Warning! The following is for adults only! “Congress Gone Wild” just got wilder! It’s “Congress Gone Wild” on Spring Break! Madame Speaker Pelosi will be doing Jay Leno and Rahm Emanuel is bringing his comedy act to the Gridiron Dinner, leaving those freshman Dems to explain why none of the early six bills pushed by House Democrats has yet been signed into law!
Watch these wacky Congresspeople try to explain why they are on Spring Break until April 16—one day after the Pentagon says it must get the emergency funding for troop operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to avoid cutbacks. Sure, these kooky kids commissioned their budget office to say the Army could continue to wage war through July without additional funding from Congress. But this kind of disruption to key programs would have a genuinely adverse effect on the readiness of the Army and the quality of life for soldiers and their families. Whoo-hoo!
Maybe they are planning to stock up on Red Bull and pull an all-nighter to fund our troops when they get back to DC after all that important fundraising and golfing. But it looks like the issues Dems have to hammer out among themselves are not likely to get resolved overnight. Gnarly!
Assuming the Dems can cobble something together (which is not a sure thing), Pelosi and Emanuel publicly proclaim that Bush will be blamed if he vetoes whatever pork-laden attempt to impose timetables on our troops in Iraq reaches his desk. Off the record, however, legislators know the odds are against them:
Unlike the (1995) government shutdown, which caused real hardships(?), few lawmakers in either party expect any money to be cut for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. With small Democratic majorities, a Bush veto is all but certain to be sustained. And passage of legislation providing the money, without a withdrawal timetable, seems likely to follow.
They know this is the likely result because the Senate timetable is non-binding already. And because imposing timetables for retreat is about the only thing the new Democratic Congress is known for—and more people disapprove of their policies than approve of them. Specifically, a mere 22 percent think Congress has done a good job on Iraq.
Moreover, the GOP Congress got blamed for the government shutdowns in 1995 for the same reason President Reagan took the balme for shutdowns in the 1980s. Most people—who do not follow politics fanatically—see the GOP as the party that is less interested in having the government open all the time. In contrast, the Dems have a long history of being less trusted on national security issues. Even now, almost 80 percent of Americans are concerned that that the Democratic Congress will push too hastily for the withdrawal of US troops in Iraq. And the arguments to be made against the current bills resonate.
Congress better enjoy that Spring Break, because it may be flunking those finals.
Yes, congress, do enjoy your “spring break”. Don’t think about the troops you OVERWHELMINGLY voted to send to war. You know those troops who will continue to work through the “Easter†holiday. Those self-same troops you have so diligently worked to undermined once you determined the political ramifications of a “winâ€Â. Oh, and Queen Nancy, I certainly hope you enjoy your taxpayer funded trip to Syria. Just think how it will look to our troops, you know, the ones at WAR, seeing you embrace and break bread with assad, terrorist sponsor extraordinary. Hey, maybe you can do a shout out to them during the propaganda videos you’ll be making. Please ensure you have Keith Ellison with you though, for that extra impact. Such a master stroke, taking the “first muslim elected to congress†with you. Sends the right message to the enemy. If there was justice in life, Madam Traitor, you would be met at LaGuardia or JFK by the FBI, arrested, and charged under the Logan Act. But, thankfully for congress, the laws only apply to the unwashed masses.
I swear these people are inviting a coup d’etat, with their arrogance. We’re in the Metellus
era of late Republic, but moving toward Sulla
at lightning speed, skipping past the Marius
stage (with regards to the Jugurthan and Mithridates conflict)
Classical allusions aside, the hypocrisy and mendacity of the most self-absorbed congress evah is astounding.
And the really, really pitiful part is that the MSM will blink and ignore it, or find a way to Blame it on Someone, Anyone Else.
We are rapidly becoming a society in need of Zoloft.
I wonder if this was what those that claimed the November 2006 election was a true change in direction & focus had in mind? The fundamental islamists only want to convert us or kill us, the Democrats, merely want to watch or maybe speed things along. After all you can’t get much more equal when everyone wears the same noose, nuance! Given the accomplishments of these previous Congress, the Republicans that decided to sit out last election are starting to look like geniuses.
Whatever you do, don’t tempt Nancy Pelosi with beads.
Transcript from this morning’s Chris Matthews show. This is Matthews, NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell, and noted fake Joe Klein:
“MITCHELL: I think the Republicans are going to crack. What I’ve been told from inside the moderate center of the Republican caucus is that the vote in favor of the president this week  it was against the president but the Republicans holding for the president  was misleading.
That they really are not in favor of the surge. They don’t believe it’s going to work. But they basically said the president has until August, until Labor Day. After that, if it doesn’t work, they’re running.
+++
MITCHELL: They’ll stick until September and then
they’ll leave. I believe very firmly that they’re
against what he is doing but they feel that General Petraeus has persuaded them that for all intents and purposes, they can’t vote a withdrawal before September.
+++
MITCHELL: Petraeus went to the Republican caucus and told them, I will have real progress to you by August. They told him, if  we’ll stick with you â€â€
KLEIN: I don’t think he did.
Well, I  excuse me…
MATTHEWS: Agree to disagree.
KLEIN: I believe that he did not, and I think that this is a…
MATTHEWS: But the country was led to believe  by the way, the nature of the surge, the word itself is an escalation, suggests a short-term upgrade of the effort.
KLEIN: Counter-insurgency tactics are not a surge.
They’re a glacier that takes years to work.
MATTHEWS: Then we were given the wrong labeling here. We have the word surge. Andrea, we got the label from the president himself.
KLEIN: The important thing this isn’t going to work.
MITCHELL: The Republicans were against the surge but they felt it was fait accompli, and that they were willing to give Petraeus until August. He told them there will be real progress by August. They have told him at a caucus meeting as very, very recently, that if there isn’t progress by August  and real progress means not a day of
violence and a day of sanity  that they will pull the plug.”
Why is Petraeus giving a secret briefing to the Republican caucus? Why are Republican politicians willing to sacrifice another X number of US soldiers and untold numbers of Iraqi civilians for a strategy they don’t believe will work? Why in fact is Petraeus allowing himself to be used (and cast aside once it fails) to promote a strategy he hismelf in the new counter insurgency manual says would take 1,250,000 troops, not 170,000?
Right marky mark
Because Klein, Mitchell & Matthews are renowned for their expertise & accurate ability to predict the future… oh wait, they are generally wrong about everything, great source once again. Care to revisit any of their past predictions & see how well they turned out? We could start at the 2004 Presidential elections or how about the initial invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq?
We’ll also completely ignore the “I think the Republicans are going to crack…†since only 2 crossed the aisle in the house & if it is true & 12 Democrats crossed the aisle, what does that mean about the Democrats’ standing then… is it 6 times worse? But then again, most here already believe the Democrats have already cracked or are at least smoking it.
However, you do get points for providing a transcript that you were apparently able to not only read & comprehend, but apply to making an argument. Too bad it isn’t a very good or accurate argument, but you are making progress… how very “progressive†of you.
Care to provide a link to that super secret Republican caucus meeting given by General Petraeus? Didn’t think so.
I believe we are still waiting for your MOS, funny how that every time you’re asked to provide some information to backup another outlandish claim, you disappear. I guess we’ll just have to wait until next week, on a different thread about a different topic to discuss your lack of a rational point made here today.
Maybe you have links to other of their predictions Pman? Not that it matters, the only one claiming inside knowledge here is Andrea Mitchell. I think Matthews, Klein and Mitchell are well connected Republican apologists. But your silly insults aside, you really have no rebuttal do you?
Petraeus’s own counter insurgency manual says he’d need almost 10 times the number of troops to end the insurgency. Bush’s surge is a pathetic attempt to prevent what his own policies have made inevitable. And you have no answer for that Pman. None of you do.
Now I’ve got a life I have to get back to if you don’t mind. You may have all the time in the world to spend here in your own little wingnut purgatory but I don’t.
mark, you have no real grasp of what the surge is about. And you should, as the mission has been explained in detail from the start. It is not Petraeus’s intention to end the insurgency with the extra troops. It isn’t and has never been Petraeus’s mission that the surge troops in part or US troops in whole will END the insurgency. It’s been made very clear that this will be the Iraqi’s job – government. military, and police. All Petraeus intends is to contain the situation and make enough progress to leave the task within the Iraqis reach.
The administration has made it clear from the start that if the Iraqi government takes the ball and runs with it, we’ll continue to provide the needed support. The administration has also made it clear from the start that if they don’t, we’re done.
The Iraqi government has a very good grasp of what the surge is about and what it means and is making the required moves on their end. They understand the surge’s intention, and it’s not to defeat the insurgency on their behalf. You can find pundits and spin doctors like yourself who choose to reinterpret the intention of the surge for their own purposes, but that’s an indication of where they/you are coming from, not unfiltered reality.
I think that’s the second or third time I’ve seen that transcript cited. Did it go out on the Townhouse list or something?
Nah, it’s just markg8 cutting-and-pasting from the oxymoronic Think Progress.
So, when Mitchell was saying everyone in DC knew Plame worked for the CIA, she had that right, too?
BTW, markg’s comment about Chris Matthews being a GOP apologist is a good indicator of how unhinged he is, if his prior comment about wanting to throw me against a wall until my skull shatters wasn’t a tip-off.
JST the Iraqi Army doesn’t have one and a quarter million troops either. Even if they did they certainly wouldn’t be the equal of that many US soldiers. If it’d take 1.25 million US soldiers it’d probably take 2 million Iraqis. On top of that it’s anybody’s guess how many of the existing Iraqi security forces actually have any loyalty to the Maliki government. With desertion rates of 50% and higher I’d say not many. Certainly not enough.
I saw Mitchell make that claim on Matthews’ show today. I was glad to see Think Progress and Atrios picked up on it too. This ought to be a big deal.
McConnell and the rest have a lot of explaining to do. They can deny it and pledge fealty to Bush’s US Army killing neverending war in Iraq or they can fess up and admit they’re on board til Labor Day.
Some of the Blue Dogs have come up with a plan for quarterly funding bills and monthly reports to congress. I say give Bush $25 billion for June 1 to Sept. 1. It will be obvious by then this won’t work. Then he can have another $25 billion to get our military out by Jan 1. If he needs more than that he can take it out of the State Dept’s budget for the 48,000 military contractors in Iraq.
Karl you’ve evidently slammed your head against the wall a lot over the last few years. You’re doing a fine job and I see no reason to duplicate your efforts. Let me know what you have that stroke. I’ll send flowers.
If I’ve slammed my head against a wall before (aside from trying to engage markg8 on some rational level), I can only imagine what markg8 did to himself.
Re the force ratio:
Or as David Kilcullen—someone who will likely forget more about counter-insurgency than markg8 has even the remotest chance of learning put it, ”Don’t confuse the “Surge” with the Strategy.”
That will be tough for markg8, who seems to be confused about most things.
By that same token, al quaeda would need 1.25 million jihadis. They don’t have the numbers. Why aren’t they giving up? Are you making the same
sophist arguments at their web sites marky?
Good grief.
The entire city of Baghdad isn’t the Area of Operations. Insisting on using the totla population of the city for determining a ratio is either deliberate obfuscation or ignornace.
We have a dispersed battlefield, or what the Marines refer to as a “Three Block War.”
There are numerous AOs across Baghdad. Many parts of the city do not require a regular and constant troop presence.
Mr. Mark also insists on leaving the number of Iraqi Army and Police out of the equation, which is further dishonesty. The point of Counterinsurgency Operations is to enable local capabilities, so such omissions are ignorant and misinfomred as well.
markg8,
You know, you have to apply some common sense upfront.
Karl I don’t doubt Petraeus is the best we have suited to do it but he doesn’t have the tools. How many of our soldiers on the ground in Iraq after 4 years even speak any Arabic? This isn’t first weeks of the surge anymore, it’s now April.
As of yet the oil sharing agreement and de-Baathification reform hasn’t been brought to the floor of the Iraqi parliment let alone passed.
Neither has a method for reforming the constitution the Sunnis were promised.
David Kilcullen seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding about Al Qaeda in Iraq. In his post “From the Advisors—Bombs in Baghdad” he says If insurgents are the fish, and the community is the sea in which they swim, then AQI just showed an incredible level of desperation – attacking its own potential constituents, applying a uniquely repellent form of attack, and emulating Saddam on the anniversary of one of his worst atrocities, into the bargain. What were they thinking?
I responded: Col Kilcullen,
I don’t think AQI cares about the ocean they swim in. They’re not interested in converting the 20% Sunni population to their cause. They’re interested in martyring them. Keeping the Shia and Kurds enraged and engaged in reprisals is their short term goal. Fomenting a greater Shia-Sunni regional sectarian war is their longterm goal. That weakens all their enemies, the US, Iran, the Saudi government etc.
He then responded: Mark, I agree completely with your take on AQI. They certainly don’t care about the Sunni population other than to prey on them. But this, in my view, is their cardinal error – they still need popular support to survive, and the Sunni population is waking up to their exploitative nature and turning against them.
AQI doesn’t need popular support in Iraq. Saddam left plenty of munitions. For financial support they get cash from their Saudi sponsors, kidnap ransom, hijacking, selling videos of their atrocities and a wide assortment of other crimes and legit economic activity. For all we know they get a cut of the cellphone networks wingnuts like to brag about. They sure do come in handy as IED triggers and comm links. They blend in and have ample numbers of enraged Arabs, foreign and domestic willing to sacrifice themselves taking out as many as possible with carbombs. If you’re resigned to dying it beats the futility of confonting the US Army or Marines.
If he doesn’t understand that much I see no reason to put much faith in his sunnier claims.
At great expense we can put blast walls around every market and every neighborhood in Iraq. But nothing is going to end the 4 way war in Iraq until the former and future exiles in the Iraqi government step up and take political responsibility for sharing power and oil revenues.
And the only way to force that issue is for us to set benchmarks and deadlines for our presence.
My guess is Bush knows what will happen if we do that. The Iraqi politicians will take the money they’ve stolen from us and the Iraqi people and bug out for Tehren, London or wherever they plan on living.
I’d rather spend that money on building functioning levees around New Orleans, taking care of our wounded, rebuilding the Army, Reserves and the Guard, and taking out the Taliban and AL Qaeda
leadership once and for all in Afghansitan and Pakistan.
markg8:
Wow, proving your stupidity by confronting an expert.
Sure, AQI is going to do just ducky if the locals start outing them to the Coalition and Iraqi forces, including the Sunni tribes that are increasingly taking AQI on in Anbar.
Clearly Kilcullen is a man who has much less expertise than you in counter-insurgency matters.
But thanks for repeating your stupidity here; I might have missed it otherwise.
I don’t suppose you have a link to anyone who actually knows anything about insurgencies and counter-insurgencies supporting your bals assertion that AQI does not need popular support in Iraq, do you?
BTW, as markg8 didn’t bother to link his exchange with Kilcullen, I’ll point people here, in which markg8 left out this:
Karl, Karl, Karl,
Don’t you ever get tired of being so vehemently wrong? With millions of displaced persons inside Iraq even if all the Sunnis despised AQI they wouldn’t have a clue who to out. Do you think these guys wear uniforms? They have no more problem fitting in than you would in Cincinnati Ohio.
Regardless AQI doesn’t make up more than a tiny minority of the opposition. And if Sunnis are rebelling against their tactics it’s another sign they want all outsiders out. Starting with us.
Kilcullen was addressing Claudio in the first part of that post dimbulb. Notice where he addresses the issue I worte about by usinmg my name.
But to refute his well meaning propaganda and your silly argument how many times are we going to take back Haifa St. Karl? Here are some links from the Wikipedia entry. You don’t even need to look them up, just look at the titles. Only blocks from the Green Zone, making it within easy mortar range, we’ve already taken it back it back at least 3 times. Twice this January alone. That’s not a history of success, it’s a history of failure.
1. ^ a b c d Burns, John F.. “There Are Signs the Tide May Be Turning on Iraq’s Street of Fear”, March 21, 2005. Retrieved on 2007-01-10.
2. ^ (Special Reference Graphic) NIMA 2003 (JPG). University of Texas. Retrieved on 2006-06-25.
3. ^ Operation Haifa Street. Globalsecurity.org (2006-06-15). Retrieved on 2006-01-10.
4. ^ Cockburn, Patrick. “Blast Kills 47 in Baghdad – Hell on Haifa Street”, September 15, 2004. Retrieved on 2006-01-10.
5. ^ Burgess, Lisa. “Patrols Turn Ugly on Baghdad’s Haifa Street”, Stars and Stripes European Edition, September 22, 2004. Retrieved on 2006-01-10.
6. ^ Peterson, Scott. “A violent street finds calm”, The Christian Science Monitor, May 26, 2005. Retrieved on 2007-01-10.
7. ^ a b “Baghdad street becomes new Fallujah”, The Australian, January 10, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-01-10.
8. ^ “50 killed in US-led operation in Iraq”, January 10, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-01-10.
9. ^ Mauer, Richard. “U.S. and Iraqi troops storm Baghdad neighborhood again”, McClatchy Newspapers, Jan 24, 2007. Retrieved on 2006-01-25.
Ooooooooooh!
markg8 is pulling out the dreaded Wikipedia!
OK, if we’re going to go that route, here’s the Wikipedia entry on David Kilcullen.
But Kilcullen—who isin Baghdad at the moment—wrong and markg8 is right.
OK. Sure.
Anyone reading this also spots the tell-tale try at changing the subject at the end. markg8 might as well have waved the white flag, but I guess he’s saving that for the terrorists.
I would ask if markg8 has a link for the bald assertion that the Iraqis want us out before AQI, but I’m still waiting for a link from any expert saying that AQI does not need popular support in Iraq.
You changed the subject to Killcullen’s response to Claudio about Haifa St. and then claimed it’s an exchange between us that I left out. I just responded to the subject you changed to.
Now you want to change the subject again. Ok I’ll bite. If a foreign power invaded and occupied the USA and promised to stay until we adopted their way of life and governance while allowing for the total devestation of our country’s infrastructure, the disappearance of at least a year’s worth of our tax receipts, fired all of our military and local police, made 60% of the people unemployed etc., etc. who would you rather see leave first? That power or a few thousand crazy Canadians who came down here to make trouble because they hate them too?
markg8,
Please. You wanted to talk about Andrea Mitchell’s table gossip from the outset, not the topic of the post.
I noted that folks taking Mitchell’s comment as gospel were singing a different tune when she was talking about Plame. So you dropped that and brought up the COIN manual.
You were refuted on that point by reference to expert opinion, including Kilcullen. The fact that he is currently observing conditions in Baghdad is entirely relevant to the discussion.
And I see you still have no link for either of your supposed points. As usual. I will note in passing that every public opinion poll of Iraqis show that they are glad we got rid of Saddam. So your supposition that everyone there is upset about de-Baathification requires a link before I take it seriously. A link showing that the Iraqi infrastructure we devastated was kept up by Saddam in the first instance would be good too. And a link to the enormous numbers of Iraqis buying cars, household appliances, cellphones, televisions, Internet access, etc. all complaining about those missing tax receipts would be killer.
Mitchell was wrong about Plame. She was simply regurgitating GOP talking points which she does all too often. That’s why I called her a well connected Republican apologist. See Patrick Firzgerald’s repeated assreations about her status and Plame’s testimony to congress that she was covert if you need confirmation of the fact. Is Mitchell wrong about Repubs meeting with Petraeus for a political briefing? A link to a Redstate post that links to a WaPo article from 3/6 about Dems that says nothing at all about Repubs means nothing. But I suppose you’ll say that’s proof. *Sigh*
If you’d like to talk about your silly prediction that Dems are going to lose polling points to Bush over the Iraq supplemental standoff we’ll just have to wait and see won’t we? Reid signed on to an even tougher bill by Feingold today. Doesn’t sound to me like he’s backing down.
Karl quit holding your hands over your eyes.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial/weekiniraq/
No wonder you want to downplay major attacks.
I’d say I hope this isn’t too demoralizing for you but then I don’t really care how you feel. You’d sacrifice the entire US Army, millions of Iraqis, what little is left of our int’l. reputation and hundreds of billions more US taxpayer dollars to prevent your personal epiphany that you’ve been a complete fool Karl. You’re going to have to get over it.
markg8
Can’t stop digging, I see.
First off, I’m not going to waste my time trying to explain to you that there are different meanings of “covert.” Had Fitz thought was legally “covert,” he would have prosecuted someone like Armitage under the IIPA. The CIA internally uses a different definition from the IIPA. But that’s a side issue to Mitchell’s comment.
Let’s move forward:
Is Mitchell wrong about Petraeus? One thing I can state with confidence is that you don’t know the answer to that question. She has blurted out misinformation in the past. But the reason to link RedState is note that it’s also possible that Mitchell was right, but that Petraeus gave the same deal to Dems, who took a pass. After all, you keep saying how good Petraeus is, so I’m thinking that Petraeus is not enough of a bonehead to just offer a meeting with the GOP, especially when Dems are in the majority.
So I don’t think this one is at a stage that can be adjudged right or wrong.
We will see about that, though I didn’t actually make a prediction about that. What I have suggested is that Pres. Bush holds the winning hand in this particular round. And Sen. Obama was kind enough to say on the record what other legislators suggested off the record on that point. Kos has gone from defending the notion that this is a 2008 election strategy to attacking Obama, which suggests to me that the nutroots are getting increasingly restless.
Sen. Reid signing onto the Feingold bill is a political no-brainer for him. The GOP would block it. Reid knows there are not 60 votes to be had for it, if he even bothers to bring it to the floor. It does gull the gullible, which apparently includes you. It’s what he’ll point to if the current Dem bill goes down.
You don’t think your point about the COIN manual was refuted by expert opinion? Crane said, “We never wanted people to think of this as a cookie cutter template.” Maybe that means something else in your world. And maybe you don’t think Kilcullen flat out disagreed with your major premise, though I suspect you would not be dismissing a uniquely qualified expert’s opinion as “well-meaning propaganda” if you didn’t understand that he shot you down.
Moving forward:
2,731 civilians… compared to what? If you download the current Iraq Index from the Brookings Instiution, you will find a chart of the time-series of IBC’s data which shows that number would be below the number of civilian deaths from all violent causes in every month from June-December 2006, and much reduced from the peak of 3,709 in October 2006. So by your own chosen data source, the trend is headed in the right direction over the past months.
Where did I do that? Be specific.
I have no illusions about the level of violence in Iraq, though I would love to see the math behind that claim of 2 million Iraqi widows. The internal displacement is sad too, as was the displacement of the Kurds and others under Saddam, the displacement and mass deaths of Germans in Europe after WWII and so on. You are the one with the historically unrealistic standard here.
As for Cordesman, you don’t provide a link for context, but his prepared testimony criticized the US for overstating the readiness of Iraqi forces much less harshly. The notion that such overstatement is motivated in part by the relentless drumbeat of surrender from people like you probably never crosses your mental transom.
As for al-Sadr, he’s called for a mass protest, but has reportedly ordered the Mahdi Army to stand down. If he cooperates, I’ll be glad to have him just complain. A pol’s gotta do what a pol’s gotta do.
I should add—or clarify—as to Cordesman that he is criticizing the decision of the last batch of generals regarding the type of info given out about Iraqi units.
That decision—and what he thinks is the overstatement of Iraqi troop readiness —occured in the context of a strategy that relied entirely on the “as they stand up, we’ll stand down” idea. The mounting public pressure to leave creates the incentive to overstate Iraqi troop readiness, in order that the US might wash its hands of the matter.
So someone who just wants to leave Iraq ASAP relying on Cordesman’s criticism is a bit ironic.
In contrast, the new strategy, with its focus on unity of command and effort, reduces the incentive to overstate Iraqi troop readiness.
There is no unity of command according to Kilcullen. Effort supposedly, command no.
In short Bush painted himself into a corner
for years by shifting the responsibility for this fiasco on to “the generals in the field” and then dumped Casey, like he did Sanchez before him, when his policies he had them implement blew up. For years we’ve been standing up Mahdi Army goons and Badr brigade thugs in Iraq Army uniforms. You’d know that if you read say, Juan Cole or Needlenose. It’s pretty hard not to. It’d be like sending baseball scouts to the Dominican to recruit promising ballplayers but refusing to consider Latins.
Casey dutifully toed the Bush line for years (as late as October) about more US troops in Iraq being detrimental. So after the November elections and the Iraq Survey Group’s intervention
Bush knew he had to come up with some kind of change he could brand as “new”. He found a general willing to implement it rather than resign
(Petraeus) and gave us the surge.
Let me ask you Karl, look at that “April Fools?” post. It’s not written by some lefty soldier, it’s written by a guy who believes in the mission and knows it isn’t working.
Where in this disaster do you see signs that
Bush’s goals at this point are even possible let alone probable? How can you continue to excuse the complete clusterfuck Bush has made of his own policies? Even you have to see the obfuscations and incomeptence. What makes you think another 30,000 soldiers no matter how and where they’re deployed in a nation of 25 million are going to make the difference?
You’re hanging onto a very frayed piece of twine, not even a rope Karl, in hopes that by the end of the summer the propped up sleazebags in the Iraqi government who have had years to resolve the problems that have led to their civil war are going to evolve into statesmen instead of tribal gangsters with big militias.
So whether or not Bush gets his war funding this month, in July or never the end game is still going to be the same and that’s what matters. Not your gleeful suggestion he’ll win a domestic political victory by forcing congress to fund another year of the occupation. In reality he’s trying to force the Democratic congress to buy the Republican party enough cyanide to commit suicide. I just hope the US Army doesn’t wind up collaterol damage in the process.
Yes, you’re all about supporting the troops, as evidenced by your portrayal of those who re-enlist as the bribed and disadvantaged—one that was roundly mocked by people who know the military (and the law you cited) far better than you.
That was after you misrepresented some voodoo poll to claim that most of the military no longer supports the mission.
Your support for—and knowledge of—military matters is also evident here, in which you paint the top brass as a bunch of drones pliant to the eeevil McChimpler.
Considering they aren’t all there yet and the civilian deaths have dropped back to about where they were before the Sammarah mosque bombing? Considering that Petraeus, who –sorry—knows a lot more about it than you thinks it can work? Considering that the Iraqis are now working their way through reconciliation and oil distribution issues, as suggested by the ISG? Considering that, contrary to popular belief (which generally extends no further then Vietnam), historically, most insurgencies fail over time, unless you give up. But it can take longer than we’ve been there so far for the insurgency to fail. Given your demonstrated lack of knowledge about such things—indeed, your studied effort at avoiding such knowledge—you continue to insist that it play out favorably within your clearly limited attention span. No shock there, and I harbor no illusion of getting you to grow up.
I do thank you for giving me a nice laughsnort with the Juan Cole tip. I assume you mean this Juan Cole. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. And this one. Not to mention this one.
BTW, while the main post looks at the domestic politics of the current situation, getting funding for another year is far more important than that.
Gen. Barry McCaffrey (Ret.)—certainly no Pollyanna on Iraq—suggests that’s about the time window left. That’s over-simplifying, of course, so RTWT.
PS: No need to go through it to pick out the parts you think are most pessimistic. That way, I won’t have quote the parts that are the most optimistic, and we’ll both saved ourselves some time.
PS: Andrea Mitchell was wrong. And was busted by Salon. Who’da Thunkit?
http://tinyurl.com/ywdrnk
You were wrong if that’s the case suggesting Dems refused to meet with Petraeus. But it is Andrea Mitchell we’re talking about. She’s not known for her accuracy anymore than you’re known for jumping to the right conclusion.
All we have to do is hang around Iraq another 10 years and spend another trillion dollars doing it and Bush’s war will be a success, is that it? Not gonna happen. Get over it.
Making the boy king commander in chief and letting him make unfettered use of the US military is the biggest mistake the Republican party ever made. And if it keeps up it may be fatal.
Keep arguing for neverending war Karl. In another year your own relatives will be telling you to STFU. Even better, go find a Iraqi war vet with PTSD in a bar. Sit right down next to him and say the same things to him you say to me. With any luck at all he’ll crack your skull open for you.