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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:24 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 709 words, total size 5 kb.

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

It's simply brilliant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But as Yingling concludes, all is not lost:

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:23 AM | Comments (51) | Add Comment
Post contains 910 words, total size 6 kb.

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

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

2 LTC Yingling’s article isn’t some Road to Damascus revelation – it’s yet another exercise in 20-20 hindsight about the blindingly obvious in Iraq. From the get-go Bush, and Rumsfeld too, warned that toppling Saddam Hussein was the easy part. To borrow a Rumsfeld phrase, nation building was a voyage into uncharted waters filled with “unknown unknowns.” You may even recall that candidate Bush was against nation-building before he was for it. And for good reason. Bush is a businessman, and trial-and-error enterprises are invariably money losers. But the strategic objective (an oil-rich “liberal” democracy in the heart of the caliphate-to-be) was rock solid, and Bush – perhaps naively – believed that the majority of his fellow citizens were equally fed up with the stagnant and unproductive so-called “realist” approach to Mideast geopolitics. So he threw the dice and invaded Iraq. That said, I’ll ask you a question: Is Iraq like a game of chess, where the gambits are well catalogued and the grand masters weigh the permutations and combinations; or is it more like Survival, where participants adapt to unexpected obstacles or conditions to keep in the hunt? My guess is the latter. Rumsfeld, Abizaid and Casey are all honorable men who pushed the light footprint approach in Iraq. When that failed, Bush brought in Gates and Petraeus. If Bush was slow to adapt, it took even Lincoln a while to replace McClellan with Grant. Unfortunately, many Americans seem to have attention spans that can be measured in sound bites, which the Dems and their MSM enablers are very clever at exploiting. But building a liberal democracy in Iraq is still a long voyage among uncharted rocks and shoals, and the folks LTC Yingling appears to be criticizing bravely led the way.

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

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

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

4 David, At the request of management, I have moved here. I agree with you that the revolving door is a problem. So is high ranking politicians on either side of the aisle using their position to enrich themselves and their friends. But what is the solution? Personally I don't see a way out except for the implementation of strict term limits. That way the people in DC don't have the ability to build their vast power bases. And it is a problem on both sides of the aisle. I don't have as much problem with ex-military going into the defense business, but there needs to be more control over who can throw business their way. That seems simpler to address than the back room deals done in the political machinery.

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

5 Bob requested I put this in the right thread, after showing my idiocy by placing it in the thread above. D'oh. Bob, this is an excellent post. Thank you. The article is something everyone interested in the prosecution of this war, and Vietnam, should read. I suggest they read Ricks' Fiasco as well. But I have to disagree with you when you say no specific individuals should be blamed. The list is long, yes, but people must be held accountable for this, what looks to be one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in our history. (Please pardon the length of this post and any typos. I'm pressed for time but felt the need to respond. The quotes in italics are from the article.) The greatest error the statesman can make is to commit his nation to a great conflict without mobilizing popular passions to a level commensurate with the stakes of the conflict. After 9/11, Bush could have asked the American people, indeed the world, to do almost anything. We were ready make any sacrifice, pay any cost. Even the French Le Monde ran the headline "We are all Americans." He could have put us on a moon launch footing to end our dependence on oil within a decade. He could have called up every able-bodied American young man to serve. He could have called to us to rise to our better natures, to think of what we can do for the country. Instead, he squandered this one chance and told us to live as if nothing was different, although we were now at war. He did not mobilize popular passions. He told us to go shopping. If the policymaker desires ends for which the means he provides are insufficient, the general is responsible for advising the statesman of this incongruence. Think of Shinseki. Then think of how Rumsfeld's hubris and Bush's criminal lack of intellectual rigor sent Shinseki packing. Why? Because telling the American people this action required a larger commitment was inconvenient to selling the war. In other words, he didn't think we had the stomach for it. He thinks we're sheep. I can assure you, we are not sheep. You'll have to make your own assessment of your own courage for yourself. Failing to visualize future battlefields represents a lapse in professional competence, but seeing those fields clearly and saying nothing is an even more serious lapse in professional character. Moral courage is often inversely proportional to popularity and this observation in nowhere more true than in the profession of arms. Ever heard of the Powell Doctrine? Where was Powell when his voice would have carried real weight? Someone else who squandered what he had earned over a lifetime of honorable service. Despite engaging in numerous stability operations throughout the 1990s, the armed forces did little to bolster their capabilities for civic reconstruction and security force development. Procurement priorities during the 1990s followed the Cold War model, with significant funding devoted to new fighter aircraft and artillery systems. This blame you can spread around. We need to look at how we procure weapons systems and who profits. We need to stop this revolving door from government to defense industries. Cheney and Halliburton is just the most public example, but it runs deep and is toxic to our system of government. Alone among America's generals, Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki publicly stated that "several hundred thousand soldiers" would be necessary to stabilize post-Saddam Iraq. Prior to the war, President Bush promised to give field commanders everything necessary for victory. Privately, many senior general officers both active and retired expressed serious misgivings about the insufficiency of forces for Iraq. Bush had also surrounded himself with incompetents because he values loyalty above all. He listens to a small circle of advisors so even if officers had spoken up, he wouldn't have heard them. He would have heard instead from Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice that the officer who dared go against policy was a McClellan and was best ignored. Counterinsurgency theory requires strengthening the capability of host-nation institutions to provide security and other essential services to the population. This is where the administration's actions were most criminal. Bush and the "Bushies" installed loyalists in the CPA who had no experience in building a nation's infrastructure, financial and physical. What does an applicant's position on abortion have to do with securing a stable economy, yet that was one of the top questions in any interview given any applicant. The stories of incompetence and profiteering are legion. Indeed, the tendency of the executive branch to seek out mild-mannered team players to serve as senior generals is part of the problem. The services themselves are equally to blame. The system that produces our generals does little to reward creativity and moral courage. I have more than a passing familiarity with the Army bureaucracy and I know this is true. Traditional combat arms officers looked with suspicion at those who chose to study counterinsurgency and Special Ops. Until recently, the path to promotion was not through Special Warfare but through armor and infantry. So, while I agree with the larger view of this article that says our generals were unprepared for this war, I disagree that we shouldn't hold individuals accountable for this disaster. There were dissenting voices, they were just shut out of the debate.

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

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

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

7 Shinseki's number wasn't an accurate estimate of what it would take to secure Iraq, it was cop out. It was a number so large as to be incapable of sustaining it for any period of time. He might as well said a bazillion soldiers, he didn't want to do it, so Bush found someone who said he could do it. Or maybe I just hate Shinseki for his, "I'm going to transform the Army by giving them new hats and a motto nobody understands."

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

8 BohicaTwentyTwo, How do you know "the number wasn't an accurate estimate of what it would take?" Considering the fact that we didn't follow his advice, your assumption is based on what...what we've seen instead? Get real...the administration screwed this up from the gitgo.

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

9 you'll wonder how Bush and his fellow neocons can tie their own shoes. I watch democrats flop around ineptly and wonder how they even manage to find their shoes in the morning

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

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

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

11 David said: "Ever heard of the Powell Doctrine? " Yes, and it reflects Yingling's message. I like the analogy of "Survival", but strategic planners also need to play a little chess game. Every step needs to have its future steps worked out with the certain knowledge that the opponent will be acting in regards to "Survival", but like chess our planners is restricted by what's available or planned to be available. Plan for at least as many steps you can see into the future. One lesson learned is that Bin laden was right. We don't have the will for the long "fight". We will not fight the same way we did in Iraq.

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

12 Purple, I'd rather watch anybody "flop around" versus total ineptitude from the very start. Bush has failed the country on so many counts it's almost impossible to fathom: the Iraqi aftermath, 3,400 dead/24,000 wounded, untold numbers of dead Iraqi civilians, Katrina, Gitmo, torture, wiretapping, U.S. Attorney firings, Gonzales, Rummy, allowing Cheney to be his puppetmaster, Wolfie, and on and on. List all of Bush's accomplisments...and please...no more of the much used bullshit line that we haven't been attacked on American soil since 9/11...we weren't attacked for almost 8 years BEFORE 9/11. This is the most inept and corrput administration our nation has ever encountered.

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

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

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

14 Let's put it in perspective Geno. From here: The Clinton Legacy RECORDS SET - The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance - Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates* - Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation - Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify - Most number of witnesses to die suddenly - First president sued for sexual harassment. - First president accused of rape. - First first lady to come under criminal investigation - Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case - First president to establish a legal defense fund. - First president to be held in contempt of court - Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions - Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad - First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court * According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House. Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different standard in "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: "By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever." STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION - Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 14 - Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5 - Number of Reagan cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 4 - Number of top officials jailed in the Teapot Dome Scandal: 3 CRIME STATS - Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47 - Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33 - Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61 - Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122 SMALTZ INVESTIGATION - Guilty pleas and convictions obtained by Donald Smaltz in cases involving charges of bribery and fraud against former Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy and associated individuals and businesses: 15 - Acquitted or overturned cases (including Espy): 6 - Fines and penalties assessed: $11.5 million - Amount Tyson Food paid in fines and court costs: $6 million CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice. OTHER MATTERS INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS AND CONGRESS, OR REPORTED IN THE MEDIA Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House. ARKANSAS ALTZHEIMER'S Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar. Bill Kennedy 116 Harold Ickes 148 Ricki Seidman 160 Bruce Lindsey 161 Bill Burton 191 Mark Gearan 221 Mack McLarty 233 Neil Egglseston 250 Hillary Clinton 250 John Podesta 264 Jennifer O'Connor 343 Dwight Holton 348 Patsy Thomasson 420 Jeff Eller 697 FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one. I don't remember - 71 I don't know - 62 I'm not sure - 17 I have no idea - 10 I don't believe so - 9 I don't recall - 8 I don't think so - 8 I don't have any specific recollection - 6 I have no recollection - 4 Not to my knowledge - 4 I just don't remember - 4 I don't believe - 4 I have no specific recollection - 3 I might have - 3 I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2 I don't have any memory of that - 2 I just can't say - 2 I have no direct knowledge of that - 2 I don't have any idea - 2 Not that I recall - 2 I don't believe I did - 2 I can't remember - 2 I can't say - 2 I do not remember doing so - 2 Not that I remember - 2 I'm not aware - 1 I honestly don't know - 1 I don't believe that I did - 1 I'm fairly sure - 1 I have no other recollection - 1 I'm not positive - 1 I certainly don't think so - 1 I don't really remember - 1 I would have no way of remembering that - 1 That's what I believe happened - 1 To my knowledge, no - 1 To the best of my knowledge - 1 To the best of my memory - 1 I honestly don't recall - 1 I honestly don't remember - 1 That's all I know - 1 I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1 I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1 As far as I know - 1 I don't believe I ever did that - 1 That's all I know about that - 1 I'm just not sure - 1 Nothing that I remember - 1 I simply don't know - 1 I would have no idea - 1 I don't know anything about that - 1 I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1 I just don't know - 1 I really don't know - 1 I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1 Get a grip.

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

15 Want to see just how out of touch the neocons were? : Let's harken back to Rummy and Wolfie, responding to questions regarding what we would encounter after the "shock and awe" campaign: "The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces I think is far off the mark," Mr. Rumsfeld said. General Shinseki gave his estimate in response to a question at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Tuesday: "I would say that what's been mobilized to this point — something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers — are probably, you know, a figure that would be required." He also said that the regional commander, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, would determine the precise figure. A spokesman for General Shinseki, Col. Joe Curtin, said today that the general stood by his estimate. "He was asked a question and he responded with his best military judgment," Colonel Curtin said. General Shinseki is a former commander of the peacekeeping operation in Bosnia. In his testimony, Mr. Wolfowitz ticked off several reasons why he believed a much smaller coalition peacekeeping force than General Shinseki envisioned would be sufficient to police and rebuild postwar Iraq. He said there was no history of ethnic strife in Iraq, as there was in Bosnia or Kosovo. AND: Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables. Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong," he said. Pompous and dumb...a bad combo for America.

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

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

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

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

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

18 Spector, I think by now everybody knows pretty much everything they need to know about Bill...but, damn...YOU do know he's no longer the President...right? Using Clinton or "facts" as you call them from years past, to defend present day situations is silly and illustrates a lack of substance. *Oh, and if you absolutely have to use such inane tactics, you might want to consider the testimony of Reagan, Bush Sr., North, etc. during Irangate if you need to harken back.

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

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

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

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

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

21 Yingling's money quote: "Armies do not fight wars; nations fight wars. War is not a military activity conducted by soldiers, but rather a social activity that involves entire nations." For me, this is the signature failure of the Bush Administration--it did not mobilize the entire state for the fight: "The passion of the people is necessary to endure the sacrifices inherent in war. Regardless of the system of government, the people supply the blood and treasure required to prosecute war." I disagree, however, that American military leaders "failed to estimate correctly both the means and the ways necessary to achieve the aims of policy prior to beginning the war in Iraq," or that they "did not provide Congress and the public with an accurate assessment of the conflict in Iraq." I think they tried to do this, but the Neocons in the Bush administration and Republicans in Congress refused to listen. Ask General Shinseki. The failure here is the civilian leadership, and it should be held accountable. The Decider decided, and what you see is what you get. Specter: do you have links to the claims you make about the Clinton Administration? I believe that Mr. Reagan actually holds at least some of the records you would give Mr. Clinton.

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

22 R. Stanton Scott, Spector is nothing more than the standard right wing talking points machine. To still be referring to President Clinton to shore up an argument supporting G.W. is lame at best. In 2008 they'll ALL be gone...and I do mean ALL.

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

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

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

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

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

25 the Iraqi aftermath, 3,400 dead/24,000 wounded Sounds like a bargain to me. What were the Okinawa invasion casualty numbers again? Refresh my memory.

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

26 Confederate Yankee, I'm confused. You heartily endorse the (excellent) Yingling article, which (correctly) lays the U.S. defeat in Vietnam at the feet of our generals. But.... but.... but..... you (and your winger fans here) always claim that we won in Vietnam, only to have that victory snatched away by the likes of Jane Fonda and Walter Cronkite..... Please explain. Oh, and Purple Avenger, maybe I'm taking you out context, but I'm shocked to hear any American refer to 3,400 U.S. war dead as "sound[ing] like a bargain to me." Of course, right-wingers also used to denigrate the 58,000 Americans killed in Vietnam by casually noting that more died on our highways. Way to support the troops!

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

27 Shorter Specter: "Your guy was worse than our guy." This is not the best case that can be made for electing Republicans. I am a Democrat, and even I could do better than that. At any rate, I still don't see any links to the "facts" stated about the Clinton Administration. You make serious charges--are you counting on the people who read CY to just take your word for it? If this is the best argument you can make, at least back it up. Just as Democrats should have forced Clinton's resignation in 1998--which I believe could have cinched Gore's election and meant at least 18 years of Democratic Presidents and Republican Congresses (arguably the best combination)--the Republicans should start trying to convince Bush and Cheney to leave. They are only dragging the rest of the GOP down. And it's too bad that a potentially very interesting discussion about the conduct of the war degenerated so quickly to "Clinton sucks." CY readers collectively have a lot of knowledge of military affairs. Might be nice to hear what they have to say.

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

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

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

29 CoRev, You mean like Rummy, Cheney, Gonzales, etc? Get real.

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

30 the Iraqi aftermath, 3,400 dead/24,000 wounded "Sounds like a bargain to me. What were the Okinawa invasion casualty numbers again? Refresh my memory." Posted by: Purple Avenger Be sure to pass this on to the families of the dead and wounded Amercan soldiers. I'm sure they'll get a real kick out if it. By the way...have YOU served?

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

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

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

32 CoRev: Anyone can put up a web site called "Progressive Review" with these charges. I asked for a link to the original information. Specter simply copied unsubstantiated charges from someone else. As far as I know, he is the one behind "Progressive Review." Take a look at this site, for example: http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/about/Reagan.html Does it convince you that Reagan was corrupt? Or would you like to see original sources?

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

33 RSS, don't know what to say. Asking for a link, then saying that's not good enough doesn't get us anywhere. Geno, I have. Have you served?

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

34 R. Stanton, I've got news for you. You may not believe it, but Bush and Cheney aren't running for office again. Just thought you should know. LOL. Listen, you don't like Bush. So be it. If he and Cheney stepped down now - gaawwwwd...I can't imagine the craziness. Do you really want Pelosi running the country? ROFLMAO. Ludicrous. As for links to other sites - I am not here to do your research for you. Do your own.

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

35 Specter: Is this what Republicans call fairness? You made accusations without supporting them with evidence. If you can't back them up with evidence you should withdraw them. It is not up to others to support accusations you are making. I challenge you to prove what you said. You know you can't, because what you allege is not true, and proof does not exist. For you this is not troublesome--you dislike these people, so you simply believe anything you are told that supports your opinion. This makes your opinion pretty worthless. I know Bush and Cheney are not running again. I have forgotten more about politics and what is happening in our government than you will ever know. And yes, I would prefer Nancy Pelosi to Bush as President. CoRev: I'm not sure it matters whether Geno served. He or she is not the one supporting a war in which he or she is not fighting. For your own service, thanks.

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

36 I know it drives the Left crazy but in the Iraq and Afghan wars combined we've lost fewer soldiers than individual battles in our history. It's quite likely the most efficient war ever run. And don't give me this "tell that to the families" crap. You are the ones cheerleading the casualties in the first place so don't pretend you give a crap and don't whine when facts get thrown back in your face. And as for the Powell Doctrine, the whole "don't ever use military force unless all stars are aligned properly, in other words never" was the basis for the Clintonian ostrich strategy we had during the 90's as al-Qaeda spread around the world unopposed. It's one of the main reasons there's a hole in the ground in NYC right now.

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

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

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

38 According to a recent Pew Research survey, only 17% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops (4/18-22, 2007). CBS News’ survey findings show only 33% want to remove all troops from Iraq (4/9-12, 2007). 57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and “the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people” (Public Opinion Strategies, 2/5-7, 2007). 59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America’s reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (Public Opinion Strategies, 2/5-7, 2007). According to a Time magazine poll, only 32% want to withdraw the troops within the next year no matter what happens (3/23-26, 2007). Americans Believe Immediate Retreat Leads to Bad Consequences A plurality of adults (45%) say a terrorist attack in the United States is more likely if we withdraw our troops from Iraq while the “country remains unstable” (Pew Research, 4/18-22, 2007). 70% of American voters say, should a date for withdrawal be set, it is likely that “insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq” starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007). Majority Supports Funding War, Troops 56% of Americans say, if President Bush vetoes the Democrats’ plan for withdrawal, Congress should still “allow funding for the war” even if there is no timetable. Only 36% want to withhold funding. A majority of Republicans (84%) and Independents (52%) want to allow funding, while only 51% of Democrats want to withhold it (CBS News, 4/20-24, 2007). A mid-March Bloomberg poll revealed 61% of Americans believe withholding funding for the war is a bad idea, while only 28% believe it is a good idea (3/3-11, 2007). A Public Opinion Strategies poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%; 3/25-27, 2007). According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 61% of Americans oppose “denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq,” and opposition is up from 58% in February (3/23-25, 2007). Strong Opposition to Restricting Military Commanders 69% of American voters trust military commanders more than members of Congress (18%) to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq. This includes 52% of Democrats, 69% of Independents and 88% of Republicans (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 3/27-28, 2007). Public Opinion Strategies recently reported a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007). U.S. Troops Could be Hurt 63% say the debate between the President and Congress over the Iraq war is having a negative impact on troop morale, while only 19% say it is not having any impact at all (CBS News, 4/9-12, 2007). 50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq “hurts” the troops, while only 27% believe it “helps” the troops (LA Times/Bloomberg, 4/5-9, 2007). Low Marks for Democrats on Iraq 62% of Americans disapprove of the Democrats handling of Iraq, while only 37% approve (ABC News/Washington Post, 4/12-15, 2007). Nuff said.

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

39 Stunning how what is a very appropriate and apropos criticism of the military and their political masters, so quickly becomes a partisan squabble. Folks, blaming the other side isn't going to fix the problems that Col Yingling lays out... in fact such petulance only exacerbates them.

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

40 I think polls are pretty useless--and that our leaders should make tough decisions about using military force based on national defense, not public opinion, but anyone who wants to see the state of public opinion on the war can go here: http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm The Public Opinion Strategies poll is widely recognized as being seriously flawed--mostly because of the way the questions were phrased (this really matters, believe it or not). Either side can produce a poll that says what they want it to say, of course, and this is what makes them relatively useless. I expect that many people who read CY regularly will believe that the left does this but the right does not, and that's OK, I guess, if you don't mind building your views around bad information. The idea that low casualty rates correlate to efficiency in prosecuting a war is pretty ludicrous in my view. Casualty rates are a very poor way to measure success on the battlefield (as we found out in Viet Nam). Whether we have accomplished our goals is a much better one, and it is difficult even to express just what success in Iraq looks like. "Create a stable democracy," or "Train the Iraqis to stand up on their own" are both so vague as to make accomplishment impossible as long as some level of insurgency exists. Since we cannot, as a practical matter, eliminate every insurgent, it looks like these goals are impossible to meet. I believe that the Bush Administration miscalculated about what would happen after Saddam's fall--and this is no indictment of their competence, I can understand how this could happen to smart people--but now their failure to respond with flexibility and fresh thought sure makes them look incompetent (and no, just sending in more troops does not count as "fresh thought"). The most interesting thing about the funding bill the Democrats just passed is its requirements for minimum rotations to home station and the training that must be accomplished there before redeployment downrange. This should have the beneficial effect of helping keep our troops trained for contingencies other than Iraq (another more conventional conflict, for example), but it is also something of a backdoor way of forcing an increase in the overall size of the force. I believe this is a good idea, but Congress should just come right out and do so--this is the role it really should play in managing the war, I think. The problem with doing this is that there is no good way to recruit more troops. A draft is politically impossible, and enticing more qualified volunteers would cost a great deal of money in higher military pay. This takes us back to the idea that Bush has not asked Americans to sacrifice. I am curious about just how "complaining that Bush never asked us to sacrifice anything" is an example of "doublethink." I guess if you hate going to the mall, the call to shop could be considered a sacrifice. But with no call for a draft, nor one for higher taxes to pay for all this, it sure looks to me like the troops and their families are the only ones Bush is calling on to bite the bullet here.

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

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

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

42 Wars require learning as you go. For example, after the 1940 debacle in France, the US developed the Tank Destroyer Corps, optimized to "Seek, Strike, and Destroy" Nazi armored spearheads. They did exactly that, using halftracks and 75mm guns in North Africa. That stopped Rommel at the Kasserine Pass. He withdrew. The press reported it as a massive defeat. General Fredental was fired. General Patton took command of the second corps, and taught new tactics that used tanks against enemy weakness, and used tank destroyers behind them, first so the tank destroyers could move forward to strike any german strong points, and second so they would be perfectly positioned to hit any german counterattack. Tank Destroyers worked in pairs, so that a german tank facing one would be exposing its side to another. In Italy the Tank Destroyers were used as high velocity artillery. On the few occasions that Germans came out, Panthers or Tigers could be stopped by a flank attack, and the limited roads made them less dangerous. In France in the bocage, the US had to learn how to smash through the hedgerows, and to perfectly coordinate their movement with supporting fire. Again, when Bradley broke through at St. Low, Patton again used mobility to cut through weaknesses, and then cut off retreating Germans with tank destroyer and infantry screens. He attacked with great success in all directions at once. The only thing that stopped him was the diversion of fuel to Montgomery's 12th Army group, and to move General Lee's communications zone headquarters from its austere site in Normandy to the flesh pots of Paris. With minimal fuel, Patton switched to deliberate attacks through tough resistance, and gnawed through the Platinate. Faced with the breakthrough in the Ardennes, Patton got the fuel priority that had been denied him, and bashed his way north, penetrating the German Seventh Army screen, and then hitting the flank of the German 6th Panzer Army. After crossing the Rhine, Patton was again given supply priority, and turned that into a slashing attack to overrun much of southern Germany. Tank Destroyers were formed into Combat Commands, which included Tanks, Artillery, Tank Destroyers, and Infantry. Counterattacks were shoved aside. Infantry mounted on tanks shot at the sides of the road to keep the panzerfaust gunner's heads down, then threw grenades into their holes with them. So long as the US could keep pushing, the Germans couldn't get set. End of history lesson. The point is: You have to adjust your tactics to the situation and the enemy. The enemy will adjust his tactics too. There is not a single winning strategy, but rather you have to match today's tactics to today's situation. The US trounced Saddam's army in Iraq in weeks. We thumped Al Queda and the Ba'athists in a few months. We bash Al Sadr's militia every time we show up, but then they stop fighting, and our soldiers go back to their bases. We have 400,000 Iraqi soldiers as our allies. So long as we keep fighting we can never lose. Only cowardice can lose this war for us. The cowardice won't come from the soldiers, but rather further back.

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

43 Excellent comment Don.

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

44 CoRev: I do not believe that we are not on track to balance the budget in 08, so there is no need to change my comment on that basis. I am, of coures, interested in any evidence you have to support the idea that we are. And if we are, the Bush Administration still has not called for collective action and sacrifice in the face of war that he and his allies believe is a fight for the very existence of our civilization. It is difficult for me to believe how one could think that our very way of life is at risk, and yet refuse to mobilize the entire society in its defense. I simply cannot understand why our military services have to lower standards to recruit sufficient troops for this fight if so many people believe it is critical to survival. Don: "So as long as we keep fighting we can never lose." As a soldier, this makes no sense to me whatsoever. "Not losing" is not the same as winning, and merely being in a fight--throwing resources into a war that never ends and results in neither victory nor defeat--does no one any good. If your definition of winning is "we're still fighting," I am glad you are not in charge.

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

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

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

46 CoRev: The Skeptical Optimist is a very interesting website. But his argument seems to be about debt load, not balanced budgets. For example, he argues that government should (at least occasionally) borrow money, because "When a prudent measure of borrowing is used to supplement tax receipts, tax rates can be lower than they would have to be to 'balance the budget.' That's a growth-friendly policy." This allows tax rates to be lower, so that "private sector business-builders have more after-tax resources to fund their ideas for better hot dog stands, day-care centers, plasma televisions, bullet-proof vests, video games, alternative-fuel auto engines, and anti-gravity machines." So for the SO, fiscal responsibility is "The body of growth-oriented federal laws and policies that sustain the nationÂ’s debt-to-GDP ratio at 60% plus-or-minus 20%." (See http://www.optimist123(dot)com/optimist/2006/05/fiscal_responsi.html) (Note that I bypassed the spam filter by inserting (dot) in the URLs in place of the "dot." You will have to reconvert them to make them work.) He does not believe that the budget should always be balanced, and I could not find evidence on his site that suggests we are on the way to doing so (and indeed, the "debt clock" on his site shows the debt rising rapidly, and not slowing down). Presumably, he would argue that if we did balance it, government should begin borrowing again when necessary to promote growth or to bring the debt load back to 60% (his preferred level). At any rate, I don't really see how arguing that government may soon be able to stop borrowing money justifies ignoring the need to mobilize our society to fight a struggle against a threat to our national and civilizational existence. Nor do I see how saying "we'll give you a pro-growth tax cut to help you fund your new anti-gravity machine and make more profit" constitutes doing so. Further, I could find no evidence that what you say is true from other sources either. Indeed, even the Washington Times editorial board seems to be skeptical that the US budget may soon be balanced: http://washingtontimes(dot)com/op-ed/20070212-091022-6828r.htm This article is about debt as well, but you will notice that they reject many of the assumptions required to make the case that the budget will be balanced by 2008 (and therefore begin to pay off national debt). It the WT figures are correct, reducing the national debt by $9 Billion by 2008 (which implies a surplus of more than $9 B--don't forget those pesky interest charges) requires reducing the cost of the war by $21 Billion next year. I don't believe this will happen. Unless it does, the budget will not be balanced--unless taxes are raised to cover the difference.

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

47 RSS, try this link: http://www.optimist123dotcom/optimist/2007/04/deficit_watch_m.html He keeps a running monthly chart if you are interested. His views, as you noted, are interesting.

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

48 CoRev: Thanks. This is a very interesting chart. Note that he is giving us a trend of outlays vs. reciepts for the most recent 12 months. Another chart on SO from October 2005 shows 15.8% increase in reciepts against an 8.5% increase in outlays (over the most recent 12 months), and this also suggests a balanced budget in August 2008. When I ran the data from October 1980 to August 2006 as a simple monthly comparison (not a rolling 12 months) I got a very similar graph. All of this makes me a "skeptical optimist" about this data. It does indeed seem to show that the outlays from September 2007 to August 2008 will match reciepts from the same period. But I'm not sure what it says about balancing the budget, and the CBO seems to have another view: http://www.cbo(dot)gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4985&sequence=2 I wonder if this has to do with Social Security and other reciepts that show in the MTS, but have little to do with any realistic chance to balance the budget--or to keep it balanced for very long, at least. I also wonder if the data looks this way because some outlays are not reported on the MTS. I can think of good reasons why some war or intelligence expenditures would not show up in a publicly available data set, since it would make it possible to determine just how much we spend on these things (by taking the total number and subtracting known payments in other areas). At any rate, I hope you and SO are correct on this, though I don't think it shows that there was no need for Bush to mobilize our society for the struggle for civilization he says we are in, or that he has done so. I would like to see it if only because I think there is a need to create a sense that everyone is contributing. This might limit the partisan bickering over the issue, at least.

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

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

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

50 RSS, I think you are correct. Not a balanced budget but budget surplus. Couldn't you have gotten something newer than Jan 04. That's little long in the tooth. Actually what is happening is the economy is expanding faster than expenditures. All the wasteful spending doncha know. If we stay on track 08 is going to be an interesting election year. Makes you wonder about the need for all those taxes being proposed by some candidates.

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

51 I am willing to make a bet that the US federal budget is not balanced--or in surplus--in August 2008. Do what you can afford. I am also willing to bet that the US economy will not make the election year more interesting in the sense I think you mean--that it will help Republicans. Stock market and productivity growth, and even a balanced budget, will not make working Americans, who find their wages lagging their increasing productivity even as they find out their jobs are more at risk (Circuit City) will not flock to the polls in support of the status quo. If you are a Democrat, you have to like the prospects for 2008. Put down the Kool-Aid and take a look around. They aren't challenging and winning Republican seats just because they suddenly forgot about gun control.

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

Hide Comments | Add Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I stated March 8:

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

At least one former Democrat understands how wrong that is.

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

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:05 AM | Comments (97) | Add Comment
Post contains 908 words, total size 6 kb.

1

The Reid/Pelosi/Murtha Iraq plan in simplified form:

Predict failure Do whatever it takes to make the prediction come true Blame it on George Bush

What we are watching, people, is absolute moral bankruptcy in action. Reid and Pelosi are contributing to American deaths in Iraq just as surely as Kerry and Fonda did in Viet Nam. May they burn in eternal Hell.

I excerpted and linked at 2007.04.26 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup.

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

2 there's a big difference between 'championing' genocide and just not caring enough about the victims, whether it be Iraq, Darfur or somewhere else, to have American soldiers die trying to keep it from happening. American soldiers volunteer to help keep America safe, not to be offered up as shields stuck between two groups of crazy Iraqis... and, right now, with the lion's share of the violence in Iraq taking the form of Iraqi-v-Iraqi fighting, the American people fail to see how having our troops die in Iraq is doing America any good.

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

3 If there's a bloodbath, it's on your neocon hands. You were warned about this, you chose not to listen. What the hell did you think would happen?

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

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

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

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

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

6 "If there's a bloodbath, it's on your neocon hands. You were warned about this, you chose not to listen. What the hell did you think would happen?" Who warned us? The Democrats? "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that." "I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons." Nancy Pelosi "It is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threat. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations. The brave and capable men and women of our armed forces and those who are with us will quickly, I know, remove him once and for all as a threat to his neighbors, to the world, and to his own people, and I support their doing so." "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President. No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars." "I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." John Kerry "Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can." John Edwards "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict." Harry Reid Those dont sound like warning to me. It looks like the Dems wanted the war as much as the "neo-cons". I guess the "bloodbath" is on ALL of our hands.

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

7 If there's a bloodbath, it's on your neocon hands. You were warned about this, you chose not to listen. What the hell did you think would happen? In other words, liberals who wanted a "change in direction and strategy in Iraq" and got Robert Gates and General Petraeus (the man who literally wrote the manual on counterinsurgency operations) as a result, were lying when they made this claim. What you actually wanted the entire time was to abandon the Iraqi people in order to publish Goerge Bush for "his war." For a political group that pays so much lip service to humanitarian rights, you are awfully cavalier towards the fate of the overwhelming majority of 24 million Iraqi civilians who would have their lives and security placed in far greater jeopardy by the arbitrary withdrawal dates Democrats are attempting to push. I don't question your patriotism. I question your humanity. let's assume you are right...and that's a hell of an assumption considering you and all the other bush cultists have been wrong all along...that means we have only one option...continue pouring blood and money at this in an open ended commitment until the iraqis actually do something in the way of a political solution...which they have shown no indication of doing. at that point we will have propped up a weak corrupt government...al queda and other groups like them will be able to operate where they couldn't before...and iran will have far more influence than they had before. so our only option leaves us worse off than before. f'ing brilliant. Presently, Seven Iraqi provinces are being run by the Iraqis (3 Kurdish, four Arab), and three more will probably be turned over to Iraqi control within the next year to 18 months. When 10 of 18 provinces are in Iraqi hands, will you still cry the the commitment is open-ended? It never was. The commitment was to establish enough security for the Iraqis to take over. We finally have the new plan and general to execute that new plan that you ask for, and you now seek to quit before giving him a chance to have that plan come to fruition. You act as if Iraq was a peaceful tranquil place free of corruption and terrorism before we arrived, when Baathist corruption ran deep even during Saddam's regime, and the State itself was a key instrument of terror in the region. The fact that Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, and Abdul Rahmin Yasin (the 1993 World Trade Center bomb builder) lived in Baghdad at Saddam's bequest, and that Saddam himself had ordered invasion of two neighboring countries, somehow slips your collective minds. The Iraqi government has been in place for what, two years? Unless our history books are wrong, this nation didn't even have a Constitution until 1781, five long years after declaring independence from Great Britian. Liberals such as yourself are quick to play up the efforts of al Qaeda's own surge (evidenced by the increase in car-bombings), but are loath to note the fact that the majority of Sunni tribes in al Anbar that once supported the insurgency are now supporting the Iraqi government, and are in fact attempting to join the IA and IP so quickly that we're unable to process them all at once. They've fought pitched battles against al Qaeda and aligned insurgent groups, and have won every one in recent memory, a fact that the media either underplays, or often simply refuses to support at all. Sunni groups formerly opposed to the Iraqi government are now forming political parties to join with it. JD Johannes, on the ground in Fallujah, reports that the insurgency may even indeed be over in parts of al Anbar. The larger insurgency will indeed claim more American and Iraqi lives before it is finished, but to surrender to terrorists and the states that sponsor them is a far worse threat to the security of the Iraqi and American peoples. Even the reliably left wing reporters of media organizations in Iraq acknowledge that our pulling out will make the region far more unstable, as noted in the main article, and the craven, naked retreat in the face of adversity is an affront to American honor and dignity, along with an abandonment of basic humanitarian principles. Of course, it seems obvious that liberals gave up on both honor and true humanitarian values long ago.

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

8 Shorter Confederate Yankee: If we can pin the blame on the Democrats, then it IS america's fault that a bunch of people somewhere else kill each other. If we can't pin the blame on a Democrat, then only america-hating democrats would blame america and not the terrorists doing the killing. Either way, Republicans win!

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

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

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

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

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

11 What I find amusing about all of this, in a tragic sense, is that if everything was exactly the same, but a Democrat was in office, you'd be screaming for his impeachment. Despite every miscalculation and mistake made by Bush and his Administration, you still insist on placing the blame on a political party that had nothing to do with any of this. This war was planned and executed by Republicans. And no one will forget that.

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

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

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

13 So many misrepresentations, so little time... you can cherry pick quotes from Dems (who did NOT have the same intelligence as the WH but were spoon fed a lot of misleading claims) but it doesn't change the fact that this is George Bush's war. Millions predicted this prior to the war. I was one of them. Actually, I was just listening to Petraeus...he didn't seem sure that things would get worse if we left. I think he said probably or possibly if US troops AND Iraqi troops were to go away, there might be an increase in sectarian violence. Even the Burns quote is equivocal. One thing is certain....what we are doing now is failing big time.

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

14 Republicans have had 4 years with a blank check and almost zero oversight and have accomplished...what exactly? Hate to break it to you, but the state has already failed, the regional war has already broken out, and the genocide has already begun - all thanks to Georgie's war of choice. I'll repeat what the Truth said: This war was planned and executed by Republicans. And no one will forget that.

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

15 "the majority of Sunni tribes in al Anbar that once supported the insurgency are now supporting the Iraqi government, and are in fact attempting to join the IA and IP so quickly that we're unable to process them all at once." yeah...that's the ticket...more once and future insurgents infiltrating the Iraqi army and police. And you wonder why no one has any confidence in this hare brained scheme?

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

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

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

17 Why is it that you care so much for muslims in Iraq yet spend so much time hating them in the US and everywhere else...there is no logic or consistancy to your crap. Just another typical, empty-headed, liberal platitude. Search the archives, chum. You won't find any of that here. I dislike Islamists, not Muslims. You're simply too clueless to know the difference.

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

18 Justin, You missed this Democratic quote from 2002: "I have come here today to express my view that America should not go to war against Iraq unless and until other reasonable alternatives are exhausted. It is possible to love America while concluding that it is not now wise to go to war. The standard that should guide us is especially clear when lives are on the line. We must ask what is right for our country and not party." That was Ted Kennedy. I want to go on record here (again) and say I think pulling out would be a disaster. But I don't believe we can do it with our military as it is. Even Petraeus said today that it would take a very long commitment in order to win this war. How long and how many men? He couldn't, or wouldn't, say. Fair enough. But if it's true that this is an absolute must-win for us, as Bob and others insist, then where is the call for: 1. More troops (maybe even the draft) 2. Higher taxes to pay for this long-term commitment and 3. The truth about how many troops, for how long, and at what cost? The American people need to know how much this thing is going to cost and how long we have to stay. As much as Bush thinks this is a monarchy, it's not. We need to know now what we've gotten into. No more soft and mushy proclamations of progress. We need the hard, cold truth if we're going to face this head-on. I'm with you on this. I think the Democratic leadership is acting in a craven, irresponsible manner, and I'm a lifelong Democrat. But there's no honor on the GOP side, either, only empty words, bone-headed incompetence, and a desire to find some way to shift the blame for this catastrophe onto the Democrats. Shame. For all of you arguing partisan politics here, lift your head so you can see above the BS and then call ALL of our leaders, left and right, to task for failing us and our military, so utterly. To do otherwise is to reduce your principles to those of a third-rate ward-heeler telling the rubes anything to get their vote.

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

19 What is our best case scenario in Iraq? Let's say somehow the next 12 months are much more effective than the past 48 have been and the insurgents and jihadists are defeated militarily. That leaves Iraq governed by a coalition of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, sponsored by Iran; the DAWA party, sponsored by Iran; and the Sadrists, also sponsored by Iran, and the hardline islamist Virtue Party. Oh and the Kurds. So Ware is backwards on this. Our vicotry in Iraq would be what hands the country to Iran. Because of Bush's colossal blundering, Iran is in a position to win whether we go or stay. What is the word for a situation in which the enemy wins even in your best case? Oh yeah, Lost.

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

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

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

21 jvf, Not sure what hole in the ground you came up from (KOS, DU, or FDL) but I always love when Dimmies make this argument: you can cherry pick quotes from Dems (who did NOT have the same intelligence as the WH but were spoon fed a lot of misleading claims) but it doesn't change the fact that this is George Bush's war. Millions predicted this prior to the war. I was one of them. First - Do you see what this argument says? Or are you too blinded by BDS? You claim that Bush is stupid, yet he was able to pull the wool over the eyes and fool the Dimmies into believing made up intelligence (or so you say). Now - if Bush could fool the Dimmies, it makes them less intelligent than him, or by your definition - even stupider than you think Bush is. ROFLMAO at you. Second - Many of the quotes that have been posted were made by the Dimmie Brain Trust prior to the Bush election into office. Laughing at you even harder now. Third - Quick - what was Operation Desert Fox, who ordered it, and for what reason? Study a little history about the ME from the last 30-40 years and you might, just might be a little more informed. As for now, you are a BDS Troll. Simple.

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

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

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

23 "Only option" jay k.? What is the "only option?"

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

24 "I was brought up believing that the United States was a champion for liberty and freedom around the world." You been duped, son. This is what happens to the uncurious and naive. Now that you know it, what you gonna do about it?

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

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

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

26 Bush is stupid. It's his evil partners who are bringing this country to it's knees. I gotta admit, it's interesting to see the most powerful military in the history of mankind get it's ass-handed to them by a bunch of teenagers. Not to mention, SOOOOOOOO well-deserved.

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

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

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

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

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

29 Specter, I'm your huckleberry. You want a plan? Look at what I've suggested. As for Desert Fox, Clinton went after Saddam but did not go to war. He contained him. That's a huge difference in blood and treasure. You can argue that containment could not have gone on forever, but that begs the question as to how long should we continue our present occupation? Really, Specter, what's your plan? It's obvious we can't keep sending these troops back for six, seven, eight tours without the military breaking down. We can't keep borrowing from China to pay for this expedition. So what do you suggest we do, smart guy? You offer nothing of substance to this debate beside knuckle-headed abuse. Frankly, I find it really tiresome.

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

30 What difference does it make where we "came from". You have a problem with hearing from those who don't share your opinion? The Bush admin snow job has nothing to do with intelligence (as in "smart"), and everything to do with manipulation. Desert Fox was a very limited operation, intended to degrade Saddam's military. Very different from occupying the whole country, which by the way, George H.W. Bush though was a dumb idea and certainly still does. Before you accuse me of not having a plan, I believe we should keep a skeleton crew of US troops for training & support purposes only, and get the rest off of the streets. Oh yeah, and impeach our civilian leadership who have f***ed up this war beyond belief.

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

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

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

32 Oh I get it, Bush was able to manipulate the Dimmies. Same argument - he is smarter than they are. Get a grip. OK - I see it took so long to answer cuz you had to Wiki the answers. So - why did Clinton feel it necessary to "contain" Saddam. What was the threat that Clinton was responding to? Dig deeper, you'll get it. That is not a plan. Laughing even harder at you. civilian leadership who have f***ed up this war beyond belief. Oh you mean like Congress trying to dictate troop movement orders? Like breaking the role assigned to Congress v. the role assigned to the President. Do you ever have a quote without f'ng in it? You musa bin hiley edicated.

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

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

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

34 Specter, Nice use of the chickenhawk arguement. What are the milblogs going to do to me, rape me? I'm not a 14-year old Iraqi, so I'm not too worried about them.

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

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

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

36 David, My plan is to support the President and the military leaders. There is a plan there you know. Same plan that has been for a long time. Help get the Iraqi government up and running, train the Iraqi troops/police, and stay put until they ask us to leave. Now - there may need to be tactical adjustments to fit the strategy. We need to find ways to force the Iraqi gov. to step forward faster. Abandoning them is not going to do that. We have been making great progress in turning over provinces to Iraqi forces. Granted - those provinces are the most tranquil, but that is the best place to season these troops. We have made strides in replacing infrastructure, schools, businesses, etc. In the last election, people did not vote to run away and abandon Iraq. They voted for a change of direction (mind you that does not mean "retreat" as opposed to "victory - or going forward"). The bottom line here is that WE ARE THERE. If we leave there will be a bloodbath. So what are the options now? You tell me.

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

37 So go say it there then chicken.

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

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

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

39 Specter, I have. They threatened me. Yawn. BTW, Iran thanks you.

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

40 You aren't even coherent. BDS?

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

41 No. Common sense and a curious mind. BDS is a made up affliction coined by Conservatives. They can't possibly see why someone could dislike W's actions. They think you can just hate a President no matter what he does. This is called projection. It's what they did for 8 years during the 90s. BTW, I didn't think Clinton was a good President either. How about another W golden gem? He thinks if we leave, three-thousand plus American soldiers will have died in vain. Our MBA President has no concept of sunken costs. Comedy gold.

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

42 So just how long do you think we would have to stay in Iraq before we would be able to withdraw without worse violence erupting? Another five years? Ten? Twenty? Fifty? Ad infinitum??? And how many lives and trilions of dollars would that cost? The only hope for stopping the violence is that the parties in Iraq's CIVIL WAR should come to some kind of an accommodation that they can all live with. And as of now there is no indication of that happening. And that will remain true for as long as the U.S. remains there trying to keep a lid on things. Perhaps being faced with the reality that they can either make a REAL effort to solve their problems or they can destroy each other may be the only thing that can finally force the Iraqis to learn to live together. In any case, if we disengage ourselves in a reasonable manner the choice and the responsibility for what happens afterward will belong to the Iraqis themselves. Equating extracting ourselves from the middle of someone else's civil war (where we should never have found ourselves in the first place) and genocide is an absurdity!

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

43 Specter, Do I knowe any soldiers there now? How about two of my nephews? One is a major with a Stryker Brigade out of Fort Lewis and the other is a surgeon with an FST. Is that close enough? Now, if you'll look, I've laid out what I think needs to happen: 1. Draft. 2. Raise taxes. 3. Level with the US citizens. Now none of those things rae going to happen, which, in my opinion, makes this war a half-stepper and half-steppers don't get it done. Look at what Petraeus said today about long-term commitment. Even he can't predict how long or how many or how much, but it will be for quite a while and we as citizens should know just how much is being asked of us. As for progress, I see encouraging signs, so I'm willing to give this the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not optimistic. What I don't understand is how you and others can so blindly follow a president and the architects of this war, most of them having never served a day in uniform, when everything and I mean EVERYTHING they've said so far has been so bloody wrong. In my long life I have never seen any other single group of people so wrong about so many things. Did they get anything right here? No, they followed Chalabi and Curveball into this mess and we went along, thanks to lousy reporting by the liberal New York Times and Washington Post. That's what I don't get. You're willing to back a team with more losses than the Cubs. If this was a sports team their coach would have been sacked by now. But no, we still have to hear the experts Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Feith on their ideas of how to win when it was their stupidity that got us here. But you keep backing a losing team. Unfortunately, you're betting other people's lives, so you'd better be sure you're right.

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

44 I simply do not understand the liberal mind-think on the Iraq war. If Represenative Pelosi and company wanted to end this war they could have denied funding. If they want the war to end next spring they can fund the war and deny funding next spring. They do not have Constitutional authority to set battle rules and timetables. The refusal of liberals to view the facts and listen to what their leaders have stated before is just incredible. I fear that we may have turned a corner and will never find our way back.

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

45 Most Iraqis, Sunni and Shia, want us to leave. Therefore the argument that we owe it to them to stay does not hold water. I've never seen a more craven politician than Bush. Nothing is ever his fault. He's trying to hire a War Czar now to take the blame for whatever catastrophes await us in Iraq, but no one will take the job. Terrenoire's right: there's no excuse for the half-assed execution of this war. Not only were there no taxes to fund it, we got tax breaks. Instead of instituting a draft, we are trying to police a nation of 30 million. Bush does not have the courage to push these things through, yet he's happy to ask our troops to risk their lives. Here in the US we even use magnet stickers instead of the more permanent bumperstickers to show our support. Wouldn't want to jeopardize that paint job! You talk about supporting the troops, but the troops want to come home. Look at the military times poll or the Zogby Poll. We are supporting the troops, not you. About your quotations from Dems about supporting the war: the Dems were lied to by Bush. The evidence for Iraqi WMD was tissue thin. Basically it consisted of the Niger uranium connection and testimony from an honestly crazy person named Curveball. Saddam's son-in-law the general who defected to the US testified baldly that there were no WMD, but Bush chose to go with Curveball. Facts were fixed around the policy, as the Downing Street Memo stated.

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

46 I simply do not understand the liberal mind-think on the Iraq war. If Represenative Pelosi and company wanted to end this war they could have denied funding. If they want the war to end next spring they can fund the war and deny funding next spring. OK: It's hard to tell, but I think the consensus opinion in Congress is that we should pull out gradually over the course of a year. That'll give the Iraqis a chance to start taking over responsibility for their country's security. (Assuming they want to have any security; it seems like most of them are so consumed by old grudges that they'd rather have a bloody civil war.) But just saying that there's going to be no funding next year won't work. The problem is George Bush; he'll just keep fumbling around without starting the withdrawal. In a year's time, Iraq will be in exactly the same position it's in today, only with another year's worth of casualties. So Congress has to use the carrot-and-stick approach. If Bush wants the funding, he has to accept the timetable. Only that's not working, and I'm not sure what happens next. In an ideal world, the Republicans in Congress would grow some balls and vote to override the veto. Barring that, the next-best option is to not pass the emergency funding bill at all. That *should* force Bush to withdraw the troops fairly quickly. Iraq will collapse into civil war, of course, but that was probably going to happen anyway. If the Iraqis had sincerely wanted stability, they could have had it by now. I fear that we may have turned a corner and will never find our way back. We've been through worse, and made it out OK. And things should start improving now that we've finally got some Congressional oversight.

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

47 The whole thing was a fraud from the start. Greeted as Liberators, Mission Accomplished, Last Throes...what a load of BS I was listening to Mark Levin (the "conservative" commentator and radio host) - he was wailing that "America is under attack from the Democrats"...it sounded like he was going to pee his pants. That's fascist rhetoric, this "internal ememy" crap. It's about time someone is standing up to these gangsters.

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

48 Deal with this lefties: Average military deaths per year under: Clinton Admin: 938 Bush Admin (Iraq): 833 In Iraq we are fighting a war. What were we doing to deserve such a high number of deaths during Clinton? Explain. I notice none of you stepped up to explain why Clinton ran the "containment" operation. Got a clue yet? C'mon David and jvf - even you can wiki it. David - has the war been run shoddily? Yes. But what do we do - do we just pull out as we did under Dimmie leadership in Viet Nam? Do we pull out and leave millions to the slaughter? Is that what makes sense? The obvious answer is no. But what do we do?

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

49 jvf, Since you seem not to understand the question, and hence the implication, I will refer you to the Wiki article on Operation Desert Fox: Clinton administration officials said the aim of the mission was to "degrade" Iraq's ability to manufacture and use weapons of mass destruction, not to eliminate it. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked about the distinction while the operation was going on: "I don't think we're pretending that we can get everything, so this is - I think - we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century. [. . .] [W]hat it means is that we know we can't get everything, but degrading is the right word." Main targets of the bombing included weapons research and development installations, air defense systems, weapon and supply depots, and barracks and command headquarters of Saddam's elite Republican Guard. Also, one of Saddam's lavish presidential palaces came under attack. Iraqi anti-air batteries, unable to home in on the American and British jets, began to blanket the sky with near random bursts of flak fire. The air strikes continued unabated however, and cruise missile barrages launched by naval vessels added to the bombs dropped by the planes. By the fourth night, most of the specified targets had been damaged or destroyed and the Operation was deemed a success. U.S. Special Forces members who had been on the ground in northern Iraq to protect Kurdish settlements from retaliation withdrew, and the air strikes ended. Now - tell me how Bush "manipulated" the intelligence during the Clinton Administration to get Clinton to attack Hussein over development of WMD. You can't. That is why I claim you are afflicted with BDS. If not BDS, then explain why the Clinton Administration claimed in 1988 and after that Hussein had WMD. Try to explain this.

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

50 It pisses me off when all you libs act like this is the longest, bloodiest war we have ever been in in the history of the United States. Over 4 years 3300 soldiers dead? Thats a drop in the bucket compared to the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. Get a f'in grip on reality people! The war IS winnable. It obviously wont take FOREVER or infinity like you idiots like to say. When the Iraqis unite major combat operations will be over in a year or two. They are allready almost there. The vast majority of Americans wanted this war. Only the brave Americans want to finish it. You think Bush likes having his name dragged though shit every day? No, he is doing what he thinks is best for the long term security of our country. If a Democrat gets elected our next president, I GUARANTEE he/she will f up our country so bad, we will be standing in soup lines for 10 years. Woo hoo another great depression. And Robert, I bet you are one of those scumbags that would spit on a soldier if he saw one. People like you should be tried for treason.

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

51 "You talk about supporting the troops, but the troops want to come home. Look at the military times poll or the Zogby Poll. We are supporting the troops, not you." Poller: Soldier, do you want to go home? Soldier: Hell yeah! Poller: Do you want every soldier to retreat, and give Iraq to Al-Queda? Soldier: Hell no! That poll just asks a home sick person if they want to go home. Give me break. Supporting the troops, who I must remind you aren't cowards like liberals, doesn't mean making them retreat when they think the war can be one. Don't forget if we pull out prematurely, Al-Queda is going to go crazy screaming about how they beat the "great satan". What do you think they will do next? You must think they will be satisfied, and go home. Liberals are the KEY PART of the Al-Queda strategy. They know from experience (Mogadishu) that Liberals don't have the sack to fight a war with even a relatively small number of casualties. The Liberal male has been far too over feminized.

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

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

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

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

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

54 Specter: Average military deaths per year under: Clinton Admin: 938 Bush Admin (Iraq): 833 What a steaming load. Not if you mean US military deaths. Even if it was true it would prove nothing. In Iraq we are fighting a war. Aye. And the earth is round.

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

55 About your quotations from Dems about supporting the war: the Dems were lied to by Bush. Typical Liberal thinking. Keep beliving something, even though you know it isnt true. Check the dates on those quotes there and the other ones I posted. They started in 1998 and concluded in 2002. I think one was from 2003 I dont remember. Im pretty sure Bush wasnt lying to the Dems about Iraqs WMD in 98. But for some reason you keep repeating that same lie. Why, Lex, why?

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

56 Did the Dems vote for the war without looking at the intel themselves? Or did they only listen to Bush? Im pretty sure they have a security clearance and a brain. So if they voted without looking at the intel, and only listened to Bush, then that would be extremely iresponsable, dont you think? However, Im pretty sure they must have looked at the intel themselves. And last I checked the President doesnt write the intel himself. Logic would then dictate that they made their decision to vote for the war based on the info laid out on the table. Not Bushes speaches. So one of two things must have happened: 1. They voted for the war based solely on what Bush was saying without checking the intel themselves. 2. They checked the intel and voted for the war based on the same info Bush based his speaches on.

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

57 Justin, there's miles of difference between worrying about Saddam and invading the country. There can be no doubt that it was Republicans who were behind the invasion. "Be glad of the good news: America is mired in the swamps of the Tigris and Euphrates. Bush is, through Iraq and its oil, easy prey. Here is he now, thank God, in an embarassing situation and here is America today being ruined before the eyes of the whole world." --Osama bin Laden, video message broadcast October 18, 2003 Interview with Anthony Zinni here. Interview with General William Odom here "It was as if Osama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long-range mind control of George Bush, chanting 'invade Iraq, you must invade Iraq,'" --Richard Clarke What your kind never wants to admit or understand is that Iraq was largely free from jihad under Saddam. Look at the region: the Saudis were behind 911; Pakistan was caught selling nukes; Afghanistan has jihadist trainig camps. Saddam was a thug, but he didn't tolerate Islamic fanaticism, it was a threat to him. There wasn't any jihad coming from Iraq, and that's what the WOT should be about. What a fiasco.

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

58 Did the Dems vote for the war without looking at the intel themselves? Justin, are you that naive? Do you really think Dems in Congress had some security clearance that allowed them to analyze intelligence for themselves? The White House has the power to decide what intelligence is provided to Congress. They can't just go and peruse the day's intelligence. This is what it's all about. The intelligence released by the administration made a strong case for war (WMD's, Nukes, al Qaida ties). None of these claims have been proven and an argument can be made that they have been proven to be false. Why do you think people are pissed that we're still in Iraq? Why do you think many are pissed that we went there in the first place? Innocent humans are being killed in Iraq every day. The innocents are American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. They didn't ask for a war based on false pretenses, but they are the ones paying the price. Fred

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

59 Justin: last I checked the President doesnt write the intel himself No, but close. The Office of Special Plans under Doug Feith (or whatever it was called) appears to have been set up solely to promote the Iraq war. So one of two things must have happened: 1. They voted for the war based solely on what Bush was saying without checking the intel themselves. 2. They checked the intel and voted for the war based on the same info Bush based his speaches on. I think it was mostly number one, in the sense that they allowed Bush and Powell et al to scare them so much. I certainly don't defend the Dem congressional votes. In hindsight there appears to have been no secret evidence. There was the bogus Niger claim, the lunatic Curveball, aluminum tubes, mobile weapons labs, and so it. That was it, and it was all a crock, every bit of it.

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

60 David - has the war been run shoddily? Yes. But what do we do - do we just pull out as we did under Dimmie leadership in Viet Nam? Do we pull out and leave millions to the slaughter? Is that what makes sense? The obvious answer is no. But what do we do? Specter, This will be the third time I posted this on just this thread alone: 1. We cannot keep extending tours and sending troops back for fourth, fifth and more tours. These young volunteers, unlike my time, are mostly family men. Divorce is on the rise and families are breaking under the strain. The only solution, since so many young Republicans think it's honorable to send other people off to fight their wars, is a draft. 2. We cannot keep funding our war by borrowing money from the Chinese. So we have to raise taxes. 3. This is most important. We have to level with the American people and tell them why we must sacrifice and what is a really true estimate of our commitment. It's my contention that no one, not the Democrats, and not our brave and CINC will do any of the above. That means all this administration is doing is kicking the can down the road so the war becomes someone else's problem. To continue as we are, in my opinion, makes the war unwinnable. I don't know about you, but I don't want to sacrifice my nephews for a strategy that won't work simply because Bush can't bring himself to level with us and ask Americans to make sacrifices. That's my answer to your question. Now, I pose the same question to you. Given that we can't continue fighting this war for a very long time, as Petraeus said yesterday, not the way we're fighting it, or funding it now, what do we do? Yesterday I expressed my great displeasure with the Democratic party. When will you Republicans stand up and demand better from your leaders? Bush has brought us to this terrible place. It's time the nation, all of us, held him accountable and not look for ways to pawn this off on anyone else. To do otherwise is a most dishonorable, and dishonest course. (Now, any time you want to discuss why the US Attorney firings are wrong, let me know. I know a few former assistant US Attorneys who prosecuted really bad guys in New York. They worked under Bush 41 and then Clinton, and they have a completely different take on this than you do. Don't believe the talking points, Specter, and start thinking for yourself.)

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 27, 2007 06:04 AM (tk0b2)

61 Specter, you spewed: "Deal with this lefties: Average military deaths per year under: Clinton Admin: 938 Bush Admin (Iraq): 833" Here's the official fatality data: http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/Death_Rates1.pdf As anyone with a brain can see, the non-combat rates have remained relatively unchanged, but the combat rates have risen since 2003.

Posted by: Tracy at April 27, 2007 09:29 AM (y29mk)

62 Interesting how the threat of genocide seems to pop up in the argument now. But isn't the reason "we're fightin' them over there, so we don't have to fight 'em here". And isn't the problem islam: so how can there be any victory unless every last one of these people is dead, because unless you kill every relation to any one particular "terrorist", I don't see how there can be any victory without the genocide that is now so important to the war-mongers. So please, explain why we should be the ones to commit this atrocity rather than the "enemy" itself? Isn't that the best strategy: Let these ignorant dead enders annihilate themselves. At least be honest.

Posted by: eddie at April 27, 2007 09:39 AM (CnPnk)

63 David Terrenoire's comments are among the most cogent I've seen about this war yet. But I've got to ask: given that we're not going to institute a draft, raise taxes, or be leveled with, which is the better solution: 1) stay the course with the current group of incompetents in charge 2) call it a win and get the hell out of Dodge? Every argument I've heard against leaving says there'll be a huge disaster if we go, but the consequences described sound an awful lot like the status quo. Plus, the people predicting disaster haven't exactly been Kreskins about anything else related to this war.

Posted by: PunditGuy at April 27, 2007 09:54 AM (WmzSx)

64 Well..well....well...I see that none of you took up my challenge to explain the reasoning behind Operation Desert Fox. The fact is leftists that Saddam and his WMDs were a major concern to several administrations in a row. But I know - your answer is that all of this is Bush's fault. It all started when he took office. None of the Dimmie Brain Trust said prior to Bush taking office that Saddam and Iraq were a major threat to the US, and to the stability of the region. And by your logic - Bush must be using the Comey-Fitz Mind Rays to have caused them to say those things before he took office. Look - I'll start taking you seriously when ONE OF YOU ADMITS that the problem did not start with Bush. The history is there for you to read. All you have to do is put aside your hatred of Bush for one minute (well - maybe several so it might be an impossibility), and be honest. I don't think you can. That is why it is called BDS.

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 10:57 AM (ybfXM)

65 David, US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. Period. Nothing else to say. It is a manufactured scandal. Get over it.

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 11:01 AM (ybfXM)

66 "US Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President. Period. Nothing else to say. It is a manufactured scandal. Get over it." WRONG - If they are fired to interfere with a prosecution (which all circumstantial evidence points to) that is obstruction of justice, and a serious crime.

Posted by: jvf at April 27, 2007 11:20 AM (wl/EW)

67 Specter: You'll start taking us seriously? You make up this statistic about military deaths under Clinton and then pretend like it didn't happen. Awhile back you argued ad infinitum that a rising average death toll in Iraq doesn't mean an increasing fatality rate. I'd be cautious about anyone you did take seriously. You say we have BDS for blaming Bush for the Iraq War. It's actually Clinton's fault. Bush just clocked in at 28% approval in a WSJ poll. Does that mean that 72% of the country has BDS? No matter how many times you are crushed in debate, you crawl onwards, spouting the same nonsense and mangling statistics. You'd be a clown or a buffoon except that you're never amusing or clever. 'Fool' will have to suffice.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 11:21 AM (40R2V)

68 Mr. George Tenet has left the building: “There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat,” Mr. Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years. Nor, he adds, “was there ever a significant discussion” about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion. As depressing as the Iraq fiasco is, I do take some perverse pleasure in watching your political philosophy melt away. Drip, drip, drip. Nothing quite like the sight of one of the most powerful and least-deserving men in the world getting his comeuppance, at age 60 no less. It's been slow and sweet, like a fine meal. He'll have many quiet years to drink and clear brush. That being said, I earnestly promise not to tease anyone who professes to a change of heart. We are still a fine nation, and we welcome every citizen's help in restoring our glory.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 11:42 AM (40R2V)

69 Live From Iraq: From snipers, to IEDs, to the dirty conditions, to the long days, week, and months of thankless work in a country which is still being stitched back together, there are a thousand reasons why the troops should be unhappy, and a thousand excuses for why they might be right to side with those who are calling for an immediate withdrawal. However, despite all of the negatives, the overwhelming consensus among those with whom I have spoken to this point is not a belief that we have done everything we can here, and should therefore leave. The belief amongst the troops here, as exemplified by the aforementioned infantry Captain’s statement, is that these people deserve a chance at a better way of life, and that, rather than abandon them to a fate of certain death at the hands of ruthless sectarians, insurgents, and terrorists, we should continue to do everything we can to help rebuild and secure this nation, and to smash those who would destroy what the Iraqi people are building before they can be successful in doing so. Surrender is not an option to the American fighting force – and they know that very well. Abandoning Iraq while the mission is still unfinished is not an option being entertained by any of the soldiers with whom I have spoken to this point; rather, it appears to be solely the purview of those at home who think that they know better than the soldiers themselves what is good for them. What the troops appear to really want is to be given the support and the resources which will allow them to complete their mission – and, more than anything else, the time to do so successfully. My bold above.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 27, 2007 11:43 AM (9y6qg)

70 You bolded the wrong sentence. Surrender is not an option to the American fighting force – and they know that very well. Abandoning Iraq while the mission is still unfinished is not an option being entertained by any of the soldiers with whom I have spoken to this point; rather, it appears to be solely the purview of those at home who think that they know better than the soldiers themselves what is good for them. What the troops appear to really want is to be given the support and the resources which will allow them to complete their mission – and, more than anything else, the time to do so successfully. This goes back to David's point (and he can make it more eloquently than I can), which is that the current bosses are doing this half-assed. 150,000 troops? Pffft. Send half a million in there. Put the budget and economy on a war footing. That is, of course, assuming that your quoted premise is true in the first place. Did you poll the troops?

Posted by: PunditGuy at April 27, 2007 12:01 PM (WmzSx)

71 From General William Odom, "Victory is not an Option": "There never has been any right way to invade and transform Iraq. Most Americans need no further convincing, but two truths ought to put the matter beyond question: First, the assumption that the United States could create a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq defies just about everything known by professional students of the topic. Of the more than 40 democracies created since World War II, fewer than 10 can be considered truly "constitutional" -- meaning that their domestic order is protected by a broadly accepted rule of law, and has survived for at least a generation. None is a country with Arabic and Muslim political cultures. None has deep sectarian and ethnic fissures like those in Iraq. ... Second, to expect any Iraqi leader who can hold his country together to be pro-American, or to share American goals, is to abandon common sense. It took the United States more than a century to get over its hostility toward British occupation. (In 1914, a majority of the public favored supporting Germany against Britain.) Every month of the U.S. occupation, polls have recorded Iraqis' rising animosity toward the United States. Even supporters of an American military presence say that it is acceptable temporarily and only to prevent either of the warring sides in Iraq from winning. Today the Iraqi government survives only because its senior members and their families live within the heavily guarded Green Zone, which houses the U.S. Embassy and military command.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 12:02 PM (40R2V)

72 jvf, Care to explain then why Clinton was allowed to fire the US Attorney that was investigating Rostenkowski? Where were the hearings then? Were you up in arms about it? He also fired the US Attorney that was actively investigating Whitewater. Same questions. Bet you don't have an answer for either.

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 12:05 PM (ybfXM)

73 Specter, I thought this adminsitartion was supposed to be better than Clinton. I find it amusing that every time Bush does something wrong you apologists jump up and say Clinton did it first. Restoring integrity to the White House my backside.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 27, 2007 12:14 PM (kxecL)

74 Lex, Data for you: Military Death Rates - Compiled by Defense Manpower Data Center. Official data Lex. Not made up. Total military deaths under the Clinton years was 7,500. Total so far under Bush is 7189. But picture it this way - Bush is at war. Clinton was not. Why was the death rate so high?

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 12:18 PM (ybfXM)

75 Not what I said David. What I said is that people like jvf and Lex never blame Clinton for anything. They fail to acknowledge that the jihadist movement started before Bush took office. They blame everything on Bush. That is BDS. Look at Lex's last post. Did he admit that anything happened on Clinton's watch? No - he attacked me, and then went happily on his way with BDS.

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 12:21 PM (ybfXM)

76 And David - don't make me quote statistics on restoring integrity to the WH. As much as you hate Bush - the Clinton Admin was far worse. Shall I quote the stats on indictments and convictions?

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 12:22 PM (ybfXM)

77 Oh and Lex, You say I mangle stats. Done that trend line lately/ What is the slope? Pray tell of BDSer. You went back to October 2006. Positive or negative slope dimmie?

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 12:26 PM (ybfXM)

78 Specter, From your linked statistics, here is the breakdown of military deaths: Clinton years: 1993 - 1213 1994 - 1075 1995 - 1040 1996 - 974 1997 - 817 1998 - 827 1999 - 796 2000 - 758 Total 7500 Bush years: 2001 - 891 2002 - 999 2003 - 1410 2004 - 1887 2005 - MISSING 2006 - MISSING Total 5187 First question is, where are the data to make up the number you quoted for the total Bush years (7189)? They're not included on the PDF you linked to. Not saying you're wrong, just saying I don't see the data. Second question is, isn't the relevant data the "hostile action" column? A total of 1 for all of Clinton's years (doesn't seem right, if we include Mogadishu?); 1102 for Bush through 2004 alone. If you're trying to make the case that the risk to military personnel under both Bush and Clinton is alike, then you really need to focus on the relevant columns of data. Otherwise you're cherry-picking.

Posted by: David I at April 27, 2007 12:57 PM (jy07p)

79 Specter: what a dissembler you are. That chart only goes through 2004, so your average cuts out much of the Iraq war. Also: Total military deaths under the Clinton years was 7,500. Total so far under Bush is 7189. First, you are comparing 8 years versus 6. Second, where are you getting that data? It's not on the pdf you cited. What I said is that people like jvf and Lex never blame Clinton for anything. Bull. No one said that. You're the only person I'm aware of who claims that the Iraq war was Clinton's fault, however. don't make me quote statistics on restoring integrity to the WH. As much as you hate Bush - the Clinton Admin was far worse. Shall I quote the stats on indictments and convictions? Again you are lying, at least if you include Repub congressmen. Cunningham's in jail, Renzi's about to get indicted, Doolittle's about to get indicted, DeLay left in disgrace, Foley left in disgrace, Libby's convicted, Nye is, what, indicted? I can't recall now. Liar, liar. You say I mangle stats. As a matter of fact I just caught you at it again. Done that trend line lately/ What is the slope? Pray tell of BDSer. You went back to October 2006. Positive or negative slope dimmie? Oh Oct 2006 happens to be a high point. I wonder why you chose that month. Actually, April so far is higher though. And it's been eight months since we had a month of fatalities lower than the war as a whole. Only an idiot would call that a declining death toll. Keep crawling, Specter. Everyone's getting a good look at your intellect.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 12:59 PM (40R2V)

80 ...and I see I misconstrued your point somewhat. You're not saying the risk was "alike" as I put it, but pointing out that total deaths were high under Clinton too. My apologies. Interesting to note, though, that every year under Clinton the numbers decreased; every year under Bush, the numbers have increased. And we've still got 2007 and 2008 data to compile. Let's also remember that both Bosnia and Somalia occurred late in the Clinton presidency too. Despite these events military deaths declined overall.

Posted by: David I at April 27, 2007 01:03 PM (jy07p)

81 Here's a comprehensive report of military deaths from 1980 to 2005 by total death and cause of death. It's an Excell spreadsheet compiled by the US Census Bureau, a politcally neutral source. In the last year of the Clinton administration (2000), the total US military death total was 891. In the most recent year for the Bush administration (2005), the total US military death total was 1,951. In 2000 the largest number of deaths (39 were caused by accidents. This is lower than the total number of deaths by accidents in the first year of the Clinton administration (676 in 1992) and higher than the number of deaths by accident in 2005 (629). The military during the Clinton years steadily brought the death total by accident down every year. It started going up again during every year of the Bush administration. This makes sense, especially after 2002 since war is a dangerous business and death can be caused by many ways other than hostile action. The largest cause of death in 2005 (73 was by hostile action and was many, many times higher than the highest year of the Clinton presidency, which was 1 in 1996. How any one can argue with a straight face that it was more dangerous to be in the military in the Clinton presidency than in the Bush presidency is a mystery to me. As the mother of a US Army soldier currently deployed in Ramadi, I pay close attention to these things. Argue for the war if you want, but use facts, doctored stats from biased sources. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/07s0502.xls

Posted by: carol H at April 27, 2007 01:17 PM (kOGwf)

82 carol H: Please send our regards to your son or daughter. Thanks for the link, it's very interesting.

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

83 Lex, Did the Dems vote for the war without looking at the intel themselves? Justin, are you that naive? Do you really think Dems in Congress had some security clearance that allowed them to analyze intelligence for themselves? The White House has the power to decide what intelligence is provided to Congress. They can't just go and peruse the day's intelligence. Exactly where do you get this stuff from Lex? "Meanwhile, members of Congress are subject to no such background investigations. Instead, once they are elected to office, they take an oath not to reveal national secrets. That's it, both Ashdown and a former congressional staffer who worked on the Hill for more than 30 years said Friday. "Members get security clearance by right of the fact that they got elected," said Winslow Wheeler, who worked on Capitol Hill for 31 years for both Democrats and Republicans." Lex,looks like you got some bad intel. By your rules that means you lied.

Posted by: Justin at April 27, 2007 03:44 PM (NiTuu)

84 You Mean CNN the Liberal Media? I refuse to listen to them. As a republican loyalist I have to say I cant keep pretending that we republicans didnt lose the war. Everything we said was wrong, we were totally wrong about everything. we must accept responsibility for this fiasco.

Posted by: alexande at April 27, 2007 04:44 PM (Qv727)

85 Justin: you quoted Fred, not me. Nice try though. When are you shipping out sport?

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 04:45 PM (40R2V)

86 Lex and David I, the other data comes from Lex's favorite site to visit (he is rather morbid) the Iraq Casualty site. The number I posted includes deaths in military up to yesterday. But Lex dodged the point again. Why were deaths so high during Clintoon? I understand 3700 deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq seeing as we are at war. But why 7500 deaths when we had just a few small "containment" campaigns during the previous admin. And Lex - I see you and jvf are still unable to admit that the jihadi movement started before Bush took office. So sad to be so lost. Didya do that trend line yet Lex?

Posted by: Specter at April 27, 2007 06:08 PM (ybfXM)

87 Specter: the other data comes from Lex's favorite site to visit (he is rather morbid) the Iraq Casualty site. The number I posted includes deaths in military up to yesterday. In that case you are leaving out accidental deaths under Bush. Review carol H's post above, your numbers are completely busted. But Lex dodged the point again. Why were deaths so high during Clintoon? I understand 3700 deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq seeing as we are at war. But why 7500 deaths when we had just a few small "containment" campaigns during the previous admin. They weren't. Even if they were, what would it prove? That Iraq was a good idea? And Lex - I see you and jvf are still unable to admit that the jihadi movement started before Bush took office. So sad to be so lost. Of course it did. Only in your fantasy world does anyone deny this. Didya do that trend line yet Lex? Here's you proving that the death toll is falling: "using the 5 months previous is an average of 3.03 per day. But if you go back 12 months, the average drops to 2.44. If you go back 24 months, the average is 2.36." You haven't earned a place at the grownup table yet. The death toll has been above the average of 2.4/day for the last eight months. April is 3.78/day so far. A CBS News/New York Times poll shows "64% of Americans believe the U.S. should set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq in 2008." How come you're not helping out, ace? The surge is so promising... maybe one courageous young man will be enough to secure victory. Or maybe you're a little braver when someone else is fighting in your place. Bock bock!

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 27, 2007 08:29 PM (40R2V)

88 Lex, I appologize for misquoting you. I meant to say Fred. Your posts were next to each other, and very similar in content. My mistake.

Posted by: Justin at April 28, 2007 12:11 AM (NiTuu)

89 I have not followed this thread. I was against the invasion because I did not believe Iraq was a sponsor of attacks on the USA. I did not believe Iraq had WMD. I believed Iraq was a damaged society that needed the Peace Corps, not Shock and Awe. I believed the UN led inspectors could bridge the gap from threats to cooperation. Oh well. We have been at this for over four years and we are farther away, because everything we have tried has failed. Stay the course has failed. Stand Up, Stand Down has failed. Elections have failed. Constitutions have failed. Attacking Sadr has failed. Not attacking Sadr has failed. Capturing the Aces, Kings, and Jacks have failed. Today we learn the surge is failing to bring any sense of peace and security to Iraq. “The White House Scales Back Talk of Iraq Progress “ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/28/washington/28prexy.html?ex=1335412800&en=c70bf93efca9340b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss I believe, not as a matter of faith but based on my knowledge and logic, there is no military solution to the violence and political turmoil in Iraq. Iraq is still a damaged society in need of diplomats and statesman. As I stated above, that was my view in 2002 when President Bush started his campaign to attack Iraq. Just so you know, I believed the war in Afghanistan was absolutely necessary and appropriate.

Posted by: Bernard William Scott at April 28, 2007 08:52 AM (T2CmG)

90 The war in Iraq has lost the support of the American people. Who would ask our soldiers to die for something that the American people do not support ?

Posted by: John Ryan at April 28, 2007 10:22 AM (TcoRJ)

91 According to a recent Pew Research survey, only 17% of Americans want an immediate withdrawal of troops (4/18-22, 2007). CBS News’ survey findings show only 33% want to remove all troops from Iraq (4/9-12, 2007). 57% of voters support staying in Iraq until the job is finished and “the Iraqi government can maintain control and provide security for its people” (Public Opinion Strategies, 2/5-7, 2007). 59% of voters say pulling out of Iraq immediately would do more to harm America’s reputation in the world than staying until order is restored (Public Opinion Strategies, 2/5-7, 2007). According to a Time magazine poll, only 32% want to withdraw the troops within the next year no matter what happens (3/23-26, 2007). Americans Believe Immediate Retreat Leads to Bad Consequences A plurality of adults (45%) say a terrorist attack in the United States is more likely if we withdraw our troops from Iraq while the “country remains unstable” (Pew Research, 4/18-22, 2007). 70% of American voters say, should a date for withdrawal be set, it is likely that “insurgents will increase their attacks in Iraq” starting on that day. This is supported by 85% of Republicans, 71% of Independents and 60% of Democrats (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 4/17-18, 2007). Majority Supports Funding War, Troops 56% of Americans say, if President Bush vetoes the Democrats’ plan for withdrawal, Congress should still “allow funding for the war” even if there is no timetable. Only 36% want to withhold funding. A majority of Republicans (84%) and Independents (52%) want to allow funding, while only 51% of Democrats want to withhold it (CBS News, 4/20-24, 2007). A mid-March Bloomberg poll revealed 61% of Americans believe withholding funding for the war is a bad idea, while only 28% believe it is a good idea (3/3-11, 2007). A Public Opinion Strategies poll found that 56% of registered voters favor fully funding the war in Iraq, with more voters strongly favoring funding (40%) than totally opposing it (38%; 3/25-27, 2007). According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 61% of Americans oppose “denying the funding needed to send any additional U.S. troops to Iraq,” and opposition is up from 58% in February (3/23-25, 2007). Strong Opposition to Restricting Military Commanders 69% of American voters trust military commanders more than members of Congress (18%) to decide when United States troops should leave Iraq. This includes 52% of Democrats, 69% of Independents and 88% of Republicans (FOX News/Opinion Dynamics, 3/27-28, 2007). Public Opinion Strategies recently reported a majority of voters (54%) oppose the Democrats imposing a reduction in troops below the level military commanders requested (3/25-27, 2007). U.S. Troops Could be Hurt 63% say the debate between the President and Congress over the Iraq war is having a negative impact on troop morale, while only 19% say it is not having any impact at all (CBS News, 4/9-12, 2007). 50% of Americans say setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq “hurts” the troops, while only 27% believe it “helps” the troops (LA Times/Bloomberg, 4/5-9, 2007). Low Marks for Democrats on Iraq 62% of Americans disapprove of the Democrats handling of Iraq, while only 37% approve (ABC News/Washington Post, 4/12-15, 2007). Nuff said.

Posted by: Justin at April 28, 2007 05:22 PM (NiTuu)

92 Justin, How long did it take to search the polls to find just the right questions over the last 3 months from six different polling organizations to support a failed policy? Here is the link to one of the polls you mentioned, ABC News Washington Post April 12-15, and some intersting results. It took me 35 minutes tofind thispollandcut and paste the results. Formatting made it tricky to get the information from the poll to the post. On the Washington Post web site Spam filter made me remove link http://www.washingtonpost /wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_041607.html From the ABC News/Washingtonpost poll of April 12-15,2007 2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling (ITEM)? 4/15/07 - Summary Table* a. The situation Iraq Approve Disapprove No opinion 29 70 * 14. Do you think (the United States should keep its military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored there, even if that means continued U.S. military casualties); OR, do you think (the United States should withdraw its military forces from Iraq in order to avoid further U.S. military casualties, even if that means civil order is not restored there)? Keep forces Withdraw forces No Op 4/15/07 42 56 2 12. Who do you trust to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq, (Bush) or (the Democrats in Congress)? Bush Dems 4/15/07 33 58 1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president? Do you approve/disapprove strongly or somewhat? -------- Approve -------- NET Strongly Somewhat 4/15/07 35 17 18 ------- Disapprove ------ NET Strongly Somewhat No opinion 62 14 49 2 I suggest folks see the poll to understand how others respond to specific questions and gain a sense of how other citizens feel. But no poll can convince me the war against Iraq started in 2003 by President Bush was in the best interest of USA or Iraq. It was poorly considered and poorly executed. The evidence; no WMD, no happy Iraqis, and increasing US deaths 4 years after " Major operations are over" and Mission Accomplished banner. It seems to me Justin was not forthright in use of this poll.

Posted by: Bernard William Scott at April 29, 2007 07:20 AM (T2CmG)

93 Im just sick of hearing people say that the American people want us to pull out if Iraq. Polls are useless. The only poll that is worth a damn is when we go to our local high school and vote. People want our president to rule our country based on poll numbers. Thats ridiculous. Thats not leadership. Also I think its funny that the congress has a 37% approval rating.

Posted by: Justin at April 29, 2007 01:35 PM (NiTuu)

94 Bernard William Scott: thanks for doing the legwork. I suspected as much but didn't care to do the research myself. Another small note: the "Restricting Military Commanders" meme as per the FOX poll is bogus. This is a Repub talking point that doesn't bear scrutiny. The military commanders follow Bush's orders. For instance the surge was widely unfavored by the military, but Bush did it anyway. Now Bush is saying we shouldn't judge the surge until September. He's running out the clock.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 29, 2007 01:43 PM (ep6YT)

95 4 years after " Major operations are over" and Mission Accomplished banner. Do you know what a mission is? Do you know the difference between a mission and a war? I guess no liberal does because they are all gonna bring it up today like Bush said the war was over. Give me a break.

Posted by: Justin at April 29, 2007 02:23 PM (NiTuu)

96 Justin, If you believe polls are stupid you should not use polls dishonestly to prove your point. By the way, the President does not ruke our contry, he faithfully executes the laws. Our elected represntatives write the laws after they are elected. If the president does not approve, he can veto. A mission can be smaller or larger than a war. War can be a way to achieve, such as "Our Mission is to make the world safe for democracy" A war and other strategies and tactics could be part of the mission. Or a mission can bean assignemnt: "Your mission should you choose to accept it is capture the hill". I was indicating the failure after over 4 years to achieve anything of substance in Iraq. The day of the speech was May 1, 2003.

Posted by: Bernard William Scott at April 30, 2007 06:24 AM (T2CmG)

97 How many Iraqis did Bush kill, and his apologists enable? For what? So they could start a civil war and kill each other, with Americans in the crossfire?

Posted by: Dick Tuck at April 30, 2007 09:33 AM (GkwJk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

"Senator Lost" Harry Reid, has unilaterally declared that the Iraq War is lost. Uh, Senator... how would you know and other top Democrats know, when you continue to skip briefings?

What's curious is that congressional Democrats don't seem much interested in what's actually happening in Iraq. The commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, returns to Washington this week, but last week Pelosi's office said "scheduling conflicts" prevented him from briefing House members. Two days later, the members-only meeting was scheduled, but the episode brings to mind the fact that Pelosi and other top House Democrats skipped a Pentagon videoconference with Petraeus on March 8.

Reid even labeled General David Petraeus a liar:

BASH: You talked several times about General Petraeus. You know that he is here in town. He was at the White House today, sitting with the president in the Oval Office and the president said that he wants to make it clear that Washington should not be telling him, General Petraeus, a commander on the ground in Iraq, what to do, particularly, the president was talking about Democrats in Congress.

He also said that General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill and make it clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that?

REID: No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening. All you have to do is look at the facts.

Look at the facts, Harry? You refuse to address the facts.

Here are a few comments for "Senator Lost" from men on the ground.

From a letter to Op-for:

We are winning over here in Al Anbar province. I don't know about Baghdad, but Ramadi was considered THE hotspot in Al Anbar, the worse province, and it has been very quiet. The city is calm, the kids are playing in the streets, the local shops are open, the power is on at night, and daily commerce is the norm rather than the exception. There have been no complex attacks since March. That is HUGE progress. This quiet time is allowing the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police to establish themselves in the eyes of the people. The Iraqi people also want IA's and IP's in their areas. The Sunni Sheiks are behind us and giving us full support. This means that almost all Sunnis in Al Anbar are now committed to supporting the US and Iraqi forces. It also means that almost all insurgents left out here are AQ. FYI, the surge is just beginning. Gen Petraeus' strategy is just getting started and we're seeing huge gains here.

However, you don't see Harry Reid talking about this. When I saw what he said, it really pissed me off. That guy does not know what is going on over here because he hasn't bothered to come and find out. The truth on the ground in Al Anbar is not politically convenient for him, so he completely ignored it.

I suppose Reid considers this soldier a liar as well.

What does he think about Sgt. Turkovich, from his own state of Nevada?

"We're not losing this war."

That's how a Las Vegas Army Reserve sergeant and Iraq war veteran who is heading out again for Operation Iraqi Freedom reacted Friday to Nevada Sen. Harry Reid's assessment that the war in Iraq is "lost."

"I don't believe the war is lost," Sgt. George Turkovich, 24, said as he stood with other soldiers near a shipping container that had been packed for their deployment to Kuwait.

The soldiers leave today for a six-week training stint at Camp Atterbury, Ind., before heading overseas to run a camp in support of the war effort. It is uncertain if their yearlong tour will take them to Iraq.

"Unfortunately, politics has taken a huge role in this war affecting our rules of engagement," said Turkovich, a 2001 Palo Verde High School graduate. "This is a guerrilla war that we're fighting, and they're going to tie our hands.

"So it does make it a lot harder for us to fight the enemy, but we're not losing this war," he said.

Turkovich's commander, Lt. Col. Steven Cox:

"I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that the American people would leave their military dangling in the wind the way the good senator is doing," Cox said.

"Defeatism ... from our elected officials does not serve us well in the field," he said. "They embolden the enemy, and they actually leave them with the feeling that they can defeat us and win this.

"All they have to do is wait us out because the American resolve is waning," he said.

Cox said he's "not sure the senator accurately echoes the people he represents. ... I believe his tactics are more of shock in trying to sway public opinion. He may have spoken out of turn."

Obviously, these brave soldiers are liars, right Senator Reid?

But we're not done just yet.

Marine Corporal Tyler Rock, currently in Ramadi, was a bit more direct in his criticism:

yeah and i got a qoute for that douche harry reid. these families need us here. obviously he has never been in iraq. or at least the area worth seeing. the parts where insurgency is rampant and the buildings are blown to pieces. we need to stay here and help rebuild. if iraq didnt want us here then why do we have IP's voluntering everyday to rebuild their cities. and working directly with us too. same with the IA's. it sucks that iraqi's have more patriotism for a country that has turned to complete shit more than the people in america who drink starbucks everyday. we could leave this place and say we are sorry to the terrorists. and then we could wait for 3,000 more american civilians to die before we say "hey thats not nice" again. and the sad thing is after we WIN this war. people like him will say he was there for us the whole time.

1st Lt, Matthew McGirr, another Ramadi Marine, agrees and offers a blistering response of his own:

We are reaching a tipping point in this fight. We have finally learned this culture. We have finally begun to commit the necessary forces. We have truly learned to fight a counter-insurgency. Very real gains are being made despite claims from our Congress that we have already lost. A counter-insurgency battle is not one of quickly attained and easily recognizeable benchmarks. It is not won in a year or four. It takes time, resolve, and a willingness to use what we have learned from past mistakes and expectations. From firsthand experience I can tell you, this "Surge" is working. We need to continue to support these people and give them a fighting chance at creating a nation on their own terms.

To echo the sentiments of my fellow Marine in 1/6, the reality of what is happening on the ground in places like Ramadi is not being reported to the American public. The pundits and politicians on both sides do not fully grasp the conditions on the ground here. They are arrogantly and irresponsibly using this war and the troops who fight in it for political gain and election currency. They manipulate the truth or do not care enough to seek it out. At least I know where I stand with the citizens of Ar Ramadi.

"At least I know where I stand with the citizens of Ar Ramadi."

Ouch. Do Democrat leaders support the troops?

The troops sure don't seem to think so, and they're more than likely right.

Update: Blackfive has an excellent post on how counter-insurgency works called COIN: The Gravity Well. It's a must-read.

Allah now has the Reid video up at HotAir, which turns one today.

Update: JD Johannes reports that indeed, "the war may be over and we just don't realize it" in parts of al Anbar.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:06 PM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 1351 words, total size 9 kb.

Via Lucianne, just another crazed conspiracy theorist:

Mr Gaubatz verbally told the Iraq Study Group (ISG) of his findings, and asked them to come with heavy equipment to breach the concrete of the bunkers and uncover their sealed contents. But to his consternation, the ISG told him they didnÂ’t have the manpower or equipment to do it and that it would be 'unsafe' to try.

'The problem was that the ISG were concentrating their efforts in looking for WMD in northern Iraq and this was in the south,' says Mr Gaubatz. 'They were just swept up by reports of WMD in so many different locations. But we told them that if they didn't excavate these sites, others would.'

That, he says, is precisely what happened. He subsequently learnt from Iraqi, CIA and British intelligence that the WMD buried in the four sites were excavated by Iraqis and Syrians, with help from the Russians, and moved to Syria. The location in Syria of this material, he says, is also known to these intelligence agencies. The worst-case scenario has now come about. Saddam’s nuclear, biological and chemical material is in the hands of a rogue terrorist state — and one with close links to Iran.

When Mr Gaubatz returned to the US, he tried to bring all this to light. Two congressmen, Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Curt Weldon, were keen to follow up his account. To his horror, however, when they tried to access his classified intelligence reports, they were told that all 60 of them — which, in the routine way, he had sent in 2003 to the computer clearing-house at a US airbase in Saudi Arabia — had mysteriously gone missing. These written reports had never even been seen by the ISG.

One theory is that they were inadvertently destroyed when the computer's database was accidentally erased in the subsequent US evacuation of the airbase. Mr Gaubatz, however, suspects dirty work at the crossroads. It is unlikely, he says, that no copies were made of his intelligence. And he says that all attempts by Messrs Hoekstra and Weldon to extract information from the Defence Department and CIA have been relentlessly stonewalled.

In 2005, the CIA held a belated inquiry into the disappearance of this intelligence. Only then did its agents visit the sites — to report that they had indeed been looted.

Hoekstra, the CIA, and now this nut Gaubatz... who is he, anyway?

The problem the US authorities have is that they can't dismiss Mr Gaubatz as a rogue agent — because they have repeatedly decorated him for his work in the field. In 2003, he received awards for his 'courage and resolve in saving lives and being critical for information flow'. In 2001, he was decorated for being the 'lead agent in a classified investigation, arguably the most sensitive counter-intelligence investigation currently in the entire Department of Defence' and because his 'reports were such high quality, many were published in the Air Force's daily threat product for senior USAF leaders or re-transmitted at the national level to all security agencies in US government'.

What a loon. No credibility at all.

And he poses an interesting delimma, if correct:

The Republicans won't touch this because it would reveal the incompetence of the Bush administration in failing to neutralise the danger of Iraqi WMD. The Democrats won't touch it because it would show President Bush was right to invade Iraq in the first place. It is an axis of embarrassment.

Quite true.

Should this Gaubatz guy, ISG and DIA supervisor Ray Robinson and other decorated "nutters" be correct, then Dubya is shown to be even more incompetent than both Democrats and Republicans have ever dared fear, and yet, Democrats couldn't call him on it, because they would have to admit he was right to topple Saddam in the first place, and they might have to back up that fact by confronting Syria... probably with "important action alerts."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:54 PM | Comments (61) | Add Comment
Post contains 678 words, total size 4 kb.

Well, it looks like the mullacracy is willing to supply just about any insurgency, doesn't it?

U.S. forces recently intercepted Iranian-made weapons intended for Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, the Pentagon's top general said Tuesday, suggesting wider Iranian war involvement in the region.

It appeared to be the first publicly disclosed instance of Iranian arms entering Afghanistan, although it was not immediately clear whether the weapons came directly from Iran or were shipped through a third party.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that unlike in Iraq, where U.S. officials say they are certain that arms are being supplied to insurgents by Iran's secretive Quds Force, the Iranian link in Afghanistan is murky.

"It is not as clear in Afghanistan which Iranian entity is responsible, but we have intercepted weapons in Afghanistan headed for the Taliban that were made in Iran," Pace told a group of reporters over breakfast.

He said the weapons, including mortars and C-4 plastic explosives, were intercepted in Kandahar province in southern Afghanistan within the past month. He did not describe the quantity of intercepted materials or say whether it was the first time American forces had found Iranian-made arms in that country.

If accurate, this seems to throw cold water on claims that Iran wouldn't support Sunni groups as willingly as they would Shiite militias.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:25 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

I must thank blog aggregator Memeorandum this morning for providing this link about the latest Charles Krauthammer column, which in turn, led to a Melanie Phillips blog entry highlighting key points of a Fouad Ajami editorial, Iraq in the Balance.

Among the subjects the Ajami essay touches upon are the long history of Sunni and Shia animosity, the failure of salvation for the Sunni insurgency, and the distrust of Iranian-backed Shia militias as Iraq enters what Ajami calls the "final, decisive phase":

There is a growing Shia unease with the Mahdi Army--and with the venality and incompetence of the Sadrists represented in the cabinet--and an increasing faith that the government and its instruments of order are the surer bet. The crackdown on the Mahdi Army that the new American commander, Gen. David Petraeus, has launched has the backing of the ruling Shia coalition. Iraqi police and army units have taken to the field against elements of the Mahdi army. In recent days, in the southern city of Diwaniyya, American and Iraqi forces have together battled the forces of Moqtada al-Sadr. To the extent that the Shia now see Iraq as their own country, their tolerance for mayhem and chaos has receded. Sadr may damn the American occupiers, but ordinary Shia men and women know that the liberty that came their way had been a gift of the Americans.

The young men of little education--earnest displaced villagers with the ways of the countryside showing through their features and dialect and shiny suits--who guarded me through Baghdad, spoke of old terrors, and of the joy and dignity of this new order. Children and nephews and younger brothers of men lost to the terror of the Baath, they are done with the old servitude. They behold the Americans keeping the peace of their troubled land with undisguised gratitude. It hasn't been always brilliant, this campaign waged in Iraq. But its mistakes can never smother its honor, and no apology for it is due the Arab autocrats who had averted their gaze from Iraq's long night of terror under the Baath.

...

One can never reconcile the beneficiaries of illegitimate, abnormal power to the end of their dominion. But this current re-alignment in Iraq carries with it a gift for the possible redemption of modern Islam among the Arabs. Hitherto Sunni Islam had taken its hegemony for granted and extremist strands within it have shown a refusal to accept "the other." Conversely, Shia history has been distorted by weakness and exclusion and by a concomitant abdication of responsibility.
A Shia-led state in Baghdad--with a strong Kurdish presence in it and a big niche for the Sunnis--can go a long way toward changing the region's terrible habits and expectations of authority and command. The Sunnis would still be hegemonic in the Arab councils of power beyond Iraq, but their monopoly would yield to the pluralism and complexity of that region.

"Watch your adjectives" is the admonition given American officers by Gen. Petraeus. In Baghdad, Americans and Iraqis alike know that this big endeavor has entered its final, decisive phase. Iraq has surprised and disappointed us before, but as they and we watch our adjectives there can be discerned the shape of a new country, a rough balance of forces commensurate with the demography of the place and with the outcome of a war that its erstwhile Sunni rulers had launched and lost. We made this history and should now make our peace with it.

Without any shred of a doubt, we are in the final, decisive phase of this war.

The "surge" of American troops into Iraq only half-begun as part of Commanding General David Petraeus' counter-insurgency doctrine will be the final major push of American forces into the Iraq theater. With the success of the surge, the stabilization of Iraq means that American forces should be able to start drawing down in victory. If the surge does not work, the American public will be able to elect a President in 2008 that will bring our troops home in defeat. Either way, the surge represents America's endgame, for better or worse.

Based upon the success of French Lt. Col. David Galula's counter-insurgency efforts in Algeria, General Petraeus literally wrote the book on American counter-insurgency, Army Field Manual FM3-24 (PDF).

The Baghdad security plan, expanding to other parts of Iraq, comes at a time when al Qaeda has lost support in its former base of al Anbar province, where Sunni tribes once loyal to al Qaeda have turned against it. Within the past months, Sunni tribesmen that have recently joined the Iraqi police and military by the hundreds and thousands have fought pitched battles that al Qaeda has invariably lost, and the Sunni supporters of al Qaeda in Iraq are continuing to fracture, as noted as recently as yesterday.

As Krauthammer states in his recent op-ed with a nod to Ajami:

Fouad Ajami, just returned from his seventh trip to Iraq, is similarly guardedly optimistic and explains the change this way: Fundamentally, the Sunnis have lost the battle of Baghdad. They initiated it with an indiscriminate terror campaign they assumed would cow the Shiites, whom they view with contempt as congenitally quiescent, lower-class former subjects. They learned otherwise after the Samarra bombing in February 2006 kindled Shiite fury -- a savage militia campaign of kidnapping, indiscriminate murder and ethnic cleansing that has made Baghdad a largely Shiite city.

Petraeus is trying now to complete the defeat of the Sunni insurgents in Baghdad -- without the barbarism of the Shiite militias, whom his forces are simultaneously pursuing and suppressing.

Meanwhile, John Wixted points out that the media-declared "civil war" in Iraq is not a civil war:

Again, these Sunni insurgent groups are unhappy (not happy) with al Qaeda for indiscriminately slaughtering Shiite civilians in Iraq. How does that fit into the "civil war" schema? Answer: it doesn't. Think about the Tal Afar bombing again, the one that you thought was just part of the cycle of violence in a escalating civil war between Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. There is just one tiny little problem with that superficial analysis: the major Sunni insurgent groups are extremely displeased with bombings like that. That being the case, you should now be able to appreciate the fact that, contrary to the standard analysis, the Tal Afar bombing (like many similar bombings) was not carried out by Sunni insurgents in their civil war against Shiites. Instead, those bombings represent al Qaeda in action. They are, in effect, counterattacks in our war on terror, not retaliatory strikes in a civil war.

The Sunni insurgents have come to realize that al Qaeda is not helping them in their fight against American troops. Instead, al Qaeda is trying to provoke a civil war, which benefits al Qaeda alone. That is, al Qaeda is trying to get Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army to once again start executing Sunnis in Baghdad. That's why the Sunni insurgents are not happy. They have no interest in a civil war because it does not benefit them in any way. They want al Qaeda to help fight the Americans, and that's what al Qaeda was doing for a while. It's what George Bush wanted al Qaeda to do as well (at least I suspect as much). But al Qaeda came up with a fiendish alternative plan, and it has been amazingly effective up until now. Predictably, in response to al Qaeda's repeated atrocities against Shiite civilians, most Americans and all Democratic politicians think they are watching a civil war unfold in Iraq and have become demoralized as a result (just as al Qaeda knew they would -- it's always that way with the weak-willed America).

[snip]

All of this should also serve to update your thinking about Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army, which, contrary to what you might believe, was killing Sunnis in Baghdad in an effort to stop those atrocities being carried out by al Qaeda against Shiite civilians. But now the Mahdi Army is cooperating with the troop surge, so those executions have come way down. Perhaps Muqtada realized that he was just playing into al Qaeda's hands (and the truth is, he was).

Unfortunately, last month, al Qaeda successfully slaughtered many hundreds of Shiites, and that increase in violence offset the decrease in violence by the Mahdi Army, so overall civilian casualties in Iraq remained essentially unchanged. However, the fact that the Sunni insurgency is beginning to resist al Qaeda, and the fact that they have even implored Osama bin Laden to call off attacks against civilians by al Qaeda in Iraq could be highly significant. If the Mahdi Army continues to cooperate (and all signs suggest that they will despite the Tal Afar bombing) and if al Qaeda can be induced to stop slaughtering civilians, then the troop surge will be seen as a resounding success because civilian casualties will come way down.

In short, Sunni tribes former aligned with al Qaeda are turning against them and joining the Iraqi military and police forces by the thousands. At the same time, Shia militias are staying their hands (for the most part), while the more militant offshoots of the Madhi Army are being either rounded up or shot down as are their Sunni opposites.

All in all, there is a picture beginning to emerge that shows the more radical and divisive elements of both the Sunni and Shia sects are slowly but steadily being whittled away. Sunnis and Shias formerly loyal to al Qaeda or al Sadr quietly melt away, inform on their former allies, or actively join forces with the Coalition and Iraqi government. These extremists that now only exist to cause terror in a fractured nation tiring of war, are losing.

Aligned against these growing signs of progress, we once again encounter our ever-present enemy... Democrats:

A memo from a top House Democrat says party leaders must not yield to White House pressure on Iraq and should cast President Bush as increasingly detached from public opinion.

Bush has said he will not negotiate with Democrats on legislation that would finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through September if it sets an end date for the Iraq war. Holding only a narrow majority in Congress, Democrats do not have enough votes to override the president's veto.

In a memo to party leaders, Rep. Rahm Emanuel says that as long as Democrats continue to ratchet up the pressure on Bush, the president loses ground.

Like many Democrats, Emanuel shows that in his eyes, the real enemy in the War on Terror (a name, I'd add, Democrats are cravenly trying to change) is American President George W. Bush, not al Qaeda terrorists or Shia militiamen.

The gathering signs of progress in Iraq means that the window of opportunity to claim a "victory" for Democrats—a headlong retreat and possible genocide that could result from a too quick withdrawal before Iraq is stabilized, which they would then attempt to pin on Bush—is closing.

If signs of progress continue to cautiously crop up in Iraq, the media-determined and Democrat-supported narrative of defeat may slowly begin to fall away, which is the worst possible situation for Democrats.

Should the surge continue to prove effective and Iraqis continue towards a path towards a reconciliation and a fair division of assets among the sects, it is not hard to see that public opinion will begin to turn against the liberal Democrat leadership, who have done all that is within their power to lose the war. Nobody likes someone who cheers against the home team, especially if the home team(s) rallies to win.

Only time will tell if the "rally" in Iraq is successful, but that is a chance Democrat leaders such as Emanuel, Reid, and Pelosi aren't will to take, and why they endeavor to lose Iraq by forfeit.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:02 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 1983 words, total size 13 kb.

The Washington State University Young Republicans screened Outside the Wire by JD Johannes, a former Marine, who joined the Marinesbecause:

... JD Johannes did not study hard or take his secondary education seriously, because he came from a rural, midwestern town, and because he had no other opportunities, Johannes was easily conned into joining the Marines by a high-pressure salesman in Dress Blues.

Just like U.S. Senator John Kerry said, JD Johannes got stuck in Iraq.

A synopsis of the screening is recounted on palousitics, including some barbed comments at Democrats who tried to upstage both the movie and the Iraq war veterans that were to address the audience and take questions after the film.

The young democrats expressed vivid interest in expressing opinions and produce questions to us, the WSU College Republicans. Dan Ryder and I articulated to the young democrats that no such exchange would take place in any shape or form. I was unequivocal in expressing that this documentary should leave you to derive your own opinions of the troops/war and that the WSU College Republicans did not feel qualified in hosting questions. After all, we did not serve in Iraq.

The young democrats "staged" a walkout upon hearing our truthful and legitimate response. This was a display upon epic proportions of the infantile demeanor of such a group that preaches the freedom of expression, ideas, opinions, etc. Their actions were pusillanimous in nature and a flat out slap in the face to the attendees, our organization, our great country and more acutely speaking, the Veterans of our brave service men and women present. They are a sickening disgrace. A classic display of uncouth trash.

The quote of the day, however, goes to one of the Iraq War veterans during a Q&A session after the screening to a question that was never asked.

One question that never came up was "can you support the troops if you donÂ’t support the war?" After the question and answer session ended a Vet replied, "Absolutely not, how can you support someone if you don't support what he or she is doing?"

I've wondered about that same question myself, and have yet to hear what I would consider a reasonable answer.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:54 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 3 kb.

I think the casualty figures are probably inflated, but the overall impact is still worth noting:

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf said Thursday that tribesmen have killed about 300 foreign militants during a weekslong offensive near the Afghan border and acknowledged for first time that they received military support.

The fighting that began last month in South Waziristan has targeted mainly Uzbek militants with links to al-Qaida who have sheltered in the tribal region since escaping the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001.

"The people of South Waziristan now have risen against the foreigners. They have killed about 300 of them, and they got support from the Pakistan army. They asked for support," Musharraf said in a speech at a military conference in Islamabad.

This amounts to a stronger enemy force killing off a weaker enemy force, and not something that I'd necessarily say is worth celebrating. However, if enough Taliban tribesmen and al Qaeda-linked militants kill each other, it might bleed their enthusiasm to take their jihad to NATO forces in Afghanistan for the time being.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:25 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

Mike Yon reports from within a British Army assault on al Sadr-alligned Shia militia forces, a fight that saw 26-27 militiamen killed and 4,000 rounds of ammunition expended.

The British forces suffered no wounded, at least until after the battle was well over....

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:04 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Both the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and American Legion have issued statements hammering a Democrat Congress that continues to play games with Iraq War funding.

From the VFW:

"The funding package contained artificial troop withdrawal deadlines that would ultimately break the morale of our troops in the field and directly jeopardize their safety," said Lisicki, who ascends to national commander in August and was here today to host a meeting of future leaders from the VFWÂ’s 54 departments.

"I am calling on all the members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives to, for now, reserve further debate and provide the funds needed by our troops to prosecute the Global War on Terror," he said, noting that Iraq was clearly the centerpiece of that war on terrorism, and that the House and the Senate funding packages were also loaded with extraneous spending not related to the war on terrorism.

"This isnÂ’t a Democrat or Republican issue. It's about American men and women tasked with fighting a war, and who are now being told their effort and sacrifice doesn't matter because a date on the calendar will send them home whether they've finished the job or not," he said.

Lisicki, Vietnam veteran from Carteret, N.J., said that when Congress reconvenes, they need to approve funding for war-related requirements only, and debate the other issues in separate legislation.

"We ask Congress to never cut or withhold funding for troops deployed or being deployed to a war zone," he said. "They must ensure that those who are sent to war have the best equipment and our strongest support. Give them the tools necessary to complete the mission you sent them on, and do it without further delay."

From the American Legion:

"This is an attempt to implement a congressional strategy by imposing timelines for the withdrawal of military personnel from combat zones through a "slow bleed" process by eventually reducing military funding," Morin said. "Rather than the President's and General Petraeus's reinforcement policy that is making progress in securing Baghdad."

The American Legion is supportive of many of the other provisions contained in the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act, but we strongly believe the President's initial request is not the vehicle for these provisions, especially the specific language that sets congressional deadlines and mandatory troops movements. The other emergency funding recommendations to the FY 2007 budget should be openly addressed in a subsequent appropriations package in a timely manner.

"The men and women of the armed forces in the theater of operation are dependent on this emergency funding to sustain and achieve their military missions," Morin explained. "Members of Congress should not be armchair generals."

"Recognizing our history as a Nation, The American Legion supports the Commander in Chief, the commanders on the front lines, and the men and women serving in harms' way," Morin said. "We entrust Congress to do the right thing in supporting our military men and women who are fighting to protect our values and way of life.

Thank God there was no mandated timetable after the Battle of the Bulge or Iwo Jima. Thank God, there was no mandated withdrawal or imposed exit strategy at Valley Forge or our Country would have lost the American Revolution."

In addition to these veterans groups, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael G. Mullen, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley and Marine Commandant Gen. James T. Conway have also issued a letter imploring the Democrat Congress to quit playing games with the funding of our soldiers:

"Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, the armed services will be forced to take increasingly disruptive measures in order to sustain combat operations," the four general and flag officers wrote in their letter. "The impacts on readiness and quality of life could be profound. We will have to implement spending restrictions and reprogram billions of dollars."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:18 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 674 words, total size 5 kb.

As is typically the case for many media organizations in Iraq, CNN this morning chose a lede for their Iraq coverage focusing on the day's body count:

In two separate incidents, bombers in Iraq targeted a college district in Baghdad and a police recruiting center in Diyala province killing at least 15 people on Tuesday, local authorities told CNN.

Meanwhile, coalition forces pounded insurgent targets across Iraq on Tuesday, the military said. They launched raids in Anbar, in the west of the country, and Baghdad and continued their Operation Black Eagle push that began last week against Shiite militias in the southern city of Diwaniya.

That effort so far has killed 14 people and wounded 61 others, among them Shiite militia members, an Interior Ministry official told CNN.

This is hardly surprising. Body counts provide concrete numbers, even if those numbers don't tell the entire story of a war that they and other media outlets determined long ago was already lost. Sadly, this reliance on body counts tells only a fraction of the story of the events taking place in Iraq.

Five paragraphs into the story, we get a hint as to another part of the story of the Iraq War, one that they chose not to cover in detail.

Dressed in a black abaya -- a traditional Muslim robe, usually black in color, covering the body from head to toe -- the woman detonated her explosives belt in a crowd of about 200 police recruits, police and hospital officials told the Associated Press.

The police recruiting center targeted by this suicide bomber in Muqdadiya is located in the Diyala province, where insurgents have fled from security operations in Baghdad.

Iraqi police typically suffer far greater casualties than either Iraqi or American military units, and yet two hundred Iraqis were lined up to join.

Joining the Iraqi police is the most dangerous occupation in Iraq, with the IP suffering greater casualties day in and day out than either the American or Iraqi militaries. Iraqis who join the police not only take immense personal risks; their families are often targeted for retaliation by terrorists as well. It is far safer to remain civilian and avoid these risks... and yet they join, not just in Diyala, but in Ramadi, Karbala, Baghdad, and Fallujah.

Why do they join?

The answers will certainly vary from recruit to recruit, from province to province and from city to village, but the fact remains that they continue to join the most dangerous job in Iraq in large numbers.

It would be nice for CNN, the Associated Press, and other news outlets to spend some time asking these recruits why they take such risks not only with their own lives, but with the lives of their families.

Are they militiamen looking to infiltrate the police? Are they simply tired of the random violence that threatens their families and hoping to stop it? Are they merely looking for work, any work, no matter how dangerous that work may be? Do they actually think that joining the police might help bring stability to their war-torn cities and towns?

We do not know.

It is far easier for the media to ask the simple questions of who died where, and provide copy about orchestrated protests, or produce photos of suffering and death. "If it bleeds, it leads," has been, and continues to be, the mantra of a news media interested in covering only the obvious and superficial sotires of the day.

The deeper, inner struggles, the jihad of ordinary Iraqis who purposefully take extraordinary risks, goes unremarked upon... and still they come by tens and hundreds, from across Iraq. They join the police and don uniforms, knowing that doing so makes them certain targets.

I'd like to know why, but no one seems interested in telling their stories.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:48 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 647 words, total size 4 kb.

From the murderous dictators of terrorist-sponsoring regimes to Islamist leaders themselves:

A top U.S. Democratic congressman met a leader of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's most powerful rival, the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, U.S. officials and the Islamist group said Saturday.

Visiting House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer met with the head of the Muslim Brotherhood's parliamentary bloc, Mohammed Saad el-Katatni, twice on Thursday -- once at the parliament building and then at the home of the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, said Brotherhood spokesman Hamdi Hassan.

Most of you are probably not that familiar with el-Katatni, who believes in restoring the caliphate and instituting fundementalist sharia law, but you are certainly more familiar with another Muslim Brotherhood alumnus named Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's cavemate.

Nice folks the Democrat leadership is spending time with these days.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:52 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 145 words, total size 1 kb.

Logan Act, anyone?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The administration isn't going to want to touch this political hot potato, nor should it become a partisan issue. Maybe special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, whose aggressive prosecution of Lewis Libby establishes his independence from White House influence, should be called back.

The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.

President John Adams requested the statute after a Pennsylvania pacifist named George Logan traveled to France in 1798 to assure the French government that the American people favored peace in the undeclared "Quasi War" being fought on the high seas between the two countries. In proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress, "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power of the government. He meant that description of crime which arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."

The debate on this bill ran nearly 150 pages in the Annals. On Jan. 16, 1799, Rep. Isaac Parker of Massachusetts explained, "the people of the United States have given to the executive department the power to negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any dispute between the two governments, or for any state government, or any other department of the general government, to do it."

Nominating Patrick Fitzgerald to pursue this investigation is not, of course, within the WSJ's power, but it is an excellent suggestion all the same.

The author Robert F. Turner notes that it is quite possible that Pelosi's actions violate not just federal law (and a felony at that), but may have violated her oath of office as well.

Interestingly enough, President Bush tried to keep Pelosi from making this mistake. It's a shame she didn't have enough sense to listen.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:16 PM | Comments (30) | Add Comment
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Wouldn't it be interesting if, instead of watching President Bush get impeached, the nutroots had to stand by and watch Rep. Pelosi get convicted?

Posted by: Jeff at April 06, 2007 03:44 PM (yiMNP)

2 As you quoted the statute says, "without authority of the United States." One could very well argue that the Speaker of the House is an authority, as she was elected to represent her constituency. "House Speaker Newt Gingrich traveled to China in March of 1997 and threatened military action in the event of an attack on Taiwan." You were up in arms in '97, too, right? Or do you only get upset when it's a Speaker that you don't like?

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 06, 2007 04:10 PM (xRKGN)

3 Funny how the whole picture is not taken into account in this story. No mention of Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA) or other GOP delegates meeting with Syrian leaders right before and after Pelosi's visit.

Posted by: Jeff K at April 06, 2007 04:29 PM (j9+K8)

4 If they didn't say they were on a solo diplomacy mission in direct conflict with the leader of their country, it doesn't matter if they were around.

Posted by: Foxfier at April 06, 2007 05:07 PM (J7GMo)

5 It's interesting to speculate, but you and I both know there have never been any prosecutions under the Logan Act, not even when Denny Hastert went to Colombia and told them they could deal directly with Congress instead of going through the Executive branch. And Jeff K has a point. If it's wrong for Pelosi to meet with Assad, it's wrong for the GOP reps, too. And I find it funny all this hand-wringing and shock, I tell you, shock, at Pelosi wearing a head scarf. Christian politicians wear yarmulkes in temples, Jewish women cover their heads at the Vatican, atheists remove their hats in Baptist churches. It's a sign of respect, not capitulation, as some would have us believe.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 06, 2007 05:21 PM (tk0b2)

6 Interestingly enough, President Bush tried to keep Pelosi from making this mistake. It's a shame she didn't have enough sense to listen. Bush has been so wrong so often that smart people listen to him and do the opposite.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 06, 2007 05:40 PM (tk0b2)

7 AHHHH! The Stupid! It Burns!

Posted by: George Orwell at April 06, 2007 06:20 PM (Ohwji)

8 Newt Gingrich traveled to China in March of 1997 and threatened military action in the event of an attack on Taiwan I'm not sure that simply restating existing US policy means much.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 06, 2007 06:23 PM (22lCG)

9 AHHHH! The Stupid! It Burns! Oh, now, George, I think Bob is having fun here. No need to call him stupid. And if it keeps burning, especially when you urinate, you might want to have that checked. Just sayin.' As for Purple Avenger, it appears that Pelosi was restating administration policy so I guess you're on board with her trip. Glad to see it.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 06, 2007 06:31 PM (tk0b2)

10 Last time I checked, Pelosi was still an elected United States official.

Posted by: jpe at April 06, 2007 06:41 PM (eotrn)

11 You guys are missing the point: if the Democrats do it, whatever "it" is, it's wrong. If the Republicans do it, it can be effortlessly rationalized. Get with the wingnut program!

Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 06, 2007 08:26 PM (c3WzW)

12 The question: How many more balls does Nancy have than GW? The answer: zero. If you get my drift, boys.

Posted by: Bourbon Straight at April 06, 2007 08:59 PM (yQsK0)

13 Washboard: I think you're oversimplifying. There are actually three rules: 1) whatever the Democrats do is wrong 2) the lower the tax, the higher the revenue 3) it's Bill Clinton's fault

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 06, 2007 09:16 PM (xRKGN)

14 Bourbon, I wonder if Pelosi is afraid of horses, too. No, probably not. It's only the cowboy.

Posted by: David Terrenoire at April 06, 2007 09:19 PM (tk0b2)

15 it appears that Pelosi was restating administration policy If that truly is all it was, then fine. All she did was waste taxpayer dollars on a shopping junket.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 07, 2007 06:08 AM (22lCG)

16 First, I betcha Jimmy Carter keeps a low profile until this goes away. Second, "YOU DID IT TOO!" Is not a defense.

Posted by: DoorHold at April 07, 2007 10:28 AM (nnweY)

17 DoorHold: "You did it too!" is not being used as a defense. The fact that Republicans were in Syria--as well as Pelosi--needs to be dealt with before an honest discussion on the issue can transpire. Either it's wrong to go to Syria (in which case, Right Blogistan needs to call for the trial and execution of Issa et al, too; if, on the other hand, it's okay for Republicans to go to Syria, then it's okay for Pelosi, too. The burden here is on the Right. The Left isn't saying anyone has committed treason. The Right, conversely, has suggested that Pelosi is a traitor, while Righty partisans who did the same thing are blameless. This double standard needs to be reconciled.

Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 07, 2007 12:28 PM (5pYzS)

18 The Left isn't saying anyone has committed treason. That's because treason is considered the highest form of patriotism by the left these days.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 07, 2007 02:01 PM (22lCG)

19 Wow, Avenger: your track record of saying absolutely nothing of value remains unblemished. Why don't you ever actually engage on the issues? Your every contribution is a nonsequitur talking point or an attempt at a pity one-liner (which attempts always fail, by the way). Try bringing something of substance to the conversation.

Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 07, 2007 03:27 PM (5pYzS)

20 "Pithy," I meant to write.

Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 07, 2007 03:29 PM (5pYzS)

21 Doc: Indeed. Heh.

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 07, 2007 03:45 PM (xRKGN)

22 Gingrich, while in Israel, announced that an undivided Jerusalem would always be its capital. This was a direct contradiction of US policy (which was that the status of Jeruslaem remained an issue to be negotiated).

Posted by: Mike Schilling at April 07, 2007 06:07 PM (vdlhR)

23 Are we to believe that Ehud Olmert chose Pelosi and Company to become messengers for Israel? Including a four-month Congressman with connections to CAIR? I seriously doubt it. This is why they leave dimplomacy up to the adults in the State Department: WASHINGTON (AP) -- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told a visiting group of U.S. lawmakers to relay to Syria that Israel had no intention of attacking it, according to one of the participants on the trip, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn. "He very clearly said he was worried that Syria might misinterpret some things that were happening in Israel, and he didn't want to end up in an accidental war with them," Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress, said in a telephone interview Saturday. "So he told us to tell them that he was not planning to attack them." Ellison said Olmert was concerned that if Syria believed that Israel was planning an attack, the Syrians would make preparations to defend against one, and then a conflict could be provoked if something unexpected happened at the border. The Israeli embassy in Washington had no immediate comment on Ellison's account. There was no answer at the Syrian embassy on Saturday.

Posted by: Adirondack Patriot at April 07, 2007 08:02 PM (BaISv)

24 ""You did it too!" is not being used as a defense. ... The Right ... has suggested that Pelosi is a traitor, while Righty partisans who did the same thing are blameless. This double standard needs to be reconciled." Okay, it's not being used as a "defense" by you. A way to deflect attention from the current issue maybe? Rather than deal with the current issue you bring up another. And you are correct that double standards need to be reconciled. For example, I never understood why Democrats get away with stuff Republicans are roasted for (and I mean, like, go to jail for). It would be nice to see the problem of double standards reconciled (not gonna happen, but it would be nice).

Posted by: DoorHold at April 08, 2007 01:06 PM (EEywy)

25 DoorHold: the Repubs controlled the executive and congress for six years. Do you have any idea how pitiful it is that you should whine about how disadvantaged you are?

Posted by: Lex Steele at April 08, 2007 05:41 PM (xRKGN)

26 Seriously, DoorHold: why didn't the Right move on Democratic corruption when they held what amounted to all three branches at the Federal level? I'm not saying that Democrats are blameless, but come on--who was making the decisions for the past six years, and why were they making the wrong ones? Which Republican heads will roll for this? Also: what issue am I avoiding? I'll address it, if I haven't already.

Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 08, 2007 08:56 PM (UyN5f)

27 Um, maybe you're avoiding the issue at hand? The one brought up in this blog? This post? Maybe because I only read through this once a day I'm missing some point OTHER than that "everyone does it too how about that?" I'm not surprised that, being an essentially conservative Republican, I tend to clearly see and be appalled by corruption and traitorous acts by liberal Democrats, why would anyone else be surprised? Are there ANY politicial groups that are innocent? Is it even possible to obtain or wield power without corruption? Is it possible to answer the question at hand: Did Pelosi violate Federal law and her oath of office? Not "compared to this-or-that situation," not "but this-or-that happened in the past," just, "did she or didn't she?" An additional issue is, if she did, why, in this case as in dozens of others, will nothing be done? It doesn't matter who's in charge (or who used to be), why is nothing ever done? Sorry if I'm being "pitiful" again.

Posted by: DoorHold at April 09, 2007 01:02 PM (GlW85)

28 Honestly, DoorHold, I don't know if Pelosi violated the law. I'm not a lawyer. In my layman's view, it doesn't seem like she did, because she's a duly elected representative of the United States government, and government folk get to do stuff like this. For the same reason, I don't think anything needs to be done to the Republican reps who went over to Syria, either. They're not negotiating treaties. It's talk. Again, I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 09, 2007 01:54 PM (tvsbt)

29 "... government folk get to do stuff like this ..." That pretty much finishes this discussion!

Posted by: DoorHold at April 10, 2007 12:36 PM (X3uuh)

30 Come on, what do you want me to say? I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, yet you asked me for a legal opinion on the issue. I don't see a problem with any representatives, Democratic or Republican, visiting Syria. Wouldn't this be the vaunted "backchannels" we always hear about? These guys get to do things that you and I don't get to do; one of them is visiting foreign countries and speaking to the leaders therein.

Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 10, 2007 05:23 PM (nrafD)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I QUESTION THE TIMING!

The Washington Post has an article posted this morning by R. Jeffery Smith that seems to put to rest allegations that Saddam Hussein's government was directly in contact with al Qaeda before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Interestingly, the release of this report came on the same day that Vice President Dick Cheney repeated allegations of cooperation:

The report's release came on the same day that Vice President Cheney, appearing on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, repeated his allegation that al-Qaeda was operating inside Iraq "before we ever launched" the war, under the direction of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist killed last June.

"This is al-Qaeda operating in Iraq," Cheney told Limbaugh's listeners about Zarqawi, whom he said had "led the charge for Iraq." Cheney cited the alleged history to illustrate his argument that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq would "play right into the hands of al-Qaeda."

Folks, unless the Veep has information I don't (which is quite possible), he is possibly conflating two things here.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Zarqawi was a terrorist operating in Iraq by late 2001, and that he was well established prior to the 2003 invasion. There is also no doubt at all that he shared the same radical Sunni Islamist philosophy as al Qaeda. What does not seem to be supported by the report is Zarqawi's direct contact with al Qaeda prior to the 2003 invasion.

But one thing the report does apparently reinforce is that Saddam Hussein did have ties to other terror groups, which Smith glosses over (my bold):

Instead, the report said, the CIA had concluded in June 2002 that there were few substantiated contacts between al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi officials and had said that it lacked evidence of a long-term relationship like the ones Iraq had forged with other terrorist groups.

But is the DOD report accurate?

As we well know, millions of documents were captured after the fall of the Iraqi government, and the overwhelming majority of those documents have yet to be translated, thanks to the rise of the insurgency in Iraq. U.S. intelligence assets have always been extremely thin in regards to Arab translators, and those translators we do have are being used--and rightfully so--in active intelligence operations, not the historical review of documents from a regime that no longer exists. It is simply a matter of priorities.

But while U.S. military assets are correctly focused on current intelligence exploitation, a former member of the Iraq Study Group and his co-authors has gone though the documentation released by DOD, and has come to a vastly different series of conclusions, published in a new e-book, Both In One Trench: Saddam's Support to the Global Jihad Movement and International Terrorism.

I have a review copy of the book and I'm just starting on it, but if Robinson, Dunaway and al-Hadir are correct, then there may be reason to doubt the accuracy of the DOD report, not because DOD is being deceptive in any way, but simply because they are working from limited data that results from their assets being needed elsewhere.

Some of the bombshell conclusions published in the book are stunning:

The Saddam regime supported Islamic terrorists the same as it supported other ‘secular’ terrorists. The key to understanding this issue is the logical distinction between working with Islamic extremists to achieve mutual objectives outside of Iraq versus having them exist uncontrolled inside Iraq. Saddam’s regime was “open for business” to leaders from al-Qaeda, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Taliban, Hamas, Afghani warlords and other Islamic extremist organizations.

2. Documents provide strong evidence that Saddam was the instigator and ultimate mastermind behind the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993. They also provide evidence to suspect that Saddam was complicit in the Millennium Plot as executed by al Qaeda against the United States. Furthermore, documents reveal what may be foreknowledge by Saddam of the American anthrax attack that occurred within days of 9/11.

3. Saddam was in material breach of UN resolutions. The authorization from Congress for the use of force in Iraq was based largely on the failure of the Saddam regime to comply with its obligations under agreement to the UN. This fact is salient; the Saddam regime was in a state of noncompliance. WMD, while a significant part of the argument before the war, was never the sole justification despite cynical attempts by historical revisionists to portray it as the only justification provided by the Bush Administration.

4. Saddam corrupted mightily. He used pacifists, leftists, and even environmentalists to spread his propaganda. His intelligence agencies claimed to have sources all over the world in sensitive organizations, including the UN and the American media.

5. There are indications of activities in Iraq that we cannot make full determination on at this time, but which raise interesting questions. While we cannot make conclusions, we will pass the relevant information to the reader who may draw his or her own conclusions. For instance, a report by a respected journalist about a claim of an Iraqi underground nuclear test that happened in the late 1980Â’s appears to have sparked concern within the Saddam regime. The internal memorandum shows active steps to conceal evidence related to the story.

6. For the sake of history we make the startling revelation that during President BushÂ’s 2006 State of the Union Address, a spy for Saddam Hussein sat with the First Lady, Laura Bush. It should be noted that it was practically impossible to know this, and at the time the man was a leader of the Afghan reform movement that supported the overthrow of the Taliban.

Does the evidence support the allegations made by the authors? If so, does the documentation captured in Iraq provide the documentary evidence to justify the Iraq War?

At 200+ pages, this book promises to be an interesting read. If the conclusions made are supported, it may just be the most important book released since the beginning of the War On Terror.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:10 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 1031 words, total size 7 kb.

Democrat Harry Reid has already stated his opinion that the Iraqi War is "is not worth another drop of American blood," making me wonder just how much Iraqi blood may spill from Iraqi if his plan for defeat is implemented.

According to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, quite a lot:

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Wednesday warned that limiting troops' activities in Iraq and withdrawing from Baghdad could lead to "ethnic cleansing" in the capital and elsewhere in the country.

Gates' comment followed a proposal from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to end most spending on the Iraq war in 2008, limiting it to targeted operations against al Qaeda, training for Iraqi troops and U.S. force protection.

"One real possibility is if we abandon some of these areas and withdraw into the countryside or whatever to do these targeted missions that you could have a fairly significant ethnic cleansing inside Baghdad and in Iraq more broadly," Gates said.

"What we do know is if Baghdad is in flames and the whole city is engulfed in violence, the prospects for a political solution are almost nonexistent," he said on the Laura Ingraham syndicated radio program.

Gates is saying that the Democrat plan will most likely lead to genocide, a conclusion others have reached as well.

The preferred Democrat solution of a mindless retreat all but promises an escalation according to New York Times Baghdad bureau chief John Burns, that could result in "levels of suffering and of casualties amongst Iraqis that potentially could dwarf the ones we've seen to this point."

For all their rhetoric, those who claim to be anti-war certainly seem driven to create violence and bloodshed virtually without limits.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:38 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

While the rest of the world seems focused on Iranian promises to free 15 British sailors kidnapped 1.5 miles inside Iraqi waters, former pro-Taliban tribesmen are pushing forward with what they say is a final offensive to crush foreign al Qaeda fighters in Pakistan's South Waziristan tribal region.

The fighting against entrenched Uzbek, Chechen and Arab positions is intense:

Tribesmen stormed a bunker manned by foreign militants early on Wednesday and killed 11 Uzbeks and captured another 14, residents said, citing the tribal forces.

"Soon after morning prayers there was a heavy sound of war drums and tribesmen were seen leaving in different directions amid shouts of 'Allahu Akhbar' (God is Greatest) and 'Victory, victory, victory'," Malik Sangeen Khan, a resident of the region's main town of Wana, said.

"Since this morning there have been massive sounds of rockets and gunfire. It is louder even than the Pakistani military operations here in 2004."

It seems rather pathetic that the Musharraf government is claiming these battles vindicate his 2006 peace accord, a deal which effectively ceded Waziristan to Taliban and al Qaeda forces after Pakistan's Army suffered heavy losses in the area in 2004-2006.

I don't think anyone could have easily predicted this red-on-red conflict between former allies, but as long as Taliban and al Qaeda loyalists continue to kill each other instead of staging incursions into Afghanistan, very few people outside of Waziristan are likely to complain.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:59 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

As noted by blogger Paul Geary at The New Editor last night (h/t Instapundit), Nancy Pelosi is raising hackles for deciding to cover her head while visiting (against the President's advice) the capital city of Damascus, Syria, to meet with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

Up to 90% of the foreign suicide bombers in Iraq filter through Syria. Assad himself threatened former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri just months before Hariri was assassinated, and Syria's government—perhaps Assad himself—is suspected of having a hand in the murder.

Bush was correct in noting that Pelosi's trip only encourages a well-known state sponsor of terror. Republicans Joe Pitts (PA), Frank Wolf (VA) and Robert Aderholt (AL) also held meetings this past week with Assad that should be condemned, as have Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Bill Nelson (D-FL) Chris Dodd (D-CT), and Arlen Specter (R-PA) over the past few months.

All of these Congressmen and Senators should be rebuked for their actions, which lend credibility to a murderous regime, and I do mean all of them, Democrat and Republican. They do not represent, nor can they negotiate, the foreign policy of the United States.

But Pelosi, just a pretzel and a Big Mac away from the Presidency, and the highest ranking member of Congress as Speaker of the House, deserves special scrutiny for her actions.

While all of these trips were inadvisable, Pelosi's position lends credibility to a state that sponsors several major terrorist groups, terrorists that have killed hundreds of American servicemen, and who have killed hundreds of our allies. Pelosi's defiant trip is a thumb to the eye of U.S. foreign policy, one that sets a horrible precedent.

I am unaware of any Speaker of the House in this nation's history that has visited an antagonistic power while our military was engaged in combat. It is the equivalent of Speaker Sam Rayburn visiting China in the late summer of 1950 during the Korean War.

Make no mistake: Pelosi's trip undercuts our servicemen that are currently fighting against terrorists in Iraq that come through Syria with a wink and a nod. This trip is a propaganda coup that will be used by Syria, the terrorists they sponsor, and Islamists worldwide.

Notes Geary:

This picture disgusts me. What message is Nancy Pelosi trying to send? Are women equal to men, or not? Why is modesty foisted only upon women? That's the inconvenient truth for conservative Muslims, and for liberal Americans trying desperately (and unsuccessfully) to reconcile the desire for understanding between cultures, and those cultures' starkly illiberal practices.

While her term as Speaker is only months old, the image above may very well become the defining visual image associated with Pelosi’s Speakership: the most powerful woman in American politics donning a scarf in deference to Islamic practice, knowing full well the symbolism that act carried.

Pelosi donned the head covering while visiting the Ommayad Mosque in Damascus, a move that will be correctly interpreted by Muslims around the world as a nod to the subservience of women as noted in the Koran, in Surah an-Nur ayah 31:

'Wa qul li al-mu'minat yaghdudna min absarihinna wa yahfathna furujahunna wa laa yubdina zenatahunna illa maa thahara min haa wal-yadribna bi khumurihinna ala juyubihinna; wa laa yubdina zenatahunna illa li bu'ulatihinna aw aba'ihinna aw aba'i bu'ulatihinna aw abna'ihinna aw abna'i bu'ulatihinna aw ikhwanihinna aw bani ikhwanihinna aw bani akhawatihinna aw nisa'ihinna aw maa malakat aymanuhunna aw at-tabi'ina ghayri ulu'l-irbat min ar-rijal aw at-tifl allathina lam yathharu ala awrat an-nisa wa laa yadribna bi arjulihinna li yu'lama maa yukhfina min zenatahinna. Wa tubu ilaAllahi jami'an, ayyuha al-mu'minun la'allakum tuflihun'

And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their headcoverings (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs), and not to display their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their womenfolk, or what their right hands rule (slaves), or the followers from the men who do not feel sexual desire, or the small children to whom the nakedness of women is not apparent, and not to strike their feet (on the ground) so as to make known what they hide of their adornments. And turn in repentance to Allah together, O you the faithful, in order that you are successful.

Her scarf will be interpreted as a hijab or khimar, which indeed its purpose in her visit to Ommayad. The symbolism of the photo was easy to predict in advance, and easily avoidable by simply changing her itinerary. Instead, Nancy Peolosi disgraced herself, her position, the Congress and the United States, and certainly not least of all, women who seek equality around the world.

Get used to seeing this image. It will dog Pelosi until the end of her days in office.

Update: Even more pathetic than I thought. Pelosi couldn't even deliver a simple message correctly.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:31 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 853 words, total size 6 kb.

An Iraqi Sunni insurgent group calling itself the "Arrows of Righteousness" holding two German hostages has given the German government 10 more days to withdrawn their soldiers from Afghanistan.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:36 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.

"This is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."

--Winston Churchill, Harrow School, 29 October 1941

Oh, how the mighty have fallen:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair warned Iran on Tuesday that his government would have to take increasingly tough decisions if 15 captive sailors are not quickly released.

Iran captured 15 of Britain's sailors and marines and then paraded them in front of cameras repeatedly for propaganda purposes in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions on treatment of prisoners, and all Blair can muster are more empty, spineless rhetoric.

John Derbyshire takes the deliberately provacative stance that:

I certainly think that those British captives who have let themselves be put forward on Iranian TV, that woman wearing a headscarf, and the young man apologizing to the Iranian gangster-rulers, should be court-martialed for dereliction of duty when they get back to Blighty, with shooting definitely an option.

If Derbyshire is to shoot all those who were derelict in their duties, he should be sure to bring along enough ammunition to dispatch a substantial portion of the chain of command of the British Navy and the Blair government itself. All were, and continue to be, abject failures in dealing with a crisis that they allowed to occur.

The simple fact of the matter is that Iran was the aggressor, and the British Navy, acting under orders from Blair's government, were the enablers. Iran is clearly to blame for the kidnapping, but Blair's government allowed the kidnapping to take place when it had the means and the ability to blow the Iranian pirate fleet out of the water, if it only had the fortitude and sense of self preservation to do so.

I don't agree with Blair's spinelessness, any more than I agree with his fellow countryman Patrick Cockburn taking the coward's way out, blaming the United States for the kidnapping (a story that is a mish-mash of old information and unsupported conjecture).

This isn't the first Iranian attempt to capture western Coalition soldiers to use as bargaining chips. Cockburn's uninformed speculation that the British soldiers were kidnapped in response to U.S. forces capturing Iranian operatives in Iraq is flatly, factually wrong; Iranian forces ventured into Iraq in an attempt to capture U.S forces back in September, well in advance of the Iranian operatives' arrest that Cockburn says is the trigger for the kidnapping. What is criminal is that the British Navy were aware of the attempt in September, and another attempt to kidnap American soldiers during a raid on Karbala that saw five U.S soldiers killed, and did not take any obvious steps to protect their soldiers, sailors and marines before the attack, did nothing during the attack, and has done nothing since except utter empty rhetoric.

No, the United States is not remotely responsible for the capture of these 15 Britons. Iran is responsible for the brazen attempt, invading 1.5 miles into Iraqi waters to attempt the kidnapping, and the British are responsible for letting a much weaker foe steal their personnel without even attempting to defend them.

Cockburn wishes to blame others for his countrymen's kidnapping. Perhaps he should focus less on assigning blame to others, and recognize that the problem plaguing Britain is the inaction, lack of a sense of self preservation, and lack of honor of the British people themselves.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:51 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 593 words, total size 4 kb.