus the arbiter of the topic? No one.
Of course, actus and his fellow trolls can’t defend what GiGi wrote, which was the topic of the posting. So they want to talk something else—anything else. And while the PW regulars are up for it, let’s not forget that the trolls are trolling precisely because they have no real response to the actual post.
To recap: GiGi has now admitted he’s a hater. And it’s not because of the legal points he thinks he’s made. His hatred is based on an obvious straw man. And he posits—without evidence—that the military officers in iraq are being given talking points by the WH, rather than the military officers basing their opinion on conditions on the ground, with the WH echoing the military assessment. He is hating over a form of imagined sock-puppetry, which is deliciously ironic.
And while Jeff’s first comment correctly noted how tedious exposing GiGi can be, all of those factors made the post worth it, if for no other reason than it brings out his little fanboys, with sunlight being a good disinfectant. They are now also exposed—as unable to address the topic of the post, and with noting serious to write about the ostensible subject they claim they want to discuss.
And all the while, Karl, feigning hatred of imperialist fascist dictatorships, whilst hoping for the victory of proven imperialist fascist dictators over the Great Republic. They are so fanatically tied to their anti-Americanism that they would drink poison if it would further their beliefs.
It really is all about them. They have a need to be proven right, even if it means the victory of those who have pledged to destroy them, root and branch.