…is give war a chance.
A new group of prominent conservatives plans to begin a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign Wednesday to urge members of Congress who may be wavering in their support for the war in Iraq not to “cut and run.”
The group, Freedom’s Watch, is rolling out television, radio and Internet advertisements in more than 20 states and 60 Congressional districts.
Former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer, the spokesperson for the group, offers their message: “the war in Iraq can be won and Congress must not surrender.”
It is amazing how Fleischer can, in one simple sentence, offer two concepts that are entirely inappropriate for the “war in Iraq.” I won’t even quibble with the fact that Iraq is not truly a war at this point. But Fleischer mentions “winning” and “surrendering.”
When the Bush administration was lying the country into war, they painted an image for us. The U.S. would be welcomed as liberators, the oil money would pay for reconstruction, Iraq would blossom economically following the lifting of the U.N. sanctions, and democracy would take the country (indeed, the entire region) by storm following the toppling of a brutal dictator. And democracy would bring peace to the region.
Instead we see a post-invasion Iraq with unquelled violence both against the occupiers and among numerous ethnic, political, and criminal groups within Iraq. We see broken infrastructure and a dysfunctional Iraqi government that is on the verge of collapse. That original vision of “winning” has been abandoned.
So after a couple years of downgrading expectations in the face of repeated failures, what is a concrete vision for “winning” in Iraq now? Really…what concrete set of goals will define a “win” now?
Secondly, Fleischer mentions the world “surrender.” What the hell does that mean?
Traditionally, “surrendering” implies giving up to another, presumably superior, power. But there is no “superior power” in Iraq. There is no al Qaeda group, Shia or Sunni militia, or ethnic army that we could go and say, “we surrender…you won. What do you want from us?” Because right now, everyone is a loser in Iraq (except for some U.S. contractors and a handful of Iraqis that made off with billions in our cash).
Surrender? Hogwash! We couldn’t surrender if American lives depended on it.
When Republicans say “we cannot surrender,” you know they really mean? They mean that they cannot be humiliated by admitting that the pre-invasion vision was naive and the post-invasion management has been disastrously incompetent.
And so protecting their pride means that a thousand or two additional young Americans have to die in Iraq.
Well said, my friend.
Why isn’t every Republican under age 42, felon or not, in the US Army defending America?
Why are all the young Republicans prancing around on campus, thumping their chests like bad asses?
Shouldn’t they be putting on the ‘battle rattle’ and going for a friendly stroll in those ‘safe’ street markets in Iraq?
You know, not surrendering, in the streets of America.
By the way, when is Bush’s soon-to-be son in-law going to a frontline combat unit in Iraq?????
“The military aspects of President Bush’s new strategy in Iraq … appear to have produced some credible and positive results,” Mr. Levin said in a joint statement with Sen. John W. Warner, Virginia Republican, after a two-day visit last week to Iraq.
“it’s working” Mrs. Clinton said of the troop surge yesterday in a speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in Kansas City, Mo.,
“U.S. Rep. Brian Baird said Thursday that his recent trip to Iraq convinced him the military needs more time in the region, and that a hasty pullout would cause chaos that helps Iran and harms U.S. security.”
What is the liberal HA GWB hate machine going to do with this news????
Well this news is bad for Democrats.
“House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party’s efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.
Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.
Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.
“I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us, ” Clyburn said.”
Of course there’s always the Democrat leadership…
“The war in Iraq “is lost” and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.
Let’s face it. The Democrats have chosen the side of DEFEAT. There is no other outcome that can be good for the Democrat party. I can’t wait for ‘ol Hillary to get the nomination…..Her record on iraq alone will put any R in the oval office…..
Simply put…What is good for the USA in Iraq, is bad for Democrats…..
It’s time to put all this rest. If we are really at war, the epic struggle for freedom of our generation, then we need to bring back the draft.
One person from every single legislative district, no exceptions. We’ll see how popular these cowards really are when one kid from Mercer Island winds up in Iraq. They’ll burn Reichert’s office to the ground.
This is now a religious-civil war. The purpose of the US military is to kill people and destroy property for the US government, not get in the middle of a futile nation-building effort in an area where petty religious differences result in death and destruction on a large scale.
Just close down the show and let the real participants finish it.
@3
Sorry, but I prefer to listen to those who were actually in Iraq fighting the war rather than clueless Congresscritters:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08.....ref=slogin
VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)
The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.
How many members of Mitt Romney’s large family are serving, have served, or intend to serve in the military?
In other, but (imho) related news, the FBI’s been publicizing a photograph of a couple of vaguely middle-eastern looking guys said to have been observed to be “acting suspiciously” on several Washington State ferries. They were unable to pin anything on the “suspects”, so took the rather unprecedented step of making the photo public, accompanied by the question, “Have you seen these men?” Since then, the FBI has been flooded with emails and calls from people who “think they say someone like that”.
Now, not only these two guys, but anyone else with a long face, dark hair, olive skin and anything other than “aryan” features will no doubt attract lots and lots of attention on any public conveyance.
This will probably include my (probably) soon-to-be son-in-law, a devout Catholic who interited his dark coloring and wavy hair from his father’s Maltese forbears, and his long face and prominent nose from his Latvian mother. I’d warn him and my daughter against coming up here to visit for a while, but I’ll betcha it won’t be long before we see similar “suspicious person” alerts foisted off in other major cities.
Lord God Almighty, please somebody try and convince me we’re not a hair’s breadth away from Kristallnacht!
@ 7:
They have other priorities besides military service. Like getting their daddy elected preznit.
Sheeez, don’t you know the standard Republcian line to avoid serving in the military?
Darryl ..
Great post
This action prompts me to define a new word:
rovian .. adj or avd, referring to to the manipulation of a political situation with no concern for its effect on the people or nation affected. See, “ends justify the means.”
Why do I call this Rovian?
Obviously the intent of these Rovian Repricans is to polarize the public on this issue. Because the people behind it know damn damn well that the country will not stand for the Bush fantasy any longer. We are getting out, the issue is (to quote Barak Obama), “We got in stupidly, will we get out smartly?” So why are Rovians doing this .. to force the dem leaders into a corner where they will have to make bad commitments.
The two leading dems have been wonderfully careful NOT to allow themselves to be polarized. If the dems, for example, commit to a precipitous, no holds barred withdrawal the damage to the US and the area would be horrid.
10…or not.
“Let’s face it. The Democrats have chosen the side of DEFEAT. There is no other outcome that can be good for the Democrat party.” Right Stuff @ 3
Anyone who imagines that “victory” in Iraq is possible should probably have a guardian assigned to manage his or her affairs. What, exactly, would victory in Iraq mean at this time, Right Stuff? How many years, how many lives lost, are too many to achieve whatever the undefined goal is over there? Who is it exactly who might surrender over there so that we might claim “victory”? Democrats who want out of Iraq haven’t chosen defeat. They simply recognize that sometimes honesty requires acknowledging mistakes.
@12
What would victory mean? What would it look like?
Look at Japan for your answer.
Harry Reid is just begging, I mean just looking for someone to surrender too….
Democrats who want out of Iraq haven’t chosen defeat
I think that we all want out of Iraq. The soonest possible… The difference is the method of leaving. The Democrat leadership have declared “the war is lost” and have positioned the party (2006 campaign) for immediate withdrawl. Democrats made that promise as part of the “play” for congress. Well, ” ‘ol MO” may be shifting over there. Progress towards a stable political solution is taking place with increased security.. And the Democrats have positioned themselves such that any progress that is good in Iraq, which is good for the USA, which quite logically would boost ratings for GWB, is bad for them….
SJ @ 10
“Rovian” would appear to be a close relative to “Machiavellian.” There is, however, a nuanced difference that provides your word a place in our lingo. I think that your point that we’re getting out of Iraq, regardless, is well-taken. The American people have lost any stomach for this war, or police action, or whatever it is we want to call what we’re doing in Iraq now. This country, at least to some extent, remains a democracy. We the People still reverberates among most of us as retaining some meaning. So, those in charge need to recognize that because staying in Iraq forever is simply not going to happen, we need to get out on the most rational terms possible. Staying until we can declare “victory” is, as they say in the mental health field, JPN (Just Plain Nuts).
Well, lessee. In Vietnam we stubbornly plowed along until there were 58,000 Americans and 2 million Vietnamese dead (but them slope-heads don’t count as much now, do they?) After all that, we were no closer to “winning” than we were when we started.
In fact, it’s debatable whether “victory” had by that time any real definition. If it meant the end of “enemy” resistance, since we’d sort of lost track of who the “enemy” was, about the only way we could make sure that not a shot was fired for a while and say it was all over would have been to kill every man, woman and child who lived there. Whether by continuing the slow-motion slaughter for another 20 or 30 years, or by just having done with it and Dropping The Big One, by then what had once been a pretty little corner of the world would have been reduced to nothing but mud and corpses–a “killing field” on a much grander scale, with nobody’s name on it but ours.
As it turns out, a few decades after we thought better of that and walked away, Vietnam is a reasonably peacful, prosperous place. We’ve even sorta become friendly with the people over there–some thanks on that are due to Senators (and former warriers) McCain and Kerry.
Could the United States possibly have faced up that decision a decade or so earlier, thus saving all that blood and treasure, and had we done so, would the eventual outcome have been the same?
14 there is a difference. Machiaveli was, like Rove self serving. BUT in his era the state and the prince were synonymous. That is no longer the case.
There is a history of Rovian behavior in Democracies. Kenendy’s exploitation of the missile gap was arguably Rovian as was Roosevelt’s acquiescence to southern democrat’s racism. If there is a disitnction, one would have to argue that Roosevelt was a hell of a lot better Prince than the alternative, Thgat surely is the case for Kennedy vs. Nixon BUT objectivley what they did was Rovian.
The worst case, however, comes when Rovian behaviour KNOWINGLY hurts the country. Rove likely cared as much about gay marriage as he does about dog fighting. Rove is also bright enough to realize that GWB was not bright enough to be President. Yet he used polarization ot elect the somabitch.
Some folks on our side criticize Kerry for not responding in kind to the Rovian swiftboaters. I admire Kerry for his decision not to become a Rovian. Now, we have BO and HRC, both talented and ambitious people. I hope they have the courage nOT to p;ick up this gauntlet.
Better yet, they should use the Rovian term openly and denoucne these folks for what they are.
@15
In a wierd way we DID win in Vietnam. Things have largely gone our way.
The real issue with Nixon ios whether we would not have been better off if he declared victory earlier?
“What would victory mean? What would it look like?
Look at Japan for your answer.” Right Stuff
I’m talking about now–what would “victory” be now? Define it for me. No looking down the road to when we’re all dead and speculating.
“Look at Japan for your answer.”
Ah, so. It’s all clear now. We firebomb their cities for a year or two. Next, we drop a couple of nukes to ‘put the fear of god’ into them. Then gen. Petraus recommissions the Missouri, anchors it in the Persian Gulf, dons his aviator sun glasses and corn cob pipe and waits on board stoically for the Maliki government to come aboard to sign the surrender documents.
Why don’t you have the courage to say what you really want, “Kill the brutes.”
They’ll keep this bullshit war going as long as people will put up with it. That’s why they are so afraid of trying to reinstitute the draft.
None of us are as naive as “the best ol’ gol durned generation”. They were eager to send us off to a pointless war to get killed for nothing. They’d never get away with this crap if everyone’s sons and daughters had to serve nowadays.
Pretty standard issue grey propaganda.
Best thing to do is to do exactly what you’re doing, get out in front of it and debunk it before it can get any traction.
Finding and listing the names of the “prominent conservatives” and how much money they contributed would help unmask it.
Contact the folks at freedom watch here:
http://www.freedomswatch.org/contact.aspx
@3 RS, what are we trying to “win” in Iraq? What is the mission? The objective(s)? Do you know? Does anyone?
Is that Ari “Mission Accomplished” Fleisher?
I wonder who is funding this campaign? Possibly the Military Industrial complex?
They should all be in jail. The shameful criminal conduct continues.
I guarantee you that if Congress was impeaching Bush, these fatcats would not be conducting this shameful enterprise.
Therefore, is this not a product of a failed Democratic Party strategy to regain the White House? Even the liberals do not support the Democratic Congress, and this is a prime example why.
@12 What about Japan? Sixty years on, they’re still dependent on us for their defense. How many wards can the U.S. treasury support?
re 21: And list the contributors’ military age relatives who are and are not serving in Iraq.
We can only guess as to which list will be longer.
@15 At least in Vietnam you could define “victory” or “defeat” — if the commies take over S. Vietnam they win and we lose; if they don’t we win and they lose. In Iraq, we don’t even know who’s for us and who’s against us.
GBS YOUR SERVICE BCD AND BOOTED FROM THE NAVY YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO QUESTION ANYONE YOU PISS ANT.
@20 “None of us are as naive as ‘the best ol’ gol durned generation’. They were eager to send us off to a pointless war to get killed for nothing. They’d never get away with this crap if everyone’s sons and daughters had to serve nowadays.”
The Greatest Generation sent their own kids to Vietnam and then turned their backs on us when we came home.
ARTFART@7 and what service did mrs clinton daughter serve in.And bill clinton branch was.so whats your point
Wingnuts never met a war they didn’t like — and never met one they wanted to serve in.
the only fight gbs was in was in a bar and they booted him from the navy so why would anyone listen to a shit bag who runs his gums
http://foxattacks.com/iran?utm_source=rgemail
“Dear activists, colleagues and friends,
I remember very clearly the daily fearmongering led by FOX as they cheered for war with Iraq. The 24/7 images, sound effects, yelling and threatening were an ever-present drumbeat for war. We had to invade, and we had to invade now.. anyone who didn’t see that was a traitor. They viciously attacked those of us who worked to get out the truth.
You’d think that with the complete failure in Iraq, those days would be behind us. Sadly, you’d be wrong.
FOX wants war with Iran.”
@26
Right on sister!
Roger Rabbit says:
Wingnuts never met a war they didn’t like — and never met one they wanted to serve in.
Really?? Cool! Let’s let the active military vote for our next president. I am in. hehehehehe
They’ll keep this bullshit war going as long as people will put up with it. That’s why they are so afraid of trying to reinstitute the draft.
None of us are as naive as “the best ol’ gol durned generation”. They were eager to send us off to a pointless war to get killed for nothing. They’d never get away with this crap if everyone’s sons and daughters had to serve nowadays.
Hehehehehe A moonbat pissed off because there isn’t a draft. Just sit tight and let the real men fight this war. We will let you know when it is time to surrender and we have to draft some pussies.
re 36: There are women over there who are better patriots and fighters than you will ever be. You are a chickendodo.
re 36: Sometimes I e-mail stupid wingnut comments to my Republican relatives.
When they read one of their talking points with “hehehe” after it, it gradually changes them . Look at Richard Pope. Do you think he wants some hehehe-ing dweeb as his philosophical brother? That’s why he’s a Democrat now — and he burned your asses for $40 grand before leaving. hehehe
You know, we all owe right stuff a thank you. Thanks right stuff. You really do understand all the talking points well. I commend you! Thank you for bringing the Rovian point of view, and talking points to the readers of HA.
Victory? If you haven’t noticed, most of the Iraqi government quit. They are trying to keep from having a total collapse as I type, and it ain’t lookin’ good.
As far as what Harry Reid said, I agree completely. We lost the war in Iraq the day the chimp was appointed preznit by the supreme court.
If you don’t agree right stuff, please name one thing he, and his buddies got right in Iraq. One single thing.
(Crickets chirping)
That’s right, you can’t.
They got nothing right. If you don’t believe me, go to the Egyptian Theater and watch No End In Sight, http://www.noendinsightmovie.com
It is sad how you wingnuts want to use the word “victory” when 4 million completely innocent Iraqis have been displaced, and hundreds of thousands have been murdered because of our indifference, and unwillingness to provide for, or plan for their security. We killed them all in one way or another, and not a single one ever did anything to hurt, or threaten us. Nothing.
When we invaded Iraq, we were responsible for the security of the people that lived there. The slimeballs in the White House, and Pentagon could care less about their lives. I hve news for you, and your friends. The rest of the world knows, and understands what we did to those people, and they know why we did it. If you didn’t have 24/7 Hannity / Rush pig types lying to you, you would understand too right stuff.
I tell you what. I can help you understand right stuff. I will go dig up 250,000 rotting Iraqi corpses, (every single one an innocent non combatant of course) and pile them on your lawn. (Your neighbors will be thrilled!) I will then stick your head in the pile, and wait for the stench to sink into your tiny brain. Eventually you will figure it out, or die gagging.
May god have pity on your soul if you don’t make it.
Those people did not deserve to die because of us. That’s right us. The United States of America killed them just the same as if we lined them all up against a wall and executed them all at the same time. Men, women, and children. They probably would have suffered less if we did line them up by the way.
They died for Bush’s lust for power, and the greed of his backers, and with the help of the clueless cowardly lemmings like yourself. If you still trust, and believe in Bush right stuff, you belong in a rubber room with a diaper. You are a threat to yourself, and your country, as well as our world.
So Mr. Rather. When are you, or your children going to go down and sign up so you can help “win” in Iraq?
Yeah, I thought so.
Wars are for other people’s children to fight. Especially the poor folks right? Sign up today and get $$$$$$$$ Hee haw!!!
A reminder to some of you who sadly support Hillary in 2008: She DID vote for this in the beginning. Remember that before you typical ignorant liberals paint the GOP as totally responsible for this-turns out they aren’t.
[Deleted — Darryl, see HA Comment Policy]
Teacher, #42 is of topic!
GBS says:
Why isn’t every Republican under age 42, felon or not, in the US Army defending America?
Why are all the young Republicans prancing around on campus, thumping their chests like bad asses?
Shouldn’t they be putting on the ‘battle rattle’ and going for a friendly stroll in those ’safe’ street markets in Iraq?
You know, not surrendering, in the streets of America.
By the way, when is Bush’s soon-to-be son in-law going to a frontline combat unit in Iraq?????
GBS says:
Why isn’t every Republican under age 42, felon or not, in the US Army defending America?
Why are all the young Republicans prancing around on campus, thumping their chests like bad asses?
Shouldn’t they be putting on the ‘battle rattle’ and going for a friendly stroll in those ’safe’ street markets in Iraq?
You know, not surrendering, in the streets of America.
By the way, when is Bush’s soon-to-be son in-law going to a frontline combat unit in Iraq?????
Been there, done that asshole. What about you? You wouldn’t last one day you fucking little PUSSY!!
GBS says:
@ 7:
They have other priorities besides military service. Like getting their daddy elected preznit.
Sheeez, don’t you know the standard Republcian line to avoid serving in the military?
You mean like Bill Klinton? Who didn’t serve because….to use his words, he “loathed” the military? He wrote a letter to a Col. Holmes of the US Army during the 60’s using those exact words when he dodged the draft.
re 45: You’re such a dork , pizza face!
George W. Bush is a military deserter and a traitor.
George H.W. Bush is a WWII hero. No wonder he cries in public when people ask him about his retarded, bike-ridin’ son who is playing preznit.
Someone should photoshop one of those propeller beanies on “W’s” head.
I think he’d look right at home in it.
headless lucy says:
George W. Bush is a military deserter and a traitor.
That’s highly debatable, but its irrefutable that Bill Clinton dodged the draft during the 60’s.
#46, BC signed up for the draft. I guess you forgot. You must have been thinking about Deferment Dick Cheney. I think Cheney set the record for deferments.
How come none of the wingnuts have named something Bush got right in Iraq? He must have done something right?
[Deleted — Darryl, see HA Comment Policy]
Roger Rabbit says:
@15 At least in Vietnam you could define “victory” or “defeat” — if the commies take over S. Vietnam they win and we lose; if they don’t we win and they lose. In Iraq, we don’t even know who’s for us and who’s against us.
Roger why don’t you go over there and see who is really supporting the Troops. Maybe you might find out why you got your sorry ass shoot up in Viet Nam. We all know you wouldn’t want to do that because then you would have to deal with your own demons. Yep your friends Kerry, Fonda, and your pot smoking friends have all the right answers and support North Viet Nam in France. You all had a great party after we cut and run from South Viet Nam. You were proud of Pol Pot after he finished off millions of poor souls in the killing fields. It must really be great to support a bunch of Socialist Democrats today who boast how the same plan will work in Iraq.
Nice paste job Mark. You do understand that a Clinton turd would make a better president than the lying chimp right?
So Mark. In an attempt to stay on topic, please let me know what those 250,000 dead Iraqis did to deserve to die.
If my memory serves me correct, they voted to authorize the use of force as a last resort, after Bush had proven Saddam took part in the 9-11 attacks, and had actively helped Al Queda. To say they voted to approve of an invasion is just plain wrong. Of course being wrong doesn’t ever seem to bother righties. In fact they are pretty much always wrong. On everything. Kill the poor to help the rich. That is the Republicon’s motto!
@53 Mark
How can I thank you! I a not a Nill Clinton fan and had always assumed that Bill, along with Bushie and Dickie had avoided the draft without any consciousness of his own motives.
In the words of the immortal poet, Peter Lorre, I am shocked, shocked to find the young man’s thoughts so deep and insightful. I misjudged him,
You know I lacked Mr. Clinton’s courage, I served in the US Navy during that period. Unlike Bill, I did not understand that the war was wrong, but like him found a way to keep my ass out of danger by serving as a shoreside doc.
Thanks to you, I have new insight into myself and new respect for Mr. Clinton.
I have posted the letter at SeattleJew.
Again how I can thank you for this kindness?
@32 “why would anyone listen to a shit bag who runs his gums”
Indeed …
@35 “Let’s let the active military vote for our next president.”
I have absolutely no problem with that … but Republicans do:
“The Republican National Committee has a special offer for African-American soldiers: Go to Baghdad, lose your vote. A confidential campaign directed by GOP party chiefs in October 2004 sought to challenge the ballots of tens of thousands of voters in the last presidential election ….
“Here’s how the scheme worked: The RNC mailed these voters letters in envelopes marked, ‘Do not forward’, to be returned to the sender. These letters were mailed to servicemen and women, some stationed overseas, to their US home addresses. The letters then returned to the Bush-Cheney campaign as ‘undeliverable.’ The lists of soldiers of ‘undeliverable’ letters were transmitted from state headquarters … to the RNC in Washington. The party could then challenge the voters’ registration and thereby prevent their absentee ballots being counted. …
“The Republican National Committee in Washington … has refused to say why it would mark soldiers as having ‘bad addresses’ subject to challenge when they had been assigned abroad. … Setting up such a challenge list would be a crime under federal law. … no other explanation for the mailings. … Soldiers sending in their ballot from abroad would not know their vote was lost because of a challenge.”
Quoted under Fair Use; for complete article and/or copyright info see http://tinyurl.com/jv9nf
Roger Rabbit Commentary: What kind of slime suckers would take advantage of soldiers’ deployment to a combat zone to deprive them of their vote? Troop-hating Republican slime suckers, that’s who.
Yes, I think we should let soldiers vote! We should let them vote on how Republicans equipped them. We should let them vote on how Republicans tried to cut their combat pay. We should let them vote on how Republicans treated them when they were wounded. We should let them vote on how Republicans extended their Iraq tours of duty. We should let them vote on how Republicans kept them in the service after their enlistments expired with “stop-loss” orders.
We should have trials, and put soldiers on the juries, and let them vote as jurors.
@41 “Mark1 says: A reminder to some of you who sadly support Hillary in 2008: She DID vote for this in the beginning. Remember that before you typical ignorant liberals paint the GOP as totally responsible for this-turns out they aren’t.”
Yes, Mark1, she voted for it — because a Republican administration lied to her.
So — who would YOU vote for? The liars? Not me.
Those who favor war should always have the burden of justification and the burden of proof.
We are now 4 1/2 years into Dubya’s recreational war, with no end in sight. The proof was never there; and the burden of justification grows heavier with each passing day and additional life lost.
Bush, vietnam, and iraq – Lessons Learned: Stay longer
Lil Bush’s new defense of the war in Iraq is the same old defense from the time he started it which, in his words, “The war in Iraq is part of a larger war on terrorism, and that war is a lot like World War II, the Korean War and some other wars in which we’ve fought.)
Now he’s claiming that the war in Iraq is also a lot like Vietnam. Well, its not like he never said this before. Today however,he added a new twist suggesting that we should take heed of the lessons of Vietnam as we think about our next steps in Iraq.
The million dollar question is……what would those lessons be lil bush?
His answer:
1) We should always support our troops. (ok, I can agree to this one)
2) We should have stayed in vietnam longer. (How much longer lil bush, perhaps 12 more years)
3) Pulling out of vietnam helped precipitate 9/11 (ok, enough is enough)
Let’s pause for a moment of prayer! For those who don’t believe in prayer then please pause for a moment of silence while anticipating lil bush’s next move. I am sure it will be a doozy!!
@45 Yes, let’s do the Democrats vs. Republicans thing again:
Democrats:
Richard Gephardt – Served 1965-71
Whip David Bonior – Served 1968-72
Leader Tom Daschle – Served 1969-72
Al Gore – Served 1969-71
Bob Kerrey – Medal of Honor, Vietnam
Daniel Inouye – Medal of Honor, World War 2
John Kerry – Silver Star & 3 Purple Hearts, Vietnam
Max Cleland – Silver Star & Purple Heart, Vietnam
Ted Kennedy – Served 1951-1953.
Tom Harkin – Served 1962-67, Reserves 1968-74.
Leonard Boswell – 2 Vietnam tours, 2 Distinguished Flying Crosses, 2 Bronze Stars, Soldier’s Medal
“Pete” Peterson – POW, Silver Star, Purple Heart, Legion of Merit.
Gray Davis – served in Vietnam.
Chuck Robb – served in Vietnam
George McGovern – World War 2 hero; flew dozens of missions, awarded Distinguished Flying Cross & Silver Star.
Republicans:
Dennis Hastert – avoided draft
Dick Armey – avoided draft
Tom Delay – avoided draft
Trent Lott – avoided draft
George W. Bush – joined Nat’l Guard to avoid Vietnam, refused to take flight physical, failed to show up for required drills … but says he’s “been to war”
Dick Cheney – avoided draft by getting 5 deferments, said he “had other priorities than military service”
John Ashcroft – avoided draft by getting teaching deferment
Karl Rove – avoided draft
Newt Gingrich – avoided draft
Ronald Reagan – served in a noncombat role; stationed in Hollywood
Don Nickles – did not serve
Richard Shelby – did not serve
J. C. Watts – did not serve
Jack Kemp – did not serve
Dan Quayle – avoided Vietnam service by using family influence to get a slot in the journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard when the unit was at 150% capacity
Elliott Abrams – did not serve
Vin Weber – did not serve
Richard Perle – did not serve
Rudy Guiliani – did not serve
Bill O’Reilly – did not serve
Bill Bennett – did not serve
Pat Buchanan – did not serve
Rush Limbaugh – did not serve
Bill Kristol – did not serve
@50 Absolutely nothing is debatable about these facts:
1. George W. Bush used his congressman father’s connections to jump ahead of 200 other applicants to get into the Texas Air National Guard.
2. George W. Bush rendered no useful service after taxpayers spent over $1 million training him to fly jet fighters.
3. George W. Bush failed to report for required drills.
4. George W. Bush did not have permission to be absent from said drills.
5. George W. Bush was grounded for failing to show up for a mandatory flight physical.
6. George W. Bush did not complete the enlistment he agreed to serve; he requested and received early discharge to attend business school.
7. George W. Bush never served an overseas deployment.
8. George W. Bush got nowhere near the Vietnam War.
Flaky klake @53 If I need military advice from you, I’ll let you know. Feel free to hold your breath in the meantime.
@59 Rodent:
As usual, you’re misinformed. She voted for it of her own free will, but you in your usual cop-out ways cannot fathom that she wasn’t mislead, but supported of her own free will. You just can’t stand the fact that it’s hers and many other Dems. fault from the beginning too. Have fun with that imaginary halo bunny-boy.
@35 “Let’s let the active military vote for our next president.”
I have absolutely no problem with that … but Republicans do:
Well as a former looser presidential candidate once said “Bring it on”. Sucka
None of this crap of democrat poll workers counting the military votes either. You dems threw out enough of the soideir’s votes already.
RS:
While you do have a point that the Petraeus Report, if it is positive, will be a roadblock for those who want the troops brought home now, did you know that the ACTUAL Petraeus Report will probably not be seen by the public until it is declassified by a future Administration, if ever? What the public WILL get to see will be a Report that has been heavily edited, if not completely rewritten by the Bush White House. And seeing as how trustworthy they have been proven to be, can you possibly imagine that the Petraeus Report would be anything other than sunshine and roses?
And how can you possibly imagine that anyone outside of Bush’s ‘base’ (quick aside: how do you say ‘the base’ in Arabic? Say it with me – ‘al Qaeda’) will actually take the Petraeus Report seriously?
The only logical solution to this quagmire, aside from total withdrawal, is to withdraw to the Kurdish North (where they really do want us), negotiate a solution with Turkey to keep them from intervening in a new Kurdish nation, and let the Shi’a and Sunni have their bloodbath. In all likelihood, Iran will sooner or later come in on the Shi’ite side, while Saudi Arabia will continue to finance the Sunni militias as they have done since the beginning of the conflict. All we need to do, if not completely withdraw, is to protect the Kurds and do the nation-building where it is actually wanted.
C’mon, Roger…at least give the GOP credit for McCain. Not that he’s doing much now except serving as the right’s token veteran poster child.
Let’s see now…the last time the US did win a war, the president was from WHICH party?
And Mark, don’t bore us with that silly nonsense in Grenada.
@67 Mark1
SLANDER
Rabbits are many things, but neither they nor we are rodents. That word is a terrible, racist, ignorantg insult to all ungulates, including rabbits and pooka.
You owe us an apology.
@64
Just to be fair, Bush daddy and Bob Dole were true war heroes. It seems as if Prubricans began draft dodging, etc, only after WWII. the obvious exception is John McCain … but he suffered twice, once as POW and second as VOR (victim of Rove).
It is also rather intriguing to note which side in congres has heroes .. Webb and Murtha!
@72 ArtFart
Do you mean the victory in Bosnia under Clinton or the victory over drugs under Nancy Reagan?
Rove, rovem rove your boat,
Swiftly dwon the stream…
Merrily, muddily, maddeningly,
life is but a dream.
70 BJ
Incorrect:
It won’t be “edited” or “rewrittnen” by the White House. The report is being written by the White House.
http://www.latimes.com/news/na.....ome-center
SeattleJew says:
@53 Mark
How can I thank you! I a not a Nill Clinton fan and had always assumed that Bill, along with Bushie and Dickie had avoided the draft without any consciousness of his own motives.
In the words of the immortal poet, Peter Lorre, I am shocked, shocked to find the young man’s thoughts so deep and insightful. I misjudged him,
You know I lacked Mr. Clinton’s courage, I served in the US Navy during that period. Unlike Bill, I did not understand that the war was wrong, but like him found a way to keep my ass out of danger by serving as a shoreside doc.
Thanks to you, I have new insight into myself and new respect for Mr. Clinton.
I have posted the letter at SeattleJew.
Again how I can thank you for this kindness?
So you see dodging the draft as a virtue? This is Seattle after all. What do you expect.
Same old same old, isn’t it?
Anyone who favors any kind of withdrawal is said to be proposing “immediate” withdrawal.
Anyone who thinks it is not in our national interest to continue spending $10 billion a month, 10 American lives, and 2000 Iraqi ones to prop up a government that is falling apart (the “emergency” session Maliki called to bring the Sunnis back in brought in exactly zero) in a country that overwhelmingly wants us to leave is accused of wishing for “defeat.”
Chew on this for minute, and understand: a military presence in a nation that does not support that presence is doomed to failure. And it doesn’t matter what any of us want.
http://www.worldpublicopinion......06_rpt.pdf
– A large majority of Iraqis–71%–say they would like the Iraqi government to ask for US-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less. Given four options, 37 percent take the position that they would like US-led forces withdrawn “within six months,” while another 34 percent opt for “gradually withdraw[ing] US-led forces according to a one-year timeline.”
– Support for attacks against US-led forces has increased sharply to 61 percent (27% strongly, 34% somewhat). This represents a 14-point increase from January 2006, when only 47 percent of Iraqis supported attacks.
– More broadly, 79 percent of Iraqis say that the US is having a negative influence on the situation in Iraq, with just 14 percent saying that it is having a positive influence.
– Asked “If the US made a commitment to withdraw from Iraq according to a timeline, do you think this would strengthen the Iraqi government, weaken it, or have no effect either way?” 53 percent said that it would strengthen the government, while just 24 percent said it would weaken the government.
– Asked what effect it would have “if US-led forces withdraw from Iraq in the next six months,” 58 percent overall say that violence would decrease (35% a lot, 23% a little).
That’s 100 American lives per month, BTW.
@69
And you have proof of this?
Courtesy Duncan Black:
To add to this a bit, the only reason consevatives are now agitating to kick out al-Maliki and install Iyad Allawi (their favorite boy, who as Prime Minister was famous for pulling a pistol and executing suspected insurgents at a Baghdad police station), is to kick the can down the road for a few more months.
We all know the drill. “Give the man a chance to succeed,” they’ll say. “You defeatists want him to fail,” they’ll say, when we point out that another American-backed brutal dicatator who failed the first time out is even more sure going to fail AGAIN to trot out the beloved pony of political reconciliation.
“We should know in six months,” they’ll say. Yeah, sure. More war without end, then blame the Democrats for the Bush/Republican failure.
Mark says:
[Deleted — Darryl, see HA Comment Policy]
Thanks Darryl – you cock sucking worthless Marxist-Leninist hater of free speech!!!
Mark @ 82
“Thanks Darryl – you cock sucking worthless Marxist-Leninist hater of free speech!!!”
You’re welcome…anything for you pal!
70 BJ
Incorrect:
a Report that has been heavily edited, if not completely rewritten by the Bush White House.
It won’t be “edited” or “rewrittnen” by the White House. The report is being written by the White House.
http://www.latimes.com/news/na tionworld/world/la-fg-pullback 15aug15,0,4840766.story?page=1 &coll=la-home-center
Despite Bush’s repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.
08/23/2007 at 7:41 am
You know of course that this is the case becuase…..wait for it……..THE DEMOCRAT CONGRESS MANDATED IT.
The Democrats put the language in the legislation that the WH is to prepare the report for congress….Not only that. The Gen and Amb. to Iraq are going to appear in open and closed hearings, so that there is an open record…No WH spin machine possible there……Democrats, who run the congress, will have open access to question the Gen and Amb.
It’s been the media wrongly reporting about whom will prepare the report to congress. It has been the MSM who have been attempting to frame this as a GWB whitewash, pro surge spin… When it couldn’t be further from the truth.
“The legislation says that Petraeus and Crocker ‘will be made available to testify in open and closed sessions before the relevant committees of the Congress’ before the delivery of the report. It also clearly states that the president ‘will prepare the report and submit the report to Congress’ after consultation with the secretaries of state and defense and with the top U.S. military commander in Iraq and the U.S. ambassador.
Darryl says:
Mark @ 82
“Thanks Darryl – you cock sucking worthless Marxist-Leninist hater of free speech!!!”
You’re welcome…anything for you pal!
At least you can admit and embrace who and what you are.
While you do have a point that the Petraeus Report, if it is positive, will be a roadblock for those who want the troops brought home now, did you know that the ACTUAL Petraeus Report will probably not be seen by the public until it is declassified by a future Administration, if ever? What the public WILL get to see will be a Report that has been heavily edited, if not completely rewritten by the Bush White House. And seeing as how trustworthy they have been proven to be, can you possibly imagine that the Petraeus Report would be anything other than sunshine and roses?
This is KOS, Olbermann, MSM hype. The Democrats are the ones who mandated the WH prepare the report…
It also appears that the head of the larges sunni insurgent group is going to join with the Iraqi government and coalition forces to fight Al Qaeda.
“The leader of Iraq’s banned Baath party, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, has decided to join efforts by the Iraqi authorities to fight al-Qaeda, one of the party’s former top officials, Abu Wisam al-Jashaami, told pan-Arab daily Al Hayat.
“AlDouri has decided to sever ties with al-Qaeda and sign up to the programme of the national resistance, which includes routing Islamist terrorists and opening up dialogue with the Baghdad government and foreign forces,” al-Jashaami said.
Al-Douri has decided to deal directly with US forces in Iraq, according to al-Jashaami. He figures in the 55-card deck of “most wanted” officials from the former Iraqi regime issued by the US government.
In return, for cooperating in the fight against al-Qaeda, al-Douri has asked for guarantees over his men’s safety and for an end to Iraqi army attacks on his militias.
Recent weeks have seen a first step in this direction, when Baathist fighters cooperated with Iraqi government forces in hunting down al-Qaeda operatives in the volatile Diyala province and in several districts of the capital, Baghadad.”
If this turns out to be valid….A major hurdle, the insurgency, is effectively over.
Still a long road ahead, but that would be real progress.
A new poll of Iowa voters by the GOP firm Strategic Vision:
http://strategicvision.biz/pol.....082307.htm
Yep — most Iowa Republicans want all the troops out of Iraq in six months. Why do Republicans hate America? Corn-eating surrender monkeys.
84 RS
Gee, do you think I left the wrong impression?
86 RS
Really? That’s funny. The “insurgency” is the Sunni resistance to the American occupation, to other foreign (read: al Qaeda) interference in Iraq, and to the Shiite majority rule. Not necessarily in that order. Now in Iraq the US has apparently switched sides and is currently arming the insurgency, who remain implacably opposed to the previously mentioned. While for a short time we have them more involved with killing Shia (read: the police and security forces) and foreigners (the few that there are) than with killing us, how long do you really think that will last? To quote MTR: Dumbass.
As for your “news flash”
http://www.albasrah.net/pages/.....38;lapage=../ar_articles_2007/0807/ba3thi_220807.htm
Sorry, that link is in Arabic…
http://uruknet.info/?p=m35603&s1=h1
And Professor Juan Cole’s take:
http://www.juancole.com/2007/0.....-role.html
– Attacks in June “reached their highest daily average since May 2003, showing a surge in violence as President George W. Bush completed a buildup of U.S. troops.”
http://www.alertnet.org/thenew.....416437.htm
– The “number of unidentified bodies in the capital has risen again to pre-surge levels over the last two months,” concluded a report by IraqSlogger.
http://www.iraqslogger.com/ind.....in_Baghdad
– Today’s National Intelligence Estimate concludes that “the level of overall violence, including attacks on and casualties among civilians, remains high; Iraq’s sectarian groups remain unreconciled; AQI retains the ability to conduct high-profile attacks; and to date, Iraqi political leaders remain unable to govern effectively.”
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap.....47639.html
@91
My point remains that if the article were true, a major hurdle in quieting the insurgency would be accomplished.
Indeed the professor acknowledges the same; “If it were true, it would be significant”
What one Baath party leader says about another, to another, is highly suspect…. I know….
We’ll just have to wait and see what their actions are. Those always speak louder than words.
It would appear the Bushistas have taken a dramatic turn, after heretofore resisting any and all attempts to compare this war with Vietnam. Now, at risk of dredging up everyone’s bad memories of how that one turned out, they’re apparently hoping that by now all of us Boomers have become sufficiently senile that we’ll sit idly by and let them try and do what Reagan tried (and failed miserably) to do: redefine America’s greatest military fiasco as a “noble cause”. So now, we get to watch the Worst President Ever(tm) attempt to persuade us to “win one for the Gipper”.
@77 Mark
Are you really that dim? Clinton wrote a moving letter about the moral issues of avoiding the draft. Bush and the other psuedopatriots dodged the draft with no reason other than their own convenience.
Clinton’s reasoning is very clear, he shares this reasoning with our founding fathers who, after all, were traitors to an unfair system. He shares this with Willy Brandt who solved hi moral problems by donning a foreign uniform.
I had numerous friends who died in Nam and others who fucked their lives by leaving the US. Both sides are heroes in my book. Folks who let others serve so they could lay around taking drugs, working in Daddy’s campaign, etc. .. they should have the good grace to not criticize other’s patriotism.
@86
That’s some high-quality wishful thinking there. The fact that al-Qaeda has gotten so strong is why al-Douri is now afraid of them and wants the U.S. to go beat them up for him (while al-Douri’s opinion of the U.S. has not shifted, his view of our usefulness to him has). The problem in Iraq right now is that the longer we stay, the more likely al-Qaeda becomes a permanent fixture in Iraq. Our presence is al-Qaeda’s greatest asset.
Cole also pointed out that al-Duri just called conference of “anti-american forces” in Jordan. I don’t think they were swapping cookie recipes.
What happened in Vietnam was that the hawks were wrong and the doves were right. And they hate that.
New NIE:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....id=topnews
So everything’s going to get worse for at least a year. That’s why we should stay, right?
But I still think a Sunni – Shi’a war is inevitable. And this will seriously weaken Iran as they get drawn into the quagmire that we now inhabit. And the conflict will also drain the coffers of the Saudi financiers of the Sunni militas.
What we’ll eventually see is Islam’s version of the Hundred-Year and the Thirty-Year wars between Catholics and Protestants back in the Middle Ages. As I’ve said before, all we need to do is to protect the Kurds and stay out of everyone else’s way.
99 BJ
With all due respect, I don’t see it that way at all, although the future of the region is damn hard to see. I end up with BIG questions I’m not sure if I can answer. Examples:
– The Iraqi Kurds want independence and their local oilfields. Independence for Iraqi Kurds will sure as shit cause Turkey (who has a large and restive Kurdish population controlling a large Turkish territory) to strike down upon them with great vengeance and furious anger.
– Shi’ites are he majority and want to finally call the shots in Iraq, but the Baathist Sunnnis have all the military experience and the Saudis backing them. What happens?
– Is it in Iran’s interest to have a weak, divided Iraq or a strong Shi’ite iraq, and how do they make either one happen?
– ALL of the Iraqi Muslims are against Israel’s Palestinian treatment. What does this do and how does it play out?
Answer: America the fuck out.
@100 Some light at the end of the tunnel Daddy Love is in
– The Iraqi Kurds want independence and their local oilfields. Independence for Iraqi Kurds will sure as shit cause Turkey (who has a large and restive Kurdish population controlling a large Turkish territory) to strike down upon them with great vengeance and furious anger.
This is actually one of the easist issues ot address once th region is free of bush people. The Turks have begun the necessary process of treating their Kurds better .. e.g. by allowing Kurdish education. What the Kurds do NOT want is terrorism from wiin an Iraqui Kurdistan. But the Iraqui Kurds have a LOT to do to rebuild their country and seem to be getting this done, A US presence in Kurdistan would be welcome, at least in the near term, and would provide an effective block to the Turks while they work out their internal issues.
one reaosn not to just withdraw
Shi’ites are he majority and want to finally call the shots in Iraq, but the Baathist Sunnnis have all the military experience and the Saudis backing them. What happens?
Actually this is not correct. The Shia do want to rule if Iraq is untied but the last thing they want is an ongoing guerrilla war with el Qaeda. The problme is that Shiite and Sunni populations in central Iraq are very mixed. On suggestion is a repeat of the Pakistan-India or Bosnian answer. The worry is that Pakistan-India cost huge numbers of lives and Bosnia only worked after ethnic cleansing was largely complete.
There are no clear answer here but there is some hope. General Petraeus has allied us with the local Sunni war lords. They might not be happy w/o Kurdi and shia oil BUT the US has found oil in Anbar. It is conceivable that the Sunnis might busy themselves with spending the new found wealth IF we cna find a plan to extricate the Shia.
– Is it in Iran’s interest to have a weak, divided Iraq or a strong Shi’ite iraq, and how do they make either one happen?
You are correct here and I think the South is a huge problme because the Shia are at war with themselves. WE can not do fuck about this. Iran can, but do we really wnat a corridor Irani running up to Kuwait?
– ALL of the Iraqi Muslims are against Israel’s Palestinian treatment. What does this do and how does it play out?
This is really not true. The Kurds have worked with the Israelis for years. The Sunni will likely go along with Syrian and Egypt if there is a theater piece move,
Answer: America the fuck out.
That’s why I said that a diplomatic solution with Turkey needs to be worked out. The new government in Turkey is reportedly more open to Kurdish inclusion domestically, but still wanting to root out the neo-Marxist PKK (Kurdish Worker’s Party) terrorists that have involved the Turks in a fight that has cost about 30k lives over the life of that insurgency. By giving the Kurdish people a true homeland, they (with US aid and training) could potentially help the Turks reign in, if not eliminate the PKK, which would go a long way towards keeping the Turks happy, and therefore out of Kurdish affairs.
“The Turks have begun the necessary process of treating their Kurds better .. e.g. by allowing Kurdish education. What the Kurds do NOT want is terrorism from wi[th]in an Iraqui Kurdistan. But the Iraqui Kurds have a LOT to do to rebuild their country and seem to be getting this done, A US presence in Kurdistan would be welcome, at least in the near term, and would provide an effective block to the Turks while they work out their internal issues…one reason not to just withdraw…”
I am guessing that you mean the the Turks do not want “terrorism” from within an Iraqi Kurdistan. What they even more “don’t want” is the Kurdish territory in Turkey joining a Greater Kurdistan, and they’ll murder a lot of people to stop that, and I don’t think they care much if the people they murder are in Turkey or Iraq.
Your imagined need for a US presence in northern Iraq to deter Turkish military moves would be much better accomplished by a NATO or UN presence, which of course has ALWAYS been true of the UN presence in Iraq. Of course, the UN would never have approved our needless, idiotic, criminal invasion in the first place.
“The Shia do want to rule if Iraq is united but the last thing they want is an ongoing guerrilla war with al Qaeda.
al Qaeda in Iraq won’t last five minutes after the US leaves. It has nothing to do with he Shia-Sunni divide in Iraq. So, to contradict you, I am in fact absolutely correct that the Shi’ites are a majority with armed militas, but the Sunnis have the army officers and Saudi backing, and tey are likely to contend for power in a post-US Iraq. So it’s kind of weird that we’re now backing and arming the Sunni insrgency right now. The Bush people have no fucking idea what they’re doing and no plan, just a desperate wish to do something they can use politically at home, as usual.
The Sunnis in Iraq are not al Qaeda. You know this, right?
“There are no clear answer here but there is some hope.”
Ethnic cleansing and huge numbers of dead and refugees is “hope?”
“General Petraeus has allied us with the local Sunni war lords.”
No, we have allied with the Sunni INSURGENCY. It’s like the saying about riding the tiger. “I know how to ride the tiger; I just do not know how to get off.”
“They might not be happy w/o Kurdi and shia oil BUT the US has found oil in Anbar.”
The presence of oil in Anbar has been known for a long time. It does not measure up the the really huge deposits elswhere, so you are correct in saying that the Sunnis wil NOT be happy with only that.
“You are correct here and I think the South is a huge problme because the Shia are at war with themselves.”
The Shia are “at war with themsleves” for the same reason they are at war with the Sunnis. Who is going to get to run Iraq?
Re Palestine: Why would Iraqi Sunnis “go along” with Egypt and Syria when the Saudis are their sponsors? Why would the Iraqii Shi’ite majority ever “go along” with any of those Sunni nations? That’s not to say that a settlement of the Palestinian question wouldn’t help. But it’s not “Egypt and Syria” who have to go along for this, it’s ISRAEL and the Palestinians. And this administration isn’t doing squat to bring this about, of course.
103
The PKK is one of the armed peshmerga factions protecting the Kurds in Iraq, and one we will not touch because they keep order there and we won’t fuck with out Kurdish Iraqi allies. But the Turks hate this. And the only thing the Turks hate more is the concept of “giving the Kurdish people a true homeland” because they are probably correct to assume that the Turkish Kurds are going to want to join such a homeland and take their Turkish land with them. Such a turn of events would neither “keep the Turks happy” NOR keep them “out of Kurdish affairs.”
Now you see, this is exactly what I was just saying. From wshingtonpost.com:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....46_pf.html
Yes. We’re working with the Sunni insurgency, and it’s a shortterm solution that will probably backfire on us. But what Republican initiative isn’t?
Oh, and the Shia use the police and army as their private militias, and there’s no way in hell they’re going to hire Sunnis. They use them to KILL Sunnis.
Hey, you “surge is working” guys—why don’t you lay some facts on the table to support this assertion? Why don’t you tell us how much less violence there is, or how much more electricity is being generated, or the progress Maliki’s government has made toward reconciliation and unity. Oh, that’s right, you never will.
I can. Maliki’s government is toast, but US moves to replace him will not help. The last thing Iraqis want is another US-backed government.
As for the rest, let’s compare 2006 and 2007
http://www.washingtonmonthly.c.....011931.php
Iraqi Military and Police Killed Up 23%
Multiple Fatality Bombings Down 25%
# Killed in Mult. Fatality Bombings Up 19%
U.S. Troop Fatalities Up 80%
U.S. Troops Wounded Up 45%
Size of Insurgency Up ~250%
Attacks on Oil and Gas Pipelines Up 75%
Diesel Fuel Available Down 22%
Kerosene Available Down 11%
Gasoline Available Down 24%
LPG Available Down 0.1%
Electricity Generated Down 4%
Hours Electricity Per Day Down 14%
What happens when the military can’t agree on what to do with the surge?
Seattle Times article says the Joint Chiefs want to reduce the number of troops in Iraq by half. This is the widely-predicted overstressing of our military to support the war, past its breaking point.
This does not bode well for the future, either in Iraq or right here at home.
-OM