This Week in Bullshit

Kind of abbreviated to deal with real life stuff this week and maybe next.

* If you ask some people, the conflict between Shia and Sunni in Iraq is about to come to an end, just ask the Iraqi parliament. If you ask non-crazy people, you might get a different answer.

* I’m loathe to link to Andrew Sullivan, because he was one of the most vile of the bullshit artists in the lead up to and the first few years of the war. Still, good on him for calling bullshit on the people who can’t even imagine that atrocities happen in war.

*Alberto Gonzales lies to Congress and while it’s nice that the good folks at Sadly No! are calling Bullshit, what might actually get something done is Inslee’s impeachment bill.

*Bill O’Reilly is crazy.

* The Discovery Institutes’s own Patrick Bell is paranoid. I’m hoping that he fills us in on the details of this conspiracy some time soon.

Use this as an open thread

Comments

  1. 1

    Daddy Love spews:

    Gosh, who would believe that the Shi’ites who want to take control of Iraq and the Sunnis who made up the bulk of the Army, have the most to lose under a Shi’ite government, and who are being bankrolled to the tune of $20-50 million by the Saudis could possibly find themsleves in conflict, or that such a conflict might prove intractable and long lasting?

    It’s not about a thousand-year-old conflict, but about who will have the upper hand in Iraq NOW.

  2. 2

    RightEqualsStupid spews:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20031757/

    Here’s some bullshit – the good kind – the inbred right wing party is fighting amongst itself on the abortion issue. Good news for freedom loving Americans.

    As for Bill O Really – this shows just how whacked out the right is that they will let a pervert, bully and coward like Bill O be their spokesperson. Whether it’s settling out of court to keep his latest sexual harrasment victim quiet, writing creepy sex novels, hiding his rich upbringing or just plain old acting like the batshit lunatic he is, O Really is probably the next right wing asshole we’ll find doing the perp walk.

  3. 4

    Puddybud spews:

    Stupidman: Ever been to Levitttown, LI? How is that a rich upbringing for Bill O’Reilly. Or, are you full of Bullshittium as ever?

    Bullshittium it is!

  4. 7

    Another TJ spews:

    Bill O… hiding his rich upbringing

    Yep, he’s done a number on some of the more idiotic of the village. Or maybe O’Reilly just forgot he grew up in Westbury and went to private schools for every bit of his education? Yeah, that’s probably it, just a memory lapse.

    In all seriousness, everyone should click on Carl’s link and read David Neiwert’s post. It’s chilling. And while you’re there, poke around some and read his other posts on O’Reilly, Malkin, and the whole gang. David’s one of the best there is.

  5. 8

    spews:

    @5
    Actually, the progress in the Middle East is happening despite Bush’s actions. In fact, the current plan being pushed was introduced in 2002 by the Saudis but has been delayed for 5 years.

  6. 9

    spews:

    Bill O’Reilly is just nuts but he’s a dangerous nut because he has a loud megaphone which allows him more often than not to get what he wants.

    Aside from being nuts, Bill is a tool. Roger Ailes tells him what to do and he does it and he’s well rewarded for following orders.

    Well we have a megaphone too if we choose to use it. Join FoxAttacks and shut Bill O’Reilly and the rest of the tools down.

  7. 10

    spews:

    PH @ 6

    It appears that democrats are more partisan than republicans.

    I call BULLSHIT!

    In the house, the party in power generally has higher partisan concordance. The Senate is a little more variable, but has been in the high 80s for both parties in recent years.

    It looks like the real news for the current (110th) congress is that so many Republicans are ditching their party stances.

    Here are the data:

    Senate Democratic Republican
    110 ….. 88.5% ……. 82.3%
    109 ….. 87.1% ……. 87.2%
    108 ….. 84.9% ……. 91.8%
    107 ….. 88.4% ……. 87.3%

    House Democratic Republican
    110 ….. 92.7% ……. 84.2%
    109 ….. 87.4% ……. 88.9%
    108 ….. 87.2% ……. 90.2%
    107 ….. 85.8% ……. 90.4%

  8. 11

    SeattleJew spews:

    @8 Lee

    Yes, Bush has done a shitty job, but that does not change the current situation. If ther eis an oportunity, then I hope it can be realized even if it means he gets credit.

    The original proposal by Adfullah was differenr form the current one in a numbe rof ways:

    1. The central actors in this, the Palestinians were unwilling or unable to negotiate. At least part of this was the implied support from Iraq. Jordan is very thin and unlikely on tis own to support a major Palestinian insurrection. Saddam wa sonly a few miles away, was already a major source of subsidy to the suicide jihadists and had many incentives to promise support.

    As a Zionist, the neocon suport for Bush is one of those shameful things (the other major one being the collab with Aparatheid) we have been involved in to preserve Israel’s existance.

    2. OMHO (along with Chris Hitchins) there should be 3 sides to the Iraq debate. Assuming there are still Bushistas, I suggest that is one side. On the other side there are peaceniks who always side with whoever they see as oppressed. The IRA, the PLO, etc. But ther eis a third POV that I share. This is that there were good reaons for the invasion, but the CIC utterly screwed it up.

    3. Taking the third POV and reading the POllack Maloney report in yesterday’s Times, is part of why I am supportive of Barack and Hillary. Unlike Edwards and Richardson they have both been fairly careful (she more than he) of making poltical commtiments that could limit their abilities to make a strategic withdrawal form the Bush Bumble-up.

    It would be HORRIBLE if, because of the single mindedness of the American media and oversimplification, the US failed to take advantage of what good could still come out of Iraq.

    4. In the latter spirit, here is the SJ plan:

    a. We should involve President Hu. Putin is backing Abbas, the Europeans are too. That leaves the Chinese. A untied fornt would be an irresistable force for peace.

    b. Blair is lousy choice for his new job. Colin Powell or a thord world figure might make more sense. I wonder a bout invovling Mbeki is such a thing?

    c. The US should announce a permanent commitment ot Kurdistani independence, not necessarily asa “coutnry” but at a minimum as a self governing province. The Kurds, BTW have had a long standing good relationship with Israel.

    d. The US should come out in support of Turkey asa contact with Iran.

    e. If the Maloney/Pollack analysis is correct, it appears that the Biden 3-state plan might work.

    The biggest issue in a 3 state solution is oil money for the Sunnis. That said, I have recently read that exploration in Anbar looks very promising. Since the current government reminds me of the propped up regimes of the failing South Vietnam, I wonder if we ought not to just abandon this government and instead put efforts around a regional oil authority?

    f. The other difficult issue is what form of government might evolve in the South. I lack the expertise to have a strong opinion, but I suspect the fear of an Irani controlled entity may be overdone. Arabs and Sassanids have been at it for over 1000 years and I do nto think Iranian Shiisim is triumphant over Arab identity. In any case, we shoudl work at undermining the Iranians.

    5. My fear is that the political avalanche elicited by the Bushies’ incompetence, might harm a real effort. There is one thing worse that Bush getting credit for anything good, that is if nothing good happens because he has alienated everyone form the peasants in China to the ghost of Falwell.

    So, elect SJ president? Nahhh … no fat Jewish guy is EVER going to be MY prexy.

  9. 12

    Daddy Love spews:

    SJ

    Good God. WHAT?!

    It’s not Pollack and Maloney, it’s Pollack and O’Hanlon. Jeez, do you think sometimes the Irish get a little peeved too?

    But Pollack and O’Hanlon are idiots, who have gotten only everything wrong about Iraq from before the war (when they cheered it on) to yesterday’s NYT (when they were falsely calimed to be “war critics” who pulled a rosy assessment of our situation in Iraq out of their asses on the basis of meetings with Bush administration officials and a couple of Iraqi toadies in the Green Zone). Their assessment is at odds with any objective measures one can find.

    For more on their putrid and error-filled Iraq War careers, please see Glenn Greenwald’s meticulous takedown at http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/.

    This is that there were good reasons for the invasion, but the CIC utterly screwed it up.

    Wow. Were you ever wrong. It was a stupid and irrational idea from the start, unless you just like the idea of invading and occupying other countries “just because.” Whatever happened to “never again?” It’s not just for Jews any more.

    If the Maloney/Pollack analysis is correct, it appears that the Biden 3-state plan might work.

    Well, then, we can put it to bed. They’re wrong because they’re always wrong, which means that the Biden forced ethnic partition/ethnic cleansing plan will blow the fuck up in everyone’s faces. What’s Turkey suppsed to do while we set up an in-all-but-name independent Kurdistan? They’ll LOVE that. And oil in Anbar? Yeah, the Iraqis don’t really KNOW where the oil in their country is, do they? I’m sure the Sunnis will just forget about getting their share of their nation’s wealth in the form of Kirkuk/Ramallah oil fields in return for a roll of the dice in Anbar. Uh-huh. Yeah, the’ll do that.

    But you know what? Fundamentally, it is not up to US to decide how they should get along/partition their country/share their wealth/ etc. Not. Up. To. Us.

  10. 13

    Daddy Love spews:

    SJ

    there were good reasons for the invasion

    I’d like to return to this. Um, what were they?

  11. 14

    Ethics democrat style, no democrats complaining as usual spews:

    Mollohan, D – W Va is under investigation from the FBI. How does he react, by voting to cut their funding AFTER he claimed to have recused himself from all FBI votes.
    Gotta love it! Ethics is to democrats what the KlanBake is to racists.

    http://news.aol.com/elections-.....r-recusal/

  12. 15

    Republicans more bipartisan than democrats spews:

    @10 – Darryl says:
    – It looks like the real news for the current (110th) congress is that so many Republicans are ditching their party stances.

    What you call ditching is actually called being bipartisan. I don’t expect people on the left to recognize it, after all, your party refuses to do it. I

  13. 16

    Bush sucks spews:

    Hey #11 Seattle Jew, didn’t you get the democrat talking points this morning? Nothing good can happen while bush/hitler is president. He might get credit and that’s the wrong thing for this country.

  14. 18

    Fixing the trolls message spews:

    #14
    “Gotta love it! Ethics is to democrats what the KlanBake is to racists.”

    This doesn’t make sense. It should read “Ethics are to democrats what the KlanBake is to republicans.” HorseAss has some of the stupidest trolls around.

  15. 19

    ArtFart spews:

    Peace in the Middle East is the Neocons’ worst nightmare. They’ll stop at nothing to prevent it.

  16. 21

    spews:

    Yes, Bush has done a shitty job, but that does not change the current situation. If ther eis an oportunity, then I hope it can be realized even if it means he gets credit.

    But as I said before, any progress on this front is happening despite what Bush has done. But if Bush gets credit for it, it will inadvertently legitimize a lot of the stupid things that Bush has done. That’s not good for the long term as it would likely lead to the unraveling of any good that comes out of the current process.

    The original proposal by Adfullah was differenr form the current one in a numbe rof ways:

    1. The central actors in this, the Palestinians were unwilling or unable to negotiate. At least part of this was the implied support from Iraq. Jordan is very thin and unlikely on tis own to support a major Palestinian insurrection. Saddam wa sonly a few miles away, was already a major source of subsidy to the suicide jihadists and had many incentives to promise support.

    OK, you’ve got a lot of factual errors here. First of all, the Palestinian willingness to negotiate hasn’t changed much between 2002 and 2007. If anything, with Hamas more firmly in charge, Israel is in a tougher situation than when they had to deal with Arafat.

    Second, you’re grossly overstating the effect that Saddam had in the Palestinian territories. He gave money to the families of suicide bombers, but did not fund the attacks.

    Third, the amount of private support for Palestinian insurgency has likely gone up in the past 5 years rather than down. This is one of the ways in which the current peace process will be more difficult than if we had embarked on it starting in 2002.

    Finally, even the Israeli media doesn’t say that Abdullah’s plan is different between 2002 and 2007

    2. OMHO (along with Chris Hitchins) there should be 3 sides to the Iraq debate. Assuming there are still Bushistas, I suggest that is one side. On the other side there are peaceniks who always side with whoever they see as oppressed. The IRA, the PLO, etc. But ther eis a third POV that I share. This is that there were good reaons for the invasion, but the CIC utterly screwed it up.

    Again, a few problems with this. One, the Palestinian people are oppressed. Standing up for them is not an extreme position. That has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq either, since many people who saw the Iraqis as oppressed supported the invasion. Bush screwed up Iraq, but what I’m saying is that the biggest screw-up of all was invading Iraq instead of trying to move forward with Abdullah’s 2002 proposal.

    3. Taking the third POV and reading the POllack Maloney report in yesterday’s Times, is part of why I am supportive of Barack and Hillary. Unlike Edwards and Richardson they have both been fairly careful (she more than he) of making poltical commtiments that could limit their abilities to make a strategic withdrawal form the Bush Bumble-up.

    The Pollack-O’Hanlon report was borderline comical. They talked solely about military efforts while completely ignoring the fact that Iraq is in a no-win political quagmire that renders any military solutions obsolete. The military solution is to slowly let Iraq devolve to the point where we can build walls everywhere like they’re doing in the West Bank. Only the truly insane could see that as being a success. Joe Biden probably understands Iraq better than any of the other Democratic candidates, but I don’t believe that Hillary and Obama are necessarily smarter about Iraq than Richardson and Edwards.

    It would be HORRIBLE if, because of the single mindedness of the American media and oversimplification, the US failed to take advantage of what good could still come out of Iraq.

    At this point, we are not capable of doing anything good in Iraq. We are not trusted by the people of that country, nor are we even trusted by the other countries in the area. There’s simply nothing to be gained by staying. Good things can come out of Iraq, but they will be accomplished when the circumstances arise that allow for moderate Iraqis to regain control of their country. As a result of Bush’s blundering, this is likely a generation or two away.

    Some thoughts on your proposals:

    a. We should involve President Hu. Putin is backing Abbas, the Europeans are too. That leaves the Chinese. A untied fornt would be an irresistable force for peace.

    This problem will not be solved as a proxy war. If you approach it this way, we will continue to go nowhere. The U.S. should not be choosing sides, the U.S. and other foreign powers should remain as neutral as possible in order to gain the trust of both sides.

    b. Blair is lousy choice for his new job. Colin Powell or a thord world figure might make more sense. I wonder a bout invovling Mbeki is such a thing?

    I actually would love to see both Bill Clinton and Colin Powell involved. Powell may have some credibility issues coming from Iraq though.

    c. The US should announce a permanent commitment ot Kurdistani independence, not necessarily asa “coutnry” but at a minimum as a self governing province. The Kurds, BTW have had a long standing good relationship with Israel.

    This is likely inevitable and how we deal with Kurdish desires for independence and balance that with Turkish concerns and the Iraqi coalition will be difficult. Again, Biden, for all his faults, has made a lot of sense on this front.

    d. The US should come out in support of Turkey asa contact with Iran.

    I don’t follow. We’ve had good relations with Turkey for years.

    I think I’ll stop here.

  17. 22

    Daddy Love spews:

    15 Republicans more bipartisan than democrats

    When Republicans break ranks enough to invoke cloture on the Republican filibusters so that the Senate can bring one of the 200-odd bills passed by the House to the Senate floor for a simple majority vote, THEN I’ll believe they are less partisan.

  18. 23

    RightEqualsStupid spews:

    Stevens Should Step Down from DoJ Committee Spot – since the Publicans thought Dem Jefferson should resign his committee spot, shouldn’t this crook Stevens do the same or are the Publicans going to prove for the 123,232,144th time that they are hypocrites?

  19. 24

    Daddy Love spews:

    20

    So a drunk kid slashes some tires, AND he is a member of the 60% of Americans who oppose the Iraqi occupation, thus he represents “the left” and proves that “the left” does not “support the troops.”

    What you use for logic I flush down the toilet when I’m done.

  20. 25

    Daddy Love spews:

    20

    Hey, I forgot. If the lady who illegally registered her dog to vote is a noble civil disobedient, why isn’t this kid the same? I mean, besides his .163 BAC?

  21. 26

    Help for daddy love spews:

    #24 – Do you really believe that the kid considers himself conservative? A suggestion… take an aspirin, drink some cool water and get out of the sun.

  22. 27

    the dog lady leans? spews:

    Hey Daddy Love, I couldn’t find any links that said which way the dog lady votes. Any idea?

    p.s. Any connection to DaddyLove98101 I saw on dateline Predators?

  23. 28

    spews:

    @26
    Timothy McVeigh considered himself a conservative and he was angry about the first war we fought in Iraq. Some of the most intense opponents of the Iraq War are Ron Paul-style isolationist conservatives. The point is that his actions don’t prove anything about the left or about whether or not people on the left support the troops. 99.9% of all Americans, both left and right, support the troops. Only an idiot thinks otherwise.

  24. 29

    Daddy Love spews:

    26 Help

    That is not relevant to the question of whether the drunk kid represents “the left” or whether his actions indicate that “the left” as some monolithic whole does not “support the troops.”

    Really, I am using standard English here.

  25. 30

    Daddy Love spews:

    27 dog lady

    Well, she’s white, 66, and thinks that the 2005 state voter-registration law “makes it too easy for noncitizens to vote because the ID requirements are extremely lax.” Using your logic, I’d reckon that makes her a representative of the Republican Party.

    And nope. It’s just my name.

  26. 31

    Daddy Love spews:

    27 dog lady

    and your mind is in the gutter. Too bad you’re here representing the Republican Party; you’re not helping them.

  27. 32

    SeattleJew spews:

    @12 Pollack and O’Hanlon

    Sorry, my bad. I have read Pollack for many years, O’Hanlon is new to me.

    As for Pollack’s historic positions, I maintain he has consistently been a non-partisan honest critic. In Gathering Storm, he argued for an invasion. Much of the information he had then has turned out to be wrong and he has admitted that and become critical of the Bush war.

    I have not yet read the salon piece, but other things I have read … both pro and anti bush seem to say the same thing. The Kurds are effectively governing their territory now. The Shia can not get along withe each other but are certainly not in support of el Quaeda.

    What is new is the decision by the US to back the Sunni tribalists. The effect of this is to give up on the central government in return for a regionally stable regime. The US funded findings of oil in Anbar may help the Sunni to decide they can live w/o dominating the Kurds and the Shia.

  28. 33

    open thread sock poppet spews:

    A week isn’t nearly enough to hold all the bullshit from horses’ asses (mixed metaphors & barnyard miscegnation … bulls, horses, and asses) on this page, but some of the smelliest occasionally gets flushed in fashionable gay toilets:

    ** Nicole Brodeur smacks down Goldstein. It’s a beautiful thing. PMS Goldy goes into a kneejerk whimper and whine whenever somebody says mean things about homicide bombers in Britain or psychokillers in Tacoma, and Seattle usually sucks it up. Not this time, and it’s about time. Even “Governor” Gregoire is getting this one right. That leaves Goldstein, almost alone, with his last-ditch losers on the fringe of lunacy;

    ** GWB said Saddam sought, not bought, uranium in Africa, not Niger. Last I heard, Andrew Sullivan still stands with those notorious 16 words, and says that Saddam’s African venue was Congo, not Niger. Joe Wilson’s goofy junket to the contrary. And if you’re going to jump post-neo-con Sullivan for frogmarching us into war, you better bitch slap Doorknob Dan Savage at The Stranger;

    ** Janet Parshall, the sanest American in America or on radio (1590 AM), has joined Goldstein’s purity crusade. Parshall says that FDA inspects

  29. 34

    continued spews:

    ** Janet Parshall, the sanest American in America or on radio (1590 AM), has joined Goldstein’s purity crusade. Parshall says that FDA inspects

  30. 35

    SeattleJew spews:

    @26 Lee .. as usual I say to much and you answer to much. Let me be selective in answering:

    any progress on this front is happening despite what Bush has done. But if Bush gets credit for it, it will inadvertently legitimize a lot of the stupid things that Bush has done. That’s not good for the long term as it would likely lead to the unraveling of any good that comes out of the current process.

    Siggh, don’t you think some good things can come of bad events? I agree it would be hard to stomach a Peace Prize for lil Bush.

    First of all, the Palestinian willingness to negotiate hasn’t changed much between 2002 and 2007. If anything, with Hamas more firmly in charge, Israel is in a tougher situation than when they had to deal with Arafat.

    Sorry, the PLO reacted badly to the original Abdullah effort, esp in regard to the issue of whether Isarel could be Jewish state. The latter is closely related to the concept of a Palestinian right of return,

    I agree that Hamas is a tougher customer than Arafat but they are not in control. Israel now can play Abbas vs. Hamas. Second, I actually believe that Hamas means well for the Palestinian people, Arafat was a corrupt leader.

    Second, you’re grossly overstating the effect that Saddam had in the Palestinian territories. He gave money to the families of suicide bombers, but did not fund the attacks.

    First, I understand he did fund a number of terror efforts. BUT more importantly, he provided a backdrop that Palestinians believed could some to their aid. Now, other than Syria, they are alone among Arab states.

    Third, the amount of private support for Palestinian insurgency has likely gone up in the past 5 years rather than down. This is one of the ways in which the current peace process will be more difficult than if we had embarked on it starting in 2002.

    Where is your evidence for this?

    One, the Palestinian people are oppressed. Standing up for them is not an extreme position.

    Standing up for the Palestinians is a lot different from standing up for Palestinian irredentism.

    Bush screwed up Iraq, but what I’m saying is that the biggest screw-up of all was invading Iraq instead of trying to move forward with Abdullah’s 2002 proposal. true although I beleive a well done invasion could have and should have brought Abdullah along.

    The Pollack-O’Hanlon report was borderline comical. They talked solely about military efforts while completely ignoring the fact that Iraq is in a no-win political quagmire that renders any military solutions obsolete. The military solution is to slowly let Iraq devolve to the point where we can build walls everywhere like they’re doing in the West Bank. Only the truly insane could see that as being a success. Joe Biden probably understands Iraq better than any of the other Democratic candidates, but I don’t believe that Hillary and Obama are necessarily smarter about Iraq than Richardson and Edwards.

    Well, what Pollack and O’Hanlon’s essay does is say is that the Biden solution is possible. Is there some moral reason we should support the existence of an “Iraq?”

    At this point, we are not capable of doing anything good in Iraq. We are not trusted by the people of that country, nor are we even trusted by the other countries in the area. There’s simply nothing to be gained by staying. Good things can come out of Iraq, but they will be accomplished when the circumstances arise that allow for moderate Iraqis to regain control of their country. As a result of Bush’s blundering, this is likely a generation or two away.

    Nonetheless, losing .. if that is what we are doing .. is itself a strategic issue. We want this to come out as good as possible. Simple withdrawal is not a wlel thought out plan. Or as BO says, “we got in stupidly, now we have to find a way to get our smartly.”

    My Proposals

    a. We should involve President Hu. Putin is backing Abbas, the Europeans are too. That leaves the Chinese. A untied front would be an irresistable force for peace.

    This problem will not be solved as a proxy war.

    I am not suggesting a proxy war nor do I think Chinese are for hire. I do think a united front for peace could do a lot of good. The 21st century will end up in blood shed if we try to be the world’s cop, BUT the world does need some sort of cop. The good thing about the rise in China is that their interests, ours and Europes are now very similar but d

    d. The US should come out in support of Turkey asa contact with Iran.

    They have deteriorated under Mr. B. They are also tricky because turks are not Arabs, BUT neither are Farsi Arabs. It amkes a lot more strategic sense to build up a democratic Turkey than it ever did to support Mr. Hussein.

  31. 36

    Daddy Love spews:

    33 OTSP

    George W. Bush has repudiated the so-called 16 words and has said that they should NOT have been in his State of the Union Address. In addition, with all due respect to that noted international arms control expert Andrew Sullivan, between African expert Joe Wilson, the IAEA and Muhammed El Baradei (who pronounced the documents to be forgeries), George Tenet (who REPEATEDLY tried to get the administration to drop their references to Iraqi aspirations to purchase yellowcake in Africa), the fact of the approximately 550 metric tons of yellowcake and low enriched uranium that already existed at al-Tuwaitha in Iraq, AND lest it not be stated here, the absolute NON-EXISTENCE OF IRAQI NUCLEAR PROGRAMS AS OF 2002-2003 and our knowledge of the inspection results to that effect, I’d say your defense of the 16 words makes you look like a 28-per-center.

    I understand that you represent the Republican Party. Pity they couldn’t do better.

  32. 37

    Daddy Love spews:

    SJ

    Well, what Pollack and O’Hanlon’s essay does is say is that the Biden solution is possible. Is there some moral reason we should support the existence of an “Iraq?”

    There is no moral basis for our continued interference in Iraqi internal affairs. We should get out. The American people want us out. The Iraqi people want us out. Who do you think you are?

    Nonetheless, losing .. if that is what we are doing .. is itself a strategic issue. We want this to come out as good as possible. Simple withdrawal is not a wlel thought out plan.

    Straw man. “Simple withdrawal” is not what is on the table from any player who has a chance at implementing withdrawal. Don’t pretend it is.

  33. 38

    Daddy Love spews:

    During his Senate confirmation hearing today, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs nominee Navy Adm. Michael Mullen argued that without political and economic progress, “no amount of troops and no amount of time will make much of a difference” in the war in Iraq. In questioning later, he conceded, “there does not appear to be much political progress” in Iraq.

    Duh. Guess what that means? Here’s 2. Add it to freakin’ 2. Whaddya get?

  34. 40

    spews:

    Republicans more bipartisan than democrats @ 15,

    What you call ditching is actually called being bipartisan.

    I see…so you are trying to peddle that just this year, Republicans have suddenly become bi-partisan. (*Snicker*)

    And I have a bridge in NYC to sell ya….

    “Your party refuses to do it.”

    Try, again, to actually look and and understand the raw data. It contradicts your assertion.

  35. 41

    SeattleJew spews:

    @38

    The important thing to realize is that by and large WE are the only significant external perturbant in this Paella. If we get out, it would be 4ebst for everyone if the baton were nto passed to others. We do not want Iraq turned into a surrogate battlefield between the Iranians, the Sunnis, the Turks and the Ruskies. Protecting the borders shold have been job #1 when Bush invaded.

    I think everyone other than the Bush Bunker know that we have “lost” the war … whatever it was that we were supposed to “win.” That said, the Pollock-O’Hanlon piece and other recent news form Iraq does suggest we may be able to at least prevent Iraq from being a redo of the Balkan procie wars of 100 years ago.

    The keys seem to be:

    1, Maintain the existence of a DEMOCRATIC (?) Kurdistan.
    2. Prevent a Farsi-shia dominated state in the south.
    3. Let the Sunni evolve, fight it out, to develop some sort of government for their area. Our role, or better the role of some international entity, may be to control the level fo violence.

    A precipitous withdrawal is hardly the “obvious” step to achieve any of these goals. Some parts of the problem, in fact, look solvable with reasonable effort by the US. Even better would be to transition this problem into what it really is .. a world problem. A unified economic oil policy, helped by Russia and China, would go along way to creating the conditiosn needed for peace.

  36. 42

    spews:

    @35
    Siggh, don’t you think some good things can come of bad events? I agree it would be hard to stomach a Peace Prize for lil Bush.

    Sometimes good things do come from bad events, but that does not mean that it’s right to go around doing bad things. To throw out a sports analogy, that’s like a QB throwing 3 interceptions in the first half, then coming back to win, and saying, “I’m so glad I threw those interceptions!”

    Sorry, the PLO reacted badly to the original Abdullah effort, esp in regard to the issue of whether Isarel could be Jewish state. The latter is closely related to the concept of a Palestinian right of return,

    The majority of Palestinians believe that Israel should be a Jewish state and that there should be a two state solution. The PLO reacted badly to the plan because Arafat was a corrupt man who thrived upon the failure of the peace process. The fact that he and the PLO reacted to badly to it was evidence that it was a good plan to move forward with.

    First, I understand he did fund a number of terror efforts. BUT more importantly, he provided a backdrop that Palestinians believed could some to their aid. Now, other than Syria, they are alone among Arab states.

    No, he didn’t fund Hamas or any other group directly. Indirectly, perhaps. And we may never know. But his support was minimal at best and his influence in the region in 2002 even less.

    Where is your evidence for this?

    Mainly because anger at Israel over the occupation has been increasing in the region steadily for years. And America’s actions have intensified that anger.

    Standing up for the Palestinians is a lot different from standing up for Palestinian irredentism.

    Part of standing up for the Palestinians is understanding that when a people are oppressed like that, desperate violent acts are inevitable and shouldn’t be used as an excuse to punish the entire people.

    Well, what Pollack and O’Hanlon’s essay does is say is that the Biden solution is possible. Is there some moral reason we should support the existence of an “Iraq?”

    No, and arguably where I diverge from the conventional thinking on this is that I don’t think America should be pushing for a tri-partite solution. I think the tri-partite solution is inevitable and we need to approach the situation with that uncomfortable perspective in mind. What was disingenuous about O’Hanlon’s and Pollack’s editorial was that it neglected to mention the very important fact that military solutions are like band-aids on a broken leg at this point.

    Nonetheless, losing .. if that is what we are doing .. is itself a strategic issue. We want this to come out as good as possible. Simple withdrawal is not a wlel thought out plan. Or as BO says, “we got in stupidly, now we have to find a way to get our smartly.”

    And you’re still focusing more on the military rather than the political aspect. “Simple withdrawal” is just a catch phrase. All of the Democrats have varying ideas of what to do. The best plan will be decided by what it does politically, not because of the specifics of how our troops exit the region. As callous as it sounds, the only function our troops are serving, other than when they can be of direct humanitarian assistance, is as targets. We should be getting them out of there as soon as possible, but if we do it now, with a President who is simply not capable of providing a political solution, the outcome will be a disaster. Not because we withdrew, but because Bush made the outcome inevitable.

    The important thing that you and I agree on is that problems like this require multinational solutions, and no one can be the world’s cop when they’re not trusted.

  37. 43

    ArtFart spews:

    “military solutions are like band-aids on a broken leg”

    More like axes and sledgehammers.

    Schwartzkopf was right…the military’s job is to “kill people and break things”, and ours is very, very good at that.

  38. 44

    Clyburn puts his party before the country. spews:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....01325.html
    2nd clip in the side bar, fast forward to around 3:30 Talking about possible improvement in Iraq.
    “What do democrats do if general Petraeus comes in in september and says this is working very very well, at this point we would be foolish to back away from it”
    James Clyburn (d) “Well, that would be a very big problem for us.”

    Okay, he rambles for a bit and then remembers that he “supports the troops,” but his first thought was good news for the country, good news for bush is bad news for the democrats.

    How can any democrat that puts the country before his party accept this from one of their leaders. Speaking of leaders, Harry Reid has said the war is lost. Why doesn’t he stop the funding for a lost war, is it just to waste money? These are the types of questions the dem candidates are afraid of, that’s why they are staying clear of Fox news and letting Frosty the snowman as questions via youtube.

  39. 45

    GS spews:

    Your New SCHIP Legislation and it’s $20,000% tax increase on Cigars should be labeled absolutely “SHIT” on another proud industry in this country.

    You’ll lose alot of the Florida vote on this nighmare of yet another massive new tax scheme.

    Bush has vowed to Veto it, which will give us all time to stock up our humidors until you realize your tax follies didn’t pull in the expected revenues….

    Just imagine the side effects:

    What will Bill use when Hillary’s out of town?

    a Bubblegum Cigar from the Kid’s free corner health care clinic I presume…….

    Tell ya what, I’d even send ole Bill a well humidored Ambassador!

    He appreciates one of the finer aspects of a flavored cigar….

    All in the name of the “Children”

    Got to get back to my Humidor fillin

  40. 46

    spews:

    @42

    Lee we are pretty close on most of this.

    I too believe the Palestinians want peace. They need brave leaders willing to commit to peace. I have always thought that the Palestinian would win the day he replaced his Kalushnikov with Gandhi’s homespun dhoti.

    I read an essay today that criticized the O’Hanlon Pollack report for not addressing HOW we take advantage of a military improvement if the price was to arm the eventual armies of the civil war. That seemed to be a good criticism. OTOH, there may be an enforced answer to the chaos in Palestine.

    If the Palestinians can not solve corruption except by electing Hamas, it may be that an imposed peace by the Arabs can give a Palestinian Gandhi a chance to emerge. Ironically the DEMOCRATIC urges of the Iranians, very real in ISLAMIC terms, are a real threat to the ruling cliques. Their efforts to remain in power seem to make them allies of Israel! The ethical issues are very worrisome but I suspect that this sort of alliance is the only hope for peace.

    As for whether I am being unfair to the subtlety of the war plans of the assorted dems, I can only respond to what they say. Hillary, Biden and Barack have been fairly statesman like. (she more than he, Bidenb has been the best). Edwards and Richardson, OTOH have said that all troops would be withdrawn by a specific nearby date.

    Perhaps they do not mean what they say?

  41. 47

    spews:

    @37 There is no moral basis for our continued interference in Iraqi internal affairs. We should get out. The American people want us out. The Iraqi people want us out. Who do you think you are?

    Like it or not, we are responsible for the BUsh FU. We have a moral obligation to clean up the mess and to do ourselves as little damage as possible.

    BTW .. I am just a Jew, what else do I need to be?

    Straw man. “Simple withdrawal” is not what is on the table from any player who has a chance at implementing withdrawal. Don’t pretend it is.

    If Richardson and Edwards are both lying than you are right.