Air America host Randi Rhodes is back on the air, sort of explaining the circumstances that cause her dental work to intersect with the local infrastructure.

Listen for yourself.

You'll note very clearly and distinctly that one of the first things Rhodes said was that her hands did not break her fall. That's odd.

There is a quirk is the physiology and the psychology of conscious human beings that compels most of us to put out our hands to break a fall.Most of us know people who've suffered abrasions, lacerations, sprains, or even fractured bones in their hands as a result of a fall.

That Rhodes states so clearly that her hands didn't even begin to break her fall suggests that she fell while losing consciousness, or after she had already lost consciousness. That Rhodes will not reveal whether or not she had been drinking in the pub prior to her fall (at Gawker, a commenter alleges she had, and how), and that she readily admits to not have eaten that day, certainly seems to make a loss of consciousness both the most logical reason for her fall, and the most logical explanation of why she did not follow the quite normal human tendency of sticking out her hands to protect herself from impacting the ground.

Frankly, I could care less over the cause of Rhodes slipping into unconsciousness, providing of course it wasn't the source of a serious underlying medical condition (regardless of political differences, she is a fellow human being and I bear her no ill will). Whether she had been drinking or not on an empty stomach really matters very little.

What is of greater concern is her apparent need to immediately spin this cause-undetermined blackout into an assault with a two-line email in which she says she had been mugged.

That she almost immediately fabricated a dramatic excuse instead of merely stating what she actually knew about the incident should raise character issues about Ms. Rhodes. If she would lie so easily about this matter, it should cause Air America listeners to wonder just how cavalierly she is willing to dismiss the truth or manipulate facts on the air to deliver to a more entertaining story for her listeners.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:27 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 3 kb.

Naomi Wolf has her latest pre-packaged "Bush is going to overthrow the Constitution and install himself as dictator with the help of Blackwater" stem-winder posted on the Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington's menagerie of Who's Who in the DSM IV.

Wolf, true American patriot that she is, is criss-crossing these United States in a desperate bid to roll back the forces of Halliburton and the Illuminati, no doubt speaking with the same great oratory and care with the facts that we've come to expect from the Empress of Earth Tones.

She has all the answers to save this great nation from the plague of Bush, and writes with a truthfulness and accuracy that we haven't seen in over seven years... which can be your's for just $11.16 (You save $2.79).

Clearly, freedom comes with a price, but it wasn't until now that I realized it also comes with FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25.

"But wait, there's more!"

But what if she's wrong? What if--God forbid--she's profiteering from fears of overthrown liberty that may never be?

And therein lies the question, and well-deserved suspicion.

Is Naomi Wolf truly convinced that we have a grave constitutional crisis on our hands, that America about to succumb to dictatorial forces, and that only a book tour can save us? Or is Wolf cynically using the fears of the paranoid fringe to make a profit, filling her own coffers as a digital revivalist charlatan, ministering to those with more money than sense?

We could find out rather easily, I should think.

If Wolf truly believes what she writes, then she must believe that George W. Bush (the head of the American Nazi party she constantly alludes to, but never specifically names) will attempt to overthrow the country and establish himself a Hitleresque dictatorial figure by January 20, 2009, the day the next President of the United States is sworn into office (it would be kind of hard to do it after a new President is installed, after all).

If Wolf is sincere, she and others like her will no doubt be rounded up and shipped off to internment camps run by Michelle Malkin shortly after that date, soon to be fired in massive ovens run by a cigar-chomping Rush Limbaugh. No money she has saved, and none of her earthly possessions will mean a thing to her as her ashes waft in the breeze.

BUT...

What if Wolf is just peddling fear for profit? Shouldn't she be held accountable?

And so a modest challenge that an honest Wolf can easily meet.

If Wolf is honest and sincere about what she writes and the overwhelming majority of the United States continues to ignore her as a kook as they do now, then she'll be too dead to enjoy the money she's made selling her book to the lunatic convergence of Ron Paul supporters, truthers, and Indymedia conspiracy theorists.

"Now how much would you pay?"

But if she's merely been profiteering from fear, as I suspect she has been, then it only seems fair she should pay a price for her deception. Being the magnanimous person that I am and a capitalist, I won't ask her to return a dime to the suckers she's conned.

They, you see, need to be taught a lesson, too.

No, I propose a simple, cost-free solution: a promise from Wolf that if her fear-mongering goes for naught and the next President is sworn into office on January 20, 2009 without a coup d'état, that she will never write again in her current paranoia-outlet-of-choice, The Huffington Post.

The terms should be simple to enforce: if Wolf is right, Arianna Huffington will be rediscovering her conservative roots and swinging The Huffington Post to the right of David Horowitz's FrontPage Mag and will no longer in need of Wolf's services, and if Wolf is wrong and President Bush and his imaginary brownshirts shuffle off to Crawford, then the beautiful Ms. Huffington will still be mistress of her own quite successful domain, if a bit editorially top-heavy on end-of-the-republic-as-we-know-it conspiracy theorists, and needing to cut weight.

It's a simple challenge, really: Naomi Wolf should put her soapbox where her mouth is.

Somehow, though, I doubt she's up to even that mild challenge.

It might cut into her chances to market her next book, How President ________ Is Carving Up America's Soul With a Ginsu Knife.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:10 AM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 740 words, total size 5 kb.

Collegescholarship.org has a $10,000 scholarship for bloggers that are also full-time students. There are 20 finalists, and for whatever odd reason, they've decided to let voters decide who should win.

Frankly, I don't know 19 of them and they may very well be nice people, but the 20th I do know, and I think that he deserves your vote. His name is Matthew Burden, but you'd probably more familiar with him if I simply called him Blackfive.

So, like, go vote.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:35 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

According to The Politico, Deomcratic Congressman Charles Rangel wants to engage in a two-front tax war.

Is it because he's trying to expand his beachhead?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

Doing the jobs that Americans won't do...

A 72-year-old man stopped a suspected suicide bomber from detonating himself at a checkpoint in Arab Jabour Oct. 14.

The man approached a checkpoint where Mudhehr Fayadh Baresh was standing guard, but did not make it very far.

Baresh, a tribal commissioner and member of the Arab Jabour Concerned Citizens program, said he ordered the man to lift his shirt - using training received from Coalition Forces - when he did not recognize him as a local villager.

The suspect refused to lift his shirt. Baresh repeated the command again, and the suspect exposed his suicide vest, running toward the checkpoint.

Baresh opened fire which caused the vest to detonate, killing the suspect.

Rebecca Aquilar would presumably not approve.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:41 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Now that Rebecca Aquilar has some time on her hands, maybe she will fly to Iraq and "interview" Baresh. Should be must-see TV.

Posted by: iconoclast at October 18, 2007 03:27 PM (wdrwi)

2 “I did it for the honor of my family and the honor of my country,” said Baresh, when he met with Col. Terry Ferrell, commander of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division. Lt. Col. Kenneth Adgie, commander of the 1st Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment presented Mudher with a battalion coin for his valor Oct. 16.

Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at October 18, 2007 04:17 PM (gkobM)

3 I am sure that the lefties will find some way of spinning this as evidence of our "failure" in Iraq.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 18, 2007 07:08 PM (ufhAS)

4 Is Blackwater still hiring? If so, I think we've found a new recruit for them...

Posted by: ExUrbanKevin at October 18, 2007 07:13 PM (ySQlS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Quite a lot of people are ripping the behavior of Dallas, TX KDFW-TV reporter Rebecca Aquilar right now and deservedly so. The journalist ambushed 70-year-old Army veteran James Walton as he got into his car, and bullied him into tears. She has since been suspended.

Why?

Walton is owner of Able Walton Machine & Welding in West Dallas, a salvage business where he lives in an upstairs apartment, that has been robbed no less than 42 times.

On September 22, at about 2:00 AM, Walton shot a man who was breaking in through a pried-open window. The man later died. Three weeks later on October 14 at 9:00 AM, Walton shot and killed another thief who had broken in.

After each shooting, Dallas police, as a matter of policy, processed each firearm used as evidence for the grand jury, meaning that a victimized Walton had to purchase yet another firearm with which to defend his life and besieged property.

It was as he was leaving the store after purchasing this replacement shotgun (a Remington according to the box markings) that Aquilar staged her ambush:

I'd ask you to note her choice of language, her obvious bias, accusatory tone and abrasiveness, and the careful positioning of her body between the car body and door, an old television reporter's trick that traps the victim as a hostage, so that he could neither exit the vehicle, nor close the door to leave in the vehicle.

Glenn Reynolds notes:

I was struck by reporter Rebecca Aguilar's body-language, literally standing over him in judgment with tailored suit and umbrella. The way she looked down, literally and figuratively, on an old man who had defended his life, entirely legally, and reduced him to tears seems to me to be representative of the worst stereotypes of Old Media.

Stereotypes become stereotypes because of behavior recreated and witnessed enough times that the behavior witnessed is thought to be a group norm.

I've witnessed it firsthand in the aftermath of an armed standoff with hostages. Minutes after the suspect surrendered himself, a television reporter with cameraman in tow came inside the building and started peppering the just-released hostages with questions, jabbing at them and I with a microphone. As news consumers, we've seen other instances of this ambush style of journalism, as other journalists have perfected it in both local and national media.

And there are instances where an ambush style of journalism is indeed warranted, such as confronting con artists or corrupt CEOs. But where journalists have failed the moral test is when they lost basic human empathy, and begin treating citizens as suspects, and victims as criminals, as Aguilar does here, without apparent remorse. This was horrific, but only grossly atypical in that the lopsided assault was broadcast in its entirety, and not edited.

It seems that what has happened to journalism is that far too many journalists have placed the importance of the story they would like to tell as the foremost thought in their minds, and made both facts and people subservient to that agenda. They've traded their empathy for an angle, and honest journalism for advocacy.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:12 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 528 words, total size 4 kb.

Estes Thompson and Mike Baker of the Associated Press note that America's all volunteer military isn't taking advantage of opportunities the way their predecessors did:

American troops killed their own commanders so often during the Vietnam War that the crime earned its own name - "fragging."

But since the start of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military has charged only one soldier with killing his commanding officer, a dramatic turnabout that most experts attribute to the all-volunteer military.

[snip]

Both Roland and Anderson said today's all-volunteer military, compared with soldiers being forced into duty in Vietnam, is the primary reason why fragging attacks are almost nonexistent in Iraq and Afghanistan. The conditions in Iraq are also much less conducive to the crime, Roland said.

"There's not as much isolated operation," Roland said. "One of the things about Vietnam was the extremes of small-unit activity, where a squad or platoon would go out on patrol and it was just them and the jungle. They were out of sight of other Americans.

"In Iraq, you never know when a helicopter might be going over or a newsman comes along," he said.

You can almost feel their pain.

Update: Wretchard looks into what the "experts" cited in this story got wrong.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:26 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

Robert Burns of the Associated Press notes that the beginning of the end of the "surge" will begin in Iraq in December in Diyala province:

Commanders in Iraq have decided to begin the drawdown of U.S. forces in volatile Diyala province, marking a turning point in the U.S. military mission, The Associated Press has learned.

Instead of replacing the 3rd Brigade of the 1st Cavalry Division, which is returning to its home base at Fort Hood, Texas, in December, soldiers from another brigade in Salahuddin province next door will expand into Diyala, thereby broadening its area of responsibility, several officials said Tuesday.

In this way, the number of Army ground combat brigades in Iraq will fall from 20 to 19. This reflects President Bush's bid to begin reducing the American military force and shifting its role away from fighting the insurgency toward more support functions like training and advising Iraqi security forces.

The 3rd Brigade's area of operation will be added to the 4th Stryker Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division, and will provide something of a test-bed to see if Iraqi security forces really can "step up as we stand down."

American forces will still be ready to assist Iraqi police, 1920s (former insurgents) militiamen, and Iraqi Army units in this province that was the scene of a U.S. invasion just months ago. al Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) had declared Diyala's capital of Baqubah their base, and had pledged a Fallujah-like defense that would extract heavy casualties from invading U.S. forces.

Instead, the 1920s turned on their former allies, and helped allied U.S. and Iraqi Army forces in Operation Arrowhead Ripper, an operation that saw more than 200 al Qaeda killed and more than 100 arrested. Baqauba and Diyala have had comparatively low levels of insurgent activity since Arrowhead Ripper completed August 19.

Only time will tell if Iraqi security forces (Iraqi Police, Iraqi Army, and 1920s militiamen) will be able to maintain the relative peace in the months ahead, which may be seen as a barometer of how effective "surge" operations have been in dislodging insurgents and terrorists from civilian populations.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:24 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.

Women, children, and minorities not hardest hit.

I say it tongue firmly in cheek. The authors of the McClatchy article, however, seem quite sincere.

A drop in violence around Iraq has cut burials in the huge Wadi al Salam cemetery here by at least one-third in the past six months, and that's cut the pay of thousands of workers who make their living digging graves, washing corpses or selling burial shrouds.

Few people have a better sense of the death rate in Iraq .

"I always think of the increasing and decreasing of the dead," said Sameer Shaaban, 23, one of more than 100 workers who specialize in ceremonially washing the corpses. "People want more and more money, and I am one of them, but most of the workers in this field don't talk frankly, because they wish for more coffins, to earn more and more."

I'll look forward for McClatchy's future article on the bleak jobs outlook for IED emplacers.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:27 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

Air America's Jon Elliott quickly succumbed to paranoia last night, claiming that his fellow Air America host Randi Rhodes would be out of work because of an attack that he claims was more than a mugging:

Elliott was extremely agitated when he reported on the incident. He opened his show by saying "it is with sadness that tonight I inform you that my Air America colleague Randi Rhodes was assaulted last night while walking her dog near her New York City home."

Pointing out that Rhodes was wearing a jogging suit and displayed no purse or jewelry, Elliott speculated that "this does not appear to me to be a standard grab the money and run mugging."

"Is this an attempt by the right wing hate machine to silence one of our own," he asked. "Are we threatening them. Are they afraid that we're winning. Are they trying to silence intimidate us."

The problem with this theory, other than Elliott's delusion of relevance, was the fact that Rhodes wasn't mugged, and wasn't assaulted. She fell.

Meet gravity, ladies and gentlemen: the newest member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:59 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

I value the writers' service and their opinions as soldiers who have served in Iraq, but wouldn't this editorial have meant more if the Washington Post had managed to find soldiers to write it who had actually been in in Iraq in the last year?

Only two of the 12 captains had been in Iraq as late as 2006, with the rest all departing in 2005 or before. None of them are currently on active duty.

While their opinions are valuable from a historical perspective based upon what they've seen while they served, they hardly seem to be best qualified to be able to comment upon the current situation on the ground in Iraq, as it has changed so radically since the last of them departed.

Those officers who are serving in Iraq currently have quite a different opinion.

When is the Post going to ask them to pen an editorial?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:25 AM | Comments (150) | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Those officers who are serving in Iraq currently have quite a different opinion. When is the Post going to ask them to pen an editorial? My guess? Just a few minutes after never. I imagine we'll be seeing more such editorials, from brave and well-meaning former soldiers who nevertheless have not been in Iraq recently enough to see the progress of the last ten to twelve months.

Posted by: Mike at October 16, 2007 08:50 AM (1Yni/)

2 And the last time you were in Iraq was when, exactly?

Posted by: Obvious at October 16, 2007 09:22 AM (r7Vht)

3 A better question is who did those officers serve with and in what capacity? I'm sure those who barely went beyond the wire would have a good opinion on what's really going on in Iraq.

Posted by: Jon at October 16, 2007 09:25 AM (1Nv9S)

4 Obvious - I was last in Iraq about a month ago, and I agree with the point of this post. The subjects and problems in the linked editorial are real and significant. The contextualized question is, how has the battelspace changed in the last year (significantly) and how much corruption, etc., can Iraq live with and still obtain a good outcome (an open question). I'll give you a specific example of how things can change in a year. In January, the Iraqi general in charge of the IA in Fallujah was so corrupt that he might have been stealing 50% of payroll and was funneling weapons to militias in Baghdad. At the end of that month, Marines fed a story to the media about him, and he fled command after his theft was outed. He was then replaced by a new commander who proceeded to minimize corruption to acceptable levels and do a great job with security. If one had left that scene at the end of 2006, not only would security be a different world from what it is today, but so would many of the corruption issues. Thus, it helps to have fresh perspective, especially when it comes to an uptick in local security and all that flows from that.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 16, 2007 09:40 AM (yZMsp)

5 A better question is who did those officers serve with and in what capacity? A better question is, did these men sign up for the war just so they could criticize it, a la Beauchamp?

Posted by: Xanthippas at October 16, 2007 09:40 AM (018Z+)

6 * battlespace

Posted by: Bill from INDC at October 16, 2007 09:41 AM (yZMsp)

7 A better question is, did these men sign up for the war just so they could criticize it, a la Beauchamp? Actually, Xanthippas, that's a stupid question unless you have some evidence to support asking it. do you?

Posted by: Pablo at October 16, 2007 09:50 AM (yTndK)

8 And the last time you were in Iraq was when, exactly? Wow. I never saw that coming. It never ceases to amaze me that leftists always bravely trot out that old saw, as if it is even slightly germane to the conversation at hand. It is the Washington Post that makes an appeal to authority based upon the service of these twelve captains in Iraq. It is therefore logical to note that if service in Iraq is the most important criteria (as the WaPo obviously thought in listing their service), then it is only logical that those with the most recent experiences--those there now--would be the best informed and higher authorities based upon their own internal logic. I don't necessarily agree with that line of reasoning as an absolute, but this is their argument, not mine. Does playing out this line of logic to the rational end invalidate the experiences of these twelve captains, or "smear" them, as the more dishonest members of the blogosphere opine? Not in the least. Their experiences are indeed very valid and valuable, as was their service to our nation, and their service is something we should respect them for. They are penning an editorial based upon past experiences that are in some instances 3-4 years old, and none of these captains have been in Iraq since 2006. Their past experiences are just that: past experiences. None of their opinions are wrong or invalid in any way, but they are based upon old experiences, and they are writing about a political, security and social situation that apparently no longer exists as they knew it. Those soldiers who are currently serving in Iraq after the "awakening" movement has blossomed across the country, particularly within the past few months, are probably in a better position to judge the condition of the mission, the validity of claimed cultural shifts, and the actual security situation on the ground. If the editors of the Washington Post want an honest assessment of the current situation on the ground, it would seem logical to make the attempt to contact soldiers who are currently serving. Or are you going to argue against that as well?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 16, 2007 09:54 AM (EPsu8)

9 Captains who are no longer on active duty. Why? Did the up or out get them. Low performers who are not promoted during a full comittment are given a choice, E-5 or out (that was the procedure, has it changed?). The MSM is adapt at locating losers, or losers locate the MSM in an attempt to cover their failures. Twenty five years from now they will have some tall tales that are 'seared in their mind'.

Posted by: Scrapiron at October 16, 2007 10:07 AM (d/RyS)

10 Bob, are you really naive enough to believe that captains currently serving are going to give you an honest opinion of the war? When this war is still hot in 2010, and captains from 2007 and 2008 say this occupation is doomed, what will you say then? I know you have a wingnut blog to run here, but have some pride, willya? This war has been flogged as a success from jump and the exact opposite has been true every year that goes by. You've bought every line, including this latest one. When will you dead-enders learn you're being strung along and that your perspective on Iraq is an article of faith? There is no central government in Iraq, we have been reduced to bargaining with the tribes. This may cause a temporary reduction in violence, but to what end? Instead of covering what the stupid Washington Post does(and endlessly accusing a corporate media run by fat cats of "liberal" bias, ha ha ha), why don't you tell your readers the truth about this mighty experiment in democracy? I dunno. I was in Iraq in 2003 and 2004, I guess my opinion, even though I keep up prodigiously with news from there, is not of any use.

Posted by: Ron at October 16, 2007 10:30 AM (lTEGm)

11 Ron, thanks for your service. Are you one of the Captains? Just asking for no real reason, so don't take it wrong. Six straight months of reducing American casualties, since the peak in May 2007. September was the fifth lowest since the start of the war. October is already much lower than September. Iraqi civilian casualties down dramatically, and since Feb 2006 Iraqi civilians were AQI's biggest target. IED attacks also down dramatically. Is the surge working? Appears that it is. Will those invested in our defeat in Iraq become more and more strident? Already happening.

Posted by: CoRev at October 16, 2007 10:52 AM (0U8Ob)

12 Might be a little difficult to find the Army captains on active duty, the Army is having a really hard time retaining that group. The number of West Point grads optining out of the Army at the earliest opportunity is the highest in decades. As for the "trend" in Iraq the year 2007 will be the highestdeath toll ever.

Posted by: John Ryan at October 16, 2007 10:57 AM (TcoRJ)

13 Ron, while it may be popular to avoid any positive news for those of you who decided long ago that this war was lost and could never be won, it isn't just U.S. soldiers that are remarking upon the substantial changes going on in Iraq. Iraqi police, soldiers, civilians, and politicians have noted these changes as well. Or are you claiming that your 2004-based opinons are more important than the opinions of those they live there, now? What about the hundreds of media accounts noting declining military, civilian, and police casualties, fewer bombings, etc? Have they all been co-opted by the evil BushCo regime as well? You are entitled to your opinion, Ron, but I think the troops I talk to both officially and off the record, in conjunction with accounts from actual Iraqis and respected journalists who are actually in Iraq, are in a much better position to tell me what is going on now, becuase they are there, now.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 16, 2007 10:59 AM (ScOBm)

14 Renko and Scrapiron's comments are two of the most insulting things I've seen today. The latter goes to the "phoney soldier" argument that true soldiers love war (you've seen the movie Patton way too many times) and the idea that someone would join the service to polish their resume is absurd. The former proposes that these must have been failures and that their complaints are some sort of sour grapes. How about the idea that they joined to serve their country, didn't like what they saw being done in our nation's name, and chose to get out? Too tough a concept to get your minds around? PS: "Polished my resume" for 28 years in the air force and retired as a colonel after turning down a command job because I could no longer bear working for Rumsfeld/Bush.

Posted by: jeff at October 16, 2007 11:13 AM (Z8kfp)

15 When this war is still hot in 2010 I got a grand says that is not the case. Are you confident enough in your assertion to back it with green? Any mutually agreeable 3rd party can hold the money.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 16, 2007 11:21 AM (6Yy5p)

16 I would define "hot" as a murder rate no worse than say...Washington D.C.'s

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 16, 2007 11:22 AM (6Yy5p)

17 Renko's comment I found insulting enough to remove, and I also disagree with Scrapiron's automatic assumuption that these twelve soldiers were under-performing. There are men who have joined the military for ulterior motives, to be be sure, but those are mercifully few. Those serving in our military can come to radically different opinions of whether or not a certain conflict is worth fighting without being dishonest. Please keep that in mind when you write, folks.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 16, 2007 11:28 AM (ScOBm)

18 Not for nothing, but you have to work pretty hard to dead end your career as a Captain. Its possible while active, but in the Reserves is a different story. When I showed up to my Reserve unit for the first time as a Captain, one of the first questions the commander asked was whether I had done CAS^3 yet(a 9 week active duty training course at Fort Leavenworth usually done by reservists by corresponence course). When I said yes, he said, "Well, if you've done CAS^3, then you are good for Major." I was stunned. I did nine weeks of classes right after getting promoted to Captain and now I'm ready for Major.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at October 16, 2007 11:29 AM (oC8nQ)

19 um...actually seven active duty soldiers did pen a very similar piece in august of this year, which was carried in the ny times. two of them have since died. one other has been shot in the head, but is expected to survive. why not just admit that you are unwilling to listen to any opinion that varies from your pre-concieved notions? after this first step perhaps those of you on the extreme far right can overcome this prejudice and participate in a real discourse about the issue instead of simply cheerleading.

Posted by: jay k. at October 16, 2007 11:48 AM (yu9pS)

20 Captains who are no longer on active duty. Why? Did the up or out get them. Low performers who are not promoted during a full comittment are given a choice, E-5 or out (that was the procedure, has it changed?). Scrapiron, please tell me that was just a typo/thinko on your part.

Posted by: Grumpy Code Monkey at October 16, 2007 12:01 PM (YZab5)

21 jay k - I think a lot of people read that NY Times piece you reference with interest. Of note though, was the fact that the NY Times did not have the balls to publish an op-ed from other serving officers who held dissenting views as a contrast.

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 16, 2007 12:12 PM (0pZel)

22 As a so-called "liberal" let me chime in here. I agree that there are a good deal of positive developments in Iraq over the course of the surge, and am very happy to see that many Iraqis are apparently taking steps to quash the Al-Qaeda influence and violence. It's good news indeed. However I do believe that we're going to be in Iraq well beyond 2010. The reconstruction effort, if you can call it that, has been an unmitigated disaster and we have not heard good news on that front at any point during this war. Not ever. The only thing the surge did was, in small measure, render troop numbers a nudge closer to the strength they should have been from the outset. Too late? Maybe not. I hope for the sake of the Iraqis' lives we've ruined that it isn't. But troop strength alone isn't going to win this "war." And it's going to take several more years even to see if a stable future is on the horizon. I remain concerned what's going to happen when the surge again draws down, which it must. The vacuum this creates will be very dangerous to the Iraqi people. There are two beacons of hope in this conflict. One, the Iraqis themselves seem to be in the midst of an awakening, as you point out. Please let that continue. Two, in a little more than a year the Republicans will be in the minority across the board, which is a very very good thing. They have shown they truly have no idea what they're doing, and Iraq is the most prominent representation of their incompetence. Should the stability situation improve in Iraq, we're going to need the best minds in the country working on this effort. Bush and the GOP have contented themselves with loyal ideologues in their stead.

Posted by: David I at October 16, 2007 12:15 PM (oykvW)

23 jay k, it is rather obvious to everyone following this story in the blogosphere that we're willing to listen to and value varying opinions, and that it is your fellow leftists that are attempting to shut down debate. They invoke the tired "chickenhawk" meme for any civilian that dares logical point out the fact that the soldiers in the Post editorial are basing their editorial on personal experiences years old, and when active-duty military personnel speak of progress--and that is the majority tone of soldiers currently in combat units in Iraq--you insinuate that they are not free to speak their minds, and are spouting propaganda, not so discretely insinuating that only those veterans who are agains the war are honest. There is certainly dishonesty and prejudice, jay k, but it is my opinion that those who "support" their arguments by attempting to smear anyone who disagrees are the ones blocking debate, and while both sides do it to varying degrees, I see more of that coming from those on the left..

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 16, 2007 12:26 PM (EPsu8)

24 I'm also growing quite tired of leftists calling these captain's "phony soldiers," even as snark. Debate the issue intelligently. If you only namecall, then you will find your comments deleted.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 16, 2007 12:31 PM (EPsu8)

25 You are entitled to your opinion, Ron, but I think the troops I talk to both officially and off the record, in conjunction with accounts from actual Iraqis and respected journalists who are actually in Iraq, are in a much better position to tell me what is going on now, becuase they are there, now. And you know that these twelve captains have no contact with troops that are there, now, how exactly? And don't think we haven't noticed that you didn't offer any objection to the claims of the op-ed, just to the authors.

Posted by: sitnam at October 16, 2007 12:40 PM (ONTnT)

26 "And don't think we haven't noticed that you didn't offer any objection to the claims of the op-ed, just to the authors." Obviously, you haven't read the Totten or Yon articles. You really should.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at October 16, 2007 12:45 PM (oC8nQ)

27 sitnam, I have no need to object to their claims. The active-duty, in-country accounts I linked to offer a far more convincing rebuttal than you would accept from me. There are, of course, other active-duty, in-country opinions that concur as well.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 16, 2007 12:56 PM (EPsu8)

28 "The reconstruction effort, if you can call it that, has been an unmitigated disaster and we have not heard good news on that front at any point during this war. Not ever." David, this kind of news is not reported in the MSM but it *is* reported. MNF-Iraq.com has a section dedicated to reconstruction efforts. But stuff like 'Increased power generation to 1.3 million homes' and 'Added 540,000 cubic meters per day of water treatment capacity (benefits an estimated 3.1 million Iraqis)' just doesn't sell enough ad space. http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13428&Itemid=47

Posted by: Dan Irving at October 16, 2007 12:58 PM (zw8QA)

29 There are a wide variety of opinions coming from people in-country. You didn't answer my question: You know that these twelve captains have no contact with troops (and others) that are there, now, how exactly?

Posted by: sitnam at October 16, 2007 01:03 PM (ONTnT)

30 sitnam, quit self-abusing yourself. I never claimed that they hadn't been in contact with those currently in Iraq. I merely stated that those who are there now are certainly going to have a better feel for things than those who have not been there firsthand in 1, 2, or 3 years.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 16, 2007 01:10 PM (EPsu8)

31 ...and the idea that someone would join the service to polish their resume is absurd... Looks like someone missed the TNR, Beauchamp, polish his resume, scandal.

Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at October 16, 2007 01:29 PM (gkobM)

32 Just deleted two posts, and banned someone. Please debate the issues.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 16, 2007 01:38 PM (EPsu8)

33 *Sigh* CY - sometimes it's just hard to get people to jump through the intellectual hoops required of logical thought. CY isn't 'attacking' the officers. The WaPo is basically saying, "Look, these guys were in Iraq! Their opinion matters." CY merely took their argument to it's logical conclusion by stating "Look, these guys ARE in Iraq! Their opinion matters more." He didn't state the officers opinions were invalid. He merely pointed out that reality for these guys was based off past experiences while the reality for the people he sources are based of current experiences. Sure, the officers could be in contact with comrades over in Iraq but that is moot, second-hand experience. Not illegitimate mind you, but since it's not personal it isn't germane to this discussion.

Posted by: Dan Irving at October 16, 2007 01:39 PM (zw8QA)

34 The reconstruction effort, if you can call it that, has been an unmitigated disaster and we have not heard good news on that front at any point during this war. Not ever." You are aware, for example, that there is currently more electricity per day in most of Iraq than pre-liberation.

Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at October 16, 2007 01:40 PM (gkobM)

35 CY: "... none of these captains have been in Iraq since 2006. Their past experiences are just that: past experiences. None of their opinions are wrong or invalid in any way, but they are based upon old experiences ..." - Wait a minute! - 1, 2 or 3 years ago - didn't you shout "unpatriotic", "leftist", "French", ... when people presented just the same (then up-to-date) picture of the disastrous consequences of an illegal war?

Posted by: he at October 16, 2007 01:48 PM (hBa5w)

36 sitnam, quit self-abusing yourself. Comments from the Department of Redundancy Department. What you said is this: I think the troops I talk to both officially and off the record, in conjunction with accounts from actual Iraqis and respected journalists who are actually in Iraq, are in a much better position to tell me what is going on now, becuase they are there, now. The message there is that you know more about what is going on in Iraq than those who were there in 2005 & 2006, despite not being there yourself, because of your contacts in-country now. This only makes sense if you assume that those same captains whose opinion you discount do not have contacts in-country as you do. Either that or you assume that these captains are ignoring all the sunny news they are getting from the enlisted and officers they are in contact with. Of course, if that is in fact your assumption, one wonders what you think their motive would be.

Posted by: sitnam at October 16, 2007 01:52 PM (ONTnT)

37 I thought this site did a good job showing the myriad of ways that things have gone SNAFU due to total lack of leadership at the top (CinC): http://www.combatreform2.com/johnpaulvann.htm

Posted by: LanceThruster at October 16, 2007 01:54 PM (oviQm)

38 Interesting quotes from Yons latest post, it involves people actually IN IRAQ, wow. "Once abandoned streets are now filled with families and budding entrepreneurs who continue to open new small businesses every week. We have made available grants for small businesses in our area and they have become immensely popular as you can imagine. I cannot walk the streets without children asking me for a soccer ball and “chocolate” (meaning any kind of candy) and adults asking for a micro grant application or for the status of the one they already filled out. They use these grants to open new businesses or improve their existing one and it is working well. Our area now has a men’s fashion store, fish markets, pharmacies, bakeries, and even two new gyms. We recently helped refurbish a once neglected clinic into a first class location for health care. They have a small lab, dentists, a sonogram machine, x-ray machine, and other new equipment. Our medical platoon recently spent several hours with local doctors and nurses treating patients for every day aches and pains with donated medical supplies from a humanitarian organization. I even watched our physician’s assistant pull a watermelon seed out of a young girl’s ear (sound familiar to any one?)." And this "Each year, units are given a reenlistment mission inorder to retain good soldiers in the Army. For example, the Squadron had a mission to reenlist two soldiers who are still on their initial enlistment during this fiscal year. Well, we reenlisted forty-two. While each soldier reenlists for their own personal reasons, I think it is safe to say that these soldiers believe in what they are doing, they see a difference because of their efforts, and they have tremendous NCO leadership. Who wouldn’t want to be a part of that?" My question is, if the vast majority of the military did not think the war was being won and was winnable why would reenlistment be soo high? I dont get it?

Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at October 16, 2007 02:01 PM (gkobM)

39 Once again, sitnam, you build a strawman to attack. I've said precisely nothing about my contacts or stories I've disseminated. I'm comparing like things, which are the experiences of those officers there now, versus those of officers who are not there now, and haven't been for 1-3 years. As is your tendency, you are being deceptive in your comparisons.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 16, 2007 02:09 PM (EPsu8)

40 Just a bunch of Dead enders Thugs and assassins Mission Accomplished Six More months, then we'll see progress The oil will pay for itself Greeted as liberators etc etc etc etc

Posted by: WasNotWas at October 16, 2007 02:22 PM (DCUPs)

41 Limited gains with a limited troop increase. What's the problem with these troops requesting the American people to either fully commit with a draft and a larger increase or get the Hell out? A host of people, military and otherwise, were shouted down before the war when they claimed we would need more troops to complete the job There have been continuous reports that commanders in the field have been clamoring for more and now you put a few more troops in with modest gains and we're on the road to victory? You know that even more troops would bring more gains, the problem is the American people wouldn't be behind it, especially since it would involve a draft. So, you're pushing a milk toast strategy that will only ensure stalemate until the Democrats are in office. By the way, I find it hard to believe that you could find a captain back from Iraq who doesn't keep in close contact with his friends there, let alone 12 of them.

Posted by: gsmoove at October 16, 2007 02:23 PM (aYT6A)

42 It is well understood that Iraqi power generation and average hours of electricity in Iraq are still below "pre-Liberation" levels. Much of this is due to sabotage, that we know. Again attributable to poor planning at the outset, but one hopes a reversible trend given enough stability. It is improving, I grant you. Just late. Dan, thanks for the link to the wonderful brochure. Those are impressive gains against the destruction of the already-crumbling infrastructure when this group's work was begun IN 2004. They are well short of the targets at this point.

Posted by: David I at October 16, 2007 02:25 PM (oykvW)

43 Mission Accomplished It was, the carrier was home after dending the Saddam regime. Six More months, then we'll see progress Happened, three elections established a new democratic government The oil will pay for itself Well, it might one day but I think you are confused since the war was never about oil Greeted as liberators Happened throughout the South and the North (in the vast mojority of Iraq actually). etc etc etc etc Care to try again

Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at October 16, 2007 02:26 PM (gkobM)

44 Three elections, Grrrr? Wow! Then Iraq is now a functioning, cooperative peaceful democracy now, that's lovely. All factions sitting down at the table, enjoying a cup of tea, getting hard work done, right? Right? http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071016/wl_nm/iraq_shiites_tribes_dc The war was never about oil? Bwaahahahahahahaaa!

Posted by: WasNotWas at October 16, 2007 02:32 PM (DCUPs)

45 All factions sitting down at the table, enjoying a cup of tea, getting hard work done, right? Well, yeah. ...KALSU, Iraq – The government of Musayyib hosted a celebration of security and economic growth at the city’s police station Oct. 8. In a move to help reduce sectarian violence in North Babil, leaders from the predominately Shia city of Musayyib came together with sheiks and representatives of the largely Sunni region of Jurf As Sukhr to share their optimism for the growth and development of the entire area. With Sunni extremists influence such from the north and west, and rogue Shia militias from the south, the region surrounding Musayyib and Jurf has been a sectarian fault line for years. With the security celebration in Musayyib, the sectarian tensions are beginning to show real progress. The chairman of the Musayyib Town Council, Thamir Thaban, and Sheik Fadel Yousif, a representative of the newly formed Jurf As Sukhr government, gave speeches praising the drop in violence and pledged to continue their work together to bring a lasting peace to the region. Thaban is a member of the Sadrist political movement, while Fadel was once a leader of the Jaish Al Islami. With these two former enemies coming together, they have created a bond and a possible model for all of Iraq to further reduce the sectarian violence which has plagued the country.... ...The war was never about oil?Bwaahahahahahahaaa!... Ah yes, the impressive intellectualism of the left. "Chomsky said the war was about oil and, since I cant think for myself, it MUST BE TRUE DAMMIT".

Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at October 16, 2007 02:41 PM (gkobM)

46 I didn't mention Chomsky once, Grrrr, you did ,but thanks for assuming I care about his writing, which I don't. One good story does not make a successful country, you should know that, but it's funny to see war supporters flailing like experimental chimps. How about the missing billions of dollars? Missing weapons? Tribal leaders consolidating power? Kurdish rebels egging on Turkey? Oh, but one tiny little town had a good meeting, so I guess the hard work is done. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq Oh no, in Baghdad no less. b-b-b-but the surger told us the surge worked, yea, no more fighting. And the screen name, Grrrr, implies lots of deep seeded anger. Maybe you should have tried harder to get a date in college, then you wouldn't be so bitter now.

Posted by: WasNotWas at October 16, 2007 02:53 PM (DCUPs)

47 Maybe you should have tried harder to get a date in college, then you wouldn't be so bitter now. And if our troops weren't chopping so many caiphatemongers in Iraq,*you* wouldn't be so bitter now. Even-steven, then. A "progressive" ought to be happy. Cordially...

Posted by: Rick at October 16, 2007 02:58 PM (L/ClK)

48 Amazing how resistant some folks are to thinking. Assume two editorials: One written by 12 captains (now back in the civilian world) who were with II Corps @ Kasserine Pass; second written by 12 captains who were with XV Corps @ Falaise Pocket. The subject of the editorials: "State of the War as of Falaise Pocket plus one week." Who's more qualified by experience?

Posted by: BD at October 16, 2007 03:01 PM (ezlAc)

49 ....Oh, but one tiny little town had a good meeting, so I guess the hard work is done.... Love to see the anti-war lefties spinning at 15000 rpm. You, I am sure, know that I only cited one of many, many examples of Iraqi leader sitting down and getting it done. It sucks for you because a stable, peacful, democratic Iraq is good for our country and bad for your political masters, but thats the bed you made, now lie in it.

Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at October 16, 2007 03:25 PM (gkobM)

50 A stable peaceful democratic Iraq.... Bawawwaaaaahahahahahaaaaaaa! I want the drugs you are on, Grrrrr. Oh, please thrill me with story after story of good news in Iraq. Since there is so much you cannot even keep count, please shower us with links here.

Posted by: WasNotWas at October 16, 2007 03:28 PM (DCUPs)

51 ....A stable peaceful democratic Iraq.... Bawawwaaaaahahahahahaaaaaaa!... Oh my, another lefty pascifist who thinks a stable, peaceful, democratic Iraq will not be good for the world, no wonder you people brought us 9/11. Well, I'll leave you with a few links but, since I dont have all day to argue with an E-surgent in his mummys basement, Im afraid you will have to figure out google by yourself if you want more. From the left leaning, anti-war AP. ...In a major reconciliatory gesture, a leader from Iraq's largest Shiite party paid a rare visit Sunday to the Sunni Anbar province, delivering a message of unity to tribal sheiks who have staged a U.S.-backed revolt against al-Qaida militants.... http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gFrAeDnwRmhu0qNxNT2aZdFr01TAD8S9A2L00 ...Iraq Sees Dramatically Low Death Toll... http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gFrAeDnwRmhu0qNxNT2aZdFr01TAD8S9A2L00 And from a lefty British publication ....The tide turns in Basra.... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/06/nrbasra106.xml Bummer isnt it?

Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr at October 16, 2007 03:48 PM (gkobM)

52 Dave - I tend to agree that things aren't all rainbows and unicorns right now in Iraq. But I trust Gen. Patraeus just like our Congress did when they approved his plan. Anything this important (ie stability) takes a little while to accomplish. The first thing needed, and what was fumbled marvelously by our current administration, was security. The surge is slowly providing the security needed to reconstruction efforts to succeed. Should this have been done sooner? In hindsight, yes. Could we have foreseen all the wrinkles that would appear for any operation in the ME? Possibly, but Bush Sr. and Clinton had been pretty busy reducing our forces and degrading our intelligence assets. The ME is a complicated place and for sure there should have been a better plan for the occupation of Iraq as there was for the invasion.

Posted by: Dan Irving at October 16, 2007 04:00 PM (zw8QA)

53 I value the writers' service and their opinions as soldiers who have served in Iraq, but wouldn't this editorial have meant more if the Washington Post had managed to find soldiers to write it who had actually been in in Iraq in the last year? Ummm...........aren't soldiers, particularly officers, supposed to keep their political opinions to themselves when they're in the middle of combat? I mean, wouldn't you be criticizing them for that if they were active duty? Those officers who are serving in Iraq currently have quite a different opinion. Yet, when you find some who agree with your position, that's ok? You might want to decide where you stand on this and then stake out that position, rather than constantly shifting for the sake of political convenience.

Posted by: Arlington Acid at October 16, 2007 04:39 PM (4hcww)

54 Well said, Dan, thanks. Let's all hope for continued improvement over there. Not for our sakes, but for Iraqis' and Middle Eastern residents' sakes alike.

Posted by: David I at October 16, 2007 05:03 PM (oykvW)

55 Getting Iraq To Work The Washington Post By Jim Golby Sunday, October 14, 2007; B01 Outside TIKRIT, Iraq I'm sick of hearing about all the horrible things that happen in Iraq without ever hearing about any of the good ones. That's not because horrible things don't occur here every day; they do. I've witnessed far more death and sadness than I wish anyone ever had to see. And it's not because I believe in some left-wing media conspiracy. If I'm affiliated with a political party at all, I honestly can't remember which one it is. Rather, I'm sick of hearing about all the horrible things that happen in Iraq because I've been deployed here for more than 24 months since this war began, and I think I have a story to tell that's heroic, maybe even noble. It's not my story. In fact, I'm quite average, and I'm certainly not noble. But I've been blessed to serve with some amazing officers, noncommissioned officers and soldiers who have sacrificed another 15 months away from their families -- and, for once, produced something that I don't think looks all that bad, even in this desolate country. Not sure how to link properly in these comment sections but here is the link to the piece: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101201888_pf.html

Posted by: Tara at October 16, 2007 05:06 PM (Dqxeq)

56 Why should we trust "active-duty, in-country accounts" chock full of good news about Iraq? 9/26/04 Washington Post OpEd by General Petraeus: The Iraqi Army: "The institutions that oversee them are being reestablished from the top down. And Iraqi leaders are stepping forward....there has been progress in the effort to enable Iraqis to shoulder more of the load for their own security, something they are keen to do." The Iraqi Police: "By early spring, nine academies in Iraq and one in Jordan will be graduating a total of 5,000 police each month from the eight-week course, which stresses patrolling and investigative skills, substantive and procedural legal knowledge, and proper use of force and weaponry, as well as pride in the profession and adherence to the police code of conduct." Since General Petraeus wrote that oped, the Iraqi Army itself has improved. But we've seen IA "leaders stepping forward" and being fired for it -- if they're competently fighting political allies of the Prime Minister. The Iraqi Police forces... are a disaster; riddled with sectarian death squad supporters and corruption. So what exactly has changed that we should now accept the word of the same people who were telling us that things were going great in September 2005?

Posted by: Svejk at October 16, 2007 05:21 PM (XRlI2)

57 I made a mistake in the closing sentence of my above comment. General Petraeus penned that oped just before the election in 2004. And things in the IA got worse for another year (remember the Pentagon telling McCain that the number of IA battalions capable of acting independently had dropped from 3 to 1 in September 05) before they got better. What has changed that we should now accept the word of the same people who were telling us that things were going great in September 2004 ?

Posted by: Svejk at October 16, 2007 05:28 PM (XRlI2)

58 Hurry! There's still time to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory! The Caliphatemongers will surely murder you last, if you do them this favor. Or, permit you to convert. Whatever, infidel. Cordially...

Posted by: Rick at October 16, 2007 06:19 PM (L/ClK)

59 Essentially, this boils down to whether you believe the people that were there a year or more ago, or the ones that are there now. The defeatocrats want to believe the ones that were there a year ago, because they paint a gloomy picture. Realists, on the other hand, accept Iraq as it is now, and accept the reports of those who are currently in-country or have recently (as in less than a month ago) left. Sort of like asking people who left France prior to the German invasion how things were going in France, as opposed to those who were there after the invasion, ya know.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 16, 2007 08:45 PM (ufhAS)

60 Arlington Acid - Jay K. mentioned an op-ed published this summer in the NY Times by actively serving officers and enlisted personnel that advocated pulling out of Iraq because it was a lost cause. Maybe you missed it. At the same time, the NY Times refused to publish an op-ed by other active duty officers with an opposite view. That opposite view seems harder to get a hearing in the MSM and they even bury good news on the inside pages of the news section because they claim there is not room on the front page due to more important stories, like Pat Leahy's 25th call for the resignation of Alberto Gonzales. Where do you get your news about events in Iraq out of curiousity?

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 16, 2007 08:50 PM (0pZel)

61 WasNot Was - Do you have specific reconstruction goals in mind that you are targeting or are you a progressive dead ender?

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 16, 2007 08:52 PM (0pZel)

62 Just wondering, how did you manage to refute the opinions of the 7 active duty soldiers who wrote an op-ed who published an anti-war op-ed in the NY Times in September? http://www.salon.com/news/primary_sources/2007/09/12/times_soldiers/ A follow-up question. Since no doubt you do have an excuse for why the opinions of those 7 should not be heeded, can you imagine any anti-war opinion written by any member of the US military, where you would find the opinion credible and not resort to attacking the messenger?

Posted by: Paul at October 16, 2007 09:54 PM (HCqq7)

63 C-C-G said: "Realists, on the other hand, accept Iraq as it is now, and accept the reports of those who are currently in-country or have recently (as in less than a month ago) left." So, can you please read this and come back and tell us whether or not you still consider yourself a realist? Or perhaps you'd rather change your definition. One or the other. http://www.salon.com/news/primary_sources/2007/09/12/times_soldiers/

Posted by: Paul at October 16, 2007 09:56 PM (HCqq7)

64 Paul, given the recent Scott Thomas Beauchamp episode, not to mention Jesse MacBeth, I'd want to see verification of these soldiers' bona fides and independent confirmation (i.e. not in an op-ed piece) of the incidents they report. As Reagan once said, trust, but verify.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 16, 2007 10:06 PM (ufhAS)

65 C-C-G said: "Paul, given the recent Scott Thomas Beauchamp episode, not to mention Jesse MacBeth, I'd want to see verification of these soldiers' bona fides and independent confirmation (i.e. not in an op-ed piece) of the incidents they report." I see. So, because you don't like their message, it's best to simply assume that they're lying (and actually, now 2 of them are dead for fighting your war). Case closed. How 'bout those Red Sox? But I'm wondering, C-C-G, based on what you said about realists listening to soldiers in the field, would you like to modify that statement? Perhaps you meant to say this: "Realists, on the other hand, accept Iraq as it is now, at least so long as someone is saying that it is now GREAT, and accept the reports of those who are currently in-country or have recently (as in less than a month ago) left, so long as those people are pro-war." I knew there must be a pat answer to my question. You war supporting dead-enders are good at making sure your echo chamber is, well, echoey.

Posted by: Paul at October 16, 2007 10:10 PM (HCqq7)

66 No, Paul, I would also request verification from sites that say that things are going well, such as the Washington Post. Fortunately, the WaPo article includes its own verification, by giving the sources for the numbers it provides. Where are the independent sources for the incidents that your seven soldiers report, Paul?

Posted by: C-C-G at October 16, 2007 10:13 PM (ufhAS)

67 Paul - From your comments I assume you are not a regular reader of this blog. I don't recall CY attempting to refute the anti-war op-ed to which you refer as everyone is welcome to their opinions. I thought the op-ed was well before September and a good explanation of the point of view expressed therein was that the surge had not yet affected the areas in which the writers were serving at the time. Seemed plausible to me given the success the surge had encountered where it was implemented. Reread it and see what you think. I am curious why the left continues to refer to the right as dead enders when it's ther left has determined that Iraq is a dead end. You are the dead enders in my humble opinion with your constant pessimism and paranoia about what Bush has done to the country. It's a very apt description.

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 16, 2007 10:20 PM (0pZel)

68 C-C-G said: "Where are the independent sources for the incidents that your seven soldiers report, Paul?" I haven't seen anyone seriously contest the facts of those incidents. I've read about that op-ed and the incidents they report on several right-wing blogs, but not one has contested the substance of their story. If you know some reason why these 7 aren't to be believed (simply the fact that they're critical of the war doesn't count), let's see it.

Posted by: Paul at October 16, 2007 10:21 PM (HCqq7)

69 Paul, Daley just pointed out a very good reason. Please consider it.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 16, 2007 10:23 PM (ufhAS)

70 daleyrocks said: "I thought the op-ed was well before September and a good explanation of the point of view expressed therein was that the surge had not yet affected the areas in which the writers were serving at the time." If that excuse works for you, then enjoy. Of course, there is a big picture beyond military success, that determines the overall success or failure of the mission. But I guess if you narrow your focus down enough, and delude yourself, a vision of success does emerge. dailyrocks said: "am curious why the left continues to refer to the right as dead enders when it's ther left has determined that Iraq is a dead end." Actually, it's a pun on what Cheney said, when describing the Iraqi insurgency as "dead-enders". What a realistic fellow he is! Anyhow, dead-enders have come to mean someone who is fighting a lost cause, and whose worldview has been soundly refuted. In the US, we also call them republicans. dailyrocks said: "You are the dead enders in my humble opinion with your constant pessimism and paranoia about what Bush has done to the country." Ah, I remember a time when Republicans prided themselves on able to take a realistic look at the world, and do what was necessary. Now it's the rose colored glasses. Honestly, if you look at Iraq and think "well, that sure is going well! We're turning a corner! We're on the verge of victory!" then that shows that you have a lot in common with Dick Cheney, but little in common with the other 6 billion of us.

Posted by: Paul at October 16, 2007 10:28 PM (HCqq7)

71 The creativity you guys show in coming up with excuse after excuse about how anti-war soldiers are not credible, reminds me of that old saying about how excuses are like a$$hole$: everybody's got one. Remember back when Republicans used to like to tell that joke? You don't hear it so much anymore. This brings me back to my earlier question: can you imagine any anti-war opinion written by any member of the US military, where you would find the opinion credible and not resort to attacking the messenger?

Posted by: Paul at October 16, 2007 10:30 PM (HCqq7)

72 Just wondering, how did you manage to refute the opinions of the 7 active duty soldiers who wrote an op-ed who published an anti-war op-ed in the NY Times in September? First Paul, the editorial in question wasn't published in September, it was originally published in the NY Times on August 19. Learn to properly cite the primary source. I assure you that it is probably within your capabilities. As for that editorial, I thought it was very well written, and no doubt accurately reflected the experiences of these soldiers, all serving with the highly-respected 82nd Airborne in Baghdad. What exactly is there to refute? This is what they experienced, and I believe them to be honorable, truthful men. Perhaps you, like many, would like to forget that comments even more dire were made about al Anbar province just a year prior, and the situational sea-change that has occurred since in no way invalidates the experience of those who served there at the time. Those soldiers were not attacked, nor were the Captains that published their OpEd today. If you choose to believe otherwise, that is your psychological issue, and not a concern or mine.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 16, 2007 10:33 PM (HcgFD)

73 Paul, if you do not think that the picture can change as military operations enter an area, then it's no wonder that you see only doom and gloom. However, if one allows that a change in strategy or tactics can make a major change in the battlefield, and in a remarkably short time, then perhaps you are intelligent enough to hold a reasonable debate. Which is it?

Posted by: C-C-G at October 16, 2007 10:33 PM (ufhAS)

74 Just wondering, how did you manage to refute the opinions of the 7 active duty soldiers who wrote an op-ed who published an anti-war op-ed in the NY Times in September? Why would I refute what they wrote? Why should I? I could find 7 people in a city of 150K that thought the city in question was going to hell in a handbasket. Odds are that they wouldn't be lying either. I could have found 7 soldiers in places such as the Hurtgen Forest in World War II who would have thought what they were doing was hopeless or futile. That has little to nothing to do with the overall mission or goal.

Posted by: Mark A. Flacy at October 16, 2007 10:34 PM (Ef+b7)

75 What exactly is there to refute? This is what they experienced, and I believe them to be honorable, truthful men. So you're okay with the clusterf**k they describe? That our current policies are often senseless? The notion that the Iraqis want us out and will eventually force our withdrawal? You accept all that and continue to support the war? How? Perhaps you, like many, would like to forget that comments even more dire were made about al Anbar province just a year prior, and the situational sea-change that has occurred since in no way invalidates the experience of those who served there at the time. I'm not sure what al Anbar has to do with US military strategy. The turnaround in al Anbar was already beginning well before "the surge" began, and was caused by Iraqi initiative, not as a result of the glorious surge. And in fact, there's reason to believe that al Anbar isn't as lovely as we've been told. Imagine that.

Posted by: Paul at October 16, 2007 10:47 PM (HCqq7)

76 By the way, Paul, since you're so gung-ho on refuting stories, can you refute this Washington Post article's facts? In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006, according to the Web site icasualties.org. The Iraqi Health Ministry and the Associated Press reported similar results. U.S. soldiers killed in action numbered 43 -- down 43 percent from August and 64 percent from May, which had the highest monthly figure so far this year. The American combat death total was the lowest since July 2006 and was one of the five lowest monthly counts since the insurgency in Iraq took off in April 2004. Or are you one who automatically rejects good news from Iraq?

Posted by: C-C-G at October 16, 2007 10:48 PM (ufhAS)

77 However, if one allows that a change in strategy or tactics can make a major change in the battlefield, and in a remarkably short time, then perhaps you are intelligent enough to hold a reasonable debate. Which is it? Actually, I'll take Answer C as the correct one: There is no military solution to Iraq, as our military experts agree, and that therefore, all this focus on military gains completely misses the point. If you can accept that fact, being the opinion of pretty much everyone involved in the mission, then you might be intelligent enough for debate. Let me know.

Posted by: Paul at October 16, 2007 10:49 PM (HCqq7)

78 Paul, please don't conflate the success of Iraqi democracy with knocking down the terrorists. One can assist the other, but they are not the same thing. The Coalition forces are involved in combating the terrorists, including--but by no means limited to--Al Qaeda. That is the sum total of their mission, unless you support the idea of our military taking over the government of Iraq. I have seen no military expert with current experience in theatre (i.e. people who have been there during the last month) who says that there is no solution to combating the terrorists in Iraq. If I have missed such, please point them out to me, with links.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 16, 2007 10:56 PM (ufhAS)

79 Or are you one who automatically rejects good news from Iraq? Okay, so September's deaths were down from August. And August's deaths? Up from July. Your point being? This month we've Turned The Corner? When I hear good news from Iraq, you know, a one-off story about something that bucked the general trend and actually went well, I think about all the past pieces of good news that were meant to signify some turning of some proverbial corner. Remember Zarqawi? We killed him and the resistance was expected to dry up completely. Or who can forget those purple fingers? And then there was Bush and the plastic turkey (and the contest on who could tell the difference). Ah, good times, all. However, the situation has continued to be increasingly dire. Patraeus came on and read the administration-written report that admitted that the surge had failed in its objective. Sure, I could just join you at the Kool Aid trough and discard those objectives in light of newer, easier ones. (Our enormous, top-funded military can beat the crap out of a handful of guys with homemade weapons. Glory be!!) What I'm left to conclude is that the mission was ill-conceived from the start, as has been shown in glaring detail from all the information that has emerged about that decision process, and, as happened with the British, is doomed to -- if not abysmal failure -- then certainly an outcome that couldn't begin to account for the costs. Still, amidst a disaster, good things do occur. That's reality. But excuse me if I don't book my Club Med Baghdad vacation just yet. You go right ahead, though.

Posted by: Paul at October 16, 2007 10:58 PM (HCqq7)

80 Paul, please don't conflate the success of Iraqi democracy with knocking down the terrorists. One can assist the other, but they are not the same thing. I'm not conflating that at all. You're the one that's doing that. I know that success of the Iraqi democracy represents the goal, and that knocking down "the terrorists" (who just 4 short years ago we used to call "those poor Iraqis") is an interesting side attraction that has little to do with that goal.

Posted by: Paul at October 16, 2007 11:00 PM (HCqq7)

81 You obviously did not read the entire article, or even the entire quote that I posted, Paul. Let me quote the parts you ignored again, with emphasis: The American combat death total was the lowest since July 2006 and was one of the five lowest monthly counts since the insurgency in Iraq took off in April 2004. Of course, you will just ignore them again, or dismiss them with a wave of your hand, thus proving that you cannot accept any good news from Iraq.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 16, 2007 11:02 PM (ufhAS)

82 I know that success of the Iraqi democracy represents the goal, So please tell me how the armed forces can ever achieve that goal? Coup, perhaps?

Posted by: C-C-G at October 16, 2007 11:03 PM (ufhAS)

83 So you're okay with the clusterf**k they describe? That our current policies are often senseless? The notion that the Iraqis want us out and will eventually force our withdrawal? You accept all that and continue to support the war? How? I'm of course not "okay" with the situation in Iraq. Brave servicemen, policemen, and civilians, American, Iraqi, British, Polish, etc, are being wounded and killed by criminals, terrorists, insurgents, and others that would use violence as a weapon to exert their will. That is why I support the current counterinsurgency operations, as of the options available to us today, here in 2007, the present strategy, while imperfect, are nearly universally accepted as being the best option we have available of minimizing the ability of criminals, insurgents, and terrorists to succeed. The Iraqi people, overwhelmingly, want us out of Iraq... just not now. You however, would propose what solution? How would your solution help establish domestic security for Iraqi civilians, build infrastructure , or establish a balance of power in the region? If you have a better idea than is currently being used that would save lives and help Iraq's future, we're all ears.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 16, 2007 11:06 PM (HcgFD)

84 Active Duty Officers are not given the privilege to voice dissent. They MUST wait till they are no longer on Active Duty to do so.

Posted by: CDB at October 16, 2007 11:27 PM (Zg2Hr)

85 Paul says: "Just wondering, how did you manage to refute the opinions of the 7 active duty soldiers who wrote an op-ed who published an anti-war op-ed in the NY Times in September?" Confederate Yankee wisely sticks to attacking Paul for being off by one month: "First Paul, the editorial in question wasn't published in September, it was originally published in the NY Times on August 19. Learn to properly cite the primary source. I assure you that it is probably within your capabilities. As for that editorial, I thought it was very well written, and no doubt accurately reflected the experiences of these soldiers, all serving with the highly-respected 82nd Airborne in Baghdad. What exactly is there to refute?" Well, CY, CCG thinks there's something to refute. He, like Limbaugh, wants to know that the soldiers aren't phony: " I'd want to see verification of these soldiers' bona fides and independent confirmation (i.e. not in an op-ed piece) of the incidents they report." Mark Flacy piles on: "Why would I refute what they wrote? Why should I? I could find 7 people in a city of 150K that thought the city in question was going to hell in a handbasket. Odds are that they wouldn't be lying either." Props to CY for being smart enuf to realize there's no refuting the ground truth that the 7 82nd NCOs wrote. Thanks to CCG for wanting the NCOs' "bone fides" and giving me a good yuk. Thanks to Mark Flacy for not being afraid to tell us that the experiences of the 7 NCOs are in no way representative of other soldiers in Iraq. Pretty implausible, but maybe he's in a position to know. Just get back from touring all the provinces in Iraq, Mark? CY mentions that Iraqi civilian deaths have fallen dramatically from August to September. That's true. And hopeful. Might want to wait a month before you call it a trend, tho. Of course, that might have something to do with the fact that ethnic cleansing in Baghdad has continued unabated during the surge. So, in many Baghdad neighborhoods, there's nobody left to kill. They're all dead or fled.

Posted by: Svejk at October 16, 2007 11:44 PM (GgQ4Y)

86 Svejk, try using up to date numbers. From the article you linked (with emphasis): The number of Iraqi civilians killed in July was slightly higher than in February, when the surge began. And from the Washington Post (again with emphasis>: In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006, according to the Web site icasualties.org. In short, the article you are quoting is using data that is already three months old as of the time of its printing (10 September), and four months old now. That one doesn't even get a "nice try." It's a pathetic attempt at an absurd spin.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 16, 2007 11:50 PM (ufhAS)

87 The Iraqi people, overwhelmingly, want us out of Iraq... just not now. ... If you have a better idea than is currently being used that would save lives and help Iraq's future, we're all ears. The Iraqi people want us out... so let's give them what they want. Actions speak louder than words. There's a major disconnect between our actions (building multi-billion $ superbases at Balad, Tallil, al-Asad and al-Qayyarah) and our words (saying we'll leave whenever the Iraqi govt tells us to). And we've come straight out and said we we intend to stay as long as we've stayed in S. Korea, as well. the Iraqis have every reason to believe us when we say that. Instead, we need to state categorically that we intend to leave unless the process of political reconciliation makes real progress. Begin the process of turning those bases over to the Iraqi govt. Until Maliki and his allies actually believe we'll leave if they don't cooperate, we have no lever to get them to engage in serious political compromise with the Sunnis.

Posted by: Svejk at October 17, 2007 12:07 AM (GgQ4Y)

88 Pretty implausible, but maybe he's in a position to know. Just get back from touring all the provinces in Iraq, Mark? Your data is first-hand, then? Tell 'ya what, spanky. I'm a 1980 USMA grad. I've got classmates that are in theater, have been in theater, and will probably be going back into the AO. So if it's a toss-up between believing them and what they tell me or the blathering cr*p that you write, you lose.

Posted by: Mark A. Flacy at October 17, 2007 12:20 AM (Ef+b7)

89 CCG, you complain that the article I linked to is using numbers from July, even tho it was written in September. You complain that since it doesn't have the latest numbers of Iraqi deaths from August and September, it's irrelevant. The point of the article that I was concerned with, as my link noted, was that ethnic cleansing has "continued unabated" in Baghdad during the surge and that many neighborhoods are no longer ethnically mixed because all the ethnic minorities are dead or fled. So naturally enough, fewer deaths were recorded in those neighborhoods in August and September. Nice attempt to change the subject.

Posted by: Svejk at October 17, 2007 12:24 AM (GgQ4Y)

90 "Tell ya what Spanky, I'm a 1980 USMA grad." Yeah, yeah, whatever. I'm a 1988 Ft Benning School for Boys grad. I've got classmates who are in theatre or on their way back to it, too. Whatever. I'm not the guy who was dumb enough to claim to need to see the "bone fides" of 7 82nd ABN infantry NCOs.

Posted by: Svejk at October 17, 2007 12:29 AM (GgQ4Y)

91 Svejk - When do those motorized goal posts of yours run out of gas?

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 17, 2007 01:59 AM (0pZel)

92 Paul - It doesn't seem like you came over here to engage anyone and instead just wanted to piss on the rug. You act like you are from the Harry Reid school - the war is lost and I don't care what Petraeus says, if he says anything positive I won't believe him. Your mind is made up. In line with your style today - I take it you agree with John Kerry's comments that soldier's are dumb. I take it you agree with Dick Durbin's comments that our soldiers are like concentration camp guards. I take it you agree with John Kerry that our soldiers are terrorizing women and children in the middle of the night. I take it like the rest of the democrats, apart from pulling our troops out of Iraq, you have no strategy for dealing with Iran or Iraq after we pull our troops out. I take it like the rest of the democrats you do not believe pulling out of Iraq will have an adverse impact on people's belief in the credibility of America's international commitments going forward. I take it like some of the democrats you feel that the possibility of genocude in Iraq, if it should come to pass, id the Iraqi's own damn problem. I take it you would not be in favor of American intervention in civil war situations such as Darfur or the Balkans in the future. Just a few observations. No need to answer.

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 17, 2007 02:10 AM (0pZel)

93 Svejk, it could also be that the surge is having an effect in Baghdad and thus that the "ethnic cleansing" that was apparent in July is no longer a factor in September. But you didn't even consider that, because you are focused solely on Iraq being a failure, so everything is viewed through that lens. Thank you, however, for making your "defeat at any costs" bias very obvious.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 17, 2007 09:59 AM (ufhAS)

94 Paul - I take it you stand by Obama's plan to bomb our allies and negotiate with our enemies. I take it you agree with Jack Murtha that American soldiers are murdering Iraqi women and children in cold blood on a regular basis. I take it you agree with the Democratic leadership that Al Qaeda is not present in Iraq.

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 17, 2007 11:25 AM (0pZel)

95 West Point grads are dropping out of the Army at historically high levels NEVER seen before in wartime. The war is very unpopular yet still a small minority hold are soldiers hostage in Iraq. Which American will be trhe last to say they must remain there.

Posted by: John Ryan at October 17, 2007 11:29 AM (TcoRJ)

96 West Point grads are dropping out of the Army at historically high levels NEVER seen before in wartime. The war is very unpopular yet still a small minority hold are soldiers hostage in Iraq. Which American will be trhe last to say they must remain there. Ah, the Townhouse Important Action Alert has been issued. Boring, as always. Leftards lie, jihadis die. Ever thus. Cordially...

Posted by: Rick at October 17, 2007 11:54 AM (L/ClK)

97 If, as john ryan claims, a minority are holding our troops hostage in Iraq then how do you explain record high reenlistment of troops in Iraq. Fro Michael Yons latest post. "Each year, units are given a reenlistment mission inorder to retain good soldiers in the Army. For example, the Squadron had a mission to reenlist two soldiers who are still on their initial enlistment during this fiscal year. Well, we reenlisted forty-two." The whole "troops hostage in Iraq" theory smacks of John Francois Kerrys, "if you are stupid you wind up a soldier stuck in Iraq" comment, and we all know how stupid the troops in Iraq made Kerry look after that little gaffe.

Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at October 17, 2007 12:00 PM (gkobM)

98 West Point grads are dropping out of the Army at historically high levels NEVER seen before in wartime. Stats, please.

Posted by: Pablo at October 17, 2007 12:34 PM (yTndK)

99 West Point grads are dropping out of the Army at historically high levels NEVER seen before in wartime. Sigh. Counting which wars? The ones with a "stop loss" in place or those without?

Posted by: Mark A. Flacy at October 17, 2007 04:49 PM (Ef+b7)

100 Svejk, it could also be that the surge is having an effect in Baghdad and thus that the "ethnic cleansing" that was apparent in July is no longer a factor in September. But you didn't even consider that, because you are focused solely on Iraq being a failure, so everything is viewed through that lens. Thank you, however, for making your "defeat at any costs" bias very obvious. CCG... are you saying that the ethnic cleansing that was taking place in July was no longer happening in September? Ab-so-effing-lutely. You hit the nail on the head there. Ethnic cleansing is no longer taking place in many neighborhoods because all the religious minorities are dead or fled. The White House agrees with you: In Baghdad, the White House official said, the group's "area of operations has been reduced quite a bit for a variety of reasons, some good and some bad." Three years of sectarian fighting have eliminated many mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods. Those areas had been the most fertile and accessible places for AQI, which is composed of extremist Sunnis, to attack Shiite civilians, security forces and government officials. But the death of mixed neighborhoods also has made another Bush administration priority -- promoting political reconciliation -- more difficult. I'm not focused on Iraq being a failure. I'm focused on it being a FIASCO that's straining our ground forces and their families, bleeding us dry of troops needed elsewhere (remember how Afghanistan used to be a 'mission accompished') and giving AQ's fundamentalist extremists a recruiting tool that just keeps giving them recruits and money. I'm tired of 5 years of neo-conservative idiocy regarding Iraq. Cheney, the AEI, Kagan, etc... keeping opening cans of STUPID and trying to tell us it's WISDOM.

Posted by: Svejk at October 17, 2007 05:28 PM (GgQ4Y)

101 More disgruntled troops, fed up with the war, ready to frag, eager to get out (or not). ....BAGHDAD — One hundred forty-one Paratroopers decided to stay Army in a mass re-enlistment ceremony held on Forward Operating Base Kalsu, Oct. 14. The Paratroopers from 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division made the decision to continue their service in the Army after being deployed for over a year. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commanding general of Multi-National Division–Center, made a special trip to FOB Kalsu to lead the oath of enlistment for these paratroopers. “To re-enlist this many Paratroopers after being deployed for a year is truly amazing,” said Master Sgt. Douglas Goodwin, senior career counselor for the 4th BCT (Abn.), 25th Inf. Div. “It says a lot about the leadership and the patriotism of these Paratroopers.” After the ceremony, Lynch thanked each Paratrooper individually and posed for pictures. To this date, the Spartan Brigade has re-enlisted nearly 1,300 Soldiers; approximately 70 percent of them have decided to stay with the brigade for another tour. “Soldiers are special people and to see these Paratroopers making a commitment to continue serving their country when the operational tempo is so high proves they trust in their leadership,” Goodwin said. “It also shows how much they believe in what they are doing and stand proud as United States Paratroopers ready to defend our country against the ever-growing threat of terrorism.” (Story by Sgt. Marcus Butler, 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division) In other developments throughout Iraq: • An Air Force bomb drop Oct. 15 destroyed a bridge northeast of Baghdad to disrupt weapons smugglers and insurgent movement. • Airborne Paratroopers from Troop B, 1st Squadron, 40th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division detained 12 suspected insurgents during an air mobility raid east of Adwaniya Oct. 14. ... Yikes, this is bad news for the pascifist losers on the left.

Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at October 17, 2007 06:13 PM (gkobM)

102 Svejk, I must commend you on your selective quoting. I am sure that The New Republic has a spot for you in their staff... seems they've got some openings these days. The paragraph IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING the one you quoted demolishes your argument: The expanded presence of U.S. troops in combat outposts in many parts of Baghdad has also put pressure on AQI, but a major test of gains against the organization will come when the U.S. military begins to turn security in those areas over to Iraqi forces next year. So, as I said, the surge was a part of why whatever ethnic cleansing was happening has stopped. But, as I pointed out, you simply cannot admit any success in Iraq, so you selectively quote and spin, spin, spin. If we could hook you up to a generator we could power Las Vegas with all its lights.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 17, 2007 07:55 PM (ufhAS)

103 CCG, I suspect that you've been nodding your head at everything Cheney and Rumsfeld and all the rest of the neo-con dreamers have been saying for the last 5 years. Tell me, did you step up on this forum or some other and call bullpucky on Cheney when he said "The insurgency is in its last throes"? What about when Rumsfeld and the President were saying, "We're giving everything they ask for to the commanders in the field -- and they say they don't need any more troops"? What about June of 2006 when the Pentagon was saying that things were going so well that we'd be able to start pulling out tens of thousands of troops by Xmas? What about September 2004 when General Petraeus wrote an oped in the Wash Post saying that Iraqi leaders were "stepping forward... displaying courage and resilience", that the Iraqi Police forces were expanding rapidly and "in the fight"? I doubt it. Face it, you've been spun dizzy by these guys for 5 years and you've gotten so you like the feeling. And while they've been spinning you about Iraq, you didn't notice that victory was slipping away in Afghanistan or that Al Qaeda had established a safe haven in Pakistan or that Al Qaeda was using our presence in Iraq to pump up their recruiting and financing. The Iraqi Army has improved. The security in situation in parts of Baghdad has calmed... but that's not what matters, as General Petraeus made very clear back in January. For the surge to succeed, the Iraqis need to reach a political settlement. And they haven't made any effort to. I'll be sure to drop back in in 6 months when we start withdrawing the "surge" and no political progress has been made. Hope you're still around. I enjoy your endless excuses for the neo-conservative dreamer brigade.

Posted by: Svejk at October 18, 2007 12:10 AM (GgQ4Y)

104 Svejk - The goalposts are moving again tonight. What are our troop levels in Afghanistan relative to the original invasion? Do you want us to follow the Russian model there? Do you want us to follow Obama's suggestion and bomb or invade Pakistan without permission to pursue Osama? Political reconciliation efforts have been going on steadily in Iraq for a while. A number of them were noted on this thread yesterday. Try reading, it's fundamental. Once made, quotes must always be cast in stone. So why would the Democrats who voted for the war in Iraq now be lobbying for withdrawal. If you want to pull old quotes to use as cheap ammo against people I could do that all day. I don't think it's useful. We're looking at today's situation and going forward, while you remain stuck on stupid. I do love the argument that by killing terrorists and lessening their numbers we are making them stronger. It makes great intuitive sense, to a lefty I guess.

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 18, 2007 12:50 AM (0pZel)

105 Svejk, I asked before, and I ask again... what, specifically, can the Coalition forces do to assist in the political issues? You ignored that question before, probably because you know that the answer will demolish your larger argument. That's why I won't let it go. By the way, did you know that the Iraqi Parliament has passed more substantive laws than the Democrat-led US Congress in the same time period? Interesting to note, isn't it, that the same people that are harping on the so-called "failure" of the Iraqi government can't even get a budget passed when they are in charge.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 18, 2007 08:55 AM (ufhAS)

106 I do love the argument that by killing terrorists and lessening their numbers we are making them stronger. It makes great intuitive sense, to a lefty I guess. In LeftyWorld, people flock to join a losing army in a war. In LeftyWorld, people also fill the stadiums of sports teams with losing records, like the Tampa Bay Devil Rays (96 losses in the 2007 season). Of course, LeftyWorld has no connection to the real world, which is why lefties make such absurd statements. Their connection to reality is very tenuous at best.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 18, 2007 09:13 AM (ufhAS)

107 CCG, you asked me what the Coalition Forces can do. First, I don't give a rip about the "Coalition". I have no idea what the Polish, Albanian, Icelandic... oops, my bad, Iceland just pulled out... and UK... oops, my bad again, the UK is hunkered down on their Basra airbase, waiting to pull out. In Afghanistan, the "Coalition" counts. In Iraq, it's just spin. What the United States can do, as I said before, is reestablish ourselves as a fair judge -- win back the rep for fairness we had back when Clinton intervened in Bosnia. That means we need to publicly repudiate the neo-conservative dreamers who have spun people like you silly for the last 5 years. Kagan, the American Enterprise Institute, Bill Kristol, all the other draft-avoiding chestbeaters who advised invading Iraq with no plan for the occupation except to turn the mess over to Ahmed Chalabi need to be told not bother calling any more. Vice President Cheney needs to resign "for health reasons". Then we'd have some credibility back. Then we need to lay down the law to the Shiite government. As I put it earlier, "we've said, we intend to stay as long as we've stayed in S. Korea... we need to state categorically that we intend to leave unless the process of political reconciliation makes real progress. Begin the process of turning those bases over to the Iraqi govt. Until Maliki and his allies actually believe we'll leave if they don't cooperate, we have no lever to get them to engage in serious political compromise with the Sunnis." General Petraeus says there's no military solution to the mess in Mess-o-potamia. There's only a political one. Petraeus' efforts have tamped down violence in Baghdad -- but they didn't stop the ongoing ethnic cleansing and they haven't budged the Maliki govt or the Shiite militias or the Sunnis to come one jot closer to talking. And while the surge is going nowhere, Afghanistan has slid further into chaos (remember Afghanistan, the total success of 2002?), AQ has expanded its recruiting and fundraising and our other interests worldwide have suffered.

Posted by: Svejk at October 18, 2007 11:51 AM (GgQ4Y)

108 ...In Afghanistan, the "Coalition" counts. In Iraq, it's just spin.... Really? Cause the Afghans are a little bit disapointed with the "coalition". ...“The United States took the lead on creating the Afghan national army, which has been a success. The Italians took the justice system, [but] they have not dedicated any resources to it, so still that is a problem. A lot of the time, people are sent to the courts and then they are released, perhaps through corruption,” he said. “On the police reform, the Germans were supposed to be leading; they have not dedicated much effort and resources,” said Gen. Wardak. “And in the [disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former Afghan forces] the Japanese did a 50-50 job.”... Thats the Afghan defense minister talking. http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071018/FOREIGN/110180046/-1/RSS_WORLD BTW, way to disrepect the coalition of the willing in Iraq. No wonder the world hates US liberals.

Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at October 18, 2007 04:25 PM (gkobM)

109 "way to disrepect the coalition of the willing in Iraq. No wonder the world hates US liberals." I'm glad to hear you're concerned about the opinion of the rest of the world. The United States' loss of credibility, respect and ability to bring countries to the bargaining worldwide has everything to do with this administration's "they'll greet us with flowers and parades" incompetence and nothing to do with the people like General Tony Zinni, General John Batiste and General Colin Powell's stating that the 'coalition of the willing' is a sham and that the occupation of Iraq has been a distraction from the war against AQ.

Posted by: Svejk at October 18, 2007 05:20 PM (/nAjC)

110 Svejk: Enough on VP Cheney already. Please don't swallow the MSM's version of his life. Do you, personally, know the man? I do. He is a good man. His biggest downfall is he is a politician. I've known him since I was 14 (39 now) when I started seeking an appointment to the USAF academy...never got it unfortunately For the record: I am a registered Independent living in Wyoming. Yes, a state that only has one tiny little blue spot in it we like to call "The People's Republic of Jackson Hole". I am conservative (with some admitted waffles) both socially and fiscally. I had HUGE problems with the Iraq after-war planning. The war plan, itself, was masterful, period. Most of the issues confronting us today in Iraq stem from giving too much 'freedom' to the Iraqis too soon. If you wish, I will expound upon that statement, but I will wait until you ask. I will not rehash it now since it is water that has long made it to the ocean. The strategy that is in play today in Iraq seems to be working on the military end. As has been said in essence (not quoting because I refuse to re-read 100+ posts to find them) is the surge HAS cut violence. That was the point to the surge. Lower violence, more security, THEN movement on the political end. Give the surge the time it needs to work. If there is not strong positive movement on the political side within six months, then I MIGHT AGREE with your argument. Make note - "Strong movement" does not mean peace breaks out all over the country. It means the political side has moved significantly forward in purpose and deed. There will be plenty to do for quite a few years more on the political end. One cannot build a democratic government within 5 years. A 10 year time-span is much more reasonable. Check your history of post WWII Japan and Germany or even US history starting with 1776. Seems to me, our constitution wasn't even adopted until 1787.

Posted by: Mark at October 18, 2007 06:06 PM (4od5C)

111 Svejk, specifics, man, specifics... what can Coalition armed forces do in Iraq to help the political process along? You skated allllllll around that, but you still haven't given specifics, just a vague lefty notion about getting back our credibility. So, say you're the senior adviser to General Petraeus. What specific goals do you advise him to pursue, that he can accomplish with the military might at his command?

Posted by: C-C-G at October 18, 2007 07:18 PM (ufhAS)

112 By the way, Svejk, I will bite at one of your red herrings, just to prove that you'll grasp at that and ignore my response above. You talk about draft avoiders... when did President Clinton serve, Svejk? Hmmm? Inquiring minds want to know, Svejk.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 18, 2007 07:22 PM (ufhAS)

113 Svejk's posts are getting even less coherent that when they started. He ignores information that he doesn't want to hear - the dialogue going on about Sunni/Shia reconciliation posted by others on this thread. There's quite a lot of it. He wants U.S. credibility back - I wasn't aware we lost it. BJ Bill certainly didn't have any. Bombing the heck out of the Balkins without Congressional approval or compelling national interest wasn't credible in my book. The Dems don't have any plan on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or terrorism, so where is there credibility on that side of the aisle? They have proved they can't even run Congress this year, don't understand separation of powers and continue to piss off critical allies even though foreign policy is not a Congressional role. You got nothing but rhetoric Svejk. Even the leading Dem presidential candidates admit we need to stay in Iraq.

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 18, 2007 11:25 PM (0pZel)

114 CCG man, you keep talking tactics when it's the strategy that's the problem. General Petraeus doesn't need my advice regarding tactics. His lords and masters need to change course and do some strat-e-gery-izing. Until Maliki and his Shiite militia backers believe that we mean what we say, we're their little girls. We've been telling them that they need to pass an oil law and that they need to reach out to the Sunnis and that they need to place Sunnis in significant command postings in the security forces... and they smile and say yes... and then screw us every time. For the third time, let me repeat that General Petraeus is RIGHT -- there's no military solution to the Iraq civil war. A political solution is necessary and we're not making any headway towards it. RE: draft avoidance. If Clinton dodged the draft and advocated and misplanned a fiasco of an unnecessary war that's distracted us from accomplishing our real goals and stretched our military to the breaking point (e.g. AQ has established safe havens in Pakistan, Afghanistan has gone from total victory to the brink of defeat) then I'll gladly join you in denouncing him. The feckless failures who fit that description are Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Kristol, Kagan and a host of armchair generals at the American Enterprise Institute and various media outlets. Clinton contained Saddam for a few billion a year and made Bosnia and Kosovo work. He gets a pass.

Posted by: Svejk at October 18, 2007 11:38 PM (GgQ4Y)

115 Mark, you ask if I know Vice President Cheney? I know the vice president played a huge role in deciding to invade Iraq and choosing Ahmed Chalabi as the man to run Iraq. I know Cheney told America that invading Iraq was necessary because Iraq had nuclear weapons. I know he told us that we would be "greeted with parades". He spent most of 2004 and 2005 saying that "The insurgency is in its last throes." I know Vice President Cheney applied for and got five deferments during the Vietnam war and when asked why he didn't enlist, said, "I had other priorities." I know that his fifth and final deferment came because the then-childless Cheney's had a child precisely nine months and two days after the Selective Service publicly revoked its policy of not drafting childless husbands. I know way more than I want to about the guy. He needs to resign.

Posted by: Svejk at October 18, 2007 11:54 PM (GgQ4Y)

116 Svejk - Chalabi didn't run Iraq, so that plan didn't work out so well did it? "I know Cheney told America that invading Iraq was necessary because Iraq had nuclear weapons." Do you mean was developing them or actually had them? If he said they had them, he probably corrected himself later and you missed it. Media Matters would have ignored the correction. Hillary Clinton hasn't served and neither have Obama or I believe Edwards. Your point? Clinton did as good a job containing Saddam as he did North Korea. No credit.

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 19, 2007 02:49 AM (0pZel)

117 Svejk, this whole thread has been about the military actions in Iraq. That is why I've been asking what the military can do. You haven't given a straight answer because you cannot. The military cannot force political progress short of a coup, and you are unable to admit that. Therefore, you keep dancing around the question. Of greater importance is the fact that you are so mired in your hatred of one or two men that you are willing to let an entire nation of people suffer the brutalities of Al Qaeda rather than permit these gentlemen even one victory. Are the Iraqi people less than human to you, then? Are you so blinded by hatred that you cannot see their suffering at the hands of Al Qaeda, and hear their cries for America to help drive these terrorists away? I suggest you take some time to examine yourself. A very wise man said many many years ago, "the unexamined life is not worth living." I offer his words as a challenge. Of course, you won't examine yourself. You will ignore the evidence of Sunni and Shia working together, bringing political change to Iraq from the ground up, rather than from the top down. You'll ignore the fact that while you berate the Iraqi Parliament for lack of action, your own Democrat-led Congress does even less. And you will continue to post your vile, venom-dripping, hate-filled screeds here until CY bans you. And that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are so far sunk in your hatred that you are past redemption, and worthy only of pity, never respect, like the man who insists he is a poached egg. I will pray for you.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 19, 2007 09:03 AM (ufhAS)

118 ...Clinton contained Saddam for a few billion a year and made Bosnia and Kosovo work. He gets a pass... He also got 3000 Americans killed on 9/11 due to his blundering incompetence. During his 8 year administration AQ grew dramatically and when he had the chance to take out Osama he declined, thanks Bill. Under Bush two new middle east democracies have been born and 60, 000, 000 people have been liberated from tyranny. Fundamental democratic reform of the Middle East is the only long term solution to AQ. Bills feeble and failed pinprick, cover his ass and look tough approach was an unmitigated disaster.

Posted by: Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at October 19, 2007 10:09 AM (gkobM)

119 Svejk: I’ll deal with your red-herring on the VP first and follow with a challenge to get you back to the basis of the post: You understand my absolute shock that any VP may have “played a huge role in deciding” any given major foreign policy move - /sarc. Well, at least any VP that was worth anything. Couple good examples of those that were/are worthless: Dan Quail and Al Gore. On Chalabi – Hindsight is a very nice tool to be using. Put yourself into the administration’s shoes AT THE TIME the decisions were made. Chalabi provided information and I ASSUME it was corroborated. The decision to invade wasn’t made only on that info. I agree with you he was a rather poor choice for anything since he was too invested in having the US invade Iraq. What Cheney told America was exactly what Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and etc told America. In point of fact – he, and all the others, did NOT tell America “Iraq had nuclear weapons”, but that “Iraq was trying to develop nuclear weapons”. The others also included the intelligence agencies of almost all countries including Russia, UK, France, Israel, etc. The US did not invade Iraq ONLY because the potential of WMD’s but a laundry list of 10 distinct items including UN violations, crimes against humanity, and WMD’s. I personally felt the inclusion of the WMD’s in the list was foolish by the administration since these things had a tendency to disappear in Iraq. Example – Hans Blix never found any when he was in charge of the inspections…but Hans had a very hard time getting ‘permission’ from Saddam to inspect at will. “Greeted with parades” and “The insurgency is in its last throes” – If you remember, when we took Baghdad, the spontaneous celebrations that happened? (then the looting due to ‘too much freedom too soon”) As for the insurgency, if AQI had not blown up the Golden Dome then it WAS winding down. That act sparked the majority of sectarianism. You cannot judge the statements using hindsight. Instead put yourself in the time and place they were made using the information that was available at that time. This is the classic failure of revisionist historians. Perfect information SHOULD lead to perfect decisions, imperfect info and you get what we have today. I don’t carry water for the administration on this…I do think they screwed up a heck of a lot of things with respect to Iraq. Deferments: I happen to agree with you in principle on this point. He should have served. However, how many people who were eligible did the same thing or left the country. Bill Clinton comes to mind. On the last deferment, I believe you ‘mis-wrote’ – “not drafting childless husbands” – should probably “drafting childless husbands” as having a child destroys your argument. Why should he resign? What has he done that is illegal? I can think of a host of politicians who should resign, but Dick Cheney isn’t one of them. Now that this red-herring should be put to bed, why not address the other three paragraphs of my post. (man…killing red-herrings is a long and windy job

Posted by: Mark at October 19, 2007 10:39 AM (4od5C)

120 Thank you for your prayers, brother CCG. I got out of A Co, 1st BN, 19th SFG in May of 2000. Since then, I've examined my life in great detail. I regret that the neo-conservative dreamers in this administration are still calling the shots, still spinning this useless war that distracts us from the real war against AQ and dirties our reputation world-wide. I'd like to rejoin but my heart is sick with sadness over the arrogance and pride and twisted speech of men like Cheney. You support the neo-conservatives. It is clear that your heart would find solace in helping the president and vice president and Fred Kagan and Bill Kristol accomplish their goals in Iraq. I will pray that you find the courage to do what is right for yourself. Daley -- would you care to place a leetle wager on whether the Vice President went on national television and announced that Saddam had nukes? And never corrected himself -- except maybe to the Hicksville Gazette years later? Daley and Mark -- Chalabi did provide the US with intelligence, much of which was never corroborated. Read up on "Curveball". Nobody except Doug Feith, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Bill Kristol and the rest of the starry-eyed Project for a New American Century neo-con crew took him seriously. And yes, the plan to put him and the exiles from the Iraqi National Congress in charge of Iraq didn't work out. Which is why Rumsfeld's well-documented insistence that no post-war planning be done is STILL biting us in the butt. Mark -- We WERE greeted with enthusiasm in Baghdad. You're right! The majority of the country hated Saddam and was grateful to us for kicking him out. And since the neo-con idiots refused to listen to General Shinseki or the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute's report, or the Army's Peacekeeping Institute's report or the State Department's multi-million-$ Future of Iraq report or the detailed Desert Crossing plans made by General Tony Zinni's Central Command, or the suggestions made by all the military professionals with experience in Bosnia and Kosovo... we had less than half as many troops available to maintain security as all those reports experts had advised. We didn't close the borders. We didn't guard Saddam's weapons dumps. We didn't have enough troops to guard anything but the Oil Ministry in Baghdad. And all those reports warned that if we didn't provide post-invasion security, we would quickly lose the support of the population. While 80% of the Iraqi's were parading their enthusiasm for us, thousands of hard core Saddamists were taking the opening steps to wage guerilla war on us... because Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld thought that "parades" = "no resistance". This administration screwed up the Phase 1V planning so badly that 80% of Iraq went from throwing flowers at us to where they are today. Got that? Iraq went from being the country where we were most loved in the entire world to being the country where we're the most disliked. Dick Cheney should resign for the good of the president and the country. It's clear to everyone that he's been the most persuasive advocate of the Iraq war and the policies we've pursued in Iraq. If he were to resign it would make it clear that we intended to change our policies... and give us renewed cred when we told Maliki to start working towards compromise or face the consequences.

Posted by: Svejk at October 19, 2007 04:45 PM (GgQ4Y)

121 Svejk, from someone so consumed with hatred, I need no prayers. See to the beam in your own eye before you complain about the mote in mine.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 19, 2007 06:47 PM (ufhAS)

122 Svejk, I appreciate this latest comment much more than any of your previous. You have stated in this exactly why you believe certain things and not repeated "talking points". Thank you for finally being reasonable enough to speak plainly as opposed to vitriol. I also thank you for your service. Something I never was able to do in the end though I desperately wanted it. MS ended any of my military ambitions. The only probelm I have with this current comment is you are rehashing the basic reasons and strategies that led to the current situation in Iraq. Let me disuade your anger at this point: I agree with you about the "post-war aspect" being completely screwed up. I also agree with the not enough troops point. If we would have taken our time to secure villages, towns, cities, and countryside instead of racing to Baghdad we would not have the situation we have had for the last four plus years. I can go on about this for hours if you like This is the basic issue: the original post CY put up concerns 12 Captains who aren't in Iraq now and weren't there even as recently as 2007. I do not devalue their opinions or experience. I agree with CY that the points they make are valid, however, they are dated due to the circumstances. The question I believe is relevant with respect to the here and now is: Will the surge of extra troops give the breathing space for the political end to improve? My point is the surge is still ongoing and cannot be judged success or failure until a sufficient amount of time has passed. I repeat from one of my earlier posts, give it time...with enough of a drop in violence, as seen today and hopefully in the coming few months, see if the Maliki gov't is able to at least begin to heal some breaches. If that happens then the surge was effective and successful. I believe the local end is working nicely right now even if it is more 'marriage of convenience' substance. With enough cooperation from local powers, the national levels are bound to start taking some credit and, therefore, ownership of the improving situation. This could lead to a snowballing effect. Note - I am putting a lot of "ifs" into this...a lot of hope. Let's come back to this subject in three months, analyze the 'current situation', and then make an intial judgement. Then three months more to make a more substantive judgement. CCG: Accept prayers from anyone, please. God will...so should you. A last note on the VP: A VP is supposed to be the strongest advocate of the President and their policies. You say he was on Iraq and I agree. If he was my VP, I would expect nothing less of him. In other words - Job well done, Mr. Cheney. Again, thank you for your service and for this much more reasonable tone.

Posted by: Mark at October 19, 2007 08:41 PM (P8ylB)

123 I believe the local end is working nicely right now even if it is more 'marriage of convenience' substance. With enough cooperation from local powers, the national levels are bound to start taking some credit and, therefore, ownership of the improving situation. This could lead to a snowballing effect. Note - I am putting a lot of "ifs" into this...a lot of hope. Most, if not all real, substantive political change starts from the "grassroots" level and works its way up, not the other way around. Even the Bolshevik revolution was largely driven by the citizens. The fact that we see local Sunnis and Shia shaking hands and working together means more to me than all the proclamations from Baghdad or Turtle Bay. It means that the average Abdul-on-the-street is starting to concern himself with the way Iraq is run, and that is a very good sign indeed. Just because it doesn't make the nightly network news doesn't mean that there is no political progress being made. Every flood is made up of millions of tiny raindrops.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 19, 2007 08:59 PM (ufhAS)

124 Svejk - I believe we invaded Iraq for reasons beyond the intelligence provided by "Curveball." There were a whole bunch of reasons listed on the AUMF that had nothing to do with intelligence Curveball provided. I don't believe everything I read from people like Thomas Ricks or hears from blivets like Tyler Drumheller. Cheney and Bush are advised by more than one individual for good reason. To hear hindsight heroes wail after the fact "He didn't listen to me" isn't productive when they offer no solutions to improve the current outcome. When the disaffected generals the Democrats trotted out for a while eventually said we needed to stay in Iraq, they magically disappeared from the airwaves. Staying focused on mistakes or parts of the Iraq campaign that are or were not going well may fuel your anger but I haven't seen any suggestions out of you. Maybe I missed them. Sorry If I did. Why don't you throw those Cheney quotes out there for everyone to see if you've got them.

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 19, 2007 10:54 PM (0pZel)

125 I hear crickets.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 20, 2007 06:42 PM (ysloH)

126 Mark, you raised several good points. First, General Petraeus' willingness to call a spade a spade is an improvement on the Rumsfeld/Cheney PC idiocy of denying there was an insurgency, or dismissing them as "dead-enders" or claiming that they were in their "last throes", etc... Second, his emphasis on getting our troops out of FOBs and into the areas they're responsible for securing is paying dividends. His emphasis on the goal of counterinsurgency being to win the support of the civilian population is, too. Third, the surge did what I think we all understand, created more secure conditions in given zones by putting more American troops into those areas. Obviously, his tactics would have had greater effect if we'd tried them 3 years ago, when we still had the support of most Iraqis and fewer of them were committed to radical Shiite/Sunni groups. I wish Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker succeed in pressuring Maliki and the Sunnis and Shiites to compromise. I accept that they have to make public proclamations that don't reflect reality -- optimism is a useful political tool. But I doubt they'll get that political cooperation and I feel the opportunity costs of staying in Iraq are much greater than simply freeing up the number of troops we have there. Our role in Iraq has been a tremendous recruiting tool for AQ and other radical groups for the last few years. We're perceived as intending to stay in Iraq indefinitely -- and most countries think we're doing so to protect our interests in Iraqi oil. I'm not sure if any of you understand how useful it was to the US to be perceived by the world as a just and fair mediator who didn't have a dog in the fight in the Mid East. For starters, imagine how useful it might be to base US troops or have overflight priveliges in Turmenistan or the other -stans for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities? We had that, after 9/11. We don't anymore, thanks to our unilateralist, go-it-alone policies. And imagine how much easier it would be to get the Euros to sign on to stiffer sanctions and threats of war against Iran -- if they didn't have the example of our "Coalition of the Willing"-sanctioned Iraq invasion in front of them. The Post-Iraq-invasion service-members deserve many times the thanks that any of us who served prior to then deserve. This administration has asked nothing of civilians and everything of the military. The threat of 'stop-loss' has a lot to do with the high reenlistment rate -- motivating many soldiers to voluntarily reup and get the bonus rather than be told to stay anyway for nothing. CCG -- let it go, bud, let it go. Vice President Cheney -- it's pretty clear to everybody that he is the "strongest advocate" in the administration. The policies he's advocated for have been unsuccessful. American influence is at it's lowest point in decades. Pres. Bush is less popular than any president since Nixon. Someone needs to fall on their sword.

Posted by: Svejk at October 20, 2007 06:52 PM (3twU/)

127 Pres. Bush is less popular than any president since Nixon. Take a gander at the approval ratings for your beloved MoveOn-dominated Congress.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 20, 2007 08:32 PM (ysloH)

128 Svejk - "We're perceived as intending to stay in Iraq indefinitely -- and most countries think we're doing so to protect our interests in Iraqi oil. I'm not sure if any of you understand how useful it was to the US to be perceived by the world as a just and fair mediator who didn't have a dog in the fight in the Mid East. For starters, imagine how useful it might be to base US troops or have overflight priveliges in Turmenistan or the other -stans for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities?" It's clear that only progressives have the ability to inderstand these weighty matters. It must be lonely to struggle under the weight of such brilliance. RRRRRiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttt!!!!!!!!...

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 21, 2007 11:03 AM (0pZel)

129 The policies he's advocated for have been unsuccessful. Which ones and how so, Svejk? Tax cuts. Regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those seem to have worked quite well. American influence is at it's lowest point in decades. American influence exists it places it has never existed before. See the former Soviet Bloc, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc... And see also conservatives and supporters of America being elected/re-elected in Australia, Germany, Britain and even France. What you mistake as declining influence is simply increased leftist vitriol. Tell me, who doesn't listen to us that used to a decade ago? We're perceived as intending to stay in Iraq indefinitely -- and most countries think we're doing so to protect our interests in Iraqi oil. Well, we're still in Germany for the beer and the schnitzel, so why not? But tell me, which countries are those that think we're in Iraq simply for oil? Can you provide any official statements that say such a thing? Also, daleyrocks asks a great question that you really ought to respond to: Why don't you throw those Cheney quotes out there for everyone to see if you've got them.

Posted by: Pablo at October 21, 2007 11:44 AM (yTndK)

130 For starters, imagine how useful it might be to base US troops or have overflight priveliges in Turmenistan or the other -stans for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities? We had that, after 9/11. How useful? How about little to not at all? We're in Iraq. We're in Afghanistan. We're in the Gulf. We're in Kuwait. We're in Bahrain. And if we decided to send in BUFF's or some such, they can always pit stop in Diego Garcia. What would we gain in Turkmenistan that we don't already have? We don't anymore, thanks to our unilateralist, go-it-alone policies. What exactly do you mean by linking that last phrase to an article about others rejecting the notion of an attack on Iran? Exactly what unilateralist, go-it-alone policy does that represent?

Posted by: Pablo at October 21, 2007 11:56 AM (yTndK)

131 Thanks, Daley and Pablo, for bringing my attention to this part of Svejk's rant: For starters, imagine how useful it might be to base US troops or have overflight priveliges in Turmenistan or the other -stans for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities? If forward bases are of such concern to lefties, why did Speaker Pelosi put forward a resolution practically guaranteed to anger our Turkish allies? We have a large airbase in Turkey, a very large portion of the supplies for Iraq go through there, ya know.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 21, 2007 12:03 PM (ysloH)

132 C-C-G, make that "designed to anger our Turkish allies" and I concur wholeheartedly.

Posted by: Pablo at October 21, 2007 12:11 PM (yTndK)

133 BTW, I can't help wondering if Svejk's question, premised as it is, indicates that he thinks an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is a good idea. If not, why would he bemoan our inability to attack from Tukmenistan?

Posted by: Pablo at October 21, 2007 12:18 PM (yTndK)

134 Pablo - We could always go back to that highly effective U.N. approach that the left favors of endless resolutions that the target of the resolution ignores - you know - STOP - OR WE'LL BE FORCED TO SAY STOP AGAIN! Highly effective they were. STOP!. I'd be quaking in my boots if a bunch of bribe taking diplomats I had in my pocket said that to me. Yesiree!

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 21, 2007 01:16 PM (0pZel)

135 It's fun tying lefties up with their own words, isn't it?

Posted by: C-C-G at October 21, 2007 02:08 PM (ysloH)

136 CCG, pal, you're wearing more rope and bondage gear than Reverend Gary Aldridge... and the guys who tied you up are Scott McClellan, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Fred Kagan, Dinesh D'Souza, SecDef Donald Rumsfeld, Ambassador Ryan Crocker and General David Petraeus. Here's what's tieing you up: A. "he insurgents' mosque-burning and pilgrim-shooting strategy can be seen as moves of desperation." B. "The insurgency is in its last throes." C. "We've got a plan to lead to victory." D. "There is no insurrection in Iraq." E. "There is no civil war." F. "Mission accomplished." G. "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." H. "AQI... has suffered a stunning defeat in Iraq over the past six months. It has lost all of its urban strongholds and is engaged in a desperate attempt to reestablish a foothold even in the countryside." I. "It's just a few dead-enders!" J. "The latest violence was a desperate attempt by terrorists who are being pushed into a corner by the new security crackdown." K. "Clearly there is an attempt under way by the terrorists, by Zarqawi and others, to foment civil war. That's been their strategy all along, but my view would be they've reached a stage of desperation from their standpoint" L. "While we are making important progress, they are going to continue to become more desperate. We have difficult and tough times ahead, but the terrorists and thugs are becoming more desperate because a free and peaceful Iraq is taking hold." M. "Iraqi leaders are stepping forward... [they] are keen to shoulder more of the load for their own security." N. "The insurgents' mosque-burning and pilgrim-shooting strategy can be seen as moves of desperation." O. "It is an act of desperation by an increasingly beleaguered enemy seeking to obstruct the peaceful political and economic development of a democratic Iraq." P. "Stay the Course!" Q. "Cut and Run!" R. "We'll be greeted as liberators!" S. "We're winning!" T. "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." U. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." V. "We will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Admit you've been wrong on all things Iraq! Cut your ropes and quit submitting to administration spinners! Cheers!

Posted by: Svejk at October 21, 2007 02:49 PM (ls6Pk)

137 Why should I admit something that is not true, Svejk? We are winning. And that fact pisses you off no end, which makes me smile.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 21, 2007 03:01 PM (ysloH)

138 CCG, that particular quote was from 2004. And 2005. And 2006. It makes me smile, too. Until I think about the incompetence of those guys and how they've got us to where we are in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. Cheers, pal.

Posted by: Svejk at October 21, 2007 03:41 PM (ls6Pk)

139 Yes, we've won in Afghanistan, and are winning in Iraq. Al-Qaeda is nearly wiped out, and there's not been a terrorist attack on US soil for 7 years. Pretty good track record, I am glad you agree.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 21, 2007 04:24 PM (ysloH)

140 Anything yet on those Cheney quotes? Or the tragic loss of Turkmenian overflight rights?

Posted by: Pablo at October 21, 2007 04:32 PM (yTndK)

141 Until I think about the incompetence of those guys and how they've got us to where we are in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. Where are we in Pakistan? By all means, please elucidate.

Posted by: Pablo at October 21, 2007 04:33 PM (yTndK)

142 Why should I admit something that is not true, Svejk? Yeah, most of those quotes remain true and accurate, including the oft repeated "16 Words".

Posted by: Pablo at October 21, 2007 04:38 PM (yTndK)

143 It's all part of the plan that AQ has safe havens to train and recruit in Pakistan, then? And that Musharraf is almost as unpopular there as President Bush is here? You guys say everything's jake in Afghanistan? Don Rumsfeld says so too? "we're at a point where we clearly have moved from major combat activity to a period of stability and stabilization and reconstruction activities. The bulk of this country today is permissive, it's secure." Man! Who to believe? You guys and Rumsfeld? Or my lieing eyes? Thanks CCG! It's starry-eyed neo-conservative dreamers like you and Rummy who've made Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan "permissive" and "secure" paradises!

Posted by: Svejk at October 21, 2007 07:41 PM (GgQ4Y)

144 When did we invade Pakistan? Oh, that's right, that's after President Obama is inaugurated.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 21, 2007 08:11 PM (ysloH)

145 It's all part of the plan that AQ has safe havens to train and recruit in Pakistan, then? And that Musharraf is almost as unpopular there as President Bush is here? No, I don't suppose it is, and more than Chechnya is. Do you suppose that anything happens on this big blue marble that isn't directly attributable to the Bush administration? I ask again: Where are we in Pakistan? And while we're at it, how did we get there?

Posted by: Pablo at October 22, 2007 09:25 PM (yTndK)

146 Do you suppose that anything happens on this big blue marble that isn't directly attributable to the Bush administration? Of course not. We all know, if Kim Jong-Il sneezes, it must have been Booooosh and the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Wepubwicans that caused it, at the behest of the even eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeviler Jooooooooooooos!

Posted by: C-C-G at October 22, 2007 10:10 PM (ysloH)

147 How many terrorist attacks on US soil before 9/11?

Posted by: Dave at October 23, 2007 12:28 AM (d/RyS)

148 Besides Oklahoma City, I mean....

Posted by: Dave at October 23, 2007 12:30 AM (d/RyS)

149 Dave, do you include embassies? Those are sovereign U.S. soil. I can name a half dozen of those. Or how about the first WMD attack on U.S. soil? It happened in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. The Iraqi bomb-builder created a cyanide-laced bomb that was supposed to disperse in the smoke of the blast, travel up air and elevator shafts, and suffocate tens of thousands. Fortunately for us, the blast burned up the cyanide instead of spreading it. So just let me know what you want, okay?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 23, 2007 02:15 AM (HcgFD)

150 CY, if we're including embassies (and I think it is correct to do so), how can we forget the prisoners held 444 days at our embassy in Iran? It may not have been a bomb, but I would say that we can call that a terrorist act.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 23, 2007 08:38 PM (ysloH)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

At Powerline this morning, Scott Johnson is keeping the screws on the editors of The New Republic in a post entitled It's the Coverup that Kills You, Part 2, in which he continues to hammer editor Franklin Foer and executive editor Peter Scoblic:

On August 10, after assuring their readers that they had "not thus far uncovered factual evidence (aside from one key detail) to discount his personal dispatches" (how can a detail be key, but not factual?) the editors asked the Army to allow them, "or any other media outlet, for that matter," to speak with Beauchamp. This statement is particularly galling in retrospect, as we now know that it is TNR -- not the Army -- that has gagged Beauchamp. On September 7 "the editors" asked their author to cancel interviews he had scheduled with the Washington Post and Newsweek. Given their "commitment to the truth," one wonders why they would make such a request. But do they deny that they did?

TNR editor Franklin Foer and executive editor Peter Scoblic seem to think that they can keep up this charade indefinitely, but it is only the indifference of the MSM that has let them get away with it for this long. "The editors" closed their August 10 update by saying that they "refused to rush to judgment on our writer or ourselves" -- virtually the only honest statement we've ever gotten from TNR on this matter. But it should not be the last. At some point they'll have to say something on the subject, only then the questions won't be about Beauchamp. They will be about "the editors."

Johnson is keying in on what has emerged as the real story involving The New Republic in regards to the Scott Thomas Beauchamp stories.

We know, due to expert testimony from civilians in the region and in the United States, from veterans and soldiers, and a formal military investigation, that BeauchampÂ’s claims were without merit. For all practical intents and purposes, Scott BeauchampÂ’s role in this story is over.

The story of his editors at The New Republic, and why they have chosen to deceive both their critics and their readership, is the story now.

To borrow a paraphrase from another time, what did the editors of TNR know, and when did they know it? How will the Washington Post and Newsweek react to being "punk'd" by Franklin Foer? What do their advertisers think about the magazineÂ’s continued refusal to admit their editorial failures, and will they be disgusted enough to consider suspending or closing their accounts?

The days and weeks ahead promise to be interesting for the editors of The New Republic.

Update: Beauchamp's second story, "Dead of Night" was quickly pegged from the very beginning as evidence of the fact that The New Republic was not making any attempt at all to fact-check Beauchamp's stories, back even before we knew his name was Beauchamp.

In "Dead of Night" Beauchamp alleged the Iraqi Police must have committed a murder, because according to him, only Iraqi Police carry Glock pistols.

Glock wishes that were so.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:23 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 532 words, total size 3 kb.

Via a reader in the comments of the my most recent TNR post, a story about a solider wounded and a squad virtually wiped out in an apparent youth suicide bombing in Iraq in the Cleveland Daily Banner in Cleveland, TN:

Christopher H. Bagwell, grandson of Nancy and Richard Hughes of Cleveland, was severely wounded Tuesday, Sept. 18, in Iraq.

Bagwell and his squad leader were the only two survivors of a 12-member squad decimated when an Iraqi youth detonated explosives wrapped around his body.

A graduate of York Institute and Tennessee Technological University in Cookeville, Bagwell spoke with his grandmother last week.

She said the young soldier told her he had just passed the youthful bomber with his squad leader, with his squad following behind handing out candy to children. The Iraqi village was believed to be a friendly zone for the U.S. military.

The youngster, believed to be 10 to 12 years old, detonated the explosives as the soldiers were walking by. Ten members of the squad were killed, along with the youngster.Bagwell was severely injured.

The thing is, I can't find any such record of a young suicide bomber causing so many fatalities among U.S. troops in Iraq, or for that matter, even ten U.S. fatalities on Sept. 18 in total.

Anti-war casualty clearinghouse icasualties.org has no record of such an attack, or even anything similar. According to U.S. Central Command Casualty Reports, there was one attack on Sept. 18, where 3 soldiers were killed and 3 wounded near Tikrit. There was nothing like a suicide bombing attack that killed ten soldiers and wounded two. A search of Google News also fails to uncover a similar account.

Update: The military weighs in:

Sir,

After reviewing available information, we are unable to confirm the
story's legitimacy. Thank you.

V/R,

BRYON J. MCGARRY, 1Lt, USAF
OIC, JOC Public Affairs
Multi-National Corps - Iraq

10/15 Update: Catherine Caruso of the Fort Lewis PAO responds via email:

4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division (Stryker Brigade Combat Team) is a
unit stationed here at Fort Lewis, and is currently deployed to Iraq.
Madigan Army Medical Center is also located on the installation, but I
do not have access to patient names or information and can't release
names of wounded Soldiers due to patient privacy laws- MAMC has their
own public affairs office which may be of more help if you would like to
contact wounded Soldiers who are assigned to the hospital.

There was an incident on Sept. 18th in which three Soldiers from the
brigade's 2nd Battalion, 23rd Infantry Regiment, were killed...

...The editor of that paper called here a few minutes ago, and it appears
this may have been the same incident the paper referred to. I could not
answer all of his questions, but it appears he also believes the paper
may have inadvertently published inaccurate information re: the number
of casualties. For my part, I can confirm there was an incident that
date, but don't have details about the incident beyond what was in the
DoD release, nor do I have information about any Soldiers wounded in the
incident.

However, 2-23 IN has suffered 10 casualties since their deployment in
April through their most recent loss on Sept. 22 (this includes all
causes- accidents, combat, and medical). It seems likely that this could
be the source of the confusion re: the number of Soldiers involved, if
this is the same incident in which the Soldier referenced in the story
was injured.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:29 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 592 words, total size 4 kb.

And to think, I wasn't even aware that they had a Nobel Prize for deceptive rhetoric.

I'm now selling "smug offsets" via Paypal.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:58 AM | Comments (82) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

1 If they did, you would be a leading candidate to win a Nobel Prize.

Posted by: Pug at October 12, 2007 08:55 AM (r5zYa)

2 Best part is all the wacko sites talking about him also winning the 2000 presidential race and a Oscar, neither of which is true. Whooohooo Gore. Now in the same class as Arafat and Carter. Hey pug, frederick. It's funnier if there is some truth to it. Your doing the equivalent of making a cigar joke about Bush.

Posted by: buzz at October 12, 2007 10:50 AM (PZ/ZS)

3 CY, No, the award isn't *for* anything anymore. It's debased itself into a credential in the authoritarian mutual-admiration society. It has drawn close to the Lenin Peace Prize, and so it completely discounted. Cordially...

Posted by: Rick at October 12, 2007 11:44 AM (Ohkx7)

4 Sarcastic jealousy, how surprising and refreshing. Yawn. If your little chimperor had won it you'd be shouting from the rooftops about how great an honor it is and blah blah blah. I know it must be painful watching your small-minded world fall apart.

Posted by: leaf at October 12, 2007 11:52 AM (x7n0a)

5 Actually, the Right has been saying that the Nobel Prize is now meaningless for years. This is hardly a new thing.

Posted by: Grey Fox at October 12, 2007 12:12 PM (rfcTY)

6 I know the last few comments are from tbagg readers, so I'll try to use small words: Al Gore used junk science and unsupported assertions to peddle fear. While we know global warming is in fact occurring, that isn't the end of the world. As a matter of pure fact, global warming and cooling are natural parts of long-term life on earth, and has been happening longer than there has been primates, much less the burning of fossil fuels. The climate has been far colder than it is now, and it has been far warmer. Somehow, species adapted, and life went on. The Goracle wants to blame people for warming, and indeed they may play a small part, but the earth warms and cools primarily because of the activity of the sun, geologic events, and asteroid impacts, events far beyond our control. This we know for real science, not flawed climate models and politicals agendas. As for the Nobel itself, it has been steadily cheapened in past years... Awarding it to terrorists cheapened it, at least among normal people, as does award a peace prize for someone who has done nothing for you know, peace, which has become the new un-standard. That it would be awarded to a man who produced a documentary every bit as factually accurate as Loose Change just put the final nail in the coffin lid.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at October 12, 2007 12:21 PM (0BhZ5)

7 Grey Fox, Of course they have. The last thing the military industrial complex wants is peace.

Posted by: Me at October 12, 2007 12:21 PM (pZtEm)

8 Wow. Who knew that someone with a Masters in English would have such deep research knowledge and experience around global climate change and would be able to definitively tell ALL of us what is "real science" and what is "junk." Boy, sorry to have questioned such genius. Forget all those climatologists and other respected scientists with their Ph.Ds from prestigous universities who all agree that human activity is a major contributor to global climate change and that it's far from just normal cyclical activity. From now on, I'm going to trust those with Masters in English and people with Associates in HVAC and accounting who blog for a living! Well-educated, globally-respected, research-experienced scientists BE GONE!

Posted by: notforsalethanks at October 12, 2007 12:43 PM (MyDKI)

9 If the Nobel Committee were composed of remotely serious people, the prize would go to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Posted by: Mahon at October 12, 2007 12:44 PM (oFhek)

10 And how exactly, pray tell, is Gore contributing to "peace"? How about those Burmaese Monks, or Chinese democracy advocates? I respect the NPP when it goes to someone who actually deserves it. Arafat received it for Chrissakes, not to mention El-Barradi and if we want to go way back, the leader of North Vietnam, Le Duc Tho, who celebrated this achievement by swallowing the South and driving refugees into the sea and the rest into re-education camps.

Posted by: Techie at October 12, 2007 12:53 PM (T+8Gr)

11 Goracle also dis-honored, by a British High Court judge: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416151-details/Judge+attacks+nine+errors+in+Al+Gore's+'alarmist'+climate+change+film/article.do

Posted by: tjmmz01 at October 12, 2007 03:20 PM (dAzoD)

12 What does global warming have to do with peace?

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at October 12, 2007 03:51 PM (Lgw9b)

13 Shouldn't we rename this the "Yasser Arafat reward?"

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at October 12, 2007 03:53 PM (Lgw9b)

14 Gore won what? Yawn

Posted by: SShiell at October 12, 2007 04:23 PM (8UXyu)

15 Who said that peace is meaningless? The AWARD is meaningless. Wish folks would learn to read. I might also point out that Global Warming is an "enemy" that the Left is saying we must fight as well...Those who live in greenhouses shouldn't throw stones!

Posted by: Grey Fox at October 12, 2007 05:25 PM (rfcTY)

16 Sillys. The Norwegians awarded Mr. Gore and the UN IPCC the Nobel Peace Prize in the expectation that their efforts may well prevent the climate wars of the future. This decision was made by plain speaking, down to earth people, you know - morons (bastardized from Blazing Saddles). The intense research conducted by the Norwegians included a marathon session during which they consumed massive quantities of regular soda while watching: The Day After Tommorow, Armagedon and Waterworld. The decision was made all the more rivetting as they were not allowed to go to the bathroom until they voted.

Posted by: davod at October 12, 2007 05:36 PM (llh3A)

17 Peace Prize? I thought the global warming debate was all about science.

Posted by: MikeM at October 12, 2007 05:43 PM (nyO8l)

18 Did some posts disappear?

Posted by: Grey Fox at October 12, 2007 06:10 PM (rfcTY)

19 "The climate has been far colder than it is now, and it has been far warmer. Somehow, species adapted, and life went on." That may be, but then again, at that time there weren't hundreds of millions of people living in low-lying coastal areas, who would be forced to relocate if the sea levels continue to rise. No one was around to experience the increased hurricane levels. Species always adapt, that's just a given.

Posted by: Arbotreeist at October 12, 2007 07:56 PM (N8M1W)

20 How many recounts were there before Gore got the result he wanted?

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 12, 2007 08:47 PM (0pZel)

21 Arbotreeist, in the 60s and early 70s people were worried about global cooling. Can global climate change in 30 years? And if so, who's to say that in 2030 we won't be worried about global cooling again?

Posted by: C-C-G at October 12, 2007 10:11 PM (ufhAS)

22 C-C-G, Rumor has it that they are beginning to worry about Global Cooling NOW. That is why a lot of folks are talking about "climate change" instead of "global warming." Fact is, they just don't really know whats happening.

Posted by: Grey Fox at October 12, 2007 11:09 PM (rfcTY)

23 Might also be that "climate change" doesn't sound as screwy as "global warming" when one of Algore's own speeches was cancelled by heavy snowfall.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 12, 2007 11:38 PM (ufhAS)

24 "Might also be that "climate change" doesn't sound as screwy as "global warming" when one of Algore's own speeches was cancelled by heavy snowfall." Right, because heavy snowfall or cooler weather on a particular day in a particular location discounts in any way whatsoever the notion of global warming. "Arbotreeist, in the 60s and early 70s people were worried about global cooling." There was a downturn in global temps in that time period but the overall trend over the last 150 years has been that it's getting warmer, and there's little doubt that it will continue in that direction, given the current rate of fossil fuel consumption.

Posted by: Arbotreeist at October 12, 2007 11:58 PM (N8M1W)

25 Riiiiiiiight Arbotreeist. That's why they have to use such tactics as placing temperature recording stations next to air conditioner exhausts and over burn barrels.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 12:37 AM (ufhAS)

26 My, now we're getting into some tin-foil hat territory, aren't we? And here I thought that was the sole province of us liberals?

Posted by: Arbotreeist at October 13, 2007 12:46 AM (N8M1W)

27 I hear up until the 1940's or thereabouts, they used to put these temperature recording devices next to wood stoves or even warm cowpies to throw off the readings. Those devious climate researchers. Thank God for AC units, makes the job that much easier.

Posted by: Arbotreeist at October 13, 2007 12:53 AM (N8M1W)

28 Thanks for proving that you have no logical or reasonable explanation for the odd placement for those recording stations. Recording stations whose data is used to "prove" global warming.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 01:01 AM (ufhAS)

29 Conservatives from year 2000 called and they want their line of argument back. The jury's in on the fact that global warming is happening. Even Bush has admitted the reality of it, albeit grudgingly. The current argument among conservatives is whether humans are the ones causing it, or nature. And if you're really on the cutting edge of conservative thinking, it's conceded that global warming is happening, it's human-caused, but maybe, they say, global warming could actually be a positive development...kind of like the idea Fox news floated about the possibility of a civil war in Iraq being "a good thing".

Posted by: Arbotreeist at October 13, 2007 01:28 AM (N8M1W)

30 Thanks for proving that you have no logical or reasonable explanation for the odd placement for those recording stations. Precisely how did he prove that, CCG? By not answering your question? If somebody decides not to engage with you on your terms and your terms only, that proves that you're right and they're wrong?

Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 08:51 AM (lJF4u)

31 CCG, I'm counting fewer than fifteen stations on that list. How many stations are there in all? Thousands? And this tiny sample is what you're basing your argument on? This word "proof" you use, senor, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 08:58 AM (lJF4u)

32 Actually, that is but one piece of the evidence against mankind causing global warming. But, since you're not even willing to consider that placing recording stations over burn barrels might skew the results, clearly you're deciding the "results" first and then gathering your chosen "data" later. The Vatican would have loved you two a few hundred years ago when they were insisting the sun revolved around the earth, ya know.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 10:59 AM (ufhAS)

33 since you're not even willing to consider that placing recording stations over burn barrels might skew the results Don't put words in my mouth. Sure, this kind of thing skews the results. There are some who say that merely making the observations skews the results at some quantum level. The question, though, would be how much the results are skewed. I would submit that the "proof" you have offered up is but an infinitesimal portion of all the weather readings that have been taken around the planet over the course of decades.

Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 11:47 AM (lJF4u)

34 Another Questionable War Story: Iraq war "a nightmare with no end in sight" - No comments at all? Just another liberal Bush-basher who doesn't know what he's talking about? (Gen. Sanches, former commander of coalition forces in Iraq)

Posted by: he at October 13, 2007 01:51 PM (H2NPa)

35 "Al Gore used junk science and unsupported assertions to peddle fear." - Confederate Yankee. Unsupported? What about the millions in the scientific community that have been saying what he says already, and are currently applauding him for bringing so much attention to the issue with his well-stated documentary? Why do you try to mislead, sarcastically, by claiming it's unsupported and "junk science" - when the issues have been in numerous scientific journals across the world? Do you know what "junk science" even means?! I wonder... It's not "fear." He was promoting awareness on a subject that scientists have been talking about for a long time. And he succeeded. Infact, that is the very reason he got the Peace Prize. Just because YOU don't think recycling makes sense, or that because the world has been warm before we don't need to worry about the consequences of our uniquely wasteful actions, doesn't mean that's true either. By the way, for fear tactics.. Look towards the current oil-war and how we got into it, for a quick lesson on "how to instill fear in the public."

Posted by: Jar at October 13, 2007 02:39 PM (ZMXWA)

36 Jar, lots of scientists thought the sun revolved around the world at one time. Majority opinion does not science make.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 02:49 PM (ufhAS)

37 Jar and nunaim and Arbotreeist - How have Gore and his AGW sycophants proved their hypothesis. It's my understanding that when scientists come up with a hypothesis, they design tests to prove the hypothesis. Take for example Hansen and his cabal who control all the raw temperature data and the algorithms for smoothing them. He also developed a model to describe the historical relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature. His goal was to plot a line which described the best historical fit. He then assumed causation instead of just correlation. How did he design tests of that causation theory holding all other variable constant? Was it even tested? Is it even possible to test?

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 13, 2007 04:54 PM (0pZel)

38 Using your logic, then, daleyrocks, all of science's ideas about volcanoes and earthquakes must be wrong--a conspiracy by the pro-temblor and lava cabal--because they're describing phenomena instead of creating them.

Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 06:13 PM (lJF4u)

39 nunaim - Using your words, "Don't put words in my mouth." Can you answer the questions or not? I'm not interested in your deflection. The subject is anthropogenic global warming. We've got computer models telling us about various relationships between things and a lot of rabid believers in the computer models. Those believers want us to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and change our lifestyles? Is all we've got computer models tightly controlled by a small group of people who also control the data or has actual testing of the hypothesis been done, you know, in accordance with the scientific method? The AGW supporters should be able to answer these questions.

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 13, 2007 06:22 PM (0pZel)

40 What I really wanna know about those models, Daley, is can they accurately predict the weather next week? If they can't (and we all know how fallible weather forecasting is), then why should we trust what they say will happen next year or next decade?

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 06:43 PM (ufhAS)

41 I must say, Jar, nunaim, and Arbortreeist are proving themselves good disciples of Gore's new religion. "The climate crisis is not a political issue; it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity," Gore said in comments e-mailed by his office 44 minutes after the prize was announced at 5 a.m. Eastern time. "It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level." Spiritual challenge, Gracie? Sounds like he is setting himself up as Pope of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming. And I am sure Pope Gore will give you three a good price on indulgences... er... carbon offsets.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 07:13 PM (ufhAS)

42 CCG - It all sounds like a lot of guess work to me and that they're praying everyone believes them. Isn't religion the belief in the unknowable? It sounds like this qualifies to me with what they've got.

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 13, 2007 07:41 PM (0pZel)

43 Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 13, 2007 08:10 PM (0pZel)

44 I hear Ben Stein's voice...

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 08:17 PM (ufhAS)

45 ccg another good question of the models has always been can they be run in reverse? In other words, take current conditions and past data and predict past climate. my understanding is that they cannot be run in reverse, which would be a serious flaw to my mind.

Posted by: iconoclast at October 13, 2007 08:20 PM (9BPe+)

46 Excellent point, Iconoclast. I would also be interested in seeing if they can take data from, say, 13 Oct 2006 and then predict the weather for today, 13 Oct 2007. Of course, the fact that there is very little if any data from tests like this kinda gives one the impression that said tests have not been run, perhaps because the pseudo-scientists pushing this know what the results would be.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 08:23 PM (ufhAS)

47 Speaking of red herrings and deflections, the pro-climate-change crowd (present company included) serves up a heaping helping of both each time they put fingers to keyboard. Since I'm guessing that not many of the people who post here are climateologists--and thus not able to discuss the science with any credibility--let's stick with what we can see with our own eyes and to hell with the computer models. Pollution is bad. Car exhaust is bad. The crap that spews out of smokestacks is likewise bad. How do we know? It makes you sick if you have to breathe a lot of it. There are more and more cars and smokestacks all the time. That means that there's more bad stuff going into the air every day, which means more unsafe air advisories in places like LA (unless you think that unsafe air advisories are also a left-wing conspiracy, which opinion would not surprise me in the least). Trying to stop the process from spiraling out of control is not a bad thing, and "spiraling" is the word I mean to use--population does not undergo linear growth, but speeds up as it takes place. Thus, all the pollution-producing things that people use get used more in the same proportion. More people equals more cars equals more pollution put into the air. That's the bottom line. That's the deal, shorn of all the crapola of arguments about weather stations set up over blacktop. Those of you who argue against who argue against climate change are essentially saying, "People cannot pollute the environment to any degree that we need to bother ourselves with it." You are, in essence, pro-pollution, because, after all, that's what the climate change people are trying to curb: pollution. But you're not really pro-pollution, are you? I'd be stunned if you were. That's why the very existence of this argument is baffling to me. How can anyone seriously argue against preserving--and heck, maybe even improving--the place we live?

Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 09:03 PM (7Cmj1)

48 nunaim, if you're gonna complain about red herrings, don't serve one up yourself.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 09:35 PM (ufhAS)

49 Red herring? Hardly. How? This is what the whole thing is about. The arguments are distractions from the main point, which is this: what do we do about our pollution? Or, more to the point, do you even care about our pollution? Red herring? What a lame response... Now, if I were doing things the way you generally do them, I would take this opportunity to say, "So, CCG, you do not deny that you are pro-pollution. Therefore, you are." But I won't, because it would be beneath me.

Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 09:45 PM (7Cmj1)

50 nunaim, you are clearly an idiot. Pollution and global warming are not directly connected. The theory of anthropogenic global warming assumes that carbon dioxide is causing the warming, not pollution, which is mostly solid, not gaseous carbon. You really have no friggin' idea what you are talking about, and you're making yourself look very very stupid.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 09:52 PM (ufhAS)

51 You're really grasping here. In my post I specifically mention carbon-producing sources. Pretending that I didn't doesn't make it so. So answer my question. You're pro-pollution, aren't you? You like the idea of sending crap into the atmosphere.

Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 10:54 PM (7Cmj1)

52 nunaim, you're the one that is grasping. Equating solid carbon particles from smoke and pollution with carbon dioxide, which is necessary for life on this planet (plants need it) is such a stupid mistake that it's clear that you haven't the foggiest idea of the science involved. If you had any cojones you'd admit that you made a mistake, but you don't, so you won't.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 11:02 PM (ufhAS)

53 Also, CCG: Why are you afraid to address the real issue facing us, rather than the phony issue? I'm tempted to think that it's because with the phony issue, you can spend your days looking for web sites that document the fact that fifteen poorly-placed weather stations might conceivably skew data one-quintillionth of a percentage point. That stuff's safer for you because, whatever somebody on the other side says, you can always shriek, "Nuh-UH! Junk science! Rammafrazzle global warming conspiracy!" and, I guess, you get off on that. When it comes right down to the actual root issues, however--issues like "do we want to continue spewing carbon into the air via automobiles and power plants and so on?" you're afraid to engage. You pull out your thesaurus and complain about "red herrings" and "deflections" and base your entire argument on the fact that I used the word "pollution" to refer to atmospheric contamination from carbon sources. Actually addressing the root issues that drive the whole debate are, I reckon, too difficult and, therefore, too scary for you to do.

Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 11:05 PM (7Cmj1)

54 nunaim - Carbon dioxide is really not a pollutant even though the EPA has been given a mandate to regulate it in certain ways. CO2 serves a necessary function on this planet for many things. The topic on this thread is global warming, not pollution, hurricanes, volcanoes, plate tectonics or other things you may keep trying to shift toward. Trying to disqualify people from talking about the subject because they are not climatologists should have knocked most of the people off the IPCC as their expertise was not strictly climate. If the rule you are trying to advance is that you should not discuss a topic unless you are an expert, I suggest you stay off this board. I haven't seen a hint of expertise or mastery of a subject from you yet. Why are you afraid to discuss the basics of global warming? Is it because you know nothing or because you know there's nothing there?

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 13, 2007 11:14 PM (0pZel)

55 See what I mean about not having enough cojones to admit a mistake? Your entire argument boils down to: pollution is bad, global warming is bad, therefore pollution must cause global warming. By the same logic, I could say crime is bad, pollution is bad, therefore crime causes pollution. You make a nonsensical argument and then defend it to the death... you should apply at The New Republic... I hear there's at least one position open.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 11:17 PM (ufhAS)

56 CCG, you will never, ever, EVER win by playing the word game with me. Reading your posts is like listening to some pain-in-the-butt seventh grader play Jailhouse Lawyer: "You said that I had to sit down, but you never told me that I had to sit in my seat!" Both of you think you're getting somewhere, but all it makes you look like is that you've dug deep into your barrel of smarts and come up empty-handed. Let's strip away all the little things that so easily distract you: why are you a proponent of increasing carbon emissions?

Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 11:18 PM (7Cmj1)

57 nunaim, we're neither of us gonna play your little red herring game. So don't bother trying to lump all carbon emissions together.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 11:24 PM (ufhAS)

58 Trying to disqualify people from talking about the subject because they are not climatologists Nice attempt to twist my words into something that suits your needs. Unfortunately, your baldfaced lie is showing. My suggestion was that since we aren't (to my knowledge) climate scientists, that we approach the topic in a way that can be discussed fruitfully by non-climate scientists. Why, daleyrocks, are you in favor of increasing carbon emissions?

Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 11:28 PM (7Cmj1)

59 CCG - nunaim is playing out the latest lefty talking point. You see it on other blogs. When they can't defend the basics of the AGW argument, they have been instructed to steer the discussion to pollution in general in an attempt to fool people. Only the truly gullible fall for this transparent attempt to shift the conversation away from Captain Planet's Holy Grail. Is water pollution part of the global warming discussion now or nunaim's point? How can you leave water pollution out if you are talking about things that are bad for mankind? Has that been factored into the AGW models? Just more attempts at shape shifting to avoid the basic subject. Notice how he has still avoided answering questions.

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 13, 2007 11:29 PM (0pZel)

60 CCG: You're absurdly insistent that I answer your questions. Remember that? Remember how you demanded again and again that I answer some question that I had already answered? You won't even pretend to answer my questions. Ever. In the Old Country, we called that "being a yellowbelly."

Posted by: nunaim at October 13, 2007 11:32 PM (7Cmj1)

61 nunaim - The thread is about Al Gore and AGW: "Since I'm guessing that not many of the people who post here are climateologists--and thus not able to discuss the science with any credibility--let's stick with what we can see with our own eyes and to hell with the computer models." To my knowledge he is not a climatologist or a scientist and I do not think he has much credibility on the subject, yet he just won a nobel prize for his work in the area. I figure if he can talk about it I can talk about it. America is the land of opportunity. What are you afraid of here? Do you need to consult your current talking points again?

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 13, 2007 11:35 PM (0pZel)

62 nunaim, you remember how CY reacted last time we played this game? I learn from my mistakes; apparently you don't.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 11:36 PM (ufhAS)

63 Hey, daleyrocks... drop me a line at the email on my blog if you'd like to talk away from nunaim.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 13, 2007 11:41 PM (ufhAS)

64 Death to volcanoes!

Posted by: Purple Avenger at October 14, 2007 02:09 AM (s4ZqU)

65 Well, then, it looks like I've been beaten once again by your strategy of not actually engaging if the interaction isn't precisely on your terms. It's effective yet lame. And I can see your point, daleyrocks: the whole thread is about Gore. Isn't he the one who set up those weather stations that CCG is going on about? Anyway, now I'm scared. CCG informs me on his site that he pretty much knows where I live. That sounds like a veiled threat to me. I'd better beat a hasty retreat before he comes to the city where I work and finds me somehow and puts a burning bag of dog poop on the front doorstep. The fact remains that those of you who fight so strenuously against the whole climate change thing are, for some mysterious reason, actally for degradation of our environment. I can't imagine why, since you live here, too. If you ever feel like explaining your position (since, after all, it is the very root of the discussion you're having here), I'll be all ears. Remember: Gore's Nobel is nice for Gore, but it's not the biggest problem we face in this, our life.

Posted by: nunaim at October 14, 2007 09:46 AM (YHa1b)

66 Hey, nunaim, here's something else you, Algore, and the rest of the AGW pseudo-scientists have to answer: Mars is warming too, and faster than the Earth. So tell me, are the Martians driving SUVs? Did they elect a Republican President? Did Halliburton open a branch on Mars? Or could it be, just perhaps, that the warming is being caused by something exterior to both Mars and Terra? Something like, oh, I dunno, THE SUN?

Posted by: C-C-G at October 14, 2007 11:05 AM (ufhAS)

67 The lib comments are a perfect example of how "global warming" has become their religion. There is no debate, the proof is in, to deny is to sin. If you disagree with their mahdi AlGore, you're a heathen that hates the earth, and must be sleeping with most of the board of Haliburton. The whole debate isn't about the earth and it's NATURAL cycles anymore to these gaea worshippers, it's about destroying the way of life of the US through decimation of it's key industries. The fact that AlGore was awarded a peace prize for a movie about him giving a speech in front of a crappy slideshow, is proof positive that this "award" is a joke now. Arafat?, 'nuff said.

Posted by: Conservative CBU at October 14, 2007 12:19 PM (La7YV)

68 Conservative CRJ: If you've bothered reading the posts up above, you've seen that I've tried to look past the bread and circuses represented by Gore and get at the root issues that Gore is addressing. The question repeatedly asked--and just as frequently avoided by daleyrocks and CCG--is why they are in favor of increased carbon emissions. There are a few possibilities for this: A. They're against decreasing carbon emissions simply because it's something that Lefties want. B. They don't believe that carbon emissions exist. C. They think that it is literally impossible for human-produced carbon emissions to have any negative effect on the planet. D. They are glad that carbon emissions will have a negative effect. E. They think that carbon emissions will actually have a positive effect on the planet. This would be a more productive direction for the conversation than any of these: A. Prattling on about red herrings and deflections. B. Snarking about SUVs on the planet Mars. C. Trying to conduct a highly technical discussion out of our fields of expertise. (I'm assuming, again, that none of us involved in this discussion are climate scientists. If I'm wrong, please set me straight.) D. Cracking open the old chestnut about how everything that Lefties feel strongly about (but that the Right doesn't) is a liberal "religion." The whole AGW topic can, in fact, be discussed rationally without descending into the arcane matters of sample size, computer models and data skews. To do so, however, would be to confront the wellsprings of one's beliefs/prejudices/whatever without the security blanket of snark and other evasive maneuvers. That's too much to ask, apparently.

Posted by: nunaim at October 14, 2007 12:55 PM (YHa1b)

69 Sorry--"Conservative CBU," I should have written. Life is more difficult when I'm not wearing my glasses.

Posted by: nunaim at October 14, 2007 12:56 PM (YHa1b)

70 nunaim, I would answer your question if it had any relevance. It does not. And you're looking like a 5-year-old who doesn't get his way on the playground. If that's the image you want to project, fine, but don't expect to be treated as an adult as long as you're acting like that. A question that does have relevance is why Mars is warming if humans are the cause of all global warming. Why won't you answer that one? Simple, because it demolishes your entire argument.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 14, 2007 01:07 PM (ufhAS)

71 CCG - nunaim keeps demanding that we not put words in his mouth yet puts them in ours: "The question repeatedly asked--and just as frequently avoided by daleyrocks and CCG--is why they are in favor of increased carbon emissions." I don't recall saying anything of the sort, I have merely been questioning the AGW jihadis who want us to change our entire way of life and redistribute global income based on what I see as questionable science, data and computer modeling. nunaim has presented nothing to strengthen the pro-AGW argument nor did I expect him to. Al Gore tellingly refuses to debate the subject just as nunaim has here. Nunaim reverted to an "air pollution makes you sick if you breath enough of it," how can you be in favor of pollution argument, which somehow translates to global warming. Again, I'm not propollution, but I don't like the greenhouse gas effect from biofuels, which he doesn't address, water pollution, other types of pollution, but I am in favor of cost benefit analysis. If he does indeed want to address AGW, it all goes back to the credibility of what its proponents call their "science", the data and their models, not nunaim's feelings about pollution and the planet. I know progressives are all about feelings, but its a tough way to rationalize spending hundreds of billions of dollars, redistributing the worlds wealth, and changing the way we live. I'd like to see a little more critical examinination of the hypothesis in this country instead of the censorship we've had by the media and the academy.

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 14, 2007 02:13 PM (0pZel)

72 CCG - nunaim keeps demanding that we not put words in his mouth yet puts them in ours: You really didn't expect a lefty to play by the same rules he demands we play under, did you?

Posted by: C-C-G at October 14, 2007 03:07 PM (ufhAS)

73 For those of you who cannot connect global climate change and world peace in context to everything that is going on in the world today, may God help you for being so ignorant.

Posted by: john bryan at October 14, 2007 03:20 PM (v9dwy)

74 A question that does have relevance is why Mars is warming if humans are the cause of all global warming. Why won't you answer that one? Simple, because it demolishes your entire argument. Nobody of note is saying that humans are behind all climate change; rather, that they are exacerbating the situation. Question answered; straw man trampled underfoot; argument still intact.

Posted by: nunaim at October 14, 2007 03:29 PM (YHa1b)

75 I am in favor of cost benefit analysis Now we're getting somewhere. The next question would be what you see as the costs and benefits of either curbing emissions or letting them grow.

Posted by: nunaim at October 14, 2007 03:31 PM (YHa1b)

76 nunaim, if we are not behind climate change, then how can any of the proposals pushed by you gaia-worshipers stop it? Answer: they can't. Here's a few more facts about your Dear Leader Algore that you might consider, courtesy Investor's Business Daily: • He [Gore] conveniently ignores the 98% of Antarctica that has actually cooled in the last 35 years to focus on the 2% that is warming. • His film "An Inconvenient Truth" depicts Florida going underwater, yet that would take a 13-foot ocean rise; the U.N. forecasts a mean sea-level increase of only 13 inches by the century's end. • Gore's movie shows a polar bear drowning in search of icebergs; the polar bear population has quintupled in 40 years. Fascinating, hmmm? Perhaps if you paid attention to the facts instead of the hype, you'd not look like such a fool.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 14, 2007 03:35 PM (ufhAS)

77 CCG - Now we've got John Bryan suggesting that Iraq is not a War for Oil, but a War for Global Warming? Unbelievable! What will these folks think of next. Nunaim keeps bobbing and weaving, the Hamster Dance, never engage. The meathead doesn't understand that you can't get to the point of a cost benefit analysis unless you buy into the premises of the AGW hypothesis, which he refuses to discuss. He's a human mobius strip on this. He can't break out of his loop.

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 14, 2007 04:15 PM (0pZel)

78 Far be it from me to put words in your mouth, daleyrocks, but when I read this: If he does indeed want to address AGW, it all goes back to the credibility of what its proponents call their "science", the data and their models, not nunaim's feelings about pollution and the planet. That implies to me that you believe either that carbon emissions do nothing to negatively affect the planet, or that the negative effects aren't actually negative. If we are to discard the predictions that you deride, then that's what we're left with. Am I correct? I'm trying to engage productively here, but we need to agree what we're talking about before we can get anywhere.

Posted by: nunaim at October 14, 2007 04:51 PM (YHa1b)

79 nunaim, there are many different forms of "damage to the planet," and we are discussing only one: global warming. Please quit with the red herrings. We know you've caught your limit, and want to show them off, but please consider us duly impressed with your red herring skill.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 14, 2007 05:13 PM (ufhAS)

80 CCG - He's still doing it: "carbon emissions do nothing to negatively affect the planet, or that the negative effects aren't actually negative" The thread is about AGW and he is talking about "negative effects," dodging the issue once more. I don't see the words warming or temperature in his latest comment. He's still where he was last night where he tried to side track the thread - because he breathes pollution and pollution makes you sick so it is bad so we have to stop it. Do you think I can get a Nobel Prize for that logic train too? You need a license to be as stupid and dishonest as nunaim and not institutionalized, don't you?

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 14, 2007 05:14 PM (0pZel)

81 I note that nunaim has been blessedly silent recently.

Posted by: C-C-G at October 15, 2007 08:01 PM (ufhAS)

82 CCG - Trying to divert the thread to a discussion of air quality from air temperature is a complete red herring. I'm pretty convinced the Bozo knows that and deliberate, but he could be too stupid too understand.

Posted by: daleyrocks at October 16, 2007 12:24 AM (0pZel)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

An interesting email from "Mahon," who states he is a The New Republic reader... or would be, if they didn't cancel his subscription.

Try this on. Although mainstream Republican, I have subscribed to TNR for many years and liked it (more for Jed Perl and the book reviews lately, but never mind.) So I get a bulk email from Marty Peretz asking me to renew, and I "reply" politely castigating them for the Beauchamp matter and suggesting I was unlikely to send them any more money until they came clean. Two weeks later I get a $31.00 check from them apparently refunding the balance of my subscription – which I never asked them to cancel in the first place. In fact, although I think they look like fools over Beauchamp I no doubt would have renewed eventually, and probably still will. They start bugging you six months early anyway, so why not fuss a while?

This seems like bizarre behavior for a small magazine. Possible explanations:

1. They are getting so many cancellations they just figured this was another one and dropped it in the hopper.
2. They have some new business strategy that calls for only having lefties as subscribers, so I've been purged.
3. Someone there is so huffy about this that he/she just said "well, weÂ’ll fix you" regardless of business implications.

None of which really computes. You would think they would either ignore me or send back a note saying – something – and hoping I would reconsider, to which I would have been receptive. The whole thing suggests a pervasive lack of adult supervision top to bottom.

Mahon

Their advertisers must be thrilled that they are turning people away... don't you think?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:37 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

Think back to your college days, and imagine this scenario:

You wake up on morning to discover that flyers speaking of hatred towards a minority group are plastered all over campus, and written at the bottom of the flyer is information that frames a group you belong to as the authors.

Sadly, this is not a hypothetical situation.

What should happen to the group of radicals that attempted to frame a student group with what most rational people would construe as hate speech?

The student group targeted has an idea, buased upon commits first posited by the Student Association Executive Vice President. Only time will tell if the university has the integrity to act swiftly and justly in dealing with this slanderous attack.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:17 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

Scott at Powerline weighed in last night on the Beauchamp Controversy with It's the coverup that kills you: A case study.

A taste:

Why would Beauchamp go silent and TNR along with him? Well, there can really only be one reason: the Army isn't stonewalling, its investigation isn't a whitewash, and Beauchamp's commanding officer isn't a liar. We already knew Beauchamp's stories weren't true, but now we must conclude that Beauchamp has told his editors at TNR that he no longer stands by his tales of petty cruelty and serious misconduct by himself and the men in his unit.

As for The New Republic, they are quite aware of the allegations being leveled against them of incompetence and a cover-up, as they are here every day, usually several times a day. You could say they are among my biggest fans...

But hopefully not of the Annie Wilkes variety.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:14 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.

It was amusing to read Ezra Klein's What Has Happened to the Right? this morning, the sites he linked to, and then read Klien's comments section. Clearly, Klein views conservatives--and conservative bloggers and blog readers in particular--as having no moral fiber at all, while implying his own side's moral supremacy.

Klein laments:

Something has gone wrong on the Right. Become sick and twisted and tumorous and ugly. To visit Michelle Malkin's cave is to see politics at its most savage, its most ferocious, its most rageful. They say they've spent the past week smearing a child and his family because that child was fair game -- he and his family spoke of their experience receiving health care through the State Children's Health Insurance Program. For this, right wingers travel to their home, insinuate that the family is engaged in large-scale fraud, make threatening phone calls to the family, interrogate the neighbors as to the family's character and financial state.

This is the politics of hate. Screaming, sobbing, inchoate, hate. It would never, not in a million years, occur to me to drive to the home of a Republican small business owner to see if he "really" needed that tax cut. It would never, not in a million years, occur to me to call his family and demand their personal information. It would never occur to me to interrogate his neighbors. It would never occur to me to his smear his children.

The shrieking, atavistic ritual of personal destruction the right roars into every few weeks is something different than politics. It is beyond politics. It was done to Scott Beauchamp, a soldier serving in Iraq. It was done to college students from the University of California, at Santa Cruz. Currently, it is being done to a child and his family. And think of those targets: College students, soldiers, children. It can be done to absolutely anyone.

This is not politics. This is, in symbolism and emotion, a violent group ritual. It is savages tearing at the body of a captured enemy. It is the group reminding itself that the Other is always disingenuous, always evil, always lying, always pitiful and pathetic and grotesque. It is a bonding experience -- the collaborative nature of these hateful orgies proves that much -- in which the enemy is exposed as base and vile and then ripped apart by the community. In that way, it sustains itself, each attack preemptively justifying the next vicious assault, justifying the whole hateful edifice on which their politics rest.

There is an inherent and flagrant dishonesty in Klein's wailing and gnashing of teeth, for it is not only the right that has those souls who are "sick and twisted and tumorous and ugly."

How quickly he forgets that Daily Kos posters planned to do opposition research to hopefully "out" the son of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts... until it was discovered he was four-years old.

It is an obscure left-wing blogger that has become the poster-child for cyberstalking.

And while Klein intones that it is only a mater of time before a conservative does something horrible, the fact remains that to date, only a left-wing Indymedia journalist has been driven to murder purely to make a political statement.

We can go back and forth for hours, arguing cites over which side is "better" than the other, each side certain in their conviction that the other is the embodiment of evil, but that would accomplish nothing. The fact of the matter is that both sides have extremists capable of great barbarity and cruelty, we should all do more to denounce them, and therein lies the rub.

Klein is willing to attack "the right," but is mute and blind to those on the left that have equal amount of vitriol as those he criticizes, or worse.

Before he claims the moral high ground, perhaps he should make sure that he and his allies aren't also neck-deep in the swamp.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:07 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 667 words, total size 5 kb.

For reasons as yet unknown, Memeorandum.com dredged up a Josh Marshall entry on Talking Points Memo from August 10 this past Sunday afternoon. Marshall cited a subscribers-only post by the editors of The New Republic released the same day, captured in its entirety by Google's cache.

It bears reading in full.

For several weeks now, questions have been raised about Scott Beauchamp's Baghdad Diarist "Shock Troops." While many of these questions have been formulated by people with ideological agendas, we recognize that there are legitimate concerns about journalistic accuracy. We at THE NEW REPUBLIC take these concerns extremely seriously. This is why we have sought to re-report the story, in the process speaking with five soldiers in Beauchamp's company who substantiate the events described in Beauchamp's essay.

Indeed, we continue to investigate the anecdotes recounted in the Baghdad Diarist. Unfortunately, our efforts have been severely hampered by the U.S. Army. Although the Army says it has investigated Beauchamp's article and has found it to be false, it has refused our--and others'--requests to share any information or evidence from its investigation. What's more, the Army has rejected our requests to speak to Beauchamp himself, on the grounds that it wants "to protect his privacy."

At the same time the military has stonewalled our efforts to get to the truth, it has leaked damaging information about Beauchamp to conservative bloggers. Earlier this week, The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb published a report, based on a single anonymous "military source close to the investigation," entitled "Beauchamp Recants, " claiming that Beauchamp "signed a sworn statement admitting that all three articles he published in the New Republic were exaggerations and falsehoods--fabrications containing only 'a smidgen of truth,' in the words of our source. "

Here's what we know: On July 26, Beauchamp told us that he signed several statements under what he described as pressure from the Army. He told us that these statements did not contradict his articles. Moreover, on the same day he signed these statements for the Army, he gave us a statement standing behind his articles, which we published at tnr.com. Goldfarb has written, "It's pretty clear the New Republic is standing by a story that even the author does not stand by. " In fact, it is our understanding that Beauchamp continues to stand by his stories and insists that he has not recanted them. The Army, meanwhile, has refused our requests to see copies of the statements it obtained from Beauchamp--or even to publicly acknowledge that they exist.

Scott Beauchamp is currently a 23-year-old soldier in Iraq who, for the past 15 days, has been prevented by the military from communicating with the outside world, aside from three brief and closely monitored phone calls to family members. Our investigation has not thus far uncovered factual evidence (aside from one key detail) to discount his personal dispatches. And we cannot simply dismiss the corroborating accounts of the five soldiers with whom we spoke. (You can read our findings here.)

Part of our integrity as journalists includes standing by a writer who has been accused of wrongdoing and who is not able to defend himself. But we also want to reassure our readers that our obligations to our writer would never trump our commitment to the truth. We once again invite the Army to make public Beauchamp's statements and the details of its investigation--and we ask the Army to let us (or any other media outlet, for that matter) speak to Beauchamp. Unless and until these things happen, we cannot fairly assess any of these reports about Beauchamp--and therefore have no reason to change our own assessment of Beauchamp's work. If the truth ends up reflecting poorly on our judgment, we will accept responsibility for that. But we also refuse to rush to judgment on our writer or ourselves.

And how true that last line is, especially the part where they admit to not wanting to rush to judgment on themselves.

Tomorrow marks the two-month anniversary of this rather deceptive post, which also happens to be the last official word from Franklin Foer, Jason Zengerle, and the other editors and reporters of The New Republic intimately tied to what one media critic has already labeled as one of the top 101 incidents of media dishonesty.

It was clearly established that as an administrative action, that Beauchamp's statements were not legally releasable by the Army to the public. In short, to give his statements to the media without his permission would be illegal, something that TNR knew, or should have known, prior to accusing the Army of being deceptive.

That said, Beauchamp himself could have released these documents to the public, including the media, as soon as the investigation was over if he so desired back in August. He has not apparently seen fit to do so.

Beauchamp was free to speak to the media as early as August 6, four days before The New Republic said that they could still not contact him. On September 10, Pajamas Media published my exclusive interview with Major John Cross, who led the official U.S. Army investigation into the allegations made in "Shock Troops" and found that not a single soldier would corroborate any of Beauchamp's claims.

After re-reading the August 10 statement by the editors of The New Republic, I contacted Major Kirk Luedeke, PAO for Forward Operating Base Falcon where Beauchamp is stationed, and asked him several questions in hopes of updating the story thus far.

The answers seem to indicate that Franklin Foer, Jason Zengerle and the editors of The New Republic have indeed been pursuing their incestuous relationship with Scott Beauchamp further; they've just refused thus far to publish any of the answers they've obtained, for reasons yet unknown.

The interview discussed comments made in the August 10 TNR article cited above, and asked about developments since :

Q: At that time [August 10], the editors of TNR claimed that there were "five soldiers in Beauchamp's company who substantiate the events described in Beauchamp's essay." Have the editors of TNR made any requests to interview soldiers in Beauchamp' s unit, identified of them, or made any attempts to find out about their credibility?

A: Other than requesting and receiving interviews with Pvt. Scott Beauchamp and Maj. John Cross in September, TNR has not asked to speak to any additional Soldiers in the 1-18th Infantry Battalion through the 4th brigade public affairs channels.

Q: At that time, the editors of TNR claimed that, "the Army says it has investigated Beauchamp's article and has found it to be false, it has refused our--and others'--requests to share any information or evidence from its investigation." At the time those statements were made by TNR's editors on August 10, were they factually accurate? Since that time, have the editors of The New Republic spoken with anyone who would have, "information or evidence from its investigation, " such as Major Cross, the investigating officer I interviewed a month ago on September 10?

A: 4th brigade public affairs Soldiers were present for separate interviews conducted between TNR and Pvt. Beauchamp and Maj. Cross.

On Aug. 10, the Army was still in the process conducting an investigation into the possible violation of Operational Security by Pvt. Beauchamp, and therefore, he was not at liberty to conduct interviews pending the outcome of the active investigation. He was, however, able to communicate with his family during that time.

The interviews with Beauchamp and Maj. Cross occurred in the first two weeks of September, and to my knowledge, are the only ones conducted through official channels between TNR and any member of the Vanguard Battalion.

Q: TNR also claimed that, "the Army has rejected our requests to speak to Beauchamp himself, on the grounds that it wants 'to protect his privacy.'" At the time those statements were made by TNR's editors on August 10, were they factually accurate? To your knowledge, have the editors of The New Republic spoken with Scott Thomas Beauchamp since August 10, and if so, when? Does Scott Beauchamp currently have the capability to speak to The New Republic if he so desires, and release all documentation relating to the investigation if he so desires?

A: The statements made by TNR on Aug. 10 about Beauchamp's availability were accurate- given the investigation's status, he was not authorized to conduct interviews with media outlets. However, as soon as the investigation concluded in mid-August, he was free to speak openly if he so desired. He rejected interview requests from Confederate Yankee and the Weekly Standard, but did in fact speak to TNR on the 7th of September, while Maj. John Cross conducted a separate interview with TNR roughly one week later.

Pvt. Beauchamp also canceled scheduled interviews with Newsweek and the Washington Post after speaking to TNR.

TNR interviewed Scott Thomas Beauchamp over a month ago. TNR interviewed investigating officer Major John Cross after I interviewed him for Pajamas Media roughly a week later.

At this stage of the game, one must wonder how much longer Franklin Foer, Jason Zengerle, and the other TNR editors involved in this farcical investigation can continue to hide the obvious fact that this was a series of stories that has not been corroborated, are partially or entirely fictional in nature, and poorly (or never) fact-checked, probably because of the author's relationship with a TNR staffer that he later married.

One must begin to wonder just how ethical Editor-In-Chief Martin Peretz and Executive Editor J. Peter Scoblic are in not reacting to the obvious facts that key elements of the stories written by Scott Beauchamp were not fact checked, and that Franklin Foer and Jason Zengerle are running what appears to be a purposefully deceptive investigation to cover up the lack of fact-checking prior to publication, while apparently lying to readers, experts, critics, and perhaps even their own employers at TNR and CanWest Mediaworks.

I'd love to know what Scott Thomas and Major Cross had to say to TNR, but The New Republic seems content to continue to answer questions about their credibility and ethics with silence.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:11 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 1699 words, total size 12 kb.

From Mike Yon this morning, via email:

Bob,

Basra is not in chaos. In fact, crime and violence are way down and there has not been a British combat death in over a month. The report below is false.

The NEWSDAY report he casts doubt on paints a far different story:

British pullout in Iraq leaves Basra in chaos

BY TIMOTHY M. PHELPS.timothy.phelps@newsday.com; This story was supplemented with wire reports.

October 9, 2007

WASHINGTON - The British troop pullout from Iraq announced yesterday leaves Basra, Iraq's second largest and most strategically important city, in near total chaos both politically and militarily.

It comes at a time when at least four Shia militias are fighting over the city, which is surrounded by most of the nation's tremendous oil reserves and provides Iraq's only gateway to the sea.

Equally vital for U.S. strategists, the city also controls the southern portion of the road from Kuwait to Baghdad, along which mostly all U.S. supplies are brought in...

The article continues, of course, but is it worth reading?

Who are you going to believe... the reporter with th Washington byline, or the embed on the ground in Iraq?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:40 AM | Comments (40) | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.