?I sensed a frustration with the lack of progress on the bigger picture of Iraq generally ? that we continue to lose a lot of lives, it continues to sap our budget,? said one person who attended the meeting. ?The president wants the people in Iraq to get more on board to bring success.?
That’s inbetween ducking the assassination attempts? Get more on board? Give it the old college try?
More generally, the participants said, the president expressed frustration that Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq, and was puzzled as to how a recent anti-American rally in support of Hezbollah in Baghdad could draw such a large crowd. ?I do think he was frustrated about why 10,000 Shiites would go into the streets and demonstrate against the United States,? said another person who attended.
Stunning.
One participant in the lunch, Carole A. O?Leary, a professor at American University who is also doing work in Iraq with a State Department grant, said Mr. Bush expressed the view that ?the Shia-led government needs to clearly and publicly express the same appreciation for United States efforts and sacrifices as they do in private.?
Essentially they should commit political hari-kari to make Bush feel better and then allow more radical people to take over. What a great analysis.
The White House began to open its doors to a wider range of views earlier this year, after acknowledging that months of complaints after Hurricane Katrina that the president and his team were isolated ? ?living in a bubble? was a frequent refrain ? had gotten through. But that accelerated after Joshua B. Bolten became White House chief of staff in the spring.
Wait for it:
?They wanted new insight, so they could better understand the arena in which they are making policy,? said Mr. Nasr, author of ?The Shia Revival.? He said he got no sense that the Bush administration was contemplating a shift in its Iraq policy.
Some who have been brought into past meetings with President Bush, even fierce critics of the conduct of the Iraq war, give credit to the White House for beginning to listen to alternate viewpoints.
They are listening and then ignoring it all. But that’s worth reporting as evidence of the new attitude of openness?
So….now, NOW, it’s a good thing to start listening to alternate viewpoints? Now.
Holy Shit is this country in trouble. 2 1/2 more years of Alice in Wonderland and I can’t even begin to grasp what else these people can fuck up.
What else can they fuck up ? How about nuking Iran ! That surely will raise the shit level to new heights. If there’s one thing this admin-ass-tration is proud of, it’s fucking up beyond comprehension. Just who is in charge of the DFU ( Dept. of Fuck Ups )? Most of us know its King XLIII and his trusty band of incompetents. By the time the ‘ brain-dead ‘ folks of this evil empire figure it out it’ll be to late. Quoting the asshat, Tucker Carlson, for his brilliant statement he made while covering (live) the Israeli conflict, ” We could find ourselves dead and we wouldn’t even know it. “
Two-and-a-half? Just two-and-a-half?
Not if the ‘Murkin people know what’s good for them. To wit:
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said terrorists are “waiting for the Democrats here to take control, let things cool off and then strike again” (Salt Lake Tribune).
I’ve had to reinforce my head with steel belting to keep it from fucking exploding.
Two-and-a-half? Just two-and-a-half?
Not if the ‘Murkin people know what’s good for them. To wit:
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said terrorists are “waiting for the Democrats here to take control, let things cool off and then strike again” (Salt Lake Tribune).
I’m going to have to reinforce my head with steel belting to keep it from fucking exploding.
To be fair, let’s also quote a professor from Rutgers, who also attended the meeting:
“Mr. Davis said he discussed the regional upheaval that could follow if Iraq descended into chaos or was allowed to divide along ethnic lines. ‘I believe that the American people do not fully understand the potential domino effects that the collapse of Iraq into disorder and anarchy would have on the Middle East and the global political system,’ he said. ”
The article also noted that no one at the meeting openly criticized the administration’s policy.
So what should Bush do? It’s easy to snipe complaints, but since at least one person at the meeting agreed that we cannot just leave, what, in definitive terms, should we do? Apparently it’s not cut and run.
Screaming cut and run doesn’t make Bush any more effective. The problem with the Bush strategery is it’s pretty clearly leading to disorder and anarchy in the region with us in the middle of it.
So if the argument is to leave Iraq and have the Middle East go up in flames versus staying in Iraq and having the Middle East go up in flames, the latter is a horrible choice, but better than Bush’s plan to date.
The whole cut and run canard is rather odd given the person taking the most flack for “it”, is a guy who wants to redeploy troops to ensure the stability of Iraq’s borders, but get US troops out of the way of patrolling streets in the middle of a Civil War.
Being too fucking stupid to actually read what Jack Murtha has suggested as one of many possible alternatives and insisting critics are just carping despite many suggestions makes one a fool, not steadfast.
I believe Murtha wanted the troops “redeployed” (ahem) to (and I’ll quote his words here) “somewhere close by, like Okinawa” presumably so they could still monitor the situation in Iraq. I guess Jack is using a different atlas than I am if he thinks Okinawa is close to Iraq. I suppose if the option is to redeploy them to Mars then, yeah, Okinawa is pretty close.
But the thought that the Middle East is “going up in flames” is lacking. 25 million Afghanis freed from the facsist Taliban and 50 million Iragi’s freed from a totalitarian Sadddam since we got involved seems like progress to me. I’m sure at least 60 million of those folks would agree. Sure, it’s not going to be one steady long march forward to peace and there may even be a few slides backward but no one said this was going to be easy.
Again, what definitve steps should be taken, now that we are where we are?
===But the thought that the Middle East is “going up in flames” is lacking. 25 million Afghanis freed from the facsist Taliban and 50 million Iragi’s freed from a totalitarian Sadddam since we got involved seems like progress to me.
Ummm…you quoted someone suggesting that—the question is what difference are American troops making in the middle of Iraq? Preventing a Civil War? The question is that the situation the man describes is no different from one in which US troops redeploy or leave so which is worse? Right now the PKK is creating problems with Iran and Turkey, we see significant Iranian influence in Iraq and Sunni Iraq is falling apart as it has a target on it. If the dominoes are going to fall, they can fall with the US there or not. Doing the same thing over and over again has to date only hastened that outcome.
Perhaps preventing Iran from invading, but certainly not from Iran having an incredible amount of influence over Shiite political leaders.
It’s simply impossible to take you seriously with quotes like this:
“somewhere close by, like Okinawa”
When he actually said:
” ?Kuwait?s one that will take us. Qatar, we already have bases in Qatar. (Also in) Bahrain. All those countries are willing to take the United States?We don?t? have to be right there. We can go to Okinawa..We can redeploy there almost instantly.?
The effort to purposely distort alternative plans and then say there are no alternative plans is mendacious bullshit. The Korb plan has several Democrats who support it. Galbraith has a plan I think is problematic, but it’s an alternative.
The more bizarre part of all of this is that this administration screwed up the war at every turn–so continuing to let them do it badly is better than anything else.
Suggesting that Iraqis are free now is both bizarre on its face and bizarre if one understands political theory and were freedom is defined. Hobbes pointed out that one must first have order and sectarian Civil War isn’t order. Looting wasn’t order. It’s not order to have the PKK attack sovereign countries. It is a life that is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
Afghanistan isn’t a liberal democracy if you haven’t noticed and it certainly isn’t stable.
Again, what definitive steps should the United States take, whether it be by a Republican or Democratic administration?
Again, did you read the above? Do you want the entire Galbraith plan reprinted here? Or the entire Korb plan? Are you too lazy to know about them?
Maybe you could throw a link my way as none of the above dialogue even hints at a plan … but I have placed bets at the $50 window as to what the components of the Kalbreath or Gorb plans detail. Perhaps one day the Gorb plan will be as famous as the Marshall Plan.
P.S. — “When the facts are against you, just yell louder and call your opponent a lazy bullshitter.”
Was it Steven Douglas or Adlai Stevenson who said that?
== “When the facts are against you, just yell louder and call your opponent a lazy bullshitter.”
Fuck you. Seriously:
http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/redeployment.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/opinion/25galbraith.html?ex=1311480000&en=84dd7eac808f8969&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Entering into a discussion and saying there are no serious alternatives after misrepresenting one of those alternatives is lazy. Bullshit is then proceeding to be to lazy to figure out your ignorance is easily solveable and not looking up the plans yourself is bullshit. Reading right wing blogs doesn’t make one informed as to what the real policy debates are.
That you have no knowledge of the facts is only more damning. Whining there are no alternative plans and then not knowing anything about them while screaming cut and run demonstrates an utter lack of intellectual honesty and the fact you only know how to yell louder. Projection indeed.
—- “Reading right-wing blogs …. etc. etc. etc…”
I shall endeavor to slough my way through the American Progress item above and see what is up. Of course I shall also note that CAP’s CEO is John Podesta (chief of staff to Clinton); has a Fellow by the name of Tom Daschle (who’s wife was a senatorial lobbyist for the airline industry while he was majority leader– I believe he was also a liberal democrat who learned at the heel of George Mitchell); and is a producer of the Bill Press show. I love Google.
You were saying something about “right-wing blogs?” Sounds like a big left-wing blog over at CAP? Am I missing any other Liberal Lions?
I may read the Times article, though after the Jayson Blair episode I find it hard to trust very much of what I read there.
==Sounds like a big left-wing blog over at CAP?
Wow, you are really dumb and lazy. Perhaps you can be President too. If you bothered to look at either source one is a 9 page policy brief by a former Secretary of Defense and the other is a short synopsis from Peter Galbraith about his longer plan–it’s an op-ed in the NYT. What Jayson Blair has to do with an op-ed by a noted scholar and former ambassador is a bit hard to tell, but the best interpretation is that you don’t think reading what others are saying is important and instead simply want to reiterated some whiny ass titty baby caricature of the debate.
Now, if you want to disagree on substance that’s fine. However, your initial challenge was that no one was presenting serious alternatives other than cut and run and so it was just complaints and not constructive policy making. When given two signicantant and detailed alternative policies you whined that you didn’t have the time to be bothered with reading them.
It’s a good thing you are anonymous because at this point your credibility is zero.
Actually I have skimmed the Korb paper and see that “Cut and Run” is not an apt description at all and offer an unreserved apology. Is this the plan you prefer? — I still don’t have a answer to that. However, I note that you indicate the Galbraith plan has some problems so I’ll go with the idea that you are a Korbite.
“Cut and Jog” or “Cut and Trot” is a more apt description as “the Former Secretary of Defense” (he must not have been too proud of his service in that capacity because he is only credited with being assistant secretary in the paper) clearly shows.
“Strategeric Redeployment rejects calls for an immediate and complete withdrawal” ……” (page 9). Instead, “Strategeric Redeployment” calls for a “slow and irreversible drawdown of military forces ….” so that “by the end of 2007, the only U.S. forces would be … small Marine contingents.” So there we have it: “Cut and Walk, Don’t Run.” What better way to beat the Islamo-fascists than to say, in effect, “Just hold out until January 2008 and the place is yours, less a couple dozen Marines to monitor a few buildings and provide talking-points to the locals. We have bigger fish to fry in Manila. And those guys in Eritrea are getting kind of pushy, too.”
Is this the plan? Do I have to read the Galbraith claptrap, too? No wonder the Korb plan enjoys very little mention on the nightly news or debate time in Congress, but seems to have much play in obscure left-leaning think-tanks. And this is what I gather from a mere skim (though apparently that’s more than you’ve done) … In- depth reading may reveal those other “terrorist hotspots” he wants to send troops to. What hotspots or central front do you think troops should get involved in? Are you agreeing that additional military engagements are needed elsewhere? You see, I, too want the troops to come home next month, but not at the expense of leaving the job unfinished.
But beyond that, I may be treating Mr. Korb a little too harshly. By my estimation, this article was written sometime in October or November 2005 (give or take). Perhaps I will reserve judgment on this plan until November 2006 when Mr. Korb has predicted the destruction of the “all-volunteer Army.” (page 4). I have no idea what that means (the draft is reinstituted, the troops up and quit, the terrorists win) but if it comes to pass, I’ll maybe take another stab at Mr. Korb’s “Cut and Stroll.”
Subtstantively Disagreeingly and Thick-Skinnedly Yours,
AnonymousPundit.
(I’ve debated the Left for going on fifteen years now and am never surprised or offended when the name-calling starts — always by them. Again, see the Stevenson or Douglas quote. Do you have anything other than “lazy and dumb?”)
===(I’ve debated the Left for going on fifteen years now and am never surprised or offended when the name-calling starts — always by them. Again, see the Stevenson or Douglas quote. Do you have anything other than “lazy and dumb?”)
Nice trick. Come in and complain that there are no alternatives and when shown evidence of those non-existent alternatives complain that people weren’t nice to you. This coming after you simply lied about what Murtha has said and misrepresented what those who disagree with you say. Claiming civility after lying your ass off isn’t exactly a credible position. Even more hysterical is that you try and weasel out of even discussing the alternatives and then whine that someone pointed out that you didn’t read what was offered after insisting that you knew nothing of them. Either you did know about them and your first claim that no alternatives exist is false or you didn’t and you don’t have any serious knowledge about the subject.
The problem with your entire claim about cut and run is that there is no evidence that a Korb plan would produce anything worse than what is happening now. How is getting stuck in the middle of a Civil War going to achieve any objective we are seeking?
Who are we going to back? The Shiites? When we attacked al-Sadr’s forces the Iraqi Prime Minister attacked us verbally for doing so. So are we now to take out the government we’ve been backing since they are supporting the Islamists?
The Sunnis? LOL
The Kurds? Rather irrelevant given they are only in the North.
Screaming cut and run doesn’t answer very basic questions you should be able to answer to favor continuing a failed policy. How is that failed policy better than a fairly bad, but less bad alternative? If you can’t carry out operations in Iraq without being held back by the Iraqi government, how do you plan on ‘winning’ anything, but an Iranian client state?
For someone so cocksure about his position, you don’t seem to have much in the way of realistic thinking.
But I did read them …. did you? And it’s not “Cut and Run,” it’s “Cut and Waddle.”
I’ve defended my position, now defend yours. Or just call me a liar and a weasel. Your choice.
I did. Did you bother to read the comment?
You did lie. You said no one was presenting any alternatives. Then you whined there weren’t any links to them. You then attempted to smear Murtha with a line out of context.
And to top it off, I made substantive points and you again whined that there wasn’t anything substantive.
Impressive skills at distraction. If you’d care to actually read anything I’ve said, I’ll be waiting.
—-“You did lie. You said no one was presenting any alternatives.”
I actually asked you to define yours. Three exchanges later, you did, albeit by reference.
—“Then you whined there weren’t any links to them.”
I actually asked for a link since you didn’t address the particulars in your response.
—- ” How is getting stuck in the middle of a Civil War going to achieve any objective we are seeking?Who are we going to back? The Shiites? When we attacked al-Sadr’s forces the Iraqi Prime Minister attacked us verbally for doing so. So are we now to take out the government we’ve been backing since they are supporting the Islamists?
The Sunnis? LOL
The Kurds? Rather irrelevant given they are only in the North.”
—These are not substantive points — defining your plan does not generally entail asking questions about the other guy’s plan. Usually, when you have something better to offer, you just go ahead and say “My plan is X, this is why it is better.”
So let’s get down to the nut — the Bush plan (and the plan I like) is “do what we must until we win against whatever terrorist threat arises,” the Korb plan is “we must get out by 1/08 whether we win or lose and send troops to other hotspots.”
It begs the question as to what is so magical about 1/08? You understand this gives the enemy a free pass to just wait the U.S. out and we leave the keys to them. Secondly, is the Korb plan a “significant alternative” or a “less bad plan.” You’ve stressed both points. If it is “less bad” then why ? And if you agree troops are needed in other hotspots, you should indentify those countries in which the U.S. should start military excursions. But how would those excursions be any different than the one we are in right now in Iraq?
Lastly, and then I really think we will have exhausted this topic, if going to Iraq was such a mistake why did 75 or so Senators vote for it? And why did President Clinton, without much objection from any corner, press the need to remove Saddam several years ago? And, more importantly, when the Senate introduced a recent resolution to remove troops immediately from Iraq why did over 80 Senators vote against it?
So, you see, my original statement expressing agreement with Professor Davis from Rutgers (re: the misguided idea of cut and run) has broad appeal and a sound logical basis. It still amuses, but does not surprise, me that you left out his comments in your original bowdlerization of the New York Times article.
====I actually asked you to define yours. Three exchanges later, you did, albeit by reference.
Grownups assume people have read enough about a subject they are discussing to understand references. If someone is too dumb or lazy to know about the basics of a discussion while entering into it, it is seldom considered the fault of the person making the reference.
As to your assertion that you asked for details, once the relevant plans were cited you tried to claim nothing in the dialogue hinted at a plan. Naming two well developed plans would be more than a hint. It’s simple dishonesty on your part as was your attempt to smear Murtha by misrepresenting what he was saying.
==—These are not substantive points — defining your plan does not generally entail asking questions about the other guy’s plan. Usually, when you have something better to offer, you just go ahead and say “My plan is X, this is why it is better.”
My plan has been defined, and I’ve offered an alternative plan as well. Then I offered why it was better. If staying in Iraq with bullseyes on American troops produces instability and civil war, how is that worse than not having American troops with bullseyes on them during instability and civil war?
There are no indicators that Iraq is getting better. There is evidence that our ‘allies’ are unwilling to let us actually conduct a war on insurgent forces such as al-Sadr. What is the point in staying?
Doing the same thing we have been doing isn’t working. The President has offered no alternative other than to say we’d adapt, but provides no evidence that we are adapting. When the 101st was given credit for proactive efforts, the General was sent to Britain to spend a year in a think tank. Is that adapting?
So continuing to do the same thing given there is no evidence it has been effective or will be effective is the alternative to Korb or Galbraith? It’s rather funny you ask for alternatives yet this administration has no exit strategy, has no political strategy since it won’t negotiate with any insurgent groups, and has no military strategy to relieve overburdened US troops. What exactly are you arguing for? Putting US troops in a meat grinder because the President’s feelings are hurt?
And by the way, many people did insist Iraq would be easy including Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld at different times.
You and Bush are the ones incapable of offering a strategy.
==So, you see, my original statement expressing agreement with Professor Davis from Rutgers (re: the misguided idea of cut and run) has broad appeal and a sound logical basis. It still amuses, but does not surprise, me that you left out his comments in your original bowdlerization of the New York Times article.
What amuses me and doesn’t surprise me is the bullshit you lay down smearing anyone who disagrees with you. Lie about Murtha. Who cares.
Misrepresent those who disagree now with this war by saying Bill Clinton wanted the same thing and so it couldn’t be that bad. The problem wasn’t with the goal of removing Saddam Hussein. As with all tyrants it would be good to be rid of them, but one has to avoid a Hobbesian nightmare that emerges from such action. Instead this administration has created a Hobbesian nightmare. Clinton wanted to take action to support indigenous action, not go in an occupy an entire country with no natural means of stabilizing it given the entire country was never more than an administrative unit.
Supporting a President to threaten military force in the face of weapons of mass destruction isn’t supporting a war in which that President misled everyone and spun every piece of evidence to make the case for war even when the facts did not fit.
You seem to have mistaken distortions and spin for actual policy disputes, yet fail to recognize the utter failure of the current plan and a complete unwillingness to actually come up with a strategy to exit Iraq in the face of a no-win situation. Bush created it.
Oh well…
The Bush Exit Strategy is we exit when we win, same as FDR’s Exit Strategy in WWII. The Left Exit Strategy is exit now or exit in 1/08, win or lose. Claiming this is a no-win situation is tatamount to admitting defeat right now, and handing the enemies a win.
The Korb plan would have been embraced by Zarqawi (may he rest in peace). The Bush plan is showing progress: of the 18 or so generally recognized provincial areas of Iraq, essentially 17 are under indigenous control. Given enough time and assitance, the last one will come under indigenous control. Thank goodness “W” is here to implement Clinton’s plan.
Still working on that list of hotspots the U.S. needs to redeploy to? Deployments which would apparently be different than the Iraqi one?
===Thank goodness “W” is here to implement Clinton’s plan.
Again, this is an outright distortion. Clinton pursued a different strategy, one that didn’t involve a massive US presence and certainly not one that would have been this unilateral.
===The Bush Exit Strategy is we exit when we win
Conveniently you avoid the issue of how we win. There is no evidence we are winning. Violence is increasing, death squads are operating with impunity, and we have no support to target insurgent groups given the Iraqi government is now blocking us.
How does one win? By following the same strategy that is failing? This is the most irrational statement I’ve ever read. It’s not the same strategy as FDR and if it was it would be a disaster. WWII was about countering three countries that invaded other countries and getting an unconditional surrender. This is about defeating a broad range of insurgent groups. It’s simply claptrap to claim it’s the same thing.
What is the strategy other than putting a bullseye on soldiers’ backs as they attempt to do what? Again, we sent the 101st leader over to Britain because his tactics were embarrassing his peers. Is that a strategy? What benchmarks to this supposed strategy can we hold the administration accountable for? Given they have made up numbers for readiness of Iraqi troops it’s a bit hard to suggest they are accomplishing much.
If you want another hot spot you can try North Korea or Sudan–both very different situations. Or one could simply try and repair the fatigue to our men and equipment Iraq has created. We are now calling up the IRR for Marines en masse.
Why is Zarqawi relevant? He hardly had any power…clearly eliminating him hasn’t made the situation any better.
Removing troops isn’t about losing. It’s about letting Iraqis figure out their own problem and then stationing our troops in a position to allow them to intervene if Iran were to invade or Al Qaeda were to set up bases. Given the current government isn’t supporting the war effort, it’s curious that you even think we are making progress.
Do you think al-Sadr is a bad guy? If so, how do you propose taking him out without toppling the current government?
The administration won’t negotiate nor allow the Iraqi government to negotiate with anyone who might have killed Americans. So how do you get insurgents to lay down arms? Kill them all? Genocide? Seriously, what is the strategy and how does one even know if this administration is successful?
For someone who criticizes others for not having plans, it might be helpful if you could point out what the strategy of this administration is. Doing the same thing that keeps increasing violence and has put Iraq into a civil war that worsens by the day isn’t a strategy, it’s a deer stuck in the headlights.
Well, it’s been fun … I do find this site entertaining, though. I guess we’ll agree to disagree. There will be a nationwide referendum on the war in November. Lieberman’s early 12 point lead on Lamont does not bode well for the “quit and joggers.” I just hope the Left has the courage to run under the definitive banner of “we’ll be out by 1/08, if not sooner, win or lose.”