Is the Iraqi government really set to crack down on al-Sadr and the religious militias? It may be too soon to tell, but there are at least some indications that the Maliki government has finally reached that critical decision point—and my best guess is, this is not a ruse to cover Shia loyalties, but rather a pragmatic decision, the result (ironically) of the unpopularity of the war here in the US, both by its supporters (who wish to see the insurgency throttled) and by anti-war types who would just like to bring the troops home, shore up the ports, and hopefully kick the can down the road for a bit, content to luxuriate over their very own private Vietnam.
Which is to say, Maliki must sense that he can only rely on US troops for just so long, and so, with Allawi waiting in the wings should the US believe Maliki to be shielding Sadr and the Shia militias, he has finally decided where, exactly, to place his bets—though it is likely he’ll still be careful to distance himself from the crackdown to hedge those bets and protect himself against reprisals.
Maliki is in a tough position, as many Iraqis still look to the Shia militias for protection against Sunni insurgents. And of course, it doesn’t help when the Western press is doing its damndest to try to paint you as a bitter stooge who is actively working against the US. In truth, Maliki has had to navigate a tricky situation, and now that he knows US support could end abruptly, I suspect he’ll have a hand in reining in the militias, even if he does so surreptitiously.
I could be completely off base here—I’ve been a bit out of the loop of late—so I appreciate your thoughts. I’ll check back later, after I finish purging my innards of everything not tied down with some kind of sturdy tissue.
(h/t CJ Burch)
Ah, yes, it smells like democracy – Banana republic style (no, not the store).
I think Maliki also draws cover from the generally recognized fact that Sadr receives arms from Iran. Iran does have influence within Maliki’s Dawa party as well, and I wonder but that any Maliki-ordered crackdown on the Mahdi Army will not take the form of a purge of the more independent (violent) radicals and a promotion of more politically pliable leaders who will be more adept at extending Iran’s influence into Parliament and the ministries.
This strategy would seem to dictate that Sadr himself will not come to any harm.
Whatever the dynamics, it might be good fun to float the idea that Iran is calling the shots with respect to Maliki’s crackdown on the Sadrists. Good fun for everybody but Iran and Muqtada anyway.
Whatever the dynamics, it might be good fun to float the idea that Iran is calling the shots with respect to Maliki’s crackdown on the Sadrists. Good fun for everybody but Iran and Muqtada anyway.
Happyfeet,
Why would that be “good fun” for you or me or the U.S. troops?
Steve – Just playing with the idea that Muqtada’s fate is more likely to be determined by a disaffected Mahdi Army kid than by Maliki or US forces. I think the suggestion that Muqtada’s allies in Tehran are directing a cull of the Mahdi Army could sow a certain amount of discontent in the ranks, and I have heard tell that rumor and conspiracy can be very persuasive in Iraq. I think it would be a giggle if Muqtada were handed a live grenade by one of his own virgin-seekers. You don’t have to giggle if you don’t want to.
Following Jeff’s statement that he’s off to purge his guts by saying: “smells like democracy” certainly points to a fundamental differences between the two of us “Steve’s”…..
According to the kids at Iraq The Model, Mookies boys are already shedding their black outfits, hiding their guns, and melting back into the populace. Some are leaving Baghdad for Diyala. Mookies block is looking to return to their place in parliament. “Commanders of the Mehdi army in Baghdad received strict orders not to fire a single bullet during the American military campaign in Baghdad.” Iran has been giving arms and cash to the Sunnis, as well as their Shiia brothers. As long as Iran can keep the sectarian violence going, the MSM will keep condemning US military participation and the Dhimmicraps can keep demanding a pullout, as “We are losing”. I figure that Maliki realizes that his time is limited. After he pulled the shit of calling the US checkpoints off of Sadr City and forbade the US military from going in there, there has been a policy change – “let us take care of it, you take care of it, or we’re going home”. I hope so. I also hope that someone pops a cap in Mookies ass, just for GP. His boys have killed so many Iraqi citizens, just for the “crime” of being Sunni, he’s got it coming.
I’m just sayin’.
TW:now22 – I wish. It’d be better than now58…
Happyfeet,
Such things don’t make me giggle any more than poking a hornet’s nest with a short stick.
They’re gone! They’re gone! Thank F’in God, they’re gone!
Welcome back, Lord Goldstein. It’s been way more Protein than Wisdom since you left.
Sadr is a marked man. He’s probably under tighter security than that Hezbollah tool Nasrallah was last Summer. That may not do him much good if the gloves really do come off.
SteveG,
I’m sorry if you are ever mistaken for me as I’m sure that is unpleasant for you. I was also born with the name Steve, though, so I must stick with it. By the way, have you noticed that no one these days is naming their child Steve or Stephen (or Steven)? There was always another Steve in class when I was growing up. I think the name is on its way out.
We may miss him when he’s gone, steel.
How much would Israel give to have the hapless PLO back in Lebanon instead of Hezbollah?
Despite the “MSM” attempt to portray al-Sadr as a radical…he’s probably our (and Iraq’s) best hope for anything resembling a victory coming out of all this.
Jeff, why is everybody so certain that Maliki is desperate for US help? If the US pulls out, Maliki is then backed by the strongest remaining military force in the country, the Sadrist militias, and probably supported by the majority of Shia opinion, and the Shia are seventy percent of the country.
Of course there would be an ethnic cleansing bloodbath, as the Shia finally took revenge for the decades of Sunni-Saddam oppression, but it isn’t automatically clear to me why this would be disastrous for Maliki. If anything, it would seem to me to consolidate his power.
No, I don’t take seriously Saudi threats to project power into Iraq. Frankly, they don’t have the ability to do anything effective, especially given that Iraq could probably summon help from Iran if needed.
We need to be there for our purposes, but I see no clear-cut logic to the notion that we need to be there for Maliki’s purposes.
oh gee, who have I heard this one from before? next you’ll be telling us about the fence of sooper strong netting held up by balloons that could protect Israel from rocket attacks.
al-Sadr is a thug.
Just as before, way too much information in your reasons for not being around Jeffy.
I’ve read on a number of littler winger sites that the idea of the U.S. redeploying would be the force necessary to get the Iraqis to defend themselves and pull their country together. Are you joining that crowd? Leaving any Murtha-mocking behind—are you ready to conceed that perhaps the U.S. military’s prescence is the hold up to a resolution to the conflict. Whether you like it or not, or think it or not, Iraq is in a civil war. Escalating is the wrong path. Even Kagen couldn’t bring himself to address the Murtha plan in his “Victory” (read what Gearge wants) paper.
If you can find a way—in your indirect intentional way of writing to admit that redeployment is the best answer—I’d read it.
I played on a soccer team that had 5 starting Steve’s.
No doubt that you and I see the world in opposing ways, but now it appears we smell it differently too…
Just poking fun at you… kind of like the hornets nest that evidently would boil out if the US military was to nail al-Sadr.
I will say that I have read a lot of stuff written by the military people that have been around Sadr City… most feel that al-Sadr has too much of their fellow soldiers blood on his hands and they could give a shit if the hornets nest is opened. They’d like that because whenever the militias decide to fight in numbers, they die in numbers. That is precisely the strategy at times. Go in, pick a fight and kill everyone who comes out.
I realize that around Big Sur, that type of thing is frowned on…. except it’s kinda funny…. that is the same strategy trolls use. Go in, pick a fight, and then try to nail everyone who rises to the bait.
What makes you think it’s an either/or proposition?
And how would that work? You realize that even his own people realize that he’s a thug and not much else, right? Does Mullah Atari ring a bell?
Well, that’s a tough one. Maliki is certainly a dead man if things fall apart, either way, so he’s got plenty of motivation to stabilize the situation.
Meanwhile, CNN, NPR and other news outlets continue to claim that the Iranians seized in Irbil were diplomats at a consulate, whereas:
I recall that on the date that the raid hit the news, I read somewhere that Iran was seeking to upgrade the government building to a consulate, which suggests that it wasn’t a consulate at the time of the ‘kidnapping.’ Considering the way the Shalit matter has been handled in the MSM, there’s a rather striking contrast.
It may be, as a matter of fact, that the Iranians have suddenly become willing to open talks as a result of whatever it is they suspect may have come to light as a result of the individuals and documents seized.
It should be a simple matter, don’t you think, for journalists to establish whether or not the building in question constituted a consulate as a matter of record, don’t you think?
Reminds me of an email I wrote to NPR’s morning edition last week after they’d run a report claiming that Yellowcake Joe’s report after his visit to Niger averred that Saddam’s government had not approached them about acquiring uranium. I never got an answer.
The only thing the American military force is holding back is the blood bath that will ensue if we run away. And that is just what the Demorats want us to do.
No, I think Maliki is getting the idea that if he does not reign in the militias that the Saudis and the Jordanians might get in on the act rather than see the Sunni slaughtered and then of course the Iranians will get rid of anyone they have to in order to consolidate authority.
When the mullahs took control in Iran they did so with the help of the left. Of course they got rid of the left as soon as they had served their purpose and I have no doubt they would do the same for any Iraqi they felt was baggage. I heard that Bush called Maliki not long ago and that shortly after the call Maliki showed more courage in going after the militia. One wonders what Bush said. Whatever it was it seems to have gotten Maliki’s attention. And yes, he is in a very difficult position.
However, most Iraqis do not want to live in another Iran. They want a more liberal and modern country than that, which means Sadr is not going to get more popular. The only reason he has as much authority as he does is that he will go after the Sunni after they blow something up.
But after the Senate signs their nonbinding Resolution it will be a real shot in the arm for alSadr. Good news just when the murdering little madman needs it.
Dan – I think that NPR is still operating without an ombudsman – I think they discovered during the election that they rather liked it that way. Their last ombudsman, Bill Marimow, was moved from a senior executive news programming position to the ombudsman’s position to produce a single column near the end of the campaign. They chose a senior executive news programmer because it’s imperative that an ombudsman come to the job without pre-existing biases. He has since gone back to dead tree land. The post had been vacant for the preceding four months.
That resolution is meaningless and Sadr knows it. The Democrats are just straddling the war line – this way no matter what happens they can say “I told you so”.
That’s not gonna save Sadr. The only thing that will save Sadr is the US Army’s reluctance to upset the political applecart.
“al-Sadr is a thug.”
But Maggie, he provides “stability…”
Eric–
I wouldn’t assign that reluctance to the Army. It’s not their call.
Guys, can we go easy on Steve Ex-Pat. I mean, give the man a little credit for his intellectual accomplishments.
For example, did you know he’s read I, Rigoberta Menchu twice?<u> With a highlighter?
Whose call is it, Dan?
Bush’s or Maliki’s?
Bill writes:
I’m not certain he’s desperate for our help, if what he wants is a Shia government and ethnic cleansing as an end game. But such a gambit would cause him some problems from other countries, and I think, unless he was quite up front about such a plan (even if he is only “up front” to the right people—something I’m sure we’d learn about through intelligence gathering), Maliki would be presented as a stooge of the US government nonetheless by someone dying to take his place, which he must certainly realize.
One thing I don’t think should happen is for US forces to crack down on Sadr unless they are given the go-ahead by the Iraqi government. There is a reason people in a couple of regions are still falling under the umbrella of these militias. And after ‘91 and foreign policy realism, I’m not unsympathetic to the impulse.
michelly writes:
No.
No.
And your proof is that you “like” it and “think” it? Don’t know about you, but I’m in contact with people actually in Iraq. Via IM. On a daily basis. And the picture you present is incorrect, so far as they, and I, can tell.
Define “escalating.” Because if “escalating” means a short-term troop surge to help a compliant Maliki government bring the militias to heel and clean out the insurgent strongholds, I think that is precisely what needs to be done.
You over-estimate the insurgency—as well as the desire for Shia-created killing fields—because you are an arrogant dullard who doesn’t believe brown people desire personal autonomy. Similarly, you are the kind of “progressive” who refuses to understand that after years of brutal Shia rule, there is going to be this kind of grass-roots and tribal resentment and protectionism.
Nuance.
Until the Iraqi government shows it is able to control the situation alone, people will lean on the protection of tribal militias. Who can blame them?
But that doesn’t mean they will always do so, nor that they are predisposed to do so or even are desirous of doing so.
Let’s face it: you’ll read whatever I write because you define yourself against it.
Whereas I don’t giving a flying fuck what someone who comes in here dropping “Jeffy” and “winger” thinks, because I have about as much respect for those kinds of people as I do for, well, those kinds of people.
I have written my critiques of the way the war has been fought. Do a site search if you actually care.
But don’t fool yourself: the reason Kagen didn’t mention the Murtha plan to redeploy troops to Okinawa is because he’s not a) insane, and b) eager to see Iran come in and set up shop.
GMG – wikipedia says you need the highlighter to pick through the lies.
Actually Maggie, I think Ric Locke was advocating a hands off-approach towards Mookie, unless I’m mistaken.
That’s possible.
For myself, I don’t have a clue what to do about the ugly dude, but he is elected, right? If he is to be taken out, I think it needs to be done through their legal process (jerk his head off after a trial, or something), not by a hit.
Of course, if he resists arrest…
I apologise Ric, if I’m off base here.
alphie–
If we weren’t wedded to the idea of Iraqi self-determination, which we are and ought to be, then it would be Bush’s. And there would be a lot less US blood shed. Unfortunately for our soldiers, we’re very reluctant colonialists.
With regards to redeployment, threatend to redeploy to “Kurdistan,” and watch the Sunni and Shia galvanize. What the fuck, maybe there’d even be a place for Armenians there. Because it’s about the oil.
“Kurdistan” seems to be relatively peaceful right now without U.S. troops, Dan.
It may be a chicken or the egg argument, but the most unstable places in the Middle East are the same places our troops happen to be.
We might wind up destabilizing the most peaceful area of Iraq if we do “redeploy” to there.
Perhaps Michelly has yet to afford herself of the wisdom of Rigoberta Menchu:
“Peace cannot exist without justice, justice cannot exist without fairness, fairness cannot exist without development, development cannot exist without democracy, democracy cannot exist without respect for the identity and worth of cultures and peoples.”
Progressives offer “tough love,” happyfeet.
Here, be a dear and move over. Let us drive.
But we are there, alphie. And why do you think it may be that’s the most peaceful part of Iraq?
Stability is measured differently among the international community with regards to much of the world depending on the presence or absence of US troops.
Yep. They benefitted from the previous 10 years of enforcement of the no-fly-zone–y’know, AFTER they got mustard gassed by your pal Saddam. Besides, they’re not arabs and don’t have the pathologies of arab armies….
Godcammit that’s dumb! Why would we send troops if it were stable?
Y’know, I don’t shovel the places on the driveway where there is no snow–therefore, the shoveling is causing the snow to accumulate!
‘CUZ OF THE EVIL!
I’m getting28 sick28 of these stupid solipsystic arguments!
Oh. My. God! I KNOW!
Also, I think fire trucks are the leading cause of residental house fires too. Every where they go, fire, fire, fire!
Co-incidence?
I don’t think so!
It is if you’re soft-headed enough to think that Iraqis are killing each other because they don’t like Americans. Otherwise, its blindingly obvious which way that dynamic flows.
Kurdistan is quite peaceful (why relatively?) because of a decade and a half of US support and protection. It is, in fact, the object lesson at the foundation of the Bush Doctrine of reforming the Middle East.
I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit.
Then we can, like, take turns mocking Steve.
…
Hey, it works for me…
Thanks Jeff. I responded to your points, but I didn’t think that you would go back to your same old way of dealing with dissent.
You got me tonight. Good for you. High five. All that. Pat yourself on the back. It’s not even worth the time or effort to write what I wrote again.
Don’t you understand that your way is old? It’s yella, dude. Completely yella.
Oh, holy Jesus, I’d give my eyeteeth for a troll the quality of actus right now.
I can’t believe I just wrote that. Nonetheless, it’s true.
Don’t listen to her Jeff.
And sometimes, old guys just look kinda yella.
Like when they have the stomache flu.
It wasn’t worth writing the first time either.
To recap:
steve ex-expat: Dead Mookie? Not funny.
michelle: Brilliantly summarizes Democratic Iraq policy… Redeployment = you were wrong. Admit it!!
alphie: Seven words, three qualifiers: “seems to be relatively peaceful right now.” Born to lead, that one.
You still read what I write—just like sparkle did.
I don’t care if you don’t post what I write. I only care that you read it.
You read it. You know.
You give unneeded clarity to the definition of tedium…
recover and post what I wrote why doncha.
Shit happens in the internet tubes, sweetheart. There’s no information control conspiracy here like at kos or liardogfake.
Grow the fuck up, would ya?
Pablo, my favorite. Yes almighty Pablo, you and Dan Collins have convinced me. Oh and let’s not forget Jeffy. All of you have convinced me that shoving 20,000 troops—as Hewitt claims a 300% increase in Baghdad will make everything better.
Yes, Pablo, you have the answer. Yes, Dan Collins, you have the answer. Yes, Jeff Goldstein you have the answer.
Now will you all STFU?
I’m just sick of it–remember when
–the terrain was going to defeat us?
–the winter was going to defeat us?
–the summer was going to defeat us?
–the ‘battle hardened’ Afghans were going to defeat us?
–the Republican Guard was going to defeat us?
–the ‘foreign fighters’ were going to defeat us?
–the Fedayeen Saddam was going to defeat us?
–the chemical weapons were going to defeat us?
–the insurgency was going to defeat us?
Now,
–the civil war is going to defeat us.
–the Mahdi Army is going to defeat us…..
The filthy leftists have hoped and hoped that we would lose and we just keep winning–Winning in spite of them.
Bastards.
TW: military48! No, really.
Shit happens in the internet tubes, sweetheart.
Damn straight.
Jeffy should be able to call that comment back up tut suite.
Or are you just as full of shit Pablo?
Is this one of those suicidal trolls that really, really want to be banned?
For the street cred.
And that’s what it looks like to find yourself unarmed in a battle of wits.
No, honey–President Bush and his military leaders have the answer. We are just smart enough, and unencumbered with emotional baggage enough, to recognize it.
Y’know, in spite of the way your daddy or your last rotten boyfriend treated you, the administration and military may be right on this one too.
Dumber than a sack of michelles, this one.
Gray, step back and take a breath. It’s the *dirty* left that wants the troops out of having to do any of your list of *tasks*.
It’s not that the civil war will defeat us—it is that it is not our war. That is what will defeat us.
If you, Jeffy, Dan, Pablo, Darleen, Rightwingsparkle don’t get that, why am I trolling? You all have to understand. More troops mean more deaths. Pull back, the Iraqis will finally take it in their own hands. Why can’t you all figure that out?
Dumber than a sack of michelles, this one.
If this comment gets through, then yes.
Wait, is Michilines Michelle’s sock puppet or is Michelle Midhilines’ sock puppet?
Or are they both sock puppets?
A matching pair of sock puppets…. Except for the googley eyes.
Probably because it makes no sense, but I am just guessing.
Not if it didn’t take, which, believe it or not, has happened to other people here, even regulars.
Not bloody likely, troll. Too many fools like you spewing venom and stupidity.
No, less troops mean more deaths. We’ve been the only thing keeping sectarian violence at a simmer instead of a full boil.
um, because it hasn’t happened yet? look at Anbar, or Baghdad even. people keep complaining about how we’ve run clearing operations, but didn’t leave anyone behind to hold those territories. we did. Iraqis. and they aren’t quite up to the task yet. they’re getting there, but it takes time to train forces.
You are a riot Jeffy. Seriously.
Here’s a better question: Why can’t the Iraqis figure that out?
And here’s the answer: It’s bullshit and they damned well know it.
Pull back to the boarders—redeploy—no casualties.
Why do you want people to die? The troops are people, ney?
Y’know, Pablo:
If we would have just pulled back after D-Day, the German people would have ‘taken it in their own hands….’
Look, as soon as we pulled back in Vietnam, the Vietnamese ‘took it in their own hands’….
As soon as we pulled back from North of the 38th Paralles, the North Koreans ‘took it in their own hands’….
As soon as we pulled out of The Bay of Pigs, the Cubans ‘took it into their own hands’.
Look at Somalia–as soon as we pulled back from there, the Somalis ‘took it in their own hands’.
In fact, we have historical precedent in this very case:
As soon as the US pulled back out of Iraq the first time, the Iraqis ‘took it in their own hands’….
See, it works every time it is tried and delivers total and humiliating defeat!
Which is what the filthy leftist really want–they aren’t pacifists, they are just too chickenshit to actually shoot at us, but they do their best.
TW: military57 HAH!
Never read it. To be honest, I didn’t know who she was and had to look her up. Thanks, I might just check out that book (but I probably won’t read it twice).
Y’know, if you look at the DoD statistics, you’ll see that there are more casualties/year in the military due to accidents in the US than combat in Iraq.
If you bring them all home, actually more will die due to all forms of accidents in the US.
Why do you want people to die? The troops are people, ney?
<blockquote>Pull back to the boardersâ€â€redeployâ€â€no casualties.<blockquote>
Like magic!
LET MY TRUTHINESS GO, NEOCONS!!!
The Iraqis won’t settle it until they don’t have U.S. bodies to rack up.
Why oh why can’t you and Bush not see the obvious.
You and Jeffy and Darleen and all of the others.
You all have heads of bricks.
Then why wasn’t it settled somewhere between the 8th century and 2003?
So, Michilines:
You’re saying that if only the US pulled out of Iraq just like the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan that Iraq would become a peaceful country, that doesn’t harbor Islamic radicals, just like Afghanistan was in 2001?
Have I got that right?
You’re advocating the Soviet/Afghanistan model?
Pablo, you run all over the internets and scream about the Iraq war, just as you did before the election.
Pablo, your side, Jeffy’s side lost.
Deal like a man, why don’t you?
Boss—and pablo and darleen—stfu.
Mushhead, that was a question. How about answering it? Or are you incapable of that?
Just like you did after Bush won in 2004, right?
By getting lawyers, demanding recounts, undermining the basis of the American Republic and trying to abolish the Electoral College like your side did?
We’re just not into56 those kind of things, we value freedom–even yours….
lee, you don’t know me. Maybe you know Jeffy and can freely say such things. You don’t know me.
Y’know, that works a lot better if you yell it at the top of your lungs repeatedly, with your fingers in your ears, while stamping your little feet, until you lose your voice.
you89 seem emotionally unbalanced.
(one of these days I’m gonna lose my fascination with the Turing Words, but not yet.)
“I could be completely off base hereâ€â€I’ve been a bit out of the loop of lateâ€â€so I appreciate your thoughts. I’ll check back later, after I finish purging my innards of everything not tied down with some kind of sturdy tissue.”
I would say that you’re out of the loop. The coming “surge” has nothing to do with the present government.
If George Bush engages Sadr city in the same way that he engaged fallujah, he has a very good chance to salvage his legacy and that of the Maliki government.
The surge is his last hope to save his legacy, and save the weak assed Iraqi government he put in place to rule. This attempt is his last best hope to turn things around. Should he succeed, the Iraq question becomes neutral, and the left will have to abdicate to the current war concepts.
Our next debate will be whether the deaths of a couple of hundred thousand Iraqi civilians was worth the goal.
Whatever happens, George Bush will not be able to withstand either debate. The war is over.
I was responding to Michilines, does she know you?
Actually, he can freely say such things because Harry Reid and Dennis Kucinich haven’t managed to subvert the Bill of Rights just yet. And because it is true.
By getting lawyers, demanding recounts, undermining the basis of the American Republic and trying to abolish the Electoral College like your side did?
Yes Gary, lets’s go back and see who won that battle. Are you actually arguing for Gore? Ninny.
We’re just not into56 those kind of things, we value freedom–even yours….
Say what? Is that some sort of Jeffy sexual sort of thing? Figures.
Tell it to al-Sadr, Jim.
You didn’t listen to the plan as he presented it, did you?
And where’d you get that “couple of hundred thousand” notion?
Are you going to answer my question, michelle?
Is this discussion losing all coherency or have I had too much single-malt?
Sadr has been advocating the withdrawal of US troops since the beginning. But now that Nancy and Harry are threatening to engineer just that, a withdrawal of troops is now something he is eager not to be blamed for, not something he wants to take credit for. So the Mahdi Army has receded. Why? A last-ditch explosion of violence could derail the surge of troops, but if that were to fail, the Mahdi Army is very much aware that additional provocation in the face of a troop surge would be a fatal mistake.
Meanwhile, the Sunni insurgents have fled, and along with them, the rationale for Shia militias. In the absence of Sunni insurgents, the Shia militia’s other activities of bullying and extortion will quickly come to define them. I would submit that this is bad politics for Sadr. And so, having shrieked and moaned unceasingly about the levels of violence in Iraq, how will the Democrats and their media pals maintain a policy of retreat with the backdrop of peaceful Bagdad streets?
The governor of Montana shared the New Direction of cowardice with us today: in a truly bizarre Democratic radio address, Brian Schweitzer juxtaposes “serious concerns about the President’s plan to increase U.S. troop levels in Iraq” with “We can achieve energy independence in 10 years, create a whole new industry with hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs, and you’ll never have to send children and grandchildren to war in the Middle East again.”
In other words, their fallback position is an economic argument: “Mr. President lets create hundreds of thousands of jobs in America by producing our own clean fuels, bring our men and women home, and stop spending money in Iraq.”
As oil prices are falling…
Oh, that sounds just like the Great Society Plan that worked so well.
Except that the Great Society didn’t rely in breaking laws of physics to succeed…..
You Betcha!
uh, I’m having some trouble following a few things. and i’m sober.
B Moe – I call shotgun!
Maybe we are getting whatever Jeff has.
I know I’m confused, and seeing double…
Pablo, Jim does his research, unlike you. What you and Jeffy and the prez want is for more men an women to die.
Pablo, Jim’s a vet.
Just got back from dinner with the wife and son (shabu-shabu – fantastic, thanks for asking.) While there I made the mistake of picking up the local (Spokane) alt-weekly. In it was a nauseating editorial by one Salim Lone a native Kenyan and former UN apparatchik who states “the Bush administration has opened another battlefront in the Muslim world. With full U.S. backing and military training, at least 15,000 Ethiopian troops have entered Somalia in an illegal war of aggression against the Union of Islamic Courts.” Mr. Lone goes on to argue that the fall of the ICU was unfortunate because “The best antidote to terrorism in Somalia is stability, which the Islamic Courts have provided.”
Lovely man that Salim Lone, which is apparently Kenyan for ‘man of steel’ or some such thing.
Why is it that, for being purportedly alternative, alt-weeklies are the same everywhere you go?
TW: Been there97, read that97.
So am I, michelle. Are you going to answer my question or not? And how do you know whether Jim is a vet or not?
“I could be completely off base hereâ€â€I’ve been a bit out of the loop of lateâ€â€so I appreciate your thoughts. I’ll check back later, after I finish purging my innards of everything not tied down with some kind of sturdy tissue”<blockquote>
You are definetely out of the loop if this is what you propose.
This is George Bushs’ last chance at victory. The Maliki government will stand because there is no other option.
The war plan will involve the complete destruction of Sadr City at great cost to Iraqi civilians and the United States military. The argument over the prosecution of Fallujah will seem small in retrospect.
The future argument will be about the total cost, and whether we were right to defend Israel as we have.
That is the argument gentleman, and whether the thousands of young Americans that had to die to further a stupid Presidency was worth it.
oh, well then, that makes him always right then doesn’t it?
Cool. I love animals.
michelle – if we’re going to start qualifying posters through characteristics of life experience, I’m afraid I am going to have to ask that you post a scanned copy of your “certification of motherhood” before you are allowed to participate further.
spoooooky, I almost said the same thing B Moe.
also, I love how Jim can read the President’s mind and know that he invaded Iraq for his “legacy” rather than for national security.
What makes you say that, Jim? You realize that the plan has Iraqis in the lead with our increased support, don’t you?
Seriously, Jeff, look at your commenters, your substitute posters, do you actually think the way they do or did you use them? They are out there as far as the polotical center is concerned. Seriously, do you agree with pablo, darleen and dan?
These ‘michilines” and “michelles” are a new low in the development of the single cell amoeba, aren’t they? In fact, they may be little fragments of amoebic dysentery which Jeff accidentally splattered out some time during the night, and now they’ve infected the whole site. Frightening.
You are definetely out of the loop if this is what you propose.
This is George Bushs’ last chance at victory. The Maliki government will stand because there is no other option.
The war plan will involve the complete destruction of Sadr City at great cost to Iraqi civilians and the United States military. The argument over the prosecution of Fallujah will seem small in retrospect.
The future argument will be about the total cost, and whether we were right to defend Israel as we have.
That is the argument gentleman, and whether the thousands of young Americans that had to die to further a stupid Presidency was worth it.
Michelle, are you going to answer my question or just keep posting insulting twaddle? Is there any point in talking to you or are you just a stupid twat?
Jeffy, why did you post michelle’s friend’s comment twice?