As a Usenet discussion
grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler
approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs,
that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost
whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the
existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups
45. alistairConnor - 9/25/2003 4:35:32 AM
The above is Godwin's Law.
I would be tempted to postulate
Con's Exception to Godwin's Law :
* When it's Con who makes the
Nazi comparison, it doesn't kill the thread because
a) nobody takes offence
because nobody takes him seriously, and
b) he's too dumb to realise he's
lost the argument.
46. PelleNilsson - 9/25/2003 5:01:19 AM
Hahaha!
Masterful analysis.
47. Wombat - 9/25/2003 7:29:45 AM
A comparison of Iraq to Germany in the aftermath of WWII is ludicrous.
Germany was bombed flat, not a bridge left standing; tens of thousands dead--if
not more--millions of refugees; occupiers working at cross-purposes; no
industrial plant left standing. Iraq has none of this.
On the other
hand, the fate of Germany after the war was something that was discussed and
planned well before the war ended. Whatever hostility that occupiers experienced
was not translated into partisan warfare--whatever Condolizza Rice might say,
and in the U.S. and British sectors, services and infrastructure were being put
back together very quickly (the French and Soviets had different agendas).
48. Wombat - 9/25/2003 7:38:35 AM
The crux of the pro-administration psychophants' criticism appears to be
"everything's going much better in Iraq--except in Baghdad and the Sunni
triangle--but all the media does is report the bad stuff happening in that
area." That is somewhat like saying that everything is going well in the United
States, except on the Eastern seaboard and in California.
49. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 8:15:52 AM
Well for me the funniest part is connie can't decide whether his defense is a
variation on the "it all depends on what you mean by 'is'" position, claiming
the administration has never REALLY claimed there was a link or the defense that
there really was such a link.
The point of the carefully constructed
statement that can be said to not mean what is meant backfires on the president.
By using those 16 words, rather than coming right out and saying "I have
convincing evidence that Saddam will soon have a nuke," he takes away the "I
made a mistake" or "I was misinformed" defense. He made the statement in that
way on purpose in the Clintonian expectation that he could say that a blow job
isn't "sex" in the event he got caught.
When the president carefully
constructs his yellowcake story, it's clear that he's trying to pull off an
adolescent trick of lying while telling the literal truth. That doesn't work on
adults, as Clinton discovered.
But it makes it clear that he knew what
he was doing at the time--that this was no oversight, no misspeaking, no
misunderstanding that the underlying claim was held to be false by his people.
50. alistairconnor - 9/25/2003 8:32:10 AM
What I find fascinating is the co-incidence of the poll numbers :
the
number of Americans who believe Saddam personally had a hand in 9/11 just dipped
below 50%. As did Bush's approval rating.
At least one of these is not
going to go back up.
51. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 10:13:14 AM
Israeli
reservist pilots refuse to bomb Palestinians
The lead:
A
group of reserve air force pilots drew condemnation Thursday for refusing to
carry out airstrikes in Palestinian areas, but their unprecedented protest set
off an emotional debate on the ethics of the targeted killings of militants
52. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 10:49:13 AM
I just heard a radio report that Edward Said has died at 74.
53. Wombat - 9/25/2003 10:50:46 AM
Not to speak ill of the dead, but Said epitomized why intellectuals should
stay out of politics.
54. concerned - 9/25/2003 10:57:25 AM
Re. 11545 -
AC -
You can't win an argument without facts,
and I'm the only one who has presented them in this one.
So much for
your cheap shot, loser.
55. concerned - 9/25/2003 10:58:48 AM
Re. 11546 -
Unfortunately for you, I wasn't the first one to bring up
this comparison.
56. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 11:02:43 AM
Connie, just because something shows up in the weekly standard doesn't mean
it is a fact. As the vice president illustrated last Sunday saying something
over and over again also cannot transform a false claim into a true claim.
57. Wombat - 9/25/2003 11:16:07 AM
Presenting someone's opinion--second hand at that--is not factual. Neither is
presenting statements of fact that have since been disproven, were speculative
in the first place, or remain unproven.
58. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 11:58:24 AM
Or, worse, repeating something that is false and deliberately planted, as
with the recent Clark smears.
59. concerned - 9/25/2003 12:08:29 PM
Re. 11547 -
Since you are immune to shades of nuance, I don't expect
you to comprehend that the larger point of the article I cited is that media
skepticism about the progress of the Allied occupation in Germany six months
after the end of the war in Germany was in many ways better founded than it is
today wrt the restructuring of Iraq.
Your recital of the differences
between Iraq today and Germany post WWII are mildly entertaining, if nothing
else, at least where you haven't lifted them directly from my cite.
60. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 12:24:46 PM
Actually the Globe and Mail article is making an interesting point. It does
leave out one fact that is different this time. There were no American military
casualties in postwar Germany. There was no armed opposition. The children who
were given guns to shoot soldiers in the aftermath did not shoot.
However, the general point of the article--that things will get better
is well made. The whole operation may be just about hitting bottom right now, or
within a few weeks. Glimmers of hope of UN support are starting to shine. The
Germans have started to make their offers. The troops have to have learned
something about handling garrison duty by now.
It would easier to be
optimistic if there still weren't so many people trying actively to undermine
the reconstruction, by killing anyone who is working on it.
61. Wombat - 9/25/2003 12:43:19 PM
One Canadian journalist does not equal a general statement about "media
skepticism" concerning the progress of postwar rebuilding in Germany.
It
was recognized at the time that rebuilding Germany would take a long time. With
Iraq, the administration is only now beginning to admit that it might take
longer and cost more money than originally claimed. Why? Even someone as slavish
as Concerned must recognize that the Bush administration sold the war to the
American public as something that would be over quickly, with minimal sacrifice,
and with the reconstruction costs defrayed by Iraqi oil exports. If they did
this in ignorance, then they are not competent to oversee the reconstruction--or
to govern the United States.
If they deliberately ignored information to
the contrary in creating their rosy postwar scenario,and lied--again--to the
U.S. public, high administration officials need to lose their jobs, and--given
the lowered bar created by the Republicans--impeachment of Bush should also be
considered.
62. jexster - 9/25/2003 12:54:18 PM
Fool Us Once Fuck You: Bush Falls Flat at UN
Two Days of
Intense Personal Diplomacy Bring No Troops, No $$$
63. jexster - 9/25/2003 1:12:24 PM
Worse than flat...
UN Consider's Pullout from Bush Iraqmire
64. jexster - 9/25/2003 1:38:08 PM
September 25, 2003 Daily Mislead
President Bush's Inspectors Find
No Weapons to Support his Claims about Imminent Threat
See also:
Special Report on the David Kay WMD Report (pdf)
A desperate five-month
search by a team of 1,400 U. S. investigators reportedly has failed to find any
new physical evidence of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in Iraq,
despite President Bush's continuing insistence the weapons not only existed but
posed an imminent threat to the United States.1
The failure of the U. S.
team, led by Bush appointee David Kay, seriously undermines the integrity of the
President's assertion two days prior to the war: "Intelligence gathered...leaves
no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most
lethal weapons ever devised."2
Bush's bold declaration, according to a
subsequent review, was based on old and faulty intelligence data. Former CIA
official Richard Kerr, who helped with the review, said Bush's assessment
ignored "caveats and disagreements" in the data3 and relied "heavily on evidence
that was at least five years old."4 Even the Pentagon's intelligence agency had
warned in a classified September 2002 report that "there is no reliable
information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons."5
Bush continued to claim otherwise, saying inaccurately in May, "We found
the weapons of mass destruction" and predicting "we'll find more weapons as time
goes on."6 The widespread search he initiated, however, now has turned up not a
single weapon of mass destruction.
65. jexster - 9/25/2003 1:38:18 PM
Sources:
1. Inquiry Unlikely to Report Finding Iraq Arms, Reuters,
9/24/03,
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=SWEI0LEDF3UJ0CRBAEZSFEY?
type=topNews&storyID=3502138
2. Presidential Speech, 3/17/03,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
3. "U.S.
Used 'Old' Data",
4. "Gauging a threat with little data ; Withdrawal of UN
inspectors created intelligence vacuum", New York Times, 7/22/03.
5. Defense
Agency Issues Excerpt on Iraqi Chemical Warfare Program, State Department,
6/7/03, http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/03060720.htm.
6. Interview
of the President by TVP, Poland, 5/29/03,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html
66. jexster - 9/25/2003 7:11:33 PM
Growing Rift Between Bush and Iraqi GC
UNITED NATIONS,
Sept. 24 (UPI) -- Representatives of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council
did their best to soften objections to the draft U.S. resolution on Iraq after a
meeting with National Security Council Adviser Condoleezza Rice Wednesday.
But in a press conference, it became clear that the Iraqis hand-picked
by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority had a very different message for
foreign leaders gathered at the U.N. General Assembly this week than the U.S.
delegation led by President Bush.
An official with the Iraqi delegation
told United Press International that Rice pressed the Iraqis to coordinate their
efforts with the White House in the meeting. This source said, "She said we all
have to work together. Let's coordinate."
While Ahmad Chalabi, the
leader of the Iraqi delegation, opened his remarks by thanking Bush, the U.S.
Congress and the American people, for intervening to remove "the scourge of
Saddam Hussein," he also explained key differences he had with the American
plans for proceeding in his country's reconstruction. On the question of whether
Iraqis would welcome foreign peacekeepers and what powers should be handed over
in the short term to the Iraqi Governing Council, a rift has clearly emerged
between Washington and Baghdad.
67. concerned - 9/25/2003 7:16:37 PM
Re. 11563 -
How could the UN 'pull out' if they never got past
dipping their toe in in the first place?
68. Edmund Dantes - 9/25/2003 8:35:52 PM
"Growing rift"?
Ahmad Chalabi, current
president of the council, said, "We have no
disagreement with the United
States Government. We are not at odds with
the United States. We are
grateful to President Bush and we are working
with the United States to
achieve our common objective of a democratic,
pluralist constitution for
Iraq which will be approved by referendum.
"This is a victory for the
Iraqi people and for the process of freedom and
democracy in Iraq," he said.
"We were proud to be present in the General Assembly yesterday when
President Bush gave his speech. There is nothing in his speech that we
disagree with. We share the common objective of having a free, democratic
Iraq in the international community," Chalabi said.
69. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 8:56:11 PM
concerned--
The UN has 1
70. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 8:59:21 PM
concerned--
The UN has 115 or so people supporting various
humanitarian efforts in Iraq now. The first bombing reduced them to that number
(a journalist I know who covers the UN said that there was much talk about
pulling out entirely at that time). They've said recently that they may pull out
another couple of dozen.
All for security reasons.
If you had
the freakin' link you would have seen among others, this paragraph:
The world body has pulled nearly 340 of its 400 international
staffers out of the country, U.N. officials said. U.N. offices, once friendly
and inviting compared with U.S. military bases and quarters of the Coalition
Provisional Authority, have become barricaded fortresses surrounded by concrete
and security guards.
71. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 9:02:27 PM
Eddy,
The UPI story makes a pretty clear reference to that set of
remarks by Chalabi, While Ahmad Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi delegation,
opened his remarks by thanking Bush, the U.S. Congress and the American people,
for intervening to remove "the scourge of Saddam Hussein,"
That
doesn't mean that he is not pulling back from the US as his future power base.
He's done pretty well, leveraging nothing (or worse) into this position. If he's
decided that the US is no longer the horse to ride, the neo cons should be
concerned. They saddled themselves up, in a big way.
72. Edmund Dantes - 9/25/2003 10:37:41 PM
Nothing Chalabi says points to anything of the kind. Since Jasper's link
doesn't work, it's difficult to see what he bases his headline on, but from what
he have, his interpretation relies on editorializing by the reporter. I've
posted what Chalabi actually said. Go to news.google.com and search on "rift"
and "Chalabi."
There are three members in the delegation. Here is what
one of the other two, Hoshyar Zebari, Iraqi's foreign minister, had to say:
"[T]here is no difference whatsoever between the
views of the Governing Council and the United States or the coalition on how we
should proceed and move forward. There has been a great deal of confusion
recently as if we are opposed to each other on how to move forward. No."
73. Edmund Dantes - 9/25/2003 10:39:00 PM
Just wishful thinking by those who want America to fail.
74. ronski - 9/25/2003 10:43:07 PM
With Iraq, the administration is only now beginning to admit that it might
take longer and cost more money than originally claimed.
How long
did they claim it would take and how expensive, exactly?
75. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 11:26:24 PM
In which time frame?
76. concerned - 9/26/2003 1:17:09 AM
Re. 11556 -
That article's from the Wall Street Journal, Jay, not the
Weekly Standard. IAC, since you're utterly unable to refute any part of it,
let's just go with it for now, shall we?
77. concerned - 9/26/2003 1:21:29 AM
Re. 11558 -
Can you be specific here? I obviously haven't been
keeping up on smears like you have.
78. OhioSTOPAS - 9/26/2003 5:49:30 AM
Ronski (re 11574): White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels estimated a
$50-60 billion cost of the war. Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz
said in February, "It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to
provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war
itself and secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army."
79. ScreamingSin - 9/26/2003 5:53:19 AM
I'd like a bit of stability in my life....what are you saying? War is cheaper
than stability?
80. alistairconnor - 9/26/2003 7:03:57 AM
Monty :
Nothing Chalabi says points to anything of the kind
Are you being disingenuous, or are you just not paying attention?
Iraq
Council Head Shifts to Position at Odds With U.S.
Of course, that
was a long time ago... four whole days... perhaps longer than your attention
span. (And who cares about ancient history?)
And more importantly, it
was before Rice gave him a stern talking-to.
81. alistairconnor - 9/26/2003 7:06:47 AM
Hahahaha! This just in :
Powell to Iraqi
Governing Council : Hurry up and take power!
The BBC's Ian
Pannell in Washington says the move is a sharp about-face in American policy -
and a concession to critics of the US-led occupation of Iraq.
...
but he would, wouldn't he?
82. alistairconnor - 9/26/2003 7:21:26 AM
The
same news reported by the NYT
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell,
responding to demands from France and others for a rapid timetable for self-rule
in Iraq, said yesterday that the United States would set a deadline of six
months for Iraqi leaders working under the American-led occupation to produce a
new constitution for their country.
[...]
Mr. Powell's establishment of
a deadline, and his tone of urgency in general, came as the United States has
tried to satisfy France and other skeptical nations who say that a quick
transfer of power to Iraqis must be part of any Security Council resolution
expanding United Nations authority in Iraq.
It's logical that it's
Powell announcing this shift in policy. Maybe the cold reception Bush got at the
UN has produced the sorely-needed reality check, and he's at last going to
sideline the madmen?
83. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 7:55:02 AM
No. I think this means they have decided they need to declare victory and get
out so that there are no body bags coming back pre-election.
Bush's UN
speech made it very clear that there is only one thing they care about.
Civil war, here we come.
84. PelleNilsson - 9/26/2003 8:02:25 AM
I think you are right, jay, and it doesn't portend well for Iraq.
85. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 8:04:42 AM
Eddy,
It's very tiresome to have to refute things over and over again
that have already been settled publicly. This, of course, is an important part
of the wingnut arsenal. Repeat false or refuted charges over and over again in
the hopes that repetition will overcome fact. As for the first claim in
concerned's list, Oct 21, NYT:
- Pres Vaclav Havel of Czech Republic
has reportedly told White House that he cannot find evidence to confirm reports
that Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague months before
Sept 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington; message was delivered
discreetly earlier this year in effort by Havel to avoid publicly embarrassing
other prominent officials in his government who had given credibility to
reports.
Look, I said in March that it was transparently false that
there were any links. This was very clear before the war. There's been no new
evidence provided, and as the president himself said last week, there are no
links. There are no links, there were no links, the administration knew it
before the war and they lied about it, on purpose, because they needed a pretext
that polled well.
This is beyond doubt or debate at this point.
And the wsj editorial page is little more reliable than the weekly
standard.
86. Wombat - 9/26/2003 8:09:50 AM
The Washington Post reports that US Air Force analysts who have examined
Iraqi aerial drones feel vindicated in their prewar assessment that they were to
be used for photoreconnaisance, and were not large enough to carry internal or
external storage tanks. Their views clashed with those of the Bush
administration, which claimed that they could be used for deploying chemical and
biological weapons. Yet another lie.
87. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 8:17:17 AM
11577
Wanna see the journalistic equivalent of friendly fire? It
ain't pretty. But here goes.
This week Howard Fineman leads his column
on Wes Clark with an anecdote about how Clark allegedly tried to get into the
Bush administration, got shot down by Karl Rove, and then in spite became a
Democrat.
Fineman's evidence is the say-so of Colorado's Republican
Governor Bill Owens and one of his appointees, Marc Holtzman.
"I would
have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls," they say Clark
told him.
Clark told Fineman he had just been kidding around. But Owens
and Holtzman assured Fineman that Clark was dead serious.
Now, Owens is
a Republican and he's close to Karl Rove and President Bush. So I don't think
you've got to use your imagination too creatively to see what agenda Owens might
be advancing -- especially since the story doesn't really add up on several
other counts as well.
However that may be, this afternoon The Weekly
Standard's Matthew Continetti chimes in with a quick bit of investigative
reporting.
Says Continetti ...
Unfortunately for Clark, the
White House has logged every incoming phone call since the beginning of the Bush
administration in January 2001. At the request of THE DAILY STANDARD, White
House staffers went through the logs to check whether Clark had ever called
White House political adviser Karl Rove. The general hadn't. What's more, Rove
says he doesn't remember ever talking to Clark, either.
Continetti goes on
to say that "this isn't the general's first whopper [and that] Clark's latest
tale bears little resemblance to reality," trying, to true to form, to nail down
the Clark as fabulist meme -- a la Al Gore and every other Democratic
presidential candidate.
88. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 8:17:39 AM
But wait a second. Do you see the problem here? Right. Clark isn't the one
who's saying he put in calls to Karl Rove. Owens and Hotzman are saying it.
So to the extent this means anything -- and that's highly debatable --
it discredits them, not him.
In other words, the canard floated by one
group of Rove's pals on day one gets shot down by another group of his friends
on day two. Like I said, journalistic friendly fire on the right.
To
my friends at the Standard I can only say that the next time you put something
like this together on the fly you might want to hash it out with a Venn Diagram
or a flow chart or something before you go to press.
Meanwhile, Kevin
Drum asks an awfully good question about how the White House suddenly became so
forthcoming about phone record searches.
And look how they fall in line.
Andrew Sullivan's response to the phone call idiocy ...
HOW LOOPY IS
CLARK? The answer, I fear, is that he's Ross Perot without the emotional
stability. So now his previous remark that he'd be a Republican if Karl Rove had
returned his calls is just a metaphor, or a fabrication, or a dream, or
something. Or maybe he called Rove on a cell-phone or an email. Will he respond
to these discrepancies?
Ahhh the discrepancies. Someone else needs a flow
chart.
89. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 8:21:41 AM
Sorry about the long post, but linking would have been inconvenient, because
it's low on the page. This is from Talking Points Memo.
This also
illustrates another wingnut strategy. Get something fishy into a low circulation
wingnut rag. Get Rush to read it out loud or O'Reilly to quote it. Then it gets
into a general circulation magazine as if it were true.
This happened
most famously with the Ten Biggest Problems Teachers Face from their Students, a
poll supposedly comparing the answers from 1950s to the 80s. Gum chewing replace
by gun toting, that kind of thing. That was in all the major circulation
periodicals for some time before it was debunked.
90. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 8:38:53 AM
Pelle
These are the lead paragraphs on this story in today's NYT:
ecretary of State Colin L. Powell, responding to demands from
France and others for a rapid timetable for self-rule in Iraq, said yesterday
that the United States would set a deadline of six months for Iraqi leaders
working under the American-led occupation to produce a new constitution for
their country.
The constitution, which would spell out whether Iraq
should be governed by a presidential or parliamentary system, would clear the
way for elections and the installation of a new leadership next year, Mr. Powell
said. Not until then, he added, would the United States transfer authority from
the American-led occupation to Iraq itself.
It's ambiguous. I can't
tell whether he is saying they leave when the constitution is written or when
the constitutional government is installed.
There is, of course, a great
deal of wishful thinking in this. What if they don't make the deadline? What
sanction or remedy is available?
91. alistairconnor - 9/26/2003 8:50:14 AM
What sanction or remedy is available?
The sad thing is the
huge psychological balls-up surrounding the sudden haste to hand over power.
The Iraqi governing council makes a show of independence, and starts
lobbying for a handover of sovereignty, in contradiction with the White House
line. Clearly, this is a bid for credibility at home and in the international
arena : look, we're not complete puppets really. The germ of rebirth of Iraqi
national pride? The psychological key to damping down the incipient civil war?
Well, it was a nice try.
The reaction? A stern admonishment from Rice,
and they are forced to eat their hats in public. Humiliation : that's sure to
calm the insurrection.
And now? Quick, get to work, no shirking, take
your damn responsibilities, NOW, says Powell.
Masterful.
92. marjoribanks - 9/26/2003 9:01:51 AM
No, this is a very sage move, and no doubt comes because the increasingly
powerful Powell has been able to read the riot act to the neocon scum behind the
scenes.
The US is down to having to call up a new division of reserves
and NG if it doesn't get 15-25 thousand foreign troops in the next six weeks/two
months. If there is a callup of reserves and NG, and they go to Iraq over the
holidays, that is the only story you will see in the media for the next few
months.
Election over. Non-Bush wins.
Besides the fact that the
whole world is clamouring for it, and it is the right thing to do, and it is the
one way to start repairing American standing with its allies and beyond - it is
last-ditch politics. The US will create that timeline (Makiya is working on the
constitution as we speak anyway), a much more solid (and acceptable) UN
resolution will be presented. And international troops will come on in. And Bush
survives the winter, to fight anew in 2004.
The move signals also the
administration's recognition that the Iraq oild revenues are not, after all, the
spoils of war and whatever conracts are going to emerge down the road will have
to be distributed by other means than US fiat. This whole aspect was also
becoming a political albatross, so it makes political sense to - effectively -
cut bait and move on.
It is a massive retreat, a total loss for the
neocon scum. But this defeat is being cloaked cleverly, and there are several
ways to spin it as pragmatic leadership, and we will no doubt see that rather
than the abject apology (followed by stoning) that we should be getting wrt
these miserable fuckers.
93. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 9:16:39 AM
A total loss will be if an islamist state emerges in the aftermath.
No, I take it back. A TOTAL loss would be if Saddam emerges in the
aftermath. I don't see how they can leave with him still at large.
94. Edmund Dantes - 9/26/2003 9:22:09 AM
Consumer
goods, that's the stuff
> There was plenty of pent-up demand.
Sanctions imposed by the United Nations after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 kept a
lot of goods out of the country. Before that, an eight-year war with Iran
drained the life from Iraq's economy. For nearly 20 years, there was little to
buy. And during three decades of rule by Saddam's Baath Party, virtually all
companies were state-owned or state-controlled. In 2001, Iraq's gross domestic
product was $27.9 billion, compared with $47.6 billion in 1980.
>
Since the collapse of Saddam's regime, police Officer Gailan Wahoudi, 31, has
bought a new television, a refrigerator and an air conditioner. ''It is a new
freedom I never had before,'' he says.
95. rdbrewer - 9/26/2003 9:26:37 AM
You guys, what Powell is doing -- and what he has done several times for the
Bush admin -- is playing the "good cop" in a huge game of "good cop, bad cop."
It's done for you guys, and it's working again. The Bush admin deflects and
defuses your complaints by presenting you a good cop alternative in which you
can place your confidence. Clinton did the same thing with Reno and Freeh.
Masterful, indeed.
96. marjoribanks - 9/26/2003 10:50:22 AM
A total loss will be if an islamist state emerges in the aftermath.
You may be misunderstanding me. It is a total loss for the neocons for
the control of Iraq policy. That's all.
This is a retreat from
everything they have been promising themselves, most likely the Pres, certainly
Congress, and certainly the American people.
It's an agreement that this
country will now go back to the UN (after Bush's idiotic dress-up cowboy
routine) and make nice, and - crucially - hand over significant power to the
member states in the mapping the future of Iraq.
It's an agreement that
the "spoils of war" aren't going to us after all. This was on the cards for a
while. I previously wondered here how they'd manage to wriggle out of this
promise/claim without massive political damage. They may have done exactly that,
because now the retreat can be sold as pragmatic.
Finally, it's an
agreement that the US isn't going to be doing jack in terms of the neocon plan
to extend the "War on Terror" indefinitely and to other countries. This return
to the UN puts paid to that fanciful notion (which is why you won't see our
chest-beating baboon cohort back here very soon) and the neocon plans have been
returned to the toilet whence they came.
No, Rove has thrown in the
towel on all of the ideologically-driven agendae, pulled the plug on the neocon
scum's dreams. It's pure politics again, it's all about minimizing damage and
burnishing standing. And as such, this is a good move in pure political terms
because another couple of months of the status quo and Dubya would have been
making his retirement plans.
Now, unfortunately for all of us, the game
isn't over at all.
97. PelleNilsson - 9/26/2003 10:50:42 AM
I dispute marj's analysis. The drafting of a constitution and the
installation of a "constitutional government" are just cosmetics. The proof is
in the pudding, that is in holding some kind of elections and installing a
government that is not only "constitutional" but legitimate in the eyes of the
Iraqis and which can ensure security and stability.
If the Bush
administration takes the US out before that task is done, thus sacrificing Iraq
on the altar of reelection, the US will never again be able to claim the
leadership of the free world. This Empire, like the ones before it, will be
destroyed by its own internal contradictions.
98. marjoribanks - 9/26/2003 10:59:31 AM
Brewer,
There are two areas where the right-wing in this country
persists in blind insanity.
One is Clinton. Everything the Dems do is
because Clinton is a masterful sinister genius behind the scenes. Your running
mates, a good number of them, still believe that the Clintons "ran" Clark
because they want him to lose, so that she can run as favorite in 2008. One can
only avert one's eyes in embarassment when your running mates pull their pants
down in public with theories like this.
The other blind insanity comes
in assessing the very clear divide and fault line in this current administration
(and to some extent the Party leadership) between the neocon scum and the
old-line, "mature" Republicans. Dubya, being a total one-note/one-thought
vacuum, is neither. Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld-Cheney are the neocons and every move
they make is driven in that direction. Powell is more of an old-line Republican
in that he's pragmatic and tends to take lessons from history rather than ignore
it. There has been a tussle between the two sides from the first, sometimes
public, mostly demonstrated in vacillating policy.
You and your running
mates want to believe some
"masterful" brilliant machiavelli is scripting it
all. Your own Clinton, in other words, your anti-Clinton (given fevered
imagining #1).
Whatever, dude. Santa Claus is real too.
99. marjoribanks - 9/26/2003 11:07:57 AM
The proof is in the pudding, that is in holding some kind of elections and
installing a government that is not only "constitutional" but legitimate in the
eyes of the Iraqis and which can ensure security and stability.
If the
Bush administration takes the US out before that task is done, thus sacrificing
Iraq on the altar of reelection,
You're not following me.
The US is simply going to enshrine in a UN resolution that they will
hand over power to a legitimate Iraqi government after and acceptable
constitution is drafted after elections and after the enshrinement
of a constitutional government.
There will be a timetable in the UN
resolution, probably, but who gives a shit (least of all the US).
The
retreat comes domestically, and at the UN, not really in meaningful terms. It's
the breach of promises that neocons made to themselves, to Congress, and tacitly
to the public. No oil money, no "next we get Syria", none of that stuff.
I am all for giving each member of the various committees that held
hearings on Iraq before the war a baseball bat and letting them have at
Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld for lying to them about what would happen after the war.
100. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 11:18:59 AM
Let me test my understanding of Banks' position by responding to you, Pelle.
He's not talking about the ultimate outcome in Iraq. He's talking about
the internecine fighting in the White House. The neo-con vision of an Iraq
aligned with the US with a friendly, non-Islamic government buying its services
from US companies and providing military bases is just not gonna happen. This is
now clear.
The election is approaching. Bush's numbers are tanking.
They've got to get out. They'll give in to Powell's view--that this stuff needs
to be done multi-laterally, and the spoils distributed to all the participants.
This is, of course, implicitly admitting an enormous mistake. The US is going to
have paid for the foundation of whatever state emerges, but won't get all the
spoils nor, perhaps, even the military base they need to get out of SA.
But the fact that the administration is giving up on the neo-con vision
doesn't mean that the multilateral strategy will work. In fact, it may be too
late. I don't happen to think so, but the administration has certainly done all
it could to create an environment for civil war and the possibility of an
islamist dictatorship.
101. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 11:23:26 AM
Banks' analysis also makes sense of what was otherwise an incomprehensible
speech at the UN. It was, as he predicted, directed entirely at the US audience.
The president was standing up there saying that we would stay the course, alone
if necessary in the fight against terror, fully aware that at the time Powell
working out an exit strategy with other foreign ministers.
The same
political strategy. Say "Black Black Black" while doing "White White White." The
real question is whether enough Americans are buying the stuff he's peddling
anymore.
102. marjoribanks - 9/26/2003 11:29:36 AM
Exactly, Jay.
I don't think it's too late to turn this around enough
to reduce the day-to-day state of Iraq as an issue in the next elections. It's
about as late as they could leave it, but all is not lost (from the Bush
standpoint)
And Iraq may well benefit because it'll have the UN there
for the next ten years or more, and the fact is that UN troops (say Malaysians
and Moroccans and Bangladeshis) will be treated totally differently than US
occupiers. We'll be on the road to normality, at the least.
The big
losers are the neocon scum. I trust they'll never get their hands on US policy
again.
103. PelleNilsson - 9/26/2003 11:32:32 AM
Something came up. Interesting posts, but later.
104. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 11:37:20 AM
Banks--
I am not so sure about the "vacuum" in Bush's head. Their
strategy, while not especially clever, is being followed consistently in all
policy areas. It is so deeply cynical that I cannot believe the president is
unaware of what he is doing.
Yes, the policy rift is real on Iraq. And,
yes, the neo-cons shot their wad, and lost. But the president, vice president
and Rove are only concerned about one thing and that is how the policy plays.
They can't make this one play the way they wanted to anymore, so Bush makes one
final speech about how we won the war, defeated terror and created a free
nation. Then they hand it over to the UN, and he gets back into the flight suit,
victorious.
He can't be so stupid as to not understand this strategy.
105. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 11:41:54 AM
And Iraq may well benefit because it'll have the UN there for the next ten
years or more, and the fact is that UN troops (say Malaysians and Moroccans and
Bangladeshis) will be treated totally differently than US occupiers. We'll be on
the road to normality, at the least.
I'd buy that if the
Islamist/Baathist alliance were not directing the force of their attacks at the
UN. But it would certainly be nice if the security forces could speak some
arabic.
I do agree that Iraq stands a much better chance under UN
supervision.
One final question. There is still a huge security problem.
The troop levels can't really go down for the forseeable future, can they? Or do
you think that blue helmeted arab speakers can be deployed in substantially
smaller numbers, successfully?
106. marjoribanks - 9/26/2003 11:50:15 AM
Well, we are assuming a few things in that scenario including that the UN
(and US allies) are going to meekly follow the scenario laid out by Rove/Bush.
In fact, those countries willwant to play well in their domestic
constituencies, as well as quite likely punish Bush for his insults and
arrogance.
Thus, there may be a pound of flesh to be paid (of course
Bush is always willing to sacrifice American interests for temporary political
gain) and the timeline required (now quite narrow) may not be adhered to.
But there is no doubt that if this first step towards
multilateralizing goes to plan and the US does not have to call up reserves -
then Bush's hand for 2004 is seriously strengthened.
On the
vacuum matter, I've given up on trying to find the man behind the empty-eyed
mask that is Dubya. He's a vacuum, with a cartoonish Manichean totally
born-again vision of the world. Good/evil, friends/enemies, loyal/traitor -
that's all he knows, which renders him practically useless in politics,
diplomacy, statesmanship, most matters of real import but not as fake-righteous
frontman for ideologues with an agenda.
Unfortunately, this makes him an
appealing figure to many Americans. I wish we required more than blank-eyed
religiosity from US Presidents, but I'm apparently in the minority on this.
107. marjoribanks - 9/26/2003 11:59:28 AM
On Iraq, I genuinely believe that if you took the American troops out
tomorrow and replaced them with a corpus of personnel which is looked at by most
Iraqis as neutral - you'd reduce the attacks exponentially. And the proportion
that is actually being launched by organized Baathists and Islamists would
dwindle as more Iraqis buy into the idea that they're going to have a sovereign,
stable, future.
The worrisome thing right now is that the mass of Iraqis
is fed up with the US for not providing item one of the promises that were made.
No security (1000 killed a month in Baghdad), the perception that the occupiers
only give a shit about oil, etc.
Take that irritant out and we're
working more with a scenario that most Iraqis can believe in. Iraqis are
(largely) educated, cultured, sophisticated people - they'll sign on to the idea
of a sovereign (prosperous) future - without US occupation - very rapidly.
(more later, I'm out of here)
108. alistairconnor - 9/26/2003 12:36:10 PM
Everybody's right. Even (gasp) RDB is right, when he says
You
guys, what Powell is doing -- and what he has done several times for the Bush
admin -- is playing the "good cop" in a huge game of "good cop, bad cop." It's
done for you guys, and it's working again.
I've been talking about
this for months, perhaps a year : Bush has an "A" team and a "B" team. Now that
the B team have fucked up, they can be sidelined, and the state department
people can take over. The president is above the fray, he can do this without
damage to himself.
Hell, if it plays out like Marj wishfully projects,
I'll be so happy I won't even care if he gets re-elected.
109. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 12:36:38 PM
Just when I start think there is a brain in there, he says something like
this:
"I appreciate people's opinions, but I'm more interested in
news.... And the best way to get the news is from objective sources, and the
most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's
happening in the world."
110. marjoribanks - 9/26/2003 2:23:05 PM
Hell, if it plays out like Marj wishfully projects, I'll be so happy I
won't even care if he gets re-elected.
I would. The Bush
incompetents have also deeply damaged America's valuable ties with the rest of
the world, they have also set this country down a very dangerous economic path,
they have encouraged the reactionary rabble in-house who properly belong under a
firm disciplinary boot, they have a disastrous energy policy, and they have been
the most anti-environment administration in recent history.
So, Dubya
needs to get the fuck back to Crawford.
111. marjoribanks - 9/26/2003 2:23:52 PM
But on Iraq, there is nothing wishful about the possible positive scenarios I
have outlined (given some stringent requirements). There are some specific
factors which make the current situation a security/development disaster and
every reason to believe that a reversal on these factors can realistically lead
to a dramatically better situation.
1) The stubborn refusal of Rumsfeld
to put in significant more troops.
2) The incredible incompetence of US
administrators on the ground, and the lack of considerable financial resources
being poured in.
3) The total unsuitablity of US troops as "neutral
agent" peacekeepers and nation-builders.
4) The deep and valid suspicion
of rank-and-file Iraqis that the US is there to take the oil, period.
Absent these factors, replace the US troops with acceptable
substitutes (such as fellow-Muslims from Morocco, Malaysia, Bangladesh), and a
good deal of the resentment will fade, as will the suspicions about oil and
neo-colonialism in the face of a multilateral administration team (perhaps
headed by a Muslim technocrat).
It's win/win. Iraqis will have a real
reason to buy into their sovereign future (and discourage/hand in the hard-line
Baathists/Islamists who currently get cover).
The losers (besides the US
taxpayers, who will still be forking out big-time - but I'm okay with that) are
only the neocon scum.
112. marjoribanks - 9/26/2003 2:28:29 PM
Of course, this is only a scenario still, and I am projecting that Powell has
indeed won out and that the neocons are mature enough to know that they're beat
and should fuck off.
But they may not.
If the scenario I outline
above does occur (and there is no reason it should not, if wiser heads in the US
prevail) then you'll see - as conceived all along - that the move to inject the
West, physically, into the Middle East was a historically correct move.
I can even see being grateful to Dubya in the long run.
Down the
line, of course, 20+ years from now when we're in a proper position to assess
what the results have been from this venture.
The neocon scum, however,
are going to see their star fade from now on in all the way into true disgrace.
113. robertjayb - 9/26/2003 3:53:45 PM
I went to the House of Commons a couple of days ago to watch the debate on
the role of the UN in Iraq, and I can tell you: that being an Iraqi and seeing
that and the bit of the Hutton Inquiry yesterday, is quite strange. It is like
listening to your parents discuss how they should bring you up; it is your life,
but you are not making the decisions.
(Salam Pax in the Guardian)
114. concerned - 9/26/2003 5:57:16 PM
marjoribanks is so obsessed about Iraqi oil, and so deeply anti US regarding
the reconstruction of Iraq that he compromises his postings on the subject
almost to uselessness.
115. judithathome - 9/26/2003 6:08:02 PM
No, he does not but I don't expect you to see that from your far right
centrist position.
116. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 6:10:30 PM
11614
wingnuts: all smear all the time.
117. concerned - 9/26/2003 6:12:20 PM
Sure he is. Iraqi oil is a red herring - their nascent government already is
assuming control of its production and distribution. And the most positive thing
that can be said about marjoribank's gushing indignation wrt US Iraq policy is
that he's venting for some personal reason.
118. concerned - 9/26/2003 6:13:01 PM
Re. 11616 -
Speak for yourself, jay.
119. concerned - 9/26/2003 6:13:58 PM
There is no smear in 11614.
120. concerned - 9/26/2003 6:19:56 PM
The Iraqi suicide attacks on the UN that is causing the UN to pull out argues
strongly that merely replacing US forces with those of other nations is no
shortcut to reducing Iraqi violence.
From Reuters:
Blow for
U.S. as UN Staff Quit, Iraqi Leader Mourned
September 26, 2003 08:00 AM ET
By Fiona O'Brien and Rosalind Russell
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Grieving
Iraqis paid their last respects on Friday to an assassinated U.S.-appointed
politician, as the United Nations pulled more staff out of the country following
two suicide bomb attacks.
The murder of Akila al-Hashemi, who died on
Thursday five days after assassins opened fire on her car, and the U.N. pullout
were fresh setbacks to U.S. efforts to speed the process of building a credible
Iraqi government and win more international help to police and rebuild the
country.
In the town of Baquba, a hotbed of guerrilla activity northeast
of Baghdad, a mortar attack on a market killed eight Iraqis on Thursday evening,
the U.S. military said. A spokesman said no U.S. troops were wounded.
More than 15 people were injured and locals said the death toll would
have been higher if the attack happened earlier in the day when the market was
busier.
"We don't know who was behind this crime -- maybe people who
want to destabilize Iraq or people who were trying to target the Americans,"
Khaled Youssef said. "But in the end, it was Iraqis who were killed."
In
the northern oil hub of Kirkuk, a rocket-propelled grenade attack on a U.S. Army
vehicle killed one soldier and wounded two, the military said. The attack
brought to 80 the number of U.S. soldiers killed by guerrillas since President
Bush declared major combat over on May 1.
121. concerned - 9/26/2003 6:31:32 PM
At end of training, Marines say Mongols ready for duty in Iraq
Would Mongols meet with the approval of Islamic Fundamentalists? Perhaps
not. After all, it was the Mongol Empire that reversed the tide of Asiatic Islam
expansionism from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries, sacking Baghdad
twice.
122. rdbrewer - 9/26/2003 7:07:13 PM
Marje:
There are two areas where the right-wing in this country
persists in blind insanity.
Since this is more religion for you than
science, I find your use of the word "blind" ironic.
One is Clinton.
Everything the Dems do is because Clinton is a masterful sinister genius behind
the scenes.
Did one of my running mates use the word "everything,"
or do you just feel that way? Many in the punditocracy, some of them from the
left, have been commenting on Clintons' power in the party for quite some time.
I don't recall any of them sneering the words "mastful genius" either.
Re-characterizing your opponents' views like that might make your job easier
(it's always easier to kick over a straw man), but it doesn't advance the
debate. It just reveals your emotional stake in the issues.
Your
running mates, a good number of them, still believe that the Clintons "ran"
Clark because they want him to lose, so that she can run as favorite in 2008.
One can only avert one's eyes in embarassment when your running mates pull their
pants down in public with theories like this.
This was put forth by
several people as a plausible scenario. No-one stated that it was a fact. The
whole pants thing, though, give me a break. You're spitting like some
hate-filled reptilian.
. . .
123. rdbrewer - 9/26/2003 7:07:44 PM
(continued)
The other blind insanity comes in assessing the very
clear divide and fault line in this current administration (and to some extent
the Party leadership) between the neocon scum and the old-line, "mature"
Republicans.
That fault line was placed there for a reason -- so
that people like you can lap-up what Powell, who works for Bush, has to say. You
are so adherent to the religious dogma that Bush is stupid, you cannot concieve
of the possibility that Bush could have purposely emplaced such a plan. (Of
course, this would mean Bush "the moron" outsmarted you.) That throbbing,
open-sore emotion is filtering your perception.
You and your running
mates want to believe some
"masterful" brilliant machiavelli is scripting it
all.
Again, the re-characterizing, straw-man thing. Geez. Look at
how often you do that.
124. Edmund Dantes - 9/26/2003 9:31:18 PM
Engineers
teach Iraqis construction, build `Village of Hope'
National Guard engineers are building the first of five "House of
Hope" projects. Along the way, they're teaching former Iraqi soldiers
construction skills they can use to find new jobs.
Soldiers of the 52nd
Engineer Company -- an Oregon Army National Guard unit attached to the 101st
Airborne Division (Air Assault) -- believe in the adage "It's better to teach a
man to fish and feed him for life," or in this case teach him to build a home
and house him for life.
Under the House of Hope project, the former
soldiers initially planned to build a house for a family of displaced locals.
But the project quickly grew in size, blossoming into the Village of
Hope, where 100 homes are scheduled to be built for 800 people, said Maj.
Christopher Lestochi, operations officer, 326th Engineer Battalion, 101st
Airborne Division (Air Assault).
With new skills in masonry, carpentry,
electricity, plumbing and other skills used in building, the ex-soldiers will be
useful in rebuilding Iraq, said division officials.
The Village of Hope
will replace an abandoned Iraqi military school in the southern part of the city
of Mosul that currently houses at least 200 displaced families living in gutted,
half collapsed buildings.
125. robertjayb - 9/26/2003 11:43:04 PM
CIA
wants probe of Bush White House...
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — The
CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that the White
House broke federal laws by revealing the identity of one of its undercover
employees in retaliation against the woman’s husband, a former ambassador who
publicly criticized President Bush’s since-discredited claim that Iraq had
sought weapons-grade uranium from Africa, NBC News has learned.
126. jexster - 9/27/2003 8:03:48 AM
Patriots and
invaders - Iraqi resistance to foreign occupation enjoys great popular
support
Sami Ramadani - political refugee from Saddam's regime and
is a senior lecturer in sociology at London Metropolitan University
The governing council is not so much hated as ridiculed, and
attacked for having its members chosen along sectarian lines. Most of the people
I talked to think that it is a powerless body: it has no army, no police, and no
national budget, but boasts nine rotating presidents. One of the jokes
circulating in Baghdad was that no sooner had you brought down Saddam's picture
than you were being asked to pin up nine new ones.
Support for the
council is largely confined to some activists of the organisations that belong
to it. Indeed, it could be argued that most supporters of the more credible
organisations belonging to the council are opposed to membership of the
US-appointed body. The leaders of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution
in Iraq (Sciri), for example, are finding it increasingly hard to convince these
supporters that cooperation with the invaders is still a possible route to
independence and democracy. The same goes for another smaller but equally
credible party, the Islamic Da'wa, which experienced a split and serious
haemorrhaging of membership following its decision to join the council.
127. alistairconnor - 9/27/2003 8:41:52 AM
Con :
The Iraqi suicide attacks on the UN that is causing the UN
to pull out argues strongly that merely replacing US forces with those of other
nations is no shortcut to reducing Iraqi violence
There is a problem
with Iraqi perception of the UN.
The problem is that the UN was the sponsor
of the embargo that materially hurt Iraqis for so many years (yeah, all Saddam's
fault, doesn't change the perception) and also sponsor, at least initially, of
the several years of US/UK bombing. Given the official Saddam propaganda line
that the UN is simply a tool of the US, it's hardly surprising that the majority
of Iraqis should see little material difference between the two. Until recently,
they had no access to other sources of information.
Now, all Iraqis who
are well-informed know the difference. Saddam knows the difference. That's why
he's made the UN a top-priority target (almost certainly, his partisans were
responsible for the UN bombings). If he can chase the UN out, as it seems,
that's a major victory for him, and a major defeat for __everybody else__.
No good blaming them for getting out. The UN can not operate in a war
zone.
As for whether ordinary Iraqis (the ones who appear to make up the
bulk of the resistance, who organise attacks on US soldiers) will be less
hostile to UN troops of other nationalities, that remains to be seen.
128. jexster - 9/27/2003 11:01:43 AM
When the Governing Council formed in July, he pledged that it would have a
major role in finance, security and foreign affairs.
The council members
asked him to put it in writing, which he did, saying he would "consult the
Governing Council on all major decisions and questions of policy." Only in
"exceptional circumstances," he said, "would the coalition act without the
support of the council."
But last week, five Iraqi leaders resolved to
tell Mr. Bremer that it was time to fulfill those pledges by giving them real
access to Iraq's budget and finances, and to give the new ministry of interior a
security role that would allow the American Army to pull back to bases. Mr.
Bremer has yet to respond to them.
"Bremer wants to do everything
himself I mean they call him king over there," said Mudhar Shawkat, a senior
member of Mr. Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress. "He has done a lot, but he
has yet to consider Iraqis as his partners and treats them as his subjects."
Underlying the clash of approaches are American and British
concerns that Iraq could implode if power is transferred too quickly.
But
there are other unspoken concerns.
Some senior American and British
officials say privately that they are concerned that if an election was held
today, a Shiite muslim cleric might well dominate the polling on the strength of
the 60 percent Shiite share of the population.
Iraqi
Council Demands Sovereignty - Revolt of the Peppets
129. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2003 11:38:15 AM
Iraqi
bishop says media distorts coverage to discredit U.S.-led war
An Iraqi Catholic bishop has accused Western media of lying about
the postwar state of his country. Auxiliary Bishop Andraos Abouna of Baghdad
said he believed media were running a propaganda campaign to discredit the
American-led coalition that ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and now runs
Iraq. Bishop Abouna, a Chaldean Catholic, told The Catholic Herald in London
that the situation in Iraq was steadily improving rather than descending into a
morass resembling the Vietnam War, as often depicted by media outlets. "It's
getting better but still there are many problems," Bishop Abouna said. "The
first problem is that they need security, then they need water and electricity
-- and all these things are getting better," the bishop said. "The media are
exaggerating a lot of things. They should be realistic about the situation in
Iraq. Newspapers and television are saying a lot of things that aren't true.
When they go there they can see everything (is changing)," he said.
130. jexster - 9/27/2003 11:44:36 AM
The $87 Billion Supplemental Lie:
Bush Pledge of $21 Billion to
Rebuild Iraq is Nearly $70 Billion
Short
According to this BBC
analysis, rebuilding Iraq will cost $90 billion- and we're talking basics
(getting the lights and phone restored, getting the oil industry up and running,
basic healthcare and educational,
etc.) Bush wants $87 billion from
taxpayers, but a whopping $66 billion will go entirely to military operations
Only $21 billion will go toward actual reconstruction. W
ouldn't
it have been cheaper just not to have
bombed everything - including the
utilities and communications systems, not to mention hospitals - to rubble? Look
at the way we here in the U.S. rail at the power company after a major storm
when we have to wait a week for the juice to come back! Is it any wonder Iraqis
are enraged at us? We trashed their infrastructure (after Bush promises not to).
Their rage is now costing the lives of at least a soldier a day.
Tell us more about that Potemkin Village on the Tigris Eddie.
You can't take that seriously. "Village of Hope" must have been
meant as comic relief. I know that you aren't a bleeding heart liberal so you
are either joking or you are one stupid sum bitch.
Village of Hope -
Worse than the war agit prop
131. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2003 11:51:29 AM
The actual headline for post 11628 is "Iraq Leaders Seek Greater Role Now in
Running Nation," not Poopstain's distortion of it.
Guess
what? The Iraqis are getting it.
The US Army
turned over a large stretch of the border separating Iraq from Iran to an
American-trained border police force today, for the first time relinquishing
control of a sensitive frontier area to the provisional government.
The
210-mile length of frontier running from the edges of Kurdish-controlled
territory in the north to a point just southeast of Baghdad is part of a broader
effort to give Iraqis more control over their affairs and relieve the US
military of the burden of guarding the border....
Col Michael Moody, the
commander of the 4th Infantry’s 4th Brigade, who formally turned over control of
the frontier to Iraqi Col Nazim Shareef Mohammed and his 1,178 men, said it was
an “important day for the Iraqi people”....
“This is a great example of
new Iraqi security forces taking control. Each day the border becomes more
secure. This is good news for the Iraqi people and the Coalition,” Moody said.
Mohammed, a Kurd, will patrol and run border checkpoints from the city
of Darband-i-Khan, 131 miles northeast of Baghdad, to a point near the town of
Bard, about 81 miles southeast of the capital. The area encompasses nearly all
of Delay province, one of three under the control of the US Army’s 4th Infantry.
“We are unique,” Mohammed said of his force, which includes ethnic
Arabs, Kurds and ethnic Turks. “This is an important day for us because we
officially take over this highly sensitive border.”
Standing a few yards
from the Iranian border, Nazim said “if this experiment is successful in Diyalia
province then it is an example for all of Iraq”.
132. jexster - 9/27/2003 11:53:17 AM
Ah Big Media Conspiracy! If all so hunky dory, what the hell is that 87
Billion for and why is Bush begging Putin's help.
Oh BTW, the EU has
come through - $280 million....
The personal equivalent - giving
a dollar for a Street Sheet.
I get it now....the
made in USA version of Geramany's Stab in the back.
The good old
days of Rummy inbedded journalism are over Eddie.
Its CNS or
nothing.
133. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:00:51 PM
Yes Iran/Iraq Border Guards...I am sure that's just the ticket to quell the
growing revolt of the Puppets. If the Governing Council wonders why they are
being ridiculed, you should have no doubt why you are.
http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/column/guest/57361.php
US
Soldier: 'Mentally and Spirtually We are Dying'
"I am a National
Guardsman of the 105th Personnel Services Detachment out of Lincoln, Neb. My
unit and I are stationed in Kuwait at Camp Wolf. We were deployed Feb. 2. We
arrived in Jordan in April and half of us were moved a week later to Kuwait to
throw mail... Yes, we are physically able to finish our mission, but mentally
and spiritually we are
dying... This isn't a simple board game of Axis and
Allies, this is a game people are playing with real people - people with
families, not robots... It feels as if every decision is off the cuff. In this
situation there should be plans in place and decisions made before the rubber
hits
the road. We are slowly becoming frantic. I hear people saying they are
going to begin hurting themselves or others if they can't go home. The
helplessness our soldiers are feeling is indescribable, it is past the point of
'suck it up and drive on.' We just want somewhere to drive on
to."
134. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:00:53 PM
Yes Iran/Iraq Border Guards...I am sure that's just the ticket to quell the
growing revolt of the Puppets. If the Governing Council wonders why they are
being ridiculed, you should have no doubt why you are.
http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/column/guest/57361.php
US
Soldier: 'Mentally and Spirtually We are Dying'
"I am a National
Guardsman of the 105th Personnel Services Detachment out of Lincoln, Neb. My
unit and I are stationed in Kuwait at Camp Wolf. We were deployed Feb. 2. We
arrived in Jordan in April and half of us were moved a week later to Kuwait to
throw mail... Yes, we are physically able to finish our mission, but mentally
and spiritually we are
dying... This isn't a simple board game of Axis and
Allies, this is a game people are playing with real people - people with
families, not robots... It feels as if every decision is off the cuff. In this
situation there should be plans in place and decisions made before the rubber
hits
the road. We are slowly becoming frantic. I hear people saying they are
going to begin hurting themselves or others if they can't go home. The
helplessness our soldiers are feeling is indescribable, it is past the point of
'suck it up and drive on.' We just want somewhere to drive on
to."
135. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:03:28 PM
Bush Administration Poised to Break Promise to U. S. Reservists
Six weeks after insisting the U. S. had "sufficient force to do what
is required" in Iraq, the Bush Administration admitted yesterday more American
reservists likely will be sent to the frontlines.
Thursday's
announcement contradicts the promise of Joint Chiefs Chairman General Richard
Myers who said on August 5th, "We're trying to put predictability into the lives
of our soldiers, their families and the reservists and their employers."1
The additional deployment is in part necessitated by Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld's refusal to heed the advice of Pentagon careerists who want to
increase the size of the active-duty force. Army chief of staff Peter Schoomaker
has said, "I'm going to tell you that, you know, intuitively, I think we need
more people. I mean, it's that simple."2
Rumsfeld has stubbornly
claimed, "Thus far, the analysis that's been done [on troop strength] indicates
that we're fine."3
But two weeks ago the Pentagon added as much as six
months to the tours of duty for the National Guard troops and Reserves in Iraq.4
Longer deployments are felt by communities and families in the U.S. including
some local police departments that lose "20% of their manpower when local Guard
units are activated".5 Now, conceding there is no foreseeable end to U. S.
involvement in Iraq, Marine Corps General Peter Pace announced that thousands
more reservists will almost certainly be called up as other troops are finally
sent home. The 30,000 Guardsmen and 50,000 reserves in Iraq represent the
largest reserve battlefield presence since World War II.6
136. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:03:37 PM
Sources:
1. DoD News Briefing - Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers,
8/5/03,
2. "New Top General Tells Legislators U.S. Will Probably Need a
Larger Army", New York Times, 7/30/03.
3. "Secretary of Stubbornness,"
Weekly Standard, 9/15/03.
4. "Troops' tours of duty could run for 1 year;
Extensions frustrate military families," Detroit Free Press, 9/10/03.
5.
"The war over the National Guard," Salon, 8/19/03.
6. "Pentagon May Call Up
Additional Reservists", Los Angeles Times, 9/25/03
137. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:05:17 PM
September 22, 2003
My husband is in the army national guard and has
been deployed since Feb. 13th. We have two beautiful children, a 16 month old
and a four month old. He missed our son's first steps and our daughter's birth.
He has seen her only through pictures, and why? Because our governing officials
are a bunch of liars. My husband drives a truck over there; you know the convoys
that are always getting hit with RPG's and other explosives, well, that's what
he does. His unit has been hit quite a few times but thank God nobody has been
killed. Although they have had some injuries in their unit from explosions.
I have absolutely no faith left in our government and especially George
Bush. He should have gotten the support of the world and since everyone else was
against the war, that should have given him a hint that it was wrong. Hell no,
though, he wanted to charge in with guns a-blazing and be the big hero. Well
George, you're not a hero, you are a COWARD, our troops are the real HEROES. If
you want to be a hero, Bush, bring our soldiers home. If he wanted a war he
should have finished the job in Afghanistan. They actually attacked us on our
own soil and we still haven't taken care of it. I guess Bin Laden is too much
for Bush to handle. I say ship George Bush and family to Iraq and send Congress
with them, let them finish the job. I mean the war is over according to Bush, so
what do they have to worry about. I pray to God that Bush does not get
re-elected and lets hope our next President can clean up his mess. God Bless our
TROOPS and God Bless their families.
Jaime Sutton (an angry soldier's
wife)
Sand Springs, Oklahoma
posted 26 sept 2003
138. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:09:18 PM
Col. David Hackworth: "I Wish I had Written This"
The Modified
Vertical Stroke
A Modest Proposal for the Pentagon
By WERTHER*
As the administration's Iraq "policy" careens out of control like a car
stolen by joy-riding teenagers, critics are confronted with the inevitable
retort: "But what would you do? Be constructive!" In truth, this rejoinder is a
red herring: people who had no role in creating this mess have no moral
"responsibility" for solving it; the authors of the mess have. And to the extent
one accepts responsibility for rescuing the situation, one implicitly believes
that one actually has a role in governing this erstwhile republic. In reality,
the neo-con-artists, Big Oil plutocrats, and "defense" contractors will not
release their iron grip on U.S. foreign policy until their avaricious hearts
cease to beat.
139. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:10:35 PM
But in the constructive spirit of Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal," we
herewith offer a few eminently constructive suggestions:
1. Clean house
at the Pentagon. Show Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al., the door. Disband the Office
of Special Plans (or whatever its successor might be named) and send Douglas
Feith back to writing position papers for Benyamin Netanyahu. Abolish the
Defense Policy Board and banish Newt Gingrich to the rubber chicken circuit and
Richard Perle to the Borscht Belt. Revoke the security clearances of all these
luminaries so that further damage is limited. Appoint Anthony Zinni (Gen USMC
Ret.) as Secretary, and empower him to appoint, free from White House
interference, subordinates of professional competence and moral probity. The
same conditions would apply to his direction of the officer corps, including the
chairman, JCS.1/ And at the NSC, replace the over-credentialed and underwhelming
Condoleeza Rice with a certifiable adult such as Brent Scowcrowft.
2.
Rescind the reconstruction contracts of Halliburton, Bechtel and the other
corporate welfare clients.
3. Give GEN Sanchez an ultimatum: "Kill
Saddam Hussein by 31 December 2003 or you are commanding a radar site on Adak."
The death of our erstwhile client and bulwark against Iran may not be
functionally necessary, but would be a political boon and usufruct to salve the
wounds of our national security Illuminati and justify this whole misguided
operation to the public (an important consideration as November 2004 looms). And
since GEN Sanchez has so often claimed that "we" are closing in on Saddam, he
should bear some responsibility for turning words into deeds. It could at least
justify a withdrawal from Iraq on the basis that, "there were no WMDs, but we
did whack Saddam. Mission accomplished!" And why the deadline of 31 December? -
140. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:20:33 PM
7. Begin the greatest untangling operation since Watergate. Induce Congress
(an admittedly hopeless bunch, whose membership more and more resembles the
idiotic Senator Iselin in The Manchurian Candidate) to investigate the
connection between the think tanks, their "defense" contractor contributors,
public relations firms like Hill & Knowlton or the Benador Group, foreign
agents of influence, and the Federal Government. Much as the mid-1930s Nye
Committee unveiled the relationships between government boards, munitions
trusts, financiers, and British propagandists, such an investigation would
reveal how a gullible public was led into the quicksand of the Middle East for
the sake of yet another "war to end all wars."
link
141. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:20:35 PM
7. Begin the greatest untangling operation since Watergate. Induce Congress
(an admittedly hopeless bunch, whose membership more and more resembles the
idiotic Senator Iselin in The Manchurian Candidate) to investigate the
connection between the think tanks, their "defense" contractor contributors,
public relations firms like Hill & Knowlton or the Benador Group, foreign
agents of influence, and the Federal Government. Much as the mid-1930s Nye
Committee unveiled the relationships between government boards, munitions
trusts, financiers, and British propagandists, such an investigation would
reveal how a gullible public was led into the quicksand of the Middle East for
the sake of yet another "war to end all wars."
link
142. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:23:58 PM
Passionate Ltr From A Grunt To Sec State Powell
Sent: Wed
9/24/2003 4:30 AM
To: secretary@state.gov
Subject: Soldier in
Iraq
Honorable Mr. Powell,
A cancer has begun to spread in the
military - especially those currently serving in Iraq. Sir, that cancer - as you
probably already are aware of - is the dissatisfaction of service members for
having been lied to by our Commander in Chief and his staff.
143. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:24:40 PM
Sir, we know now that this war was not about Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Sir, we know that this war was not about terrorism. Sir, we are unsure anymore
of what exactly this war was about.
No one serving with me over here
will deny that the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime of tyrants was a
great thing and we are proud of what we accomplished. I will continue to serve
my country with honor and I am proud of the men and women and civilians with
whom I work. They are all heroes.
But the men and women of Iraq know why
we are here. They are very intelligent people and are able to see right through
the lies that our President used to justify this war. That is why they view us
now as an occupying force and believe it is their Muslim duty to fight us. Sir,
you see the trends probably better than I do as an Intelligence Analyst. The
attacks are on the rise and it is not the former Ba'ath party members conducting
them. The attack last week on a convoy near Al Fallujah that killed 3 soldiers
was carried out by a local man fighting for his Islamic belief. He left behind a
letter to his family telling them not to mourn his death, but to rejoice it in
the name of Allah. The people in his neighborhood call him a martyr. Sir, my
unit commander visited the Abu Ghurayb prison to see the damage done by a mortar
shell which killed 2 soldiers. His convoy took a wrong turn which took them
through a nearby neighborhood. The people were unfriendly and some shouted,
"Die, Americans! Die!".
144. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:24:51 PM
Sir, I am wondering how you sleep at night knowing that America's
sons and daughters are being wounded and killed every day by a people that we
"Liberated" and for reasons that were untrue. I can see it in your eyes whenever
you are before a camera. You are a good man and you were a great General. You
need to speak out, sir. You need to tell us the truth. I know we are not going
to be pulled out of Iraq any time soon. I can live with that and continue to do
my job honorably if only we can hear the truth. That is all I ask for. And you,
Mr. Secretary, will be viewed as a hero again.
Respectfully,
SSG
United States Army
145. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2003 12:45:16 PM
I missed 11585 the first time. Brave Jay Ackroyd is so obsessed with me he
responds to other posters and calls them Eddie.
Another one of the
dilletantes chimes in:
ac: Are you being disingenuous, or are you
just not paying attention?
No, just dealing with illiterate booboo
heads. Everything in the article that supports Poopstain is written by the
reporter. Everything said by Chalabi is pro Bush and pro coalition.
You
people can read black and think it says maroon.
146. rdbrewer - 9/27/2003 12:49:41 PM
This thread should be renamed "Jexter's Sandbox."
147. jayackroyd - 9/27/2003 12:57:54 PM
My apologies for 11585's being directed toward you, Eddy. Thanks for pointing
out the mistake.
148. jayackroyd - 9/27/2003 12:58:53 PM
11646
Jexster--
He's got a point. Can you tone it down,
please? And provide some of your own thoughts?
149. robertjayb - 9/27/2003 1:09:06 PM
I just noticed that Reuters is referring to attackers of "coalition" forces
as guerrillas. Is this new? I thought the official word was there are no
guerrillas.
150. jayackroyd - 9/27/2003 1:10:31 PM
No, the general in charge (whose name I'm spacing), in one of his first press
conferences referred to the opposition as using guerilla tactics.
151. robertjayb - 9/27/2003 1:24:15 PM
Lt. Gen. Sanchez.
Yes, I have seen references to guerrilla tactics
but I have not noticed the opposing forces themselves referred to as guerrillas.
A minor point, I suppose, but I understood guerrillas to be forces
operating with support from the indigenous population. Don't our leaders deny
that.
152. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2003 1:46:26 PM
Saudi
ambassador: U.S. winning struggle in Iraq
> "They are so happy
they got rid of Saddam Hussein because nobody could have rid of Saddam ..., but
they are victims of high expectations," Bandar said. "People thought the minute
the Americans come, McDonald's will open a place and money will flow and cinemas
and so on."
(snip)
> "I believe two things," Bandar said.
"Sooner rather than later, you will see Iraq picking up itself and beginning to
function in a way that will make the whole world happy and make the Americans
proud (of what they did.) Second, I believe strongly that Iraq's neighbors will
sleep better, trade better, cooperate better because of what happened to Saddam
and his regime compared to the past.
> "You are the only game in
town," Bandar said. "You are the only superpower, and there are many bad things
... that come with the territory. There is no free lunch. But trust me, the
Iraqis are the biggest winners and the happiest people ... because Saddam is not
there any more."
153. jexster - 9/27/2003 3:26:35 PM
I feel Jay's pain ....when that razor sharp mind of Eddie's rips through your
gray matter,,,hudduer.
Coptic Prelates!
Prince Bandar!
See Jay... such an awesome mind.
Prince Bandar's House of Saud
facing aerious internal sucession crisis, deeply divided against itself and
against its own people, the target of Congressional Investigation, the business
partner of Poppy's kisses Little Bush's ass.
Well I say show us the
money but Bandar chucks two small bones, Eddie is so hard up he thinks its a
meal.
Massive Demonstrations Against War in Europe and Middle East
154. jexster - 9/27/2003 3:30:56 PM
Pentagon Readies More Troops for Iraqmire as Bush Pleas for Help Fall
Flat
155. jexster - 9/27/2003 3:46:35 PM
My own thoughts....
I think we're fucked.
I think that morale
of the US forces in Iraq is progressively deteriorating.
I think that
most folks do not like to be lied to,
I think that Zinni, Powell and
Clark along with most of our military brass and intelligence community think
Bush his neo-com men don't know what they are doing.
I think that
Baghdad is the last stop for Bush, a dead end on his roadmap.
I think
that Bush - GI Joe Terror Warrior - is an act about to close.
I think
that it is now beyond reasonable debate that Bush's war was as I aaid at the
time, a grave moral scandal and geopolitical blunder of immense proportion.
I think that Prince Bandar, and Putin and the EU most of the planet in
fact are blowing smoke up Bush's ass and that's about as much as they will do to
pull Bush's ass out of the 'mire.
I don't think that Bush and neo-con
men had a clue what they were about.
I think that every objection I
raised to this Bush "brain fart" (Gen Zinni) has proved correct.
I
believe that Bush lied
I believe that Scott Ritter should get a metal
I think we're fucked.
I think Eddie knows it.
156. jexster - 9/27/2003 3:48:02 PM
I think I can't spell medal.
This is my brain...this is my brain
on Eddie
157. jexster - 9/27/2003 3:51:39 PM
I believe that Bush will eventually do a George Aiken. Rove Ops probably are
on the lookout even now for an appropriate time to declare victory and bail
And I would not be surprised if this happens in time for the 2004
election.
I wish Bush had the guts that our last lying Texas president
had....But half that would be wishful
158. jexster - 9/27/2003 4:06:23 PM
I do not believe in Santa Claus.
I do not believe in the tooth fairy
I do not believe Bush is on a mission from God.
I do not believe the
Emperor's latest rubbish about liberation, democracy
I don't believe it
possible for a reasonably intelligent person to believe otherwise.
159. jexster - 9/27/2003 4:14:23 PM
No Robert ..the press has been using guerilla more and more often over about
the past two months.
In fact, some news reports are now using
"resistance fighters"
At this rate, there's a fair chance they'll be
"freedom fighters" at the First Anniversary of the Empire.
160. concerned - 9/28/2003 1:15:04 AM
For those who are so sure things will immediately become perfect if only the
US turns matters in Iraq over to the UN, let's look at how the UN in doing in
Kosovo four years after Serbia was pushed out:
"Four years
after the war, the United Nations still runs Kosovo by executive fiat, issuing
postage stamps, passports and driver's licenses. Decisions made by the local
elected parliament are invalid without the signature of the U.N. administrator.
And still, to this day, Kosovar ministers have U.N. overseers with the power to
approve or disapprove their decisions." -- Donald Rumsfeld
"Unemployment
is 60 percent. Electrical power in the hinterlands is unreliable. The
reconstituted local police force has not yet assumed its duties unassisted.
There about 22,200 foreign troops keeping the peace in Kosovo. The U.S. total is
2,100, part of a NATO contingent of about 18,000. And ethnic hatreds still
seethe. There is a broad feeling both among international workers and Kosovars
themselves that, if the international community were to pull out of Kosovo now,
chaos -- or even war -- could break out again in short order." -- Don Melvin
"Four years after NATO intervention, Kosovo has no 'road map' to the
future. Chances of the United Nations protectorate reverting to Serb rule are
nil but no pact on its destiny is seen in 2004.
Opinions among local
leaders and international officials diverge on whether it will become an
independent state or some hybrid short of that. But until this is clear, it will
block Serbia's path to key goals, European Union and NATO membership." --
Reuters
Something for those who are having kittens about the US role
in Iraq to keep in mind. The grass isn't always greener on the collectivist
side.
161. Edmund Dantes - 9/28/2003 9:54:06 AM
Rebuilding
Iraq
THE DEBATE OVER President Bush's
request for $87 billion in emergency spending for Iraq and Afghanistan is
threatening to take a dangerously irresponsible turn. Democrats and, to an
extent that is rattling the Bush administration, some Republicans are drawing a
distinction between the $66 billion requested for military spending and the $21
billion devoted to reconstruction, almost all of it in Iraq. The first pot of
money is considered politically untouchable; indeed, the first words out of
nearly every lawmaker's mouth are to pledge devotion to spending whatever is
needed to support "our troops." The reconstruction spending, though, has
produced considerable dissent, with a number of lawmakers questioning whether
U.S. taxpayers ought to bear that burden.
Distinguishing between
spending on troops and spending on reconstruction is a false and
counterproductive dichotomy.
Washington Post
162. alistairconnor - 9/28/2003 1:42:36 PM
Indeed, one wonders why they would want to spend $66 billion on keeping
troops in Iraq if they're not going to do anything positive there.
163. marjoribanks - 9/28/2003 1:49:18 PM
I only skim the low-simian-on-the-evolutionary-ladder's posts, admitted.
However, it is rather hilarious to smell the bottom-of-the-barrel
desperation emanating from that direction.
The miserable shreds of
"evidence" that is cobbled together, and then misrepresented, to laughably
"demonstrate" that the neocon scum haven't been routed and that Bush is a dead
duck. The frantic smear attempts at a man (Clark) who hasn't even made a serious
policy speech yet (the one he delivers on the war will reframe the national
discourse).
It's all very amusing and entertaining.
164. clydefo - 9/28/2003 3:29:12 PM
jexster,
Illigitimi non carborundum.
165. jexster - 9/28/2003 4:18:38 PM
Kuwait MP's Livid Over Bremmer's Call to forgive war
reparations...Guess we'll just have to pay the 28 Billino Bill - sound financial
footing...democracy in bloom...
SLOGAN ALERT! Do not swallow...for
children under 8 and morons of any age...not for adult consumptin.
Kuwait parliamentarians are furious at a US suggestion that the
oil-rich emirate drop demands for billions of dollars in war reparations owed by
former foe Iraq.
US occupying administrator Paul Bremer said on
Friday that out of Iraq’s total debt of $200 billion, Baghdad owed $98 billion
in reparations to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for losses during Iraq’s occupation of
the emirate from 1990 to 1991.
166. jexster - 9/28/2003 4:19:38 PM
Toys alert...
167. alistairconnor - 9/28/2003 4:26:02 PM
Did Bremer really suggest that Iraq default on its debt to Kuwait?
Bremer said “it is curious to me to have a country whose (annual) per
capita income GDP is about $800…pay reparations to a country whose per-capita
GDP is a factor of 10 times that” for a war which all Iraqis now in power
opposed.
Does he have in mind the precedent of the Bolsheviks when
he says this?
If all it takes to wipe the slate is a regime change, that
sets the scene for a rapid resolution of the Third World's debt crisis... by
jove he's got it.
168. jexster - 9/28/2003 4:43:37 PM
Oh Clyde not to worry...
They do not get me down. They get me goin.
169. Al D - 9/28/2003 9:47:15 PM
Illigitimi non carborundum
Souldn't it be illagitima tatum
non carborundum But to be honest, I haven't used the phrase in 30 years
since I quit teaching.
And please, Pelle, there is no proof in thye
pudding. But perhaps the proof of the pudding is in the eating. But you are in
good company as Reagan made the same error. Pray to god you do not say just
between you and I.
It is true that hope lives eteranl, as many on the Mote pontificate about
our miserable failure in Iraq. Even some Dem congressmen who have been over
there are saying, now wait a minute with all the doom and gloom. But I don't
blame you for hoping and wishing for America to fail in Iraq. Your insane hate
of Bush is the reason, and I don't mean to imply it is America you hate. That
comment does not apply to WoW.
170. Al D - 9/28/2003 9:48:56 PM
eteranl=eternal thye= the
171. Edmund Dantes - 9/28/2003 10:29:30 PM
Bush is a dead duck.
Hee-hee-hee.
Still in the
prediction business, I see.
Will Bush be out in three to six months,
just like Sharon?
<smirk>
172. rdbrewer - 9/29/2003 1:07:05 AM
Al D:
Your insane hate of Bush is the reason, and I don't mean to
imply it is America you hate.
I think you can make an argument the
hate is pathological on some level for the ones who seem to be gleeful when we
encounter problems over there.
And, BTW, some of them do hate the U.S.,
either overtly or deep down.
173. ScreamingSin - 9/29/2003 4:44:27 AM
When I'm driving by neighborhoods, I love seeing the odd flagpole, flying
those gorgeous colors.
My yard is full of rocks. The best I can manage
is the old college try on a little stake that gets trashed in the next big
storm.
174. jexster - 9/29/2003 9:02:01 PM
US Forces Under Heavy Attack W. of Baghdad, Casualties Mount
How are thinks in your Village of Hope...a town named hope
Color Eddie gullible
175. jexster - 9/29/2003 9:06:42 PM
Its it ILLIGITIMITI kinda like you?
How are thing you ole bastard?
And at the risk of sedition, better lese majeste againt the reignng
Village Idiot, the Bloody Bumbling Butcher of Baghdad, sometime back you asked
me what might be if the Iraqis welcomed us enthusiastically?
176. jexster - 9/29/2003 9:13:47 PM
I dunno whether Bremmmer suggested that Iraq default on its debt but I think
it was certainly implicit.
As you point out, Russia defaulted as in
effect did Germany which is about the universe of reparations payments of
similiar size to this one.
Also both countries are more or less
sattelite states and will do as they are told...although Kuwait does have a
little leverage, the Iraqis do not like them very much and that's not just some
idea that Sadddam planted in their minds. What Bremmer said is sufficient
authorization.
He doesn't have to say it again for the Iraqis to do what
is in their interests anyway.
I say if Kuwait gives us any trouble,
we'll run a 101 AB brigade up their dresses
177. Al D - 9/29/2003 9:18:56 PM
There are two things that might happen in the next year that would be very
good for America.
1. The economy would recover( which is happening right
now) and unemployment would fall by a significant %. Some say that jobs are the
last thing to come in an economic recovery.
2. The pacification of Iraq
is successful, an Iraqi government is formed, and the world comes to see what
Bush has done is helping stabilize the Middle East.
One would think that all Americans would wish for this, but that would be
naive beyond belief. The lust for power is so great that Bush enemies would
rather see the exact oppisite of both of the above in order to bring him down.
Only time will tell, but I ca
