From Powerline, a particularly dire assessment of the situation in Iraq, purportedly from a Human Intelligence collector (no name is given, so I’m going to take it at face value):
We want to succeed in Iraq. Because we want to succeed we continually look for ways and opportunities to contribute. This desire to succeed also spawns an eternal optimism that maybe somehow someway things will get better. Wanting to succeed though is no excuse to ignore reality, and the reality in Iraq is ugly.
The Iraqi government and security forces are so thoroughly infiltrated by the Shia militias that you could say that the militias are the government and you would not be far off. Iraqi police in Southern Iraq are not in the fight against the militias at all. Top CF targets walk the streets freely in every city. In most cases police stations are manned by JAM members in police uniforms who actively aid the terrorists. On the rare occasion that a Shia terrorist is actually arrested by an ISF unit, he must be turned over to CF immediately or he will be released by the police or courts.
In addition, politicians from the city council to the CoR, if not Maliki himself, make calls and appearances on behalf of the terrorist, often threatening the job (if not the life) of the offending ISF leader with the audacity to actually do his job. Imagine our Congress, and governorships, and police departments staffed with members of the Crips and Bloods. Imagine being a citizen, a victim of or witness to a crime committed by one of these gangs. What would you do? Where would you turn? Ignoring for the moment the systemic corruption, this is the “government†we hope to turn this country over to.
The situation on the American side is not much better. The careerists in the Army and DoD have leaned that not taking chances and reporting only good news up the chain are the ways to advance their careers. Just look at General Casey. The army is first and foremost a bureaucracy intent on taking its processes, forms, procedures and top down decision making with it wherever it goes. The Army is not flexible enough or well trained enough to win a counterinsurgency.
Then there’s the domestic political situation which I won’t rehash except to say that it’s crippling to the war effort. We’ve been in country over a year and there have been Democratic calls for timetables and withdraws the entire time. Would, should, any rational person bet his life helping CF when you’re expecting them to leave at any time?
We have mismanaged Iraq in ways too numerous to list here for four years. In order to succeed on the ground we would have to scrap everything we have done and start over….
Not having been in Iraq myself, I can’t say how close to reality this assessment tracks—though in his time with the Marines training Iraqi police in Fallujah, Bill Ardolino noted similar problems with infiltration of local law enforcement / government—though his assessment was far less dire than the one on offer here.
For what it’s worth, I thought I’d highlight a couple of comments from Powerline’s forum. First, there’s this, from Earlg:
I suspect the gentleman is giving a realistic picture as he’s describing the situation in the South, quite possibly Basra.
It’s necessary to remember the Brit’s demanded they employ their own strategy and early-on used and/or employed whatever local militia’s that had arisen after the invasion as part of the local security – a situation that never changed. Completely unvetted, many had either returned from Iran where they had lived in exile and developed strong ties with the Iranians; others were locals, tribal strongmen, or just plain bandits. IIRC, joint US and British forces have had to go into Basra, along with the surrounding provinces – if force – on 3 or 4 different occasions to clean these areas out. The last occasion, several months back, when it was learned a local police station was a center for smuggling, insurrection and torture. Basra itself has been the primary point of entrance into Iraq from Iran and a staging area for arms, materials and personnel, feeding the insurgency in the North. One of the reasons we don’t hear to very much about it, the primarily Iranian backed militia’s maintain effective security, keeping the violence to a minimum so as to not attract US or British forces. I think some have even dubbed it ‘Little Iran.’
No it is not pretty but I feel General P has a very effective way to deal with this, if – the BIG IF – and while the Northern areas are being brought under control.
Then there’s this, from “GWBush”:
[This Human Intel collector is] out there busting his butt and when he says something that doesn’t fit [the right’s] rosy picture, you say he’s working for “the bad guys.â€Â
Too much of this war has been based on politics.
The right needs to listen to what the soldiers are saying to understand the difficulty of the situation and stop glossing the whole thing over with a “mission accomplished†sign.
And the left needs to stop chasing popular opinion polls while slowly strapping our troops into a no-win forced-withdrawal situation.
Moral of the story : Listen to the soldiers, except when they disagree with what you want to believe.
And finally this, from SFCP:
’ve been in Iraq for just over two years since 2003.
That said, we don’t have any personnel with the exception of LNO (liaison officers) in southern Iraq.
Needless to say, this guy is full of crap.
Parse, internalize, and discuss.
But make sure you factor OpFor’s interview with General Petraeus into the mix—as well as this, from Acute Politics:
I’ll try to keep writing about the winds here in Al-Anbar. I’ll go out on a little bit of a limb and say that the insurgency is quickly approaching a tipping point. If things continue as they are right now, our military won’t need a surge to chase the terrorists out of Anbar- the citizens will do it for us, which is as it should be. It’s beginning to show already: more local tips, more police recruits (far more than anticipated), and sadly- in bigger and more desperate Al-Qaeda attacks.
At this point, a reconciled insurgent is better than a captured one, and a captured one is better than a dead one.
That is a hard fact for the military to accept.
(h/t INDCJournal, which has more).
At a time when the Sunni insurgents and Al Qaeda are engaging in their own battles, any assessment of the situation on the ground in Iraq—from the most optimistic to the most pessimistic (and I’ll admit I to being a bit dubious about the assessment from the Human Intel collector)—this push for timetables for withdrawing troop, while they have always been counterproductive, are particularly so now.
The stakes are too high, and we simply cannot leave Iraq until the situation is controlled—even if it means we need an entirely new strategy. The anonymous HI collector does make several important points, though—one of which I’ve made here on several occasions: namely, that the domestic political ethos almost inevitably rubbed off on the military bureaucracy, making it far more difficult to prosecute a war where national commitment is not guaranteed, and where careerists and military lawyers are careful to keep themselves covered by tightly controlling ROEs.
For me at least, none of the post, including the title, is showing up on the comments page.
I’ll throw up a meaningless post and see if that fixes this one—and if it does, then I’ll delete it and see if that leaves this one fixed.
…and for those of you who asked, “A meaningless post from McGehee? What’s new about that?”
Um, you know me too well.
Jeff,
For whatever reason, the bit below the fold isn’t showing up anywhere.
BRD
Shit. I’ll just post the whole thing then and try to figure out why my site is all buggered again.
Well, it seems to be coming through fine now.
It is worth checking out what I believe is the guy’s actual blog:
I get the guy’s point, and it’s reasonable, if nothing else. He’s not saying that the war is immoral, that it is wrong, or that it isn’t worth succeeding.
Looking through his blog, he’s saying that we can’t win with the feckless Army brass (he was trained as a Marine, he says) tying one hand behind our backs in how we treat Iraqi terrorists and militias. He also blames our politically-correct approach with terrorists and our politicians. We’re not fighting hard or brutally enough. He seems to think that we’re pandering to political concerns in the US (where the debate is tainted by election campaigns) and to PC concerns in Iraq (where the vast majority of Iraqis have no ambitions, don’t have a horse in this war, and just want to be left alone—living in a broken, third-world scenario is OK with them, as is living in a modern democracy).
His point is, either we should get serious or get out. And since he can’t see the Army getting out of it’s political, promotion-minded bureaucracy mode, he’s lost confidence that we have the will to win. He sees a “bloodbath” if we leave, the first to die being those who attempted democratic reforms.
Well, now that this has had a while to gel, I can say that I’m, at best, quite glum about the situation. It’s as if the majority of the polity in this country, in an age with better communications and more global travel, is more insular than the Isolationists of the 1930’s ever were. I just wonder how many wars we intend on trying to lose before we regain some sense of balance.
We’re just not a colonial power, BRD.
Not surprising, considering our roots.
That makes absolutely no sense. There has been an enormous amount of progress in places all over Iraq., and any further progress that will be made needs to start from where we stand, not where we were 4 years ago.
And as if on cue, the very next comment makes your point.
Well, the guy’s job, apparently, is to collect evidence of human intelligence. That’s got to be a little demoralizing.
Alphie,
We’re all busy folks here, so forgive me if my inquiry into your response is somewhat brusque.
I note:
To which, you respond:
To which, I would like to ask, WTF does your comment have to do with much of anything I’ve written, or anything suggested in my earlier comments on this post, this post, or, for that matter, the price of tea in China.
In what way, shape or form does any of this have to do with colonialism? In what way does either the presence or absence of colonialism have any significant impact on the conduct, role, or implications of information warfare, particularly in regards to the Clauswitzian interpretation in a media-saturated environment
Or, for that matter, does your comment have any bearing on Jeff’s closing sentences?
Or, in a more concise form:
WTF Alphie?
BRD
I’m not that busy. Really.
I thought alphie was responding to Bender’s “We’re not fighting hard or brutally enough.” Alphie’s comment makes sense in that context.
BRD,
Isolationism is a straw man and you know it.
Why didn’t we just pull our troops out of Iraq after we toppled Saddam and let the Iraqis form their own government?
Colonization by any other name still stinks.
Nancy’s trip to Syria is the sort of a thing that puts the lie to these silly isolationism charges.
Alphie,
You’ll note that I’m not raising the specter of Isolationism, but rather a shocking degree of insularity, as was demonstrated during the era in which Isolationism was nominally viable.
BRD
Jihadi boy specifically made the inquiry of BRD. As BRD said, colonialism has fuck all to do with a comment comparing the US isolationist policies of the 30’s and how they supported insular interpretations of globally vital issues of the day with the same sort of interpretations without the excuse of any prevailing isolationist mindset we see today.
Jihadi boy, alongside far more vile tools in his box, has the exasperating habit of feeling forced to respond to well-considered and thought provoking comments with ‘I like Santa’ level cognition.
I like The Wizard of Oz. I like the Tin Man.
Hague Convention (IV) of 1907
Fourth Geneva Convention, art. 27
Cf. Hague Regulations, arts. 42, 43
Fourth Geneva Convention, art. 6, etc…
Or, to spell it out again, it seems that this country is hugely invested in wishful thinking about human nature and life throughout the rest of the world – so much so, that this level of willful ignorance is one that hasn’t been seen since the 30’s when Isolationism was rampant.
Nobody doubts there are bad guys, BRD.
The doubts are about our ability to do anything about them.
I don’t remember America having most of its troops fighting overseas during the 1930s, either.
Not a very good comparison.
Alphie,
You’re getting closer to responding to the point that I am trying to make, which is this. There are a number of people who, despite claiming to “know who the bad guys are” seem to be very intent on something that much more strongly resembles magical thinking about the conduct of warfare and international relations.
Throughout the vast majority of human history, the conduct of warfare and the manner in which one dealt with opponents was strongly influenced by a reasonable degree of pragmatism and straightforward empirical observation.
In the current environment, it appears that people have become much poorer judges of matters pertaining to conflict, and instead, have relied upon an information-gathering and analysis process that could most charitably be described as exhibiting a host of cognitive biases in service of a whole array of displacement mechanisms.
And given the entirety of the history of conflict, will make any outcome a lot bloodier than it otherwise need have been.
BRD
The quality of America’s military leadership has also varied throughout our history, BRD.
I’d say its at it lowest point ever, rendering any attempts to get the bad guys meaningless, just a costly fiasco that is actually making the bad guys stronger.
The quality of America’s military leadership has also varied throughout our history, BRD.
I’d say its at it lowest point ever, rendering any attempts to get the bad guys meaningless, just a costly fiasco that is actually making the bad guys stronger.
Yep, we can only long for the past days of glory when we had Democrats in the executive Office. The Carter & Clinton repsonses to issues in the Middle East: do absolutely nothing, give them what they want & gut the US Military while appeasing the wishes of Europeans, I mean being popular & well received. Given that this is little “a’s” low-point & he’d prefer the Carter Doctrine be re-affirmed, what’s his high-point, pre-Revolutionary War colonial status?
Alphie,
Unfortunately I just lost my comment, but to summarize very briefly, WTF are you talking about?
You make what boils down to a discontinuous statement with no bearing on anything. So why don’t you actually make an argument, provide a conclusion, and then buttress that remark with evidence.
A few questions you might look at include:
The quality of America’s military leadership has also varied throughout our history, BRD.
This is a null statement. Nobody here is arguing that the quality of military leadership has been constant throughout our history. More importantly, however, does this have anything to do anything else being discussed here?
I’d say its at [military leadership] lowest point ever,
Absent a specific notion of to whom you’re referring, this statement contains no information. Similarly, not only do you decline to reference the military leadership of which you speak, you have no cited evidence, no measure of quality, and have created no context in which this statement might actually be of interest.
rendering any attempts to get the bad guys meaningless
By what metrics? Not only have you declined to identify the subject or object of the sentence, you make a baseless assumption – one that you don’t even make a supporting argument for. You simply declare that the effort is ‘meaningless’ by your dictat alone.
just a costly fiasco
So, basically, you’re not exactly citing what the endeavor is, you’ve declined to give any frame of reference – other than your sayso – and it is a fiasco? As a point of debate, this segment has no actual content or value.
that is actually making the bad guys stronger.
Well, we’re still haven’t established any definitions, metrics, or evidence, and have topped that off with an unseen and unspoken causative mechanism. This too merits a 0/10 for the attempt.
But rather than trying to rehash all of these points, I would be most grateful if you were to provide some commentary or feedback on the thing that was the genesis of this conversation – something Jeff includes in his post:
BRD
Well, they just don’t make ‘em like Gen. Meade anymore.
*Sigh* Pablo, you just don’t get it. 50% of the people in Iraq say they have had a family member or friend killed or wounded since the invasion started. 51% of them think killing Americans is justifiable. Over 80% want us to leave. There has been an enormous amount of damage in places all over Iraq, and any further damage that will be made will start from where we stand, way, way down in that well of hatred and disgust the Iraqis have for us and what we’ve done to them, not where we were 4 years ago. They had hope, we had hope and then the Bush Administration turned their country into a living hell.
BRD sadly this guy hasn’t learned that the Bush Administration doesn’t believe in any of that. What kind of Americans did they send to Baghdad to explain representative democracy? Loyal Bushies just out of college who applied to the Heritage Foundation for entry level jobs and answered questions about Roe vs Wade politically correctly.
What kind of person did they send to Iraq to train
police. Mobbed up Bernie Kerik who had no idea how to build a police force and stayed all of 3 months. Look at out government. Look at the people Bush has appointed. Look at what they’ve done to the EPA, FEMA, GSA, the Justice Dept., the CIA. Entire US government agencies have lost career professionals who’ve been fired or quit in disgust, passed over for political appointees who have little to no experience in the field and one mandate: do the White House’s bidding. These people are going to show Iraqis how to rebuild their country? Not hardly. But they are showing us what Republicans are doing to our country behind all the secrecy. The same people who gave us Heckuva Job Brownie gave Iraq Jerry Bremer. And the results have been the same.
Do you like Santa markg8?
MarkG8,
I mean this most sincerely, and honestly, but I would really, really love for you to spend a few years in DC – and pretty far away from the bomb-throwing sections of the crowd. One thing that you seem very, very intent on not considering is that in the Parliament of Whores the enemy is us.
The folks on the other side of the aisle are just as well-meaning, well-informed, and work just as hard as you do in trying to make the world a better place. Similarly, the folks who are on your side of the aisle are just as venal, corrupt, ignorant, and malicious as those bad guys on the other side of the aisle.
No party, no administration, no politician, and no candidate can ever be said to have the corner on virtue, engagement, seriousness, or any one of the other ‘good’ virtues, just like no opponent is really that evil.
The vast, vast (but not 100%) of the folks in this business are really trying to do the best they can according to their own lights. To impute bad faith on one’s opponents will accomplish about as much as a domestic dispute in a burning building.
I have yet to see you post a comment that suggests anything other than your own unshakable belief in the righteousness of your cause and the malfeasance of the other half of the people in your country. And really, it’s not a spectacularly healthy way to live.
BRD
p.s. No, I’m not answering your basic assertions, because I’m just too tired of watching this crowing from the walls to even feel like it would be worth the effort.
MarkG8 –
Apologies:
just like no opponent is really that evil
should read
just like no domestic political bogeyman is unadulterated evil
BRD
I’m gonna go argue with some graffiti. It makes more sense.
Jihadi Boy:
Here’s a question for you: Who was mainly responsible for the dispositions, troop manueverings and was the most visible General for the Union during the Battle of Gettysburg, over the course of the three days?
It’s a trick question so take your time…
$5 says he gets it wrong, which means his comments about military leadership have no credibility, just like the rest of his carping little screeds.
BRD
I admire your patience.
Hey, has markg8 told us his MOS yet?
Amen Brother. Washington needs people who are ready to stuff the incriminating evidence down their pants in order to spare the country the bitter truth. Screw this transparency crap. COME BACK SANDY!!!
I love Santa happyfeet.
Screw Burger, I say bring back the Albright & Clinton duo, sure they didn’t bother w/ getting Osama, but mysteriously had the presence of mind to warn Bush of impending doom in a strongly worded memo.
And Albright sure could drop the hammer on her fellow citizens – as long as they were white Texas Christians, on their own private property. Nothing shows force to be reckoned w/ like yanking your troops from Mogadishu, prosecuting the WTC bombing like it was a shop-lifting case, & french-frying 5 year olds whose only crime was to have parents that made the Janet Reno’s Justice Dept. look incompetent.
And, man, could she dance to Kim’s tune!
BRD I don’t know how you can be so naive and cynical at the same time. That’s an impressive set of blinders you’re wearing.
Here’s a list of the latest scandals of the GOP. 17 of them. These don’t even include Abramoff, DeLay, Ney, Cunningham and any number of other known messes. God knows what else hasn’t come to light.
http://tinyurl.com/ywlf4b
Wow defending the Branch Davidians, Bush’s hands off “we don’t swat flies” Al Qaeda policy, General Aidid and the Blind Sheik all in one post. You really are th wingiest of wingnuts aren’t you Pman?
No marky mark, not defending them, I just find it kind of ironic that the only supposed enemies of the state your side managed to attack happened to be American citizens on American soil, not Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the people who bombed the WTC 1993, attacked the USS Cole, bombed the embassy in Tanzania, killed the US Rangers in Mogadishu, etc or that American citizens were treated nearly as well as the bomber & planner of the 93 WTC bombing. Much like the faux Democrat’s support for the troops by yanking the financial support, by completely denying their previous publicly stated opinions regarding the War in Iraq or the danger posed by Saddam after they lost the elections or the polls shifted, your side seems only concerned about taking back power & not actually accomplishing anything but humiliating a President that has taken every shot they have thrown & still managed to win 2 elections. Unless you can point towards their plan to finish or support Iraq after they yank the troops, their plans for resolving Social Security (another Clinton platform completely unaddressed & ignored once the Executive Branch was lost), their explanation for why tax revenue has exceeded all projections since the Bush tax cuts, why the educational system is failing & yet accounts for a larger portion of the GDP then defense spending & is run mostly by Democratic supporting unions, why they are pushing for nationalized healthcare, even though it hasn’t worked or matched current US healthcare anywhere else at any time? Maybe you can explain to me why the most dangerous, crime infected, poverty stricken parts of the country & all run or controlled by the Democrats?
For all of the shrillness of the left regarding the supposed destruction of civil rights, your standard bearer & most popular President had a hand in slaughtering of innocent American children & there wasn’t even 17 UN resolutions or violated signed cease fire agreement in place to justify it, there weren’t any UN weapons inspectors & funny how Saddam got a trial but they didn’t, did they?
Speaking of corruption, care to compare the number indictments of Clinton Administration in its 7th year vs. Bush’s or the number of convictions? Probably not since the majority of those were actual real crimes vs. trumped up perjury cases in investigations where no crimes were ever committed beforehand. No amount of hearings regarding political actions that are perfectly legal will ever match the sheer corruption & lack of character that lead to a sitting President being impeached, for a real crime, or unquestionably disbarred. No matter the level of outrage you manage to muster, our side at least has the integrity to prosecute & jail our criminals… or maybe you can explain to me why Cunningham is in jail while William Jefferson or Harry Reid isn’t. Duke admitted his crimes & is paying the price; your side considers it business as usual & rewards Reid majority leadership. Why was it Feinstein stepped down from her committee assignment again?
Oh, ferchrissakes. How many crimes we got in the marky? At least half of those are MORONIC, which explains you flogging the piece.
Kids in a TX juvie reported to be touched? Republican scandal? WTF is with you people?
NB: They phrase that one particularly as a scandal for Gonzales. Because, as we all know, a juvie detention center in Texas is run by the DoJ!
Complete idiots.
Anyone else notice that markg8 believes that objecting to how the Branch Davidians were handled is “defending” them? Odd, that, from someone on the political spectrum that believes treating terrorists better than required by the Geneva Conventions is a war crime.
One would think that marky mark would grow weary of the consistant whuppin’ that he takes whenever he rears his angry, bitter head.
I don’t want to say that you are intellectually dishonest so I will go with willfully deluded by your own rage. While you may think that the Bush administration and Rethug’s in general are all evil, glowee eyed flying monkeys who are obsessed with “taking over the WOOOORRRRLLLD!” a solid majority of Americans don’t agree with you. This makes you furious that the unwashed masses refuse to see what is clearly in front of them and that fury explodes across your comments.
It has to be doubly frustrating that, despite the gains in Congress, your vision of a “get out of Iraq now” Bush bashing agenda hasn’t been forthcoming. Like the rest of the country, all but the most fervent, hardline anti-war congresspeople know that the country didn’t vote to cut and run. On the contrary, the majority may be unhappy with the way the war has been managed but not necessarily down with cut and run.
There is a disurbing lack of maturity from those of your ilk, the BDS inmates who are convinced that that a 35% approval rating means that 65% of Americans hate Bush’s guts and everything for which he and his party stand. This is clearly wrought in the ludicrous argument of “scandal ridden administration,” conveniently overlooking the many and varied pecadillos that plagued St. Bubba and Sistah Hil during their glorious 8 years.
Don’t make me list them all.
It’s kind of sad that BRD made an attempt to provide perspective but you rejected him out of hand. Nothing may come between you and the message expressed by Kos, DU, Huff ‘n Stuff and the Greenwalds that all conservatives must DIE because they are all scheming, greedy colonialists with transcendant incompetance.
I’m thinking that this attitude bodes ill for your long term health. Get regular checkups.
The appearance of markg8 in a thread entitled “April Fools?” produces a symmetry rivalled only by the Nr. Cherhill crop circles of ott-five.
He likes it.
PMain ROFLAMAO! You’re not only a loon, you’re funny. I imagine you worked up quite a sweat banging all that crap out. Probably broke a few keys on your keyboard too.
Anyone else notice how weak these arguments are against Clinton compared to the evidence against Dan Quayle in cowboy boots and his enablers? You’d think comparing the severity of the crimes and misdemeanors Bush has committed to Clinton’s transgressions you wingnuts would be demanding Bush be impeached, convicted, removed from office, executed, buried in a pauper’s grave, dug up and shot full of holes and reinterred again North Korean style. That would at least be consistent. But go ahead and make BRD’s take look ridiculous.
Isn’t it odd that in all, ten militant Islamist conspirators – including Ramzi Yousef – were convicted for their part in the 1993 WTC bombing by Clinton’s Justice Dept. and were given prison sentences of a maximum of 240 years each. Yet to Pman that’s “prosecuting the WTC bombing like it was a shop-lifting case”. Maybe where you come from Pman.
Again what a bunch of loons.
What crimes and misdemeanors are those, Marky, you silly moonbat? List them, please.
markg8,
I’ll try to respond in small simple sentences, given your history of readin’ comprehension & all. I merely pointed out that the bombers of the WTC in 1993 were given a trial & that their rights & safety were insured – even after they left American soil – funny how none of that can be applied to American citizens, on American soil, in the case of the Branch Davidians. It was the difference in treatment by the DOJ & the Clinton Administration as a whole that was my point, which you either ignored or completely missed. But once again given your repeated ability to ignore the points of others, the points made in the articles you have linked to in the past & your inability to answer even the simplest questions (what’s your MOS again?) this shouldn’t be a surprise.
Furthermore can any such extreme or aggressive responses, including the use of deadly force by the Clinton Administration be shown as a used response to any outside threats, attacks or gatherings? Nope, they pursued them as though they were criminals & not active participants of war… of course you probably don’t consider the bombing of 2 US embassies, bombing the WTC, over a thousand violations of the cease-fire agreement w/ Iraq or the bombing of the USS Cole acts of war; but a religious group gathering within a compound, on private property, I guess that justifies the use of Special Forces & SWAT tactics. To you, like the Clinton Administration, these acts of terrorism & war are no different then a shop-lifting charge & the real threat is Americans who steps beyond what you consider the appropriate means of religious or political expression or belief. The horror!
You can clamor about corruption until you’re blue in the face, but if the subtly of treatment afforded by your last President in regards to both groups – American citizens or terrorists who believe they are at war – then any rational discussion w/ you is impossible because you’ve made up your mind or simply don’t really care about such things, unless it is your side that is in control only. However, it does shed a certain light to the political maneuverings of late by the Democratic Congress in regards to their treatment & financial support to the troops in harm’s way, their preference in insuring the rights of detainees captured on the field of battle vs. insuring the rights of accused US soldiers & their ability to block out the difference in goals, actions, desires & levels of accountability assumed between the coalition forces & our enemies.
To you this is nothing more than a means to taunt, call names & act like a child in an attempt to make the other side look bad. As long as you can get a reaction or stir things up, it doesn’t matter to you how your side conducts themselves or the methods that they use in a vain effort to regain control. Me, it would sicken me to no end to know that my side relied solely upon blacking out the opinions of the soldiers doing the work that they were authorized to do, that we had relied upon mock trials that are in reality fishing expeditions in search of some crime faith tells you was committed, that they not only reversed their support, but denied their previously, strong worded statements in the past, that they switch sides on issues of national security, the economy, Social Security, civil rights, etc.
I don’t fear you, I pity you & all of others that think they can play both sides in a PR battle, while trying to grab power. The lessons learned from all of the previous attacks on American soil, against its citizens, against 100’s of other countries throughout the world are completely lost on you. To you, the only real threats are your fellow citizens or those that would question you or at least ask you to justify what it is that you believe. But answering questions or committing to a course of action hasn’t been a real strong point for you or your side’s politicians for about 50 years. Just ask the Cambodians, the South Vietnamese, Haiti, Serbians, the South Koreans, the Cubans, Elian Gonzales, Nicaragua, the people of Darfur, the Afghanis or the Iraqis to name a few. Your side talks a good talk & the moment there is nothing further you can gain politically, you abandon them to the realities & the real threats you completely ignore or insist are not real.
Do you ever wonder why the Pelosi lead Congress has lower approval ratings than the Bush Administration, which you claim is so corrupt, greedy, insincere & bent on world domination? My guess is that you can’t, because that would force to you look at yourself & not rely upon having someone else to blame.
So go ahead & call me all of the names you can, never address any rational or valid point made against you, because we both know you have nothing but your hate & in truth it’s not me or my side that you hate, it’s yourself & your own weakness of soul, character & spirit. You don’t deserve my ire, but you’ve earned only my pity.
Wow Pmain. Just WOW…One hell of a response to our Basso Profundo troll. I just wish he’d actually read it ,digest it and learn something from it. Sadly,no
Pman nice job typing between all those wrenching sobs. Don’t short out your keyboard. The Webster’s people ought to take your post and use it as a definition of projection. I mean c’mon, this is the very definition of the way the Bush Administration works:
Here’s some links debunking your deluded crap about Clinton and terrorism. I’m not even going to bother with your defense of the child raping, murderer David Koresh.
http://tinyurl.com/795d2
Oh and again WTF does any of that have to do with Iraq?
It has nothing to do w/ Iraq, it shows how your preferred method of governing treats its own citizens vs. the people actually trying to kill us. Again, I never have defended the Brach Davidians – care to point me to where I have?, I just find it funny that the bombers of the WTC were given better treatment, a trial & weren’t killed or burned alive, unlike the US citizens in the compund that day. No defense of them or their actions or beliefs, just find it funny that the Clinton Administration sure didn’t take the same measures to protect them as they did real terrorists. You really need to read what people say, because I am not the one projecting, unless you can factually refute any of the points I have made & not dismissed them by calling me a name – didn’t think so. Facts, like reading or retaining infomration aren’t a part of your MO, name calling, pointless article linking & conjecture is.
Just re-read your linked article & funny how it addresses none of the points I brought up. You also forgot to mention that Clinton also directed American foreign policy to remove Saddam from Iraq… his follow up, much less his attempts on OBL, none what-so-ever. Why, because they choose to pursue a criminal investigation vs. a military response. Unless you can document something more then lining up the paper work & launching a couple of cruise missiles that did nothing more than take out am aspirin factory or kill some camels. How many Al Qaeda targets did the Clinton Administration get again? What steps did the CA take to remove Saddam again? What was the military response to the bombings of the embassies or the USS Cole again? Funny how your defense doesn’t include any of that. In fact, the Clinton Administration set the policy that Bush followed, but they never did. It’s that policy that you are against, but in actions, the Clinton Administration did nothing more then try to prosecute those that were actively at war w/ us. The exact opposite of how they responded to the Branch Davidians.
Once again, the point I have made over & over. So call my winger again, attack me personally, but as you have shown time & again, you cannot refute the actual facts.
t/w: no latter38 is going to get you out of the hole you’ve placed yourself in.