May 02, 2007

Risible Tensions

If al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri was killed in Iraq in a clash yesterday as reported, it appears that tribes that are part of the Sunni Awakening will get credit for the kill:

A local leader from a village near Taji, Muhammad Fadhil of Nibaie, said he heard explosions and gunfire from Monday night through Tuesday morning. He believed the sounds came from clashes between al-Qaeda in Iraq fighters and men from the Falahat tribe and a tribal coalition known as the Anbar Salvation Council. Fadhil also said U.S. and Iraqi forces eventually cordoned off the area.

The Anbar Salvation Council is a Sunni group formerly loyal to al Qaeda and the insurgency that has since joined forces with the Iraqi government and coalition forces. The tribal militias have fought pitched battles against al Qaeda, and has killed or captured hundreds of terrorists over the course of the past few months.

CNN, as befitting their political bias, arrives to the party late:

Reports of fighting between al Qaeda in Iraq and Sunni militants surfaced Tuesday, the latest hints of rising tensions between the two allied groups.

Other reports have emerged this year of tensions between Sunni fighters and the Sunni-dominated al Qaeda in Iraq, particularly from Anbar province, long a favored turf for indigenous Sunni insurgents and foreign fighters infiltrating Iraq from Syria.

The Awakening has been fighting tooth and claw against al Qaeda for months in battles involving hundreds of men at a time, (see the Roggio links above, and feel free to Google others), and CNN sees "hints of rising tensions?"

One can only wonder what maelstrom would force them to actually use the word "combat."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:53 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

May 01, 2007

Yon: Desires of the Human Heart

A two-part photo essay from embed Mike Yon, embedded with I-4 Cavalry (Fort Riley, Kansas) at COP Amanche, Baghdad:

Part I

Part II

Mike writes of this photo, taken from Part II:

"I asked the woman above if she was the mom, but the camera had already captured the answer."

Cute Kid. Beaming Mom. These are among the people I worry about when I see Harry Reid declare the war "lost." If Reid and others are allowed to force a loss, what kind of future can this mother and child have?

No photo touches me more than these Iraqi children, particularly the girl in red, that Yon photographed last year in Iraq near the Iranian border.

Something about her haunts me. Perhaps it is her strength and sadness, or her passing resemblance to my niece.

I want these children to have a future that is better than their nation's horrific past decades or bloody present. I simply don't understand how we can help provide anything like that by declaring they aren't worth it, and running away.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:56 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Illusions of Safety

As many of you know, I work part-time at a sporting goods store behind the gun counter. This past Saturday, a rather frail couple I'd estimate to be in their early fifties--a local man, and his sister visiting from Florida, they said--stopped me to ask where they could find a whistle.

An orange whistle; they were very adamant about that.

We didn't happen to have any orange whistles in stock, and I inquired as to why they were so intent on getting a whistle in that particular color. The brother informed me that they had had a rash of recent muggings in the community in Florida where the sister lived, and they thought that whistle was the best way to protect her against a possible mugging.

My eyebrows went up with that. I asked where she intended to keep the whistle, and she stated quickly, as if I was daft, that she'd keep it in her purse.

I just looked at them for a few seconds, hoping they'd make the connection.

They didn't.

"You mean the same purse that a mugger would likely grab?" I offered, trying to point out their obviously flawed logic. Instead of realizing their Carlos Mencia "dee dee dee!" moment, they shifted gears.

"What about pepper spray?"

"And where would you keep that?"

She started to answer, "In my pu-"

The brother, starting to get agitated, cut her off.

"Do you have it, or not?" he said tersely.

I replied that we didn't, and then I took the conversation where they didn't want to go.

"Ma'am, you live in Florida, correct?"

She did.

"You are aware that Florida have one of the most liberal concealed carry laws in the United States?"

I may as well have suggested raping a chicken. The looks of horror and disgust should have been comical, but all I felt was sad.

At that point I gave up and directed them to the closest place that I was aware of that had pepper spray for sale. They left, very quickly. I never did find out why they were so adamant about having an orange whistle. Perhaps they thought muggers were afraid of that particular color.

A whistle has not, as far as I am aware, stopped a determined assailant, as often as I've heard them recommended as a form of self defense by one un-serious group or another. All an assailant has to do it pluck it from your lips, or more likely, attempt to use his fist to smash it down your throat.

Whistles only provide the illusion of safety, which is all these people and others like them actually want. They want to think they're taking steps to protect themselves or others, even when they aren't.

I almost never have to time to take these customers down the logical path, as they typically eject themselves from the conversation once their illusion is challenged.

I'd love to ask them what they expect to happen if they are able to actually blow their whistle, but rarely get the chance.

Do they expect that a police officer will just happen to be within the hundred-yard or so range of such a whistle, with his radio off and his squad car windows down so that he can hear their single, brief bleat?

Do they expect other citizens to come running to their rescue and potentially place their lives in jeopardy, when the victims themselves would not?

Whistlers, however you cut it, are sheep... and self-important, arrogant sheep at that.

Whatever their physical gifts, they are psychologically unwilling to defend themselves, and yet expect others to come running to their rescue when things get predatory. They don't want the responsibility of protecting their own lives, and expect others to do it for them.

Bring on more unarmed victim zones. Buy more whistles. Expect others to come to your defense, even though you wouldn't come to theirs.

Baaaaa...

I hope orange whistle lady wises up, but I'm rather sadly confident that she won't. Some illusions are just too comforting for some people to let go of them, not matter how useless and stupid they are.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:16 PM | Comments (49) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

al-Masri's Rumored Death Shows Fruits of Sunni Awakening

The leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was reportedly killed in a firefight today between al Qaeda and what has been described as a battle between insurgent groups by the Guardian, or by local Sunni tribesmen according to CNN. The account remains to be confirmed, and it must be noted that similar accounts in the past have been incorrect.

Both claims of who carried out the attack could be accurate, but the CNN account, which describes the site of the conflict as "a bridge in an area under Sunni tribal control," sounds like a description consistent with the Sunni tribal militias aligned with the al-Anbar "Awakening" movement, as described by combat filmmaker and blogger JD Johannes in this recent entry to his blog at Outside the Wire:

Driving along the four-lane highway from Habbaniyah to Ramadi there are the usual coalition check points, Iraqi Army Outposts, markets, black market gas stations and Police Stations.

But, off the main highway, on the access roads leading back into the Euphrates canal country, every half mile, gun men wearing Keyfahs and wielding AK-47s man road blocks--and they are the best allies we can have against the jihadists.

[snip]

Last Summer few Sheiks, notably around Ramadi flipped to the coalition and government side of the conflict.

The tribes sent levies to the Police Academies in Baghdad and Amman, Jordan. They have also started taking matters into their own hands with some men from each clan and tribe defending their villages.

What I saw in Husabayah Jawal was not the Iraqi Police or the Iraqi Army, but the beginings of the end of the insurgency in Iraq.

Whether they are the Sons of Al Anbar, Sawa, TAA, the militia or the Tribal Neighborhood Watch, tribes and clans across the Euphrates river valley are taking charge of their own security with back up from the Marines.

[snip]

The Iraq variant of the Home Guard emerged last year as many of the top sheiks, some who had opposed the coalition and some who had a foot in both camps saw that AQIZ was not following through on their promises and that the coalition was following through on their promises.

The other point that flipped the Sheiks is the simple fact that no one except for the hard core jihadists want to live under Sharia law--which is all the jihadists have to offer.

The Sheiks, sub-sheiks, former military leaders including a hero of the Iran/Iraq war who lived in the Khalidiayah area began the process of standing up neighborhood watch check points.

The neighborhood watch is supported by the Police District and Mayor. The Marines keep a close eye on the volunteers who man the check points but have no official involvement in their activities.

The Anbar Awakening is allowing one of the key aspects of counter insurgency operations to begin--population control and control of movement in and out of areas.

This firefight may have either been "red-on-red" fighting between an insurgent group and al Qaeda, or it could be the action of a tribal militia loyal to the "Awakening" and the Iraqi government.

If the former is correct and the firefight was a "red-on red" between insurgent groups, then it shows more evidence of a widening, lethal rift between various elements of a Sunni insurgency, an insurgency that has been showing increasing signs of fragmentation for months.

If the firefight was between al Qaeda and local Sunni militiamen loyal to the Awakening, then this battle is part of a trend that shows the vulnerability of al Qaeda and mobile insurgents to the "Home Guard" militias, local groups loyal to Sheiks aligning with the Iraqi government and coalition forces that know on sight whether or not people belong to a certain area. It is also worth mentionthat both accounts could very well be true, as these are not exclusive states of being with Sunni tribes in a state of flux.

This battle is one of many that has occurred in Iraq in the past few months as the Sunni Awakening that started last summer continues to bear fruit, further fracturing the insurgency as they turn on al Qaeda and the increasingly fewer number of Sunni tribes that see fighting the Iraqi government and coalition forces as a viable strategy.

While civilian and military casualties continue to mount in Iraq, the essential nature of the conflict has radically evolved, a fact under-reported in a world press that can understand simple concepts like body counts, but cannot or will not understand the underlying motivations and actors.

The original Sunni insurgency in Iraq that fought to overthrow or undermine the fledgling Iraqi government is not dead, but it is certainly, unequivocally, in the process of dying.

Today, the body counts continue to be high, but those dying in the string of horrific string of car and truck bomb attacks over the past few months are not being killed by popularly-supported Sunni insurgents, but instead, are being attacked by elements of al Qaeda. 80 to 90-percent of those carrying out suicide bombing in Iraq are not Iraqis, just as so many of the lethal EFP attacks being carried out against Coalition forces are the work of Shias that receive training and weaponry in Iran. Foreign actors are increasing taking the lead from the locals in the war against the Iraqi government.

Why does this matter?

Native-borne insurgencies are among the toughest of conflicts to bring to a successful resolution. The French learned this hard lesson in Vietnam and Algeria, as we learned that lesson in Vietnam. But native insurgencies can be defeated, as French Lt. Col. David Galula demonstrated in the areas under his control in Algeria, and as the British showed in the Malaysian Emergency.

Insurgencies that receive more external support than internal support are far more vulnerable to be defeated, for obvious reasons. Without internal support, foreign fighters and insurgent groups run a far greater risk of being identified, fixed, and destroyed. As a result, the current situation in Iraq is more winnable than it was a year ago.

Those critics that maintain that the war in Iraq is "lost," or that refuse to admit that al Qaeda or Iran are the key, driving forces behind the remaining Sunni and Shia militias and insurgent groups, are deluding themselves. Saying that "nothing has changed" is not only an abdication of responsibility, it is an abdication of reality.

Sunnis tribesmen engaged with al Qaeda this morning, as they have time and again and with increasing frequency over the past year as the Awakening grows. Allah's important influence aside, they are also undoubtedly switching sides because Iraq is their home, and they want to be on the winning side when this war concludes. Many have determined that the Iraqi government and their coalition allies must and will be that winning side.

Much as changed in Iraq since the Sunni Awakening began last summer.

We have a radically new strategy for fighting the war, being implemented by a new commanding general, under a new Secretary of Defense. We have crucial new allies, as tribes that formerly supported the insurgency have rebelled against it to form a new political party and re-engage in the political process, even as they hunt and kill al Qaeda. These Sunni tribes have engaged the Iraqi government and coalition troops as allies, declaring:

"We have decided that by helping you," he said, "we are helping God."

The war, it seems may be in the process of being won in Iraq in mid-2007, even as war critics declaring this war "lost" are stuck in time, in a much different Iraq War of early 2006.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:58 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 30, 2007

Iraq War Saves Iraqi Lives?

Via Ace, something at Say Anything that qualifies as fascinating if true:

According to figures from the CIA World Factbook there are roughly 864,588 live births in Iraq every year (about 31.44 for every 1,000 citizens). In 2003 there was an infant mortality rate in Iraq of 55.16 per 1,000 births, or about 47,690 infant deaths.

In 2006 that infant mortality rate has dropped to 48.64 deaths per 1,000 births. Or about 42,503 infant deaths/year. Or about 5,187 fewer dead infants every year than in 2003.

So is it safe to say that we’ve saved roughly (and these numbers are, admittedly, very rough) 15,000 infant lives since invading Iraq? I think that would be in the ballpark.

And just think of that. 15,000 lives saved.

The anti-war folks may be quick to respond to that number with talk about the approximate 62,570 Iraqi civilians who have died in Iraq since the invasion over four years ago, a number that works out to about 15,323 dead civilians a year, but I’d point out that fewer Iraqis are dying now in the violence in Iraq than were dying under Saddam’s cruel regime.

According to this article the Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled information on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq under Saddam Hussein’s regime. That’s probably low as its just the executions we know about and it doesn’t include those who died because Saddam diverted money from the UN’s humanitarian oil-for-food program into his own coffers, but we’ll use it anyway. If we consider that Saddam Hussein was in power for 24 years, those 600,000 executions puts his yearly death toll at about 25,000/year.

So even with a conservative estimate as to the number of civilian deaths under Saddam there are still 10,000 fewer civilian deaths in that country per year now.

I think these figures and the conclusions reached are very much open for criticism, and I, for one, think Rob Port may be wrong with his figures.

Let's use another set of figures that Port chose not to use, those that estimate the numbers of Iraqis and other local regional military and civilian lives killed as a result of Saddam's two elective wars, the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, and the 1990-91 Gulf War, to get a better idea of those casualties directly attributed to Saddam's regime prior to the 2003 invasion.

After all, it hardly seems fair to factor in Iraqi casualties that were a result of our 2003 invasion, without also factoring in casualty estimates that were a result of Saddam's invasions as well.

Wikipedia notes that roughly a half million Iranians, including Iranian soldiers, militiamen, and civilians were killed or wounded as a result of Saddam's first elective war, and Iraq suffered roughly 375,000 casualties to soldiers, militias and civilians.

Hard numbers are tough to come by and may never specifically be known, but for the sake of argument, let's estimate that of the 875,000 total casualties, that 25-percent were fatalities. This gives us a rough estimate of fatalities of 218,750 for this war.

Also worth noting are the number of deaths of Iraqis that can be linked to Saddam's 1990 invasion of Kuwait and his 1991 expulsion.

Once again :Wikipedia notes that the estimates are imprecise, but that Iraqi's army probably suffered about 20,000 military casualties. The Wikipedia entry doesn't mention the Kuwaiti deaths that resulted from Saddam's invasion. I'll thrown out an even 1,000 for argument's sake, and will update if anyone can find an accurate source.

All told, combining these new figures with those compiled by Rob Port and cited above, means that Saddam is responsible for roughly 839,750 deaths, even when excluding all Coalition casualties that resulted in expelling Saddam's military from Kuwait in 1991 through today.

When combat deaths resulting from his elective wars are added to his civilian executions, Saddam was responsible for about 34,990 deaths/year during his reign, not 25,000 deaths/year.

This would apparently mean that there are far more than 10,000 military and civilian lives in the region being saved per year as result of our invasion, but those numbers are open to be challenged, due to my well known personal incompatibility with anything resembling math.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:24 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

ABC News: Reaching, Failing Yet Again, and My Fleeting Affair with Holly Hunter

It is getting increasingly difficult to describe stories published by ABC News as anything remotely approaching competent journalism.

Today, ABC runs the headline Va. Tech Shooter, Victim Linked to Gun Range, in an attempt to establish a connection between Seung-Hui Cho and his first victim, Emily Hilscher.

The connection?

Cho used the Jefferson National Forest Firing Range at least three times in the six weeks prior to the Virginia Tech massacre. Heather Haugh, Emily Hilscher's roommate, said that Hilscher went to that range with her boyfriend Karl David Thornhill, perhaps even a month ago.

The ABC News reporter, Lara Setrakian, then states:

The link between Hilscher and Cho is unclear, but possibly crucial to understanding a motive behind the April 16 attack.

Interesting line. Setrakian essentially admits there is no clear link, but then speculates that a link that may not even exist is "possibly crucial to understanding a motive."

Setrakian presents no evidence that Cho and Hilscher were at the range at the same time, same day, or even the same week.

This is "crucial?" Do we blindly speculate much?

You know, I was in a sporting goods store some years ago in Middletown, NY, when actress Holly Hunter purchased a treadmill, and I actually helped her and the guy she was with load it. Does that prove we have some sort of relationship? Apparently it would to ABC News, as it is a far more concrete link than this Cho/Hilscher story.

Sadly, blind speculation and incompetence, along with outright, still uncorrected falsehoods, are sadly becoming the new journalistic standards of ABC News, where "ABC" seems to be defined as "anything but credible."

Holly, if you read this, and remotely remember that tender handful of seconds we almost had together almost talking in a Middletown, NY parking lot... call me.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:35 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Broadside

Ouch:

FOREMAN: Let me ask you quickly, Jim, there's been a lot made of the media improvements by the insurgents, that they're doing a great job of getting their message out. What are we going to see from our military as we move forward against that press machine, when they try to balance it?

HANSON: You make a good point. you forced me to point out you guys did put out a pretty heinous video of snipers, of the insurgents killing U.S. troops on CNN, so you guys to some extent helped them with their own propaganda.

That's gonna leave a mark.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:20 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Redstate Conspiracy Theorizing Conclusively Debunked

Last week I confronted RedState blog for a post by "streiff" attempting to say that they had a photo of an American GI "flipping off" an Associated Press photojournalist by the name of Maya Alleruzzo. Another Redstate contributor, "Thomas," went on further to claim that the picture in question was PhotoShopped.

Neither claim was true.

This is the photo in question:

The caption that ran with the photo at the time stated:

Staff Sgt Patrick Lockett 25, of Huntsville Alabama of Alpha Troop, 3rd Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Infantry Division patrols in Al Kargoulia, 25 miles (40 kilometers) east of Baghdad, Iraq, Fri., April 20, 2007. The 3rd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division is back in Iraq for the third time since rolling into Baghdad in 2003. (AP Photo/Maya Alleruzzo)

The caption incorrectly cites Lockett as a Staff Sgt, when he is actually a SFC, but that is a much more trivial matter. What does matter is that Redstate never issued a correction for their false claim, even when I sent them an email alerting them to my previous post, which clearly shows an CY-enhanced photo showing that the finger shown is actually SFC Lockett's trigger or index finger.

Clearly, Lockett was not "flipping off" the AP photographer.

Over the weekend I got in touch with MAJ Joseph (Joe) R. Sowers, 3rd HBCT/3rd ID Public Affairs Officer, who contacted the soldier in the picture, Lockett, directly.

Lockett clearly states:

In the picture, it is my trigger finger outside of my trigger well. I would never give a reporter, nor any Iraqi citizen, a middle finger. I am more professional than that. I am a SFC in the United States Army and proud of what I do.

Now that SFC Lockett himself unequivocally supported what the enhanced photo clearly shows, will "streiff" and "Thomas" at Redstate have the common decency to apologize for their incorrect claims and issue either a correction or a retraction? I certainly hope so. Their credibility hangs in the balance.

As for the Associated Press photojournalist, Lockett's commanding officer, COL Wayne Grigsby, had this to say:

In my opinion, Maya Alleruzzo is an excellent photojournalist who accurately portrayed the Sledgehammer Soldier executing his duties to standard, to include, his weapon on safe and his finger outside the trigger well.

Maya Alleruzzo is an excellent representation of the media. Her efforts allowed us to showcase the outstanding work of our great young Soldiers that we would otherwise have not been able to do. We consider her an honorary member of the Sledgehammer Team. We would welcome her back in the brigade at any time.

Journalists make mistakes. So do bloggers. The only way for any of us to maintain our credibility is to admit those mistakes, and attempt to correct the record.

I hope that Redstate will therefore correct their claims regarding SFC Lockett and photographer Maya Alleruzzo. They unfairly attacked the professionalism of SFC Lockett, and misrepresented the esteem with which the 3rd Heavy holds Alleruzzo, apparently for their own amusement.

Faced with the facts, Redstate should do the right thing and correct their inaccurate, defamatory post.

Update Mike Krempasky just discovered that the general comments form at Redstate has apparently been down for at least a week, which is why no one there got or responded to my messages.

Erick's response, on Redstate, however, is sad; a non-apology apology, blaming everyone else.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:06 AM | Comments (32) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 27, 2007

Another Police State Liberal Attempts to Subvert the Constitution

The Second and Fourth Amendments?

Toss them out the window.

Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.

Second Amendment? Just ignore that.

But Bill Clinton's former Ambassador to the Congo isn't done yet: now comes the police state. If this liberal has his way, kiss your Fourth Amendment search and seizure rights goodbye as well:

The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.

Mr. Simpson's staggering suggestion to subvert the Bill of Rights is not the first we've heard in the past weeks, but coming from a former American diplomat who was presumably charged with acting within Constitutional bounds, it is among the most disturbing.

Perhaps Simpson doesn't see the obvious irony that the Founders created the Second Amendment not to ensure hunting, but to protect American citizens from men precisely like himself.

To dismantle the Second, as John Adams noted in "A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States":

...is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.

Patrick Henry warned:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.

And not a Founder, but still important, are the words of Supreme Court Associate Justice Joseph Story:

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Story is not to subtly noting that would-be tyrants (like Simpson) that attempt to run roughshod over America's Constitution, and attempt to overwhelm the people with the power of the State (in the guise of his noted "special police"), are inviting an armed, violent, and morally just reprisal to restore and retain those hard-won liberties.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:44 AM | Comments (69) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 After a few negative comments in the press (yea-right), Simpson will pull a "Crow" and say it was just a joke.

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 11:13 AM (ybfXM)

2 Bob, this is an excellent post. Thank you. The article is something everyone interested in the prosecution of this war, and Vietnam, should read. I suggest they read Ricks' Fiasco as well.

But I have to disagree with you when you say no specific individuals should be blamed. The list is long, yes, but people must be held accountable for this, what looks to be one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in our history.

(Please pardon the length of this post and any typos. I'm pressed for time but felt the need to respond. The quotes in italics are from the article.)

The greatest error the statesman can make is to commit his nation to a great conflict without mobilizing popular passions to a level commensurate with the stakes of the conflict.

After 9/11, Bush could have asked the American people, indeed the world, to do almost anything. We were ready make any sacrifice, pay any cost. Even the French Le Monde ran the headline "We are all Americans." He could have put us on a moon launch footing to end our dependence on oil within a decade. He could have called up every able-bodied American young man to serve. He could have called to us to rise to our better natures, to think of what we can do for the country. Instead, he squandered this one chance and told us to live as if nothing was different, although we were now at war. He did not mobilize popular passions. He told us to go shopping.

If the policymaker desires ends for which the means he provides are insufficient, the general is responsible for advising the statesman of this incongruence.

Think of Shinseki. Then think of how Rumsfeld's hubris and Bush's criminal lack of intellectual rigor sent Shinseki packing. Why? Because telling the American people this action required a larger commitment was inconvenient to selling the war. In other words, he didn't think we had the stomach for it. He thinks we're sheep. I can assure you, we are not sheep. You'll have to make your own assessment of your own courage for yourself.

Failing to visualize future battlefields represents a lapse in professional competence, but seeing those fields clearly and saying nothing is an even more serious lapse in professional character. Moral courage is often inversely proportional to popularity and this observation in nowhere more true than in the profession of arms.

Ever heard of the Powell Doctrine? Where was Powell when his voice would have carried real weight? Someone else who squandered what he had earned over a lifetime of honorable service.

Despite engaging in numerous stability operations throughout the 1990s, the armed forces did little to bolster their capabilities for civic reconstruction and security force development. Procurement priorities during the 1990s followed the Cold War model, with significant funding devoted to new fighter aircraft and artillery systems.

This blame you can spread around. We need to look at how we procure weapons systems and who profits. We need to stop this revolving door from government to defense industries. Cheney and Halliburton is just the most public example, but it runs deep and is toxic to our system of government.

Alone among America's generals, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki publicly stated that "several hundred thousand soldiers" would be necessary to stabilize post-Saddam Iraq. Prior to the war, President Bush promised to give field commanders everything necessary for victory. Privately, many senior general officers both active and retired expressed serious misgivings about the insufficiency of forces for Iraq.

Bush had also surrounded himself with incompetents because he values loyalty more than skill. He listens to a small circle of advisors so even if officers had spoken up, he wouldn't have heard them. He would have heard instead from Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice that the officer who dared go against policy was a McClellan and was best ignored.

Counterinsurgency theory requires strengthening the capability of host-nation institutions to provide security and other essential services to the population.

This is where the administration's actions were most criminal. Bush and the "bushies" installed loyalists in the CPA who had no experience in building a nation's infrastructure, financial and physical. Really, what does an applicant's position on aboprtion have to do with securing a stable economy, yet that was one of the top questions in any interview given any applicant. The stories of incompetence and profiteering are legion.

Indeed, the tendency of the executive branch to seek out mild-mannered team players to serve as senior generals is part of the problem. The services themselves are equally to blame. The system that produces our generals does little to reward creativity and moral courage.

I have more than a passing familiarity with the Army bureaucracy and I know this is true. Traditional combat arms officers looked with suspicion at those who chose to study counterinsurgency and Special Ops. Until recently, the path to promotion was not through Special Warfare but through armor and infantry.

So, while I agree with the larger view of this article that says our generals were unprepared for this war, I disagree that we shouldn't hold individuals accountable for this disaster.

There were dissenting voices, they were just shut out of the debate.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 27, 2007 11:35 AM (kxecL)

3 That comment is fine, but doesn't support or refute the topic of the post. Not unless you're refuting it by saying "But Bush is evil too. Look over here."

Posted by: brando at April 27, 2007 11:42 AM (RqbPA)

4 Nice post David, too bad it was on the wrong thread.

Now as for this Simpson character(apt name BTW), all his proposal would do is get a lot of people killed, police and regular folks.
When they pry it from my cold dead hands.

Posted by: 1sttofight at April 27, 2007 11:43 AM (XWZWX)

5 Sorry for posting in the wrong place. This also illustrates why I love editors.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 27, 2007 11:50 AM (kxecL)

6 I'm gonna take popcorn, cold beer and a lawn chair when the disarmanent team goes to confiscate Kim du Toit's weapons.

Posted by: Actual at April 27, 2007 11:52 AM (NpVyh)

7 This blame you can spread around. We need to look at how we procure weapons systems and who profits. We need to stop this revolving door from government to defense industries. Cheney and Halliburton is just the most public example, but it runs deep and is toxic to our system of government.

You have some good points here. You forgot to add DiFi and her husband though. But it isn't just the revolving door David. It is also the regulations of the government buying (FAR/DAR) and such that cause exorbitant prices. I worked in the Defense Industry for many years. The last few years I was a CAM with a half-a-billion dollar budget I was responsible for under the government's Cost Schedule Control System Criteria (CS-squared). I have seen how certain nonsense works.

Let's take for example the - what were they - $600 hammers? Do your remember that? The reason those were so expensive was that it was required by government regs to place the order with certified government contractors. Now picture - you want several thousand hammers and you go to someone like General Dynamics to get them built. They don't build hammers - but they will take on a project if they can make money. But to build hammers? Design, Tooling, Ordering, Cost Control, manufacture...when you add all that up for a few thousand hammers, you end up with really expensive hammers. What would have been simpler was to got to Sears and buy several thousand Craftsman hammers - about $15 bucks each for the good ones - and guaranteed for life to boot. But, because of government regulations, that was no allowed. Stupidity all around.

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 11:53 AM (ybfXM)

8 Crud - I did the same thing David did....sorry

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 11:55 AM (ybfXM)

9 Bush is hardly a champion of the Constitution. He personally authorized warrantless wiretaps on citizens. He's complicit in cruel and unusual punishment. (Don't give me any claptrap about it being OK to subject 'enemy combatants' to extra-Constitutional practices. It's supposed to be our belief system.) So much for speedy trials. Jose Padilla is an American citizen was held for years without charges being filed. The Patriot Act runs counter to the Constitution in several ways.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 11:58 AM (40R2V)

10 Lex,

Can you name other instances of warrantless searches? And why has that whole storm died away except in the minds of those seriously afflicted with BDS?

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 12:02 PM (ybfXM)

11 If you step back and look closely at this, it is the same thing we use for the "war on drugs".

Posted by: David Caskey at April 27, 2007 12:07 PM (G5i3t)

12 Specter,

Even though this is the wrong thread, I'll answer eher and hope readers can follow along. Sorry.

It's not the cost of anything, hammers, toilet seats, etc. that I'm referring to. I understand how mil-specs can inflate prices. No, I'm talking about people who should be regulating arms systems development and procurement who, after a few years, become employees, high-paid employees, of those same corporations they were supposed to oversee as a government employee.

We can see another bit of the problem with weapons systems that are large and complex, like a new fighter. The manufacturer purposely puts elements of its manufacture in as many Congressional districts as possible in order to make it bullet-proof, so to speak.

But that's the way the game works.

I'm more concerned about that revolving door than I am a Congressman who wants to keep his constituents working.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 27, 2007 12:10 PM (kxecL)

13
I belive Mr Simpson will need lots of help
cause it won't just be the South rising again.

Posted by: Jack Sparrow at April 27, 2007 12:11 PM (L4HGI)

14 Gentlemen, could you please take the rest of this discussion to the correct thread?

Thanks.

THE MANAGEMENT

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 27, 2007 12:35 PM (9y6qg)

15 You are exactly right Jack.

Those nutjobs arrested yesterday lived about 20 miles from me but they are not ordinary folks.
Everyone wanted then caught. simpsons plan is nothing at all like that.

Posted by: 1sttofight at April 27, 2007 12:42 PM (XWZWX)

16 Specter: Can you name other instances of warrantless searches?

Yes.

And why has that whole storm died away except in the minds of those seriously afflicted with BDS?

It is indeed hard to keep up with the scandals of this administration, one wave replaces the next. Of course you will deny this, but you live in a curious cocoon. The wheels have come off of this administration, but you either don't see that or actively ignore it.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 01:06 PM (40R2V)

17 Specter: Can you name other instances of warrantless searches?

Yes.



Name them.

Posted by: 1sttofight at April 27, 2007 01:08 PM (XWZWX)

18 1sttofight: Name them.

No. This is dumb. Of course there have been warrantless searches in the history of our country. What difference does it make? If you're genuinely curious, try a search engine.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 01:35 PM (40R2V)

19 No. This is dumb. Of course there have been warrantless searches in the history of our country. What difference does it make? If you're genuinely curious, try a search engine.

So you can name even one? Not surprised.

Posted by: 1sttofight at April 27, 2007 02:52 PM (XWZWX)

20 Why stop at two Amendments?

When Mr. Simpson gets his law passed, it should also prohibit public complaints against the law, allow troops being used for the searches to be housed in our private residences against our will, carry automatic jail sentences without trial, and public floggings of violators. Then we can throw the whole Bill of Rights into the trash.

Posted by: Bram at April 27, 2007 03:00 PM (x82LV)

21 Hey Lex,
Still waiting on that ONE example.

Posted by: 1sttofight at April 27, 2007 03:08 PM (XWZWX)

22 1sttofight: Google for "warrantless search" and you can find as many as you want. Cases are dismissed every year upon a judge ruling that a given search was unlawful without a warrant (as you know the police can perform involuntary searches under certain conditions). For the life of me I can't imagine what you are trying to demonstrate though. Are you saying that Bush was the first to perform warrantless searches?

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 03:19 PM (40R2V)

23 For the life of me I can't imagine what you are trying to demonstrate though. Are you saying that Bush was the first to perform warrantless searches?

That a now high-profile democrat advocates throwing the constitution out the window to a degree that is unprecedented?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 27, 2007 03:57 PM (DvLHg)

24 Oh, I went back and re-read the original post. I misunderstood what you all were saying. No, I don't agree that police should be able to search residences without a permit. Nor do I believe the government has the right to issue a permit to search swathes of homes for firearms.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 04:33 PM (40R2V)

25 Oh, I went back and re-read the original post.


Are you admiting your response was a joke or that you are now going into rehab?

Or that you are just stupid?

Posted by: 1sttofight at April 27, 2007 04:45 PM (XWZWX)

26 Though I don't necessarily believe that the Second Amendment really gives individuals the right to own firearms for personal protection, I would like to go on the record here, for what it's worth, as saying that such a policy is bad craziness.

This is stupid politics, impossible as a practical matter, and most importantly a serious abridgement of liberty. I would be standing right next to you in the resistance if our government tried to do this.

That said, anyone who reads this essay can see that Ambassador Simpson is not proposing that the government confiscate privately owned weapons. He is simply arguing that it would be possible (an argument that does not convince me, by the way), and suggesting one method for doing so.

Relax. Your government is not coming after your guns.

Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at April 27, 2007 05:04 PM (y4+dQ)

27 Lex,

What about seat-belt stops, and of course drunk driving checkpoints? They are search and seizure with not warrant and no probable cause. You get stopped because you are driving. What about those?

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 06:02 PM (ybfXM)

28 1sttofight: Are you admiting your response was a joke or that you are now going into rehab? Or that you are just stupid?

I thought you were disagreeing about my characterization of Bush's anti-constitutional tendencies in my original comment on this thread. As I said, I agree that the 'rounding up firearms' thing is unconstitutional.

If you're the first to fight than how come you're stateside? Is that a whiff of chickenhawk I smell?

The Patriot Act allows for some warrantless searches. Google for 'patriot act warrantless search'.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 06:03 PM (40R2V)

29 When they pry it from my cold dead hands ...

Posted by: Bill Faith at April 27, 2007 06:38 PM (n7SaI)

30 Relax. Your government is not coming after your guns.

Many congressional democrats are though. Chuckie & DiFi being very notable.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 27, 2007 07:29 PM (DvLHg)

31 Dan Simpson, a retired diplomat, is a member of the editorial boards of The Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

'Nuff said, right? This guy's nobody except a dude with a forum of his own. Shouldn't we all be focusing on something more substantial?

Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 27, 2007 07:44 PM (OmGSu)

32 Hi, my name is Jonney, I am from Zaire.
Just like your resource .

Posted by: Jonney_wdt at April 27, 2007 07:52 PM (Iu3ch)

33 If you're the first to fight than how come you're stateside? Is that a whiff of chickenhawk I smell?


Ahhh, The old chickenhawk slur. What took you so long?

Posted by: 1sttofight at April 27, 2007 08:52 PM (XWZWX)

34 This guy's nobody except...

A former Clinton administration official. Apparently his views were acceptable to Clinton at the time.

Curiously, there is a Clinton running for the presidency.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 27, 2007 10:20 PM (DvLHg)

35 1sttofight:
Ahhh, The old chickenhawk slur. What took you so long?

Maybe you should change to 2ndtofight, or perhaps talkbig?

Who do you fear more, Al Qaeda or Colonel Sanders?

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 11:53 PM (40R2V)

36 Purple Avenger: Schumer and Feinstein--as well as other political leaders--may prefer a gun control policy that confiscates guns. But they will never get it enacted. Just won't happen--there is not enough support for this even in the Democratic Party. They need support from Democrats like me, for instance, and would not have it.

The best they will get is more regulation, and this may in fact be the best thing for people like CY and myself. It does gun owners no good, for example, when lax regulation (or lax enforcement) allows someone like the VT shooter to obtain two firearms. Widespread ownership, if it means incidents like the one at VT are more likely, creates support for new gun control laws from people who have little knowledge of the issue. We are better off with regulations that permit you and CY and myself to carry but limit possession by those who have no business arming themselves.

The problem is drawing the line, and figuring out how to decide who belongs on which side.

Gun owners should worry less about confiscation and more about how to educate people who don't understand why it is important for a certain cohort of citizens to be armed. They will never take your guns away--and won't ever try--but they will demonize owners as long as some people are killing teenagers by the dozens.

Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at April 28, 2007 06:23 AM (E4OF/)

37 Yes, Avenger, he was a former Clinton official, but so what? As he himself writes, "...I have little or no power to influence the "if" part of the issue." He's just a guy with an idea. Lots of people have ideas and are, like him, in no position to do anything about them.

This is making a mountain out of a molehill.

I'm guessing that plenty of former Bush officials have ideas that I wouldn't like, but is it worth using up bandwidth to complain about them?

Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 28, 2007 07:09 AM (yNAVW)

38 But they will never get it enacted. Just won't happen...

It happened in Australia and Britain. For some reason I simply don't believe you.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 28, 2007 07:26 AM (DvLHg)

39 Purple Avenger: First of all, you are incorrect as a factual matter if you think that the governments of Britain and Australia simply decided one day to ban gun ownership and then went around confiscating them from owners. Gun ownership is heavily regulated there--arguably too heavily regulated--but it is not illegal across the board. Suggesting that it is sounds like something straight out of an NRA fundraising appeal.

Even if these other countries had banned guns and confiscated them, it says little about the possibilities of implementing the same policy here. Gun control regulations in Britain and Australila are the result of very old political battles that have no analog here. Differences in political systems, political culture, populations, and history make apples of one and oranges of the other.

You can be paranoid about this if you wish, but I'll pass.

Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at April 28, 2007 10:12 AM (xqhmc)

40 R. Stanton Scott,

I agree with most of what you said. Very logical. The point really comes down to how do we prevent a seriously disturbed individual from legally purchasing a firearm? Setting aside the fact that there are ways to purchase guns on the illegal side of things that is. However, I suspect that there needs to be tighter coordination between the state and federal databases - which brings up a whole new issue of the feds overtaking state's rights. Still - I think that is the way we should be moving.

Posted by: Specter at April 28, 2007 12:46 PM (ybfXM)

41 Bob, did I step over the line?

Posted by: CoRev at April 28, 2007 03:19 PM (0U8Ob)

42 Ignore that last comment. Wrong thread.

Posted by: CoRev at April 28, 2007 04:52 PM (0U8Ob)

43 Gun ownership is heavily regulated there--arguably too heavily regulated--but it is not illegal across the board.

When your own Olympic pistol team can't practice in your own country, as is the case in England, that's some pretty heavy "regulation". The casual observer might even be tempted to "mistake it" for a defacto ban.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 28, 2007 05:58 PM (2pqvd)

44 Well, what are the gun death statistics in England? I've always heard that they're much lower than here, but I've never seen any actual numbers.

Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 28, 2007 06:04 PM (yNAVW)

45 PA: I realize that the British government banned handguns in 1997--this is what I mean by "heavily regulated." Longer weapons are legal, but heavily controlled. The point is that this was not difficult there because of the political system (no constitutional barrier), political culture (few citizens owned them except for nefarious ones), and other factors (the citizenry demanded this action). None of these conditions is met in the US, so the British experience does not really apply to the question of whether the same policy could be implemented here.

Doc: British crime statistics can be found here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb702.pdf
Use caution when interpreting these--the British changed their reporting and tracking methods since they changed their gun laws, so it looks at first glance as if crime increased after the new policy was implemented.

Specter: It would seem to make sense to keep crazy people from buying firearms, and I agree that illegal (or legal but unofficial--gun show) purchases are possible. Someone will fall through the cracks, and the question is whether we can prevent more of them than we do, and at a cost in money and freedom that makes sense. I am not particularly confident in our government's ability to do this, but it probably should try.

Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at April 28, 2007 06:45 PM (VCT3D)

46 Doc: see here. US per capita firearm homicides are about 34 the rate of England's, and 186 times Japan's.

I presume however that if England and Japan had more guns, a greater percentage of their non-firearm homicides would instead be firearm homicides.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 28, 2007 06:46 PM (40R2V)

47 My life's history with firearms over the last 41 years: shotgun hunting with dad, .22 rifles at the YMCA and a summer camp, all at the age of 11. My non-military private high-school had an indoor range, never a single incident. I picked up handguns and centerfire rifles at the same time. If the VT school allowed students and faculty to carry concealed, a nut like Cho would have to find another target. More guns=Less crime.

Posted by: Tom TB at April 29, 2007 12:06 PM (NM32E)

48 Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for lunch.

Liberty is a WELL ARMED lamb contesting their decision.

Benjamin Franklin

Posted by: Michael at April 29, 2007 03:42 PM (v8h2M)

49 None of these conditions is met in the US, so the British experience does not really apply to the question of whether the same policy could be implemented here.

It was/is defacto implemented in several large US cities already. The gun banners are very patient. They've got the congress they need right now. All they need is an executive.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 30, 2007 02:07 AM (ivi7/)

50 Lex Steele, the Patriot Act extended already existing forms of warrantless "searches" that law enforcement had already been practicing ( and the Supreme Court had already found constitutional ) since the Clinton administration into the realm of terrorism investigations. Your heavy breathing not withstanding, the Patriot Act did not introduce any actual new forms of such.

All of the excitement over the Patriot Act was over areas where the Federal govt would be able to obtain records from third parties - itself not a constitutionally protected search.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at April 30, 2007 04:09 PM (lb5ht)

51 Robin Roberts: how utterly flaccid. Your argument is, in the end, that it's OK to extend otherwise constitutional laws.

You have freedom of speech except for slander, public menace, obscenity, etc. How about if we extend those restrictions to include criticism of the president? That's merely an extension, so it's cool there in clown world, right?

All of the excitement over the Patriot Act was over areas where the Federal govt would be able to obtain records from third parties

No. Consider sneak and peak searches, for instance. You can read more about Patriot here at Cato for instance.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 30, 2007 10:29 PM (ep6YT)

52 While most of the staff in the Congo lived in sub standard housing Simpson lived in a palace that was illuminated like Yankee stadium at night. The post was considered to be the worst in Africa. Nuff said about Simpson. By the way, police mugged embassy employees and rarely had more than six rounds. Had they more they would have been a true menace. The ambassador never went anywhere without his body guards.

Posted by: Thomas Jackson at April 30, 2007 10:52 PM (YXXuO)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Scorched Earth

A Thomas Ricks article at the Washington Post points to an article in the Armed Forces Journal by Lt. Col. Paul Yingling that blasts the failures of the general officer corps (past and present) and politicians in preparing for and fighting the Long War.

It's simply brilliant.

I strongly urge you to read the entire article, and for that matter, bookmark it, so you can return to it later.

There will be many who will read Yingling's article and attempt to spin, twist or varnish it into an attack against particular generals (active duty or retired), specific Presidents, and specific Congresses.

To do so completely misunderstands the article, and the systemic nature of the problem.

What Yingling is attempting to convey, if I understand his article correctly, is that the problems being experienced by our military in Iraq today began a half century ago. The United States was successful in World War Two because of it's ability to fight a large-scale, highly mobile, high-tech war. As a result, the general staff of the time focused on their successes and built a military for the next half century to fight that kind of war. They never learned from French failures or limited successes in Indochina or Algeria, and therefore, repeated the same failures in Vietnam. The moderate successes and lessons that should have been learned as a result of this conflict by the military and the Executive and Legislative branches were quickly discarded.

As a result, we were not on any level prepared to engage in what should have been predictable counterinsurgency operations, and did not have any competent active duty or retired general officers to advise Congress or the Executive Branch.

Yingling is careful not to blame any specific individuals, and it bears repeating that no specific individuals should be blamed. This is an institutional problem crossing several institutions, civilian and military, going back decades.

There are those tempted to use Yingling's article to attack specific individuals (as indeed, WaPo's Ricks has done, as have several bloggers so far). More journalists and bloggers more interested in the sounds of their own voices and pushing their own agendas than actually learning something, will likely continue this trend.

Sadly, it seems, Yingling may be a modern day Cassandra, offering up prophetic advice that other chose to ignore.

But as Yingling concludes, all is not lost:

This article began with Frederick the Great's admonition to his officers to focus their energies on the larger aspects of war. The Prussian monarch's innovations had made his army the terror of Europe, but he knew that his adversaries were learning and adapting. Frederick feared that his generals would master his system of war without thinking deeply about the ever-changing nature of war, and in doing so would place Prussia's security at risk. These fears would prove prophetic. At the Battle of Valmy in 1792, Frederick's successors were checked by France's ragtag citizen army. In the fourteen years that followed, Prussia's generals assumed without much reflection that the wars of the future would look much like those of the past. In 1806, the Prussian Army marched lockstep into defeat and disaster at the hands of Napoleon at Jena. Frederick's prophecy had come to pass; Prussia became a French vassal.

Iraq is America's Valmy. America's generals have been checked by a form of war that they did not prepare for and do not understand. They spent the years following the 1991 Gulf War mastering a system of war without thinking deeply about the ever changing nature of war. They marched into Iraq having assumed without much reflection that the wars of the future would look much like the wars of the past. Those few who saw clearly our vulnerability to insurgent tactics said and did little to prepare for these dangers. As at Valmy, this one debacle, however humiliating, will not in itself signal national disaster. The hour is late, but not too late to prepare for the challenges of the Long War. We still have time to select as our generals those who possess the intelligence to visualize future conflicts and the moral courage to advise civilian policymakers on the preparations needed for our security. The power and the responsibility to identify such generals lie with the U.S. Congress. If Congress does not act, our Jena awaits us.

Yingling notes that we can still prepare to win the challenges of the Long War, a war that does not stop at the borders of Iraq or Afghanistan, and will likely and necessarily (and I stress this is my interpretation, not Yingling's) include actions in the Horn of Africa, Syria, Iran, and Pakistan at a minimum.

As Americans, we have the ability and resources to adapt to nearly any contingency. It falls upon us to make sure that our leadership, military and civilian, is constructed in such a way as to be able to properly engage the public in what is undoubtedly Our Children's Children's War, whether we chose to engage in it, or not.

If any bright spot exists in Yingling's blistering article, it is that his call for the kind of general officer corps that we need has at least one present-duty officer that seems to largely (if not completely) meet his proposed standards for creativeness, intelligence, and courageousness, and that general may be at the right place, with the right skills and experience, to yet help guide a successful change in direction.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:23 AM | Comments (63) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 I think this problem can probably describe almost every war that has ever been fought or will be fought. Tactics and weapons are always being updated and failing to evolve will almost always lead to defeat. The French tried to fight WW2 with WW1 tactics and see how well that turned out. Hell, the American Civil War started out with opposing armies lining up, marching to within 50 yards of each other and volley firing at each other until one side backed down. This was unnecessary as the new rifles had much greater accuracy than smoothbore muskets. The best you can hope for is that your enemy will fail to evolve too. The only reason first Gulf War went so well was because Saddam tried to fight on our terms with our tactics.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at April 27, 2007 10:52 AM (oC8nQ)

2 LTC Yingling’s article isn’t some Road to Damascus revelation – it’s yet another exercise in 20-20 hindsight about the blindingly obvious in Iraq.

From the get-go Bush, and Rumsfeld too, warned that toppling Saddam Hussein was the easy part. To borrow a Rumsfeld phrase, nation building was a voyage into uncharted waters filled with “unknown unknowns.” You may even recall that candidate Bush was against nation-building before he was for it.

And for good reason. Bush is a businessman, and trial-and-error enterprises are invariably money losers. But the strategic objective (an oil-rich “liberal” democracy in the heart of the caliphate-to-be) was rock solid, and Bush – perhaps naively – believed that the majority of his fellow citizens were equally fed up with the stagnant and unproductive so-called “realist” approach to Mideast geopolitics. So he threw the dice and invaded Iraq.

That said, I’ll ask you a question: Is Iraq like a game of chess, where the gambits are well catalogued and the grand masters weigh the permutations and combinations; or is it more like Survival, where participants adapt to unexpected obstacles or conditions to keep in the hunt?

My guess is the latter. Rumsfeld, Abizaid and Casey are all honorable men who pushed the light footprint approach in Iraq. When that failed, Bush brought in Gates and Petraeus. If Bush was slow to adapt, it took even Lincoln a while to replace McClellan with Grant.

Unfortunately, many Americans seem to have attention spans that can be measured in sound bites, which the Dems and their MSM enablers are very clever at exploiting. But building a liberal democracy in Iraq is still a long voyage among uncharted rocks and shoals, and the folks LTC Yingling appears to be criticizing bravely led the way.

Posted by: David M. Williams at April 27, 2007 11:20 AM (I/sTJ)

3 Obviously every war is going to be different and tactics will constantly be changing, however this is a war in which we have suffered fewer casualties in 4+ years as individual battles in our history. Despite all of the hysteria and the weakness of our current culture, the war has been and remains decisively lopsided in our favor. It would be wise to remember that.

Posted by: joe at April 27, 2007 12:02 PM (XWqQS)

4 David,

At the request of management, I have moved here.

I agree with you that the revolving door is a problem. So is high ranking politicians on either side of the aisle using their position to enrich themselves and their friends. But what is the solution? Personally I don't see a way out except for the implementation of strict term limits. That way the people in DC don't have the ability to build their vast power bases. And it is a problem on both sides of the aisle.

I don't have as much problem with ex-military going into the defense business, but there needs to be more control over who can throw business their way. That seems simpler to address than the back room deals done in the political machinery.

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 12:44 PM (ybfXM)

5 Bob requested I put this in the right thread, after showing my idiocy by placing it in the thread above. D'oh.

Bob, this is an excellent post. Thank you. The article is something everyone interested in the prosecution of this war, and Vietnam, should read. I suggest they read Ricks' Fiasco as well.

But I have to disagree with you when you say no specific individuals should be blamed. The list is long, yes, but people must be held accountable for this, what looks to be one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in our history.

(Please pardon the length of this post and any typos. I'm pressed for time but felt the need to respond. The quotes in italics are from the article.)

The greatest error the statesman can make is to commit his nation to a great conflict without mobilizing popular passions to a level commensurate with the stakes of the conflict.

After 9/11, Bush could have asked the American people, indeed the world, to do almost anything. We were ready make any sacrifice, pay any cost. Even the French Le Monde ran the headline "We are all Americans." He could have put us on a moon launch footing to end our dependence on oil within a decade. He could have called up every able-bodied American young man to serve. He could have called to us to rise to our better natures, to think of what we can do for the country. Instead, he squandered this one chance and told us to live as if nothing was different, although we were now at war. He did not mobilize popular passions. He told us to go shopping.

If the policymaker desires ends for which the means he provides are insufficient, the general is responsible for advising the statesman of this incongruence.

Think of Shinseki. Then think of how Rumsfeld's hubris and Bush's criminal lack of intellectual rigor sent Shinseki packing. Why? Because telling the American people this action required a larger commitment was inconvenient to selling the war. In other words, he didn't think we had the stomach for it. He thinks we're sheep. I can assure you, we are not sheep. You'll have to make your own assessment of your own courage for yourself.

Failing to visualize future battlefields represents a lapse in professional competence, but seeing those fields clearly and saying nothing is an even more serious lapse in professional character. Moral courage is often inversely proportional to popularity and this observation in nowhere more true than in the profession of arms.

Ever heard of the Powell Doctrine? Where was Powell when his voice would have carried real weight? Someone else who squandered what he had earned over a lifetime of honorable service.

Despite engaging in numerous stability operations throughout the 1990s, the armed forces did little to bolster their capabilities for civic reconstruction and security force development. Procurement priorities during the 1990s followed the Cold War model, with significant funding devoted to new fighter aircraft and artillery systems.

This blame you can spread around. We need to look at how we procure weapons systems and who profits. We need to stop this revolving door from government to defense industries. Cheney and Halliburton is just the most public example, but it runs deep and is toxic to our system of government.

Alone among America's generals, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki publicly stated that "several hundred thousand soldiers" would be necessary to stabilize post-Saddam Iraq. Prior to the war, President Bush promised to give field commanders everything necessary for victory. Privately, many senior general officers both active and retired expressed serious misgivings about the insufficiency of forces for Iraq.

Bush had also surrounded himself with incompetents because he values loyalty above all. He listens to a small circle of advisors so even if officers had spoken up, he wouldn't have heard them. He would have heard instead from Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice that the officer who dared go against policy was a McClellan and was best ignored.

Counterinsurgency theory requires strengthening the capability of host-nation institutions to provide security and other essential services to the population.

This is where the administration's actions were most criminal. Bush and the "Bushies" installed loyalists in the CPA who had no experience in building a nation's infrastructure, financial and physical. What does an applicant's position on abortion have to do with securing a stable economy, yet that was one of the top questions in any interview given any applicant. The stories of incompetence and profiteering are legion.

Indeed, the tendency of the executive branch to seek out mild-mannered team players to serve as senior generals is part of the problem. The services themselves are equally to blame. The system that produces our generals does little to reward creativity and moral courage.

I have more than a passing familiarity with the Army bureaucracy and I know this is true. Traditional combat arms officers looked with suspicion at those who chose to study counterinsurgency and Special Ops. Until recently, the path to promotion was not through Special Warfare but through armor and infantry.

So, while I agree with the larger view of this article that says our generals were unprepared for this war, I disagree that we shouldn't hold individuals accountable for this disaster.

There were dissenting voices, they were just shut out of the debate.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 27, 2007 12:58 PM (kxecL)

6 If you read "Fiasco" you'll wonder how Bush and his fellow neocons can tie their own shoes.

Posted by: Geno at April 27, 2007 01:43 PM (6rCSI)

7 Shinseki's number wasn't an accurate estimate of what it would take to secure Iraq, it was cop out. It was a number so large as to be incapable of sustaining it for any period of time. He might as well said a bazillion soldiers, he didn't want to do it, so Bush found someone who said he could do it.

Or maybe I just hate Shinseki for his, "I'm going to transform the Army by giving them new hats and a motto nobody understands."

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at April 27, 2007 01:45 PM (oC8nQ)

8 BohicaTwentyTwo,
How do you know "the number wasn't an accurate estimate of what it would take?"

Considering the fact that we didn't follow his advice, your assumption is based on what...what we've seen instead?

Get real...the administration screwed this up from the gitgo.

Posted by: Geno at April 27, 2007 01:52 PM (6rCSI)

9 you'll wonder how Bush and his fellow neocons can tie their own shoes.

I watch democrats flop around ineptly and wonder how they even manage to find their shoes in the morning

Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 27, 2007 03:05 PM (DvLHg)

10 The number was bogus because there was no way for us to logistically sustain 300,000 to 400,000 for an Iraqi invasion. It would take every spare Active Duty solder and a huge percentage of the Reserves and National Guard. Then we would place them, where, In Kuwait? Kuwait's not that big of a country. There probably wasn't even enough room in Kuwait to squeeze in an extra Division. Everyone else had to step off into Iraq before the 4th ID could get off loaded from their Turkey diversion.

Even once, the we reach the full surge numbers, we will still be nowhere near what Shinseki was asking for.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at April 27, 2007 03:13 PM (oC8nQ)

11 David said: "Ever heard of the Powell Doctrine? " Yes, and it reflects Yingling's message.

I like the analogy of "Survival", but strategic planners also need to play a little chess game. Every step needs to have its future steps worked out with the certain knowledge that the opponent will be acting in regards to "Survival", but like chess our planners is restricted by what's available or planned to be available. Plan for at least as many steps you can see into the future.

One lesson learned is that Bin laden was right. We don't have the will for the long "fight". We will not fight the same way we did in Iraq.

Posted by: CoRev at April 27, 2007 03:27 PM (0U8Ob)

12 Purple,
I'd rather watch anybody "flop around" versus total ineptitude from the very start.

Bush has failed the country on so many counts it's almost impossible to fathom: the Iraqi aftermath, 3,400 dead/24,000 wounded, untold numbers of dead Iraqi civilians, Katrina, Gitmo, torture, wiretapping, U.S. Attorney firings, Gonzales, Rummy, allowing Cheney to be his puppetmaster, Wolfie, and on and on.

List all of Bush's accomplisments...and please...no more of the much used bullshit line that we haven't been attacked on American soil since 9/11...we weren't attacked for almost 8 years BEFORE 9/11.

This is the most inept and corrput administration our nation has ever encountered.

Posted by: Geno at April 27, 2007 03:34 PM (6rCSI)

13 The Japanese believed that we did not have the will for a long fight in WWII - it is one of the factors that made them bold enough to attack us at Pearl Harbor.

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 03:36 PM (ybfXM)

14 Let's put it in perspective Geno. From here:

The Clinton Legacy

RECORDS SET

- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates*
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.

Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different standard in "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: "By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."

STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION

- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 14
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5
- Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4
- Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3

CRIME STATS

- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

SMALTZ INVESTIGATION

- Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15
- Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6
- Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million
- Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million

CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES
FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS
HAVE BEEN OBTAINED

Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice.

OTHER MATTERS INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS
AND CONGRESS, OR REPORTED IN THE MEDIA

Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House.

ARKANSAS ALTZHEIMER'S

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.

Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697

FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.

I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1

Get a grip.

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 03:40 PM (ybfXM)

15 Want to see just how out of touch the neocons were?
:
Let's harken back to Rummy and Wolfie, responding to questions regarding what we would encounter after the "shock and awe" campaign:

"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said. General Shinseki gave his estimate in response to a question at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday: "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point — something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers — are probably, you know, a figure that would be required." He also said that the regional commander, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, would determine the precise figure.

A spokesman for General Shinseki, Col. Joe Curtin, said today that the general stood by his estimate. "He was asked a question and he responded with his best military judgment," Colonel Curtin said. General Shinseki is a former commander of the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia.

In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo.

AND: Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables. Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong," he said.

Pompous and dumb...a bad combo for America.

Posted by: Geno at April 27, 2007 03:43 PM (6rCSI)

16 I just love using facts with someone like Geno. LOL. It really gets their knickers twisted. No facts to back up their POV, but then I can stuff real facts in front of them. They go bananas. Dimmie Brain Trust at work.

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 03:43 PM (ybfXM)

17 Specter,
Uh, Clinton's been gone for many years so you can let go now...and by the way, lying about consensual sex or blowjobs doesn't exactly measure up to lying about outing CIA agents or management abilities at the DOJ or firing reputable and highly qualified U.S. Attorneys. (3 of which were rated in the top ten out of 93...explain that.)

*And boy, those Clinton years were really brutal weren't they?

Posted by: Geno at April 27, 2007 03:47 PM (6rCSI)

18 Spector,
I think by now everybody knows pretty much everything they need to know about Bill...but, damn...YOU do know he's no longer the President...right?

Using Clinton or "facts" as you call them from years past, to defend present day situations is silly and illustrates a lack of substance.

*Oh, and if you absolutely have to use such inane tactics, you might want to consider the testimony of Reagan, Bush Sr., North, etc. during Irangate if you need to harken back.

Posted by: Geno at April 27, 2007 03:52 PM (6rCSI)

19 Spector,
When you say I have no "facts" back up my point of view, are you not familiar with: the Iraqi aftermath, 3,400 dead/24,000 wounded, untold numbers of dead Iraqi civilians, Katrina, Gitmo, torture, wiretapping, U.S. Attorney firings, Gonzales, Rummy, allowing Cheney to be his puppetmaster, Wolfie, and on and on.

Posted by: Geno at April 27, 2007 04:03 PM (6rCSI)

20 Spector,
Buck, buck, buck, buck, buck, buck, buck, buck, buck, buck....

Posted by: Geno at April 27, 2007 04:29 PM (6rCSI)

21 Yingling's money quote: "Armies do not fight wars; nations fight wars. War is not a military activity conducted by soldiers, but rather a social activity that involves entire nations."

For me, this is the signature failure of the Bush Administration--it did not mobilize the entire state for the fight: "The passion of the people is necessary to endure the sacrifices inherent in war. Regardless of the system of government, the people supply the blood and treasure required to prosecute war."

I disagree, however, that American military leaders "failed to estimate correctly both the means and the ways necessary to achieve the aims of policy prior to beginning the war in Iraq," or that they "did not provide Congress and the public with an accurate assessment of the conflict in Iraq." I think they tried to do this, but the Neocons in the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress refused to listen. Ask General Shinseki.

The failure here is the civilian leadership, and it should be held accountable. The Decider decided, and what you see is what you get.

Specter: do you have links to the claims you make about the Clinton Administration? I believe that Mr. Reagan actually holds at least some of the records you would give Mr. Clinton.

Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at April 27, 2007 05:21 PM (y4+dQ)

22 R. Stanton Scott,
Spector is nothing more than the standard right wing talking points machine. To still be referring to President Clinton to shore up an argument supporting G.W. is lame at best.

In 2008 they'll ALL be gone...and I do mean ALL.

Posted by: Geno at April 27, 2007 05:58 PM (6rCSI)

23 Gee Geno,

Did I strike a nerve? You are the one who claimed that the Bush Admin is the most corrupt ever. Sorry I had to burst your bubble with facts. So sad you are.....

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 07:10 PM (ybfXM)

24 Hi, my name is Jonney, I am from Zaire.
Just like your resource .

Posted by: Jonney_bri at April 27, 2007 07:46 PM (Iu3ch)

25 the Iraqi aftermath, 3,400 dead/24,000 wounded

Sounds like a bargain to me. What were the Okinawa invasion casualty numbers again? Refresh my memory.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 27, 2007 10:23 PM (DvLHg)

26 Confederate Yankee, I'm confused. You heartily endorse the (excellent) Yingling article, which (correctly) lays the U.S. defeat in Vietnam at the feet of our generals. But.... but.... but..... you (and your winger fans here) always claim that we won in Vietnam, only to have that victory snatched away by the likes of Jane Fonda and Walter Cronkite.....

Please explain.

Oh, and Purple Avenger, maybe I'm taking you out context, but I'm shocked to hear any American refer to 3,400 U.S. war dead as "sound[ing] like a bargain to me." Of course, right-wingers also used to denigrate the 58,000 Americans killed in Vietnam by casually noting that more died on our highways. Way to support the troops!

Posted by: i'mjustsayin' at April 27, 2007 10:54 PM (5ymET)

27 Shorter Specter: "Your guy was worse than our guy." This is not the best case that can be made for electing Republicans. I am a Democrat, and even I could do better than that.

At any rate, I still don't see any links to the "facts" stated about the Clinton Administration. You make serious charges--are you counting on the people who read CY to just take your word for it? If this is the best argument you can make, at least back it up.

Just as Democrats should have forced Clinton's resignation in 1998--which I believe could have cinched Gore's election and meant at least 18 years of Democratic Presidents and Republican Congresses (arguably the best combination)--the Republicans should start trying to convince Bush and Cheney to leave. They are only dragging the rest of the GOP down.

And it's too bad that a potentially very interesting discussion about the conduct of the war degenerated so quickly to "Clinton sucks." CY readers collectively have a lot of knowledge of military affairs. Might be nice to hear what they have to say.

Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at April 28, 2007 06:42 AM (E4OF/)

28 RSS, Geno, I see Specter has hit a nerve. RSS his link is, was, will be at the start of his comment RSS, Repubs do resign when doing harm Dems don't. Clinton, Jefferson, Reid, Murtha, DiFi, etc..

I do agree that we are off topic.

Posted by: CoRev at April 28, 2007 08:39 AM (0U8Ob)

29 CoRev,
You mean like Rummy, Cheney, Gonzales, etc?

Get real.

Posted by: Geno at April 28, 2007 09:03 AM (6rCSI)

30 the Iraqi aftermath, 3,400 dead/24,000 wounded

"Sounds like a bargain to me. What were the Okinawa invasion casualty numbers again? Refresh my memory."
Posted by: Purple Avenger

Be sure to pass this on to the families of the dead and wounded Amercan soldiers. I'm sure they'll get a real kick out if it.

By the way...have YOU served?

Posted by: Geno at April 28, 2007 09:06 AM (6rCSI)

31 Scott:

The reason the disssion evolves into the standard Clinto hating bullshit is because the right wing has NO real defense of this administration.

Period.

Posted by: Geno at April 28, 2007 09:13 AM (6rCSI)

32 CoRev: Anyone can put up a web site called "Progressive Review" with these charges. I asked for a link to the original information. Specter simply copied unsubstantiated charges from someone else. As far as I know, he is the one behind "Progressive Review."

Take a look at this site, for example: http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/Reagan.html

Does it convince you that Reagan was corrupt? Or would you like to see original sources?

Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at April 28, 2007 10:19 AM (xqhmc)

33 RSS, don't know what to say. Asking for a link, then saying that's not good enough doesn't get us anywhere.

Geno, I have. Have you served?

Posted by: CoRev at April 28, 2007 11:58 AM (0U8Ob)

34 R. Stanton,

I've got news for you. You may not believe it, but Bush and Cheney aren't running for office again. Just thought you should know. LOL.

Listen, you don't like Bush. So be it. If he and Cheney stepped down now - gaawwwwd...I can't imagine the craziness. Do you really want Pelosi running the country? ROFLMAO. Ludicrous.

As for links to other sites - I am not here to do your research for you. Do your own.

Posted by: Specter at April 28, 2007 12:52 PM (ybfXM)

35 Specter: Is this what Republicans call fairness? You made accusations without supporting them with evidence. If you can't back them up with evidence you should withdraw them. It is not up to others to support accusations you are making.

I challenge you to prove what you said. You know you can't, because what you allege is not true, and proof does not exist. For you this is not troublesome--you dislike these people, so you simply believe anything you are told that supports your opinion. This makes your opinion pretty worthless.

I know Bush and Cheney are not running again. I have forgotten more about politics and what is happening in our government than you will ever know. And yes, I would prefer Nancy Pelosi to Bush as President.

CoRev: I'm not sure it matters whether Geno served. He or she is not the one supporting a war in which he or she is not fighting.

For your own service, thanks.

Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at April 28, 2007 01:28 PM (xqhmc)

36 I know it drives the Left crazy but in the Iraq and Afghan wars combined we've lost fewer soldiers than individual battles in our history. It's quite likely the most efficient war ever run. And don't give me this "tell that to the families" crap. You are the ones cheerleading the casualties in the first place so don't pretend you give a crap and don't whine when facts get thrown back in your face.

And as for the Powell Doctrine, the whole "don't ever use military force unless all stars are aligned properly, in other words never" was the basis for the Clintonian ostrich strategy we had during the 90's as al-Qaeda spread around the world unopposed. It's one of the main reasons there's a hole in the ground in NYC right now.

Posted by: joe at April 28, 2007 04:41 PM (2PqIP)

37 And another thing. Is there a greater example of doublethink out there than the Left complaining that Bush didn't ask us to sacrifice anything?

Posted by: joe at April 28, 2007 04:56 PM (2PqIP)

38 According to a recent Pew Research survey, only 17% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops (4/18-22, 2007).

CBS News’ survey findings show only 33% want to remove all troops from Iraq (4/9-12, 2007).

57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and “the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people” (Public Opinion Strategies, 2/5-7, 2007).

59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America’s reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (Public Opinion Strategies, 2/5-7, 2007).

According to a Time magazine poll, only 32% want to withdraw the troops within the next year no matter what happens (3/23-26, 2007).


Americans Believe Immediate Retreat Leads to Bad Consequences

A plurality of adults (45%) say a terrorist attack in the United States is more likely if we withdraw our troops from Iraq while the “country remains unstable” (Pew Research, 4/18-22, 2007).

70% of American voters say, should a date for withdrawal be set, it is likely that “insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq” starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007).


Majority Supports Funding War, Troops

56% of Americans say, if President Bush vetoes the Democrats’ plan for withdrawal, Congress should still “allow funding for the war” even if there is no timetable. Only 36% want to withhold funding. A majority of Republicans (84%) and Independents (52%) want to allow funding, while only 51% of Democrats want to withhold it (CBS News, 4/20-24, 2007).

A mid-March Bloomberg poll revealed 61% of Americans believe withholding funding for the war is a bad idea, while only 28% believe it is a good idea (3/3-11, 2007).

A Public Opinion Strategies poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%; 3/25-27, 2007).

According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 61% of Americans oppose “denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq,” and opposition is up from 58% in February (3/23-25, 2007).


Strong Opposition to Restricting Military Commanders

69% of American voters trust military commanders more than members of Congress (18%) to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq. This includes 52% of Democrats, 69% of Independents and 88% of Republicans (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 3/27-28, 2007).

Public Opinion Strategies recently reported a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007).


U.S. Troops Could be Hurt

63% say the debate between the President and Congress over the Iraq war is having a negative impact on troop morale, while only 19% say it is not having any impact at all (CBS News, 4/9-12, 2007).

50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq “hurts” the troops, while only 27% believe it “helps” the troops (LA Times/Bloomberg, 4/5-9, 2007).


Low Marks for Democrats on Iraq

62% of Americans disapprove of the Democrats handling of Iraq, while only 37% approve (ABC News/Washington Post, 4/12-15, 2007).


Nuff said.

Posted by: Justin at April 28, 2007 05:24 PM (NiTuu)

39 Stunning how what is a very appropriate and apropos criticism of the military and their political masters, so quickly becomes a partisan squabble.

Folks, blaming the other side isn't going to fix the problems that Col Yingling lays out... in fact such petulance only exacerbates them.

Posted by: bains at April 28, 2007 11:56 PM (g7Imo)

40 I think polls are pretty useless--and that our leaders should make tough decisions about using military force based on national defense, not public opinion, but anyone who wants to see the state of public opinion on the war can go here: http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

The Public Opinion Strategies poll is widely recognized as being seriously flawed--mostly because of the way the questions were phrased (this really matters, believe it or not). Either side can produce a poll that says what they want it to say, of course, and this is what makes them relatively useless. I expect that many people who read CY regularly will believe that the left does this but the right does not, and that's OK, I guess, if you don't mind building your views around bad information.

The idea that low casualty rates correlate to efficiency in prosecuting a war is pretty ludicrous in my view. Casualty rates are a very poor way to measure success on the battlefield (as we found out in Viet Nam). Whether we have accomplished our goals is a much better one, and it is difficult even to express just what success in Iraq looks like. "Create a stable democracy," or "Train the Iraqis to stand up on their own" are both so vague as to make accomplishment impossible as long as some level of insurgency exists. Since we cannot, as a practical matter, eliminate every insurgent, it looks like these goals are impossible to meet. I believe that the Bush Administration miscalculated about what would happen after Saddam's fall--and this is no indictment of their competence, I can understand how this could happen to smart people--but now their failure to respond with flexibility and fresh thought sure makes them look incompetent (and no, just sending in more troops does not count as "fresh thought").

The most interesting thing about the funding bill the Democrats just passed is its requirements for minimum rotations to home station and the training that must be accomplished there before redeployment downrange. This should have the beneficial effect of helping keep our troops trained for contingencies other than Iraq (another more conventional conflict, for example), but it is also something of a backdoor way of forcing an increase in the overall size of the force. I believe this is a good idea, but Congress should just come right out and do so--this is the role it really should play in managing the war, I think. The problem with doing this is that there is no good way to recruit more troops. A draft is politically impossible, and enticing more qualified volunteers would cost a great deal of money in higher military pay.

This takes us back to the idea that Bush has not asked Americans to sacrifice. I am curious about just how "complaining that Bush never asked us to sacrifice anything" is an example of "doublethink." I guess if you hate going to the mall, the call to shop could be considered a sacrifice. But with no call for a draft, nor one for higher taxes to pay for all this, it sure looks to me like the troops and their families are the only ones Bush is calling on to bite the bullet here.

Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at April 29, 2007 07:38 AM (ODn3R)

41 RSS, how would you change your comment if you know that we are on track to balance the budget in 08?

Posted by: CoRev at April 29, 2007 10:32 AM (0U8Ob)

42 Wars require learning as you go.

For example, after the 1940 debacle in France, the US developed the Tank Destroyer Corps, optimized to "Seek, Strike, and Destroy" Nazi armored spearheads. They did exactly that, using halftracks and 75mm guns in North Africa. That stopped Rommel at the Kasserine Pass. He withdrew. The press reported it as a massive defeat. General Fredental was fired.

General Patton took command of the second corps, and taught new tactics that used tanks against enemy weakness, and used tank destroyers behind them, first so the tank destroyers could move forward to strike any german strong points, and second so they would be perfectly positioned to hit any german counterattack. Tank Destroyers worked in pairs, so that a german tank facing one would be exposing its side to another.

In Italy the Tank Destroyers were used as high velocity artillery. On the few occasions that Germans came out, Panthers or Tigers could be stopped by a flank attack, and the limited roads made them less dangerous.

In France in the bocage, the US had to learn how to smash through the hedgerows, and to perfectly coordinate their movement with supporting fire.

Again, when Bradley broke through at St. Low, Patton again used mobility to cut through weaknesses, and then cut off retreating Germans with tank destroyer and infantry screens. He attacked with great success in all directions at once. The only thing that stopped him was the diversion of fuel to Montgomery's 12th Army group, and to move General Lee's communications zone headquarters from its austere site in Normandy to the flesh pots of Paris.

With minimal fuel, Patton switched to deliberate attacks through tough resistance, and gnawed through the Platinate.

Faced with the breakthrough in the Ardennes, Patton got the fuel priority that had been denied him, and bashed his way north, penetrating the German Seventh Army screen, and then hitting the flank of the German 6th Panzer Army.

After crossing the Rhine, Patton was again given supply priority, and turned that into a slashing attack to overrun much of southern Germany. Tank Destroyers were formed into Combat Commands, which included Tanks, Artillery, Tank Destroyers, and Infantry. Counterattacks were shoved aside. Infantry mounted on tanks shot at the sides of the road to keep the panzerfaust gunner's heads down, then threw grenades into their holes with them. So long as the US could keep pushing, the Germans couldn't get set.

End of history lesson. The point is: You have to adjust your tactics to the situation and the enemy. The enemy will adjust his tactics too. There is not a single winning strategy, but rather you have to match today's tactics to today's situation.

The US trounced Saddam's army in Iraq in weeks. We thumped Al Queda and the Ba'athists in a few months. We bash Al Sadr's militia every time we show up, but then they stop fighting, and our soldiers go back to their bases. We have 400,000 Iraqi soldiers as our allies.

So long as we keep fighting we can never lose. Only cowardice can lose this war for us. The cowardice won't come from the soldiers, but rather further back.

Posted by: Don Meaker at April 29, 2007 08:51 PM (TCKAf)

43 Excellent comment Don.

Posted by: CoRev at April 29, 2007 11:00 PM (0U8Ob)

44 CoRev: I do not believe that we are not on track to balance the budget in 08, so there is no need to change my comment on that basis. I am, of coures, interested in any evidence you have to support the idea that we are.

And if we are, the Bush Administration still has not called for collective action and sacrifice in the face of war that he and his allies believe is a fight for the very existence of our civilization. It is difficult for me to believe how one could think that our very way of life is at risk, and yet refuse to mobilize the entire society in its defense. I simply cannot understand why our military services have to lower standards to recruit sufficient troops for this fight if so many people believe it is critical to survival.

Don: "So as long as we keep fighting we can never lose." As a soldier, this makes no sense to me whatsoever. "Not losing" is not the same as winning, and merely being in a fight--throwing resources into a war that never ends and results in neither victory nor defeat--does no one any good. If your definition of winning is "we're still fighting," I am glad you are not in charge.

Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at April 30, 2007 07:34 AM (HxEoO)

45 RSS, the spam filter will not let me post a link to the article. Try a google on the Skeptical Optimist. He keeps a monthly tally of the trends.

Posted by: CoRev at April 30, 2007 08:24 AM (0U8Ob)

46 CoRev: The Skeptical Optimist is a very interesting website. But his argument seems to be about debt load, not balanced budgets. For example, he argues that government should (at least occasionally) borrow money, because "When a prudent measure of borrowing is used to supplement tax receipts, tax rates can be lower than they would have to be to 'balance the budget.' That's a growth-friendly policy."

This allows tax rates to be lower, so that "private sector business-builders have more after-tax resources to fund their ideas for better hot dog stands, day-care centers, plasma televisions, bullet-proof vests, video games, alternative-fuel auto engines, and anti-gravity machines."

So for the SO, fiscal responsibility is "The body of growth-oriented federal laws and policies that sustain the nation’s debt-to-GDP ratio at 60% plus-or-minus 20%." (See http://www.optimist123(dot)com/optimist/2006/05/fiscal_responsi.html)

(Note that I bypassed the spam filter by inserting (dot) in the URLs in place of the "dot." You will have to reconvert them to make them work.)

He does not believe that the budget should always be balanced, and I could not find evidence on his site that suggests we are on the way to doing so (and indeed, the "debt clock" on his site shows the debt rising rapidly, and not slowing down). Presumably, he would argue that if we did balance it, government should begin borrowing again when necessary to promote growth or to bring the debt load back to 60% (his preferred level).

At any rate, I don't really see how arguing that government may soon be able to stop borrowing money justifies ignoring the need to mobilize our society to fight a struggle against a threat to our national and civilizational existence. Nor do I see how saying "we'll give you a pro-growth tax cut to help you fund your new anti-gravity machine and make more profit" constitutes doing so.

Further, I could find no evidence that what you say is true from other sources either. Indeed, even the Washington Times editorial board seems to be skeptical that the US budget may soon be balanced: http://washingtontimes(dot)com/op-ed/20070212-091022-6828r.htm

This article is about debt as well, but you will notice that they reject many of the assumptions required to make the case that the budget will be balanced by 2008 (and therefore begin to pay off national debt). It the WT figures are correct, reducing the national debt by $9 Billion by 2008 (which implies a surplus of more than $9 B--don't forget those pesky interest charges) requires reducing the cost of the war by $21 Billion next year. I don't believe this will happen. Unless it does, the budget will not be balanced--unless taxes are raised to cover the difference.

Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at April 30, 2007 10:23 AM (gj55e)

47 RSS, try this link:
http://www.optimist123dotcom/optimist/2007/04/deficit_watch_m.html

He keeps a running monthly chart if you are interested. His views, as you noted, are interesting.

Posted by: CoRev at April 30, 2007 12:43 PM (0U8Ob)

48 CoRev: Thanks. This is a very interesting chart.

Note that he is giving us a trend of outlays vs. reciepts for the most recent 12 months. Another chart on SO from October 2005 shows 15.8% increase in reciepts against an 8.5% increase in outlays (over the most recent 12 months), and this also suggests a balanced budget in August 2008. When I ran the data from October 1980 to August 2006 as a simple monthly comparison (not a rolling 12 months) I got a very similar graph.

All of this makes me a "skeptical optimist" about this data. It does indeed seem to show that the outlays from September 2007 to August 2008 will match reciepts from the same period. But I'm not sure what it says about balancing the budget, and the CBO seems to have another view: http://www.cbo(dot)gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4985&sequence=2

I wonder if this has to do with Social Security and other reciepts that show in the MTS, but have little to do with any realistic chance to balance the budget--or to keep it balanced for very long, at least. I also wonder if the data looks this way because some outlays are not reported on the MTS. I can think of good reasons why some war or intelligence expenditures would not show up in a publicly available data set, since it would make it possible to determine just how much we spend on these things (by taking the total number and subtracting known payments in other areas).

At any rate, I hope you and SO are correct on this, though I don't think it shows that there was no need for Bush to mobilize our society for the struggle for civilization he says we are in, or that he has done so. I would like to see it if only because I think there is a need to create a sense that everyone is contributing. This might limit the partisan bickering over the issue, at least.

Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at April 30, 2007 03:09 PM (gj55e)

49 What do you think would happen if Bush tried to mobilize our country the way it should be? The Dems flipped out over the surge. A complete mobilization like that, they would have a heart attack and run to Canada. I support that idea 100%. Im really starting to think a draft is nescassary. We need to go all out and end this thing.

Only problem is the Dems seem to think war has experation date. War isnt a cup of yogurt.

Posted by: Justin at April 30, 2007 04:40 PM (NiTuu)

50 RSS, I think you are correct. Not a balanced budget but budget surplus. Couldn't you have gotten something newer than Jan 04. That's little long in the tooth.

Actually what is happening is the economy is expanding faster than expenditures. All the wasteful spending doncha know.

If we stay on track 08 is going to be an interesting election year. Makes you wonder about the need for all those taxes being proposed by some candidates.

Posted by: CoRev at April 30, 2007 07:51 PM (0U8Ob)

51 I am willing to make a bet that the US federal budget is not balanced--or in surplus--in August 2008. Do what you can afford.

I am also willing to bet that the US economy will not make the election year more interesting in the sense I think you mean--that it will help Republicans. Stock market and productivity growth, and even a balanced budget, will not make working Americans, who find their wages lagging their increasing productivity even as they find out their jobs are more at risk (Circuit City) will not flock to the polls in support of the status quo.

If you are a Democrat, you have to like the prospects for 2008. Put down the Kool-Aid and take a look around. They aren't challenging and winning Republican seats just because they suddenly forgot about gun control.

Posted by: R. Stanton Scott at April 30, 2007 09:01 PM (a9UWr)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Nintendo Border Patrol

I guess this goes along with the "virtual arrests" and "virtual deportments."

Notice that while they promise they "will be able to identify, detect and classify more than 95 percent of illegal entries with the virtual wall," they say absolutely nothing about actually arresting anyone.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:47 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Stoner Militia Busted in Alabama

Sounds like they took the lyrics to Steve Earle's Copperhead Road just a little too seriously:

Federal and state agents swooped down Thursday morning on a group calling itself "The Free Militia" and uncovered a small arsenal of home-made weapons that included a rocket launcher, 130 hand grenades and 70 Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) similiar to the kind used by insurgents against American GIs in Iraq.

[snip]

Officials said ATF agents encountered booby traps at one of the search sites.

The weapons cache also included a machine gun, a short barreled shot-gun, two silencers, numerous other firearms, 2500 rounds of ammunition, explosive components, and commercial fireworks. Agents also found more than 120 marijuana plants, Martin said.

I can only assume that the commercial fireworks recovered were used as components in the other explosive devices recovered.

Based upon the story so far, the now not-so-Free Militia sounds like it might be as much of a drug operation as much as an extremist group. Luckily, we have enough space in federal prisons that these gentlemen shouldn't be a problem for anyone for a very long time.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:40 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 26, 2007

Race-Baiting Twits

I don't know whether Chris Matthews or Elizabeth Edwards is the bigger idiot here per se, be as Edwards is trying to escort Silky Pony into the White House stable, I'd say it is probably her.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:17 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Confirmed: Va Tech Shooter Used Standard Magazines

Virginia State Police Public Relations Manager Corinne Geller confirms via email that Cho Seung-Hui only used standard capacity magazines in a rampage last Monday at Virginia Tech that left more than 50 Virginia Tech students and faculty dead or injured.

"We are not identifying the capacity of the magazines or number of magazines purchased prior or in Cho's possession at the time of the shootings. I can tell you that the magazines were standard issue."

Numerous, immediate, and still erroneous media claims that Cho used high capacity or extended magazines containing as many as 33 rounds are patently false. Geller confirms that Cho used only standard capacity magazines, which for a Glock 19, is 15 rounds.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:17 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Today's Democrats: Championing Genocide

Via Newsbusters, CNN's Michael Ware and Kyra Phillips blast Democrat plans to abandon Iraq (my bold):

...[Kiran] Chetry asked the pair "would all of us, all the American troops pulling out, help the situation?"

Phillips and Ware both loudly protested: "Oh, no! No. No way!"

Phillips zeroed in on the problems a U.S. withdrawal would cause for the Iraqis: "It would be a disaster. I mean, I had a chance to sit down with the Minister of Defense, to General Petraeus, to Admiral Fallon, head of CENTCOM. I asked them all the question whether Iraqi or U.S. military — there is no way U.S. troops could pull out. It would be a disaster. They're doing too much training, they’re helping the Iraqis not only with security, but trying to get the government up and running. I mean, this is a country of 'Let's Make a Deal,' there's so much corruption still. If the U.S. military left — they have rules of engagement, they have an idea, a focus. It would be a disaster."

Ware agreed, but argued that winning the war was in America's best interest: "Well, even more than that, if you just wanted to look at it purely in terms of American national interest, if U.S. troops leave now, you're giving Iraq to Iran, a member of President Bush's 'Axis of Evil,' and al Qaeda. That's who will own it. And so, coming back now, I'm struck by the nature of the debate on Capitol Hill, how delusional it is. Whether you're for this war, or against it; whether you've supported the way it's been executed, or not; it doesn't matter. You've broke it, you've got to fix it now. You can't leave, or it's going to come and blow back on America."

The comments made by Ware and Phillips echo those of New York Times Baghdad bureau chief John Burns in an interview with Matt Lauer on Today from March 30 (bold in original):

LAUER: What do you think happens if there's a date certain set for that withdrawal?
BURNS: If United States troops stay, there will be mounting casualties and costs for the American taxpayer. If they leave, I think from the perspective of watching this war for four years or more in Baghdad, there's no doubt that the conflict could get a great deal worse very quickly, and we'd see levels of suffering and of casualties amongst Iraqis that potentially could dwarf the ones we've seen to this point."

And later: "Most would agree there is a civil war, but a countervaling force exercised principally by Americans but also other coalition troops is a very significant factor that leaves the potential for a considerable worsening once you remove that countervaling force. . . Remove that countervaling force and then there will be no limit to this violence."

LAUER: What about this idea that if we leave, we leave behind a vacuum that other states in that region will rush to fill?

BURNS: Very difficult to tell what they would do, but of course this could come as a wake-up call to them, once they were convinced that American troops were going to withdraw and that they might get drawn in, perhaps they would get serious amongst themselves about drawing up some sort of compact to avoid that possibility, but that's purely in the realm of speculation. We really don't know what their intentions would be, but there's certainly a potential for regional conflict.

As I stated March 8:

It is expected that the power vacuum left by a Democrat-forced American military retreat from Iraq would be filled by foreign nations fueling a sectarian war in Iraq that would be both civil and proxy in nature. Saudi Arabia has made clear their intention to provide military and financial resources to Iraq's Sunni minority to hopefully keep their co-religionists from being "ethnically cleansed," while Iran would continue or increase its military and financial support of Shia factions in hopes of gaining a sphere of influence over oil-rich southern Iraq.

The end result of the Democrat plan of defeat would be a war-torn landscape not too dissimilar to the Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian War, writ large.

A repeat of events like the Srebrenica massacre are possible in Iraq's future if Democrats have their way.

Democrats, of course, know this, but simply seem to find political games in America far more important than the regional destabilization and projected increase in civilian deaths their plan for defeat would bring.

...

Sadly, the millions of Iraqi civilians that would suffer as a result of their plan for defeat don't matter nearly as much to Democrat politicians.

Iraqi children won't send out important action alerts over frappacinos, or fund presidential campaigns in either America. It isn't their grandchildren that will suffer and die if we leave before the job is done.

The Democrats won't mention the cost of pandering to their radical base.

Apparently the one thing too shameful to discuss is the legacy they would leave behind.

I was brought up believing that the United States was a champion for liberty and freedom around the world.

Today's Democrats obviously disagree, and instead, advocate a disasterous failed state, potential regional war, and possible genocide.

At least one former Democrat understands how wrong that is.

To me, there is only one choice that protects America's security -- and that is to stand, and fight, and win.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:05 AM | Comments (115) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1
The Reid/Pelosi/Murtha Iraq plan in simplified formredict failure
Do whatever it takes to make the prediction come true
Blame it on George Bush

What we are watching, people, is absolute moral bankruptcy in action. Reid
and Pelosi are contributing to American deaths in Iraq just as surely as Kerry
and Fonda did in Viet Nam. May they burn in eternal Hell.
I excerpted and linked at 2007.04.26 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup.

Posted by: Bill Faith at April 26, 2007 11:32 AM (n7SaI)

2 there's a big difference between 'championing' genocide and just not caring enough about the victims, whether it be Iraq, Darfur or somewhere else, to have American soldiers die trying to keep it from happening.

American soldiers volunteer to help keep America safe, not to be offered up as shields stuck between two groups of crazy Iraqis... and, right now, with the lion's share of the violence in Iraq taking the form of Iraqi-v-Iraqi fighting, the American people fail to see how having our troops die in Iraq is doing America any good.

Posted by: steve sturm at April 26, 2007 12:57 PM (sWhRW)

3 If there's a bloodbath, it's on your neocon hands.
You were warned about this, you chose not to listen.

What the hell did you think would happen?

Posted by: jvf at April 26, 2007 01:39 PM (473Rt)

4 let's assume you are right...and that's a hell of an assumption considering you and all the other bush cultists have been wrong all along...that means we have only one option...continue pouring blood and money at this in an open ended commitment until the iraqis actually do something in the way of a political solution...which they have shown no indication of doing. at that point we will have propped up a weak corrupt government...al queda and other groups like them will be able to operate where they couldn't before...and iran will have far more influence than they had before. so our only option leaves us worse off than before. f'ing brilliant.

Posted by: jay k. at April 26, 2007 01:57 PM (yu9pS)

5 jvf: apropos of Va Tech, where responsibility for what happened has been properly attributed to the killer, if there is a bloodbath in Iraq, it is the responsibility of those doing the killing.

Posted by: steve sturm at April 26, 2007 02:06 PM (sWhRW)

6 "If there's a bloodbath, it's on your neocon hands.
You were warned about this, you chose not to listen.

What the hell did you think would happen?"


Who warned us? The Democrats?

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."

Nancy Pelosi

"It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so."

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President.

No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."

"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."


John Kerry

"Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."

John Edwards

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."

Harry Reid




Those dont sound like warning to me. It looks like the Dems wanted the war as much as the "neo-cons". I guess the "bloodbath" is on ALL of our hands.

Posted by: Justin at April 26, 2007 02:12 PM (NiTuu)

7
If there's a bloodbath, it's on your neocon hands.
You were warned about this, you chose not to listen.

What the hell did you think would happen?


In other words, liberals who wanted a "change in direction and strategy in Iraq" and got Robert Gates and General Petraeus (the man who literally wrote the manual on counterinsurgency operations) as a result, were lying when they made this claim. What you actually wanted the entire time was to abandon the Iraqi people in order to publish Goerge Bush for "his war."

For a political group that pays so much lip service to humanitarian rights, you are awfully cavalier towards the fate of the overwhelming majority of 24 million Iraqi civilians who would have their lives and security placed in far greater jeopardy by the arbitrary withdrawal dates Democrats are attempting to push.

I don't question your patriotism. I question your humanity.


let's assume you are right...and that's a hell of an assumption considering you and all the other bush cultists have been wrong all along...that means we have only one option...continue pouring blood and money at this in an open ended commitment until the iraqis actually do something in the way of a political solution...which they have shown no indication of doing. at that point we will have propped up a weak corrupt government...al queda and other groups like them will be able to operate where they couldn't before...and iran will have far more influence than they had before. so our only option leaves us worse off than before. f'ing brilliant.


Presently, Seven Iraqi provinces are being run by the Iraqis (3 Kurdish, four Arab), and three more will probably be turned over to Iraqi control within the next year to 18 months. When 10 of 18 provinces are in Iraqi hands, will you still cry the the commitment is open-ended? It never was.
The commitment was to establish enough security for the Iraqis to take over. We finally have the new plan and general to execute that new plan that you ask for, and you now seek to quit before giving him a chance to have that plan come to fruition.

You act as if Iraq was a peaceful tranquil place free of corruption and terrorism before we arrived, when Baathist corruption ran deep even during Saddam's regime, and the State itself was a key instrument of terror in the region. The fact that Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, and Abdul Rahmin Yasin (the 1993 World Trade Center bomb builder) lived in Baghdad at Saddam's bequest, and that Saddam himself had ordered invasion of two neighboring countries, somehow slips your collective minds.

The Iraqi government has been in place for what, two years? Unless our history books are wrong, this nation didn't even have a Constitution until 1781, five long years after declaring independence from Great Britian.

Liberals such as yourself are quick to play up the efforts of al Qaeda's own surge (evidenced by the increase in car-bombings), but are loath to note the fact that the majority of Sunni tribes in al Anbar that once supported the insurgency are now supporting the Iraqi government, and are in fact attempting to join the IA and IP so quickly that we're unable to process them all at once. They've fought pitched battles against al Qaeda and aligned insurgent groups, and have won every one in recent memory, a fact that the media either underplays, or often simply refuses to support at all. Sunni groups formerly opposed to the Iraqi government are now forming political parties to join with it. JD Johannes, on the ground in Fallujah, reports that the insurgency may even indeed be over in parts of al Anbar.

The larger insurgency will indeed claim more American and Iraqi lives before it is finished, but to surrender to terrorists and the states that sponsor them is a far worse threat to the security of the Iraqi and American peoples. Even the reliably left wing reporters of media organizations in Iraq acknowledge that our pulling out will make the region far more unstable, as noted in the main article, and the craven, naked retreat in the face of adversity is an affront to American honor and dignity, along with an abandonment of basic humanitarian principles.

Of course, it seems obvious that liberals gave up on both honor and true humanitarian values long ago.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 26, 2007 02:33 PM (9y6qg)

8 Shorter Confederate Yankee:

If we can pin the blame on the Democrats, then it IS america's fault that a bunch of people somewhere else kill each other.

If we can't pin the blame on a Democrat, then only america-hating democrats would blame america and not the terrorists doing the killing.

Either way, Republicans win!

Posted by: ME at April 26, 2007 02:35 PM (HsdZl)

9 if the commitment isn't open ended then what is it? what is the limit of commitment?
and your faux concern for humanity is laughable. this war has killed so many innocents neither us nor the iraqis are willing to count them.
and stop trying to claim this is a new plan. it's the same plan. again. and again. with the possible exception being that we have given up any pretense of training iraqis.
i stand by my statement...our only option leaves us worse off. f'ing brilliant.

Posted by: jay k. at April 26, 2007 02:42 PM (yu9pS)

10 hell...if you are so worried about humanity why don't we liberate cuba...it's a lot closer and the beaches are beautiful. oh yeah...they don't have any oil.

Posted by: jay k. at April 26, 2007 02:44 PM (yu9pS)

11 What I find amusing about all of this, in a tragic sense, is that if everything was exactly the same, but a Democrat was in office, you'd be screaming for his impeachment.

Despite every miscalculation and mistake made by Bush and his Administration, you still insist on placing the blame on a political party that had nothing to do with any of this. This war was planned and executed by Republicans.

And no one will forget that.

Posted by: TheTruth at April 26, 2007 02:52 PM (EVidu)

12 TheTruth speaks the truth...remember how the right screamed about kosovo...and cried about how there was no exit strategy...and in spite of that we lost not one american life? that was at the beginning of the rights hyper-partisanship. they had only started sipping the kool-aid. now they gulp as if there isn't any more. hopefully this debacle will be the end of the right and a party interested in actually governing will rise from the ashes. they have already turned their backs on conservative tenants.

Posted by: jay k. at April 26, 2007 03:01 PM (yu9pS)

13 So many misrepresentations, so little time...

you can cherry pick quotes from Dems (who did NOT have the same intelligence as the WH but were spoon fed a lot of misleading claims) but it doesn't change the fact that this is George Bush's war. Millions predicted this prior to the war. I was one of them.

Actually, I was just listening to Petraeus...he didn't seem sure that things would get worse if we left. I think he said probably or possibly if US troops AND Iraqi troops were to go away, there might be an increase in sectarian violence. Even the Burns quote is equivocal.

One thing is certain....what we are doing now is failing big time.

Posted by: jvf at April 26, 2007 03:09 PM (wl/EW)

14 Republicans have had 4 years with a blank check and almost zero oversight and have accomplished...what exactly?

Hate to break it to you, but the state has already failed, the regional war has already broken out, and the genocide has already begun - all thanks to Georgie's war of choice.

I'll repeat what the Truth said: This war was planned and executed by Republicans. And no one will forget that.

Posted by: MattM at April 26, 2007 03:11 PM (NZ/aJ)

15 "the majority of Sunni tribes in al Anbar that once supported the insurgency are now supporting the Iraqi government, and are in fact attempting to join the IA and IP so quickly that we're unable to process them all at once."

yeah...that's the ticket...more once and future insurgents infiltrating the Iraqi army and police.

And you wonder why no one has any confidence in this hare brained scheme?

Posted by: jvf at April 26, 2007 03:13 PM (wl/EW)

16 Why is it that you care so much for muslims in Iraq yet spend so much time hating them in the US and everywhere else...there is no logic or consistancy to your crap.

Posted by: madmatt at April 26, 2007 03:23 PM (J8hqn)

17
Why is it that you care so much for muslims in Iraq yet spend so much time hating them in the US and everywhere else...there is no logic or consistancy to your crap.


Just another typical, empty-headed, liberal platitude. Search the archives, chum. You won't find any of that here. I dislike Islamists, not Muslims. You're simply too clueless to know the difference.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 26, 2007 03:28 PM (9y6qg)

18 Justin,

You missed this Democratic quote from 2002:

"I have come here today to express my view that America should not go to war against Iraq unless and until other reasonable alternatives are exhausted. It is possible to love America while concluding that it is not now wise to go to war. The standard that should guide us is especially clear when lives are on the line. We must ask what is right for our country and not party."

That was Ted Kennedy.

I want to go on record here (again) and say I think pulling out would be a disaster. But I don't believe we can do it with our military as it is. Even Petraeus said today that it would take a very long commitment in order to win this war. How long and how many men? He couldn't, or wouldn't, say.

Fair enough.

But if it's true that this is an absolute must-win for us, as Bob and others insist, then where is the call for:

1. More troops (maybe even the draft)
2. Higher taxes to pay for this long-term commitment and
3. The truth about how many troops, for how long, and at what cost?

The American people need to know how much this thing is going to cost and how long we have to stay. As much as Bush thinks this is a monarchy, it's not. We need to know now what we've gotten into. No more soft and mushy proclamations of progress. We need the hard, cold truth if we're going to face this head-on.

I'm with you on this. I think the Democratic leadership is acting in a craven, irresponsible manner, and I'm a lifelong Democrat. But there's no honor on the GOP side, either, only empty words, bone-headed incompetence, and a desire to find some way to shift the blame for this catastrophe onto the Democrats. Shame.

For all of you arguing partisan politics here, lift your head so you can see above the BS and then call ALL of our leaders, left and right, to task for failing us and our military, so utterly.

To do otherwise is to reduce your principles to those of a third-rate ward-heeler telling the rubes anything to get their vote.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 26, 2007 03:29 PM (kxecL)

19 What is our best case scenario in Iraq? Let's say somehow the next 12 months are much more effective than the past 48 have been and the insurgents and jihadists are defeated militarily. That leaves Iraq governed by a coalition of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, sponsored by Iran; the DAWA party, sponsored by Iran; and the Sadrists, also sponsored by Iran, and the hardline islamist Virtue Party. Oh and the Kurds.

So Ware is backwards on this. Our vicotry in Iraq would be what hands the country to Iran. Because of Bush's colossal blundering, Iran is in a position to win whether we go or stay. What is the word for a situation in which the enemy wins even in your best case? Oh yeah, Lost.

Posted by: Retief at April 26, 2007 03:30 PM (LPHyU)

20 Shorter Confederate Yankee:

Iraqi casualties only matter to us when politically convenient. We downplay reports of hundreds of thousands of existing casualties, while hyping future potential casualties that may occur as a result of our withdrawal. We do this with as little introspection and serious analysis as posisble so as to maintain a straight face.

Posted by: ME at April 26, 2007 03:34 PM (HsdZl)

21 jvf,

Not sure what hole in the ground you came up from (KOS, DU, or FDL) but I always love when Dimmies make this argument:

you can cherry pick quotes from Dems (who did NOT have the same intelligence as the WH but were spoon fed a lot of misleading claims) but it doesn't change the fact that this is George Bush's war. Millions predicted this prior to the war. I was one of them.

First - Do you see what this argument says? Or are you too blinded by BDS? You claim that Bush is stupid, yet he was able to pull the wool over the eyes and fool the Dimmies into believing made up intelligence (or so you say). Now - if Bush could fool the Dimmies, it makes them less intelligent than him, or by your definition - even stupider than you think Bush is. ROFLMAO at you.

Second - Many of the quotes that have been posted were made by the Dimmie Brain Trust prior to the Bush election into office. Laughing at you even harder now.

Third - Quick - what was Operation Desert Fox, who ordered it, and for what reason?

Study a little history about the ME from the last 30-40 years and you might, just might be a little more informed. As for now, you are a BDS Troll. Simple.

Posted by: Specter at April 26, 2007 03:55 PM (ybfXM)

22 specter...you could be 100% correct about everything you typed above...and still the our only option in this little adventure you love to support leaves us worse off than we were before...again...f'ing brilliant.

Posted by: jay k. at April 26, 2007 04:02 PM (yu9pS)

23 "Only option" jay k.?

What is the "only option?"

Posted by: Hoodlumman at April 26, 2007 04:04 PM (FAZ6l)

24 "I was brought up believing that the United States was a champion for liberty and freedom around the world."

You been duped, son.
This is what happens to the uncurious and naive.

Now that you know it, what you gonna do about it?

Posted by: Robert at April 26, 2007 04:04 PM (VTtVl)

25 jay k.,

Another reject from KOS? OK - here is your platform jay k., mister f'king brilliant - WHAT IS YOUR PLAN/ WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE? Got to oh smart one. Tell us.

Posted by: Specter at April 26, 2007 04:09 PM (ybfXM)

26 Bush is stupid.
It's his evil partners who are bringing this country to it's knees.

I gotta admit, it's interesting to see the most powerful military in the history of mankind get it's ass-handed to them by a bunch of teenagers.
Not to mention, SOOOOOOOO well-deserved.

Posted by: Robert at April 26, 2007 04:15 PM (VTtVl)

27 What...no answer yet from jay k. With all his wisdom I thought it would take just a few seconds to respond. C'mon Mr. F'ing Brilliant - what would you have us as a country do? Let's hear it?

Posted by: Specter at April 26, 2007 04:16 PM (ybfXM)

28 Robert,

You must be embedded right to have so much knowledge? Or are you simply reading FDL? Why don't you go over to some of the milblogs and tell them that the troops are getting their asses handed to them? I know - you couldn't handle the heat. Too chicken, huh?

Posted by: Specter at April 26, 2007 04:19 PM (ybfXM)

29 Specter,

I'm your huckleberry.

You want a plan? Look at what I've suggested.

As for Desert Fox, Clinton went after Saddam but did not go to war. He contained him. That's a huge difference in blood and treasure.

You can argue that containment could not have gone on forever, but that begs the question as to how long should we continue our present occupation?

Really, Specter, what's your plan? It's obvious we can't keep sending these troops back for six, seven, eight tours without the military breaking down. We can't keep borrowing from China to pay for this expedition. So what do you suggest we do, smart guy?

You offer nothing of substance to this debate beside knuckle-headed abuse. Frankly, I find it really tiresome.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 26, 2007 04:19 PM (kxecL)

30 What difference does it make where we "came from". You have a problem with hearing from those who don't share your opinion?

The Bush admin snow job has nothing to do with intelligence (as in "smart"), and everything to do with manipulation.

Desert Fox was a very limited operation, intended to degrade Saddam's military. Very different from occupying the whole country, which by the way, George H.W. Bush though was a dumb idea and certainly still does.

Before you accuse me of not having a plan, I believe we should keep a skeleton crew of US troops for training & support purposes only, and get the rest off of the streets. Oh yeah, and impeach our civilian leadership who have f***ed up this war beyond belief.

Posted by: jvf at April 26, 2007 04:20 PM (wl/EW)

31 David,

Same question for you. Do you know any of the soldiers? I know quite a few, and while they are scared in many respects, they see the progress being made there. You don't know. You only parrot stuff from the drive-by media. Get a grip.

Posted by: Specter at April 26, 2007 04:21 PM (ybfXM)

32 Oh I get it, Bush was able to manipulate the Dimmies. Same argument - he is smarter than they are. Get a grip.

OK - I see it took so long to answer cuz you had to Wiki the answers. So - why did Clinton feel it necessary to "contain" Saddam. What was the threat that Clinton was responding to? Dig deeper, you'll get it.

That is not a plan. Laughing even harder at you.

civilian leadership who have f***ed up this war beyond belief.

Oh you mean like Congress trying to dictate troop movement orders? Like breaking the role assigned to Congress v. the role assigned to the President.

Do you ever have a quote without f'ng in it? You musa bin hiley edicated.

Posted by: Specter at April 26, 2007 04:26 PM (ybfXM)

33 oh and jvf,

Tell me which provinces are being occupied by the US forces. You seem to know so much about deployments.

Posted by: Specter at April 26, 2007 04:28 PM (ybfXM)

34 Specter,

Nice use of the chickenhawk arguement.

What are the milblogs going to do to me, rape me?
I'm not a 14-year old Iraqi, so I'm not too worried about them.

Posted by: Robert at April 26, 2007 04:34 PM (VTtVl)

35 Specter,

Nice use of the chickenhawk arguement.

What are the milblogs going to do to me, rape me?
I'm not a 14-year old Iraqi girl, so I'm not too worried about them.

Posted by: Robert at April 26, 2007 04:34 PM (VTtVl)

36 David,

My plan is to support the President and the military leaders. There is a plan there you know. Same plan that has been for a long time. Help get the Iraqi government up and running, train the Iraqi troops/police, and stay put until they ask us to leave.

Now - there may need to be tactical adjustments to fit the strategy. We need to find ways to force the Iraqi gov. to step forward faster. Abandoning them is not going to do that. We have been making great progress in turning over provinces to Iraqi forces. Granted - those provinces are the most tranquil, but that is the best place to season these troops. We have made strides in replacing infrastructure, schools, businesses, etc.

In the last election, people did not vote to run away and abandon Iraq. They voted for a change of direction (mind you that does not mean "retreat" as opposed to "victory - or going forward").

The bottom line here is that WE ARE THERE. If we leave there will be a bloodbath. So what are the options now? You tell me.

Posted by: Specter at April 26, 2007 04:36 PM (ybfXM)

37 So go say it there then chicken.

Posted by: Specter at April 26, 2007 04:37 PM (ybfXM)

38 oh and Robert,

You may not be a 14-yo Iraqi girl, but you do sound like a 14-yo. Get over it.

Posted by: Specter at April 26, 2007 04:39 PM (ybfXM)

39 Specter,

I have.
They threatened me. Yawn.

BTW, Iran thanks you.

Posted by: Robert at April 26, 2007 04:40 PM (VTtVl)

40 You aren't even coherent. BDS?

Posted by: Specter at April 26, 2007 04:43 PM (ybfXM)

41 No. Common sense and a curious mind.

BDS is a made up affliction coined by Conservatives.
They can't possibly see why someone could dislike W's actions.
They think you can just hate a President no matter what he does.
This is called projection. It's what they did for 8 years during the 90s.

BTW, I didn't think Clinton was a good President either.

How about another W golden gem?
He thinks if we leave, three-thousand plus American soldiers will have died in vain.
Our MBA President has no concept of sunken costs.
Comedy gold.

Posted by: Robert at April 26, 2007 04:53 PM (VTtVl)

42 So just how long do you think we would have to stay in Iraq before we would be able to withdraw without worse violence erupting? Another five years? Ten? Twenty? Fifty? Ad infinitum??? And how many lives and trilions of dollars would that cost?

The only hope for stopping the violence is that the parties in Iraq's CIVIL WAR should come to some kind of an accommodation that they can all live with. And as of now there is no indication of that happening. And that will remain true for as long as the U.S. remains there trying to keep a lid on things. Perhaps being faced with the reality that they can either make a REAL effort to solve their problems or they can destroy each other may be the only thing that can finally force the Iraqis to learn to live together. In any case, if we disengage ourselves in a reasonable manner the choice and the responsibility for what happens afterward will belong to the Iraqis themselves.

Equating extracting ourselves from the middle of someone else's civil war (where we should never have found ourselves in the first place) and genocide is an absurdity!

Posted by: Debra P. at April 26, 2007 05:22 PM (h/YdH)

43 Specter,

Do I knowe any soldiers there now? How about two of my nephews? One is a major with a Stryker Brigade out of Fort Lewis and the other is a surgeon with an FST. Is that close enough?

Now, if you'll look, I've laid out what I think needs to happen: 1. Draft. 2. Raise taxes. 3. Level with the US citizens.

Now none of those things rae going to happen, which, in my opinion, makes this war a half-stepper and half-steppers don't get it done. Look at what Petraeus said today about long-term commitment. Even he can't predict how long or how many or how much, but it will be for quite a while and we as citizens should know just how much is being asked of us.

As for progress, I see encouraging signs, so I'm willing to give this the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not optimistic.

What I don't understand is how you and others can so blindly follow a president and the architects of this war, most of them having never served a day in uniform, when everything and I mean EVERYTHING they've said so far has been so bloody wrong.

In my long life I have never seen any other single group of people so wrong about so many things. Did they get anything right here? No, they followed Chalabi and Curveball into this mess and we went along, thanks to lousy reporting by the liberal New York Times and Washington Post.

That's what I don't get. You're willing to back a team with more losses than the Cubs. If this was a sports team their coach would have been sacked by now. But no, we still have to hear the experts Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Feith on their ideas of how to win when it was their stupidity that got us here. But you keep backing a losing team. Unfortunately, you're betting other people's lives, so you'd better be sure you're right.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 26, 2007 05:34 PM (tk0b2)

44 I simply do not understand the liberal mind-think on the Iraq war. If Represenative Pelosi and company wanted to end this war they could have denied funding. If they want the war to end next spring they can fund the war and deny funding next spring. They do not have Constitutional authority to set battle rules and timetables.

The refusal of liberals to view the facts and listen to what their leaders have stated before is just incredible. I fear that we may have turned a corner and will never find our way back.

Posted by: Mekan at April 26, 2007 06:12 PM (a8Oey)

45 Most Iraqis, Sunni and Shia, want us to leave. Therefore the argument that we owe it to them to stay does not hold water.

I've never seen a more craven politician than Bush. Nothing is ever his fault. He's trying to hire a War Czar now to take the blame for whatever catastrophes await us in Iraq, but no one will take the job.

Terrenoire's right: there's no excuse for the half-assed execution of this war. Not only were there no taxes to fund it, we got tax breaks. Instead of instituting a draft, we are trying to police a nation of 30 million. Bush does not have the courage to push these things through, yet he's happy to ask our troops to risk their lives. Here in the US we even use magnet stickers instead of the more permanent bumperstickers to show our support. Wouldn't want to jeopardize that paint job!

You talk about supporting the troops, but the troops want to come home. Look at the military times poll or the Zogby Poll. We are supporting the troops, not you.

About your quotations from Dems about supporting the war: the Dems were lied to by Bush.

The evidence for Iraqi WMD was tissue thin. Basically it consisted of the Niger uranium connection and testimony from an honestly crazy person named Curveball. Saddam's son-in-law the general who defected to the US testified baldly that there were no WMD, but Bush chose to go with Curveball. Facts were fixed around the policy, as the Downing Street Memo stated.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 26, 2007 06:30 PM (40R2V)

46 I simply do not understand the liberal mind-think on the Iraq war. If Represenative Pelosi and company wanted to end this war they could have denied funding. If they want the war to end next spring they can fund the war and deny funding next spring.

OK: It's hard to tell, but I think the consensus opinion in Congress is that we should pull out gradually over the course of a year. That'll give the Iraqis a chance to start taking over responsibility for their country's security. (Assuming they want to have any security; it seems like most of them are so consumed by old grudges that they'd rather have a bloody civil war.)

But just saying that there's going to be no funding next year won't work. The problem is George Bush; he'll just keep fumbling around without starting the withdrawal. In a year's time, Iraq will be in exactly the same position it's in today, only with another year's worth of casualties.

So Congress has to use the carrot-and-stick approach. If Bush wants the funding, he has to accept the timetable.

Only that's not working, and I'm not sure what happens next. In an ideal world, the Republicans in Congress would grow some balls and vote to override the veto.

Barring that, the next-best option is to not pass the emergency funding bill at all. That *should* force Bush to withdraw the troops fairly quickly. Iraq will collapse into civil war, of course, but that was probably going to happen anyway. If the Iraqis had sincerely wanted stability, they could have had it by now.

I fear that we may have turned a corner and will never find our way back.

We've been through worse, and made it out OK. And things should start improving now that we've finally got some Congressional oversight.

Posted by: chaos_engineer at April 26, 2007 07:34 PM (7lNkd)

47 The whole thing was a fraud from the start.

Greeted as Liberators, Mission Accomplished, Last Throes...what a load of BS

I was listening to Mark Levin (the "conservative" commentator and radio host) - he was wailing that "America is under attack from the Democrats"...it sounded like he was going to pee his pants. That's fascist rhetoric, this "internal ememy" crap.

It's about time someone is standing up to these gangsters.

Posted by: jvf at April 26, 2007 08:04 PM (473Rt)

48 Deal with this lefties:

Average military deaths per year under:

Clinton Admin: 938
Bush Admin (Iraq): 833

In Iraq we are fighting a war. What were we doing to deserve such a high number of deaths during Clinton? Explain.

I notice none of you stepped up to explain why Clinton ran the "containment" operation. Got a clue yet? C'mon David and jvf - even you can wiki it.

David - has the war been run shoddily? Yes. But what do we do - do we just pull out as we did under Dimmie leadership in Viet Nam? Do we pull out and leave millions to the slaughter? Is that what makes sense? The obvious answer is no. But what do we do?

Posted by: Specter at April 26, 2007 08:58 PM (ybfXM)

49 jvf,

Since you seem not to understand the question, and hence the implication, I will refer you to the Wiki article on Operation Desert Fox:

Clinton administration officials said the aim of the mission was to "degrade" Iraq's ability to manufacture and use weapons of mass destruction, not to eliminate it. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked about the distinction while the operation was going on:

"I don't think we're pretending that we can get everything, so this is - I think - we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century. [. . .] [W]hat it means is that we know we can't get everything, but degrading is the right word."

Main targets of the bombing included weapons research and development installations, air defense systems, weapon and supply depots, and barracks and command headquarters of Saddam's elite Republican Guard. Also, one of Saddam's lavish presidential palaces came under attack. Iraqi anti-air batteries, unable to home in on the American and British jets, began to blanket the sky with near random bursts of flak fire. The air strikes continued unabated however, and cruise missile barrages launched by naval vessels added to the bombs dropped by the planes. By the fourth night, most of the specified targets had been damaged or destroyed and the Operation was deemed a success. U.S. Special Forces members who had been on the ground in northern Iraq to protect Kurdish settlements from retaliation withdrew, and the air strikes ended.

Now - tell me how Bush "manipulated" the intelligence during the Clinton Administration to get Clinton to attack Hussein over development of WMD. You can't. That is why I claim you are afflicted with BDS. If not BDS, then explain why the Clinton Administration claimed in 1988 and after that Hussein had WMD. Try to explain this.

Posted by: Specter at April 26, 2007 09:09 PM (ybfXM)

50 It pisses me off when all you libs act like this is the longest, bloodiest war we have ever been in in the history of the United States. Over 4 years 3300 soldiers dead? Thats a drop in the bucket compared to the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. Get a f'in grip on reality people! The war IS winnable. It obviously wont take FOREVER or infinity like you idiots like to say. When the Iraqis unite major combat operations will be over in a year or two. They are allready almost there.

The vast majority of Americans wanted this war. Only the brave Americans want to finish it. You think Bush likes having his name dragged though shit every day? No, he is doing what he thinks is best for the long term security of our country.

If a Democrat gets elected our next president, I GUARANTEE he/she will f up our country so bad, we will be standing in soup lines for 10 years. Woo hoo another great depression.

And Robert, I bet you are one of those scumbags that would spit on a soldier if he saw one. People like you should be tried for treason.

Posted by: Justin at April 26, 2007 09:49 PM (NiTuu)

51 "You talk about supporting the troops, but the troops want to come home. Look at the military times poll or the Zogby Poll. We are supporting the troops, not you."

Poller: Soldier, do you want to go home?

Soldier: Hell yeah!

Poller: Do you want every soldier to retreat, and give Iraq to Al-Queda?

Soldier: Hell no!


That poll just asks a home sick person if they want to go home. Give me break. Supporting the troops, who I must remind you aren't cowards like liberals, doesn't mean making them retreat when they think the war can be one.

Don't forget if we pull out prematurely, Al-Queda is going to go crazy screaming about how they beat the "great satan". What do you think they will do next? You must think they will be satisfied, and go home.

Liberals are the KEY PART of the Al-Queda strategy. They know from experience (Mogadishu) that Liberals don't have the sack to fight a war with even a relatively small number of casualties.

The Liberal male has been far too over feminized.

Posted by: Justin at April 26, 2007 10:01 PM (NiTuu)

52 Justin,

I like the attitude, but not necessarily the words.

But we don't have to wait for a Dimmie to be elected President. Look at the stellar things they have done since they won the majority....uh...uh...uh...well they must have done something.

Of course there are the innumerable oversight hearings. That must be something...well...wait though - Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys at once for political reasons and Bush fired 8. Well...there must be some reason that we are spending millions on these hearings. And then we have Waxman subpoenaing C. Rice for her to answer why Bush said that Hussein was trying to get yellowcake from Niger...but wait - that's not what Bush said. So what is Waxman's point? And then we have Pelosi visiting foreign governments and passing incorrect information to them - apparently breaking the Logan Act. But maybe it is the new taxes they want to raise - the biggest tax raise in US History. Yea - that's the ticket. That and passing lots of laws guaranteed to break the largest growth in the US economy in decades. And oh yea - they passed the surrender bill. LOL.

Yep - they've done a lot....NOT

Posted by: Specter at April 26, 2007 10:03 PM (ybfXM)

53 I agree Specter, the Dems have done nothing they promised. Remeber the weeks leading up to the election everyone? Not one of the leading democrats would even mention their war stance because they were afraid they might scare away potential inpendents. What they did do was promise bi-partisanship and that they would get things done. So far they have done none of that.

Posted by: Justin at April 26, 2007 10:11 PM (NiTuu)

54 Specter:

Average military deaths per year under:

Clinton Admin: 938
Bush Admin (Iraq): 833

What a steaming load. Not if you mean US military deaths. Even if it was true it would prove nothing.

In Iraq we are fighting a war.

Aye. And the earth is round.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 26, 2007 10:30 PM (40R2V)

55 About your quotations from Dems about supporting the war: the Dems were lied to by Bush.

Typical Liberal thinking. Keep beliving something, even though you know it isnt true. Check the dates on those quotes there and the other ones I posted. They started in 1998 and concluded in 2002. I think one was from 2003 I dont remember. Im pretty sure Bush wasnt lying to the Dems about Iraqs WMD in 98.

But for some reason you keep repeating that same lie. Why, Lex, why?

Posted by: Justin at April 26, 2007 10:38 PM (NiTuu)

56 Did the Dems vote for the war without looking at the intel themselves? Or did they only listen to Bush? Im pretty sure they have a security clearance and a brain. So if they voted without looking at the intel, and only listened to Bush, then that would be extremely iresponsable, dont you think?

However, Im pretty sure they must have looked at the intel themselves. And last I checked the President doesnt write the intel himself. Logic would then dictate that they made their decision to vote for the war based on the info laid out on the table. Not Bushes speaches.

So one of two things must have happened:

1. They voted for the war based solely on what Bush was saying without checking the intel themselves.

2. They checked the intel and voted for the war based on the same info Bush based his speaches on.

Posted by: Justin at April 26, 2007 10:57 PM (NiTuu)

57 Justin, there's miles of difference between worrying about Saddam and invading the country. There can be no doubt that it was Republicans who were behind the invasion.

"Be glad of the good news: America is mired in the swamps of the Tigris and Euphrates. Bush is, through Iraq and its oil, easy prey. Here is he now, thank God, in an embarassing situation and here is America today being ruined before the eyes of the whole world."
--Osama bin Laden, video message broadcast October 18, 2003

Interview with Anthony Zinni here.

Interview with General William Odom here

"It was as if Osama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long-range mind control of George Bush, chanting 'invade Iraq, you must invade Iraq,'"
--Richard Clarke

What your kind never wants to admit or understand is that Iraq was largely free from jihad under Saddam. Look at the region: the Saudis were behind 911; Pakistan was caught selling nukes; Afghanistan has jihadist trainig camps. Saddam was a thug, but he didn't tolerate Islamic fanaticism, it was a threat to him. There wasn't any jihad coming from Iraq, and that's what the WOT should be about. What a fiasco.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 12:05 AM (40R2V)

58 Did the Dems vote for the war without looking at the intel themselves?

Justin, are you that naive? Do you really think Dems in Congress had some security clearance that allowed them to analyze intelligence for themselves?

The White House has the power to decide what intelligence is provided to Congress. They can't just go and peruse the day's intelligence.

This is what it's all about. The intelligence released by the administration made a strong case for war (WMD's, Nukes, al Qaida ties). None of these claims have been proven and an argument can be made that they have been proven to be false.

Why do you think people are pissed that we're still in Iraq? Why do you think many are pissed that we went there in the first place?

Innocent humans are being killed in Iraq every day. The innocents are American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. They didn't ask for a war based on false pretenses, but they are the ones paying the price.

Fred

Posted by: Fred at April 27, 2007 12:16 AM (bzeAR)

59 Justin:
last I checked the President doesnt write the intel himself

No, but close. The Office of Special Plans under Doug Feith (or whatever it was called) appears to have been set up solely to promote the Iraq war.

So one of two things must have happened: 1. They voted for the war based solely on what Bush was saying without checking the intel themselves. 2. They checked the intel and voted for the war based on the same info Bush based his speaches on.

I think it was mostly number one, in the sense that they allowed Bush and Powell et al to scare them so much. I certainly don't defend the Dem congressional votes.

In hindsight there appears to have been no secret evidence. There was the bogus Niger claim, the lunatic Curveball, aluminum tubes, mobile weapons labs, and so it. That was it, and it was all a crock, every bit of it.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 12:34 AM (40R2V)

60 David - has the war been run shoddily? Yes. But what do we do - do we just pull out as we did under Dimmie leadership in Viet Nam? Do we pull out and leave millions to the slaughter? Is that what makes sense? The obvious answer is no. But what do we do?

Specter,

This will be the third time I posted this on just this thread alone:

1. We cannot keep extending tours and sending troops back for fourth, fifth and more tours. These young volunteers, unlike my time, are mostly family men. Divorce is on the rise and families are breaking under the strain. The only solution, since so many young Republicans think it's honorable to send other people off to fight their wars, is a draft.

2. We cannot keep funding our war by borrowing money from the Chinese. So we have to raise taxes.

3. This is most important. We have to level with the American people and tell them why we must sacrifice and what is a really true estimate of our commitment.

It's my contention that no one, not the Democrats, and not our brave and CINC will do any of the above. That means all this administration is doing is kicking the can down the road so the war becomes someone else's problem.

To continue as we are, in my opinion, makes the war unwinnable. I don't know about you, but I don't want to sacrifice my nephews for a strategy that won't work simply because Bush can't bring himself to level with us and ask Americans to make sacrifices.

That's my answer to your question. Now, I pose the same question to you. Given that we can't continue fighting this war for a very long time, as Petraeus said yesterday, not the way we're fighting it, or funding it now, what do we do?

Yesterday I expressed my great displeasure with the Democratic party. When will you Republicans stand up and demand better from your leaders?

Bush has brought us to this terrible place. It's time the nation, all of us, held him accountable and not look for ways to pawn this off on anyone else. To do otherwise is a most dishonorable, and dishonest course.

(Now, any time you want to discuss why the US Attorney firings are wrong, let me know. I know a few former assistant US Attorneys who prosecuted really bad guys in New York. They worked under Bush 41 and then Clinton, and they have a completely different take on this than you do. Don't believe the talking points, Specter, and start thinking for yourself.)

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 27, 2007 06:04 AM (tk0b2)

61 Specter, you spewed:

"Deal with this lefties:

Average military deaths per year under:

Clinton Admin: 938
Bush Admin (Iraq): 833"

Here's the official fatality data:

http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates1.pdf

As anyone with a brain can see, the non-combat rates have remained relatively unchanged, but the combat rates have risen since 2003.

Posted by: Tracy at April 27, 2007 09:29 AM (y29mk)

62 Interesting how the threat of genocide seems to pop up in the argument now. But isn't the reason "we're fightin' them over there, so we don't have to fight 'em here". And isn't the problem islam: so how can there be any victory unless every last one of these people is dead, because unless you kill every relation to any one particular "terrorist", I don't see how there can be any victory without the genocide that is now so important to the war-mongers.

So please, explain why we should be the ones to commit this atrocity rather than the "enemy" itself? Isn't that the best strategy: Let these ignorant dead enders annihilate themselves.

At least be honest.

Posted by: eddie at April 27, 2007 09:39 AM (CnPnk)

63 David Terrenoire's comments are among the most cogent I've seen about this war yet. But I've got to ask: given that we're not going to institute a draft, raise taxes, or be leveled with, which is the better solution:

1) stay the course with the current group of incompetents in charge
2) call it a win and get the hell out of Dodge?

Every argument I've heard against leaving says there'll be a huge disaster if we go, but the consequences described sound an awful lot like the status quo. Plus, the people predicting disaster haven't exactly been Kreskins about anything else related to this war.

Posted by: PunditGuy at April 27, 2007 09:54 AM (WmzSx)

64 Well..well....well...I see that none of you took up my challenge to explain the reasoning behind Operation Desert Fox. The fact is leftists that Saddam and his WMDs were a major concern to several administrations in a row. But I know - your answer is that all of this is Bush's fault. It all started when he took office. None of the Dimmie Brain Trust said prior to Bush taking office that Saddam and Iraq were a major threat to the US, and to the stability of the region. And by your logic - Bush must be using the Comey-Fitz Mind Rays to have caused them to say those things before he took office.

Look - I'll start taking you seriously when ONE OF YOU ADMITS that the problem did not start with Bush. The history is there for you to read. All you have to do is put aside your hatred of Bush for one minute (well - maybe several so it might be an impossibility), and be honest. I don't think you can. That is why it is called BDS.

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 10:57 AM (ybfXM)

65 David,

US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. Period. Nothing else to say. It is a manufactured scandal. Get over it.

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 11:01 AM (ybfXM)

66 "US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. Period. Nothing else to say. It is a manufactured scandal. Get over it."

WRONG - If they are fired to interfere with a prosecution (which all circumstantial evidence points to) that is obstruction of justice, and a serious crime.

Posted by: jvf at April 27, 2007 11:20 AM (wl/EW)

67 Specter:

You'll start taking us seriously? You make up this statistic about military deaths under Clinton and then pretend like it didn't happen. Awhile back you argued ad infinitum that a rising average death toll in Iraq doesn't mean an increasing fatality rate. I'd be cautious about anyone you did take seriously.

You say we have BDS for blaming Bush for the Iraq War. It's actually Clinton's fault. Bush just clocked in at 28% approval in a WSJ poll. Does that mean that 72% of the country has BDS?

No matter how many times you are crushed in debate, you crawl onwards, spouting the same nonsense and mangling statistics. You'd be a clown or a buffoon except that you're never amusing or clever. 'Fool' will have to suffice.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 11:21 AM (40R2V)

68 Mr. George Tenet has left the building:

“There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat,” Mr. Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years. Nor, he adds, “was there ever a significant discussion” about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.

As depressing as the Iraq fiasco is, I do take some perverse pleasure in watching your political philosophy melt away. Drip, drip, drip. Nothing quite like the sight of one of the most powerful and least-deserving men in the world getting his comeuppance, at age 60 no less. It's been slow and sweet, like a fine meal. He'll have many quiet years to drink and clear brush.

That being said, I earnestly promise not to tease anyone who professes to a change of heart. We are still a fine nation, and we welcome every citizen's help in restoring our glory.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 11:42 AM (40R2V)

69 Live From Iraq:


From snipers, to IEDs, to the dirty conditions, to the long days, week, and months of thankless work in a country which is still being stitched back together, there are a thousand reasons why the troops should be unhappy, and a thousand excuses for why they might be right to side with those who are calling for an immediate withdrawal. However, despite all of the negatives, the overwhelming consensus among those with whom I have spoken to this point is not a belief that we have done everything we can here, and should therefore leave. The belief amongst the troops here, as exemplified by the aforementioned infantry Captain’s statement, is that these people deserve a chance at a better way of life, and that, rather than abandon them to a fate of certain death at the hands of ruthless sectarians, insurgents, and terrorists, we should continue to do everything we can to help rebuild and secure this nation, and to smash those who would destroy what the Iraqi people are building before they can be successful in doing so.

Surrender is not an option to the American fighting force – and they know that very well. Abandoning Iraq while the mission is still unfinished is not an option being entertained by any of the soldiers with whom I have spoken to this point; rather, it appears to be solely the purview of those at home who think that they know better than the soldiers themselves what is good for them. What the troops appear to really want is to be given the support and the resources which will allow them to complete their mission – and, more than anything else, the time to do so successfully.


My bold above.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 27, 2007 11:43 AM (9y6qg)

70 You bolded the wrong sentence.

Surrender is not an option to the American fighting force – and they know that very well. Abandoning Iraq while the mission is still unfinished is not an option being entertained by any of the soldiers with whom I have spoken to this point; rather, it appears to be solely the purview of those at home who think that they know better than the soldiers themselves what is good for them. What the troops appear to really want is to be given the support and the resources which will allow them to complete their mission – and, more than anything else, the time to do so successfully.

This goes back to David's point (and he can make it more eloquently than I can), which is that the current bosses are doing this half-assed. 150,000 troops? Pffft. Send half a million in there. Put the budget and economy on a war footing.

That is, of course, assuming that your quoted premise is true in the first place. Did you poll the troops?

Posted by: PunditGuy at April 27, 2007 12:01 PM (WmzSx)

71 From General William Odom, "Victory is not an Option":

"There never has been any right way to invade and transform Iraq. Most Americans need no further convincing, but two truths ought to put the matter beyond question:

First, the assumption that the United States could create a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq defies just about everything known by professional students of the topic. Of the more than 40 democracies created since World War II, fewer than 10 can be considered truly "constitutional" -- meaning that their domestic order is protected by a broadly accepted rule of law, and has survived for at least a generation. None is a country with Arabic and Muslim political cultures. None has deep sectarian and ethnic fissures like those in Iraq.

...

Second, to expect any Iraqi leader who can hold his country together to be pro-American, or to share American goals, is to abandon common sense. It took the United States more than a century to get over its hostility toward British occupation. (In 1914, a majority of the public favored supporting Germany against Britain.) Every month of the U.S. occupation, polls have recorded Iraqis' rising animosity toward the United States. Even supporters of an American military presence say that it is acceptable temporarily and only to prevent either of the warring sides in Iraq from winning. Today the Iraqi government survives only because its senior members and their families live within the heavily guarded Green Zone, which houses the U.S. Embassy and military command.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 12:02 PM (40R2V)

72 jvf,

Care to explain then why Clinton was allowed to fire the US Attorney that was investigating Rostenkowski? Where were the hearings then? Were you up in arms about it? He also fired the US Attorney that was actively investigating Whitewater. Same questions. Bet you don't have an answer for either.

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 12:05 PM (ybfXM)

73 Specter,

I thought this adminsitartion was supposed to be better than Clinton.

I find it amusing that every time Bush does something wrong you apologists jump up and say Clinton did it first.

Restoring integrity to the White House my backside.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 27, 2007 12:14 PM (kxecL)

74 Lex,

Data for you: Military Death Rates - Compiled by Defense Manpower Data Center. Official data Lex. Not made up. Total military deaths under the Clinton years was 7,500. Total so far under Bush is 7189.

But picture it this way - Bush is at war. Clinton was not. Why was the death rate so high?

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 12:18 PM (ybfXM)

75 Not what I said David. What I said is that people like jvf and Lex never blame Clinton for anything. They fail to acknowledge that the jihadist movement started before Bush took office. They blame everything on Bush. That is BDS. Look at Lex's last post. Did he admit that anything happened on Clinton's watch? No - he attacked me, and then went happily on his way with BDS.

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 12:21 PM (ybfXM)

76 And David - don't make me quote statistics on restoring integrity to the WH. As much as you hate Bush - the Clinton Admin was far worse. Shall I quote the stats on indictments and convictions?

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 12:22 PM (ybfXM)

77 Oh and Lex,

You say I mangle stats. Done that trend line lately/ What is the slope? Pray tell of BDSer. You went back to October 2006. Positive or negative slope dimmie?

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 12:26 PM (ybfXM)

78 Specter,

From your linked statistics, here is the breakdown of military deaths:

Clinton years:
1993 - 1213
1994 - 1075
1995 - 1040
1996 - 974
1997 - 817
1998 - 827
1999 - 796
2000 - 758
Total 7500

Bush years:
2001 - 891
2002 - 999
2003 - 1410
2004 - 1887
2005 - MISSING
2006 - MISSING
Total 5187

First question is, where are the data to make up the number you quoted for the total Bush years (7189)? They're not included on the PDF you linked to. Not saying you're wrong, just saying I don't see the data.

Second question is, isn't the relevant data the "hostile action" column? A total of 1 for all of Clinton's years (doesn't seem right, if we include Mogadishu?); 1102 for Bush through 2004 alone.

If you're trying to make the case that the risk to military personnel under both Bush and Clinton is alike, then you really need to focus on the relevant columns of data. Otherwise you're cherry-picking.

Posted by: David I at April 27, 2007 12:57 PM (jy07p)

79 Specter: what a dissembler you are. That chart only goes through 2004, so your average cuts out much of the Iraq war. Also: Total military deaths under the Clinton years was 7,500. Total so far under Bush is 7189. First, you are comparing 8 years versus 6. Second, where are you getting that data? It's not on the pdf you cited.

What I said is that people like jvf and Lex never blame Clinton for anything.

Bull. No one said that. You're the only person I'm aware of who claims that the Iraq war was Clinton's fault, however.

don't make me quote statistics on restoring integrity to the WH. As much as you hate Bush - the Clinton Admin was far worse. Shall I quote the stats on indictments and convictions?

Again you are lying, at least if you include Repub congressmen. Cunningham's in jail, Renzi's about to get indicted, Doolittle's about to get indicted, DeLay left in disgrace, Foley left in disgrace, Libby's convicted, Nye is, what, indicted? I can't recall now.

Liar, liar.

You say I mangle stats.

As a matter of fact I just caught you at it again.

Done that trend line lately/ What is the slope? Pray tell of BDSer. You went back to October 2006. Positive or negative slope dimmie?

Oh Oct 2006 happens to be a high point. I wonder why you chose that month. Actually, April so far is higher though. And it's been eight months since we had a month of fatalities lower than the war as a whole. Only an idiot would call that a declining death toll.

Keep crawling, Specter. Everyone's getting a good look at your intellect.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 12:59 PM (40R2V)

80 ...and I see I misconstrued your point somewhat. You're not saying the risk was "alike" as I put it, but pointing out that total deaths were high under Clinton too. My apologies.

Interesting to note, though, that every year under Clinton the numbers decreased; every year under Bush, the numbers have increased. And we've still got 2007 and 2008 data to compile.

Let's also remember that both Bosnia and Somalia occurred late in the Clinton presidency too. Despite these events military deaths declined overall.

Posted by: David I at April 27, 2007 01:03 PM (jy07p)

81 Here's a comprehensive report of military deaths from 1980 to 2005 by total death and cause of death. It's an Excell spreadsheet compiled by the US Census Bureau, a politcally neutral source. In the last year of the Clinton administration (2000), the total US military death total was 891. In the most recent year for the Bush administration (2005), the total US military death total was 1,951. In 2000 the largest number of deaths (39 were caused by accidents. This is lower than the total number of deaths by accidents in the first year of the Clinton administration (676 in 1992) and higher than the number of deaths by accident in 2005 (629). The military during the Clinton years steadily brought the death total by accident down every year. It started going up again during every year of the Bush administration. This makes sense, especially after 2002 since war is a dangerous business and death can be caused by many ways other than hostile action. The largest cause of death in 2005 (73 was by hostile action and was many, many times higher than the highest year of the Clinton presidency, which was 1 in 1996. How any one can argue with a straight face that it was more dangerous to be in the military in the Clinton presidency than in the Bush presidency is a mystery to me. As the mother of a US Army soldier currently deployed in Ramadi, I pay close attention to these things. Argue for the war if you want, but use facts, doctored stats from biased sources.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/07s0502.xls

Posted by: carol H at April 27, 2007 01:17 PM (kOGwf)

82 carol H: Please send our regards to your son or daughter. Thanks for the link, it's very interesting.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 01:27 PM (40R2V)

83 Lex,

Did the Dems vote for the war without looking at the intel themselves?

Justin, are you that naive? Do you really think Dems in Congress had some security clearance that allowed them to analyze intelligence for themselves?

The White House has the power to decide what intelligence is provided to Congress. They can't just go and peruse the day's intelligence.


Exactly where do you get this stuff from Lex?


"Meanwhile, members of Congress are subject to no such background investigations. Instead, once they are elected to office, they take an oath not to reveal national secrets. That's it, both Ashdown and a former congressional staffer who worked on the Hill for more than 30 years said Friday.

"Members get security clearance by right of the fact that they got elected," said Winslow Wheeler, who worked on Capitol Hill for 31 years for both Democrats and Republicans."


Lex,looks like you got some bad intel. By your rules that means you lied.

Posted by: Justin at April 27, 2007 03:44 PM (NiTuu)

84 You Mean CNN the Liberal Media? I refuse to listen to them.

As a republican loyalist I have to say I cant keep pretending that we republicans didnt lose the war. Everything we said was wrong, we were totally wrong about everything. we must accept responsibility for this fiasco.

Posted by: alexande at April 27, 2007 04:44 PM (Qv727)

85 Justin: you quoted Fred, not me. Nice try though.

When are you shipping out sport?

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 04:45 PM (40R2V)

86 Lex and David I,

the other data comes from Lex's favorite site to visit (he is rather morbid) the Iraq Casualty site. The number I posted includes deaths in military up to yesterday.

But Lex dodged the point again. Why were deaths so high during Clintoon? I understand 3700 deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq seeing as we are at war. But why 7500 deaths when we had just a few small "containment" campaigns during the previous admin.

And Lex - I see you and jvf are still unable to admit that the jihadi movement started before Bush took office. So sad to be so lost. Didya do that trend line yet Lex?

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 06:08 PM (ybfXM)

87 Specter:

the other data comes from Lex's favorite site to visit (he is rather morbid) the Iraq Casualty site. The number I posted includes deaths in military up to yesterday.

In that case you are leaving out accidental deaths under Bush. Review carol H's post above, your numbers are completely busted.

But Lex dodged the point again. Why were deaths so high during Clintoon? I understand 3700 deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq seeing as we are at war. But why 7500 deaths when we had just a few small "containment" campaigns during the previous admin.

They weren't. Even if they were, what would it prove? That Iraq was a good idea?

And Lex - I see you and jvf are still unable to admit that the jihadi movement started before Bush took office. So sad to be so lost.

Of course it did. Only in your fantasy world does anyone deny this.

Didya do that trend line yet Lex?

Here's you proving that the death toll is falling: "using the 5 months previous is an average of 3.03 per day. But if you go back 12 months, the average drops to 2.44. If you go back 24 months, the average is 2.36." You haven't earned a place at the grownup table yet.

The death toll has been above the average of 2.4/day for the last eight months. April is 3.78/day so far.

A CBS News/New York Times poll shows "64% of Americans believe the U.S. should set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq in 2008."

How come you're not helping out, ace? The surge is so promising... maybe one courageous young man will be enough to secure victory. Or maybe you're a little braver when someone else is fighting in your place. Bock bock!

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 08:29 PM (40R2V)

88 Lex, I appologize for misquoting you. I meant to say Fred. Your posts were next to each other, and very similar in content. My mistake.

Posted by: Justin at April 28, 2007 12:11 AM (NiTuu)

89 I have not followed this thread. I was against the invasion because I did not believe Iraq was a sponsor of attacks on the USA. I did not believe Iraq had WMD. I believed Iraq was a damaged society that needed the Peace Corps, not Shock and Awe. I believed the UN led inspectors could bridge the gap from threats to cooperation. Oh well.

We have been at this for over four years and we are farther away, because everything we have tried has failed. Stay the course has failed. Stand Up, Stand Down has failed. Elections have failed. Constitutions have failed. Attacking Sadr has failed. Not attacking Sadr has failed. Capturing the Aces, Kings, and Jacks have failed. Today we learn the surge is failing to bring any sense of peace and security to Iraq.

“The White House Scales Back Talk of Iraq Progress “

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/washington/28prexy.html?ex=1335412800&en=c70bf93efca9340b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

I believe, not as a matter of faith but based on my knowledge and logic, there is no military solution to the violence and political turmoil in Iraq. Iraq is still a damaged society in need of diplomats and statesman. As I stated above, that was my view in 2002 when President Bush started his campaign to attack Iraq. Just so you know, I believed the war in Afghanistan was absolutely necessary and appropriate.

Posted by: Bernard William Scott at April 28, 2007 08:52 AM (T2CmG)

90 The war in Iraq has lost the support of the American people. Who would ask our soldiers to die for something that the American people do not support ?

Posted by: John Ryan at April 28, 2007 10:22 AM (TcoRJ)

91 According to a recent Pew Research survey, only 17% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops (4/18-22, 2007).

CBS News’ survey findings show only 33% want to remove all troops from Iraq (4/9-12, 2007).

57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and “the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people” (Public Opinion Strategies, 2/5-7, 2007).

59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America’s reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (Public Opinion Strategies, 2/5-7, 2007).

According to a Time magazine poll, only 32% want to withdraw the troops within the next year no matter what happens (3/23-26, 2007).


Americans Believe Immediate Retreat Leads to Bad Consequences

A plurality of adults (45%) say a terrorist attack in the United States is more likely if we withdraw our troops from Iraq while the “country remains unstable” (Pew Research, 4/18-22, 2007).

70% of American voters say, should a date for withdrawal be set, it is likely that “insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq” starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007).


Majority Supports Funding War, Troops

56% of Americans say, if President Bush vetoes the Democrats’ plan for withdrawal, Congress should still “allow funding for the war” even if there is no timetable. Only 36% want to withhold funding. A majority of Republicans (84%) and Independents (52%) want to allow funding, while only 51% of Democrats want to withhold it (CBS News, 4/20-24, 2007).

A mid-March Bloomberg poll revealed 61% of Americans believe withholding funding for the war is a bad idea, while only 28% believe it is a good idea (3/3-11, 2007).

A Public Opinion Strategies poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%; 3/25-27, 2007).

According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 61% of Americans oppose “denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq,” and opposition is up from 58% in February (3/23-25, 2007).


Strong Opposition to Restricting Military Commanders

69% of American voters trust military commanders more than members of Congress (18%) to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq. This includes 52% of Democrats, 69% of Independents and 88% of Republicans (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 3/27-28, 2007).

Public Opinion Strategies recently reported a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007).


U.S. Troops Could be Hurt

63% say the debate between the President and Congress over the Iraq war is having a negative impact on troop morale, while only 19% say it is not having any impact at all (CBS News, 4/9-12, 2007).

50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq “hurts” the troops, while only 27% believe it “helps” the troops (LA Times/Bloomberg, 4/5-9, 2007).


Low Marks for Democrats on Iraq

62% of Americans disapprove of the Democrats handling of Iraq, while only 37% approve (ABC News/Washington Post, 4/12-15, 2007).



Nuff said.

Posted by: Justin at April 28, 2007 05:22 PM (NiTuu)

92 Justin,

How long did it take to search the polls to find just the right questions over the last 3 months from six different polling organizations to support a failed policy?

Here is the link to one of the polls you mentioned, ABC News Washington Post April 12-15, and some intersting results.

It took me 35 minutes tofind thispollandcut and paste the results. Formatting made it tricky to get the information from the poll to the post.

On the Washington Post web site
Spam filter made me remove link

http://www.washingtonpost /wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_041607.html


From the ABC News/Washingtonpost poll of April 12-15,2007

2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling (ITEM)?

4/15/07 - Summary Table*

a. The situation Iraq Approve Disapprove No opinion
29 70 *

14. Do you think (the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties); OR, do you think (the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there)?

Keep forces Withdraw forces No Op
4/15/07 42 56 2

12. Who do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq, (Bush) or (the Democrats in Congress)?

Bush Dems
4/15/07 33 58

1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president? Do you approve/disapprove strongly or somewhat?

-------- Approve --------
NET Strongly Somewhat
4/15/07 35 17 18

------- Disapprove ------
NET Strongly Somewhat No opinion
62 14 49 2


I suggest folks see the poll to understand how others respond to specific questions and gain a sense of how other citizens feel. But no poll can convince me the war against Iraq started in 2003 by President Bush was in the best interest of USA or Iraq. It was poorly considered and poorly executed. The evidence; no WMD, no happy Iraqis, and increasing US deaths 4 years after " Major operations are over" and Mission Accomplished banner.

It seems to me Justin was not forthright in use of this poll.

Posted by: Bernard William Scott at April 29, 2007 07:20 AM (T2CmG)

93 Im just sick of hearing people say that the American people want us to pull out if Iraq. Polls are useless. The only poll that is worth a damn is when we go to our local high school and vote.

People want our president to rule our country based on poll numbers. Thats ridiculous. Thats not leadership.

Also I think its funny that the congress has a 37% approval rating.

Posted by: Justin at April 29, 2007 01:35 PM (NiTuu)

94 Bernard William Scott: thanks for doing the legwork. I suspected as much but didn't care to do the research myself.

Another small note: the "Restricting Military Commanders" meme as per the FOX poll is bogus. This is a Repub talking point that doesn't bear scrutiny. The military commanders follow Bush's orders. For instance the surge was widely unfavored by the military, but Bush did it anyway.

Now Bush is saying we shouldn't judge the surge until September. He's running out the clock.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 29, 2007 01:43 PM (ep6YT)

95 4 years after " Major operations are over" and Mission Accomplished banner.

Do you know what a mission is? Do you know the difference between a mission and a war? I guess no liberal does because they are all gonna bring it up today like Bush said the war was over. Give me a break.

Posted by: Justin at April 29, 2007 02:23 PM (NiTuu)

96 Justin,

If you believe polls are stupid you should not use polls dishonestly to prove your point. By the way, the President does not ruke our contry, he faithfully executes the laws. Our elected represntatives write the laws after they are elected. If the president does not approve, he can veto.

A mission can be smaller or larger than a war. War can be a way to achieve, such as "Our Mission is to make the world safe for democracy" A war and other strategies and tactics could be part of the mission. Or a mission can bean assignemnt: "Your mission should you choose to accept it is capture the hill".

I was indicating the failure after over 4 years to achieve anything of substance in Iraq. The day of the speech was May 1, 2003.

Posted by: Bernard William Scott at April 30, 2007 06:24 AM (T2CmG)

97 How many Iraqis did Bush kill, and his apologists enable? For what? So they could start a civil war and kill each other, with Americans in the crossfire?

Posted by: Dick Tuck at April 30, 2007 09:33 AM (GkwJk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Harry Reid: No Clement Vallandingham

Via the ever vigilant, all-knowing Allahpundit, calls for Democrat Harry Reid to resign for saying that the Iraq war is "lost".

Says Rep. Duncan Hunter, a ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee:

"In my opinion Sen. Reid, having made that statement, which can only have a demoralizing effect on our troops and an effect of encouragement of the adversary, I think it would be appropriate for Sen. Reid to resign his position as the leader of the United States Senate," he said.

It will never happen, of course, even as Reid stakes his claim as the modern-day Clement Vallandingham.

Actually, that comparison isn't fair to Vallandingham.

Vallandingham was always against the Civil War and was consistent in his position, even though that eventually led to him being tried in a military tribunal for "uttering disloyal sentiments," prison, and his eventual expulsion from the United States.

Reid, on the other hand, was an advocate for going to war against Iraq, before he was against it.

We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict.

Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145

I find it interesting to note that Reid's 2002 justification for war against Iraq mirrors my own, and is entirely accurate, even to this day. As Reid noted, whether or not Iraq actually had WMDs was irrelevant; Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of the 1991 cease-fire.

Reid voted to go to war, and most recently, was part of the unanimous Senate vote to confirm Lt. General David Petraeus to run the Iraq War exactly three months ago today.

Since then, Reid has declared that he would not believe Petraeus if the General reported any progress in the Iraq War:

BASH: You talked several times about General Petraeus. You know that he is here in town. He was at the White House today, sitting with the president in the Oval Office and the president said that he wants to make it clear that Washington should not be telling him, General Petraeus, a commander on the ground in Iraq, what to do, particularly, the president was talking about Democrats in Congress.
He also said that General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill and make it clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that?

REID: No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening. All you have to do is look at the facts.

[Note: the above was pulled from a CNN "The Situation Room" transcript at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0704/23/sitroom.02.html, which has since gone missing]

Harry Reid pushed for war against Iraq when that was the popular position. Now that the war is unpopular, he declares the war "lost" and pushes for defeat.

On January 26, Harry Reid voted to confirm General David Petraeus to run the Iraq war, presumably basing his decision on Petraeus' capability and competence. Less than three months later, he publicly states that he will refuse to believe anything General Petraeus says that does not match his own weathervane opinion.

Vallandingham was perhaps treasonous, but he was at the very least honest and consistent about his positions, even as he sought to wreck the future of the United States.

We cannot say the same about Harry Reid.

Update: Captain's Quarters notes The Five Myths of Harry Reid.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:55 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Anonymous VT Massacre Investigator(s) Caught Misleading Media

The media keeps getting the basic facts wrong about the Virginia Tech massacre, but now an anonymous police investigator or investigators can be proven to be contributing to the problem:

Investigators said that over the next few weeks, he went to the Wal-Mart in Christiansburg on March 31, April 7, April 8 and April 13. During those visits, he bought cargo pants, sunglasses and .22-caliber ammunition. He also bought a hunting knife, gloves, a phone item and a granola bar. He visited Dick's Sporting Goods for extra ammo clips. He bought chains at Home Depot that he later used to hold shut the doors of Norris Hall.

Note the "investigators" for the above Associated Press article are anonymous.

The NY Times provides us with this similar claim:

Crime scene technicians recovered 17 spent magazines of ammunition, the majority of which were for Cho's 9mm handgun, a law enforcement official said.

"He ended up buying a load of mags from Wal-Mart and Dick's Sporting Goods," said an official, who asked not to be identified. "This was a thought-out process. He thought this through."

Two stories citing anonymous officials, and both are repeating nearly identical claims.

Demonstrably false claims.

News flash: Dick's Sporting Goods doesn't carry any handgun magazines of any kind, at any location. Walmart also does not carry pistols or pistol magazines.

I called the Dick's locations in Christiansburg and Roanoke this evening and I spoke with employees in the hunting department (called "the Lodge"). They confirmed what I already knew from visiting Dick's locations in New York and North Carolina over the past five years; while the chain carries ammunition, they've never carried pistols or pistol magazines.

I spoke with the young lady in the sporting good department of the Christiansburg Walmart, which took a bit longer than the Dick's calls. I had to first explain to her that when I was asking about "pistol magazines" I was not talking about handgun-related periodicals. Once that point was clarified, I confirmed that Walmart do not sell ammunition holding devices for pistols, either.

Two of the nation's top news organizations are telling hundreds of thousands of news consumers demonstrable lies because journalists were/are too lazy to spend the minimal amount of time it takes (three calls in five minutes) to fact-check an anonymous source regarding claims made about two huge retail store chains and their role in this nation's largest mass murder shooting.

If the media is this lazy investigating the facts of the largest mass shooting in American history just a little more than one week after it occurred, I can only imagine how little effort they put into more pedestrian stories.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:42 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

April 25, 2007

Cho Still Had Ammunition When He Committed Suicide

On Deadline is reporting that Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho still had additional ammunition with him when he died in an updated to a blog entry on the shooting timeline.

The shootings at Norris Hall lasted nine minutes, and it is now apparent that the massacre would not have last much longer in any event, as Cho shot himself just after police officers shot the lock off a first floor door of Norris Hall and entered the building.

The obvious inference I'm tempted to make is that Cho heard the police gunfire and decided to take his life as a result of the perimeter being breached, not because he was low on ammunition, and not because he was out of potential targets. He apparently wanted to successfully commit suicide, rather than face the possibility of being taken alive and having to face the consequences of his murder spree.

I don’t know that the evidence supports these assumptions, but with no easily detectable motive or trigger for the largest mass shooting in American history, inferences and assumptions may be all we have.

Update: Over at Hot Air, AP makes a chilling speculation (my bold):

The theory right now is that he shot himself when he heard them shoot through their way through the front door of Norris Hall. Which makes the fact that VTech was a gun-free zone that much harder — if he'd heard a gunshot in the building earlier in his rampage, he might have turned his own gun on himself sooner thinking it was the police.

There is of course no way to know if that is what would have transpired, and it is probably pointless to wonder how many of the 59 killed or wounded by Cho might not have been shot had he suspected that he was about to come under fire or had actual aimed shots directed his way, distracting him from his attack.

When I was in grad school, I suspected that several fellow students (mostly women) were occasionally armed, and knew for a fact one person was armed almost every day I saw him.

We, too, were a "gun free" school, but I felt a bit safer knowing that we weren't quite as gun free as the administration would have liked.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:47 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Abnormal Psychology

A psychology major has admitted to being the person who has been placing a memorial stone for Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho among those of his victims:

A senior Virginia Tech psychology major has identified herself in a letter to the editor in the Collegiate Times as the person who's been placing a stone at the memorial for Seung-Hui Cho.

The writer, Katelynn L. Johnson, wrote in the lengthy letter that she placed the stone at the memorial at 4 a.m. last Thursday morning in the dark to avoid drawing attention.

"I refuse to do what is popular and agree with everyone around me that only 32 people died on Monday. 33 died."She said in the letter that she intends to continue adding a stone whenever it is removed, as was the case earlier this week.

I somewhat suspect this student aced VT's PSYCH 3014: Abnormal Psychology, based largely upon her own head start on the subject.

The fact that Cho coldly murdered 32 others and wounded 29 more before taking his own life doesn't seem to be of much concern to Ms. Johnson, who is in the process of making herself the most unpopular living student on campus by memorializing a mass murderer.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:11 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Sometimes, He Makes Me Laugh

Dana Milbank, that is, not his target, Dennis Kucinich:

"I do not stand alone," Dennis Kucinich said as he stood, alone, in front of a cluster of microphones yesterday evening.

The Ohio congressman, a Democratic presidential candidate, was holding a news conference outside the Capitol to announce that he had just filed articles of impeachment against Vice President Cheney. But subsequent questioning quickly revealed that Kucinich had not yet persuaded any of his 434 colleagues to be a cosponsor, that he had not even discussed the matter with House Democratic leaders, and that he had not raised the subject with the Judiciary Committee.

Kucinich did have one thing: a copy of the Declaration of Independence. And he was not afraid to read it. "We hold these truths to be self-evident," the aspiring impeachment manager read at the start of his news conference. He continued all the way through the bit about the right of the people to abolish the government.

"These words from the Declaration of Independence are instructive at this moment," he said.

A reporter from the Cleveland Plain Dealer encouraged USS Kucinich to contact planet Earth. "But Nancy Pelosi says this is not going anywhere," she pointed out.

"Have you talked to her today?" Kucinich shot back.

"Yes, I did," she replied.

Kucinich had not expected that answer. "Then I would say I have not talked to her," he acknowledged.

It was not an auspicious beginning for the impeachment of Richard B. Cheney.

Notes Raleigh AP history and government teacher Betsy Newmark:

It's rather surprising that he couldn't get even one other Democrat to go along - there must be quite a few who want to charge Cheney with all sorts of crimes and misdemeanors. Perhaps they just don't like being in the same news cycle with Kucinich.

I also don't understand why he's reading the Declaration of Independence. It is the Constitution which is relevant for an impeachment. Is Kucinich preaching the necessity of revolution after Cheney's supposed "Long train of abuses and usurpations?" If so, wouldn't waiting a couple of years be a better plan than to begin a revolution? Or does Kucinich just not understand what he's reading?

Enter a comically serious HuffPuffer:

On Tuesday, Representative Dennis Kucinich introduced articles of impeachment against Vice-President Cheney. There are three articles: manipulation of intelligence to deceive Congress and the American people, fabricating a threat from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction prior to the invasion of Iraq; manipulation of intelligence to deceive Congress and the American people about an alleged relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda prior to the invasion of Iraq; and threatening aggression against Iran, in violation of the U.N. Charter and the U.S. Constitution.

(Kucinich seems to be one of the few Members of Congress aware that threatening to attack other countries is a violation of the U.N. Charter, a treaty to which the U.S. is signatory.)

The author chided Milbank for his amusing dismissal of Kucinich, and even attempted to twist Milbank's article into an attack on women:

From Mr. Milbank's aggressive journalism, we learn that Kucinich is "perhaps 5 feet 6 inches tall in shoes" and that "he approached the microphones, which nearly reached his eye level." We also learn that Kucinich was undeterred by "wind that ruffled his text and the few strands of his hair that were insufficiently weighted by Brylcreem."

Feminists take note. It is not only women politicians who can expect to face irrelevant and inappropriate media commentary about their appearance. Apparently, as a male politician, if you oppose the imperial ambitions of the Washington pundit class too vigorously, you can be an honorary woman.

Robert Naiman, the writer of this HuffPuff fluff, is quite serious, even if it reads more like the content of The Onion than a "serious" political blog. It makes you wonder just how much reality is left in the "reality-based" community.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:27 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.07, elapsed 0.4235 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.3777 seconds, 358 records returned.
Page size 346 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.