Conflict in the Middle East, pt. 4

Riverbend learns of Kellog, Brown & Root...

For Sale: A fertile, wealthy country with a population of around 25 million… plus around 150,000 foreign troops, and a handful of puppets. Conditions of sale: should be either an American or British corporation (forget it if you’re French)… preferably affiliated with Halliburton. Please contact one of the members of the Governing Council in Baghdad, Iraq for more information.

2. ScreamingSin - 9/24/2003 1:53:55 AM

And this is different from the USA or Italy or Germany how?

3. jayackroyd - 9/24/2003 4:19:51 AM

Saddam's government is known to have worked in collusion with Al Qaeda and other Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups.


Nobody else thinks so. As I said in March.

This is a lie. It's a purposeful action of deceit to provide political support for the administration. They know it's false. They keep saying it, even after admitting it is false.

It may work. Having the president lie, over and over again, about a threat to the American people may work. People may well say "The president wouldn't say something like this if it weren't true. He has access to information we don't, and those who say he is lying don't have access to that information either. So it's all political those people who say it's not true.

"And there is no way the president would lie to us about something like this. That would be unconscionable. So it can't be so."

It may work. It worked for Stalin. It works for Kim Jong-Il. It may well work for Bush.

I fear for the republic.

4. jayackroyd - 9/24/2003 4:38:29 AM

The regime of Saddam Hussein cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction. It used those weapons in acts of mass murder and refused to account for them when confronted by the world.

But to be precise (I know that it doesn't matter what I say connie--you'll stay on message, but I can't let this claim stand), neither of these two statements are true. We now, for sure, know them to be false. He had no ties to "terror" at the time of the Security Council's resolution. And he did account for weapons of mass destruction when confronted by the world.

He said they didn't have any.

And they didn't.

The inspectors, at the time, said that there was no evidence that they did have such weapons, and asked for more time to find them.

The US refused to permit more time. US reps said there was no doubt WSD were there, and invaded.

This pretext has been exposed as completely false. For Bush to reiterate this pretext has to call his understanding of reality into question. Saying something over and over again doesn't make it true.

5. alistairConnor - 9/24/2003 4:40:27 AM

Sad to say, I wasn't surprised that Bush made such a complete balls of his big UN moment.

The other day, when asked if he was prepared to accord a greater role to the UN in Iraq, he says what? he says "I'm not sure we need to." Yeah -- Chirac had already announced that France will not veto a SC resolution, so he thinks he's got a get-out-of-jail-free card. No apology, no concessions, tough it out, they'll all be cowed and fall into line... Just like the Iraqis will... Operation Wishful Thinking is still under way.

Lots of people were expecting reconciliation and compromise at the UN. All Bush had to do was to put the madman in the back seat, and put the State Department in control. He's the president, he can decide that. I wasn't expecting this.

He may eventually get his resolution, with no concessions... But he won't get the money, he won't get the troops, he won't get the know-how he needs, to avoid sinking further into the quagmire in Iraq.

Even if, by some miracle, he got the money and the troops, they would be no use to him without concessions on sovereignty and UN control. Because Iraqis will not buy into a system which offers only indefinite US control and occupation.

Nobody wants to see Iraq sink further into anarchy and despair. Except Saddam and Usama.

6. jayackroyd - 9/24/2003 4:40:28 AM

Oh, and he did all this in the context of the US (with help from the rest of the OECD, but cotton concessions would have gone a long way) blowing up the Doha GATT round.

7. marjoribanks - 9/24/2003 9:29:19 AM

I wouldn't blame the US (and EU) alone for imploding the GATT talks in Cancun. India, Brazil and China have to share the blame equally.

But even though it looks like the three leaders of the so-called "group of 22" seem to have shot themselves in the foot - cutting off immediate access to greater markets - the implosion may work out to everyone's favour if a more perceptibly evenhanded approach to globalization emerges when the parties all get back to the table.

8. marjoribanks - 9/24/2003 9:30:01 AM

But Fareed Zakaria points the finger at the US, lucidly, for its overall approach.

"But the most vital leadership vacuum is in the United States. It is the only country that has the power to help repair, revive or reinvent arrangements to help manage global peace and prosperity. This is the time for intense and creative efforts along these lines. But at this crucial moment in world history, the influential hard-liners in the Bush administration stand in theological opposition to the very idea of international cooperation.

Even when the administration comes to multilateralism, as it did last week, it does so grudgingly and halfheartedly; President Bush's excellent television address, asking for help one Sunday, is quickly countered the next Sunday by Vice President Cheney's combative (and dishonest) performance. The administration is consumed with score-settling and almost delights in the petty vanities and missteps of the French because it discredits multilateralism.

But the imperial style of foreign policy is backfiring. At the end of the Iraq war the administration spurned any kind of genuine partnership with the world. It pounded away at the United Nations, explaining that legitimacy would come only by giving Iraq back to the Iraqis. The Europeans, cut out from any participation, have now decided to hang Washington by its own rhetoric, coming out in favor of an even faster transfer back to the Iraqis. Key Iraqis have jumped on this proposal and are making common cause with the Europeans. (Ahmad Chalabi has apparently shocked his neoconservative patrons with his ingratitude.)        

So unilateralism has produced a multilateral free-for-all, a chaotic jockeying for power over which the United States is losing control. This is bad for Iraq, bad for the United States and bad for the prospects for international cooperation. One can only hope it will be a lesson in how not to manage the next foreign-policy crisis. "

9. marjoribanks - 9/24/2003 9:39:16 AM

The move by the sinister-looking Chalabi to start courting the Europeans and UN and to distance himself from the US is really the beginning of the end for the whole neocon vision for the Iraq campaign.

As we've seen all along, the neocons could have solidified their plans by displaying competence in the post-War period, by following through on their promises for Iraq immediately (that $87 billion should have been in place and spent speedily), by putting substance behind the rhetoric.

But it was all lies, manipulation, incompetence and refusal to admit error. And thus they have not only lost golden chances to multilateralize the efforts, they have lost first the American people's support and now they've even lost the acquiescence of their own cherry-picked Iraqi governing council. An astounding object lesson in how to botch up an already difficult situation.

So now, unfortunately, we taxpayers will pay the price. Maybe half-a-trillion dollars over the next few years, plus a couple of thousand dead Americans, plus near-total isolation on the world stage and absolute distrust the next time the US wants to take the lead on any serious matter dealing with war and peace overseas.

I'm in favour of taking the neocons, slimeballs all, and dumping each one individually in Faluja or some similiar Iraqi location, and letting the locals have a go at them with sticks.

10. marjoribanks - 9/24/2003 9:39:45 AM

Hell, let the 101st Airborne at them first.

11. marjoribanks - 9/24/2003 9:41:57 AM

Say, whatever happened to the baboon circle-jerk anyways?

Once they flung their own excrement around on this site. Now they've been forced to eat it, in whatever benighted location they've holed up.

12. alistairConnor - 9/24/2003 9:51:34 AM

bring 'em on...

13. marjoribanks - 9/24/2003 9:55:32 AM

Now, I very highly recommend two balanced, deeply informed, pieces from the latest edition of the NYRB.

One, Jonathan Mirsky's review of two books on the conflict in Vietnam, shocks the reader with the salient lessons about American unilateralism that can be learned from careful reading of that past episode. Stick with the article as it details some of what went on those decades ago, and your jaw will drop at the relevance to the current misadventure in Iraq - the lies, the false promises, the barely-understood local landscape - it's all there.

"On May 4, 1972, Nixon said:

Whatever happens to South Vietnam we are going to cream North Vietnam.... For once, we've got to use the maximum power of this country...against this shit-ass little country: to win the war

Such was policymaking by presidents from Truman to Nixon, aided by men who, like Ellsberg himself, kept their knowledge and doubt to themselves in exchange for power and access. Ellsberg was the most outspoken and daring of the Ameri-can insiders who saw that a disaster was taking place and changed their minds.

In the face of current American rhetoric about the need for American forces to "prevail," David Elliott's characterizations of the Vietnamese revolutionaries are instructive and cautionary: "Whatever one's view of the outcome," he writes, "in the end it was fundamentally decided by the Vietnamese themselves..."

14. marjoribanks - 9/24/2003 10:05:57 AM

Two, the slightly sneering (and highly distinguished) Brian Urquhart's review of a slew of books on American unilateralism - World Order and Mr. Bush



Urquhart, the Brit who godfathered the UN into existence, does a superb job of weaving all the disparate books into something like a long historical lesson on international exercises on the lines of the one currently being undertaken by the US.

I leave you to pore through it (do so with close attention), and with the note that his rave review of Prestowitz's book ("It would be hard to imagine a better, or more readable, analysis of United States policy over the last fifty years ..") has led me to move it to the top of my reading list immediately.

An excerpt from the review:

Other major, and global, threats to future security and stability—poverty and economic imbalance, the dwindling of essential natural resources like fresh water, the accelerating degradation of the environment—at present command far less attention than the policies and actions of the world's single superpower and the ferocity and ingenuity of its terrorist enemies.

15. marjoribanks - 9/24/2003 10:18:41 AM

Not that it belongs in this thread, but I want to publicly express my unequivocal admiration for the NYRB.

It goes out of its way to avoid cant, and the kind of instant-gratification journalism that colors even the purportedly "serious" newsmagazines, and publishes these lengthy, historically-aware, thoughtful articles in each edition.

It's an invaluable publication, really.

16. jexster - 9/24/2003 12:49:17 PM

French president, Jacques Chirac, who spoke after Mr Bush, blamed the US-led war for sparking one of the most severe crises in the history of the UN and argued that Mr Bush's unilateral actions could lead to anarchy.

"No one can act alone in the name of all and no one can accept the anarchy of a society without rules," he said. "The war, launched without the authorisation of the security council, shook the multilateral system. The UN has just been through one of the most grave crises in its history."

17. jexster - 9/24/2003 12:56:01 PM

Why George Soros is acting....

INC Moves to Take Over Iraqi Finances

18. jexster - 9/24/2003 12:59:33 PM

Steven R Weisman, New York Times

The audience of world leaders seemed to perceive an American president weakened by plunging approval ratings at home, facing a tough security situation in Iraq where American soldiers are dying every week, and confronted by the beginnings of a revolt against the American timetable for self-rule by several Iraqi leaders installed by the United States. Nor did they seem eager to help. If anything, they appeared more sceptical than ever of Mr Bush's assertions.

19. concerned - 9/24/2003 2:01:50 PM

Re. 11503 -

Jay, you're just wrong. You may not agree with every item of the following excerpt from the WSJ's 'Iraq and al Qaeda', but you can't deny their existence or validity wholesale.

Far from exaggeration, what struck us about the case the President and Colin Powell took to the U.N. last fall and winter was its restraint. It focused mainly on a then-obscure terrorist named Abu Mussab al Zarqawi with no alleged 9/11 link, and a small affiliated terror group called Ansar al Islam operating in the Kurdish area of Northern Iraq. Left out entirely by Mr. Bush were the following stories:

- About a month after September 11, reports surfaced that lead hijacker Mohammed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi embassy official and intelligence agent named Ahmed al-Ani. Al-Ani was a later expelled from the Czech Republic, in connection with a plot to bomb Radio Free Europe/Radio Free Iraq. Despite repeated attempts to discredit the report of a meeting between the two, Czech officials at the cabinet level have stuck by the story. Al-Ani has been captured in Iraq, and the public deserves to know what he's telling U.S. officials about that meeting.

- Also in October 2001, two defectors alleged that a 707 fuselage at Salman Pak, south of Baghdad, was being used to train terrorists in the art of hijacking with simple weapons such as knives. Though no link to al Qaeda was alleged, some of the trainees were said to be non-Iraqi Arabs. The fuselage was clearly visible in satellite photos, and has since been found.

- Press reports, which had begun in 1998, resurfaced that former Iraqi intelligence chief and then-ambassador to Turkey Faruk Hijazi had met with bin Laden and associates on multiple occasions. Hijazi is in U.S. custody too, and has reportedly confirmed some of the alleged contacts.

20. concerned - 9/24/2003 2:24:25 PM

You'll just have to forgive me if I believe the deceit lies with those who are criticizing the GWB administration for not ignoring the Saddam regime/terrorist ties.

21. concerned - 9/24/2003 2:35:02 PM

From Reuters:


Iraq council says France exploiting Iraq crisis


BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq's Governing Council accused France Wednesday of using Iraq to try to settle scores with the United States.

At the same time, it declared that it was working with the U.S. administration in Iraq to restore sovereignty to the Iraqi people as fast as possible.

"The problem with (French) President (Jacques) Chirac and France is that they have not been in discussions with the Iraqi side. We don't know for what reasons or what they are trying to achieve," said Iyad Allawi, a doctor who was a member of the Baath party and now sits on the council.

"Our fear really is that they are using Iraq as a pawn to settle their differences with the U.S...It is regrettable that France is trying to settle some scores," he told a news conference.

France has consistently opposed the United States on Iraq and was against the war. It now says the United States should hand power back to Iraqis within months.

Washington contends that rushing the process would be reckless and that proper security and a new constitution need to be in place before any election.

"The Governing Council is working with the Coalition Provisional Authority (U.S.-led administration) to restore security and sovereignty to this country...The whole Governing Council is working to get sovereignty as fast as we can," a spokesman for another Iraqi council member told reporters.

Iraqis are eager for sovereignty though many accuse the Governing Council of playing into the hands of the United States. At the weekend a council member was shot in an assassination attempt and remains in a critical condition.



Even the Iraq Council is telling the French to back off. Think Chirac etal are savvy enough to take the hint?

22. concerned - 9/24/2003 2:36:07 PM

Warning to LWers: stop trying to use Iraq to get at the Bush Administration.

23. jexster - 9/24/2003 2:38:30 PM

ooooooooooo

24. Wombat - 9/24/2003 2:39:40 PM

Concerned:

The Bush Administration has now said that there was no link between Iraq and 9/11. Good enough for you?

25. jexster - 9/24/2003 2:41:42 PM

The lying incompetents are trotting out the puppets...blissfully ignorant of the fact that the Governing Council's position and France's are virtually identical..

Fox is dutifully airing a "town hall"...an in bedded pile of crap that illustrates the point nicely..

Interviewing a second level IC press flaK:

"Take off your official hat if you will, and tell us as "real" Iraqi...."

26. jexster - 9/24/2003 2:43:28 PM

Sorry TD...that Same Old Shit...it clogs our toilets

27. jexster - 9/24/2003 2:47:40 PM

You can bet the farm TD...

We're gonna hang Iraq around that fraud's neck and drown him.

Has an American president ever delivered such a bafflingly impertinent speech before the General Assembly as the one George W. Bush gave this morning?

Here were the world's foreign ministers and heads of state, anxiously awaiting some sign of an American concession to realism—even the sketchiest outline of a plan to share not just the burden but the power of postwar occupation in Iraq. And Bush gave them nothing, in some ways less than nothing.


Bush's message can be summarized as follows: The U.S.-led occupation authority is doing good work in Iraq; you should come help us; if you don't, you're on the side of the terrorists.

The speech seemed cobbled from the catchphrases of last year's playbook, without showing the slightest recognition that the old words have grown stale and sour.

Bush dredged out the familiar formula—weapons of mass destruction plus terrorism equals the enemy in Iraq—forgetting, or perhaps not caring, that it didn't persuade the United Nations back in November, when Saddam was still in power, and couldn't hope to win backers now.

He described the guerrilla war, still ongoing, as a battle against "terrorists and holdouts of the previous regime"—ignoring a recent finding of the U.S. intelligence community that the main, and most rapidly growing, threat these days comes from ordinary Iraqis, resentful of the occupation.

He laid out the context of the battle as a contest between "those who work for peaceful change and those who adopt the methods of gangsters." Yet it is hard to see how Bush's pre-emptive-war doctrine fits the former category, and it's painful to observe that many Iraqis would say the U.S. occupation—whose soldiers have pounded down so many doors in the middle of the night—fits the latter.

28. jexster - 9/24/2003 3:02:49 PM

September 20

My son, Tim, left for Kuwait on April 29, 2003 and entered Iraq sometime in mid June 2003. His platoon was immediately sent to Baghdad where they are providing security for the Iraqi Governing Council. He works night shift security for the Council Building, and check points on a rotating schedule. ...

The newspapers rarely report anything about the war in Iraq anymore. When I attend peace vigils, sometimes I will hear the comment "The war is over!". But its not over for the U.S. soldiers, their families, or the people of Iraq. It won't be over for us until ALL of our troops are home.

Our government needs to hand over the reconstruction of Iraq to the U.N. Please - End the occupation of Iraq and bring our troops home now!

Vicky Monk
Seattle, WA
posted 23 september

29. robertjayb - 9/24/2003 3:35:34 PM

...and the farce plays on...

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The CIA's top weapons-hunter in Iraq is not expected to reach any conclusions on Iraq's alleged weapons programs in his upcoming report, an agency spokesman said Wednesday.

David Kay, who is preparing an initial report on U.S. efforts to find weapons of mass destruction alleged to have been held by Saddam Hussein's government, will present his findings to CIA Director George J. Tenet and other officials soon.

``Dr. Kay is still receiving information from the field, and this will be just the first progress report, an interim report, and we expect it will reach no firm conclusions, nor will it rule anything in or out,'' said CIA spokesman Bill Harlow.

30. concerned - 9/24/2003 4:23:15 PM

Re. 11524 -

Wombat -

So what? The Bush Administration never said there was a direct causal link in the first place.

31. jexster - 9/24/2003 4:28:27 PM

This isn't news to TD but for the rest of us, Robert Novak reports that Republicans are increasingly angry and not a little worried especially over the Emperor's performance yesterday at the UN:

"They're asking 'Why, when we don't have money for our schools or to fix our sewers, is Bush pouring billions into Iraq?"

32. jexster - 9/24/2003 6:32:00 PM

WASHINGTON - The United States may have to alert thousands more National Guard and Reserve troops within weeks that they are needed for duty in Iraq the Pentagon 's second-ranking general said Wednesday.


Warning to LWers: stop trying to use Iraq to get at the Bush Administration.

33. jexster - 9/24/2003 6:40:41 PM

TD's Tax Dollars At Work - 1500 Inspectors Fail to Find WMD's CIA Reports

34. concerned - 9/24/2003 6:44:10 PM

Re. 11532 -

Feel free to ignore warning if you're such a partisan swine that the deaths of Iraqis and coalition forces is of no consequence to you.

35. jexster - 9/24/2003 7:06:09 PM

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Bombs rocked a teeming quarter of Baghdad and a sex-film theater in Mosul on Wednesday, reportedly killing at least three Iraqis and wounding dozens. In a string of ground clashes, the U.S. military said they killed nine Iraqis on one of the bloodiest days of combat in weeks.

Warning to LWers: stop trying to use Iraq to get at the Bush Administration.

36. jexster - 9/24/2003 7:06:49 PM

Bush lies...thousands die...

37. jexster - 9/24/2003 8:08:41 PM

TD you can spare me, at least, the crocodile tears ...

I posted this roughly one year ago today against your bloodlust...


I SPEAK OF PEACE

"(Poet Laureate) John Masefield admired the splendid beauty of the university, he said, because it was `a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see.' I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.

What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women-not merely peace in our time but peace for all time. ...I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war-and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task."

- President John F. Kennedy
June 10, 1963

38. concerned - 9/24/2003 8:37:54 PM

Re. 11537 -

You have it exactly wrong. I have a much stronger aversion to bloodshed in general than you or 99.9% of Left Wingers in general. You by definition prevaricate when you in any way try to connect me with bloodthirstiness - perhaps you are projecting?

39. jayackroyd - 9/24/2003 8:41:19 PM

11519

Yes, connie, you're on message. If you repeated discredited things enough times, maybe enough people will believe it to let your party keep power. That is still the Bush strategy. I'm shocked. I really am. There can be no question about this being a mistake, about it being a misreading of intelligence evidence, of the neo cons manipulating an ignorant but gung ho president.

They lied on purpose, to advance an agenda that is killing US soldiers and Iraqi civilians. They still have not come on their motivation.

And they keep repeating the lies.

Yes, you're on message.

Heaven forfend if this strategy works.

40. jexster - 9/24/2003 8:44:04 PM

Yea and you are a centrist...

If we lived in a Perfect World, we would put paid to that happy horseshit right quick...or more precisely your own words would do the deed

41. jayackroyd - 9/24/2003 8:45:46 PM

They still have not come CLEAN on their motivation

42. concerned - 9/25/2003 2:18:24 AM

re. 11539 -

You're pathetic, Jay. You haven't posted anything whatsoever that mitigates against 11519 and your attempts to substitute LW jackass braying wouldn't discredit a plugged nickel, although they do invoke the ghost of Hitler and his Big Lies.

Judging by you & jexster, when you Lefties have nothing left to lose in the credibility department, indiscriminately beating the partisan propaganda drum must look like a pretty good idea.

43. concerned - 9/25/2003 2:56:40 AM

Speaking of Hitler....


The commentary by Doug Saunders of Toronto's Globe and Mail began in a fashion familiar to readers and viewers of the Western news media:

"Six months before, the world had cheered as the statues of the dictator came crashing down. The Americans had seemed heroic. But now things were going very badly. The occupation was chaotic, the American soldiers were hated and they were facing threats from the surviving supporters of the dictator, whose whereabouts were uncertain.

"Washington seemed unwilling to pay the enormous bill for reconstruction, and the president didn't appear to have any kind of workable plan to manage the transition to democracy. European allies, distrustful of the arrogant American outlook, were wary of cooperating."

The above written in November, 1945....

44. alistairConnor - 9/25/2003 4:32:53 AM

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups

45. alistairConnor - 9/25/2003 4:35:32 AM

The above is Godwin's Law.

I would be tempted to postulate Con's Exception to Godwin's Law :

* When it's Con who makes the Nazi comparison, it doesn't kill the thread because
a) nobody takes offence because nobody takes him seriously, and
b) he's too dumb to realise he's lost the argument.

46. PelleNilsson - 9/25/2003 5:01:19 AM

Hahaha!

Masterful analysis.

47. Wombat - 9/25/2003 7:29:45 AM

A comparison of Iraq to Germany in the aftermath of WWII is ludicrous. Germany was bombed flat, not a bridge left standing; tens of thousands dead--if not more--millions of refugees; occupiers working at cross-purposes; no industrial plant left standing. Iraq has none of this.

On the other hand, the fate of Germany after the war was something that was discussed and planned well before the war ended. Whatever hostility that occupiers experienced was not translated into partisan warfare--whatever Condolizza Rice might say, and in the U.S. and British sectors, services and infrastructure were being put back together very quickly (the French and Soviets had different agendas).

48. Wombat - 9/25/2003 7:38:35 AM

The crux of the pro-administration psychophants' criticism appears to be "everything's going much better in Iraq--except in Baghdad and the Sunni triangle--but all the media does is report the bad stuff happening in that area." That is somewhat like saying that everything is going well in the United States, except on the Eastern seaboard and in California.

49. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 8:15:52 AM

Well for me the funniest part is connie can't decide whether his defense is a variation on the "it all depends on what you mean by 'is'" position, claiming the administration has never REALLY claimed there was a link or the defense that there really was such a link.

The point of the carefully constructed statement that can be said to not mean what is meant backfires on the president. By using those 16 words, rather than coming right out and saying "I have convincing evidence that Saddam will soon have a nuke," he takes away the "I made a mistake" or "I was misinformed" defense. He made the statement in that way on purpose in the Clintonian expectation that he could say that a blow job isn't "sex" in the event he got caught.

When the president carefully constructs his yellowcake story, it's clear that he's trying to pull off an adolescent trick of lying while telling the literal truth. That doesn't work on adults, as Clinton discovered.

But it makes it clear that he knew what he was doing at the time--that this was no oversight, no misspeaking, no misunderstanding that the underlying claim was held to be false by his people.

50. alistairconnor - 9/25/2003 8:32:10 AM

What I find fascinating is the co-incidence of the poll numbers :

the number of Americans who believe Saddam personally had a hand in 9/11 just dipped below 50%. As did Bush's approval rating.

At least one of these is not going to go back up.

51. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 10:13:14 AM

Israeli reservist pilots refuse to bomb Palestinians

The lead:

A group of reserve air force pilots drew condemnation Thursday for refusing to carry out airstrikes in Palestinian areas, but their unprecedented protest set off an emotional debate on the ethics of the targeted killings of militants

52. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 10:49:13 AM

I just heard a radio report that Edward Said has died at 74.

53. Wombat - 9/25/2003 10:50:46 AM

Not to speak ill of the dead, but Said epitomized why intellectuals should stay out of politics.

54. concerned - 9/25/2003 10:57:25 AM

Re. 11545 -


AC -

You can't win an argument without facts, and I'm the only one who has presented them in this one.

So much for your cheap shot, loser.

55. concerned - 9/25/2003 10:58:48 AM

Re. 11546 -

Unfortunately for you, I wasn't the first one to bring up this comparison.

56. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 11:02:43 AM

Connie, just because something shows up in the weekly standard doesn't mean it is a fact. As the vice president illustrated last Sunday saying something over and over again also cannot transform a false claim into a true claim.

57. Wombat - 9/25/2003 11:16:07 AM

Presenting someone's opinion--second hand at that--is not factual. Neither is presenting statements of fact that have since been disproven, were speculative in the first place, or remain unproven.

58. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 11:58:24 AM

Or, worse, repeating something that is false and deliberately planted, as with the recent Clark smears.

59. concerned - 9/25/2003 12:08:29 PM

Re. 11547 -

Since you are immune to shades of nuance, I don't expect you to comprehend that the larger point of the article I cited is that media skepticism about the progress of the Allied occupation in Germany six months after the end of the war in Germany was in many ways better founded than it is today wrt the restructuring of Iraq.

Your recital of the differences between Iraq today and Germany post WWII are mildly entertaining, if nothing else, at least where you haven't lifted them directly from my cite.

60. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 12:24:46 PM

Actually the Globe and Mail article is making an interesting point. It does leave out one fact that is different this time. There were no American military casualties in postwar Germany. There was no armed opposition. The children who were given guns to shoot soldiers in the aftermath did not shoot.

However, the general point of the article--that things will get better is well made. The whole operation may be just about hitting bottom right now, or within a few weeks. Glimmers of hope of UN support are starting to shine. The Germans have started to make their offers. The troops have to have learned something about handling garrison duty by now.

It would easier to be optimistic if there still weren't so many people trying actively to undermine the reconstruction, by killing anyone who is working on it.

61. Wombat - 9/25/2003 12:43:19 PM

One Canadian journalist does not equal a general statement about "media skepticism" concerning the progress of postwar rebuilding in Germany.

It was recognized at the time that rebuilding Germany would take a long time. With Iraq, the administration is only now beginning to admit that it might take longer and cost more money than originally claimed. Why? Even someone as slavish as Concerned must recognize that the Bush administration sold the war to the American public as something that would be over quickly, with minimal sacrifice, and with the reconstruction costs defrayed by Iraqi oil exports. If they did this in ignorance, then they are not competent to oversee the reconstruction--or to govern the United States.

If they deliberately ignored information to the contrary in creating their rosy postwar scenario,and lied--again--to the U.S. public, high administration officials need to lose their jobs, and--given the lowered bar created by the Republicans--impeachment of Bush should also be considered.

62. jexster - 9/25/2003 12:54:18 PM

Fool Us Once Fuck You: Bush Falls Flat at UN
Two Days of Intense Personal Diplomacy Bring No Troops, No $$$

63. jexster - 9/25/2003 1:12:24 PM

Worse than flat...

UN Consider's Pullout from Bush Iraqmire

64. jexster - 9/25/2003 1:38:08 PM

September 25, 2003 Daily Mislead

President Bush's Inspectors Find No Weapons to Support his Claims about Imminent Threat


See also: Special Report on the David Kay WMD Report (pdf)

A desperate five-month search by a team of 1,400 U. S. investigators reportedly has failed to find any new physical evidence of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in Iraq, despite President Bush's continuing insistence the weapons not only existed but posed an imminent threat to the United States.1

The failure of the U. S. team, led by Bush appointee David Kay, seriously undermines the integrity of the President's assertion two days prior to the war: "Intelligence gathered...leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."2

Bush's bold declaration, according to a subsequent review, was based on old and faulty intelligence data. Former CIA official Richard Kerr, who helped with the review, said Bush's assessment ignored "caveats and disagreements" in the data3 and relied "heavily on evidence that was at least five years old."4 Even the Pentagon's intelligence agency had warned in a classified September 2002 report that "there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons."5

Bush continued to claim otherwise, saying inaccurately in May, "We found the weapons of mass destruction" and predicting "we'll find more weapons as time goes on."6 The widespread search he initiated, however, now has turned up not a single weapon of mass destruction.

65. jexster - 9/25/2003 1:38:18 PM

Sources:
1. Inquiry Unlikely to Report Finding Iraq Arms, Reuters, 9/24/03, http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=SWEI0LEDF3UJ0CRBAEZSFEY? type=topNews&storyID=3502138
2. Presidential Speech, 3/17/03, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html
3. "U.S. Used 'Old' Data",
4. "Gauging a threat with little data ; Withdrawal of UN inspectors created intelligence vacuum", New York Times, 7/22/03.
5. Defense Agency Issues Excerpt on Iraqi Chemical Warfare Program, State Department, 6/7/03, http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/03060720.htm.
6. Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, 5/29/03, http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html

66. jexster - 9/25/2003 7:11:33 PM

Growing Rift Between Bush and Iraqi GC

UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 24 (UPI) -- Representatives of the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council did their best to soften objections to the draft U.S. resolution on Iraq after a meeting with National Security Council Adviser Condoleezza Rice Wednesday.

But in a press conference, it became clear that the Iraqis hand-picked by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority had a very different message for foreign leaders gathered at the U.N. General Assembly this week than the U.S. delegation led by President Bush.

An official with the Iraqi delegation told United Press International that Rice pressed the Iraqis to coordinate their efforts with the White House in the meeting. This source said, "She said we all have to work together. Let's coordinate."

While Ahmad Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi delegation, opened his remarks by thanking Bush, the U.S. Congress and the American people, for intervening to remove "the scourge of Saddam Hussein," he also explained key differences he had with the American plans for proceeding in his country's reconstruction. On the question of whether Iraqis would welcome foreign peacekeepers and what powers should be handed over in the short term to the Iraqi Governing Council, a rift has clearly emerged between Washington and Baghdad.

67. concerned - 9/25/2003 7:16:37 PM

Re. 11563 -

How could the UN 'pull out' if they never got past dipping their toe in in the first place?

68. Edmund Dantes - 9/25/2003 8:35:52 PM

"Growing rift"?


Ahmad Chalabi, current president of the council, said, "We have no
disagreement with the United States Government. We are not at odds with
the United States. We are grateful to President Bush and we are working
with the United States to achieve our common objective of a democratic,
pluralist constitution for Iraq which will be approved by referendum.

"This is a victory for the Iraqi people and for the process of freedom and
democracy in Iraq," he said.

"We were proud to be present in the General Assembly yesterday when
President Bush gave his speech. There is nothing in his speech that we
disagree with. We share the common objective of having a free, democratic
Iraq in the international community," Chalabi said.

69. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 8:56:11 PM

concerned--

The UN has 1

70. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 8:59:21 PM

concerned--

The UN has 115 or so people supporting various humanitarian efforts in Iraq now. The first bombing reduced them to that number (a journalist I know who covers the UN said that there was much talk about pulling out entirely at that time). They've said recently that they may pull out another couple of dozen.

All for security reasons.

If you had the freakin' link you would have seen among others, this paragraph:

The world body has pulled nearly 340 of its 400 international staffers out of the country, U.N. officials said. U.N. offices, once friendly and inviting compared with U.S. military bases and quarters of the Coalition Provisional Authority, have become barricaded fortresses surrounded by concrete and security guards.

71. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 9:02:27 PM

Eddy,

The UPI story makes a pretty clear reference to that set of remarks by Chalabi, While Ahmad Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi delegation, opened his remarks by thanking Bush, the U.S. Congress and the American people, for intervening to remove "the scourge of Saddam Hussein,"

That doesn't mean that he is not pulling back from the US as his future power base. He's done pretty well, leveraging nothing (or worse) into this position. If he's decided that the US is no longer the horse to ride, the neo cons should be concerned. They saddled themselves up, in a big way.

72. Edmund Dantes - 9/25/2003 10:37:41 PM

Nothing Chalabi says points to anything of the kind. Since Jasper's link doesn't work, it's difficult to see what he bases his headline on, but from what he have, his interpretation relies on editorializing by the reporter. I've posted what Chalabi actually said. Go to news.google.com and search on "rift" and "Chalabi."

There are three members in the delegation. Here is what one of the other two, Hoshyar Zebari, Iraqi's foreign minister, had to say:

"[T]here is no difference whatsoever between the views of the Governing Council and the United States or the coalition on how we should proceed and move forward. There has been a great deal of confusion recently as if we are opposed to each other on how to move forward. No."

73. Edmund Dantes - 9/25/2003 10:39:00 PM

Just wishful thinking by those who want America to fail.

74. ronski - 9/25/2003 10:43:07 PM

With Iraq, the administration is only now beginning to admit that it might take longer and cost more money than originally claimed.

How long did they claim it would take and how expensive, exactly?

75. jayackroyd - 9/25/2003 11:26:24 PM

In which time frame?

76. concerned - 9/26/2003 1:17:09 AM

Re. 11556 -

That article's from the Wall Street Journal, Jay, not the Weekly Standard. IAC, since you're utterly unable to refute any part of it, let's just go with it for now, shall we?

77. concerned - 9/26/2003 1:21:29 AM

Re. 11558 -

Can you be specific here? I obviously haven't been keeping up on smears like you have.

78. OhioSTOPAS - 9/26/2003 5:49:30 AM

Ronski (re 11574): White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels estimated a $50-60 billion cost of the war. Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said in February, "It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army."

79. ScreamingSin - 9/26/2003 5:53:19 AM

I'd like a bit of stability in my life....what are you saying? War is cheaper than stability?

80. alistairconnor - 9/26/2003 7:03:57 AM

Monty :
Nothing Chalabi says points to anything of the kind

Are you being disingenuous, or are you just not paying attention?

Iraq Council Head Shifts to Position at Odds With U.S.

Of course, that was a long time ago... four whole days... perhaps longer than your attention span. (And who cares about ancient history?)

And more importantly, it was before Rice gave him a stern talking-to.

81. alistairconnor - 9/26/2003 7:06:47 AM

Hahahaha! This just in :


Powell to Iraqi Governing Council : Hurry up and take power!

The BBC's Ian Pannell in Washington says the move is a sharp about-face in American policy - and a concession to critics of the US-led occupation of Iraq.

... but he would, wouldn't he?

82. alistairconnor - 9/26/2003 7:21:26 AM

The same news reported by the NYT

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, responding to demands from France and others for a rapid timetable for self-rule in Iraq, said yesterday that the United States would set a deadline of six months for Iraqi leaders working under the American-led occupation to produce a new constitution for their country.
[...]
Mr. Powell's establishment of a deadline, and his tone of urgency in general, came as the United States has tried to satisfy France and other skeptical nations who say that a quick transfer of power to Iraqis must be part of any Security Council resolution expanding United Nations authority in Iraq.

It's logical that it's Powell announcing this shift in policy. Maybe the cold reception Bush got at the UN has produced the sorely-needed reality check, and he's at last going to sideline the madmen?

83. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 7:55:02 AM

No. I think this means they have decided they need to declare victory and get out so that there are no body bags coming back pre-election.

Bush's UN speech made it very clear that there is only one thing they care about.

Civil war, here we come.

84. PelleNilsson - 9/26/2003 8:02:25 AM

I think you are right, jay, and it doesn't portend well for Iraq.

85. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 8:04:42 AM

Eddy,

It's very tiresome to have to refute things over and over again that have already been settled publicly. This, of course, is an important part of the wingnut arsenal. Repeat false or refuted charges over and over again in the hopes that repetition will overcome fact. As for the first claim in concerned's list, Oct 21, NYT:

- Pres Vaclav Havel of Czech Republic has reportedly told White House that he cannot find evidence to confirm reports that Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague months before Sept 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington; message was delivered discreetly earlier this year in effort by Havel to avoid publicly embarrassing other prominent officials in his government who had given credibility to reports.

Look, I said in March that it was transparently false that there were any links. This was very clear before the war. There's been no new evidence provided, and as the president himself said last week, there are no links. There are no links, there were no links, the administration knew it before the war and they lied about it, on purpose, because they needed a pretext that polled well.

This is beyond doubt or debate at this point.

And the wsj editorial page is little more reliable than the weekly standard.

86. Wombat - 9/26/2003 8:09:50 AM

The Washington Post reports that US Air Force analysts who have examined Iraqi aerial drones feel vindicated in their prewar assessment that they were to be used for photoreconnaisance, and were not large enough to carry internal or external storage tanks. Their views clashed with those of the Bush administration, which claimed that they could be used for deploying chemical and biological weapons. Yet another lie.

87. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 8:17:17 AM

11577

Wanna see the journalistic equivalent of friendly fire? It ain't pretty. But here goes.

This week Howard Fineman leads his column on Wes Clark with an anecdote about how Clark allegedly tried to get into the Bush administration, got shot down by Karl Rove, and then in spite became a Democrat.

Fineman's evidence is the say-so of Colorado's Republican Governor Bill Owens and one of his appointees, Marc Holtzman.

"I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls," they say Clark told him.

Clark told Fineman he had just been kidding around. But Owens and Holtzman assured Fineman that Clark was dead serious.

Now, Owens is a Republican and he's close to Karl Rove and President Bush. So I don't think you've got to use your imagination too creatively to see what agenda Owens might be advancing -- especially since the story doesn't really add up on several other counts as well.

However that may be, this afternoon The Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti chimes in with a quick bit of investigative reporting.

Says Continetti ...

Unfortunately for Clark, the White House has logged every incoming phone call since the beginning of the Bush administration in January 2001. At the request of THE DAILY STANDARD, White House staffers went through the logs to check whether Clark had ever called White House political adviser Karl Rove. The general hadn't. What's more, Rove says he doesn't remember ever talking to Clark, either.
Continetti goes on to say that "this isn't the general's first whopper [and that] Clark's latest tale bears little resemblance to reality," trying, to true to form, to nail down the Clark as fabulist meme -- a la Al Gore and every other Democratic presidential candidate.

88. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 8:17:39 AM

But wait a second. Do you see the problem here? Right. Clark isn't the one who's saying he put in calls to Karl Rove. Owens and Hotzman are saying it.

So to the extent this means anything -- and that's highly debatable -- it discredits them, not him.

In other words, the canard floated by one group of Rove's pals on day one gets shot down by another group of his friends on day two. Like I said, journalistic friendly fire on the right.


To my friends at the Standard I can only say that the next time you put something like this together on the fly you might want to hash it out with a Venn Diagram or a flow chart or something before you go to press.

Meanwhile, Kevin Drum asks an awfully good question about how the White House suddenly became so forthcoming about phone record searches.

And look how they fall in line. Andrew Sullivan's response to the phone call idiocy ...

HOW LOOPY IS CLARK? The answer, I fear, is that he's Ross Perot without the emotional stability. So now his previous remark that he'd be a Republican if Karl Rove had returned his calls is just a metaphor, or a fabrication, or a dream, or something. Or maybe he called Rove on a cell-phone or an email. Will he respond to these discrepancies?
Ahhh the discrepancies. Someone else needs a flow chart.

89. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 8:21:41 AM

Sorry about the long post, but linking would have been inconvenient, because it's low on the page. This is from Talking Points Memo.

This also illustrates another wingnut strategy. Get something fishy into a low circulation wingnut rag. Get Rush to read it out loud or O'Reilly to quote it. Then it gets into a general circulation magazine as if it were true.

This happened most famously with the Ten Biggest Problems Teachers Face from their Students, a poll supposedly comparing the answers from 1950s to the 80s. Gum chewing replace by gun toting, that kind of thing. That was in all the major circulation periodicals for some time before it was debunked.

90. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 8:38:53 AM

Pelle

These are the lead paragraphs on this story in today's NYT:



ecretary of State Colin L. Powell, responding to demands from France and others for a rapid timetable for self-rule in Iraq, said yesterday that the United States would set a deadline of six months for Iraqi leaders working under the American-led occupation to produce a new constitution for their country.

The constitution, which would spell out whether Iraq should be governed by a presidential or parliamentary system, would clear the way for elections and the installation of a new leadership next year, Mr. Powell said. Not until then, he added, would the United States transfer authority from the American-led occupation to Iraq itself.

It's ambiguous. I can't tell whether he is saying they leave when the constitution is written or when the constitutional government is installed.

There is, of course, a great deal of wishful thinking in this. What if they don't make the deadline? What sanction or remedy is available?

91. alistairconnor - 9/26/2003 8:50:14 AM

What sanction or remedy is available?

The sad thing is the huge psychological balls-up surrounding the sudden haste to hand over power.

The Iraqi governing council makes a show of independence, and starts lobbying for a handover of sovereignty, in contradiction with the White House line. Clearly, this is a bid for credibility at home and in the international arena : look, we're not complete puppets really. The germ of rebirth of Iraqi national pride? The psychological key to damping down the incipient civil war? Well, it was a nice try.

The reaction? A stern admonishment from Rice, and they are forced to eat their hats in public. Humiliation : that's sure to calm the insurrection.

And now? Quick, get to work, no shirking, take your damn responsibilities, NOW, says Powell.

Masterful.

92. marjoribanks - 9/26/2003 9:01:51 AM

No, this is a very sage move, and no doubt comes because the increasingly powerful Powell has been able to read the riot act to the neocon scum behind the scenes.

The US is down to having to call up a new division of reserves and NG if it doesn't get 15-25 thousand foreign troops in the next six weeks/two months. If there is a callup of reserves and NG, and they go to Iraq over the holidays, that is the only story you will see in the media for the next few months.

Election over. Non-Bush wins.

Besides the fact that the whole world is clamouring for it, and it is the right thing to do, and it is the one way to start repairing American standing with its allies and beyond - it is last-ditch politics. The US will create that timeline (Makiya is working on the constitution as we speak anyway), a much more solid (and acceptable) UN resolution will be presented. And international troops will come on in. And Bush survives the winter, to fight anew in 2004.

The move signals also the administration's recognition that the Iraq oild revenues are not, after all, the spoils of war and whatever conracts are going to emerge down the road will have to be distributed by other means than US fiat. This whole aspect was also becoming a political albatross, so it makes political sense to - effectively - cut bait and move on.

It is a massive retreat, a total loss for the neocon scum. But this defeat is being cloaked cleverly, and there are several ways to spin it as pragmatic leadership, and we will no doubt see that rather than the abject apology (followed by stoning) that we should be getting wrt these miserable fuckers.

93. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 9:16:39 AM

A total loss will be if an islamist state emerges in the aftermath.

No, I take it back. A TOTAL loss would be if Saddam emerges in the aftermath. I don't see how they can leave with him still at large.

94. Edmund Dantes - 9/26/2003 9:22:09 AM

Consumer goods, that's the stuff

> There was plenty of pent-up demand. Sanctions imposed by the United Nations after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 kept a lot of goods out of the country. Before that, an eight-year war with Iran drained the life from Iraq's economy. For nearly 20 years, there was little to buy. And during three decades of rule by Saddam's Baath Party, virtually all companies were state-owned or state-controlled. In 2001, Iraq's gross domestic product was $27.9 billion, compared with $47.6 billion in 1980.

> Since the collapse of Saddam's regime, police Officer Gailan Wahoudi, 31, has bought a new television, a refrigerator and an air conditioner. ''It is a new freedom I never had before,'' he says.

95. rdbrewer - 9/26/2003 9:26:37 AM

You guys, what Powell is doing -- and what he has done several times for the Bush admin -- is playing the "good cop" in a huge game of "good cop, bad cop." It's done for you guys, and it's working again. The Bush admin deflects and defuses your complaints by presenting you a good cop alternative in which you can place your confidence. Clinton did the same thing with Reno and Freeh.

Masterful, indeed.

96. marjoribanks - 9/26/2003 10:50:22 AM

A total loss will be if an islamist state emerges in the aftermath.

You may be misunderstanding me. It is a total loss for the neocons for the control of Iraq policy. That's all.

This is a retreat from everything they have been promising themselves, most likely the Pres, certainly Congress, and certainly the American people.

It's an agreement that this country will now go back to the UN (after Bush's idiotic dress-up cowboy routine) and make nice, and - crucially - hand over significant power to the member states in the mapping the future of Iraq.

It's an agreement that the "spoils of war" aren't going to us after all. This was on the cards for a while. I previously wondered here how they'd manage to wriggle out of this promise/claim without massive political damage. They may have done exactly that, because now the retreat can be sold as pragmatic.

Finally, it's an agreement that the US isn't going to be doing jack in terms of the neocon plan to extend the "War on Terror" indefinitely and to other countries. This return to the UN puts paid to that fanciful notion (which is why you won't see our chest-beating baboon cohort back here very soon) and the neocon plans have been returned to the toilet whence they came.

No, Rove has thrown in the towel on all of the ideologically-driven agendae, pulled the plug on the neocon scum's dreams. It's pure politics again, it's all about minimizing damage and burnishing standing. And as such, this is a good move in pure political terms because another couple of months of the status quo and Dubya would have been making his retirement plans.

Now, unfortunately for all of us, the game isn't over at all.

97. PelleNilsson - 9/26/2003 10:50:42 AM

I dispute marj's analysis. The drafting of a constitution and the installation of a "constitutional government" are just cosmetics. The proof is in the pudding, that is in holding some kind of elections and installing a government that is not only "constitutional" but legitimate in the eyes of the Iraqis and which can ensure security and stability.

If the Bush administration takes the US out before that task is done, thus sacrificing Iraq on the altar of reelection, the US will never again be able to claim the leadership of the free world. This Empire, like the ones before it, will be destroyed by its own internal contradictions.

98. marjoribanks - 9/26/2003 10:59:31 AM

Brewer,

There are two areas where the right-wing in this country persists in blind insanity.

One is Clinton. Everything the Dems do is because Clinton is a masterful sinister genius behind the scenes. Your running mates, a good number of them, still believe that the Clintons "ran" Clark because they want him to lose, so that she can run as favorite in 2008. One can only avert one's eyes in embarassment when your running mates pull their pants down in public with theories like this.

The other blind insanity comes in assessing the very clear divide and fault line in this current administration (and to some extent the Party leadership) between the neocon scum and the old-line, "mature" Republicans. Dubya, being a total one-note/one-thought vacuum, is neither. Wolfowitz-Rumsfeld-Cheney are the neocons and every move they make is driven in that direction. Powell is more of an old-line Republican in that he's pragmatic and tends to take lessons from history rather than ignore it. There has been a tussle between the two sides from the first, sometimes public, mostly demonstrated in vacillating policy.

You and your running mates want to believe some
"masterful" brilliant machiavelli is scripting it all. Your own Clinton, in other words, your anti-Clinton (given fevered imagining #1).

Whatever, dude. Santa Claus is real too.

99. marjoribanks - 9/26/2003 11:07:57 AM

The proof is in the pudding, that is in holding some kind of elections and installing a government that is not only "constitutional" but legitimate in the eyes of the Iraqis and which can ensure security and stability.

If the Bush administration takes the US out before that task is done, thus sacrificing Iraq on the altar of reelection,

You're not following me.

The US is simply going to enshrine in a UN resolution that they will hand over power to a legitimate Iraqi government after and acceptable constitution is drafted after elections and after the enshrinement of a constitutional government.

There will be a timetable in the UN resolution, probably, but who gives a shit (least of all the US).

The retreat comes domestically, and at the UN, not really in meaningful terms. It's the breach of promises that neocons made to themselves, to Congress, and tacitly to the public. No oil money, no "next we get Syria", none of that stuff.

I am all for giving each member of the various committees that held hearings on Iraq before the war a baseball bat and letting them have at Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld for lying to them about what would happen after the war.

100. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 11:18:59 AM

Let me test my understanding of Banks' position by responding to you, Pelle.

He's not talking about the ultimate outcome in Iraq. He's talking about the internecine fighting in the White House. The neo-con vision of an Iraq aligned with the US with a friendly, non-Islamic government buying its services from US companies and providing military bases is just not gonna happen. This is now clear.

The election is approaching. Bush's numbers are tanking. They've got to get out. They'll give in to Powell's view--that this stuff needs to be done multi-laterally, and the spoils distributed to all the participants. This is, of course, implicitly admitting an enormous mistake. The US is going to have paid for the foundation of whatever state emerges, but won't get all the spoils nor, perhaps, even the military base they need to get out of SA.

But the fact that the administration is giving up on the neo-con vision doesn't mean that the multilateral strategy will work. In fact, it may be too late. I don't happen to think so, but the administration has certainly done all it could to create an environment for civil war and the possibility of an islamist dictatorship.

101. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 11:23:26 AM

Banks' analysis also makes sense of what was otherwise an incomprehensible speech at the UN. It was, as he predicted, directed entirely at the US audience. The president was standing up there saying that we would stay the course, alone if necessary in the fight against terror, fully aware that at the time Powell working out an exit strategy with other foreign ministers.

The same political strategy. Say "Black Black Black" while doing "White White White." The real question is whether enough Americans are buying the stuff he's peddling anymore.

102. marjoribanks - 9/26/2003 11:29:36 AM

Exactly, Jay.

I don't think it's too late to turn this around enough to reduce the day-to-day state of Iraq as an issue in the next elections. It's about as late as they could leave it, but all is not lost (from the Bush standpoint)

And Iraq may well benefit because it'll have the UN there for the next ten years or more, and the fact is that UN troops (say Malaysians and Moroccans and Bangladeshis) will be treated totally differently than US occupiers. We'll be on the road to normality, at the least.

The big losers are the neocon scum. I trust they'll never get their hands on US policy again.

103. PelleNilsson - 9/26/2003 11:32:32 AM

Something came up. Interesting posts, but later.

104. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 11:37:20 AM

Banks--

I am not so sure about the "vacuum" in Bush's head. Their strategy, while not especially clever, is being followed consistently in all policy areas. It is so deeply cynical that I cannot believe the president is unaware of what he is doing.

Yes, the policy rift is real on Iraq. And, yes, the neo-cons shot their wad, and lost. But the president, vice president and Rove are only concerned about one thing and that is how the policy plays. They can't make this one play the way they wanted to anymore, so Bush makes one final speech about how we won the war, defeated terror and created a free nation. Then they hand it over to the UN, and he gets back into the flight suit, victorious.

He can't be so stupid as to not understand this strategy.

105. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 11:41:54 AM

And Iraq may well benefit because it'll have the UN there for the next ten years or more, and the fact is that UN troops (say Malaysians and Moroccans and Bangladeshis) will be treated totally differently than US occupiers. We'll be on the road to normality, at the least.

I'd buy that if the Islamist/Baathist alliance were not directing the force of their attacks at the UN. But it would certainly be nice if the security forces could speak some arabic.

I do agree that Iraq stands a much better chance under UN supervision.

One final question. There is still a huge security problem. The troop levels can't really go down for the forseeable future, can they? Or do you think that blue helmeted arab speakers can be deployed in substantially smaller numbers, successfully?

106. marjoribanks - 9/26/2003 11:50:15 AM

Well, we are assuming a few things in that scenario including that the UN (and US allies) are going to meekly follow the scenario laid out by Rove/Bush.

In fact, those countries willwant to play well in their domestic constituencies, as well as quite likely punish Bush for his insults and arrogance.

Thus, there may be a pound of flesh to be paid (of course Bush is always willing to sacrifice American interests for temporary political gain) and the timeline required (now quite narrow) may not be adhered to.

But there is no doubt that if this first step towards multilateralizing goes to plan and the US does not have to call up reserves - then Bush's hand for 2004 is seriously strengthened.

On the vacuum matter, I've given up on trying to find the man behind the empty-eyed mask that is Dubya. He's a vacuum, with a cartoonish Manichean totally born-again vision of the world. Good/evil, friends/enemies, loyal/traitor - that's all he knows, which renders him practically useless in politics, diplomacy, statesmanship, most matters of real import but not as fake-righteous frontman for ideologues with an agenda.

Unfortunately, this makes him an appealing figure to many Americans. I wish we required more than blank-eyed religiosity from US Presidents, but I'm apparently in the minority on this.

107. marjoribanks - 9/26/2003 11:59:28 AM

On Iraq, I genuinely believe that if you took the American troops out tomorrow and replaced them with a corpus of personnel which is looked at by most Iraqis as neutral - you'd reduce the attacks exponentially. And the proportion that is actually being launched by organized Baathists and Islamists would dwindle as more Iraqis buy into the idea that they're going to have a sovereign, stable, future.

The worrisome thing right now is that the mass of Iraqis is fed up with the US for not providing item one of the promises that were made. No security (1000 killed a month in Baghdad), the perception that the occupiers only give a shit about oil, etc.

Take that irritant out and we're working more with a scenario that most Iraqis can believe in. Iraqis are (largely) educated, cultured, sophisticated people - they'll sign on to the idea of a sovereign (prosperous) future - without US occupation - very rapidly.

(more later, I'm out of here)

108. alistairconnor - 9/26/2003 12:36:10 PM

Everybody's right. Even (gasp) RDB is right, when he says

You guys, what Powell is doing -- and what he has done several times for the Bush admin -- is playing the "good cop" in a huge game of "good cop, bad cop." It's done for you guys, and it's working again.

I've been talking about this for months, perhaps a year : Bush has an "A" team and a "B" team. Now that the B team have fucked up, they can be sidelined, and the state department people can take over. The president is above the fray, he can do this without damage to himself.

Hell, if it plays out like Marj wishfully projects, I'll be so happy I won't even care if he gets re-elected.

109. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 12:36:38 PM

Just when I start think there is a brain in there, he says something like this:

"I appreciate people's opinions, but I'm more interested in news.... And the best way to get the news is from objective sources, and the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world."

110. marjoribanks - 9/26/2003 2:23:05 PM

Hell, if it plays out like Marj wishfully projects, I'll be so happy I won't even care if he gets re-elected.

I would. The Bush incompetents have also deeply damaged America's valuable ties with the rest of the world, they have also set this country down a very dangerous economic path, they have encouraged the reactionary rabble in-house who properly belong under a firm disciplinary boot, they have a disastrous energy policy, and they have been the most anti-environment administration in recent history.

So, Dubya needs to get the fuck back to Crawford.

111. marjoribanks - 9/26/2003 2:23:52 PM

But on Iraq, there is nothing wishful about the possible positive scenarios I have outlined (given some stringent requirements). There are some specific factors which make the current situation a security/development disaster and every reason to believe that a reversal on these factors can realistically lead to a dramatically better situation.

1) The stubborn refusal of Rumsfeld to put in significant more troops.

2) The incredible incompetence of US administrators on the ground, and the lack of considerable financial resources being poured in.

3) The total unsuitablity of US troops as "neutral agent" peacekeepers and nation-builders.

4) The deep and valid suspicion of rank-and-file Iraqis that the US is there to take the oil, period.


Absent these factors, replace the US troops with acceptable substitutes (such as fellow-Muslims from Morocco, Malaysia, Bangladesh), and a good deal of the resentment will fade, as will the suspicions about oil and neo-colonialism in the face of a multilateral administration team (perhaps headed by a Muslim technocrat).

It's win/win. Iraqis will have a real reason to buy into their sovereign future (and discourage/hand in the hard-line Baathists/Islamists who currently get cover).

The losers (besides the US taxpayers, who will still be forking out big-time - but I'm okay with that) are only the neocon scum.

112. marjoribanks - 9/26/2003 2:28:29 PM

Of course, this is only a scenario still, and I am projecting that Powell has indeed won out and that the neocons are mature enough to know that they're beat and should fuck off.

But they may not.

If the scenario I outline above does occur (and there is no reason it should not, if wiser heads in the US prevail) then you'll see - as conceived all along - that the move to inject the West, physically, into the Middle East was a historically correct move.

I can even see being grateful to Dubya in the long run.

Down the line, of course, 20+ years from now when we're in a proper position to assess what the results have been from this venture.

The neocon scum, however, are going to see their star fade from now on in all the way into true disgrace.

113. robertjayb - 9/26/2003 3:53:45 PM

I went to the House of Commons a couple of days ago to watch the debate on the role of the UN in Iraq, and I can tell you: that being an Iraqi and seeing that and the bit of the Hutton Inquiry yesterday, is quite strange. It is like listening to your parents discuss how they should bring you up; it is your life, but you are not making the decisions.

(Salam Pax in the Guardian)

114. concerned - 9/26/2003 5:57:16 PM

marjoribanks is so obsessed about Iraqi oil, and so deeply anti US regarding the reconstruction of Iraq that he compromises his postings on the subject almost to uselessness.

115. judithathome - 9/26/2003 6:08:02 PM

No, he does not but I don't expect you to see that from your far right centrist position.

116. jayackroyd - 9/26/2003 6:10:30 PM

11614

wingnuts: all smear all the time.

117. concerned - 9/26/2003 6:12:20 PM

Sure he is. Iraqi oil is a red herring - their nascent government already is assuming control of its production and distribution. And the most positive thing that can be said about marjoribank's gushing indignation wrt US Iraq policy is that he's venting for some personal reason.

118. concerned - 9/26/2003 6:13:01 PM

Re. 11616 -

Speak for yourself, jay.

119. concerned - 9/26/2003 6:13:58 PM

There is no smear in 11614.

120. concerned - 9/26/2003 6:19:56 PM

The Iraqi suicide attacks on the UN that is causing the UN to pull out argues strongly that merely replacing US forces with those of other nations is no shortcut to reducing Iraqi violence.

From Reuters:

Blow for U.S. as UN Staff Quit, Iraqi Leader Mourned
September 26, 2003 08:00 AM ET By Fiona O'Brien and Rosalind Russell

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Grieving Iraqis paid their last respects on Friday to an assassinated U.S.-appointed politician, as the United Nations pulled more staff out of the country following two suicide bomb attacks.

The murder of Akila al-Hashemi, who died on Thursday five days after assassins opened fire on her car, and the U.N. pullout were fresh setbacks to U.S. efforts to speed the process of building a credible Iraqi government and win more international help to police and rebuild the country.

In the town of Baquba, a hotbed of guerrilla activity northeast of Baghdad, a mortar attack on a market killed eight Iraqis on Thursday evening, the U.S. military said. A spokesman said no U.S. troops were wounded.

More than 15 people were injured and locals said the death toll would have been higher if the attack happened earlier in the day when the market was busier.

"We don't know who was behind this crime -- maybe people who want to destabilize Iraq or people who were trying to target the Americans," Khaled Youssef said. "But in the end, it was Iraqis who were killed."

In the northern oil hub of Kirkuk, a rocket-propelled grenade attack on a U.S. Army vehicle killed one soldier and wounded two, the military said. The attack brought to 80 the number of U.S. soldiers killed by guerrillas since President Bush declared major combat over on May 1.

121. concerned - 9/26/2003 6:31:32 PM

At end of training, Marines say Mongols ready for duty in Iraq

Would Mongols meet with the approval of Islamic Fundamentalists? Perhaps not. After all, it was the Mongol Empire that reversed the tide of Asiatic Islam expansionism from the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries, sacking Baghdad twice.

122. rdbrewer - 9/26/2003 7:07:13 PM

Marje:

There are two areas where the right-wing in this country persists in blind insanity.

Since this is more religion for you than science, I find your use of the word "blind" ironic.

One is Clinton. Everything the Dems do is because Clinton is a masterful sinister genius behind the scenes.

Did one of my running mates use the word "everything," or do you just feel that way? Many in the punditocracy, some of them from the left, have been commenting on Clintons' power in the party for quite some time. I don't recall any of them sneering the words "mastful genius" either. Re-characterizing your opponents' views like that might make your job easier (it's always easier to kick over a straw man), but it doesn't advance the debate. It just reveals your emotional stake in the issues.

Your running mates, a good number of them, still believe that the Clintons "ran" Clark because they want him to lose, so that she can run as favorite in 2008. One can only avert one's eyes in embarassment when your running mates pull their pants down in public with theories like this.

This was put forth by several people as a plausible scenario. No-one stated that it was a fact. The whole pants thing, though, give me a break. You're spitting like some hate-filled reptilian.

. . .

123. rdbrewer - 9/26/2003 7:07:44 PM

(continued)

The other blind insanity comes in assessing the very clear divide and fault line in this current administration (and to some extent the Party leadership) between the neocon scum and the old-line, "mature" Republicans.

That fault line was placed there for a reason -- so that people like you can lap-up what Powell, who works for Bush, has to say. You are so adherent to the religious dogma that Bush is stupid, you cannot concieve of the possibility that Bush could have purposely emplaced such a plan. (Of course, this would mean Bush "the moron" outsmarted you.) That throbbing, open-sore emotion is filtering your perception.

You and your running mates want to believe some
"masterful" brilliant machiavelli is scripting it all.

Again, the re-characterizing, straw-man thing. Geez. Look at how often you do that.

124. Edmund Dantes - 9/26/2003 9:31:18 PM

Engineers teach Iraqis construction, build `Village of Hope'

National Guard engineers are building the first of five "House of Hope" projects. Along the way, they're teaching former Iraqi soldiers construction skills they can use to find new jobs.

Soldiers of the 52nd Engineer Company -- an Oregon Army National Guard unit attached to the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) -- believe in the adage "It's better to teach a man to fish and feed him for life," or in this case teach him to build a home and house him for life.

Under the House of Hope project, the former soldiers initially planned to build a house for a family of displaced locals.

But the project quickly grew in size, blossoming into the Village of Hope, where 100 homes are scheduled to be built for 800 people, said Maj. Christopher Lestochi, operations officer, 326th Engineer Battalion, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault).

With new skills in masonry, carpentry, electricity, plumbing and other skills used in building, the ex-soldiers will be useful in rebuilding Iraq, said division officials.

The Village of Hope will replace an abandoned Iraqi military school in the southern part of the city of Mosul that currently houses at least 200 displaced families living in gutted, half collapsed buildings.

125. robertjayb - 9/26/2003 11:43:04 PM

CIA wants probe of Bush White House...

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that the White House broke federal laws by revealing the identity of one of its undercover employees in retaliation against the woman’s husband, a former ambassador who publicly criticized President Bush’s since-discredited claim that Iraq had sought weapons-grade uranium from Africa, NBC News has learned.

126. jexster - 9/27/2003 8:03:48 AM

Patriots and invaders - Iraqi resistance to foreign occupation enjoys great popular support

Sami Ramadani - political refugee from Saddam's regime and is a senior lecturer in sociology at London Metropolitan University



The governing council is not so much hated as ridiculed, and attacked for having its members chosen along sectarian lines. Most of the people I talked to think that it is a powerless body: it has no army, no police, and no national budget, but boasts nine rotating presidents. One of the jokes circulating in Baghdad was that no sooner had you brought down Saddam's picture than you were being asked to pin up nine new ones.

Support for the council is largely confined to some activists of the organisations that belong to it. Indeed, it could be argued that most supporters of the more credible organisations belonging to the council are opposed to membership of the US-appointed body. The leaders of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri), for example, are finding it increasingly hard to convince these supporters that cooperation with the invaders is still a possible route to independence and democracy. The same goes for another smaller but equally credible party, the Islamic Da'wa, which experienced a split and serious haemorrhaging of membership following its decision to join the council.

127. alistairconnor - 9/27/2003 8:41:52 AM

Con :

The Iraqi suicide attacks on the UN that is causing the UN to pull out argues strongly that merely replacing US forces with those of other nations is no shortcut to reducing Iraqi violence

There is a problem with Iraqi perception of the UN.
The problem is that the UN was the sponsor of the embargo that materially hurt Iraqis for so many years (yeah, all Saddam's fault, doesn't change the perception) and also sponsor, at least initially, of the several years of US/UK bombing. Given the official Saddam propaganda line that the UN is simply a tool of the US, it's hardly surprising that the majority of Iraqis should see little material difference between the two. Until recently, they had no access to other sources of information.

Now, all Iraqis who are well-informed know the difference. Saddam knows the difference. That's why he's made the UN a top-priority target (almost certainly, his partisans were responsible for the UN bombings). If he can chase the UN out, as it seems, that's a major victory for him, and a major defeat for __everybody else__.

No good blaming them for getting out. The UN can not operate in a war zone.

As for whether ordinary Iraqis (the ones who appear to make up the bulk of the resistance, who organise attacks on US soldiers) will be less hostile to UN troops of other nationalities, that remains to be seen.

128. jexster - 9/27/2003 11:01:43 AM

When the Governing Council formed in July, he pledged that it would have a major role in finance, security and foreign affairs.

The council members asked him to put it in writing, which he did, saying he would "consult the Governing Council on all major decisions and questions of policy." Only in "exceptional circumstances," he said, "would the coalition act without the support of the council."

But last week, five Iraqi leaders resolved to tell Mr. Bremer that it was time to fulfill those pledges by giving them real access to Iraq's budget and finances, and to give the new ministry of interior a security role that would allow the American Army to pull back to bases. Mr. Bremer has yet to respond to them.

"Bremer wants to do everything himself I mean they call him king over there," said Mudhar Shawkat, a senior member of Mr. Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress. "He has done a lot, but he has yet to consider Iraqis as his partners and treats them as his subjects."


Underlying the clash of approaches are American and British concerns that Iraq could implode if power is transferred too quickly.
But there are other unspoken concerns.

Some senior American and British officials say privately that they are concerned that if an election was held today, a Shiite muslim cleric might well dominate the polling on the strength of the 60 percent Shiite share of the population.


Iraqi Council Demands Sovereignty - Revolt of the Peppets

129. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2003 11:38:15 AM

Iraqi bishop says media distorts coverage to discredit U.S.-led war

An Iraqi Catholic bishop has accused Western media of lying about the postwar state of his country. Auxiliary Bishop Andraos Abouna of Baghdad said he believed media were running a propaganda campaign to discredit the American-led coalition that ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and now runs Iraq. Bishop Abouna, a Chaldean Catholic, told The Catholic Herald in London that the situation in Iraq was steadily improving rather than descending into a morass resembling the Vietnam War, as often depicted by media outlets. "It's getting better but still there are many problems," Bishop Abouna said. "The first problem is that they need security, then they need water and electricity -- and all these things are getting better," the bishop said. "The media are exaggerating a lot of things. They should be realistic about the situation in Iraq. Newspapers and television are saying a lot of things that aren't true. When they go there they can see everything (is changing)," he said.

130. jexster - 9/27/2003 11:44:36 AM

The $87 Billion Supplemental Lie:


Bush Pledge of $21 Billion to Rebuild Iraq is Nearly $70 Billion
Short

According to this BBC analysis, rebuilding Iraq will cost $90 billion- and we're talking basics (getting the lights and phone restored, getting the oil industry up and running, basic healthcare and educational,
etc.) Bush wants $87 billion from taxpayers, but a whopping $66 billion will go entirely to military operations

Only $21 billion will go toward actual reconstruction. W

ouldn't it have been cheaper just not to have
bombed everything - including the utilities and communications systems, not to mention hospitals - to rubble? Look at the way we here in the U.S. rail at the power company after a major storm when we have to wait a week for the juice to come back! Is it any wonder Iraqis are enraged at us? We trashed their infrastructure (after Bush promises not to). Their rage is now costing the lives of at least a soldier a day.


Tell us more about that Potemkin Village on the Tigris Eddie.



You can't take that seriously. "Village of Hope" must have been meant as comic relief. I know that you aren't a bleeding heart liberal so you are either joking or you are one stupid sum bitch.


Village of Hope - Worse than the war agit prop

131. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2003 11:51:29 AM

The actual headline for post 11628 is "Iraq Leaders Seek Greater Role Now in Running Nation," not Poopstain's distortion of it.

Guess what? The Iraqis are getting it.

The US Army turned over a large stretch of the border separating Iraq from Iran to an American-trained border police force today, for the first time relinquishing control of a sensitive frontier area to the provisional government.

The 210-mile length of frontier running from the edges of Kurdish-controlled territory in the north to a point just southeast of Baghdad is part of a broader effort to give Iraqis more control over their affairs and relieve the US military of the burden of guarding the border....

Col Michael Moody, the commander of the 4th Infantry’s 4th Brigade, who formally turned over control of the frontier to Iraqi Col Nazim Shareef Mohammed and his 1,178 men, said it was an “important day for the Iraqi people”....

“This is a great example of new Iraqi security forces taking control. Each day the border becomes more secure. This is good news for the Iraqi people and the Coalition,” Moody said.

Mohammed, a Kurd, will patrol and run border checkpoints from the city of Darband-i-Khan, 131 miles northeast of Baghdad, to a point near the town of Bard, about 81 miles southeast of the capital. The area encompasses nearly all of Delay province, one of three under the control of the US Army’s 4th Infantry.

“We are unique,” Mohammed said of his force, which includes ethnic Arabs, Kurds and ethnic Turks. “This is an important day for us because we officially take over this highly sensitive border.”

Standing a few yards from the Iranian border, Nazim said “if this experiment is successful in Diyalia province then it is an example for all of Iraq”.

132. jexster - 9/27/2003 11:53:17 AM

Ah Big Media Conspiracy! If all so hunky dory, what the hell is that 87 Billion for and why is Bush begging Putin's help.


Oh BTW, the EU has come through - $280 million....



The personal equivalent - giving a dollar for a Street Sheet.







I get it now....the made in USA version of Geramany's Stab in the back.


The good old days of Rummy inbedded journalism are over Eddie.



Its CNS or nothing.

133. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:00:51 PM

Yes Iran/Iraq Border Guards...I am sure that's just the ticket to quell the growing revolt of the Puppets. If the Governing Council wonders why they are being ridiculed, you should have no doubt why you are.

http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/column/guest/57361.php
US Soldier: 'Mentally and Spirtually We are Dying'

"I am a National Guardsman of the 105th Personnel Services Detachment out of Lincoln, Neb. My unit and I are stationed in Kuwait at Camp Wolf. We were deployed Feb. 2. We arrived in Jordan in April and half of us were moved a week later to Kuwait to throw mail... Yes, we are physically able to finish our mission, but mentally and spiritually we are
dying... This isn't a simple board game of Axis and Allies, this is a game people are playing with real people - people with families, not robots... It feels as if every decision is off the cuff. In this situation there should be plans in place and decisions made before the rubber hits
the road. We are slowly becoming frantic. I hear people saying they are going to begin hurting themselves or others if they can't go home. The helplessness our soldiers are feeling is indescribable, it is past the point of 'suck it up and drive on.' We just want somewhere to drive on
to."

134. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:00:53 PM

Yes Iran/Iraq Border Guards...I am sure that's just the ticket to quell the growing revolt of the Puppets. If the Governing Council wonders why they are being ridiculed, you should have no doubt why you are.

http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/column/guest/57361.php
US Soldier: 'Mentally and Spirtually We are Dying'

"I am a National Guardsman of the 105th Personnel Services Detachment out of Lincoln, Neb. My unit and I are stationed in Kuwait at Camp Wolf. We were deployed Feb. 2. We arrived in Jordan in April and half of us were moved a week later to Kuwait to throw mail... Yes, we are physically able to finish our mission, but mentally and spiritually we are
dying... This isn't a simple board game of Axis and Allies, this is a game people are playing with real people - people with families, not robots... It feels as if every decision is off the cuff. In this situation there should be plans in place and decisions made before the rubber hits
the road. We are slowly becoming frantic. I hear people saying they are going to begin hurting themselves or others if they can't go home. The helplessness our soldiers are feeling is indescribable, it is past the point of 'suck it up and drive on.' We just want somewhere to drive on
to."

135. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:03:28 PM

Bush Administration Poised to Break Promise to U. S. Reservists


Six weeks after insisting the U. S. had "sufficient force to do what is required" in Iraq, the Bush Administration admitted yesterday more American reservists likely will be sent to the frontlines.

Thursday's announcement contradicts the promise of Joint Chiefs Chairman General Richard Myers who said on August 5th, "We're trying to put predictability into the lives of our soldiers, their families and the reservists and their employers."1

The additional deployment is in part necessitated by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's refusal to heed the advice of Pentagon careerists who want to increase the size of the active-duty force. Army chief of staff Peter Schoomaker has said, "I'm going to tell you that, you know, intuitively, I think we need more people. I mean, it's that simple."2

Rumsfeld has stubbornly claimed, "Thus far, the analysis that's been done [on troop strength] indicates that we're fine."3

But two weeks ago the Pentagon added as much as six months to the tours of duty for the National Guard troops and Reserves in Iraq.4 Longer deployments are felt by communities and families in the U.S. including some local police departments that lose "20% of their manpower when local Guard units are activated".5 Now, conceding there is no foreseeable end to U. S. involvement in Iraq, Marine Corps General Peter Pace announced that thousands more reservists will almost certainly be called up as other troops are finally sent home. The 30,000 Guardsmen and 50,000 reserves in Iraq represent the largest reserve battlefield presence since World War II.6

136. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:03:37 PM

Sources:
1. DoD News Briefing - Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers, 8/5/03,
2. "New Top General Tells Legislators U.S. Will Probably Need a Larger Army", New York Times, 7/30/03.
3. "Secretary of Stubbornness," Weekly Standard, 9/15/03.
4. "Troops' tours of duty could run for 1 year; Extensions frustrate military families," Detroit Free Press, 9/10/03.
5. "The war over the National Guard," Salon, 8/19/03.
6. "Pentagon May Call Up Additional Reservists", Los Angeles Times, 9/25/03

137. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:05:17 PM

September 22, 2003

My husband is in the army national guard and has been deployed since Feb. 13th. We have two beautiful children, a 16 month old and a four month old. He missed our son's first steps and our daughter's birth. He has seen her only through pictures, and why? Because our governing officials are a bunch of liars. My husband drives a truck over there; you know the convoys that are always getting hit with RPG's and other explosives, well, that's what he does. His unit has been hit quite a few times but thank God nobody has been killed. Although they have had some injuries in their unit from explosions.

I have absolutely no faith left in our government and especially George Bush. He should have gotten the support of the world and since everyone else was against the war, that should have given him a hint that it was wrong. Hell no, though, he wanted to charge in with guns a-blazing and be the big hero. Well George, you're not a hero, you are a COWARD, our troops are the real HEROES. If you want to be a hero, Bush, bring our soldiers home. If he wanted a war he should have finished the job in Afghanistan. They actually attacked us on our own soil and we still haven't taken care of it. I guess Bin Laden is too much for Bush to handle. I say ship George Bush and family to Iraq and send Congress with them, let them finish the job. I mean the war is over according to Bush, so what do they have to worry about. I pray to God that Bush does not get re-elected and lets hope our next President can clean up his mess. God Bless our TROOPS and God Bless their families.

Jaime Sutton (an angry soldier's wife)
Sand Springs, Oklahoma
posted 26 sept 2003

138. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:09:18 PM

Col. David Hackworth: "I Wish I had Written This"

The Modified Vertical Stroke
A Modest Proposal for the Pentagon

By WERTHER*

As the administration's Iraq "policy" careens out of control like a car stolen by joy-riding teenagers, critics are confronted with the inevitable retort: "But what would you do? Be constructive!" In truth, this rejoinder is a red herring: people who had no role in creating this mess have no moral "responsibility" for solving it; the authors of the mess have. And to the extent one accepts responsibility for rescuing the situation, one implicitly believes that one actually has a role in governing this erstwhile republic. In reality, the neo-con-artists, Big Oil plutocrats, and "defense" contractors will not release their iron grip on U.S. foreign policy until their avaricious hearts cease to beat.

139. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:10:35 PM

But in the constructive spirit of Jonathan Swift's "Modest Proposal," we herewith offer a few eminently constructive suggestions:

1. Clean house at the Pentagon. Show Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al., the door. Disband the Office of Special Plans (or whatever its successor might be named) and send Douglas Feith back to writing position papers for Benyamin Netanyahu. Abolish the Defense Policy Board and banish Newt Gingrich to the rubber chicken circuit and Richard Perle to the Borscht Belt. Revoke the security clearances of all these luminaries so that further damage is limited. Appoint Anthony Zinni (Gen USMC Ret.) as Secretary, and empower him to appoint, free from White House interference, subordinates of professional competence and moral probity. The same conditions would apply to his direction of the officer corps, including the chairman, JCS.1/ And at the NSC, replace the over-credentialed and underwhelming Condoleeza Rice with a certifiable adult such as Brent Scowcrowft.

2. Rescind the reconstruction contracts of Halliburton, Bechtel and the other corporate welfare clients.

3. Give GEN Sanchez an ultimatum: "Kill Saddam Hussein by 31 December 2003 or you are commanding a radar site on Adak." The death of our erstwhile client and bulwark against Iran may not be functionally necessary, but would be a political boon and usufruct to salve the wounds of our national security Illuminati and justify this whole misguided operation to the public (an important consideration as November 2004 looms). And since GEN Sanchez has so often claimed that "we" are closing in on Saddam, he should bear some responsibility for turning words into deeds. It could at least justify a withdrawal from Iraq on the basis that, "there were no WMDs, but we did whack Saddam. Mission accomplished!" And why the deadline of 31 December? -

140. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:20:33 PM

7. Begin the greatest untangling operation since Watergate. Induce Congress (an admittedly hopeless bunch, whose membership more and more resembles the idiotic Senator Iselin in The Manchurian Candidate) to investigate the connection between the think tanks, their "defense" contractor contributors, public relations firms like Hill & Knowlton or the Benador Group, foreign agents of influence, and the Federal Government. Much as the mid-1930s Nye Committee unveiled the relationships between government boards, munitions trusts, financiers, and British propagandists, such an investigation would reveal how a gullible public was led into the quicksand of the Middle East for the sake of yet another "war to end all wars."


link

141. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:20:35 PM

7. Begin the greatest untangling operation since Watergate. Induce Congress (an admittedly hopeless bunch, whose membership more and more resembles the idiotic Senator Iselin in The Manchurian Candidate) to investigate the connection between the think tanks, their "defense" contractor contributors, public relations firms like Hill & Knowlton or the Benador Group, foreign agents of influence, and the Federal Government. Much as the mid-1930s Nye Committee unveiled the relationships between government boards, munitions trusts, financiers, and British propagandists, such an investigation would reveal how a gullible public was led into the quicksand of the Middle East for the sake of yet another "war to end all wars."


link

142. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:23:58 PM

Passionate Ltr From A Grunt To Sec State Powell



Sent: Wed 9/24/2003 4:30 AM

To: secretary@state.gov

Subject: Soldier in Iraq

Honorable Mr. Powell,

A cancer has begun to spread in the military - especially those currently serving in Iraq. Sir, that cancer - as you probably already are aware of - is the dissatisfaction of service members for having been lied to by our Commander in Chief and his staff.

143. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:24:40 PM

Sir, we know now that this war was not about Weapons of Mass Destruction. Sir, we know that this war was not about terrorism. Sir, we are unsure anymore of what exactly this war was about.

No one serving with me over here will deny that the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime of tyrants was a great thing and we are proud of what we accomplished. I will continue to serve my country with honor and I am proud of the men and women and civilians with whom I work. They are all heroes.

But the men and women of Iraq know why we are here. They are very intelligent people and are able to see right through the lies that our President used to justify this war. That is why they view us now as an occupying force and believe it is their Muslim duty to fight us. Sir, you see the trends probably better than I do as an Intelligence Analyst. The attacks are on the rise and it is not the former Ba'ath party members conducting them. The attack last week on a convoy near Al Fallujah that killed 3 soldiers was carried out by a local man fighting for his Islamic belief. He left behind a letter to his family telling them not to mourn his death, but to rejoice it in the name of Allah. The people in his neighborhood call him a martyr. Sir, my unit commander visited the Abu Ghurayb prison to see the damage done by a mortar shell which killed 2 soldiers. His convoy took a wrong turn which took them through a nearby neighborhood. The people were unfriendly and some shouted, "Die, Americans! Die!".

144. jexster - 9/27/2003 12:24:51 PM

Sir, I am wondering how you sleep at night knowing that America's sons and daughters are being wounded and killed every day by a people that we "Liberated" and for reasons that were untrue. I can see it in your eyes whenever you are before a camera. You are a good man and you were a great General. You need to speak out, sir. You need to tell us the truth. I know we are not going to be pulled out of Iraq any time soon. I can live with that and continue to do my job honorably if only we can hear the truth. That is all I ask for. And you, Mr. Secretary, will be viewed as a hero again.

Respectfully,

SSG United States Army

145. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2003 12:45:16 PM

I missed 11585 the first time. Brave Jay Ackroyd is so obsessed with me he responds to other posters and calls them Eddie.

Another one of the dilletantes chimes in:

ac: Are you being disingenuous, or are you just not paying attention?

No, just dealing with illiterate booboo heads. Everything in the article that supports Poopstain is written by the reporter. Everything said by Chalabi is pro Bush and pro coalition.

You people can read black and think it says maroon.

146. rdbrewer - 9/27/2003 12:49:41 PM

This thread should be renamed "Jexter's Sandbox."

147. jayackroyd - 9/27/2003 12:57:54 PM

My apologies for 11585's being directed toward you, Eddy. Thanks for pointing out the mistake.

148. jayackroyd - 9/27/2003 12:58:53 PM

11646

Jexster--

He's got a point. Can you tone it down, please? And provide some of your own thoughts?

149. robertjayb - 9/27/2003 1:09:06 PM

I just noticed that Reuters is referring to attackers of "coalition" forces as guerrillas. Is this new? I thought the official word was there are no guerrillas.

150. jayackroyd - 9/27/2003 1:10:31 PM

No, the general in charge (whose name I'm spacing), in one of his first press conferences referred to the opposition as using guerilla tactics.

151. robertjayb - 9/27/2003 1:24:15 PM

Lt. Gen. Sanchez.

Yes, I have seen references to guerrilla tactics but I have not noticed the opposing forces themselves referred to as guerrillas.

A minor point, I suppose, but I understood guerrillas to be forces operating with support from the indigenous population. Don't our leaders deny that.

152. Edmund Dantes - 9/27/2003 1:46:26 PM

Saudi ambassador: U.S. winning struggle in Iraq

> "They are so happy they got rid of Saddam Hussein because nobody could have rid of Saddam ..., but they are victims of high expectations," Bandar said. "People thought the minute the Americans come, McDonald's will open a place and money will flow and cinemas and so on."

(snip)

> "I believe two things," Bandar said. "Sooner rather than later, you will see Iraq picking up itself and beginning to function in a way that will make the whole world happy and make the Americans proud (of what they did.) Second, I believe strongly that Iraq's neighbors will sleep better, trade better, cooperate better because of what happened to Saddam and his regime compared to the past.

> "You are the only game in town," Bandar said. "You are the only superpower, and there are many bad things ... that come with the territory. There is no free lunch. But trust me, the Iraqis are the biggest winners and the happiest people ... because Saddam is not there any more."

153. jexster - 9/27/2003 3:26:35 PM

I feel Jay's pain ....when that razor sharp mind of Eddie's rips through your gray matter,,,hudduer.



Coptic Prelates!

Prince Bandar!

See Jay... such an awesome mind.

Prince Bandar's House of Saud facing aerious internal sucession crisis, deeply divided against itself and against its own people, the target of Congressional Investigation, the business partner of Poppy's kisses Little Bush's ass.

Well I say show us the money but Bandar chucks two small bones, Eddie is so hard up he thinks its a meal.





Massive Demonstrations Against War in Europe and Middle East

154. jexster - 9/27/2003 3:30:56 PM

Pentagon Readies More Troops for Iraqmire as Bush Pleas for Help Fall Flat

155. jexster - 9/27/2003 3:46:35 PM

My own thoughts....

I think we're fucked.

I think that morale of the US forces in Iraq is progressively deteriorating.

I think that most folks do not like to be lied to,

I think that Zinni, Powell and Clark along with most of our military brass and intelligence community think Bush his neo-com men don't know what they are doing.

I think that Baghdad is the last stop for Bush, a dead end on his roadmap.

I think that Bush - GI Joe Terror Warrior - is an act about to close.

I think that it is now beyond reasonable debate that Bush's war was as I aaid at the time, a grave moral scandal and geopolitical blunder of immense proportion.

I think that Prince Bandar, and Putin and the EU most of the planet in fact are blowing smoke up Bush's ass and that's about as much as they will do to pull Bush's ass out of the 'mire.

I don't think that Bush and neo-con men had a clue what they were about.

I think that every objection I raised to this Bush "brain fart" (Gen Zinni) has proved correct.

I believe that Bush lied

I believe that Scott Ritter should get a metal

I think we're fucked.

I think Eddie knows it.

156. jexster - 9/27/2003 3:48:02 PM

I think I can't spell medal.


This is my brain...this is my brain on Eddie

157. jexster - 9/27/2003 3:51:39 PM

I believe that Bush will eventually do a George Aiken. Rove Ops probably are on the lookout even now for an appropriate time to declare victory and bail


And I would not be surprised if this happens in time for the 2004 election.

I wish Bush had the guts that our last lying Texas president had....But half that would be wishful

158. jexster - 9/27/2003 4:06:23 PM

I do not believe in Santa Claus.
I do not believe in the tooth fairy
I do not believe Bush is on a mission from God.

I do not believe the Emperor's latest rubbish about liberation, democracy

I don't believe it possible for a reasonably intelligent person to believe otherwise.

159. jexster - 9/27/2003 4:14:23 PM

No Robert ..the press has been using guerilla more and more often over about the past two months.

In fact, some news reports are now using "resistance fighters"

At this rate, there's a fair chance they'll be "freedom fighters" at the First Anniversary of the Empire.

160. concerned - 9/28/2003 1:15:04 AM

For those who are so sure things will immediately become perfect if only the US turns matters in Iraq over to the UN, let's look at how the UN in doing in Kosovo four years after Serbia was pushed out:



"Four years after the war, the United Nations still runs Kosovo by executive fiat, issuing postage stamps, passports and driver's licenses. Decisions made by the local elected parliament are invalid without the signature of the U.N. administrator. And still, to this day, Kosovar ministers have U.N. overseers with the power to approve or disapprove their decisions." -- Donald Rumsfeld

"Unemployment is 60 percent. Electrical power in the hinterlands is unreliable. The reconstituted local police force has not yet assumed its duties unassisted. There about 22,200 foreign troops keeping the peace in Kosovo. The U.S. total is 2,100, part of a NATO contingent of about 18,000. And ethnic hatreds still seethe. There is a broad feeling both among international workers and Kosovars themselves that, if the international community were to pull out of Kosovo now, chaos -- or even war -- could break out again in short order." -- Don Melvin

"Four years after NATO intervention, Kosovo has no 'road map' to the future. Chances of the United Nations protectorate reverting to Serb rule are nil but no pact on its destiny is seen in 2004.

Opinions among local leaders and international officials diverge on whether it will become an independent state or some hybrid short of that. But until this is clear, it will block Serbia's path to key goals, European Union and NATO membership." -- Reuters

Something for those who are having kittens about the US role in Iraq to keep in mind. The grass isn't always greener on the collectivist side.

161. Edmund Dantes - 9/28/2003 9:54:06 AM

Rebuilding Iraq


THE DEBATE OVER President Bush's request for $87 billion in emergency spending for Iraq and Afghanistan is threatening to take a dangerously irresponsible turn. Democrats and, to an extent that is rattling the Bush administration, some Republicans are drawing a distinction between the $66 billion requested for military spending and the $21 billion devoted to reconstruction, almost all of it in Iraq. The first pot of money is considered politically untouchable; indeed, the first words out of nearly every lawmaker's mouth are to pledge devotion to spending whatever is needed to support "our troops." The reconstruction spending, though, has produced considerable dissent, with a number of lawmakers questioning whether U.S. taxpayers ought to bear that burden.

Distinguishing between spending on troops and spending on reconstruction is a false and counterproductive dichotomy.

Washington Post

162. alistairconnor - 9/28/2003 1:42:36 PM

Indeed, one wonders why they would want to spend $66 billion on keeping troops in Iraq if they're not going to do anything positive there.

163. marjoribanks - 9/28/2003 1:49:18 PM

I only skim the low-simian-on-the-evolutionary-ladder's posts, admitted.

However, it is rather hilarious to smell the bottom-of-the-barrel desperation emanating from that direction.

The miserable shreds of "evidence" that is cobbled together, and then misrepresented, to laughably "demonstrate" that the neocon scum haven't been routed and that Bush is a dead duck. The frantic smear attempts at a man (Clark) who hasn't even made a serious policy speech yet (the one he delivers on the war will reframe the national discourse).

It's all very amusing and entertaining.

164. clydefo - 9/28/2003 3:29:12 PM

jexster,
Illigitimi non carborundum.

165. jexster - 9/28/2003 4:18:38 PM

Kuwait MP's Livid Over Bremmer's Call to forgive war reparations...Guess we'll just have to pay the 28 Billino Bill - sound financial footing...democracy in bloom...

SLOGAN ALERT! Do not swallow...for children under 8 and morons of any age...not for adult consumptin.

Kuwait parliamentarians are furious at a US suggestion that the oil-rich emirate drop demands for billions of dollars in war reparations owed by former foe Iraq.


US occupying administrator Paul Bremer said on Friday that out of Iraq’s total debt of $200 billion, Baghdad owed $98 billion in reparations to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for losses during Iraq’s occupation of the emirate from 1990 to 1991.

166. jexster - 9/28/2003 4:19:38 PM

Toys alert...

167. alistairconnor - 9/28/2003 4:26:02 PM

Did Bremer really suggest that Iraq default on its debt to Kuwait?
Bremer said “it is curious to me to have a country whose (annual) per capita income GDP is about $800…pay reparations to a country whose per-capita GDP is a factor of 10 times that” for a war which all Iraqis now in power opposed.

Does he have in mind the precedent of the Bolsheviks when he says this?

If all it takes to wipe the slate is a regime change, that sets the scene for a rapid resolution of the Third World's debt crisis... by jove he's got it.

168. jexster - 9/28/2003 4:43:37 PM

Oh Clyde not to worry...

They do not get me down. They get me goin.

169. Al D - 9/28/2003 9:47:15 PM

Illigitimi non carborundum

Souldn't it be illagitima tatum non carborundum But to be honest, I haven't used the phrase in 30 years since I quit teaching.

And please, Pelle, there is no proof in thye pudding. But perhaps the proof of the pudding is in the eating. But you are in good company as Reagan made the same error. Pray to god you do not say just between you and I.

It is true that hope lives eteranl, as many on the Mote pontificate about our miserable failure in Iraq. Even some Dem congressmen who have been over there are saying, now wait a minute with all the doom and gloom. But I don't blame you for hoping and wishing for America to fail in Iraq. Your insane hate of Bush is the reason, and I don't mean to imply it is America you hate. That comment does not apply to WoW.

170. Al D - 9/28/2003 9:48:56 PM

eteranl=eternal thye= the

171. Edmund Dantes - 9/28/2003 10:29:30 PM

Bush is a dead duck.

Hee-hee-hee.

Still in the prediction business, I see.

Will Bush be out in three to six months, just like Sharon?

<smirk>

172. rdbrewer - 9/29/2003 1:07:05 AM

Al D:

Your insane hate of Bush is the reason, and I don't mean to imply it is America you hate.

I think you can make an argument the hate is pathological on some level for the ones who seem to be gleeful when we encounter problems over there.

And, BTW, some of them do hate the U.S., either overtly or deep down.

173. ScreamingSin - 9/29/2003 4:44:27 AM

When I'm driving by neighborhoods, I love seeing the odd flagpole, flying those gorgeous colors.

My yard is full of rocks. The best I can manage is the old college try on a little stake that gets trashed in the next big storm.

174. jexster - 9/29/2003 9:02:01 PM

US Forces Under Heavy Attack W. of Baghdad, Casualties Mount

How are thinks in your Village of Hope...a town named hope


Color Eddie gullible

175. jexster - 9/29/2003 9:06:42 PM

Its it ILLIGITIMITI kinda like you?

How are thing you ole bastard?

And at the risk of sedition, better lese majeste againt the reignng Village Idiot, the Bloody Bumbling Butcher of Baghdad, sometime back you asked me what might be if the Iraqis welcomed us enthusiastically?

176. jexster - 9/29/2003 9:13:47 PM

I dunno whether Bremmmer suggested that Iraq default on its debt but I think it was certainly implicit.

As you point out, Russia defaulted as in effect did Germany which is about the universe of reparations payments of similiar size to this one.

Also both countries are more or less sattelite states and will do as they are told...although Kuwait does have a little leverage, the Iraqis do not like them very much and that's not just some idea that Sadddam planted in their minds. What Bremmer said is sufficient authorization.

He doesn't have to say it again for the Iraqis to do what is in their interests anyway.


I say if Kuwait gives us any trouble, we'll run a 101 AB brigade up their dresses

177. Al D - 9/29/2003 9:18:56 PM

There are two things that might happen in the next year that would be very good for America.
1. The economy would recover( which is happening right now) and unemployment would fall by a significant %. Some say that jobs are the last thing to come in an economic recovery.

2. The pacification of Iraq is successful, an Iraqi government is formed, and the world comes to see what Bush has done is helping stabilize the Middle East.

One would think that all Americans would wish for this, but that would be naive beyond belief. The lust for power is so great that Bush enemies would rather see the exact oppisite of both of the above in order to bring him down.

Only time will tell, but I can't imagine what it would be like to be with the ones hoping for disaster.

178. jexster - 9/29/2003 9:22:36 PM

Oh and before I forget, I wanted to share my My He-Man's Bush Hater Creed its over in AP but several pages back by now:

hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it. I think his policies rank him among the worst presidents in U.S. history. And, while I'm tempted to leave it at that, the truth is that I hate him for less substantive reasons, too.


• I hate the inequitable way he has come to his economic and political achievements and his utter lack of humility (disguised behind transparently false modesty) at having done so.
  
• I hate the way he walks--shoulders flexed, elbows splayed out from his sides like a teenage boy feigning machismo.
  
  
• I hate the way he talks--blustery self-assurance masked by a pseudo-populist twang.
  
  
• I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him.
  
  
• I hate his lame nickname-bestowing-- a way to establish one's social superiority beneath a veneer of chumminess (does anybody give their boss a nickname without his consent?).
  
  
  
• And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more
  
  Al you love people who lie to you and steal your money? Lie to me baby it hurts so good, eh?
  
  I hate liars..I hate hypcrites..I hate cheap conartists...I hate morons....I hate Bush..
  
  There I feel better....
  
  

  179. jexster - 9/29/2003 9:27:35 PM

  If you think for fuckin second, that I buy that Bush's America Love it or leave crap you got another thing coming old man.
  
  That's exactly the sort of fucked up hey lemmings follow me shit that got us into this mess in the first place...
  
  500 Billion deficits
  170 Biillion down the Iraq shithole
  lies and incompetence in economic policy, in foreign policy, an indisputably immoral war sold on false pretenses, wittingly so...
  
  No. I will be glad when our government no longer has such malignant smarmy fuck running it.
  
  
  It seems to me that no true patriot would feel otherwise
  
  

  180. jexster - 9/29/2003 9:33:04 PM

  Al still doesn't know the name of the w-ar game so I will summarize:
  
  
  Bush lied and played on fear(great life insurance salseman tactic) to sell the war.
  
  Bush never intended to permit the UN process to work because he was afraid that he'd have to justify his aggression on the patently imperialist grounds of regime change.
  
  He hotboxed the victim and skepetics he silenced with the sort of horseshit for nitwits you are peddling around here now.
  
  
  Fool you once Al fuck him, fool you twice, thrice....
  
  
  
  
  bend over old fella this is gonna hurt so good

  181. jexster - 9/29/2003 9:33:43 PM

  
  toys

  182. Al D - 9/29/2003 9:34:12 PM

  jexster
  You are quite a fellow. Since you never have to think before you post, you can out post anyone 10-1, at least. But since everone knows pretty much what you have to say, there is really no need to attempt to engage you in conversation. I try to love everyone, evern you. As I good Lord said, we should even love our enemies. I think at one time you also believed that, before you joined Islam.

  183. jexster - 9/29/2003 9:44:47 PM

  Gimme a break Father Davis.
  
  Hatred of politicians is as American. It is not the hate that religions condemn. And we all of us sing your "Don't Worry Be Happy" tune, this idiot will sure as hell go off looking for another figment of his imagination to declare war against so he can save his greasy ass.
  
  I piss on you putrescent patriotism but I still love you AL
  
  Don't fault me for thinking at Mach 2.5 ...don't fault me because you are arguments are so transparently foolish
  
  

  184. jexster - 9/29/2003 9:45:19 PM

  Allahu Akbar Al..regime change and Jihad begin at home

  185. jexster - 9/29/2003 9:46:00 PM

  "as apple pie" I think faster than 80 wpm at least

  186. jexster - 9/29/2003 10:04:50 PM

  Defectors' weapons claims were 'false'
  US military intelligence has concluded weapons claims made by Iraqi defectors were either useless or false
  
  Surprise surprise..the defectors lied...this is must be an usual occurance certainly.....did no one point this out at the time, in the pubic press? Wasn't it obvious from the get go that Bush was counting on people like ALD to waive old Glory to get him his Congress and his war
  
  
  War has masked his failures, his scandals...he has run out of dead bodies to hide behind

  187. jexster - 9/29/2003 10:09:04 PM

  Scott Ritter spoke the truth...
  
  
  Bush & Co slimed Scott Ritter floating tales that he was bankrolled by Saddam..:"Ritter is a "traitror" "How Unmerican"
  
  
  We've heard shit once Al...and once is enough

  188. wonkers2 - 9/29/2003 10:31:29 PM

  As somebody said recently "We are fucked!"

  189. jexster - 9/29/2003 10:48:37 PM

  Yea but he's just a grandstanding old fart, third rate diplomat, no experience, washed up and desperate for a headline to make him feel that his miserable worthless traitorous life was worth living..
  
  And Al didya know that Amb Wilson during his post to Baghdad, secretly converted to Islams in mysterious black rite presided over by none other than Saddam Hussein?

  190. jexster - 9/29/2003 11:26:31 PM

  All cut the Ccmmunust, Islamist McCarthyite crap.
  
  It is time that everyone get
  
  Get Real Before the Neoconartists and their Domino Democracy Breaks the Bank - Defense and the National Interest
  
  The national interest is not the Bush interest, the national interest is to get rid of these wack jobs, incompetents and liars
  
  
  
  

  191. robertjayb - 9/30/2003 12:21:25 AM

  By and for crony capitalists...(Paul Krugman)
  
  Iraq's reconstruction.... remains firmly under White House control. And this is an administration of, by and for crony capitalists; to match this White House's blithe lack of concern about conflicts of interest, you have to go back to the Harding administration.

  192. jexster - 9/30/2003 1:06:49 AM

  TO Al:
  I am not now nor have I ever been a Mohammedin
  
  TO: The Good Citizens of the Village of Hope, Eddie Dantes Mayor,
  
  
  
  The Democracy Lie - Exporting Censorship to Iraq
  The press system we allow the Iraqis is far from free
  
  
  Free Press is not all Fox News all the time.
  
  Sifting Through the Rubble of Bush's Bloody Bungle in Baghdad - All Major Citicisms of Bush's Phony War Have Been Proved Right
  
  I'd rather be right, than be Eddie Dantes.

  193. jexster - 9/30/2003 1:40:38 AM

  TD, Freedom Fryer of All Things French, would do well to read Krugman's indictment of the sordid tale of crony capitalist corruption now being spun in Iraq
  
  It's rarely mentioned nowadays, but at the time of the Marshall Plan, Americans were very concerned about profiteering in the name of patriotism. To get Congressional approval, Truman had to provide assurances that the plan would not become a boondoggle. Funds were administered by an agency independent of the White House, and Marshall promised that priorities would be determined by Europeans, not Americans.
  
  Fortunately, Truman's assurances were credible. Although he is now honored for his postwar leadership, Truman initially rose to prominence as a fierce crusader against war profiteering, which he considered treason.
  
  Iraq's reconstruction, by contrast, remains firmly under White House control. And this is an administration of, by and for crony capitalists; to match this White House's blithe lack of concern about conflicts of interest, you have to go back to the Harding administration.
  
  With Truman you knew where the buck stopped
  
  With Bush...the buck bounces around unitl it find a proper resting place.

  194. alistairConnor - 9/30/2003 8:24:30 AM

  The Krugman article is a clear illustration of why the current round of fund-raising for rebuilding Iraq is such a failure.
  
  It's not only the fact that Europe, Japan etc are tight-fisted. It's that without guarantees on oversight, there is no way of knowing whether the money will be used effectively.
  
  If the Bush administration wants to continue calling the tune, then it can carry on paying the piper.

  195. alistairConnor - 9/30/2003 8:55:59 AM

  Mass destruction of weapons in Iraq...
  
  Senior American military officials say that as much as 650,000 tons of ammunition remains at thousands of sites used by the former Iraqi security forces, and that much of it has not been secured and will take years to destroy.
  
  ... and guess what? The Pentagon's been lying about it...
  
  General Abizaid's sobering assessment directly contradicted reassurances from a senior Pentagon official earlier in September that "all known Iraqi munitions sites are being secured by coalition forces."

  196. jexster - 9/30/2003 9:34:58 AM

  Oh Lord, you speak di-rectlah to our dear President. Please keep safe our wonderfully plumb and mentally disturbed Mayor of Hope Village Eddie Dantes. Thanks muchly.
  
  UN Expedites Iraq Exit, US Forces Under Heavy Attack in Baghdad

  197. jexster - 9/30/2003 9:35:07 AM

  
  
  we should be-as I know you've heard plenty of times here-extremely proud of what our people did out there, what our men and women in uniform did. It kills me when I hear of the continuing casualties and the sacrifice that's being made. It also kills me when I hear someone say that, well, each one of those is a personal tragedy, but in the overall scheme of things, they're insignificant statistically. Never should we let any political leaders utter those words. This is the greatest treasure the United States has, our enlisted men and women. And when we put them into harm's way, it had better count for something. It can't be because some policy wonk back here has a brain fart of an idea of a strategy that isn't thought out.
  
  They should never be put on a battlefield without a strategic plan, not only for the fighting-our generals will take care of that-but for the aftermath and winning that war. Where are we, the American people, if we accept this, if we accept this level of sacrifice without that level of planning?
  
  Almost everyone in this room, of my contemporaries-our feelings and our sensitivities were forged on the battlefields of Vietnam; where we heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice. We swore never again would we do that. We swore never again would we allow it to happen. And I ask you, is it happening again?
  
  And you're going to have to answer that question, just like the American people are. And remember, everyone of those young men and women that come back is not a personal tragedy, it's a national tragedy
  General Zinni
  

  198. jexster - 9/30/2003 10:02:27 AM

  Iraq GC Says Powell if Full of Shit; Constitution Will Take At Least 1 year, Call For Sovereignty Now
  
  The hang up is - Shiites & allies want Islamic State

  199. robertjayb - 9/30/2003 2:42:56 PM

  Sheikhs and Tribes and marrying cousins...
  
  Riverbend responds to a NYTimes article Iraqi family ties complicate American efforts...

  200. jexster - 9/30/2003 3:27:51 PM

  I thought that was a super article Robert. I had serveral before it, think tank stuff like Carnegie's Democratic Mirage in the Middle East, but this one brings the problem down the very basic societal level. These idiots first waged a war against a figment of their imaginations are now stuck in quicksand chasing a mirage.
  
  Now they're scrambling to put together a spin campaign of photo ops and requesting billions of taxpayer dollars for Potemkin Village fluff in a desperate effort to hide their folly and failure.
  
  
  Why just check out just the most obvious pork salted into the President's $87 billion request for Iraqi military operations and "reconstruction" efforts.
  
  Baghdad Fire Department T-Shirts!
  Available at the Village of Hope Tourist Center
  

  201. marjoribanks - 9/30/2003 7:05:20 PM

  This may belong in American Politics, but here we go.
  
  Wes Clark comes out with a series of well-aimed swings at Bush's Iraq policy.
  
  I predicted that this fellow has the ability to change the national debate about Iraq. Now, he's actually partly playing catch-up because the media herd (and some of the Dems) have swarmed ahead of him into the opening created by his very campaign announcement.
  
  But he still has the best cred to deliver the message, I hope he does so at the side of good old John Kerry.
  
  Some lengthy excerpts will follow.

  202. marjoribanks - 9/30/2003 7:09:04 PM

  These tendencies were reinforced by the increasingly partisan atmosphere within Washington in the late 1990s, during which the Republican-controlled Congress could be expected to react strongly against anything that might be seen as "nation-building." The truth was that the research and preparation for postconflict operations was a political orphan. As George W. Bush, then the governor of Texas, stated during the 2000 presidential debates: "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think that our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator...when it's in our best interests."
  
  Unfortunately, that is exactly how the mission was approached. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, the successes and failures of both the war plan and military transformation were soon evident on the ground. In its "decisive operations" the military had performed superbly, but in the larger planning effort, and in the thinking about the true nature of modern war, the civilians had misunderstood what was needed. Perhaps it was all too easy to concentrate on the fighting, killing the enemy and destroying his forces. But every serious student of war recognizes that war is about attaining political objectives—that military force is just one among several means, including diplomacy, and that all must be mutually reinforcing.
  
  This last para is going to be, obviously, a main thrust of Clark's election plank,

  203. marjoribanks - 9/30/2003 7:11:55 PM

  No one could believe at this point that bringing about such a democratic transformation would be easy, quick, or cheap. It is true that if a primary but unspoken purpose of the military campaign was to demonstrate the skills and courage of the American armed forces, then it was surely a success. Thirty years of dedicated effort have built a US military without peer in its ability to defeat enemy forces on the battlefield. But power creates its own adversaries, and those who are determined to contest American strength will seek methods that minimize the military advantages we have accumulated. Much greater work remains to be done if the United States is to achieve success in promoting our values, our security, and our prosperity. All else being equal, the region and the Iraqi people are better off with Saddam gone. But the US actions against old adversaries like Saddam have costs and consequences that may still leave us far short of our goal of winning the new war on terror. Indeed, the effects of the war may actually impair our efforts to achieve that larger goal.
  
  
  A carefully calibrated analysis, heavy on specific knowledge "from the inside" of the military machine. This is not an anti-War candidate, clearly, but someone positioning himself (easily, it should be added) as a far more responsible CinC than the one currently in charge.
  
  
  

  204. marjoribanks - 9/30/2003 7:22:04 PM

  Oh yes, I also meant to link in Fareed Zakaria's destruction of Rumsfeld's inane WPost op/ed piece from last week.
  
  Rumsfeld is right to warn of the danger of a heavy hand creating dependency. But there is actually much greater danger of a light hand. Turning weak institutions over too quickly to locals would return the country to traditional structures of authority that are often feudal and corrupt. In Afghanistan, for example, Rumsfeld's light touch has resulted in the return of warlord rule, a dangerously weak central government and the resurgence of the Taliban. By Rumsfeld's logic, America's light rule and quick exit from Haiti in the 1990s should have created a vibrant democracy, while its almost decade long, heavy-handed occupations of Germany and Japan should have produced deformed societies. In fact, the opposite happened.        
  
  The United States might well succeed in Iraq but only because it is not following Rumsfeld's rhetoric. If it were worried about creating a dependent society, it would not be pouring $20 billion into the country in one year—which equals half of the Iraqi GDP. This is almost twice the total spending on Kosovo over four years. Nor is Paul Bremer giving Iraqis the authority to spend that money without tight supervision. Were the United States to empower local Iraqis in the next few months, the result will be a sham democracy and a petro-state.

  205. robertjayb - 9/30/2003 7:22:29 PM

  General Zinni (sp?) is on the Lehrer newshour and he is certainly not strewing rose petals in the path of Rummy and Whistle-Ass,
  
  Lehrer: Do you think heads should roll?
  
  Zinni: Absolutely.

  206. rdbrewer - 9/30/2003 7:27:41 PM

  It's good that Putin met with Bush recently. I think Bush could get him to help in Iraq if he promises to reveal the meaning of "yabba-dabba-doo." Otherwise, not a chance.

  207. alistairConnor - 10/1/2003 3:24:44 AM

  All else being equal, the region and the Iraqi people are better off with Saddam gone.
  
  Hear, hear.

  208. concerned - 10/1/2003 3:40:31 AM

  Re. 11698 -
  
  Hang up? More like a deal breaker.

  209. Macnas - 10/1/2003 3:43:53 AM

  On the bright side, schools in Iraq opened today, with one of the good things the U.S./U.K. have done, that is rebuilding and improving schools around the country, bearing some welcome fruit.

  210. jexster - 10/1/2003 2:38:06 PM

  And Gullible Eddie, Mayor of Hope Village, thinks Bush has a WOT strategy...
  
  I think you're shittin us Fatboy
  
  WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 The United States must drastically increase and overhaul its public relations efforts to salvage its plummeting image among Muslims and Arabs abroad, a panel chosen by the Bush administration has found.
  
  Operation Salvage US

  211. jexster - 10/1/2003 2:39:48 PM

  Hostility toward America has reached shocking levels," the panel stated in its report, which will be released Wednesday. "What is required is not merely tactical adaptation but strategic, and radical, transformation."
  
  
  The report added that "spin" and manipulative public relations "are not the answer," but that neither is avoiding the debate.
  
  
  Operation Fraud Made in Texas

  212. jexster - 10/1/2003 2:58:20 PM

  FYI Eddie cause you are so fuckin dumb and cause I love ya, don't be blowin smoke up my ass about Bush's WOT "strategy". It is as Gen Zinni put it, a brain fart of right wing policy wonk ideologues.
  
  And this is why:
  
  TPM: I noticed that Doug Feith, who's obviously the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, had a statement a while back saying that the connection between terrorist organizations and state sponsors was, I think he said, the principal strategic thought behind the administration's policy.
  
  CLARK: It's the principal strategic mistake behind the administration's policy. If you look at all the states that were named as the principal adversaries, they're on the periphery of international terrorism today. Syria -- OK, supporting Hezbollah and Hamas -- yeah, they're terrorist organizations. They're focused on Israel. They're getting support from Iran. It's wrong. Shouldn't be there. But they're there. What about Saudi Arabia? There's a source of the funding, the source of the ideology, the source of the recruits. What about Pakistan? With thousands of madrassas churning out ideologically-driven foot soldiers for the war on terror. Neither of those are at the front of the military operations.
  
  And now we're fucked
  

  213. jexster - 10/1/2003 3:01:24 PM

  How the Tactics of the Weak Confound the Strong - Defense & the Natinoal Interest
  
  Getting fucked - what happens when we let bunch of lying, incompetent brain farting ChickenHawk neoconmen run the government

  214. jexster - 10/1/2003 5:45:33 PM

  Dead for Bush's Lies and Brain Fart Strategery
  Bomb Kills Female Soldier
  Fatal roadside blast strikes American near Tikrit. In Baghdad, police fire on demonstrators.

  215. jayackroyd - 10/1/2003 6:27:40 PM

  The NY Review of Books has an article that is an adaptation of Clark's forthcoming book here. It's a cogent clear-eyed analysis.
  
  It's impossible to imagine anyone else in the race writing it. No pablum. No sound bytes.
  
  Also, in the same edition, but not on the web is a searing piece about what Banks has been saying about Israel--that the choices are a multi-ethnic democracy, apartheid or the forceful banishment of the Palestinians.

  216. jexster - 10/1/2003 8:13:17 PM

  Some Mightah Fayhn Strategery: UN Slashes Staff in Iraq; U.S. Plans Bigger UN Role
  
  Why do our finest swindler and boob Presidents come from Texas Robert? Judith?
  

  217. jexster - 10/1/2003 8:13:53 PM

  Oh the sun shines bright

  218. Edmund Dantes - 10/1/2003 9:24:08 PM

  The NY Review of Books has an article that is an adaptation of Clark's forthcoming book here. It's a cogent clear-eyed analysis. It's impossible to imagine anyone else in the race writing it. No pablum. No sound bytes.
  
  From the Review:
  
  [T]he military plan took unnecessary risks, because it skimped on the forces made available to the commanders. And while the level of forces proved adequate for defeating the Iraqi military, the central idea in military operations is effectiveness, not efficiency. Military operations should not be run like businesses, which have predictable requirements and aim to minimize the costs of meeting them....
  
  Additional forces were available— they were even under orders to prepare for combat in Iraq. One more combat division, an additional force for securing the supply lines, more trucks and supply units to provide the redundancy that the inherent inefficiency of military operations requires—each would have reduced the risks. Some of the planners knew this; whether these forces would be used was the issue at the heart of the continuing tensions during the planning process. But they weren't deployed until it was too late.
  
  

  219. Edmund Dantes - 10/1/2003 9:26:22 PM

  Compare Gen. Wesley's military analysis in 11718 to his military analysis in April:
  
  The regime seems to have collapsed — the primary military objective — and with that accomplished, the defense ministers and generals, soldiers and airmen should take pride. American and Brits, working together, produced a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call.
  
  But no one ever won a war or a battle with a plan. Every soldier knows there are only two kinds of plans: plans that might work and plans that won’t work. The art of war is to take a plan that might work and then drive it to success. This, General Tommy Franks and his team did very well indeed.
  

  220. Edmund Dantes - 10/1/2003 9:32:50 PM

  Not only does Clark contradict himself when uttering vague generalities, he even contradicts himself in his specific criticisms.
  
  The Commodore does go out on a Dean-esque limb here, though:
  
  All else being equal, the region and the Iraqi people are better off with Saddam gone.

  221. robertjayb - 10/1/2003 11:33:43 PM

  Since it's going so well, why not spring for a cool billion...
  
  WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 — The Bush administration is seeking more than $600 million from Congress to continue the hunt for conclusive evidence that Saddam Hussein's government had an illegal weapons program, officials said Wednesday.
  
  The money, part of the White House's request for $87 billion in supplemental spending on Iraq and Afghanistan, comes on top of at least $300 million that has already been spent on the weapons search, the officials said.
  
  How convenient that the ever-flexible NYTimes agrees that the search is for a "weapons program."
  
  

  222. rdbrewer - 10/2/2003 12:34:28 AM

  W M D

  223. Al D - 10/2/2003 3:26:27 AM

  What we must realize is that Bush and Blair and many others knew full well that Iraq had no WMD. The inspectors knew that also, but they figured, what the hell, they had nothing else to do and they could pick up a few bucks in the meantime. Clinton also knew that Saddam had no weapons, and he told Albright, so she knew it too. But Blair and Bush figured that what both countrys needed was a good war, and after they had kicked the shit out of Iraq, who would notice that no WMD were not there.

  
  Certainly they could count on the populace of both countries not knowing since they could count on all the new T.V. shows and football and baseball and world soccer taken up all their attention.

  
  But what they didn't count on was bright guys like jexster and marjoribanks and alister and wonkers2 and jay and judith and arky and ma, and forgive me for leaving out others. Gad zooks, foiled again!

  224. alistairConnor - 10/2/2003 3:50:48 AM

  I think, on balance, that you're not far off the money, Al.
  
  The weapons inspectors, who were paid to know, were not sure (to his credit, Blix finally made up his mind that there were none, and that there had been none since the early nineties, only a couple of weeks ago). We mere mortals were only guessing. You were certain there were WMD there; I (and others, I guess) thought that, on balance, there probably were none.
  
  It turns out that I was on the money, and that you were wrong, Al. I don't want to rub it in, or criticise the fact that you held that opinion. But you might be curious as to what led me to my opinion. (And if it turns out you're not curious, fine, maybe someone else will be)...

  225. Al D - 10/2/2003 4:02:13 AM

  alister
  You are so full of shit I can smell you all the way over in Kauai. I am not and was not sure of anything. After reading the book King of Terror I was pretty well convinced that Saddam would best be taken down. When this whole thing started, I was against a war because I figured that Arabs are a hopeless case. I thought the best way to handle the situation was to let the Arabs know that the next thime they attacked us, we would take out an Arab country with atomic weapons, and we would do so by lottery. And we would continus that policy until they wised up to the fact that we were sick of playing games with them.

  
  None of this got posted on the Mote because at the time I was over on TPW. It is obvious that we ended the war far too soon. We should have carpet bombed Tikrit, insisting that they find leaders who would negotiate a surrender.

  
  One thing I did post was that WMD should be planted if they could not be found, and If I remember correctly you suspected that it would happen. You see, I am a firm believer in realpolotik.

  226. alistairConnor - 10/2/2003 4:32:56 AM

  I saw a quote the other day : a couple of years ago, Rice was claiming that containment of Saddam was working well : sanctions and bombing had rendered him incapable of pursuing a WMD program. That was the conventional wisdom at the time.
  
  There were large amounts of WMD left over after the Gulf War, and Saddam was unwilling to account for them. There was evidence that some of these had been destroyed by the Iraqis. There was the testimony of Saddam's defector son-in-law, who said that the weapons had all been destroyed in the aftermath of the gulf war, and the programs had been stopped. None of this was conclusive either way, but the concensus was that the danger was contained.
  
  So, what made the Bush administration change its mind ? New evidence? We were made to believe so; in fact, we now know that there was none. When Tony Blair said things like "if only you could see the intelligence data that crosses my desk, trust me", then some people find that convincing... not I. For me, the burden of proof that Saddam had dangerous weapons was on Bush and Blair.
  
  And when Powell's UN dossier turned out to be full of shit, and it became clear that Bush was hell-bent on war without delay, that clinched it for me : why the hurry?
  
  It was clear that, under threat of invasion, Saddam had become much more co-operative with the inspectors, and that in a few months, we would have a much more precise idea of the threat that Iraq represented. Why wasn't Bush prepared to wait those few extra months? (we now know for certain that there was no imminent threat, and the Bush administration has admitted that they knew that at the time).
  
  They couldn't wait because their case for war would have imploded if the inspectors had been able to do the job. Because they were pretty sure there was nothing to find. That was my conviction at the time.

  227. alistairConnor - 10/2/2003 4:35:45 AM

  I apologise for the cross-post, Al. More precisely, I apologise for addressing 11726 to you. Clearly, you are not interested in the truth. I'm glad you're posting your true opinions now (or are you doing a Stamper?)

  228. PelleNilsson - 10/2/2003 5:48:40 AM

  we would take out an Arab country with atomic weapons, and we would do so by lottery
  
  We should have carpet bombed Tikrit
  
  AlD is certainly full of sage and eminently practicable advice today.
  

  229. OhioSTOPAS - 10/2/2003 6:46:11 AM

  If it was true that "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised," as the President said in March, the fact that we haven't located any such weapons and are budgeting hundreds of millions of dollars for more searching can only mean that:
  
  1. The intelligence was very, very, incorrect; or
  
  2. It's not true that the intelligence left "no doubt" about the existence of these weapons, i.e. Bush lied.
  
  It's clear that "2" is the case. Can anyone disagree with that? Or is there a third possibility I'm missing?
  
  I'm surprised that Bush's State of the Union statement about African uranium gets so much more scrutiny than this obvious lie to the American people.
  
  

  230. OhioSTOPAS - 10/2/2003 6:52:09 AM

  Note how the Administration (e.g., Dr. Rice on Sunday's Meet the Press) and its defenders are trying to frame the issue so that if we DO ever find WMD's, then the President told the truth.
  
  Of course, this is not the case. If you're estimating there's (say) a 51% probability of the presence of WMD's, but state that the probability is 100%, you're a liar.
  
  Note also the trying-to-be-subtle restating of the issue as being whether Iraq had weapons PROGRAMS.
  
  We still haven't been told the REAL reason Bush wanted this war, whatever it is. This is a sad state for a democracy to be in.

  231. Magoseph - 10/2/2003 8:48:32 AM

  We still haven't been told the REAL reason Bush wanted this war, whatever it is. This is a sad state for a democracy to be in.
  
  
  Ohio, not an easy thing to say since the focus on war was motivated by the political advisors of the President (Rove and company); with the economy and especially the job market in serious trouble, it was easy to justify focusing on Iraq which offered a solution to two problems, the Hussein dilemma and making certain Bush won the next election by maintaining the President's image as the defender of the Republic under assault by radical Islam.

  232. jayackroyd - 10/2/2003 11:31:01 AM

  Ohio--
  
  It was very widely believed that there were wmd in Iraq, meaning chemical and biological weapons, before the war. The military wore that gear, despite the fact that they hate it and have doubts about whether it really does any good,at least according to Jarhead.
  
  So we're talking massive intelligence failure here--believing Saddam when he said he had them because it seemed impossible that he'd suffer the sanctions when there were no weapons. In hindsight, it's easy to think of reasons why he would lie about possessing those weapons, as Alistair and I discussed some time ago. But he and I did not have those discussions prewar.
  
  Now, did the president lie about the nukes and Saddam's ties to terror in the US. Sure thing. We knew that, prewar.
  
  And has he ever come clean about why he started the war? No. We still don't know the motivation for the war.

  233. jayackroyd - 10/2/2003 11:34:33 AM

234. concerned - 10/2/2003 11:49:25 AM

Hopefully, rdbrewer doesn't mind if I post his link for Mote posterity: more proof, of Iraqi WMD as of 2003. The debate is over, for all intents and purposes:

Kuwait foils smuggling of chemicals, bio warheads from Iraq
Associated Press
Kuwait City, October 2

Kuwaiti security authorities have foiled an attempt to smuggle $60 million worth of chemical weapons and biological warheads from Iraq to an unnamed European country, a Kuwaiti newspaper said on Wednesday.

The pro-Government Al-Siyassah, quoting an unnamed security source, said the suspects had been watched by security since they arrived in Kuwait and were arrested "in due time." It did not say when or how the smugglers entered Kuwait or when they were arrested.

The paper said the smugglers might have had accomplices inside Kuwait. It said Interior Minister Sheik Nawwaf Al Ahmed Al Sabah would hand over the smuggled weapons to an FBI agent at a news conference, but did not say when.

Government officials could not be immediately reached for comment.

Iraqi Interior Minister Nouri Al-Badran met on Tuesday with Sheik Nawwaf and discussed cooperation between the two countries in security matters. His visit is the first by an Iraqi interior minister to Kuwait since 1990.

235. concerned - 10/2/2003 11:50:24 AM

Now, did the president lie about the nukes and Saddam's ties to terror in the US.

Of course not.

236. jayackroyd - 10/2/2003 11:57:38 AM

What are you talking about, concerned? He said there were nukes when he knew there were no nukes. We knew it in March, and all that's happened since has confirmed it.

We knew, in March, that there were no ties to any terrorist events in the US, and all that's happened since that has confirmed it.

Face it concerned. The president lied. On purpose. To advance an agenda he is not willing to state. This is no longer in doubt.

He was wrong about the wmd, but we can't call that lying. He WAS lying about wmd being the reason for the war. And we know that, for sure, now as well.

237. Wombat - 10/2/2003 12:57:50 PM

From the Hindustani Times great scoops come! Let's see if the story has legs, or whether it vanishes into the realms of fantasy as Concerned's other WMD claims have done.

238. rdbrewer - 10/2/2003 1:00:58 PM

Re: 11734

Not at all, Concerned. It should be proclaimed to the world, especially since the major news outlets don't seem to think it's big news. Gee, I wonder why.

Wouldn't you think it would be the top headline today?

In case anyone missed it:

Kuwaiti security authorities have foiled an attempt to smuggle $60 million worth of chemical weapons and biological warheads from Iraq to an unnamed European country . . . .

An unnamed European country . . .

239. Wombat - 10/2/2003 1:27:31 PM

Curious. There does not appear to be a reference to the story on the web site of the Kuwait newspaper cited by the Hindustani Times.

240. judithathome - 10/2/2003 1:29:01 PM

Gee, I wonder why?

241. jexster - 10/2/2003 1:37:12 PM

Strategery...strategery...strategery

BAGHDAD (AFP) - France said a formerly terrorist-free Iraq has seen as "explosion" of terrorism since the war, as the United States rallied support for a rejigged UN resolution to bolster reconstruction efforts.



And while Iraq's interim government was to take a major bow on the international stage at the United Nations, the diplomatic flurry made little or no impression on the ground in Iraq where and Americans and Iraqis continue to die on a daily basis.

242. Wombat - 10/2/2003 1:39:46 PM

No follow-up in the Hindustani Times, either.

243. Magoseph - 10/2/2003 1:40:47 PM

Well, a link, Jex, please?

244. jexster - 10/2/2003 1:47:58 PM

The opportunities evolving in Iraq today are of such an unprecedented nature and scope that no other existing firm has the necessary skills and experience to be effective both in the United States and on the ground in Iraq...




The One Stop Shop for the Corrupt Crony Capitalist

245. jexster - 10/2/2003 1:51:01 PM

Here's your freedom fried Agence France Presse

246. jexster - 10/2/2003 1:55:34 PM

strategery....strategery....strategery

Task Force: NO WMD's in Iraq

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

--Dick Cheney
Vice President
Speech to VFW National Convention
8/26/2002

247. Magoseph - 10/2/2003 2:05:03 PM

Merci, Jex!

248. jexster - 10/2/2003 2:11:21 PM

strategery...roadmap...stratergy...roadmap

Israel to Build Hundreds of New Homes on West Bank

WMD..strategery..WOT..imminent threat..mushroom clouds...Axis of Evil....Flight Suits..mission accomplished...strategery...87 Billion Bucks...roadmaps



HORSESHIT

249. jexster - 10/2/2003 2:12:06 PM

And a link

250. jexster - 10/2/2003 2:16:39 PM

An American soldier has died after a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) attack north of Baghdad, taking to three the number of US troops killed in separate incidents over only a few hours in war-torn Iraq...



Bush Lied, They Died

There's your strategery.

251. jexster - 10/2/2003 2:40:30 PM

Does bear repeating there RD...Call in Kuwaiti Intel!

David Kay, head of the 1,200-strong group, was expected to say that Saddam may have bluffed about WMDs to make his regime appear stronger than it was.

According to the initial findings, Saddam may have pretended he had distributed WMDs to his most loyal commanders in a bid to deter an invasion.

The deception probably involved moving strategic people and equipment around the country and making threatening public statements, Mr Kay, a former UN weapons inspector, was expected to say.

Brain fart

mushroom cloud

Village of Hope

strategry

252. concerned - 10/2/2003 3:17:13 PM

Re. 11737 -

All of my claims about Iraqi WMD are valid, Wombat.

253. concerned - 10/2/2003 3:19:41 PM

It's an Associated Press item, Wombat, in case you haven't noticed. IMO, not too likely to play in the US mass media simply because it makes a very large number of Democrats who have staked their reputations on there being no Saddam WMD look like idiots.

254. Wombat - 10/2/2003 3:22:55 PM

In the absense of any EVIDENCE, Concerned, they are not. They are speculations, assertions, etc., but they have yet to be proved. Say, how many Scuds did Iraq fire in the war?

255. Wombat - 10/2/2003 3:29:40 PM

The Associated Press gets most of its reports (particularly in far-flung parts of the world) from stringers, who can be just about anyone. I suggest you monitor regional papers, and see what they have to say about it. (So far, nothing.) If you prefer to see it as a vast left-wing/pan Arab conspiracy, that for some reason also involves the Bush Administration (who I think would eagerly jump at actual evidence of WMD), go ahead.

256. concerned - 10/2/2003 3:51:00 PM

Well, Wombat - you have demonstrated some credibility in this type of situation in the past. Let's see how this pans out.

257. robertjayb - 10/2/2003 6:13:36 PM

Kay claims "substantial evidence of an intent" to do unspecified bad things.

Well....wooOhhhOuu! That's enough for me. Start the war again. Resume bombing.

258. jexster - 10/2/2003 6:57:54 PM

WASHINGTON - Chief U.S. weapons searcher David Kay reported Thursday he had found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq a finding that brought fresh congressional complaints about the Bush administration's prewar assertions of an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein.

Its Official, Time for Regime Change

259. arkymalarky - 10/2/2003 7:38:47 PM

Well, Wombat - you have demonstrated some credibility in this type of situation in the past. Let's see how this pans out.

I find this hilarious.

260. jexster - 10/2/2003 7:59:18 PM

I find this strategerific

Annan Rejects US Plan for Iraq

261. jexster - 10/2/2003 8:00:11 PM

I find TD irrepressible.

I find Eddie - Big Fat Idiot

262. jexster - 10/2/2003 8:07:59 PM

Message # 11723

Its really not all that complicated.

What we have here is a fraud tailor made in Texas for a gullible, fear filled public.

Two politicians put on the hard sell and played you for a fool.

Full stop

263. jexster - 10/2/2003 8:20:36 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most Americans now believe the Iraq war was not worth it, said a CBS News/New York Times poll released on Thursday .

264. wonkers2 - 10/2/2003 11:56:01 PM

#11738. It should read "an unnamed African country." Because Iraq is no doubt sending the yellow cake back to Niger for a refund.

265. Al D - 10/3/2003 12:17:08 AM

I sure do agree that all should wait and see when any story comes out about WMD being sent to another country.

About my last post; of course it was not meant to be taken seriously, and I am as interested and concerned about what is going on in Iraq as anyone.

The point is, I do believe that most of the world believed Saddam had and might use WMD. Were he left completely alone he would have done all he could to get atomic weapons. I believe he is a mad man, not stupid, but insane. Poor Bush may not have an I.Q. as high as alister or marjoribanks, but he is not a mad man.

And while I believe Clinton is a bad man, he is a very smart man. He certainly thought Saddam had weapons and would at some time use them. That he had the moral strength to deal with the problem is another matter.
When there is a crisis, who do you prefer, Hamlet or Leartes (sp?)? What is best for America now is to succeed as far as it is possible in Iraq. That is my hope. Pulling out is not an option. We have cut and run too many times.

266. concerned - 10/3/2003 1:36:07 AM

Read the Report

Obdurate Bush Bashers like jayackroyd who insist on beating the semantic horse regarding what the administration said and which UN Resolution authorized what into dogfood, please note the following:

Slanger of the Slimes: "...nothing found so far backs up administration claims that Mr. Hussein posed an imminent threat to the world."

That is not what the administration claimed. (The Times has even had to run a correction recently correcting their attempt, retroactively, to distort and misrepresent the administration's position.) The administration claimed that Saddam had used WMDs in the past, had hidden materials from the United Nations, was hiding a continued program for weapons of mass destruction, and that we should act before the threat was imminent. The argument was that it was impossible to restrain Saddam Hussein unless he were removed from power and disarmed. The war was legally based on the premise that Saddam had clearly violated U.N. resolutions, was in open breach of such resolutions and was continuing to conceal his programs with the intent of restarting them in earnest once sanctions were lifted. Having read the report carefully, I'd say that the administration is vindicated in every single respect of that argument. This war wasn't just moral; it wasn't just prudent; it was justified on the very terms the administration laid out. And we don't know the half of it yet.

And then we have the news wires items claiming an attempted smuggling of $62 million of actual Iraqi WMD into Kuwait.

I can just see the credibility of jay's ilk evaporating.....

267. concerned - 10/3/2003 1:37:52 AM

check it out

268. Al D - 10/3/2003 1:38:44 AM

done

269. concerned - 10/3/2003 1:38:51 AM

Everybody - it's Al's fault for not closing his html tags!

270. Al D - 10/3/2003 1:39:55 AM

O.K.?

271. Al D - 10/3/2003 1:40:42 AM

what a tattletale!

272. jayackroyd - 10/3/2003 10:50:27 AM

Easterbrook points out his blog at the new republic website:

Recall that in 1998, Saddam had thrown out U.N. inspectors. The United States and United Kingdom threatened airstrikes; most other Western nations waffled or counseled appeasement. In December 1998, U.S. and British aircraft bombed Iraq weapons facilities for several nights, while 400 cruise missiles were fired into Iraq. At the time, many conservatives and Republicans denounced the strikes as pinpricks and called for much more dramatic action. Clinton's decision to do everything from the air was derided as liberal fear of casualties.

Yet now it appears Desert Fox was a resounding success. Among the Iraq facilities pounded in 1998 was the Al Zaafaraniyah atomic weapons and missile complex. Al Zaafaraniyah was not bombed during the 1991 Gulf war, because the United States did not then know much about it. U.N. inspectors found the facility in the aftermath of the 1991 war; in 1993, Clinton ordered Al Zaafaraniyah hit with cruise missiles to stop Iraq atomic-weapons research; in 1998, Al Zaafaraniyah was reduced to rubble.

273. jexster - 10/3/2003 11:19:54 AM

Bush UN Resolution Draws Fire As WMD Controvery Builds

Oh my Kingdom for a strategery

274. jexster - 10/3/2003 11:21:18 AM

Bush: Hussein 'A Danger to the World'


Somebody stop him b4 he lies again

275. jexster - 10/3/2003 11:24:50 AM

UN inspectors vindicated - at $300m cost

276. jexster - 10/3/2003 11:26:51 AM

$300 million PLUS $77,450,000,000 up to the minute plus the dead and the maimed of course

277. jexster - 10/3/2003 11:27:54 AM

Up to the Second Cost of Bush's War Ticker

278. jexster - 10/3/2003 11:44:50 AM

General: Resistance Stiffens

U.S. commander warns Americans to brace for more casualties

279. jexster - 10/3/2003 12:32:20 PM

the main thrust of the report amounts to a damning, official indictment of the principal intelligence and therefore of the political judgments upon which the case for war, in Britain at least, was based. Here is what Tony Blair said in the Iraq dossier published in September last year: "What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and that he has been able to extend the range of his ballistic missile programme." According to the ISG, all three of these assertions are wrong. There was no current production of biological or chemical agents; and no armed shells or missiles have been found. If Saddam had stockpiled previous agent production, that, too, if it existed, is missing or destroyed...

The Disarming Facts - Bush & Blair Lied

280. jexster - 10/3/2003 8:53:15 PM

Blix Not Surprised That Bush Lied

281. wonkers2 - 10/3/2003 9:58:49 PM

Blix is an honorable man with no particular axe to grind. As far as I know he isn't planning to run for any political office.

282. jexster - 10/4/2003 11:07:27 AM

Welcome to Bush's Iraq - Land of Chaos, Violence, and Fear

283. jexster - 10/4/2003 11:25:49 AM

The Democracy Lie: Bush's Campaign to Supress Al Jazeera

284. jexster - 10/4/2003 12:21:21 PM

Iraqi Governing Council Challenges Bush's Crony Capitalist Corrupt Practices

285. robertjayb - 10/4/2003 1:09:58 PM

19 dead in Haifa bombing....

A suicide bomb attack has killed at least 19 people and injured up to 50 at a restaurant in the northern Israeli port of Haifa.

Three children are reported to be among the dead.

The huge explosion wrecked Maxim restaurant, which was jointly owned by Arabs and Israelis and located on the beachfront.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the bombing, which came on the eve of the Jewish Yom Kippur holiday.

286. jexster - 10/4/2003 9:45:03 PM

US troops clash with Iraqi veterans; Bush accentuates positive
Hope Village Mayor Schedules Big Yom Kippur Party

287. jexster - 10/4/2003 9:55:08 PM

IGC Patience Wearing Thin - Leaders Fear Becoming Bush Puppets

288. robertjayb - 10/5/2003 1:19:53 PM

(Houston Chronicle)

289. robertjayb - 10/5/2003 1:44:44 PM

Riverbend: First Day of School in Baghdad...

290. arkymalarky - 10/5/2003 2:07:04 PM

11788 reminds me of the elephants in trees joke--see how well they hide?

291. PelleNilsson - 10/5/2003 2:14:30 PM

Israel bombed Syria today. This is serious stuff.

292. arkymalarky - 10/5/2003 2:15:56 PM

That was my first thought too, but I haven't read the details.

293. judithathome - 10/5/2003 2:45:46 PM

So will this be the Big One? And what are we going to do if war breaks out between Israel and Syria? Aren't we stretched pretty thin already?

294. PelleNilsson - 10/5/2003 3:22:33 PM

I don't think you need to worry. Israel can take on Syria single-handed if it ever comes to that, which I don't think.

295. judithathome - 10/5/2003 3:28:32 PM

Think Syria will use those WMDs of Saddam's? ;-)

296. arkymalarky - 10/5/2003 4:16:05 PM

Single-handedly isn't what I'm worried about. It's not full-scale Middle East War either, but the still possibly significant effect on the whole region over the short and long term, the position it puts us in there diplomatically, etc.

297. jexster - 10/5/2003 4:27:56 PM

The Emperor: No Clothes - No Brains -No Dick<

Bush Regime Scrambles to Distance Itself from Israel

298. jexster - 10/5/2003 4:30:00 PM

Ark...we're not looking at a full scale war...we're looking at full scale rot.


Just look at today's headlines..or yesterday's or a year ago or next mnnth....

Its not rocket science

Its not Osama

Its not Saddam

Its a Bush roadmap

299. jexster - 10/5/2003 4:32:41 PM

My Front Page Headlines Oct 5 1:30pm PT

Top Stories from The New York Times Oct 5 11:56am PT

U.S. Inspector Sees Much to Pursue in Iraqi Weapons Search
Ex-Minister Says Blair Knew Iraq Had No Banned Arms


World News from AFP Oct 5 1:11pm PT
Israel hits Syria with air strike after suicide blast
US calls on Israel, Syria to avoid heightening tensions
Chechens vote for new president in discredited poll
Leak of CIA agent aimed to discourage criticism on Iraq: ex-envoy

Top Stories from Reuters Oct 5 1:04pm PT
CIA Operative in Leak Drama Fears for Safety
Israel Raids Target in Syria After Suicide Bombing
U.S. Arms Hunter Dismisses Skeptics Over Iraq Search


Top Stories from AP Oct 5 1:20pm PT

Israel Bombs Alleged Terror Base in Syria
Kay Says Iraq Weapons May Still Be Found
U.S. Closes Makeshift Iraq Prison Camp



Politics News from Reuters Oct 5 1:11pm PT

CIA Operative in Leak Drama Fears for Safety
Bush Struggling to Regain Political Footing
Bush Calls Sharon After Israel Raid on Syria

World News from Middle East Oct 5 1:02pm PT
Quotes Regarding Israel's Strike in Syria
Major Events in Syrian-Israeli Conflict
Syria Seeks Response on Israeli Strike
U.S. Cites Syria As Sponsor of Terrorism

World News from Reuters Oct 5 12:58pm PT
Arafat Declares Emergency in Palestinian Areas
Two Wounded in Israeli Raid on PFLP Camp in Syria
North Korea Denounces South Over U.S. Troop Call
Iraqi Ex-Soldiers Clash Again with Occupying Troops

300. jexster - 10/5/2003 4:34:07 PM

Fool us once..

301. marjoribanks - 10/5/2003 6:20:37 PM

I watched some of the UN proceedings underway right now about the Israeli attack in Syria.

Yes, this is a worrisome overreaching of Israel's tacit agreement with the US as to what constitutes acceptable retaliation to Pal offenses. But I very much doubt that anything much will come of it, except possibly if Syria goads Hizbollah into something very stupid.

Frankly, I support Israel's stance that this is a measured response, and you can't really fault them for doing this. They could have shot missiles at Arafat's head, after all, and that would have been ten times more serious. But there are some factors that should be noted.

302. marjoribanks - 10/5/2003 6:20:51 PM

1) It's a new Middle East. There is no doubt at all that Israel would not have done this if they did not have the aasurance of 140 thousand US troops just across the Syrian border. The power relationships have changed once and for all.

2) The biggest loser in this one is the US. As hard as it may try to draw lines between the issues, Iraq and Palestine and Israel are all linked into one big issue in much of the rest of the worls (one big affront to the Arabs). So, it is going to be significantly harder now, after this cross-border "escalation", to get the already wary international community to come into Iraq to support the US occupation. This attack on Syria may be the final nail, so to speak, in the coffin of the idea that Muslim troops would join a US-led coalition.

3) For some of the reasons listed above, the UN hand is strengthened. If the US wants to redeem its post-War efforts in Iraq, the road now lies through the UN entirely. And that organization (read other SC members, read France) now has the US totally over a barrel. The bargain that will be driven will be very hard.

303. jexster - 10/5/2003 9:19:38 PM

A Soldier's Letter from Iraq - Defense & the National Interest
Nary a Brain Fart to Smell Nor a Village of Hope in Sight

304. jexster - 10/5/2003 9:22:47 PM

Reality is far simpler.

Israel has been flailing wildly and accomplishing nothing for 3 years.

They're just getting more desperate and with each feckless punch, more dangerous.

Terms like "measured", "provocation", "circles of violence" lost meaning long ago.

This is spastistic violence

305. jexster - 10/5/2003 9:23:13 PM

spastic...hahahaahaa

306. robertjayb - 10/5/2003 11:58:50 PM

Bushies regroup...Condi takes charge

WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 — The White House has ordered a major reorganization of American efforts to quell violence in Iraq and Afghanistan and to speed the reconstruction of both countries, according to senior administration officials.

The new effort includes the creation of an "Iraq Stabilization Group," which will be run by the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice. The decision to create the new group, five months after Mr. Bush declared the end of active combat in Iraq, appears part of an effort to assert more direct White House control over how Washington coordinates its efforts to fight terrorism, develop political structures and encourage economic development in the two countries.

307. alistairconnor - 10/6/2003 4:47:29 AM

Holy shit. It's not impossible that they'll eventually do the right thing in Iraq. But they seem determined to exhaust every other possibility first.

They've finally acknowledged that the Pentagon is incompetent in the matter.
So, are they going to give control to the UN? Nuh.
To the state department? Naaah.
To the NSC. Yup.

308. jexster - 10/6/2003 11:52:46 AM

Isn't that precious!


They're going to give more control to Karl Rove and Condom Rice.

That is strategeric Thinking.


Send in your 87 Billion

309. jexster - 10/6/2003 11:57:29 AM

And from the This is the Thanks I get Department...


Bush invited his soul brotherr to Camp David ...oo only the Emperor's best freinds go there..

Two days later Russia trashed Bush's UN Resolution


Now

Putin Says U.S. Faces Big Risks in Effort in Iraq

In an expansive interview, the Russian president said the U.S. faces the possibility of a long, violent and ultimately futile war.


The Soul Man got the Moron's Green LIght for those sham elections in Chechnaya and the screwed that little Idiot big time.

Sharon is doing it too.

310. jexster - 10/6/2003 12:35:18 PM

Kay's discovery of one vial of a reference strain of botulinum toxin that an Iraqi scientist had stored in his refrigerator in 1993 at his government's request was described by Bush on Friday as a piece of evidence that Iraq was prepared to have prohibited biological weapons.

W.Pincus

Drip..drip..drip..

The sound of Truth catching up with Bush's lies & agitprop

311. jexster - 10/6/2003 1:51:50 PM

A NeoCon Job: Bush Roadmap in Tatters

Washington Post above the fold

312. clydefo - 10/6/2003 3:43:03 PM

Does Rice want this? Did she lobby for it? Have Rumsfeld and Powell disembarked, leaving her to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic?

313. Al D - 10/6/2003 9:55:06 PM

You only hope it is the Titanic. Turkey is going to vote whether to send troops into Iraq. If they do, what effect will that have, do you suppose.

314. wonkers2 - 10/6/2003 10:18:45 PM

It won't make the Kurds happy. But why not fuck them over one more time?

315. clydefo - 10/6/2003 10:39:32 PM

The Turks are only interested in northern Iraq and containing the Kurds. If sent there, it means a new front in the War. I doubt they would agree to send any significant numbers to the south. For Bush? We need their airbases more than they need us. I think all the local players are just biding their time, waiting for the US to pull out.

316. jexster - 10/6/2003 11:38:00 PM

Bush Makes ZERO Headway at UN


There aren't enough printing presses for the bribes it will take him to dig his way out of Iraqmire.

Surprise Surprise...you act like an asshole pretty soon people will start treating you that way

317. jexster - 10/6/2003 11:39:16 PM

"Israel must not feel constrained in its defense but must not inflame the situation"

Keep on doubletalking, people figure you for adoubletalker.

318. Al D - 10/6/2003 11:39:30 PM

Why do we need air bases in Turkey? So you are quite sure that Turkey will not send troups (and by the way, would you care to state was a signiicant number might be?). Well, since the vote is coming up sood, time will tell, as it does with most things.

319. clydefo - 10/7/2003 12:15:15 AM

Why do we need air bases in Turkey?
Bragging rights? Negates the need for a carrier group in the Mediterranean? Props up a NATO ally that could fall to Islam? Air cover for the pipelines, oil fields and military operations in northern Iraq during the coming civil war?
I'm not quite sure of anything regarding Turkey.
I think "significant" would mean something approaching the British commitment. I'm sure even a dozen advisors would be claimed by Bush to be significant.
BTW, what's the body count for the other coalition troops? I haven't heard lately. Are they out on patrol, and all that?

320. Wombat - 10/7/2003 10:20:08 AM

Several Poles have been sent home for being drunk on duty. The Ukranians cashiered a supply officer for sending over armored personnel carriers with substandard tires. If Bosnia was anything to go by, the Ukrainians will soon be running brothels and selling their weapons to the Iraqis. The Ukrainians and Bulgarians forces are angry that the U.S. is paying them half of what the Poles are getting.

321. Wombat - 10/7/2003 10:21:15 AM

Viz. the Israelis, I agree with Jexter. They don't have the slightest idea what the f***k they are doing.

322. marjoribanks - 10/7/2003 10:44:33 AM

Well, I think they do.

This is a signal that everyone needs to recognize that this is a new Middle East, complete with Iraq as powerful US base. This is also a means of pressuring Syria and Iran, with the latter country no doubt thinking very hard about the previous daring Israeli bombing of an Iraqi nuclear facility.

Israel is also sending the message, however hamfistedly, that the whole region is now under watch and that loosely defined sponsors of terrorism are not going to be safe even if they sit across a couple of borders. It is also underlining the US position, which is that Israel has a right to "defend its homeland."

323. alistairConnor - 10/7/2003 10:59:53 AM

The main upside I saw to the Iraq intervention, is that it would effectively guarantee Israeli security (by eliminating the last loose cannon among Arab leaders), enabling them to take a more serene negotiating position. Or, to put it another way, to finally lay to rest the idea that Israel is fighting for its survival.

The risk was obviously that, on the contrary, the Israelis would simply feel that their position was strengthened by the elimination of Saddam and the proximity of US troops, and that they could therefore get away with anything they wanted. This is effectively what has happened.

Even that could have had positive aspects : if the Israelis had some sort of solution that they were prepared to impose by force. But they haven't.

324. marjoribanks - 10/7/2003 11:08:24 AM

Well, this is one more area where Bush's rhetoric was good but turned out to be empty.

He is effectively standing cover for Israel as it partners in the final trashing of the roadmap, and reneging on his promises to Blair (and tons of others) to pressure both sides to a two-state solution. In this run-up to elections, he is not going to do anything that might get him criticized - especially in Florida.

But what is most distasteful is his retreat to kindergarten rhetoric (and perspective) that has marked this President from the beginning. Israel's move to attack an abandoned site in Syria became - to Dubya-one-note - "defending the homeland."

I swear, the dude can only hold one idea in his head at a time, and you can actually see the square block of the idea poking edges inside his skull, blocking out any possibility of nuance or other perspectives. And then that block is removed, and another one is put in, and so on.

325. jexster - 10/7/2003 11:13:02 AM

Violence Rages in Iraq as UN Balks at Bush Resolution

326. alistairConnor - 10/7/2003 11:31:13 AM

The region is paying a heavy price for the determined unilateralism of the Rumsfeld clique.

It's hard to fathom why they even asked for another UN resolution, when they are prepared to make no concessions to get it. However they spin it, the near unanimous rejection of their resolution, and the lack of volunteers for troops and aid, is a humiliation. Or is all this designed for a domestic audience, to get electors angry at the world which is out of step with the USA?

And with respect to Israel : the road map actually had four sponsors. By sidelining Europe, Russia and the UN, and insisting on handling it on their own, the Bush administration doomed it to failure, because they were patently unable to act as an honest broker.

327. jexster - 10/7/2003 11:36:10 AM

AC's right as a Rhone again...

The roadmap, as Bush initiatives have been was a fraud, a PR farce, a slogan...when Bush trots out a slogan, you can bet he's lying again.

Another lame performcance by the Buffalo Soldier

328. jexster - 10/7/2003 11:36:44 AM

How NOT to Win Friends and Influence Iraqis

An ultra-Zionist Israeli settler has joined forces with the nephew of the Iraqi leader Ahmad Chalabi to promote investment in Iraq.


The venture - which has excellent connections with the Pentagon and the new Iraqi government - is the first joint Israeli-Iraqi business project publicly documented since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

In Iraq, where there has been much unconfirmed speculation about Israeli business involvement, news of the controversial partnership is likely to fuel suspicions.

The Iraqi International Law Group (IILG) was set up in July "to provide foreign enterprise with the information and tools it needs to enter the emerging Iraq and to succeed", according to its website.

"Our clients number among the largest corporations and institutions on the planet," IILG says.

329. marjoribanks - 10/7/2003 11:37:35 AM

Leaving morality and such out of it, you have to admire Ahmed Chalabi's deftness.

First he manages to completely dupe the Pentagon and half of Bush's administration about Iraq's threat, the potential ease of rebuilding Iraq, and the warm welcome that the Americans would be getting. Effectively, he dupes the US brass into knocking off Hussein in order for him to live his dream of having his own country to boss around.

Then, even as the US is inadequately protecting the Iraqi archives and museum and historical sites, even as thousands of Iraqi commoners are being killed in a bloodbath of no security and retributive violence, he manages to be flown into Iraq triumphantly with a solid posse of military guards and gets installed in a palace.

Then, even as the reality sinks in that he was full of shit and sold the US a bill of goods, he manouevers to get a n all-appointed Iraqi Governing Council in place, and to get a seat on it. And then, with really tremendous chutzpah, he starts to angle with the French and others to circumvent future elections and get power passed directly this all-appointed Governing Council.

And then amazing panache this guy has, he starts lecturing (to tremendous worldwide applause) the Americans on the waste involved in the spending of billions of dollars. He manages to be Iraq's monthly leader when the country takes a seat at the opening of the UN General Assembly.

And today, his Council votes against bringing in Turkish troops. A move that will make Bremer (and Rummy) apoplectic, but will get him plenty of bonus points in Iraq itself.

The guy looks like the devil, acts like the devil, but comes up trumps every time you look. he has effectively played the entire US admin for a sucker from the first, and is now making a long-term career out of it.

330. jexster - 10/7/2003 11:41:49 AM

But They're Bought and Paid For!

Iraqi Governing Council Doesn't Want Turks

331. PelleNilsson - 10/7/2003 11:54:30 AM

marj is over-dramatizing. Israel could well have decided to bomb Ayria without the US being in Iraq. There is no risk because Syria is a weak player with no friends. In fact it is difficult to find any Arab country who is friendly with any other. Nothing has changed in that respect since April.

332. marjoribanks - 10/7/2003 12:00:34 PM

Um, Pelle, Israel could have bombed Syria any time in the last 30 years (and there was often far more direct provocation.)

It did not.

333. Wombat - 10/7/2003 12:06:44 PM

Sharon has two real choices in dealing with the Palestinians: make peace along the lines of the abortive Camp David Accords (with or without a wall along the Green Line), or preside over a gradual--or not so gradual--expulsion of the Palestinian population of the West Bank. He cannot bring himself to do the former, and the latter would not be palatable to many Israelis (not to mention the rest of the world--including the United States). Faced with these choices, Sharon flails around, digging Israel deeper and deeper. The United States, which is supposed to be a friend, does not intervene, but watches Israel drive towards a cliff. The level of moral and political cowardice shown by all sides is truly impressive.

334. jexster - 10/7/2003 12:11:50 PM

>LATimes: Iraqi Guerrilla Gives U.S. a Dire Warning
Thousands are ready to die to evict Americans and return Hussein, he says. Kidnapping of troops is threatened.

335. jexster - 10/7/2003 12:16:15 PM

Sharon is desperate don't you think Wombat?

That camp was abandoned and he knew it.

He's running out of targets and time to show results for his three year policy of "reprisals".

Lost in all of the latest is (suspiciously perhaps) is the issue of the Fence that Powell had been complaining about for weeks.

This from Defense and the National Interest suggests that the project is intended to steal West Bank aquifer water from the PALS.

336. jexster - 10/7/2003 12:20:47 PM

Welcome to Defense and the National Interest. Our aim is to foster debate on the roles of the U.S. armed forces in the post-Cold War era and on the resources devoted to them. The ultimate purpose is to help create a more effective national defense against the types of threats we will likely face during the first decades of the new millennium.

Contributors to this site are, with a few exceptions, active/reserve, former, or retired military. They often combine a knowledge of military theory with the practical experience that comes from trying their ideas in the field. As you browse our site, please pay particular attention to the e-mails from our deployed forces in such places as Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq and other Middle Eastern Countries.

The original inspiration for this site was the collection of commentary by Franklin C. (Chuck) Spinney, who was at the Office of the Secretary of Defense from the mid-1970s (retired in 2003) and was active duty Air Force before that.

337. PelleNilsson - 10/7/2003 12:40:08 PM

marj, the context of my post was very much what Wombat outlines. Sharon is running out of options. He has tried everything, storming refugee camps, reoccupying the territories, killing suspected terrorists, blowing up houses at an unprecedented rate, but nothing works. So, what the hell? Why not bomb Syria for a change? It also won't work of course. I doubt that Syria has anything but marginal influence on Islamic Jihad.

338. marjoribanks - 10/7/2003 12:46:53 PM

Actually, I am also largely in agreement with Wombat's #11833.

339. robertjayb - 10/7/2003 1:04:21 PM

Meanwhile, back at the war...

CENTCOM--BAGHDAD, Iraq – Two soldiers attached to the 82nd Airborne Division were killed and two others wounded in an improvised explosive device attack in Al Haswah, south of Baghdad, at about 10:40 p.m. on October 6.

An Iraqi interpreter was also killed in the attack.

340. robertjayb - 10/7/2003 1:31:20 PM

Aussie Senate spanks Prime Minister for deceit...

AAP---THE Senate today censured Prime Minister John Howard for misleading the people of Australia over the reasons for going to war with Iraq.

The Opposition, Greens and Australian Democrats voted together to defeat the government by 33 votes to 30.

The censure motion was initially proposed by Greens Senator Bob Brown but amended by Labor.

Senator Brown said Mr Howard was involved in an unprecedented deceit of the nation and deserved censure.

341. PelleNilsson - 10/7/2003 2:20:30 PM

robert

I don't quite see the point of posting news of US causualties. We all know they occur with depressing regularity. If you try to convince us that the occupation is being badly handled I think most of us agree on that and those who don't won't whatever you post.

342. jexster - 10/7/2003 2:23:10 PM

Kurds Reject Turkish Troops

343. judithathome - 10/7/2003 2:25:06 PM

So what? I happen to think Robert SHOULD post those casualities. In fact, I think the media ought to do it, too...I think every newscast should give the names of these soldiers and where they are from and show their surviving famlies grieving over them.

I think the entire nation owes it to them to give them some frigging recognition because they are over there dying in the name of this country and people need to be reminded of it every single day.

344. jexster - 10/7/2003 2:30:25 PM

Robt

The families of US service men and women have a distinctly different view. As do US taxpayers. As in fact does our Emperor whose recent organizational "shakeup" was meant to give higher visibility to the "good news" coming out of Iraq and nothing else.



Pictures from in Country



Bring Them Home Now! offers these pictures to remind people here in the US exactly what our armed forces are being put through in the interests of empire building and Big Oil. The Bush administration's demand for $87 billion more (on top of the $79 billion Congress already voted to give them in April) is to finance keeping the troops there indefinitely

345. wonkers2 - 10/7/2003 2:36:58 PM

They're coming home one by one--in body bags.

346. PelleNilsson - 10/7/2003 2:59:33 PM

I happen to think Robert SHOULD post those casualities. In fact, I think the media ought to do it, too...

So from where does robert get his news. Does he have private channels into central command?

All I can say is that from my vantage point it looks like glee. Every casuality is further proof of the incompetence of Bush and those around him. Ergo, casualities are a good thing in the campaign against Bush. I am well aware that robert does not intend it that way, but that's the impression it creates, something that is open to exploitation by neocon supporters.

347. wonkers2 - 10/7/2003 3:05:51 PM

The names and faces are published every night on the Lehrer News Hour on PBS. It makes no sense to pretend that casualties aren't happening. It doesn't look remotely like glee from my vantage point.

348. judithathome - 10/7/2003 3:06:20 PM

Well, only a fool would think he is posting in glee. And I don't see this place swarming with Neocon supporters. And who gives a fig what they think anyhow. We all know who you mean, by the way...are we supposed to tailor all our posts to not tread on their toes or to avoid drawing them out? They are much too busy crowing to one another to bother with us anymore.

By media, I think I qualified it later by saying nightly newscasts on TV.

I happen to think a lot of posts look a certain way or another but I would never ask someone one to stop posting just because of it.

349. PelleNilsson - 10/7/2003 3:09:59 PM

You are determined to misunderstand, Judith. So be it then.

350. judithathome - 10/7/2003 3:15:14 PM

Pelle, please explain. Did you not ask Robert to reconsider posting the stories about the casualities? Did you not mean the Circle Jerk when you wrote this:

something that is open to exploitation by neocon supporters.

That is how it seemed.

You stated it might seem like glee...both Wonkers and I weighed in saying it didn't seem that way to us. Is Wonkers deliberately misunderstanding, too, or am I the only one not getting your lofty meanings here?

351. robertjayb - 10/7/2003 4:04:06 PM

So from where does robert get his news. Does he have private channels into central command?

Yes!

352. PelleNilsson - 10/7/2003 4:04:35 PM

Have you considered, Judith (never mind the anatomical details) that you too may be part of a "circle jerk"? That you too are just as kneejerky and unable of thinking outside the box as the guys on the other side?

I'm logging out now so a reply to your inevitable response will have to wait until tomorrow.

353. jexster - 10/7/2003 10:53:18 PM

Last month, after Bush gave a speech to returning members of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division thanking them for their bravery, one young soldier told the Los Angeles Times, "He likes war. He should go fight in a war for two days and see how he likes it." Washington Monthly

354. wonkers2 - 10/7/2003 11:34:30 PM

And, of course, you, Pelle, are a master at thinking outside the box. As I recall, you were one of the "guys on the other side" supporting Bush's and Blair's go-it-alone folly. Now you are condescendingly cautioning others not to mention the casualties that are resulting nearly every day, as if you were against the war all along.

355. alistairconnor - 10/8/2003 6:31:29 AM

... sure enough, the whooooooole wooooooorld is out of step with the Bushies :

"We don't want to play this game for a long, long time," said a senior administration official, reflecting a certain exasperation with the Security Council. "This is as much a choice for the Council as it is for us. They can be multilateral and be part of it, or they can tell us to do it ourselves."

356. robertjayb - 10/8/2003 11:03:27 AM

Rummy bumped--Plays Black Knight: "Alright, we'll call it a draw."

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado (CNN) -- Defense CNN==Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said a decision to transfer the day-to-day oversight of Iraq's reconstruction to the White House from the Pentagon is no reflection on his leadership or the progress made in rebuilding and pacifying Iraq.
.............................

Rumsfeld appeared to admit he was out of the loop about the creation of the oversight group, saying he was told that the Pentagon received a memo about it from the National Security Council Friday, but that he did not read it until Tuesday.
..........................

But the defense secretary said he was not blindsided by the change, and downplayed the significance of the initiative, dismissing the memo outlining the responsibilities of the Iraq Stabilization Group as "plain vanilla."

"It's a one-pager," Rumsfeld said. "It is basically a memorandum that says the NSC is going to do that which it is chartered to do. It is chartered to do interagency coordination, and that's what the memo says."

357. jexster - 10/8/2003 11:34:33 AM

Turkey to deploy troops in defiance of new Iraqi leaders, turmoil deepens

358. jexster - 10/8/2003 11:47:57 AM

Thousands of Shiites March Thru Bush-dad Against Occupation


and Bush plans agitprop campaign to tell us how well things are going.

359. jexster - 10/8/2003 11:55:43 AM

Faced With Stiffening Opposition, Bush May Drop UN Plan

360. jexster - 10/8/2003 2:03:08 PM

361. PelleNilsson - 10/8/2003 2:07:10 PM

Deploying Turkish troops in Iraq is a very, very bad idea. But beggars cannot be choosers, can they? And this is the status the US has been reduced to.

362. jayackroyd - 10/8/2003 3:09:19 PM

Deployimng them in the north is probably a bad idea. Why not the south?

363. jexster - 10/8/2003 3:13:32 PM

A young Iraqi-American exile now in Baghdad where he is running a newspaper put the Bush problem well a couple months ago. He said that the Bushies were coming to Iraq with their own agendas none of which were Iraqi agendas.

The Turk deployment is a perfect example of what the guy was talking about - the Turk's Kurd agenda, the Bush "we have allies agenda (how many billions in bribes?) & screw the Iraqis...


A big lie from the "let's roll"

364. jexster - 10/8/2003 3:14:11 PM

Shiites Storm US Center of Power - Sadr Forces Clash with Troops

365. Wombat - 10/8/2003 3:16:33 PM

The Turks would probably clear up the Sunni Triangle effectively, using methods that the U.S. would probably court-martial its own soldiers for using. Those guerillas who survived would move into safer areas such as the North, or South, where Kurdish and Shiite resentment would provide enough sympathy for them to operate.

366. jayackroyd - 10/8/2003 6:10:40 PM

One thing I don't get it is why non-arabic speaking muslims are all that much better than non-arabic speaking americans of mixed religion (but mostly christian).

367. jexster - 10/8/2003 7:28:15 PM

Karzai Faces Open Revolt in Afghanistan

368. Magoseph - 10/8/2003 7:37:59 PM

Put back the link, Jex, please.

369. OhioSTOPAS - 10/8/2003 7:47:42 PM

The Bush administration is trying to put the bar lower and lower.

We needed to invade Iraq because it had "weapons of mass destruction." Then it was "weapons of mass destruction programs." Most recently, it's been "weapons of mass destruction program activities."

And yesterday Dr. Rice said, "And let there be no mistake, right up to the end, Saddam Hussein continued to harbor ambitions to threaten the world with weapons of mass destruction." Sheesh. We were supposed to be going after states that harbor TERRORISTS, not "ambitions."

370. jexster - 10/8/2003 9:05:37 PM

The link's there Mags..

371. jexster - 10/8/2003 9:07:46 PM

That's their Big AgitProp offensive Ohio....

You should be picking up Conintern propaganda items shortly in the Usual Suspects followed shortly thereafter by an appearance from the Mayor of Hope Village, Hon. Abu Dantes

372. jexster - 10/8/2003 9:12:40 PM

But hey...such entertainment for a couple hundred billion...

Here we are 4+ months after Mission Accomplished and Bush is still inventing pretexts for war....

Is this absurd or what?

373. Al D - 10/8/2003 9:44:46 PM

All I can say is that from my vantage point it looks like glee. Every casuality is further proof of the incompetence of Bush and those around him. Ergo, casualities are a good thing in the campaign against Bush. I am well aware that robert does not intend it that way, but that's the impression it creates, something that is open to exploitation by neocon supporters.
Sometimes when a bird looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a dock, it is a safe assumtion it is a duck.

But maybe this duck is a swan. But if you are sure what Robert's posts look like to you, why are you convinced that view is incorrect? Now if you can tell me what his motivation is for such posting, I will listen with an open mind. Or perhaps Robert can say directly what his motivation is.

374. arkymalarky - 10/8/2003 9:59:59 PM

Show all the duck traits in the post, then.

If it looks like glee, then surely you can illustrate how.

Maybe he hates the deaths of Americans in a cause that turned out to be trumped up. Maybe he's informing, since he's been long well known for that.

If you have evidence it's glee that drives his posts provide it.

375. Al D - 10/8/2003 10:33:47 PM

Why are you jumping my bones. Take it up with Pelle. Certainly the possibility exists just as Pell says:

All I can say is that from my vantage point it looks like glee. Every casuality is further proof of the incompetence of Bush and those around him. Ergo, casualities are a good thing in the campaign against Bush.

Do you know of any deaths that have occured to U.S servicemen in the last 11 years that Robert has kept us informed about? If Bush left office tomorrow and say Kerry took over, would Robert still keep us informed? I certainly cannot prove what is in Robert's mind or yours. But I can form an opinion and if that opinion does not please you, so be it.

376. Al D - 10/8/2003 10:35:40 PM

By the way, arky, don't you have some student papers to grade or something? Or do those all go in the round file after the last period of the day?

377. PelleNilsson - 10/9/2003 2:21:40 AM

Don't twist my words Al. I'm quite sure that robert is not driven by glee. What I said is that from a certain perspective, such as yours, it can be construed as glee. And you proved my point, didn't you?

378. arkymalarky - 10/9/2003 2:23:30 AM

You're the one who mentioned ducks.

Or do those all go in the round file after the last period of the day?

Sounds like a reminiscence. I graded them all already, in addition to working on a mass of other things. Remember, efficiency is your friend. Try it in your posts occasionally.

Now, if you'd care to quit making childish and toothless swipes at people in here and add something to the discussion, I'd love to see it.

379. arkymalarky - 10/9/2003 2:25:02 AM

Hey, x-post! I side-effect of staying up working, I guess (not grading papers, though!).

380. Al D - 10/9/2003 3:30:21 AM

Pelle
Please don't tell me I twisted your words by posting exactly what you said. I don't pretend to "know" what motivates Robert to post the death of every G.I. in Iraq. But since you stated that it was not glee, I wondered what you thought his motive was. Do you really believe that some are not so hot to see Bush fail that they do not gloat over every snag we run into in Iraq? They is no way I would include you in that group, or marjoribanks, or jay, or wombat, perhaps not alister, and not even wonkers2. But isn't it possible that some would rather see G.I.'s die than Bush succeed?

381. PelleNilsson - 10/9/2003 5:27:46 AM

None of those who post here, I'm sure.

382. alistairConnor - 10/9/2003 6:27:09 AM

I really hate it when people die. I hate it even more when the deaths are meaningless and preventable.

Bush's errors have caused a lot of meaningless and preventable deaths in Iraq. I hope for Bush to succeed, but that would entail recognising and correcting some of those errors. As his control-freak display at the UN demonstrated, he's nowhere near doing that, so he is bound to continue to fail. I regret this.

What you are doing, Al, by criticising those who point out Bush's errors, is commonly known as "killing the messenger".

383. wonkers2 - 10/9/2003 6:29:16 AM

You both are correct. I don't support Bush's premptive strike policy nor his attack on Iraq without much wider international support. But now that we are there, we need to finish what we started. If that takes $87 billion, so be it! Joe Stiglitz argues persuasively in this month's Atlantic that Iraq's huge debt should be forgiven.

[And there is much yet to be done in Afghanistan. But the best thing Bush could do in his war on terrorism would be to put the clamps on Ariel Sharon and get a Palestine solution.]

384. judithathome - 10/9/2003 7:57:42 AM

But isn't it possible that some would rather see G.I.'s die than Bush succeed?

You toothless old crock...why don't you say who you mean by that effete "some"? You have indeed proved Pelle's point that "some" are ignorant enough to construe Robert's posts as anything other than what they are: recognition that our people are dying in a war far from home.

And your petty snipes at Arky are completely unnecessary...oh sure, she doesn't sleep in and have breakfast served her and then toddle off to the golf course and later take up her regular spot at the bar in the Nineteenth Hole; she is productive all day long and late into the night. Let's pile on!

385. robertjayb - 10/9/2003 10:57:17 AM

Mostly foreigners dead today, Al. No need to avert your eyes...

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A Spanish diplomat, a U.S. soldier and at least 10 Iraqis died on Thursday in a trio of attacks, showing how frail security still is half a year since U.S. troops occupied Baghdad.

U.S. efforts to rebuild Iraq faced diplomatic obstacles too, with doubts raised over the prospect of any U.N. resolution to map out the country's political future, and over the point of holding a planned donors' conference before that is done.

In Baghdad's bloodiest attack for weeks, police said two suicide bombers crashed an old American car through a police station's gates, killing two policemen and six civilians and wounding dozens in the blast.

386. jexster - 10/9/2003 11:14:07 AM

PORTSMOUTH, N.H. - President Bush (news - web sites), confronting public doubts about his postwar strategy in Iraq likened the task to rebuilding Germany and Japan after World War II.


Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book
Don't know much about the French I took

But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me too
What a wonderful world this would be

Don't know much about geography
Don't know much trigonometry
Don't know much about algebra
Don't know what a slide rule is for.

387. jexster - 10/9/2003 11:36:04 AM

388. jexster - 10/9/2003 11:51:12 AM

389. jexster - 10/9/2003 1:04:16 PM

ANKARA, Turkey - Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan brushed aside Iraqi objections to sending Turkish troops to Iraq saying Thursday the soldiers would promote peace and that objections "would not be acceptable."

390. jexster - 10/9/2003 1:07:02 PM

Lying incompetents
Incompetent liars

391. Al D - 10/9/2003 1:28:03 PM

If you people have any honesty at all you will see it was not I that criticised Robert; it was Pelle. What does the fact that I am old have to do with the question I asked? Judith, are you capable of answering in a polite manner? I know you once were. We all know that our boys are getting killed in Iraq, as they have in ever war ever faught. the alternative is to pull out and let our enemies have the victory. Sould it be a concern to us and to the world that tens of thousands have died at the hands of a monster and his sons, who are now gone.

When all we hear is everything bad that is happening in Iraq, and none of the good, does that weaken the will of the American people to finish what was started? Might that be the point of the harbingers of bad news? Do less soldiers die when the fact is harped on?

392. Al D - 10/9/2003 1:29:42 PM

For now this toothless old cote is off for a full day of activities. But, Like MacArther, I shall return to read Judith's insults.

393. judithathome - 10/9/2003 1:35:08 PM

When all we hear is everything bad that is happening in Iraq, and none of the good, does that weaken the will of the American people to finish what was started? Might that be the point of the harbingers of bad news? Do less soldiers die when the fact is harped on?

It hardly matters if the will of the people is weakened...Bush and Co. will do what they want, anyhow. The will of the people is to ignore what they don't like and let the government take care of what it pleases; so long as they can still watch NASCAR every weekend and shop at Wal-Mart, they don't give a flying fig.

Do more soldiers die because it is announced that they indeed are dead?

394. PelleNilsson - 10/9/2003 1:59:27 PM

jay

You asked me why it is a bad idea to send Turkish troops to Iraq. From the Arab point of view there are several reasons.

The Turks oppressed the Arabs for four hundred years. This lead, among other things, the Arabs say, to the stagnation of Arab science and culture which they still suffer from.

When the Ottoman empire collapsed the Turks turned their back on the Islamic world. Theyabolished the caliphate, implemented a secular state, introduced the latin alphabet and a European legal system.

Turkey controls Euphrates and Tigris and its huge hydroelectric and irrigation schemes are depriving Iraq and Syria of water they consider rightfully theirs.

Turkey has a military cooperation agreement with Israel.

395. jexster - 10/9/2003 5:34:28 PM

Yes indeed they do.

Israel Fires Refusenik AF General

396. arkymalarky - 10/9/2003 5:55:13 PM

Judith, are you capable of answering in a polite manner? I know you once were.

So were you, Al.

Do you really believe that some are not so hot to see Bush fail that they do not gloat over every snag we run into in Iraq? They is no way I would include you in that group, or marjoribanks, or jay, or wombat, perhaps not alister, and not even wonkers2. But isn't it possible that some would rather see G.I.'s die than Bush succeed?

Who would you include?

Your words are as much there for others to see as Pelle's are. If you had a clue about cause and effect you'd understand that we despise him and his foreign policy because he didn't succeed, and due to his own administration's ridiculous mishandling of the situation, not circumstances beyond his influence.

I was ambivalent about the invasion at the time it occurred and had no inkling we'd be in this situation this far into it. I detested Bush's domestic policy, which has strangled states and people. I had no real complaints about his foreign policy and I liked Colin Powell and thought Condoleeza Rice at least competent. I still like Powell.

Your speculation could very easily be turned back on you, you know. Think about it just a minute. Why do you think our young people should still be over there dying? What purpose is it serving now?

I'll now step aside and see if you have the gall--after suggesting reports of the tragic consequences of a failed policy reflect anything positive to anyone here (though you lack the guts to name who)--to show righteous indignation over those questions.

397. Al D - 10/9/2003 7:37:00 PM

I have learned from Hollywood that it is not good to name names, even if you are naming enemies of your country. It is never forgiven. I did name names in a positive sense, but if you and judith choose to be insulted and upset, what is that to me. My point, which almost all have failed to grasp, was in the question to Pelle. What did he consider Robert's motiveation to be?

You conclude that Bush's policy has failed. I would suggest that the jury is still out. I do believe some of you will suffer ill health should his policy in Iraq succeed and should the U.S. economy improve enough to get his re-elected in '04.

I think my response to you is polite.

398. Al D - 10/9/2003 7:45:39 PM

As to your queery about why I think we should be in Iraq. Let me first ask you, do you think the right thing to do is pull out? I believe that on 9/11/01 war was declared on America by fanatics who want to destroy us and I believe Saddam was part of that gourp, as he had stated many times, never mind that he was not invloved in the 9/11 attack. Were he left completly alone he would have eventually either given weapons to terrorists groups or attack Israel and we might have been in a much bigger war.

I believe much of the bitching going on about Bush is pure politics, which there is a time for and a time to low key it. If your answer to my question about pulling out is yes, IMO, that would be a defeat not only for Bush but America. If the answer is no, then why ask me why G.I.'s might have to die. War is like that.

399. arkymalarky - 10/9/2003 7:50:38 PM

How many deaths do we endure waiting for the jury? Will the end result for the US have been worth them all?

My state has the highest percentage of poverty in the country, even though our unemployment rate is below average. Many of our most vulnerable citizens lack health insurance, while prescription drugs are breaking the large population of elderly. We're in a huge struggle to equalize education that is obscenely unfair. Yet five of the ten richest people in the world hail from here. I take no pleasure in the havoc this administration has wrought on states and the working poor in its haste to assist the wealthiest one percent in the nation.

And I'm neither insulted nor upset. I just wanted to know if you had the guts to direct your accusation.
Now I know.

400. arkymalarky - 10/9/2003 7:53:46 PM

I would have to accept the premise of your paragraph to debate on your terms. I don't. Our efforts would have been much more effective had this invasion been carried out more carefully. I also have much more grave concerns about other areas than Iraq. What our actions may cost us in the region is more important now than whether a competent handling of the situation (as Bush Sr's was) would have been preferable to no action at all.

401. arkymalarky - 10/9/2003 7:56:44 PM

I believe if we don't alter course and get focused very very soon we should pull out. If the shift in leadership results in that, then we're much better to stay in. We can't leave the current situation, but that's preferable to making it worse by continuing to flounder as we have.

402. Al D - 10/9/2003 7:58:43 PM

Do you mean to say you can't answer the question yes or no? Doesn't that make what your about just bitching? Yes, it could have been done better, most things in life can be. If your answere is it shouldn't have been done at all, please reverse time. Since you don't seem to be able to distinquish between a statement of fact and opinion, maybe you can reverse time.

Now, that was not polite, so let me say I'm sorry.

403. arkymalarky - 10/9/2003 8:03:33 PM

You're truly a simple man, aren't you?

Do you even grasp the concept of qualifications? Conditions?

We should not make a bad situation worse. We should fix the situation. If that does not begin to occur very soon we should leave it to the UN. We have no vested interest in continuing as we are, losing American lives, on the same track we've been on.

404. Al D - 10/9/2003 8:04:03 PM

So you did give your opinion. Unfortunately for me, I can't make sense of it. Just to aver that we are floundering does not make it so. There are congressman of both parties who have visited Iraq and say things are much better than they thought. Perhaps the money we are pouring into Iraqi schools will do more good there than the money we have poured into American schools.

405. Al D - 10/9/2003 8:06:47 PM

You're truly a simple man, aren't you?
Yes, quite so. I understand little, unlike you who seems to understand everything.

406. rdbrewer - 10/9/2003 8:07:02 PM

407. arkymalarky - 10/9/2003 8:07:24 PM

I'm not surprised you can't make sense of it, somehow. I know whatever was spent educating you was a trip down the toilet.

Now I've put the answer to a complicated issue as simply as I can. If you can't wrap your brain around it, then you will just have to continue in your miscomprehension.

408. Al D - 10/9/2003 8:09:47 PM

Let's face it, arky, you are just so much blather: quit floundering, fix the situation, get on the right track, blah, blah, blah.

409. arkymalarky - 10/9/2003 8:20:58 PM

Read the last paragraph of 11907 and repeat as necessry.

410. jexster - 10/9/2003 10:48:19 PM

Welcome to Iraqmire

411. jexster - 10/9/2003 10:52:59 PM

Did America rush into a war in Iraq for which it was unprepared? Could the current volatility in Iraq have been prevented? And was the White House's rationale for war based on faulty and exaggerated intelligence reports?

As the Bush administration faces continuing questions about its failure to secure peace in Iraq, FRONTLINE takes an in-depth, behind-the-scenes look at what some government officials say is the underlying cause of America's current problems in Iraq: the prewar political infighting among the Pentagon, State Department, and White House that hampered U.S. efforts to plan for an orderly postwar transition.

In "Truth, War and Consequences," FRONTLINE producer and correspondent Martin Smith examines why the U.S. went to war in Iraq, what went wrong in the planning for the postwar occupation, and what is at stake for both the U.S. and for Iraqis. In interviews with key players in Baghdad and Washington, Smith probes the fierce internal debate between the Pentagon and the State Department over the intelligence justifying the war and over the shape of post-Saddam Iraq. It was a debate, some officials and observers say, that bogged down America's prewar planning and distracted officials from the crucial business of preparing for postwar reconstruction.

The 90-minute documentary features interviews with key government advisors and military leaders who admit to being unprepared for the lawlessness and devastation -- both physical and economic -- that greeted them upon their arrival in Baghdad.

412. Magoseph - 10/9/2003 11:11:53 PM

Your last link, Jex, is great!

413. Magoseph - 10/9/2003 11:11:54 PM

Your last link, Jex, is great!

414. judithathome - 10/9/2003 11:40:36 PM

Perhaps the money we are pouring into Iraqi schools will do more good there than the money we have poured into American schools.

Sure it will...and I will be very grateful to all those Iraqi children when they grow up and become productive members of American society and contribute to this country's tax rolls.

415. jexster - 10/10/2003 12:45:53 AM

Do not miss that program.

Try to find the replay..


Liars and incompetents.

We've been had.

416. jexster - 10/10/2003 12:55:24 AM

Al D..there's no fool like an old fool unless the old fool is President of the US

417. jexster - 10/10/2003 4:05:22 AM

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Two U.S. soldiers were killed and four wounded in an ambush in a Shi'ite slum district in Baghdad where a suicide car bomb attack on a police station earlier claimed at least 10 lives, the U.S. Army said Friday.

418. Wombat - 10/10/2003 7:51:23 AM

Um, Al D? There is no evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11; and even the President has finally admitted it.

419. jexster - 10/10/2003 11:06:06 AM

Ant-US Violence Surges - Sadr Militia Clashes With US Troops

In fact AL D had you watched the program last night you would have seen Chalabi crawfish in a futile effort to deny a connection between INC and the lie that there was ANY link whatsoever between Al Qaeda and Saddam

The INC star of the show in fact admitted that there was none until Bush invaded. He closed by calling this "an experiment"

420. jexster - 10/10/2003 11:06:55 AM

An experimental war....nice

421. jexster - 10/10/2003 11:40:49 AM

The 200 Billion Experimental War isn't working

Burgeoning Shiite Resistance to Occupation

422. jexster - 10/10/2003 11:46:20 AM

Makiya:The benefit will be that the rest of the Middle East will suddenly have something upon which to cement itself, a hope for the future, which it doesn't have at the moment. ... Those are real benefits, very tangible, very real benefits that can come from the success of this experiment.


You call it an experiment.

Makiya: Yes, and I'm not ashamed of calling it that.

423. jexster - 10/10/2003 3:17:43 PM

424. jexster - 10/10/2003 8:57:38 PM

Two Iraqi Oil Piplelines Ablaze

Hope Village Mayor Abu Dantes runs for his life as Experimental War blows up.

425. Al D - 10/10/2003 9:22:15 PM

Um, Al D? There is no evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11; and even the President has finally admitted it.

wombat
I guess you got that from mis-reading my words. I certainly did not intend to imply that he did. As far as I know, Bush never said Saddam was implicated in 9/11. If he did, can you give me a site?

426. jexster - 10/10/2003 9:35:34 PM

Bush never said Saddam was implicated in 9/11. If he did, can you give me a site?

CHENEY

…The focus is over here on al-Qaida and the most recent events in New York. Saddam Hussein's bottled up…

[Interviewer: Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to [the 9/11 terrorist attacks?]]

No.

--NBC's Meet the Press, Sept. 16, 2001
BUSH

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein.

-- State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003
CHENEY

We know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization.

--Meet the Press, March 14, 2003


CHENEY

We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s. … With respect to 9/11 … We just don't know.

--Meet the Press, Sept. 14, 2003

BUSH

We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th.

-- White House briefing, Sept. 17, 2003

427. Edmund Dantes - 10/10/2003 9:35:58 PM

> The Bush administration has sent former ambassador Joe Wilson to North Korea to determine if the communist dictatorship intends to do harm with its recently announced nuclear bomb technology.

> Mr. Wilson, whose famous wife is an undercover CIA agent, said he plans to visit Pyongyang and eat kimchee with North Korean bureaucrats, and then casually ask them if they intend to "blow something up" with their nuclear bombs.

> "It's the same method I used to successfully determine that Iraq didn't try to buy nukes from Niger," Mr. Wilson said. "Except instead of drinking tea, I'll eat kimchee so the North Koreans won't suspect anything. I learned that from Valerie...I mean...uh...a friend who is a CIA agent."

428. jexster - 10/10/2003 9:39:17 PM

Bush Administration Spends Week Retracting Assertions about Saddam's Threat to the U.S.


The Bush administration this week backed away from three major rationales for going to war in Iraq last March, undermining its assertions that Hussein's Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States and its allies.

September 11th
As recently as Sunday, Vice President Cheney, claimed that on the question of Saddam Hussein's involvement in September 11th, "We just don't know."1 But within days, both President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld each admitted there was no evidence that Hussein had any connection. On Wednesday, Bush maintained there was "no evidence" that Hussein was involved.2 Two days later, Rumsfeld, said, "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."3

Yet in March, Hussein's possible involvement in the terrorist attacks garnered support for the war from many Americans. At the time, the widely reported meeting between 9/11 planner Mohammed Atta and Iraq's security chief in Prague a few months before the attack was found by the CIA not to be credible.4
Sources:
1. Meet the Press, NBC, 9/14/03.
2. Remarks by the President After Meeting with Members of the Congressional Conference Committee on Energy Legislation, 9/17/03, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030917-7.html
3. Defense Department News Briefing, Secretary Rumsfeld and General Pace, 9/16/03, http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030916-secdef0682.html
4. "Bush Team Stands Firm on Iraq," Washington Post, 9/15/03, p. A1.

429. Al D - 10/10/2003 9:59:04 PM

jexster
Do you think the above quotes indicate that the Bush administration thought Saddam was implicated in 9/11? They show just the opposite.

430. jexster - 10/11/2003 12:17:02 AM

The fuck they do!

Bush played you like you like a fiddle....


"The war on terror and the war on Saddam aer one in the same....Mushroon clouds."

No fool like an old fool

431. jexster - 10/11/2003 12:18:04 AM

That sorry murderous fuck played this war on terror crap too long.

Where were you?

17th hole - 6 putting?

432. concerned - 10/11/2003 1:31:43 AM

jexster -

You're so full of shit, even the flies are are nauseous.

433. Al D - 10/11/2003 2:33:52 AM

jexster
I am sad for you.

434. Al D - 10/11/2003 2:34:48 AM

jexster
Do you know the Biblical penalty for calling someone a fool?

435. rdbrewer - 10/11/2003 8:33:33 AM

Re: #11927

Mr. Wilson . . . said he plans to visit Pyongyang . . . and then casually ask them if they intend to "blow something up" with their nuclear bombs.

Where did you hear this? It's brilliant! But even if you have reliable secret information, Edmund, you shouldn't have written it down. You might put his mission in jeopardy.

"It's the same method I used to successfully determine that Iraq didn't try to buy nukes from Niger," Mr. Wilson said. "Except instead of drinking tea, I'll eat kimchee so the North Koreans won't suspect anything.

It seems like I read something about Wilson being the model for the James Bond character. Anyway, it's my understanding that after he lures the North Koreans into his confidence by eating kimchee, he will offer them $100.00 and some plastic necklace beads in exchange for one of the nukes. If this works, more beads at another meeting.

436. jexster - 10/12/2003 4:44:32 AM

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Saturday offered a portrait of Iraq as a country where life is returning to normal after war, insisting that "Iraq is making progress" despite a steady drumbeat of bad news.


Bush said that progress was coming as a result of his "clear strategy."

437. jexster - 10/12/2003 4:50:11 AM

Down in the street the wind flapped the torn poster to and fro, and the word INGSOC fitfully appeared and vanished. Ingsoc. The sacred principles of Ingsoc. Newspeak, doublethink, the mutability of the past. He felt as though he were wandering in the forests of the sea bottom, lost in a monstrous world where he himself was the monster. He was alone. The past was dead, the future was unimaginable. What certainty had he that a single human creature now living was on his side? And what way of knowing that the dominion of the Party would not endure for ever? Like an answer, the three slogans on the white face of the Ministry of Truth came back to him:....

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed -if all records told the same tale -- then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.' And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. 'Reality control', they called it: in Newspeak, 'doublethink'.

438. jexster - 10/12/2003 5:15:14 AM

Proverbs 14:3
A fool's talk brings a rod to his back, but the lips of the wise protect them.

439. jexster - 10/12/2003 5:16:11 AM

Proverbs 15:2
The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly.

440. jexster - 10/12/2003 5:18:35 AM

Murder

21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[1] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[2] will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[3] ' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,

441. jexster - 10/12/2003 5:23:14 AM

RUMSFELD

Iraq's weapons of mass terror and the terror networks to which the Iraqi regime are linked are not two separate themes -- not two separate threats. They are part of the same threat.

-- Speech to Council on Foreign Relations, Jan. 23, 2003

BUSH

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

-- State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

BUSH

Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein.

-- State of the Union Address, Jan. 28, 2003

442. Magoseph - 10/12/2003 8:58:45 AM

I just happened to catch a report from an US journalist in Iraq. He had interviewed the commander of one of the US divisions operating in the Baghdad area. He was asked to estimate the number of the insurgent force actively opposing the coalition. His reply was ten to twenty thousand. He stated they were making significant progresses against them and had killed six hundred and captured twenty-five hundred.

The Bush administration has made a serious if not fatal error by its lack of disclosure in respect to the reality of the Baghdad situation. If they had given the American people the real facts, I think the public would rally around the flag, so to speak. Their continued attempts at deception and deceit are creating a lack of faith in their administration. The polls confirm this.

443. jexster - 10/12/2003 11:25:14 AM

Shiites on Mass Pilgrimage As Suicide Bomber Strikes IPD in Kirkuk

Huge Explosion Rocks Central Baghdad


Bremmer says its all a desperate reaction to Bush's stunningly sucessful strategery.

Oh joy! When we hit 20 bombings/day, Bush will declare victory and leave.

444. jexster - 10/12/2003 11:31:46 AM

Preacher Al's Bible Lesson continues from the Gospel According to Matthew...

5
leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.




38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[7] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.



43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[8] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[9] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

445. jexster - 10/12/2003 11:54:20 AM

Bush said that progress was coming as a result of his "clear strategy."

A U.S. official who served in Iraq said the NSC failed to make decisions about Iraq's postwar reconstruction and governance until long after the war ended. Decisions that some agencies thought had been settled were unexpectedly reopened or reinterpreted by the Pentagon, he said.

Even members of Rice's staff expressed frustration. The NSC and State Department staffers were stunned to learn, for example, that the Pentagon, with the approval of the vice president, had flown controversial Iraqi exile leader Ahmed Chalabi into southern Iraq after Bush had opposed giving Chalabi special treatment.

Some of Powell's key lieutenants, who had gone along with the president's decision to give the Pentagon the principal postwar role, were frustrated first by the Defense Department's refusal to include them -- and then Rice's unwillingness to intercede.

"Everything went back to Washington, where it became tangled up in the bureaucratic food fights," said the official who served in Iraq. "Absolutely everything."
WPost

446. jexster - 10/12/2003 11:55:35 AM

All of which is incisively examined in "Truth War and Consequences" now showing on PBS - Frontline's Website

447. jexster - 10/12/2003 12:15:12 PM

448. jexster - 10/12/2003 12:59:56 PM

Violent Resistance Spreads North

Victory's just around the corner...lights seen at end of tunnel

449. jexster - 10/12/2003 2:03:16 PM

FRONTLINE's "Truth War.." exposes the Bush WOT Fraud in CHAPTER TWO
Building the Case For War

Within days of 9/11, Bush decided that he needed to establish a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Feith's Office of Intelligence Cookery was established shortly after that decision was reached at a Camp David cabinet meeting.... Ingredients courtesy Ahmed Chalabi

450. jexster - 10/12/2003 2:07:52 PM

In "Truth, War and Consequences," Chalabi emerges as a key figure not only in the Bush administration's postwar planning efforts, but also its attempts to establish a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Government advisors and other key figures tell FRONTLINE it was Chalabi and his INC cohorts who fed intelligence linking Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda to a special intelligence office at the Pentagon established shortly after Sept. 11.

The problem, some State Department officials say, is that the information Chalabi was providing was not only suspect, but in some cases had already been discredited by U.S. intelligence agencies. Greg Thielmann, a recently retired State Department intelligence official tells FRONTLINE that several key charges the Bush administration used to make its case for war with Iraq had been disproven or discounted by U.S. intelligence analysts long before they found their way into the president's speeches.

"Instead of our leadership forming conclusions based on a careful reading of the intelligence we provided them," says Greg Thielmann, "they already had a conclusion to start out with, and they were cherry picking the information we provided to use whatever pieces of it that fit their overall interpretation. Worse than that, they were dropping qualifiers and distorting some of the information we provided to make it seem more alarmist and dangerous."

451. jexster - 10/13/2003 11:05:06 AM

The Emperor's Clear Strategery Finds Yet MORE Trouble - Iraq Just Says NO to the Turk



PUTRAJAYA, Malaysia/BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. efforts to stabilize Iraq (news - web sites) ran into fresh trouble Monday with a worsening row over deploying Turkish troops and new anti-occupier attacks.




Iraq's U.S.-backed Governing Council stuck by its opposition to the Turks coming in at all, whilst Ankara's military said it would not decide how many soldiers to send until it knew which part of the country they were going to, a sensitive issue.

452. jexster - 10/13/2003 12:31:00 PM

'What Did We Do to Deserve This?'
Iraqis Cooperating With U.S. Become Target of Choice

Welcome to GWB's wonderfully wacky world of liars and incompetents.

453. jexster - 10/13/2003 1:16:31 PM

Bush's War Without End: A Catalogue of Killing in Iraq

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine

454. jexster - 10/13/2003 3:21:21 PM

Died for a Lie: Three US Soldiers Killed in Past 24 Hours

455. robertjayb - 10/13/2003 5:34:25 PM

I am in charge. That's how I got the flight suit.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush, striking back at critics, said Monday it's wrong to claim he lacks a coherent policy for postwar Iraq and that ``the person who is in charge is me.''

456. jexster - 10/13/2003 5:37:27 PM

So far so good.

Bush's Big War Offensive - The Sequel is meeting determined resistance from the press and from the Hill.

Fool us once...

Bush has gone to that well once too often

457. jexster - 10/13/2003 10:42:26 PM

The Emperor's Strategery: One Quarter of US Troops in Iraq Have No Kevlar

458. jexster - 10/13/2003 10:43:12 PM

Your Hope Village Link

459. jexster - 10/14/2003 11:22:14 AM

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A suicide bomber detonated a car packed with explosives near the Turkish Embassy on Tuesday, wounding at least two people, the U.S. military said. The attack came amid widespread Iraqi anger over Turkish plans to deploy troops in the country.


But don't worry, be happy

Shiites Clash As Bush Says He's in Charge

460. jexster - 10/14/2003 12:08:13 PM

Betraying the Kurds again
The U.S. plan to send 10,000 Turkish troops to Iraq has Kurdish leaders outraged -- and analysts of all stripes incredulous at its folly.

461. jexster - 10/14/2003 12:13:10 PM

Andy Card: "Whah ah wuz so heartuned to see three young Eyeraki entrepruhnurs sellin cokes by the roadsayde. Ah jiss wanted to stop by a coke offa these fellers"

Don't worry...big progress...Our Commerce Secretary is hard at work

462. robertjayb - 10/15/2003 12:36:56 AM

Army admits astroturf* letter-to-editor campaign...

*intended to simulate a genuine grassroots movement. Grassroots. Astroturf. Get it?

WASHINGTON — An Army battalion commander has taken responsibility for a public-relations campaign that sent hundreds of identical letters to hometown newspapers promoting his soldiers' rebuilding efforts in Iraq.
Lt. Col. Dominic Caraccilo said he wanted to highlight his unit's work and "share that pride with people back home."

Army officials revealed Tuesday that 500 identical form letters were sent to newspapers across the country with different signatures. They said the mass mailing was the wrong way of getting the message out, but they didn't know whether the commander would be disciplined.

463. jexster - 10/15/2003 1:34:05 AM

Saudi police opened fire during an unprecedented protest as hundreds of people took to the streets in the capital Riyadh.



Shots ripped through the air above the protestors as baton-wielding police on Tuesday arrested up to 50 young men.

Those taking part in the demonstration were calling for greater political reforms during the country's first ever human rights conference.


Saudi police fire on demonstration
Bush is In Charge

464. alistairConnor - 10/15/2003 10:19:13 AM

Proof of the maxim "things can always get worse" :

US diplomatic convoy attacked in Gaza: three dead

465. jexster - 10/15/2003 11:33:51 AM

I had to look twice...

Iraq War Swells Al Qaeda's Ranks

Proof that Bush is in charge after all

466. alistairconnor - 10/15/2003 12:06:55 PM

Sadly, that falls into the "well, duh" category.

467. alistairconnor - 10/15/2003 12:08:12 PM

I guess an increase in world terrorism is just part of the price we all have to pay, justified by... whatever the reason Iraq was invaded turns out to be.

468. robertjayb - 10/15/2003 1:29:35 PM

Powell's UN claims rebutted on 60 Minutes II tonight...

(CBS) The person responsible for analyzing the Iraqi weapons threat for Colin Powell says the Secretary of State misinformed Americans during his speech at the U.N. last winter.

Greg Thielmann tells Correspondent Scott Pelley that at the time of Powell’s speech, Iraq didn’t pose an imminent threat to anyone – not even its own neighbors. “…I think my conclusion [about Powell’s speech] now is that it’s probably one of the low points in his long distinguished service to the nation,” says Thielmann.

469. PelleNilsson - 10/15/2003 2:03:39 PM

It seems that a good number of people who hid in the woodworks while the deed was being done now dare to venture out in the open, no doubt because the cost is less. Does this suggest opportunism and a lack of moral courage?

470. marjoribanks - 10/15/2003 2:15:56 PM

Does this suggest opportunism and a lack of moral courage?

Good question.

There is a ton of opportunism going on. And the reason is that the normal give-and-take and back-and-forth of American politics at the higher levels was put on hiatus for a good long while after 9/11.

The media was cowed, the opposition was paralyzed with the belief that dissent would be political suicide (this still holds to some extent) and the Bushites looked like a juggernaut in terms of domestic opinion. Once the first scent of blood wafted out, however, the normal opposition in the US system has gone perhaps overboard in making points, often frenzied overstated points. I think there is a lack of sagacity in this frenzy, a lack of focus, and it could well backfire come poll time.

Much more interesting than the humdrum display of footsoldiers duking it out at fevered pitch is the steady drip-drip-drip coming out from enemies this administration has made. In the juggernaut period, the neocons (particularly) ran roughshod over very many people, trying to remake whole systems far too fast for bureaucratic palates. The State Department, parts of the CIA and what appears to be a majority of military rank-and-file are now getting their own back, and this bit is not pretty at all as the bureaucracies are fighting back (as is in the nature of the beasts) very strongly.

That is how I see it, anyway.

471. jayackroyd - 10/15/2003 2:20:06 PM

Both.

On the escalation of the Palestinian terrorists in this attack on the US embassy officials: does this the event signal the beginning of a series of events that will give Bush cover to simply let Sharon embark on a campaign of ethnic cleansing?

I guess that's too strongly worded, right now anyway. But, looking at the map of the proposed path of the wall, there will be plenty of ghettoes created if someone doesn't stop Sharon.

What are the people running the Palestinian attacks thinking?!? There is no way they are going to advance their cause by attacking "(a) delegation, escorted by Palestinian police vehicles ...on 'official business,' including interviewing students hoping to receive U.S. university scholarships."

And how can Israel, of all countries, consciously construct ghettoes along ethnic lines?

472. marjoribanks - 10/15/2003 2:21:00 PM

I would not, by the way, refer to those coming out now as lacking in moral courage.

Their timidity, if you want to call it that, turns out to have been quite pragmatic. If people like the current crop of dissenters had come out a year ago with their comments, their careers would have been over, their obituaries would have been written in the media, and they would have disappeared from the popular discourse period. It is not at all unthinkable to consider that there would have been several stories of the kind that emerged with that suicidal Brit scientist.

So, being mostly bureaucratic animals, these people bided their times until the pendulum shifted and dissent could once more be seen as patriotic and honorable.

Looking back, even from the short distance that we find ourselves at, there was a genuine hysteria on in this country. The Bushites used it to the hilt, the structural watchdogs (media, Congress) failed miserably in their appointed roles, and this whole system needs to be re-strung and re-shored so that that kind of blindness doesn't affect it again.

473. Wombat - 10/15/2003 2:23:39 PM

Bitching about passing the Iraqi aid package strikes me as incredibly short-sighted. If it doesn't pass, the Republicans will blame the Democrats for refusing aid that could have turned Iraq around (regardless of what difference it would actually make). Pass it with more stringent oversight and antiprofiteering provisions, and then blame the Bush Administration for mismanaging it, when they come back asking for more--as they surely will.

474. Wombat - 10/15/2003 2:26:12 PM

Plus, passing the aid package is unquestionably the right thing to do.

In re the attack in Gaza. Anyone who thinks that Hamas and Islamic Jihad have the same interests as the PA are either naive or in Likud.

475. marjoribanks - 10/15/2003 2:28:21 PM

Exactly, Wombat.

Also, it's pretty clear that shouting 'quagmire, quagmire' is stupid. If this country does (as it appears set to) pump in tens and tens of billions of dollars into Iraq gratis, the situation is going to improve quite measurably and greatly. Period.

Election day is a long time away, if you run on Iraq being a quagmire and it ceases to become one in the interim, where are you? Dead at the polls.

Kerry and Clark, by the way, have understood this.

476. Wombat - 10/15/2003 2:35:47 PM

I could be wrong, but I see the Sunni triangle and Baghdad continuing to be a problem during the election year. The money will help, particularly if it can avoid the high overheads that the Bechtels of this world will take while making the electricity, telephone and oil infrastructure work well enough to continue to be targets for sabotage.

However all this money is not going to help the U.S. counter an insurgency that is increasing in complexity with each passing day; and which can spread into the more secure parts of Iraq often enough to keep tensions high.

477. jayackroyd - 10/15/2003 2:36:31 PM

Banks--

You're cutting the administration too much of a break in that analysis. They went forward on a terribly risky policy without ever presenting an honest justification. They still haven't. The duplicity, clearly now to be seen as concious and cynical, rather than misguided or naive, is so deep as to be literally unbelievable. Most Americans simply don't credit the idea that the president would lie in this manner. I hate to echo jexster, but this is becoming increasingly Orwellian.

As for the polls, I think things will be looking pretty good in most of Iraq by mid-summer next year. Suppose half or so of that 20 billion actually makes it way into the infrastructure. Suppose that the low level efforts that are going on in the north and the south to get local councils operating and representative continue to grind along. Things will be better than they were under sanctions. Power seems finally to be fixed, for example.

There's a huge problem getting people off of food rationing, but that will get easier as marketplaces form. I hope nobody has forgotten the idea of an oil dividend, as in Alaska, so that we don't end up with the typical third world natural resource kleptocracy, and so that ordinary citizens have a stake in the government, and the country.

There is a problem for Bush if the central region can't be secured by then. But, just as his speech in the flight suit was the apex of this term, we may be living through the nadir right now.

It's true that he's not helping himself at all right now. An admission of error about wmd and giving up the Plame leaker would put a great deal behind him. The admission of error would not have to be too humiliating--he'd just have to say that he was acting on intelligence that was widely considered to accurate, and it turns out not to have been so accurate.

478. jayackroyd - 10/15/2003 2:37:15 PM

11977 is a response to 11970.

479. Wombat - 10/15/2003 2:42:19 PM

Hmm. Around the time that things look like they are going well in Iraq, a massive truck bomb will explode in Kirkuk (or Erbil, or Mosul), killing dozens of Americans. Then, back to square one.

480. jayackroyd - 10/15/2003 2:43:40 PM

If people like the current crop of dissenters had come out a year ago with their comments, their careers would have been over, their obituaries would have been written in the media, and they would have disappeared from the popular discourse period.

This did happen in other policy areas, of course. The faith based initiative guy. The guy who outed the caribou study in Alaska and so forth.

However, my sister-in-law works for the EPA as a lawyer enforcing environmental regulations. Morale, as you can imagine, is quite low. She says that the political appointee in charge of her region is requiring interpretations of the law that she is certain will not stand up in court. Yet she says that she points out to underlings who complain about this that they have signed up for a job where they have to do what their superiors tell them to do.

The courageous acts need to come from farther up the food chain, or, as is starting to happen, from Senate republicans. The leaks and press give them cover, but, as with watergate, nothing really happens until the checks start balancing. If the GOP stays solid then we'll get to have a referendum on whether this kind of cynically dishonest form of governance is a politically successful strategy in this country. ANd it may be, after you add in 200 million dollars.

481. jayackroyd - 10/15/2003 2:46:52 PM

In re the attack in Gaza. Anyone who thinks that Hamas and Islamic Jihad have the same interests as the PA are either naive or in Likud.

Sure. But what is their motivation? A jewless Palestine in 2050? 2100? The demographics don't kick in fast enough for them to attain any expulsion of the Jews in the lifetime of anyone now alive.

And are you saying that you agree with Sharon's early contention that Arafat is irrelevant?

482. Wombat - 10/15/2003 2:52:34 PM

Jay:

They want to BE the Palestinian Authority.

483. marjoribanks - 10/15/2003 2:53:25 PM

all this money is not going to help the U.S. counter an insurgency that is increasing in complexity with each passing day

I don't fully buy this. There is a fixed number of Iraqis who are willing to take arms to oppose the Occupation, this number is suffering from attrition right now. The conflict (and attendant bloodshed) may get worse for a bit, but then it will subside gradually. I do not think the numbers of hard-core opponents will swell measurably, especially if US dollars are thickly carpeted around in exchange for collaboration.

And eventually, do admit the probability, Hussein will die or be captured. And then a huge amount of the air will go out of the balloon.

484. jayackroyd - 10/15/2003 2:53:42 PM

Around the time that things look like they are going well in Iraq, a massive truck bomb will explode in Kirkuk (or Erbil, or Mosul), killing dozens of Americans. Then, back to square one.

Back, certainly, but not necessarily to square one. It's not enough that things look like they're getting better. They have to be getting better. If the attacks are isolated in the Sunni triangle and it is clear that they are directed against the return to normalcy that is happening in the rest of the country, then the attacks may be seen as attacks against a normalized Iraq and not on an occupying army.

I'm not trying to minimize the policy failure of going it alone on false pretenses. But I agree with you that the money must be spent. I'd prefer that it come out of some pork barrels and not at the price of a bigger deficit. I'd prefer the peacekeeping forces were multinational, and were not the same people as those who took the capital. But given the hand Bush has dealt himself, aid is the only answer. I think there is a good chance it will work--maybe not by November, but I'd be surprised if things were not looking better in August than they are today.

485. jayackroyd - 10/15/2003 2:54:23 PM

They want to BE the Palestinian Authority.

Fine. To what end?

486. marjoribanks - 10/15/2003 2:56:50 PM

WRT Israel/Palestine/Gaza, I cannot see any logical pattern to the horrorshow underway except a desire to play an openended waiting game until the whole area in question can be made one state.

The Pals waiting for a one-man, one-vote Pyrrhic victory and the Sharonists waiting for the possibility that geopolitics will allow an expulsion or worse.

487. marjoribanks - 10/15/2003 3:08:41 PM

If the GOP stays solid then we'll get to have a referendum on whether this kind of cynically dishonest form of governance is a politically successful strategy in this country. ANd it may be, after you add in 200 million dollars.

I fear it may be, but am also gladdened that there are signs that the jury is still out on that one.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not cutting the Bushites any undeserved slack. They have been guilty of shameless and possibly criminal behaviour. But in the calculus of politics things are only shameless and criminal if you don't get away with them.

And this bunch is not going to handcuff themselves, there has to be stomach enough in society and the political class to fire up the paddywagon and go do it.

488. Wombat - 10/15/2003 3:09:55 PM

Marj:

Terrorism 101: the actual terrorists are few in number. What makes them effective--and hard to catch--is the pool of sympathizers who will support them, and more importantly, those who will look the other way and not cooperate with the U.S. either out of fear, internecine feuds, or resentment.

The terrorists may be finite and subject to attrition (although this is debatable), but the pool of sympathizers is not yet shrinking, and the mass of people who are noncooperative is probably growing at this time.

Killing Saddam will certainly help--although I suspect many Iraqis believe that his sons are still alive--but proving it to the satisfaction of his fanatical adherents may be difficult.

489. alistairConnor - 10/15/2003 3:18:49 PM

proving it to the satisfaction of his fanatical adherents may be difficult.

I think that may be beside the point. Quite a lot of the terrorists seem to consider themselves to be nationalist freedom fighters and to pay no particular allegeance to Saddam; others are war tourists from other Arab countries. I suspect that the bigger operations -- bombings of the UN and of the Shiite holy place -- are the work of the Saddam organisation, but that a lot of the general ambush and harassment is not.

490. jayackroyd - 10/15/2003 3:18:59 PM

The terrorists may be finite and subject to attrition (although this is debatable), but the pool of sympathizers is not yet shrinking, and the mass of people who are noncooperative is probably growing at this time.

yes. My point is that improved living conditions and infrastructure is what may reverse the non-cooperation trend. Don't ask me to lay odds, though.

491. Wombat - 10/15/2003 3:39:40 PM

Jay:

This is likely happening outside of the Sunni Triangle and Bagdhad. However, it only takes a small proportion of the population to serve as infrastructure. Of course, if the Turks come in, that proportion will grow, and the likelihood for attacks will increase.

492. Wombat - 10/15/2003 3:44:54 PM

The other point, which the administration would prefer to avoid, is that while the Kurdish areas, and the Shiite south may be improving, Bagdhad and the center of Iraq is not. That's a bit like saying France is in great shape, except for Paris and the Ile De France. If the latter two aren't in good shape, then neither is the country.

493. jexster - 10/15/2003 4:49:29 PM

Twelve Million Iraqis Unemployed
"Bushvilles" Sprouting Up in the Deserts
Mayor Abu Dantes Declares Hope Village an Economic Disaster Area


BAGHDAD, Iraq - They line up by the hundreds, in the morning heat, on the slim hope of a job. Others wait — and wait — in a downtown square for a chance at a day's backbreaking construction work, and $2. Across town, one jobless engineer serves tea for pennies from a sidewalk table. Luckier Iraqis are handed brooms to sweep Baghdad's dusty streets.

Six months after America's lightning war in Iraq (news - web sites), the vast majority of Iraqi workers are unemployed. The Labor Ministry estimates 70 percent or more, some 12 million Iraqis, are without jobs.

494. jexster - 10/15/2003 4:50:50 PM

And our Commerce Secretary Bush Campaign Chmn Andy Card is buying cokes from "young entrepreneurs"

495. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 10/15/2003 4:56:30 PM

Ex-Aide: Powell Misled Americans

496. jexster - 10/15/2003 5:02:19 PM

Damn I missed it..class...

Thielman appears extensively in "Truth, War and Consequences" and the full text of the PBS interview with him can be found here

497. jayackroyd - 10/15/2003 9:51:48 PM

11992

That one is kinda unfair. In Afghanistan, they are criticize for doing nothing for the areas outside of Kabul, rightly in my view. In Iraq, they are making a more comprehensive effort, and are criticized for not controlling the capital.

I take your point; it only takes a few terrorists to be disruptive. But if the target of the terrorists can be made to be Iraq rather than the Americans, things should get better more quickly than not. I do say "if" here.

498. alistairConnor - 10/16/2003 4:47:26 AM

The Labor Ministry estimates 70 percent or more, some 12 million Iraqis, are without jobs.

This is a symptom of a fundamental disconnect, perhaps the most crucial one. After thirty years of a bureaucratic command economy, are we expecting Iraq to pick itself up by its bootstraps?

(I believe eastern Europe took about a decade to bring GDP back up to "communist" levels)

For ideological reasons, the Bushites seem determined to privatize as much as possible of Iraq's infrastructure and economy. In practice (given the lack of local capital) this means, at best, an economy of local subcontractors to foreign owners.

For one thing, this is likely to be a poor psychological fit for Iraqis (this is a developed, though impoverished, nation, with the technical skills to run its own affairs). For another, it's hard to see any great influx of private foreign capital in the short term.

So, how is the Iraqi economy going to pick itself up?

By subcontracting to Bechtel, I suppose. If the US comes up with the money.

499. jexster - 10/16/2003 7:34:34 AM

US Postpones UN Vote As Its Troops Beocme Mired in Violence

500. jexster - 10/16/2003 7:44:24 AM

So, how is the Iraqi economy going to pick itself up?

By subcontracting to Bechtel, I suppose. If the US comes up with the money.

Yes indeed that was exactly the point of tha wretched Fat Texan in the National Public Radio audio piece linked up thread.

Iraqi companies will have ot compete with foreign firms for subcontracts from US primes. This they cannot do without "hep". So the Texan was charging them a princely sum each month for the privlege of playin plus a % on contracts


That's how a neo-colonialist power creates a client state in the Third Millenium.

501. jexster - 10/16/2003 7:44:58 AM

Blood, US Taxpayer Dollars, and Fat Texans.

502. jexster - 10/16/2003 7:46:01 AM

A Toothless Resolution
Even if the Security Council approves the U.S. proposal, it won't change a thing in Iraq

503. jayackroyd - 10/16/2003 9:14:04 AM

I have a question.

Now that the Kay report is finally out, there are some things that are clear. First, the containment policy was very successful, much more successful than the consensus of intelligence estimates held. That is, these four policies:

1) Import restrictions/sanctions
2) Enforcement of the no-fly zones
3) Inspections
4) Limited military action directed at wmd facillities, a la Desert Fox

led to the termination of Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs, sometime between 1998 and 2000. Saddam was, at the start of the war, no threat, imminent or otherwise, to the United States, Europe, Israel, the Saudis or even the Kurds because of this policy of containment.

This leads to my question. Yes, containment was working. The threat was snuffed out. But the price to the Iraqi people was very high, and, as we've seen once we got in-country, was getting higher as infrastructure crumbled under the sanctions. Saddam didn't care; the sanctions were not hurting him.

So what was the alternative to an eventual invasion? Wait for Saddam to die? Leave a perpetually suffering populace in place under a dictator, as with N. Korea?

504. judithathome - 10/16/2003 10:03:04 AM

From the Daily Mislead...more "filtered" good news:

Six in Ten Iraqis Unemployed, but U. S. Subcontractors Hire Cheap Migrant Laborers¹


Even though seven million Iraqis are unemployed1, U.S. sub-contractors are rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure with cheap migrant labor from South Asia.² The use of Asian laborers is at odds with President Bush's emphasis on the importance of Iraqis taking on the job themselves.

Bush has said the key to "rebuilding a democratic and prosperous Iraq is the Iraqi people themselves."³ Paul Bremer, the Bush appointee overseeing post-war Iraq, likewise has talked of the need to turn around the country's 60 percent unemployment rate and "to fix a very sick economy."⁴

However, the head of the Iraqi Jobless Association, Kasem Hadi, is critical of the Bush Administration's lack of progress. "Following four rounds of talks with [Bremer's] representatives, we made no progress regarding the unemployment crisis,"⁵ Hadi says.

(cont'd.)

505. judithathome - 10/16/2003 10:03:26 AM

Meanwhile, U.S. Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, one of Bremer's colleagues, has raised questions about the reliability of foreign workers. "You find [them] in out-of-the-way corners taking 15 minute naps," she notes.⁶

At the same time, officials of the Iraqi Governing Council are concerned that large American contractors, including Halliburton and Bechtel, may be inflating the cost of the reconstruction projects. The Iraqi governors told members of the U.S. Congress that Iraqi companies could be doing the work at 10 percent of the cost.⁷

Sources:
1. "Iraq: 7 Million Jobless Persons," Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, InfoProd, 8/27/03.

2. "Contractors in Iraq Accused of Importing Labour and Exporting Profit," Financial Times/UK, 10/14/03.

3. Presidential Radio Address, 7/23/03.

4. Interview of Paul Bremer by Tom Brokaw, NBC Nightly News, 7/14/03.

5. "Iraq: 7 Million Jobless Persons," Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, InfoProd, 8/27/03.

6. "Contractors in Iraq Accused of Importing Labour and Exporting Profit," Financial Times/UK, 10/14/03.

7. Letter to OMB Director Joshua Bolten from Rep. Henry Waxman, 9/30/03.

506. jexster - 10/16/2003 2:04:32 PM

Don't you just love that Daily Mislead Judith?

Those MoveOn folks are sharp. It is a great patriotic service to be saved from Bush agitprop

With footnotes no less!

507. jexster - 10/16/2003 2:10:53 PM

Good question Jay. Yes indeed the answer is that we could have and should have continued with containment and seriously attempted to cultivate a genuine government in exile and opposition force if at all possible and couple these efforts with other means to subvert the Regime.

Failing that, we do nothing...

If the sole purpose was or is or should have been to change an oppressive regime, we had better field an army of 2 million because the list is quite long

War is neither a moral nor a realistic means of achieving such objectives absent a clear and present threat of genocide and even then remains a blunt and ineffective instrument of policy.

Some have lost the sense of what war is about.

508. jexster - 10/16/2003 2:22:25 PM

Iraq, you may have heard, has a lot of crude oil. Before the war, this was the one point that both the Bush administration and its fiercest critics seemed to agree on. Everyone had a different theory about what would happen to the oil in the event of war -- the administration promised that Iraq's resources would pay for its redevelopment, while the critics argued that the oil money would fill the coffers of Western corporations -- but at least people saw eye to eye on what seemed like an incontrovertible fact: A Saddam-free Iraq would be an endless source of cheap gas.

But, at least so far, gasoline in Iraq has not been cheap. And it might surprise you to learn that you've been paying for it. According to a study released on Wednesday by Democratic Reps. Henry Waxman and John Dingell, each gallon of gas sold in Iraq has cost American taxpayers $1.59, and possibly as much as $1.70. In the rest of the Middle East, gas costs about half that amount; even in Toledo, Ohio, gasoline's cheaper than it is in Baghdad.

Why is getting gasoline to oil-rich Iraq costing Americans so much money? The congressmen have a one-word, obvious answer: Halliburton.

509. robertjayb - 10/16/2003 3:40:17 PM

Onward Christian Soldier!

(AP) Defense Secretary Donald H . Rumsfeld and the chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff publicly defended a new deputy undersecretary of defense of intelligence with a reported penchant for publicly casting the war on terrorism in religious terms.

Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, whose promotion and appointment was confirmed by the Senate in June, has said publicly that he sees the war on terrorism as a clash between Judeo-Christian values and Satan, the Los Angeles Times reported Thursday.

Appearing in dress uniform before a religious group in Oregon in June, Boykin said Islamic extremists hate the United States "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christians. ... And the enemy is a guy named Satan."

510. jexster - 10/16/2003 10:12:40 PM

Explosion Hit Northern Iraq Pipeline

511. jexster - 10/17/2003 12:14:53 PM

Four US soldiers, 2 Iraqi policemen killed

Four US soldiers together with two local police officers have been killed in two separate resistance attacks in Iraq

512. jexster - 10/17/2003 12:16:42 PM

The US-British coalition in Iraq is running into problems over its attempt to bolster its forces with Turkish troops.

Washington and London have been forced to rethink by the level of hostility generated in Iraq by the prospect of troops from Turkey, a neighbour and detested former colonial power

513. jexster - 10/17/2003 12:26:11 PM

Election day is a long time away, if you run on Iraq being a quagmire and it ceases to become one in the interim, where are you? Dead at the polls.

Kerry and Clark, by the way, have understood this.


Oh really?

Then Marj's hedge against an uncertan future is to say nothing.

Well, newsflash Margie, Kerry has been more strident by the day in his criticisms so has pro-War John Edwards. Clark has not reined in his criticism either.

The only candidates that have been restrained, relative to these three, are Gephardt and Dean.

514. jexster - 10/17/2003 1:33:37 PM

Quagmire anyone???

The Bush administration is pushing for elections in Iraq sometime next year. This extremely accelerated timetable is dangerous. Early elections in postconflict situations can produce unstable results and favor radical groups over still-emergent moderate forces.

THE RIGHT ROAD TO SOVEREIGNTY IN IRAQ - Carnegie Endowment

TPM: So, setting aside why we're in Iraq, how we go there, whether we should have gone in in the first place, where are we now? Where do you see our position right now?

WILSON: Well, I think we're fucked. I think the--we should have learned from the bombing of the United Nations building that there was all sorts of anti--not just American but anti-international presence--pressure building within Iraq. And I think we should have reacted rather quickly to that by attempting to truly embrace the United Nations in the sense of internationalization. A crime against the United Nations should have been perceived as a crime against us all, and we should have been much more aggressive in ensuring that we did everything we could to help the United Nations through that period. And that would have meant really trying to draw them into something that, as I said the other day, would help us change "latitudes and attitudes" in Iraq (to quote Jimmy Buffett). And by that I mean what you need to do is, you need to aggressively persuade Iraqis that what we--the rest of the world, not the United States, the rest of the world--are doing is attempting to assist it through this difficult period and assist it in reconstructing itself in a new, modern, post-Saddam Iraq.

515. jexster - 10/17/2003 1:37:25 PM

How naively American to think that we can just go bust a country, especially a Frankenstate like Iraq, bust an ARAB country, throw some money at the problem and all will be well.

"We need to be very clear about this. We did not go into Iraq to save it. The Iraqis do not like us. We must be clear. We invaded Iraq and we conquered it. Until we are clear about what we've done and what we are doing we will continue to talk nonsense" Jeanne Kirkpatrick

516. jexster - 10/17/2003 4:24:38 PM

Why we're fucked....let me count the ways

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior Pentagon (news - web sites) intelligence official facing criticism for his comments that Muslims worship an "idol" does not plan to quit his post and believes his remarks have been taken out of context, U.S. defense officials said on Friday.

Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin, deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence and war-fighting support, has "decided to tone things down" although he "feels that his comments have been taken out of context," said one defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity.


Boykin has used speeches at churches and prayer breakfasts to portray the U.S. battle with Islamic radicals as a clash with "Satan," saying they sought to destroy America "because we're a Christian nation." Referring to a Muslim fighter in Somalia, Boykin said that "my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol."

517. jexster - 10/17/2003 4:29:44 PM

We really must be clear about this....lest we keep spewing the same mindless palaver



They shake the whole of the 14th Ramadan mosque every day, but this Friday they came to a screeching halt outside.



While about half a dozen soldiers surround the entrance, an officer jumps down and extends his hand to a mortified Abu Ali, who looks after the building.



'Is this a safe mosque?", the officer asked in Arabic.



'Yes, there is nothing to steal but Qurans here."



The officer looked at his translator – it was not the kind of answer he wanted to hear.



"No, he means does this mosque encourage fighting security forces."



The custodian frowned in deep thought, looking for a response that might please the troops. "Since Baghdad fell, we only have about four or five regular worshippers – all of them old."



The answer did the trick. The remarkably young sunglass-wearing gum-chewing soldiers got back into their carrier and drove off to the next mosque.



Minding your sermons



Abu Ali told me the mosque had nearly always been full – even the secret police had come to pray here the day before Baghdad fell.



But in their day, no one used to sit next to the pulpit and take notes of the sermon, as happens now

A 'safe' mosque in a shaken city

518. judithathome - 10/17/2003 5:05:42 PM

Is This Any Way To Treat An Army?

Hundreds of sick and wounded U.S. soldiers including many who served in the Iraq war are languishing in hot cement barracks here while they wait -- sometimes for months -- to see doctors.

The National Guard and Army Reserve soldiers' living conditions are so substandard, and the medical care so poor, that many of them believe the Army is trying push them out with reduced benefits for their ailments. One document shown to UPI states that no more doctor appointments are available from Oct. 14 through Nov. 11 -- Veterans Day.

"I have loved the Army. I have served the Army faithfully and I have done everything the Army has asked me to do," said Sgt. 1st Class Willie Buckels, a truck master with the 296th Transportation Company. Buckels served in the Army Reserves for 27 years, including Operation Iraqi Freedom and the first Gulf War. "Now my whole idea about the U.S. Army has changed. I am treated like a third-class citizen."

519. judithathome - 10/17/2003 5:06:29 PM

That article is linked to Drudge, by the way, but it may still be true.

520. arkymalarky - 10/17/2003 5:33:49 PM

toys?

521. jexster - 10/17/2003 5:51:46 PM

More in the same vein of quagmires, this article from David Hackworth's website...we are in a quagmire alright, mired in the same non-sense about Villages of Hope and "entrepreneurs" selling coca-cola by the roadside

An Iraqi man recently told me that things would be worse but for the fact that most Iraqis realized what we do not - that the they will be there long after we are gone and that our leaving is expected shortly

A Vet Speaks the Truth



It would appear that, once again, some of our troops are demonstrating that we learned nothing from VietNam. During a pacification/rebuilding program, you do not win the civiliams over to your side by burning down their hootch or crushing their car.

522. jexster - 10/18/2003 6:11:04 AM

What is it you do not buy Marj?


"Perhaps I was too generous.

In the previous post, I noted an article in Tuesday’s Financial Times about how U.S. sub-contractors in Iraq are importing cheap labor from South Asia rather than hiring locals. While noting how bad a sign this was, I credited some of the quotes from the article which said part of the reason for this was security concerns.

Then I got this email from a regular TPM correspondent who is an American expat living in the United Arab Emirates.

He's got a lot of experience with the contracting business in the Middle East. He’s been an urban planner / project manager for more than thirty years and about half that time has been in North Africa and the Arabian peninsula (Kuwait, Saudi, UAE, etc.) …

523. jexster - 10/18/2003 6:11:29 AM

Josh: I just read your FT blog - to a certain extent I think this rationale of the "Iraqis can't be trusted" is a bunch of hoo ha.
UAE: 20% of the pop is local. Of the 80% of the expat pop, fully 75% are subcontinenters. Why? Dirt cheap, much cheaper than the Arabs (imported or otherwise).

Of the international construction firms here, they all use minimum of 80% subcontinenters (i.e. the Halliburton and Bechtel types take all the money).

Bottom line: wages are a function of the price of living in the home countries. The price of living for subcontinenters in the subcontinent is nothing. E.g. I pay my Indian maid USD 300 month of which she supports a family of 10 people in Bombay and still manages to save probably 50% of her salary here in Dubai.

When you prepare city plans you have to do population studies first, e.g. existing and forecasted pop, breakdown of population by M/F and ethnic mix, et al. Why? as an example - the low wage Indians are in construction camps w/o dependents- I need land for construction camps for them, not houses; they also do not own cars so I don't need to factor in their "trips" as car trips, I factor them in as bus trips since they are bused everywhere, etc.

Think about it: wouldn't you rather have Moslem Arabs that speak Arabic and know the culture (particularly the religious culture) than Hindus??

I don't buy this "Iraqis are dangerous" bull#$%@; its all about money.



None of this is pretty …


-- Josh Marshall

524. jexster - 10/18/2003 6:13:00 AM

Could it be that you don't buy because Halliburton and Bechtel are buying "subcontinenters"?


Naaaa

525. robertjayb - 10/18/2003 3:30:40 PM

Take tea with Riverbend...discuss the hated Turks

...imagine America being invaded and occupied by, say, North Korea. (Note: I only say 'North Korea' because of the cultural differences between the US and North Korea, and the animosity.... I, unlike Chalabi, am not privileged to information on WMD, etc.) Imagine Korean troops invading homes, detaining people and filling the streets with tanks and guns. Then imagine North Korea deciding it 'needed help' and bringing in?. Mexico. And you ask, "But why Mexico?!" and the answer is, "Well, Mexicans will understand you better because the majority of Americans are Christian, and the majority of Mexicans are Christian- you'll all get along famously."

526. jexster - 10/18/2003 4:05:06 PM

Turkey To Give Up Troop Deployment in Iraq



Islamic women protest against the Turkish governments decision to send troops to Iraq in Istanbul, 13 October 2003. Banner reads ' American media go home'.

527. robertjayb - 10/18/2003 4:23:05 PM

zeyad the dentist's new Baghdad blog, Healing Iraq...

528. jexster - 10/19/2003 10:04:50 AM

If Its Sunday, God is in Charge

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 — A yearlong State Department study predicted many of the problems that have plagued the American-led occupation of Iraq, according to internal State Department documents and interviews with administration and Congressional officials.

529. jexster - 10/19/2003 2:41:10 PM

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Deadly ambush teams struck U.S. Army targets from west to north in the arc of resistance around Baghdad, and the interim Iraqi leader called Sunday for an immediate mobilization of the old Iraqi army to help the harried Americans.

530. robertjayb - 10/20/2003 11:33:15 AM

.zeyad writes of attacks on Americans...

This was supposed to be an answer to an email, but I thought I might as well post it, since its a source of concern to many people especially Americans who have sons, daughters, relatives and friends serving here.

531. concerned - 10/20/2003 11:44:00 AM

Re. 12026 -

Once again, jexster joins forces with anti-Americans for political gain.

532. Wombat - 10/20/2003 1:07:49 PM

But the protestor was against American "media." Given the song and dance that you "centrists" give us about how the media is behind everything critical of the administration, I would think that you would be right there with her.

533. marjoribanks - 10/21/2003 10:43:15 AM

Then Marj's hedge against an uncertan future is to say nothing.

What is it you do not buy Marj?

Jexster,

I am in agreement with you that the Bush regime mendaciously played up a false pretext for war in Iraq, and then has been stunningly irresponsible in the aftermath of major military operations. It started with terrible priorities, it has done next to nothing to dispel totally legitimate Iraqi concerns and suspicions, it has drastically weakened the US's bargaining position at the UN (and even among allies) due to incomprehensible stubborness, and it has allowed its cronies to siphon off billions in insider deals with the occupation authorities.

However, if you look at the situation in Iraq and break it down into several problem areas - security, infrastructure, constitutional process, guarantees of certian freedoms, etc - you can see that there is a gradual upturn in all of these areas already apparent. In addition, the world community is (however piecemeal and inadequately) starting to turn to supporting the reconstruction.

You cannot possibly make a reasonable assumption that things (as per the problem areas) are not going to improve, or will degrade. To believe this is to make the assumption that Iraqis are not rational actors, and to project that the hard-core opposition to US presence will increase rather than suffer from attrition and dwindle.

At some level, we don't fully know what is going to come, but we do know this much now - many billions of dollars are going to flow to Iraq - mostly as grants - and dozens of countries are going to participate in a full-throated attempt to reconstruct and rebuild. The Madrid conference and the agency under the UN and World Bank (just announced) is one indication that even the Bushites are not going to be able to fuck this process up.

534. marjoribanks - 10/21/2003 10:46:44 AM

So, rational analysis will reveal that there is near-certainty that Iraq will now be limping slowly back to a kind of normal, will have a constitution in place in some time, and will most likely have a free election within the next two years. Those are all marked improvements, certainly from where we find ourselves today.

This doesn't mean that the Bushites should not be held liable for their many lies and for their criminal weakening of America's position, it also does not excuse their current actions. But it does mean that it is highly unlikely that we can look at Iraq and see 'quagmire', and it is unlikely that Dem candidates will be able to make hay from squalling 'quagmire' from now on until the election.

I agree that exploiting the situation for political gain (something I hope the Kerrys and Clarks of the world can do) means walking a fine line. But that line isn't very unclear - you have to simultaneously blast the Pres for incompetence while reassuring the public that you will stay the course by mending international fences. The trouble is that Rove and others will interpret this as implying that you care about the French (and Saddam) more than red-blooded American interests.

So it is a fine line. But putting your eggs in the 'quagmire' basket is unlikely to be sustainable all the way through the election, so you have to find that balance.

535. concerned - 10/21/2003 12:36:08 PM

They would also be marked improvements over the Saddamite government, IMO. But, then I'm not an admirer of any despotic regime.

Wrt crying 'quagmire', such a term would be much more applicable to Kosovo with over four years of UN overlordship and not very much more to show for it than in Iraq today.

536. marjoribanks - 10/21/2003 2:50:49 PM

Oh I see, jay, you mean this piece on Israel.

I think Judt is absolutely right in his premise - The Middle East peace process is finished. It did not die: it was killed.

He's also correct in the following, the gist of which I've mused about in this Forum for years.

The problem with Israel, in short, is not—as is sometimes suggested—that it is a European "enclave" in the Arab world; but rather that it arrived too late. It has imported a characteristically late-nineteenth-century separatist project into a world that has moved on, a world of individual rights, open frontiers, and international law. The very idea of a "Jewish state"—a state in which Jews and the Jewish religion have exclusive privileges from which non-Jewish citizens are forever excluded— is rooted in another time and place. Israel, in short, is an anachronism.

(continued)

537. marjoribanks - 10/21/2003 2:57:33 PM

n a world where nations and peoples increasingly intermingle and intermarry at will; where cultural and national impediments to communication have all but collapsed; where more and more of us have multiple elective identities and would feel falsely constrained if we had to answer to just one of them; in such a world Israel is truly an anachronism. And not just an anachronism but a dysfunctional one. In today's "clash of cultures" between open, pluralist democracies and belligerently intolerant, faith-driven ethno-states, Israel actually risks falling into the wrong camp.

To convert Israel from a Jewish state to a binational one would not be easy, though not quite as impossible as it sounds: the process has already begun de facto. But it would cause far less disruption to most Jews and Arabs than its religious and nationalist foes will claim.

Here is where Judt has me totally, this is my viewpoint because all the alternatives are unworkable and hard for any rational friend of Israel to support.

But as he points out, the gradual move to any such state is predicated on new thinking, new acceptances, the retirement of cherished myths and popular promises.

A binational state in the Middle East would require the emergence, among Jews and Arabs alike, of a new political class

Yes. And there is little sign of such a political class emerging until both sides learn some very hard lessons. It is for this reason that I am now unreservedly pessimistic for the short and medium term when it comes to Israel and Palestine. It's pretty clear that one state is now unavoidable, the pity is that there will almost certainly be horrific tribulation and quite a lot of bloodshed before the partisans on both sides acknowledge this.

538. marjoribanks - 10/21/2003 2:59:19 PM

Yuck.

---

In a world where nations and peoples increasingly intermingle and intermarry at will; where cultural and national impediments to communication have all but collapsed; where more and more of us have multiple elective identities and would feel falsely constrained if we had to answer to just one of them; in such a world Israel is truly an anachronism. And not just an anachronism but a dysfunctional one. In today's "clash of cultures" between open, pluralist democracies and belligerently intolerant, faith-driven ethno-states, Israel actually risks falling into the wrong camp.

To convert Israel from a Jewish state to a binational one would not be easy, though not quite as impossible as it sounds: the process has already begun de facto. But it would cause far less disruption to most Jews and Arabs than its religious and nationalist foes will claim.

Here is where Judt has me totally, this is my viewpoint because all the alternatives are unworkable and hard for any rational friend of Israel to support.

But as he points out, the gradual move to any such state is predicated on new thinking, new acceptances, the retirement of cherished myths and popular promises.

A binational state in the Middle East would require the emergence, among Jews and Arabs alike, of a new political class

Yes. And there is little sign of such a political class emerging until both sides learn some very hard lessons. It is for this reason that I am now unreservedly pessimistic for the short and medium term when it comes to Israel and Palestine.

It's pretty clear that one state is now unavoidable, the pity is that there will almost certainly be horrific tribulation and quite a lot of bloodshed before the partisans on both sides acknowledge this.

539. marjoribanks - 10/21/2003 3:04:07 PM

Of course, there is always the possibility that the US could wake up and take the righful leadership position on the matter that it has earned via its military and financial support to the region.

But I don't see it happening, the US political class is totally fucked on the Israel/Palestine issue, clouded by a serious and worrisome domestic religious right with disproportionate clout, and in the pocket of fervent lobbies.

540. robertjayb - 10/21/2003 3:57:56 PM

Why Condi? A BuzzFlash reader explains...

...why "Condi and not Rummy"... it may be attributed to the sole fact that the National Security Adviser to the President is automatically exempted from Congressional Oversight. By shifting the responsibilities to Ms. Rice's office, there'll be no chance that a tell-tale money trail will be left for anyone to follow.

541. robertjayb - 10/21/2003 4:00:01 PM

What?

542. robertjayb - 10/21/2003 4:13:53 PM

Riverbend: Quran abuse triggers fracas...

543. rdbrewer - 10/21/2003 7:03:56 PM

544. robertjayb - 10/21/2003 7:14:25 PM

Despicable then, despicable now...

Since the end of the Vietnam War, presidents have worried that their military actions would lose support once the public glimpsed the remains of U.S. soldiers arriving at air bases in flag-draped caskets.

To this problem, the Bush administration has found a simple solution: It has ended the public dissemination of such images by banning news coverage and photography of dead soldiers' homecomings on all military bases.

545. jexster - 10/21/2003 10:02:04 PM

WASHINGTON — After months of pleading with Turkey to aid in the war in Iraq and then the aftermath, the Bush administration appears on the verge of having to turn down an offer of Turkish troops to relieve thinly stretched American soldiers.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage acknowledged today that the opposition of the Iraqi Governing Council has stalled - and possibly killed - a plan to deploy Turkish troops in western Iraq.

Refusing long-sought help from Turkey would mark a major disappointment for the U.S.-led coalition because the Turks were among a relatively few nations willing to send troops, and the only one willing to send large numbers, defense officials said.

The Turks promised to put an international - and more important, Muslim - face on a coalition that faces dozens of attacks a day by Iraqis and others who consider them a Western occupying force.

546. jexster - 10/21/2003 10:15:22 PM

Ahhh...there's a moralist school, a realist school, a neonationalist school, a neoconservative hotchpot (that's a gaggle not a school), an internationalist school etc.



RD is a follower of the bumper sticker school of foreign policy. Very popular on pickup truck windows in Oklahoma right behind the shotgun racks.

547. jexster - 10/21/2003 10:37:32 PM

12031. concerned - 10/20/2003 4:44:00 PM

Re. 12026 -

Once again, jexster joins forces with anti-Americans for political gain


Lies and incompetence
Incompetence and Lies.
Lyimg incompetents


Counterfeit patriots

548. jexster - 10/22/2003 12:36:44 AM

Marj -



Yours is not an argument marj. Neither rational nor reasoned, when stripped of the fuzzy thinking, factual frivolity, and finely lined timidity, your reasoned argument turns out to be sophistry in a slogan:

That jejune hairball of naivete - "Things must get better because they cannot get worse than they have been" - shall henceforth be known as Majorie's Law.

Treacle Marj

549. jexster - 10/22/2003 12:44:28 AM

A Reality Check: Murphy's Laws:

1.Nothing is as easy as it looks.
2. Everything takes longer than you think.
3. Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
4. If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong.
Corollary: If there is a worse time for something to go wrong, it will happen then.
5. If anything simply cannot go wrong, it will anyway.
6. If you perceive that there are four possible ways in which a procedure can go wrong, and circumvent these, then a fifth way, unprepared for, will promptly develop.
7 Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse.
8. If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.


Murphy's Law of the Open Road:
When there is a very long road upon which there is a one-way bridge placed at random, and there are only two cars on that road, it follows that: (1) the two cars are going in opposite directions, and (2) they will always meet at the bridge.


Quantization Revision of Murphy's Laws
Everything goes wrong all at once.

Murphy's Constant
Matter will be damaged in direct proportion to its value
Murphy's Corollaries
Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse.
It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious
Law of the Perversity of Nature (Mrs. Murphy's Corollary):
You cannot successfully determine beforehand which side of the bread to butter.
Corollary (Jenning):
The chance of the bread falling with the buttered side down is directly proportional to the cost of the carpet

550. jexster - 10/22/2003 1:21:04 AM

Point by Painful Point...Marjie's Law Meets the Real World...

• However, if you look at the situation in Iraq and break it down into several problem areas -
  
  
• security - The looting has stopped. There is nothign left to loot. Civilian violence continues largely unabated. Shiite communities quiet for months have seen an upturn in bombings and sectarian strife. Jordanian Embassy. UN Headquarters. UN and NGO's have reduced personnel in country by 95%. The Iraqi security troops go into hot areas where US troops would only inflame situation. The 80,000 man force is a farce by all accounts
  
  
• infrastructure - they've repaired bomb damage and the electricity is back on. Oil fields are a mess. Pipeline sabotage continues.
  
  
• constitutional process - What process? Democracy of the kind Bush is peddling in his latest round of agitprop "justifications" will not emerge. The best we can expect in the next few years is a stable oligarchy, an authoritarian regime which will be more friendly to Europe than to the US. Powell twisted arms at the IGC and got them to reverse their opposition to an early constitutional drafting process. Reason: They know that the ethnic and tribal rivalries make this wholly unrealistic - the process will strain those rivalries further and will disappoint US expectations. The constitution is another UN PR charade.

  551. jexster - 10/22/2003 1:27:54 AM

  
  

• Political - you ignore the most fundamental question. The IGC lacks any legitimacy, ridiculed by the populution or ignroed. It is seen as a US puppet. Free elections could be held at almost any time and produce an Islamist State. As I have repeatedly warned, we are now seeing the Shiite sufferance is rapidly coming to a close. Expect increasing Shiite resistance. Most Iraqis want our money and that is about all they want.
  
  
  
  
• World Support? - This is doubletalk - "In addition, the world community is (however piecemeal and inadequately) starting to turn to supporting the reconstruction...we do know this much now - many billions of dollars are going to flow to Iraq - mostly as grants - and dozens of countries are going to participate in a full-throated attempt to reconstruct and rebuild. "
  

  552. jexster - 10/22/2003 1:32:21 AM

  
  Bullshit. The US taxpayer has coughed up nearly 200 Billion for occupation and reconstruction. The UN resolution will produce little money or troops. The best that can be said of this is that the World Bank/UN group might be an organiational kernel from which a truly international, including Arab, effort might emergy - when Bush is out of office, back on his fake ranch, getting fat and getting drunk again or when hell freezes over.
  
  

• REASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS or Treacle?
  
  You cannot possibly make a reasonable assumption that things (as per the problem areas) are not going to improve, or will degrade.
  
  Yes I can. It is happening even now and has been for a while. Resistance is growing and will not abate as long as the US is an occupying force. Iraqi security forces have been coming under increasing attack. As their role grows, they will become targets of attacks and will be increasingly viewed as a puppet force or an ineffectual government. Saddam didn't just happen. Though stupid, crass, brutal, he in some measure was responding to the nature of the country and the people. To believe this is to make the assumption that Iraqis are not rational Iraqis.
  
  
  
• BUSH FACING CONTNUING PROGRESSIVE DETERIORATION FOR SUPPORT-
  
  Troop morale will continue to worsen. The Reservists are really pissed, will become more so, and will be a political thorn. $87 Billion doesn't begin to pay the tab and the American people won't continue to supprt this level of spending much longer. All Bush efforts since the Great Landing have failed as poll numbers continue to slide on all aspects. Bush cannot maintain a consistent committment to Iraq.
  
  

  553. jexster - 10/22/2003 1:41:57 AM

• Bush has no exit strategy or timetable or third nation troops to replace our own.....
  
  His administration is a decision-making disaster. He has alienated the world and this will cost more time more money than Americans will pay. Other countries will not come to our aid in any significant degree until Bush internationalizes the effort and sets a timetable for withdrawal.
  
  The best "Reasonable analysis" - Watch for the Declare Victory and Go Home Moment.
  
  
  The quagmire lives and Bush's ass is in it.
  
  Unfortunately so are ours.
  
  
  

554. jexster - 10/22/2003 1:45:27 AM

Jeanne Kirkpatrick - Realist School

RD Brewer - OKIE State Bumper Sticker School

Marjorie - Tom Freidman/Rudyard Kipling Raj School to Save Savages, pines for the Glory Days of the Raj, wouldn't be caught on her Ganges pyre in "homespun".

555. jexster - 10/22/2003 1:54:08 AM

Oh BTW Marjie...US military and financial support to the region is part of our problem. We prop up Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, The Emirates in a region which is one of the poorest in the world (GDP per capita) and getting worse every year.


The Emirs tolerate the US because our military and economic power protects their snndboxes from being looted by the Arab have-not nationals.

The growing wealth disparity wiil, in long term, surpass US support of Israel as #1 flammable problem....

556. jexster - 10/22/2003 2:23:50 AM

Rational IRAQI Actors


Welcome to Sadr City

BAGHDAD -- Lt. Denny Vigil points the barrel of his M-4 carbine out the driver's side door of a Humvee. His eyes scan the storefronts and the rooftops. He and his men used to stop and walk through the busy markets of Sadr City, Baghdad's vast Shiite Muslim slum. But now they stay buttoned up in their vehicles with mounted machine guns and go out on patrol only with M1-A1 Abrams tanks leading the way.



"The older people were giving me that look, 'What's the need for all this?' " Vigil said on the move one day last week. "They know something is going on."

Everything changed for the Army's 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment 12 days ago, when a U.S. patrol was ambushed by hundreds of armed men presumed to be followers of Moqtada Sadr, the young Shiite cleric who has denounced the U.S. occupation of Iraq and called for creation of a Shiite state.

Despite the Oct. 9 encounter, which killed two Americans and two Iraqis, the regiment's commanders say they believe they are still winning a war against Sadr for the hearts and minds of 2 million residents packed into a garbage-strewn quarter of Baghdad named for Sadr's father, a revered cleric assassinated in 1999, allegedly by Saddam Hussein's government. But there is little question that the climate in Sadr City is different than it was during the regiment's first six postwar months here, which passed without a combat fatality.

"We used to walk around, talk to the kids, drink [tea] with the old guys. Not no more," said Sgt. Gary Frisbee.

In important ways, the tenuous state of affairs in Sadr City has become a microcosm of the Bush administration's efforts throughout Iraq.

557. alistairConnor - 10/22/2003 4:14:32 AM

Near-unanimous UN resolution condemns Israel's wall of shame.

Votes against : four.

Israel.

Marshall Islands.

Micronesia.

USA.


I don't understand it, Mr President. The whoooooole wooooooooorld is out of step with us.

558. marjoribanks - 10/22/2003 10:24:37 AM

Jexster,

I appreciate your fairly detailed responses. And in fact I cop to the possibility that you will be proven correct, and that my analysis will be shown to be overly optimistic and hopeful.

There are some glaring factual errors in your posts, of course, including the howler that the Emirates (apparently including Saudi Arabia and (inexplicably) Egypt) is among the poorer regions of the world. But anyway, leaving those aside, your own assessment comes down to the following.

Resistance is growing and will not abate as long as the US is an occupying force. Iraqi security forces have been coming under increasing attack. As their role grows, they will become targets of attacks and will be increasingly viewed as a puppet force or an ineffectual government. Saddam didn't just happen. Though stupid, crass, brutal, he in some measure was responding to the nature of the country and the people. To believe this is to make the assumption that Iraqis are not rational Iraqis.

In effect, you are making a bet that Iraqis will not buy into the foreign occupation as long as the USA is seen to be in charge and calling most of the shots. I do not agree, because there will be a point where the positive trends involved with such an occupation will outweigh the negative trends. That point may come when Hussein is caught, it may come when this $87 billion starts being spread around Iraq liberally, it may come when the first serious deployment of non-USUK troops takes position in and around Baghdad.

559. marjoribanks - 10/22/2003 10:24:51 AM

But it will come, there is too much at stake for everyone (including the Iraqis) for it not to. Yes, the Bush people have bungled the timeline - and much else- but the nightmare scenario of a steadily deteriorating situation (which you apparently believe is an inevitability) can be avoided still.

From the US point of view, from the perspective of the average American voter sitting in Des Moines, yes I agree that he has been fucked and will be paying absurd and unconscionable amounts for this war. I sincerely hope that he makes Dubya pay come election time.

560. marjoribanks - 10/22/2003 10:40:09 AM

I'm not entirely comfortable being in the position of defending this War in Iraq, because even as I voiced cautious support for the venture I was struck all along (and complained vociferously here) that the Bushites were being mendacious from the start. In fact, walking the fine line of supporting military action in Iraq while simultaneously deploring the Bush tactics and bunglings is thankless, and perhaps pointless.

Way back, when it came to the first declarations of War against the jihadis, I pointed out at some great length why a full-scale campaign against them - as spelled out by Bush - was a great thing for the world, and if he followed up on a fraction of his rhetoric he'd go down as a historically great leader (and win my vote forever). At that point, Pseuder pointed out that I should consider the US record in executing and following-up on these grand ventures - consider the unintended consequences.

Those comments, while I thought them unwarrentedly cynical at the time, do return to me when I reconsider the situation we find ourselves in, the insane good/evil moralistic rhetoric (such as that from the Pentagon born-again a few days ago) and the cynically corrupt assignment of billions of dollars in contracts.

561. marjoribanks - 10/22/2003 10:41:13 AM

The mistake, as such, was in the assumption that the US and the neocon contingent in charge would behave differently this time. It was not in the nature of the beast, and perhaps the foolish religiosity was inevitable, the race to reward cronies was inevitable, and the criminal burning of international diplomatic bridges was also inevitable.

So, rather weakly, I have to reiterate that this project - the military campaign in Iraq - was always a wise and historically correct move, and we are hamstrung because the current bunch of jokers is the only one we have to make that move.

Thus, I am with Fareed Zakaria.

Iraq was a threat, but more important, it was an opportunity. "A pre-emptive invasion of a country gives one pause," I wrote in that August 2002 column, "but there is another massive benefit to it. Done right, an invasion would be the single best path to reform the Arab world. The roots of Islamic terror reside in the dysfunctional politics of the region, where failure and repression have produced fundamentalism and violence. Were Saddam's totalitarian regime to be replaced by a state that respected human rights, enforced the rule of law and created a market economy, it could begin to transform that world." I still believe that.

So, no, I have no regrets that we toppled Saddam Hussein. I do have regrets about how we have handled the world, the diplomacy, the war and, most important, the afterwar. We took care of the threat, but we are bungling the opportunity.

562. alistairconnor - 10/22/2003 10:42:13 AM

there will be a point where the positive trends involved with such an occupation will outweigh the negative trends.

I (often) think it'll come too, Marj.

BUT :

it may come when this $87 billion starts being spread around Iraq liberally

-- don't count on that. Remember, three quarters of that are to pay for the military presence. I bet almost all of that never actually leaves the USA -- flying in everything the army needs (or have they started local procurement? That would surely be a boost for the Iraqi economy). Apart from GIs buying Cokes from local entrepreneurs, how is this money benefiting Iraq?

it may come when the first serious deployment of non-USUK troops takes position in and around Baghdad.

-- Do you have inside information on that? I see no sign of any such thing on the horizon.

563. alistairconnor - 10/22/2003 10:47:14 AM

And if they do indeed spend $20 billion on infrastructure projects in Iraq, it's true that the infrastructure will be there to show for it, but most of the actual money will, again, stay in the USA, and much of the rest will be remitted home by the South Asian guest workers who will apparently do most of the hard work.

564. marjoribanks - 10/22/2003 10:49:32 AM

The $40 billion plus that is earmarked for the Pentagon in that procurement includes all kinds of funds that will be spent directly in Iraq, though much of it may be spent on foreign consultants and companies. But a bridge is a bridge, an improved road is an improved road, and 10,000 trained assistants is 10,000 Iraqis with a job.

I have no idea about foreign troops yet, either. I just think that they're inevitable. The Madrid conference could be a damp squib, it could also be the beginnings of a new international cooperation. Time, um, will tell.

565. marjoribanks - 10/22/2003 10:51:48 AM

Connor,

Let us not assume that the increased transparency now being introduced to the spending/procurement/contract assignment processes will not yield some desirable results.

There is this new UN/World Bank agency which will oversee a lot of the spending, I can't imagine that they will fail to see the logic in spending large sums in Iraq to Iraq's benefit.

566. marjoribanks - 10/22/2003 10:59:21 AM

By the way, Fareed Zakaria also has some pertinent things to say about the lunatic General Boykin and his comments on the lines of "my God is bigger than your God."

But the issue is not whether
the general is free to express his views, but whether Secretary Rumsfeld wants someone who holds such views in high office. After all, were the general to have
expressed his opinion that the Iraq war was a blunder, he would have been fired. Were he to have made an anti-Semitic comment (like the noxious ones Malaysia’s
Prime Minister Mahathir made last week), he would have been fired. Why? Because those freely expressed views would contradict the Bush administration's basic philosophy. So are we to assume that Boykin's views do not contradict administration policy? No one is urging that Secretary Rumsfeld muzzle Boykin, merely that he allow him to enter the private sector, where he may express his views even more freely. He could even sit in for Rush Limbaugh.

When I read comments like Boykin's (and the attendant muted response from the policy makers) and previously those by Woolsey where he declared war not only on Iraq, Iran and Syria but all the US allies in the region as well, it reminds me very strongly again that I need to consider not only whether an action abroad is right for the US and the world but who the bozos are who will be undertaking them in this country's name. Because the second factor can easily trump the first, no matter how correct the first may be.

567. alistairconnor - 10/22/2003 11:11:22 AM

no matter how correct the first may be.

Which is a large part of why I opposed the war. Sometimes the remedy is worse than the disease. There was a legitimate war to be fought to unseat Saddam; but that was not the war we got.

568. jexster - 10/22/2003 11:19:40 AM

There are some glaring factual errors in your posts, of course, including the howler that the Emirates (apparently including Saudi Arabia and (inexplicably) Egypt) is among the poorer regions of the world.

Don't laugh too hard.

Here's another Law: He Who Laughs Last, Laughs Best.

I was speaking of the Middle East where population growth over the last decade has skyrocketed and oil revenue stagnated. The figures are from UNDP and I counted the Emirates as "haves" and Saudi is not a wealthy top to bottom as yuo might image.

Hahahaha



20 Billoin will make a difference. It fuckin better but everytime I read that crap I go off on how naively American the notion is.

And Bush thought the Balkans cost too much to rebuild. Well newsflash, we're still working on Bosnia at T plus 10 years.


The US must broaden the effort to make it effective yes....that is about it, that plus a timetable for departure, setting a more realistic and concrete measure of success, kickin some Likud butt wouldn't hurt either....


We have no business occupying an Arab state...why even St Ronald Raygun was smart enough to realize that.

569. jexster - 10/22/2003 11:25:46 AM

I think Fareed is cute. I'd plant a big ole lock on those gorgeous lips and slip him some tongue.


But Fareed is a Marjie's Law kinda guy - that's silly Bernard Lewis crap.

This wasn't a pre-emptive war.

This was an EXPERIMENTAL war and will go down in history as one of the biggest fuck ups of all time.

570. marjoribanks - 10/22/2003 11:31:56 AM

I'm sure Mr. Zakaria would be impressed by your manful appreciation of his comeliness, Jex.

However, I don't think he is in the least bit confused about this campaign. It's certainly an experiment (in the guise of pre-emption) and was always in theory one good shot at making a difference in the ME's drift downwards. It's the biggest reason I supported it.

If the one shot winds up having made things worse, then it has been a big fuckup. Currently, it looks mediocre at best. But look at the very core realpolitik realities and you do not see a grand fuck-up yet - the oil reserves are secured and there are 140,000 US troops in the center of the ME. Those are minimum gains, but they're gains.

571. marjoribanks - 10/22/2003 11:36:03 AM

Of course, almost directly as a consequence we're going to have a nuclear-armed Iraq and probably a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabi as well.

But I am starting to be rather cavalier about the nukes, especially since the US itself has raised the specter of nuclear confrontation in the future, thus guaranteeing that every country which can see its way to getting its hands on some is now going to race towards them with open wallets.

572. marjoribanks - 10/22/2003 11:36:47 AM

Not Iraq, Iran.

573. jexster - 10/22/2003 11:43:03 AM

What difference...that's fuzzball thought. That mouth needs my tongue in it. Full stop

"make a difference" what the fuck is the difference your pollyana's think you are going to make?


This IRAQ. This isn't the East Side. All these pies in the sky floating on clouds...make me laugh...Iraq will Iraq even now there are signs fo life. We do not want democracy in the Middle East. The last thing we want is to empower those who hate us now more than ever.

Its another example of what the Iraqi American came to realize about two weeks after returned "home" to start his newspaper - "Everyone in the US is projecting their own agenda. Nobody has a clue about the Iraqi agenda."


Jeanne Kirkpatrick - "Really truly we must be clear about this...." I fancy she'd want to slip Fareed some tongue too



We can thank Allah that thare isn't a Giap, Uncle Ho, or hard rat bitten VC type for thousands of miles ....The Arab fighter is a gift from God...

574. jexster - 10/22/2003 11:45:14 AM

The US interest - S-T-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y and out

The rest is hairball Bush shit....Con job

575. jexster - 10/22/2003 11:47:16 AM

Wrt crying 'quagmire', such a term would be much more applicable to Kosovo with over four years of UN overlordship and not very much more to show for it than in Iraq today.


Let's see....no good guy casualties...500 to 2000 Servs...multinational out the wazooo....no guerillas...no occupation...mmmm...


If you Kosovo sucked...suck on this Moron

I'll suck Fareed

576. marjoribanks - 10/22/2003 11:52:09 AM

Well, now that Jex has publicized his heated desires, I - for one- will not be able to look at Fareed Zakaria in quite the same way again.

577. marjoribanks - 10/22/2003 11:54:12 AM

Fareed Zakaria = hottie.

Yes, I am disquieted.

578. jexster - 10/22/2003 12:16:53 PM

THE RIGHT ROAD TO SOVEREIGNTY IN IRAQ


Marina Ottaway and Thomas Carothers

Carnegie Policy Brief no. 27

Full Text (PDF)

Summary
The Bush administration is pushing for elections in Iraq sometime next year. This extremely accelerated timetable is dangerous. Early elections in postconflict situations can produce unstable results and favor radical groups over still-emergent moderate forces.

Because the administration has made elections a requisite for Iraqi sovereignty and faces growing pressure to transfer sovereignty, delaying elections is not an option. The solution is to limit the current constitution writing to an interim document that provides the framework for the election of a constituent assembly and an interim government of national unity. This would produce an elected Iraqi government to which sovereignty can be transferred and create a framework for the longer-term process of political consensus building necessary to create permanent democratic institutions.


"still-emergent" that understatement about says it all. As I argued to Wombat in run up to war of adventure - look at the Iraqi exiles if you wish to know the future of moderate Western style liberal democracy in Iraq....Ahmed Chalabi donning a Kafaia preparing to lead the liberators in to Baghdad...if you saw that clown on Frontline....they hustled him away in a Huey to an undisclosed location within about an hour of the first howls from populace


State Department knows this. Euros know this. That's why all the pressure via Powell for fast elections - lookin for the quickest way out from the mess a bunch of namby pamby brain farting wonks have created for a President who is supremely clueless.
Fairy tales.


Waiting for Godot?

579. jexster - 10/22/2003 12:52:29 PM

Washington -- After failing to attract large numbers of foreign peacekeepers to Iraq, the Pentagon is drawing up plans to rotate in as many as 30,000 more reservists early next year, despite growing worries in Congress about strains on the force, defense officials said Tuesday.

These troops would join three, 5,000-member Army National Guard brigades already in line to go to Iraq as part of an expected yearlong rotation to replace U.S. troops now there. U.S. Marines also may be sent back into Iraq by February to ease the burden on overstretched Army forces that normally shoulder U.S. peacekeeping duties.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld refused to discuss Tuesday how many more reservists might be needed next year, saying no final decisions had been made, but other officials described the planning for a reserves call-up on condition of anonymity.

There is growing unease on Capitol Hill about the stresses put on reserve forces by the war on terrorism, and questions over whether the Bush administration adequately foresaw just how many U.S. troops would be needed in Iraq, and for how long.

580. jexster - 10/22/2003 12:55:14 PM

ESTRAGON:
You stink of garlic!
VLADIMIR:
It's for the kidneys. (Silence. Estragon looks attentively at the tree.) What do we do now?
ESTRAGON:
Wait.
VLADIMIR:
Yes, but while waiting.
ESTRAGON:
What about hanging ourselves?
VLADIMIR:
Hmm. It'd give us an erection.
VLADIMIR:
Listen!
They listen, grotesquely rigid. #

ESTRAGON:
I hear nothing.
VLADIMIR:
Hsst! (They listen. Estragon loses his balance, almost falls. He clutches the arm of Vladimir, who totters. They listen, huddled together.) Nor I.
Sighs of relief. They relax and separate.
ESTRAGON:
You gave me a fright.
VLADIMIR:
I thought it was he.
ESTRAGON:
Who?
VLADIMIR:
Godot.
ESTRAGON:
Pah! The wind in the reeds.
VLADIMIR:
I could have sworn I heard shouts.
ESTRAGON:
And why would he shout?
VLADIMIR:
At his horse.
Silence.

581. jayackroyd - 10/22/2003 1:40:00 PM

ESTRAGON:
I can't go on like this.
VLADIMIR:
That's what you think.

582. jexster - 10/22/2003 7:56:03 PM

Rummy "Stay the course for the slog is long and hard..."

583. jexster - 10/22/2003 8:05:13 PM

Slog On Oh Ship of State...



Iraqis celebrate as a U.S. Army Humvee vehicle burns after it was destroyed October 22, 2003 in Falluja

FALLUJAH, Iraq - Iraqi insurgents have stepped up attacks on U.S. troops in recent weeks, the commander of American forces said Wednesday, as ambush bombers struck again in this tense Sunni Muslim area west of Baghdad, in the northern city of Mosul and in the heart of the capital.

584. wonkers2 - 10/22/2003 9:52:13 PM

We have stirred up the entire Middle East.

585. jexster - 10/22/2003 11:14:21 PM

Marjie's Law Update:

The Shiites are on the move.

Speaking of their proposal to create a real and independent security force, a coalition lower ranks of the Saddamite Army plus militias armed and unarmed and the prospects that the Viceroy will shit can the idea, the leading Shiite cleric on the IGC told CBS News:

"The Americans keep ignoring Iraqi advice. They do so at their peril for tanks can only kill tanks. They will fail to stop the insurrection and then " they will be in a world of shit.

Slog on through your little garden of joy

586. jexster - 10/23/2003 12:18:06 PM

A Rotting Squid Marjie

MADRID, Oct. 22 -- The Bush administration is appealing to nations attending a two-day donors' conference, which opens here Thursday, to put aside differences over the invasion of Iraq and commit tens of billions of dollars to rebuild the shattered country.



But many countries are limiting, for now, the amounts they are willing to commit, and some are planning to give nothing because of lingering distaste over the invasion and the U.S.-led occupation, as well as concerns about continuing violence.

Unlike a similar donors' conference for war-torn Afghanistan in January 2002 -- when high-level delegations came with large aid pledges following the ouster of the Taliban -- this meeting is being attended by many low-level delegations. Of the 70 countries expected to attend, only about 17 will send their foreign ministers.

A European Union briefing paper says this is "not a classical donors' conference" because it will focus not just on financial pledges but also on "making a political statement." The European Commission is pledging 200 million euros (about $235 million), but only until the end of 2004, when a new assessment will be needed, EU officials said.

587. concerned - 10/23/2003 6:26:43 PM

Bad news for jexster: Iraqi official says limited German, French help won't be forgotten

588. concerned - 10/23/2003 6:34:41 PM

Germany, France and Russia -- the chief opponents of war before the U.S. invasion -- sent lower level officials to the conference. Those countries have been opposed to what they see as too much U.S. control of the reconstruction process.

Let me get this straight. These countries refuse to contribute even a hundredth part of what the US has committed itself to, yet they want to dictate to the US how to restore Iraq? Have their governments no conception of proportion or shame?

589. judithathome - 10/23/2003 6:43:17 PM

Ha! They are there at the behest of the US...which happens to be seeking relief from the monumental cost of this massive mistake.

Bush woulkd pee himself if they offered any help at all...and he would take it, shame be damned.

590. jexster - 10/23/2003 10:29:45 PM

Have Vest, Will Loan
- By David H. Hackworth, DefenseWatch Senior Military Columist

About 40,000 of our sons and daughters in harm’s way in Iraq actually have to buy, borrow, beg or go without adequate body armor because a bumbling Pentagon bureaucracy hasn’t been issuing 100 percent of our troops the very best full metal jacket money can buy – even though the money has been long appropriated.

591. jexster - 10/23/2003 10:31:01 PM

Let me get this straight. These countries refuse to contribute even a hundredth part of what the US has committed itself to, yet they want to dictate to the US how to restore Iraq?

Yes you have it right.


Only a fool would give a liar and incompetent money to burn.

592. jexster - 10/23/2003 10:32:13 PM

US Congress - $20 Billion

593. jexster - 10/23/2003 10:48:08 PM

But don't be angry at Germany or France, our Allies, nor Russia, Bush has a "soul mate" in President Putin.


One group pulls all the strings in European finance....


It is the Swede, the Mother of Evil...and they aren't givin that Idiot squat either

594. robertjayb - 10/24/2003 12:00:09 PM

Today's U.S. toll from CENTCOM:

SAMARRA, Iraq – Two 4th Infantry Division soldiers were killed and four were wounded during a mortar attack at a forward operating base near the northern city of Samarra just before 12 p.m. Oct. 24.
...................................

MOSUL, Iraq – One 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) soldier was killed in a small arms fire attack in western Mosul at approximately 3:45 a.m. Oct. 24.

The soldier was evacuated to the 21st Combat Support Hospital and pronounced dead there.

595. jexster - 10/24/2003 1:03:44 PM

Died for a lie....Requiem in aeternum


Well the figures are in Marj....got 13 billion mostly in offers of loans and credits to a country already crushed with debt not to mention Kuwaiti war reparations....


Let's see what is 50 Billion -(20 Billion + sleeve out of vest)?

596. jexster - 10/24/2003 1:04:55 PM

And the answer is....

597. jexster - 10/24/2003 1:08:17 PM

October 21, 2003

I can say very definitively that when Sec Army Brownlee and LTG Sanchez were here, they arranged nice little "sensing sessions" with the soldiers, complete with a camera crew that followed them around. The problem with that was all of the soldiers in the sensing sessions were hand-picked, 82nd soldiers who had just gotten here the month before and who already have been told when their redeployment dates are. So of course those guys were hearing what they wanted to hear, and what those soldier's commanders wanted them to hear "we are motivated, blah blah blah.". Not a single natl guard or reserve soldier sat at that table.

Those days I sat with a group of reservists who have been deployed 8 months, not 40 feet away from these dog and pony shows. All I felt was resentment and hatred for an administration that is much more concerned about publishing "good news events" than actually generating them.

That's my negative thought for the day.

598. jexster - 10/24/2003 4:41:49 PM

What the Bungling Butcher of Baghdad Hath Wrought
Marjie's Law Meets Murphy's Law...


ALEPPO, Syria, Oct. 19 Two decades after Syria ruthlessly uprooted militant Islam, killing an estimated 10,000 people, this most secular of Arab states is experiencing a dramatic religious resurgence.

599. jexster - 10/24/2003 10:42:30 PM

The Rummy Slog Quite Apparent in Iraq

600. jexster - 10/25/2003 12:09:00 AM

Check it out Marj...."we're fucked"

An old line about the Marine Corps comes to mind: the difference between the Boy Scouts and the Marine Corps is that the Boy Scouts have adult supervision.

Are there no adults overseeing American policy in Iraq? If there are, it is about time for them to tell the hapless Mr. Bremer to get the old Iraq working again, and let Iraqis worry about utopia. That might at least give the United States what it so desperately needs in Iraq: a way out.


Utopia Means "No Place" - a classic American error
By William S. Lind
author of the Maneuver Warfare Handbook (Westview Press, 1985); co-author, with Gary Hart, of America Can Win: The Case for Military Reform (Adler & Adler, 1986); and co-author, with William H. Marshner, of Cultural
Conservatism: Toward a New National Agenda (Free Congress Foundation, 1987). He has written extensively for both popular media, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Harper's, and professional military journals, including The Marine Corps Gazette, U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings and Military Review.

601. jexster - 10/25/2003 11:53:01 AM

Blackhawk Down

602. jexster - 10/25/2003 11:55:25 AM

neo-cons really believe every flea-bitten, fly-blown Third World hellhole can be turned into Switzerland. All it takes is enough American troops.

603. robertjayb - 10/25/2003 6:23:51 PM

Financial Times goes where timid U.S. media will not...

The Bush administration's exposure of a clandestine Central Intelligence Agency operative was part of a campaign aimed at discrediting US intelligence agencies for not supporting White House claims that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting Iraq's nuclear weapons programme, former agency officials said yesterday.

604. robertjayb - 10/26/2003 12:07:31 AM

Wolfowitz hotel in Baghdad hit by six rockets---Wolfie okay says CNN.

605. robertjayb - 10/26/2003 12:08:59 AM

Blast Heard at Iraq Hotel Where Wolfowitz Staying

Sat October 25, 2003 11:42 PM ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The Baghdad hotel at which U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was staying was evacuated after a series of blasts were heard early on Sunday, according to a journalist staying at the hotel.
At least one person was wounded, but there was no immediate word on the whereabouts of Wolfowitz and his senior aides, a Reuters journalist at the Rashid Hotel said.

The blasts occurred at about 6 a.m. local time.

Wolfowitz, a major force behind the Iraq war, was paying his second visit to Iraq in three months and stressed the need to speed up the formation of a new Iraqi army, police force, border guard and civil defense corps.

606. jexster - 10/26/2003 9:55:18 AM

From AFP....

US soldier killed, 15 wounded in Baghdad hotel attack, Wolfowitz escapes

Now the ChickenHawk bastard can come back and tell us how the media are filtering...

607. jexster - 10/26/2003 11:00:42 AM

Billions Missing from Iraq Reconstruction Funds

608. PelleNilsson - 10/26/2003 12:43:57 PM

A completely unsubstantiated article.

609. concerned - 10/26/2003 1:49:49 PM

Somehow I get the impression that jexster would just as soon see Wolfowitz dead.

610. jexster - 10/26/2003 1:53:49 PM

No I want to see the rat bastard chickenhawk alive.

I want to see him suffer for his crimes

611. jexster - 10/26/2003 1:55:26 PM

Sorry Pelle...the only thing "unsubstantiated" is the whereabouts of those billions...

Time will tell...

612. concerned - 10/26/2003 1:56:15 PM

Written in the Guest Book of a traveling European Holocaust exhibit with photographs of Jews at Auschwitz, etc. 9/7/03 by Arabs:

1. This exhibit testifies to the quality of organization and handling [of the mission]. From a historical perspective, what Hitler did to the Jews is exactly what they deserve. Still, we would have wished that he could have finished incinerating all the Jews in the world, but time ran out on him and therefore Allah's curse be on him and on them. (-) Khaled al-Zahraya from Saudi Arabia, 07.09.03

2. This is a museum showing a restaurant [specializing in] Jewish meat, which is what they deserve. Sons of apes and pigs. The day after the attempt to murder Ahmad Yasin. 'Umar al-Da'm, Yemen 07.09.03

3. Ibrahim al-'Arimi, Sultanate of Oman The most beautiful sights of Jews. (-) 07. 09.03

4. I say what they all say, and will just add that they [Jews] are cursed in this world and the next. Madih, Yemen. 07.09.2003

Item 1-4 constitute hate speech, IMO, and should be treated accordingly.

613. jexster - 10/26/2003 2:02:32 PM

Two more bombs go off in Central Baghad...

Don't worry Pelle. If you've followed the Bush Fiscal Follies at all, it should come as no surprise that billions have disappeared down the Bush Blackhole.

Chump change compared to what's been happening here.


From Fred Kaplan's Article on the Rummy-gone papers:

Have you ever read a more pathetic federal document in your life? What is being stated here can be summed up as follows: We'll probably win the battle for Afghanistan and Iraq (or, more precisely, it's "pretty clear" we "can win" it, "in one way or another" after "a long, hard slog"), but we're losing the struggle for hearts and minds in the broader war against terrorism. Not only that, we don't know how to measure winning or losing, we don't have a plan for winning it, we don't know how to fashion a plan, and the bureaucratic agencies put in charge of waging this war and drawing up these plans may be inherently incapable of doing so.

614. jexster - 10/26/2003 2:03:49 PM

constitute hate speech, should be treated accordingly.

Meaning what? That we should press for international hate crime legislation?

Prosecute Gen Boykin?

615. jexster - 10/26/2003 2:08:01 PM

Filter this


BAGHDAD (Reuters) - At least two explosions detonated Sunday evening in an area of Baghdad that includes the headquarters of Iraq 's U.S.-led administration, the U.S. military said.



A military spokesman said the explosions had gone off in the capital's Green Zone, which also includes a top-security hotel that came under rocket attack earlier in the day. Reporters in central Baghdad also heard several explosions.

616. Edmund Dantes - 10/26/2003 2:08:27 PM

Wolfowitz isn't a soldier, but he is in country having fire directed his way.

Meanwhile, Professor Poopstain, whose main activity for several years now has been regurgitating anything and everything his bleary eyes happen to waver across on the Web, all from the comfort of his Depends-strewn mental ward, terms Wolfowitz a chickenhawk.

How many actual Serbs did you face down with all your frothful demands for their extermination, Poopy? Or was your Kosovo contribution about the same as it is now--lots of brave invective in pretty fonts from thousands of miles away?

617. PelleNilsson - 10/26/2003 2:08:30 PM

And if money is indeed disappearing down "the Bush Blackhole" where do they end up?

618. jexster - 10/26/2003 2:11:09 PM

If we knew, they wouldn't have disappeared now would they have?

619. concerned - 10/26/2003 2:11:11 PM

In the cases in question, consideration should be given to revoking the travel visas of the perps. to the country in which they disseminated their hate speech.

620. jexster - 10/26/2003 2:13:45 PM

The Right Fight Now
Counterinsurgency, Not Caution, Is the Answer in Iraq

Wow. I didn't know we had an "insurgency" in the first place.

621. jexster - 10/26/2003 2:15:15 PM

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

622. jexster - 10/26/2003 2:19:36 PM

"CPA" - acronymn as pun

From the Financial Times:

CPA accused of $4bn accounting failure in Iraq

The US-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad came under renewed fire for a lack of transparency as Christian Aid, a relief organisation, said it had not properly accounted for $4bn in Iraqi assets.

623. concerned - 10/26/2003 2:19:59 PM

Hate speech is not religious, jexster. The fact that you don't understand this is part of your problem.

624. jexster - 10/26/2003 2:20:55 PM

Your governmnent is smart to keep its kroners Pelle

625. jexster - 10/26/2003 2:22:32 PM

That is what is known to any ninth grade civics student as the FREE SPEECH clause of the US Constitution you little fascist

626. jexster - 10/26/2003 2:23:59 PM

Inasmuch as you are not religious TD, you have no right to free speech. Is that it?

627. concerned - 10/26/2003 2:26:22 PM

Fuck you too, jexster, you demented Nazi hate spewing bigot.

628. concerned - 10/26/2003 2:27:26 PM

jexster -

You don't even know what free speech is, you pathological hater.

629. concerned - 10/26/2003 2:28:54 PM

jexster is trying to say that incitement to riot and committing genocide and atrocities against minority groups is 'free' speech.

disgusting.

630. jexster - 10/26/2003 2:29:01 PM

target=new>Former NSC Analyst: Bush Regime Has Dismantled 50 Year Old Process for Vetting Intel

"Kenneth Pollack, a former NSC expert on Iraq, whose book 'The Threatening Storm' generally supported the use
of force, told me that what the Bush people did s 'dismantle the existing filtering process that for fifty years had been preventing the policymakers from getting bad information. They created stovepipes to get the information they wanted directly to the top leadership... They
always had information to back up their public claims, but it was often very bad information... They were forcing the intelligence community to defend its good information and good analysis so aggressively that the intelligence analysts didn't have the time or the energy to go after the
bad information.' The Administration eventually got its way, a former CIA official said. 'The analysts at the CIA were beaten down defending their assessments. And they blame George Tenet for not protecting them.

I've never seen a government like this.'"

631. jexster - 10/26/2003 2:29:51 PM

good ole Ken Pollack...what a sucker...better late than never..glad ole Jeb stuck the feeding tube back in ya

632. jexster - 10/26/2003 4:53:53 PM

Caught in a Quagmire US Wakes Up to Iraq Reality

Rise 'n shine Marjorie

633. Al D - 10/26/2003 7:14:55 PM

MESSAGE TO ALL MUSLIMS

As we enter into the holiest Islamic month, all muslims must pray and fast and abstain from sex from sun up to sun down. We know this puts a great strain on you so if you need relief it is permitted, nay, encouraged to kill apes and pigs, also known as Jews. If you have run out of them in you neighborhood, American Christians will do as they are infidels. Do not bother to kill the French, as we will get to them when we run out of Jews and Americans. Allah akbar! Do we have a great religeon or what!


P.S.
Sufis are also fair game.

634. jexster - 10/26/2003 7:53:38 PM

Rockets Drive Wolfowitz Out of Al Rashid

635. robertjayb - 10/26/2003 8:37:43 PM

Wolfie is being led by the example of his commander-in-chief. When things start blowing up, run and hide.

636. concerned - 10/26/2003 8:53:39 PM

Only a LW moron would have stayed in the bombed out hotel, rjb.

637. jexster - 10/26/2003 9:56:45 PM

638. concerned - 10/26/2003 10:55:19 PM

639. concerned - 10/26/2003 10:56:37 PM

From site:

Amin Al Husseini, future President of the World Islamic Congress (1961) and founding father of the Arab League (1944) inspects his Muslim Nazi troops, the Hanzar Division. Amin Al Husseini making the traditional nazi salute.

640. concerned - 10/26/2003 10:57:15 PM

Just letting people know what side the fascists are on.

641. concerned - 10/26/2003 11:04:39 PM

Question:

If the 'palestinians' were so insistent on having the west bank and the Gaza strip as a Palestinian state after the 1967 War, why didn't they give a flying fuck about that before then?

642. concerned - 10/27/2003 3:12:11 AM

643. alistairConnor - 10/27/2003 5:31:52 AM

Message # 12112 Con, you don't give a link to this material. If it was written in France or Germany, and is deemed to constitute publication, then it is certainly prosecutable. Probably in other nations of Western Europe too.

644. RickNelson - 10/27/2003 7:33:12 AM

Regarding 12141:

I believe the British and French have everything to do with the answer to your question.

First they lied and led the Arabs by the nose to oust the Turks in the early 20th century. The British falsely promised a new Arab state within the area now known as Isreal. The promises were in fact forwarded by none other than the famed "Lawrence of Arabie" Thomas Lawrence. Suffice it to say that the lies can solely be blamed for much of what is currently happening.

Iraq and I think Jordan were given to the Arabs who faught with the British. You know, different Kingdoms for different leaders. The Iraqi one didn't last.

645. RickNelson - 10/27/2003 7:39:19 AM

Fuckin' British Zionists didn't have a plan to keep the peace. Their mentality stuck within the confines of imperialism the likely cause. Fuckin' Early British! OF course this has changed, mostly.

I'm not against the Isreal state, I'm stating facts of its creation. Those times were different. In todays world it seems inconceivable. But in those days apparently borders were nilly willy details, to be created by whims of fancy.

If those promises had not been made to the Arabs, would they have fought anyway? I wonder. Maybe the truth would have been Ok? Can't go back and find out.

Do these current Arab idiots fighting with suicide killing know their own history? That is, this one little fact perpetrated by the British?

646. alistairConnor - 10/27/2003 8:07:23 AM

Message # 12133 Al,
Apparently it is your intention to inspire hatred of all Muslims, by casting a slur on their holy month and on their religion.

In what respect is this different to anti-Semitism?

647. jexster - 10/27/2003 9:44:43 AM

Al -

There are a billion of em for you to kill, but how many do you think yoiu can hit with your driver?

BAGHDAD (AFP) - A series of bomb blasts in the Iraqi capital killed 26 civilians and eight policemen and wounded 224 wounded, interim deputy interior minister Ahmed Ibrahim said.

648. jexster - 10/27/2003 9:50:25 AM

Elam Police Station

649. jexster - 10/27/2003 9:51:19 AM

That's not far from scale

650. jexster - 10/27/2003 9:52:01 AM

As you were saying Marj...

651. jexster - 10/27/2003 10:09:59 AM

What Iraqis Think - James Zogby

652. PelleNilsson - 10/27/2003 11:39:58 AM

We shall soon se Al D explaining to us that it was all "irony", the favoured explanation by the intellectually challenged.

653. jexster - 10/27/2003 12:34:03 PM

"We will stay the course,"

- What course?

- Whatever the course, a fundamental political problem for Bush - most of those who support him are fairly represented by the likes of Gen Boykin, Al D and his son Eddie

654. jexster - 10/27/2003 12:37:43 PM

Red Cross May Cut Back Efforts

655. jayackroyd - 10/27/2003 12:40:24 PM

Now there is a valid criticism. What course? Do they have a plan yet?

656. jexster - 10/27/2003 3:11:23 PM

TD - Listen to Sheikh Abdul Basit's Tajweed Qur'an recitation , synchronized verse by verse

English (Yusuf Ali): (Recite)
1:1 In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

657. jexster - 10/27/2003 3:15:36 PM

658. jexster - 10/27/2003 4:01:18 PM

Series of Suicide Bombings Plunge Iraqi Capital Into Chaos

659. marjoribanks - 10/27/2003 4:12:35 PM

Yes, it does not look good.

Iraq is a pretty secular country, as the ME goes, but having a series of apparently co-ordinated attacks in the center of what is supposedly the most secure zone in the whole country cannot do very much for Iraqi sense of wellbeing.

So, it is bad. Let's hope that this series of attacks was the culimination of sophisticated resistance and not just another warning of what lies ahead.

660. marjoribanks - 10/27/2003 4:13:43 PM

I meant to add the words "at the beginning of Ramadan" somewhere in that second sentence.

661. alistairConnor - 10/27/2003 5:27:53 PM

Complete nihilism. Attacking the UN was bad enough, but objectively they shouldn't have been in a war zone. Attacking the International Red Cross is really ugly.

Who was it who had the theory, a few months ago, that the US intervention in Iraq was designed to combat terrorism by drawing all the terrorists in the world into the one place, where they could take pot shots at Americans, and leave the rest of the world at peace?

It seemed like a stupid theory at the time. But heck.

662. concerned - 10/27/2003 5:53:49 PM

A 'stupid' theory apparently is suitable for mindless religious fanatics.

663. concerned - 10/27/2003 6:28:26 PM

US outrage over Wolfowitz jibe

"We hope the firing will be more precise and efficient (next time), so we get rid of this microbe and people like him in Washington who are spreading disorder in Arab lands, Iraq and Palestine," --Druze Drooler Walid Jumblatt

664. concerned - 10/27/2003 6:28:39 PM

Hate speech.

665. jexster - 10/27/2003 6:33:58 PM

When the Qur'an is read, listen to it with attention, and hold your peace: that ye may receive Mercy." Qur'an 7:204

666. jexster - 10/27/2003 6:35:56 PM

Iraq is only as secular as Saddam's Baathists made it.


There's your answer Marj.

667. jexster - 10/27/2003 6:36:31 PM

Death to microbes

668. jexster - 10/27/2003 6:44:50 PM

669. wonkers2 - 10/27/2003 8:00:50 PM

The talking TV heads are expressing concern over apparent coordination between the remnants of Sadaam Hussein's army using sophisticated weapons and the Islamist suicide bombers using cruder, homemade weapons.

670. Al D - 10/27/2003 9:37:46 PM

Oh, I am so sorry for my post above, and I understand your upset. It is in the wrong Thread. It should have been placed in the Religeon Thread. Of course, when marjori makes posts denegrating Christians none of you would dare to complain, because Christians are fair game; after all, Ashcroft is the main enemy for most of you, isn't he.

I don't care if you hate or love to death Muslims. I have as much right to hate speach as the rest of you.

And, Pelle, I wouldn't bother posting anything directly to you. You didn't have the courtesy to answer my question about Robert, even though it was politely phrased.

671. jexster - 10/27/2003 9:42:34 PM

Michael Kinsley on Bush's Whining About the Press
NPR's Day to Day

672. jexster - 10/27/2003 9:49:56 PM

Al-

47:9 That is because they hate the Revelation of Allah. so He has made their deeds fruitless.

673. Al D - 10/27/2003 9:52:09 PM

I often wonder how much you all have done trying to understand 9/11. To be quite honest, before that I did not give Muslims or Arabs much thought, one way or the other. Was it before 9/11 that I read, as marjori suggested, Pity the Nation? Since then I have read three books by Lewis, another called The Arab Mind, the Koran, Jihad verses McWorld, and a small book by Amos Oz, and several others. I still do not have a clear understanding of just what Muslim extremists want to accomplish other than destruction of western civilization.

We are told, jexster would claim by the world's greatest liar, that Islam is a religion of peace. It certainly wasn't founded by a peaceful individual, but by a great warrior. When new tribes were conquered they were given three choices: join Islam, become a slave, or death. Islam grew by leaps and bounds. There was nothing peaceful in the religion then, and I don’t see much peaceful in it now. So as much as I respect Mr. Bush, I resent it when someone pisses on my leg and tells me it’s raining.

674. jexster - 10/27/2003 9:57:43 PM

I don't wonder at all about your "understanding"

Not one bit.

675. jexster - 10/27/2003 10:01:38 PM

Surah 97. Power, Fate

1. We have indeed revealed this (Message) in the Night of Power:

2. And what will explain to thee what the night of power is?

3. The Night of Power is better than a thousand months.

4. Therein come down the angels and the Spirit by Allah.s permission, on every errand:

5. Peace!...This until the rise of morn!

Recitation

676. Al D - 10/27/2003 10:06:02 PM

In what respect is this different to anti-Semitism?
alister
Are you suggesting that Jews are hated for their religion? A large number of Jews in America have no religion, they are Democrats. No, they are hated because they secretly run the whole world, like that fellow i9n Malaysia said.

I spent some time watching C-Span this afternoon. One of the speakers was named Rohan Gunaratna who was an expect on terrorism. His claim was that most Muslim's were not fanatics and that extreme anti-western feelings were not rife in the middle east or south east. He implied that somehow or other in was the job of the west to create a dialogue with the Islamic World that would dicredit the extremists. I question the validity of his thinking. If there is a great devide in Islam beteen those who wish to destroy us and those who want to live in peace, that is a problem for them to solve. Our responsibility is to defend ourselves no matter how far we need to go. I believe there is only one thing Arabs respec, and it may be true for all Muslims, and that is strength and power. Perhaps they need to be shown that our God is greater than their God. Plese don't tell me it is the same God,; such a belief is beyound silly.

677. Al D - 10/27/2003 10:07:01 PM

does that do it?

678. Al D - 10/27/2003 10:07:58 PM

Please excuse the bold and please someone with the skill remove.

679. RickNelson - 10/27/2003 10:17:59 PM

Subject: Oh God, this is to much
From: RyckNelson
Date: Oct 27 2003 7:14PM

Thomas Lawrance, the so called Lawrence of Arabia was actually part of a conspiracy. His role was to keep quite about the negotiations of British Zionists who were settling upon the idea of their new homeland, Isreal. While Arabs fought as allies of the British and French against the common enemy the Turks, their benefactors, the Imperialists of the 19th and half of the 20th century stabbed them in the back.

The Arab leaders, who soon would take title as Kings of Iraq and Jordan, led there followers toward the deluded cause of Palestine.

So, does history have a role in the current mess?

The Iraqi king is deposed, dictatorship takes over, etc...

Isreal has a continuous battle of terrorism but, would this knowledge of the creation of their state, give them pause to consider the Arab fate?

What would I have them do? Well, who knows, M.Begin(sp?) seemed to be making progress. What the hell does it take to compromise and give the Arabs their own land? Would that make the Isrealis weak?

However, I hate the state of Islamic teaching at present. It fills me with loathing to consider that clerics teach that infidals must be attacked and their support of Isreal makes anyone a target. Also, that Isreal must be attacked. These clerics are insane. Round them all up. Lock them up, Keep them locked up, keep locking up the new ones. No more tolerance to the teachers of suicide killing and hate.

But, does this mean I hate in kind? Good question.

680. RickNelson - 10/27/2003 10:18:25 PM

What do you think?

What do you think of this history I post?

What could Isreal do?

What would any of this do within Iraq?


The last question: wouldn't it be plausible, that if the Palestinian land problem were solved, then Arabs would have a very good thing to consider? With that in mind, would it be within the realm of possibility that Arabs might reconsider the teaching of terrorism and perhaps for the most part jail the cleric hate mongers?

Now, then it is possible that the good will created via the Palestinian land deal could create peace with nearly all Arabs? No?

681. RickNelson - 10/27/2003 10:19:52 PM

Apparently the font problem is size?

Does this look Ok?

682. RickNelson - 10/27/2003 10:20:25 PM

Hahahahahahaha,


Nope

How about this

683. arkymalarky - 10/27/2003 10:22:06 PM

Hey, y'all quit horsing around in here.

684. RickNelson - 10/27/2003 10:22:37 PM

Did someone change the font style and size as well?

That might be it? hmmm....


So, what size font do we want?

685. arkymalarky - 10/27/2003 10:23:10 PM

Rick actually fixed that.

Phoo. I was feeling all deft and everything.

686. RickNelson - 10/27/2003 10:23:31 PM

Crap arky, I can't believe that font 12 is huge.

You best fix it again.

687. arkymalarky - 10/27/2003 10:24:21 PM

Yeow!!

Nevermind!

Rick, was it not looking right to you on 12183?

688. RickNelson - 10/27/2003 10:24:32 PM

How about this?

689. arkymalarky - 10/27/2003 10:24:59 PM

It's ok now.

Nobody touch anything.

690. RickNelson - 10/27/2003 10:25:19 PM

Yes, but I keep cross posting you to find the right font size. And I'm so sorry that I keep messing it up.

What's our official font size?

691. arkymalarky - 10/27/2003 10:25:35 PM

Dammit Rick, I'm fixing it and you keep messing it up.

Now?

692. arkymalarky - 10/27/2003 10:26:32 PM

Hahaha! Talk about crosspost. Don't worry about it. I'm just closing the font tag and that's working to get it to default--

That is, until you open it again!

693. RickNelson - 10/27/2003 10:26:39 PM

I know, I keep saying as much.

I'm so sorry.

694. RickNelson - 10/27/2003 10:27:27 PM

Oh, I see. That's very strange. I closed the font tag also, but that didn't work, so I just kept trying font sizes.

695. arkymalarky - 10/27/2003 10:27:50 PM

I think it's 10 or 12, but I don't remember. Closing the tag seems to fix it. I don't think it does every time, though.

Meanwhile, of course, the original culprit is nowhere to be found...

Jexter?

696. RickNelson - 10/27/2003 10:28:11 PM

Dang,

Hey Al, I when all this font fun started, I was responding with a post to your questions.

697. RickNelson - 10/27/2003 10:29:00 PM

hahahahaha, yeah, I saw that. I hope Al reads the real posts and not my guffaws.

698. arkymalarky - 10/27/2003 10:29:01 PM

Don't apologize Rick. I'm just teasing you and I'm laughing on this end. The back and forth is funny when all you can do is type and respond to type, so there's an unavoidable delayed reaction.

699. arkymalarky - 10/27/2003 10:30:37 PM

See, you were laughing at the same time, and did I know it? X-post strikes again!

700. RickNelson - 10/27/2003 10:32:16 PM

I'm going to Al again. That'll get the ball rollin' again.

Subject: Oh God, this is to much
From: RyckNelson
Date: Oct 27 2003 7:14PM

Thomas Lawrance, the so called Lawrence of Arabia was actually part of a conspiracy. His role was to keep quite about the negotiations of British Zionists who were settling upon the idea of their new homeland, Isreal. While Arabs fought as allies of the British and French against the common enemy the Turks, their benefactors, the Imperialists of the 19th and half of the 20th century stabbed them in the back.

The Arab leaders, who soon would take title as Kings of Iraq and Jordan, led there followers toward the deluded cause of Palestine.

So, does history have a role in the current mess?

The Iraqi king is deposed, dictatorship takes over, etc...

Isreal has a continuous battle of terrorism but, would this knowledge of the creation of their state, give them pause to consider the Arab fate?

What would I have them do? Well, who knows, M.Begin(sp?) seemed to be making progress. What the hell does it take to compromise and give the Arabs their own land? Would that make the Isrealis weak?

However, I hate the state of Islamic teaching at present. It fills me with loathing to consider that clerics teach that infidals must be attacked and their support of Isreal makes anyone a target. Also, that Isreal must be attacked. These clerics are insane. Round them all up. Lock them up, Keep them locked up, keep locking up the new ones. No more tolerance to the teachers of suicide killing and hate.

But, does this mean I hate in kind? Good question.

701. RickNelson - 10/27/2003 10:32:25 PM

What do you think?

What do you think of this history I post?

What could Isreal do?

What would any of this do within Iraq?


The last question: wouldn't it be plausible, that if the Palestinian land problem were solved, then Arabs would have a very good thing to consider? With that in mind, would it be within the realm of possibility that Arabs might reconsider the teaching of terrorism and perhaps for the most part jail the cleric hate mongers?

Now, then it is possible that the good will created via the Palestinian land deal could create peace with nearly all Arabs? No?

702. alistairconnor - 10/28/2003 4:07:14 AM

Message # 12176 Are you suggesting that Jews are hated for their religion?

It is an abomination to hate a whole class of people whom you don't know individually. It doesn't matter what the basis of the classification is : religion, sex, skin colour, height, age...

People who know the difference between right and wrong understand this, Al. When I think that you were a school teacher, it makes me sad.

I believe there is only one thing Arabs respec, and it may be true for all Muslims, and that is strength and power. Perhaps they need to be shown that our God is greater than their God.

Here you add racism to religious fanaticism.

Sad.

Why don't you show them your weenie? Maybe it's bigger than theirs, and maybe that'll teach them some respect.

703. alistairconnor - 10/28/2003 4:17:15 AM

Message # 12133 MESSAGE TO ALL MUSLIMS

As we enter into the holiest Islamic month, all muslims must pray and fast and abstain from sex from sun up to sun down. We know this puts a great strain on you so if you need relief it is permitted, nay, encouraged to kill apes and pigs, also known as Jews. If you have run out of them in you neighborhood, American Christians will do as they are infidels. Do not bother to kill the French, as we will get to them when we run out of Jews and Americans. Allah akbar! Do we have a great religeon or what!


OK Al, let's try an experiment, to see whether your satirical prose is any better than anti-semitism.

We could make up an equivalent text, inverting Jews and Muslims.

For example : "To celebrate Passover, kill a Muslim (or Christian) child and use his blood to make matsa".

Or : "All patriotic Americans should feast on a roasted Iraqi child this Thanksgiving, for God is pleased when we kill a follower of Satan."

704. jexster - 10/28/2003 11:27:42 AM

FALLUJAH, Iraq (AP) -- A car bomb exploded Tuesday near a police station on a major street in the tense city of Fallujah, killing at least four people, police said. The attack came a day after a series of suicide bombings in Baghdad left about three dozen dead.

Later Tuesday, eight massive explosions were heard after sundown in Fallujah, coming from the southern area of the city. U.S. officials in Baghdad said they were unaware of the explosions, which residents described as ``deafening.''

In northern Iraq, four American soldiers were wounded in ambushes on patrols near the usually peaceful city of Mosul.

Meanwhile, unknown gunmen assassinated a deputy mayor of Baghdad in an apparent hit-run shooting, the U.S. occupation authority reported Tuesday.

705. jexster - 10/28/2003 12:21:33 PM

Iraqis celebrate. Then brutal reality dawns

707. jexster - 10/28/2003 1:09:43 PM

IDIOT ALERT
WARNING: INTELLIGENCE INSULT

"It is dangerous in Iraq because there are some who believe that we are soft, that the will of the United States can be shaken by suiciders,"

708. jexster - 10/28/2003 1:29:57 PM

Bomb Carnage West of Baghdad

709. jexster - 10/28/2003 1:46:36 PM

Bush doesn't want us to see flag drapped coffins and he won't attend funerals of the fallen

Bush wants you to forget.....

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A rocket-propelled grenade attack Monday killed a U.S. soldier and wounded six others in Baghdad, the U.S. military in Iraq said Tuesday.


A spokesman said the troops from the U.S. Army's 1st Armored Division came under attack while destroying "improvised explosive devices" -- a term the military uses to describe makeshift bombs often left by roadsides to target soldiers.

710. Al D - 10/28/2003 5:08:24 PM

alistair
For example : "To celebrate Passover, kill a Muslim (or Christian) child and use his blood to make matsa".

Or : "All patriotic Americans should feast on a roasted Iraqi child this Thanksgiving, for God is pleased when we kill a follower of Satan."

Isn't the first example exactly what Muslim's say about Jews? And it is utter nonsense. But it is not nonsense to talk about Muslims killing Americans, for that is exactly what they are doing. Oh, for sure, it is just the Muslims that have hijacked their religion. But they seem to get cheered on by many in the land of Islam.

Tell me, alistair, when a Muslim enters a Mall in America, say at the height of the Chrismas season, with 20 lbs. of explosives strapped to his body, wanders over the where many mothers with their children are waiting to talk to Santa, and blows everyone to bloody hell, will you send us your sympathy? Will you tell us that we should try to understand why they hate us? Tell you tell me just which ones want to live in peace and which ones want us dead?

711. Al D - 10/28/2003 5:17:46 PM

alistair

You do not seem to have any problem at all in hating conservatives or Christians. Don't you hate Ashcroft? Or do I have you confused with some other Liberal on the Mote? Am I permitted to begin to hate the Islamic religion? Do you love people who believe that killing ones sister brings honor to the family? Or who believe that it is proper to kill people who believe in multible gods? Or that homosexuals need to be stoned to death? Or people who deny half their population full citizenship rights?

712. wonkers2 - 10/28/2003 5:41:10 PM

Kill all fanatical Christians, Muslims and Jews!! Moderation uber alles!

713. alistairConnor - 10/28/2003 6:25:54 PM

You do not seem to have any problem at all in hating conservatives or Christians. Don't you hate Ashcroft? Or do I have you confused with some other Liberal on the Mote?

That's sort of the point, Al. I'm barely aware that Ashcroft exists (hint : I'm not an American).

For you, evidently all people are carbon-copies of three or four stereotypes. This allows you to hate people en masse, millions at a time. "Him muslim. Him bad. Me christian. Me good". Caveman think.

Apparently for you, if you can find evidence that I hate a particular Christian, then that means that I hate Christianity and all Christians. This is your problem, Al, not mine. My mind doesn't work like that.

For example : I hate some conservatives, for sure. You're a conservative, and I don't hate you. Not all the time, anyway.

Of course, you may be rolling on the floor laughing about this. You've got quite a sophisticated sense of humour sometimes, which is probably why I don't give up on you completely.

But I confess I really don't get it this time.

714. alistairConnor - 10/28/2003 6:27:50 PM

Isn't the first example exactly what Muslim's say about Jews?

I'll bet you can find Muslims who say those things, yes. They are no better than the Nazis who said such things about Jews in the 1930s. And neither are you.

715. Al D - 10/28/2003 11:24:13 PM

alistair
Let me tell you something about me. I have to know someone really well to hate him. In fact I cannot think of a single individual I hate. I don't hate any Liberals. But I don't find myself deaply in love with Islamism, as you seem to be. I get the idea, I can't imagine where it comes from, that they are out to get me. Maybe I'm paranoid. But keep in mind, that even paranoids have enemies.

716. Al D - 10/28/2003 11:26:27 PM

alistair
By the by, while I know you are not an American, are you French? For that alone I love you, for all the kindness I recieved in France. Now you may be a real bastard, but I seriously doubt it. Also, I was a great teacher, and my students loved me.

717. alistairConnor - 10/29/2003 4:19:54 AM

Let me tell you something about me. I have to know someone really well to hate him. In fact I cannot think of a single individual I hate.

That doesn't surprise me at all. People are like that. They need to be herded and indoctrinated in order to hate properly.

But I don't find myself deaply in love with Islamism, as you seem to be.

Earth to Al : I ain't. I don't need to be in order to oppose hate speech.

What your Message # 12133 says is "these people are our enemies, because they don't dress/act/think like us. It's OK to hate them". You dress this up by claiming that it's "them" that hate others, so that makes it OK for "us" to hate "them". This is exactly how the Nazis whipped the Germans into a frenzy against the Jews.

It doesn't even matter if there is a grain of truth in some of the accusations (undoubtedly, some of the Jews in Germany in the 30s were avaricious money lenders, etc) -- nothing excuses hate speech, it must be rejected out of principle by every decent human being.


The part that you don't seem to get, is that it's the "us" and "them" thing that is the whole problem.

You want a war of Christians against Muslims. (You also assume that the Christians will win. The reality is that no-one would win such a war.) The more you stigmatise Islam as a problem, the more you encourage defensive solidarity among Muslims.

Just look at your reaction when Republicans are attacked. You leap to their defense, even when you know in your heart that, on the issue in question, they are wrong. But it just makes your blood boil when they are attacked, so you defend them anyway.

(This is not particularly a conservative or Republican characteristic, by the way.)

718. robertjayb - 10/29/2003 12:15:20 PM

Another sign of success in Iraq:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The U.S. postwar combat death toll in Iraq climbed past the number of soldiers killed during the invasion when the U.S. military said Wednesday it had lost two more dead in a roadside bomb north of Baghdad.

Their deaths brought to 116 the number of U.S. troops killed in hostilities since President Bush (news - web sites) declared major combat over on May 1, surpassing the 115 killed in the war launched on March 20 to topple Saddam Hussein.

719. jexster - 10/29/2003 1:15:58 PM

BAGHDAD, Iraq - In a dramatic upsurge in attacks, insurgents destroyed an American tank north of Baghdad and wounded seven Ukrainians in the first ambush of multinational troops stationed south of the capital, U.S. and coalition officials said Wednesday.

U.S. policy in Iraq suffered another setback when the international Red Cross announced it was reducing its international staff in the country, two days after a deadly suicide car-bombing at its Baghdad headquarters.

720. jexster - 10/29/2003 1:31:26 PM

Died So Bush Could Land on an Aircraft Carrier

As many as 15,000 Iraqis were killed in the first days of America's invasion and occupation of Iraq, a study produced by an independent US thinktank said yesterday. Up to 4,300 of the dead were civilian noncombatants.

The toll of Iraq's war dead covered by the report is limited to the early stages of the war, from March 19 when American tanks crossed the Kuwaiti border, to April 20, when US troops had consolidated their hold on Baghdad.

Researchers drew on hospital records, official US military statistics, news reports, and survey methodology to arrive at their figures.


Overall in Iraq, the ratio of civilian to military deaths is almost twice as high as it was in the last Gulf war in 1991

721. OhioSTOPAS - 10/29/2003 7:47:13 PM

How lame was it for Bush to deny White House responsibility for that "Mission Accomplished" banner?

And how stupid does he think we are? As stupid as he, evidently.

722. jexster - 10/29/2003 8:17:07 PM

Shit-for-brains-in-chief salutes the Holy Banner of Conquest

"Mighta nayce bannah there son - bring em on..let's roll...ahm not responsible...Death to Evildoers...75% approval rating"

723. robertjayb - 10/29/2003 8:24:29 PM

Dan Bartlett, the fixer who scoured then-governor dubya's Air National Guard records at Camp Mabry in Austin, acknowledges having the Mission Accomplished banner made and delivered to the ship. But this good deed was done, you understand, only at the request of the ship's company. The ship had no art supplies on board.

724. Al D - 10/29/2003 8:53:15 PM

alistair
You want a war of Christians against Muslims. (You also assume that the Christians will win. The reality is that no-one would win such a war.) The more you stigmatise Islam as a problem, the more you encourage defensive solidarity among Muslims.

I hardly know where to go to continue this discussion with you. The above is complete nonsense. I have no beef with Islam. Some Islamists, however, have declared a Holy War against the west and America in particular. That is just a fact. Some Muslims say that their religion has been hijacked by extremists. And yet there is hatred of America being spewed out all over the middle east.

If there is division in Islam, some wanting war, some wanting peace, it is a problem for Islam. Our position should be that we will defend ourself no matter how far we have to go. Just mouthing platitudes about what a great religion Islam is doesn't make it for me. Of course, there is tremendous advantage, to Islam, in saying that the majority want to live in peace.

725. Al D - 10/29/2003 9:02:02 PM

Let's talk about hate. I was roundly chastised for a post that was taken as a hate post. Am I to believe that hate bothers posters on the Mote? Hard to believe. When one group really hates another group, as the Nazis did the Jews, they dehuminize them. American settlers did that to indigenous people of America; they were mere savages, killing them was the right thing to do, men, women, children. Muslims dehuminize Jews; they are just pigs and monkeys, fit to be slaughtered. Americans are infidels; same treatment.

It is the dehuminizing that tips off the hatred. It might be for race, or religion, or even political belief. Is there a poster on the Mote who constantly dehuminizes those he disagrees with? Oy yes, and his vile hatred is praised by many. His hate, which I believed was of a dangerous kind, just as Nazi hate or Muslim hate is dangerous, seems to offend no one but me. Life sure is a mysterious journey.

726. Al D - 10/29/2003 9:07:52 PM

robertjayb

Is there anything of a positive nature occuring in Iraq? Is it a lost cause? Should we pull out and let Saddam back in control? In one post Pelle asked you what your purpose was in posting every American death in Iraqw. I in turn asked Pelle what he thought was your aim. He did not care to respond. Perhaps you would care to tell me what your posts desire to accomplish.

727. jexster - 10/29/2003 9:14:17 PM

Post the deaths because Bush wants you to forget.

Chronicling the daily outrages committed by our current political leaders is like performing battlefield triage at a M*A*S*H unit. Not every candidate deserving of attention is going to get it.

So when Washington Post city columnist Courtland Millowy reported in September that President Bush was AWOL again -- too busy to attend the funeral of a fallen DC National Guardsman -- I let it slide. as I triaged the outrages of the week, the day, even the hour, this one fell by the wayside.

But what possible excuse can there be for bringing dead American heroes back into the country guiltily, sneakily, under cover of press blackout?

"Since the end of the Vietnam War, presidents have worried that their military actions would lose support once the public glimpsed the remains of US soldiers arriving at air bases in flag-draped caskets," The Post reports. "To this problem, the Bush administration has found a simple solution: It has ended the public dissemination of such images by banning news coverage and photography of dead soldiers' homecomings on all military bases."

728. jexster - 10/29/2003 9:14:34 PM

That report also confirms that President Bush -- unlike presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush the first and Clinton -- has not attended any memorials or funerals for soldiers killed in action. Supposedly this indicates some sort of perverse respect for the families, by not politicizing the deaths of men who served their country. But as Newsweek observes, "When CIA operative Johnny 'Mike' Spann was killed in Afghanistan in December 2001, the DOD had no problem letting the media in to witness the return of his remains to Andrews Air Force Base. But then, his death only stoked support for the war in Afghanistan."

Which takes us full circle to Milloy's indignant column about AWOL DC National Guard commander Bush. "Perhaps Bush could not figure out a way to make political hay out of Dent's funeral," Milloy wrote, and, "Bush appears to treat the loss of human life like a lost pawn on a chess board." It seemed a tad over-the-top and unfair to me back as I triaged September. Today, in mid-October, it looks spot on.

729. jexster - 10/29/2003 9:15:25 PM

I suspect that Robert doesn't want to be a Bush dupe.

730. Al D - 10/29/2003 9:19:57 PM

jexster
Well, I seriously doubt that Robert will even see my post. No doubt you will bury it in 50 or 60 of your own.

731. jexster - 10/29/2003 10:04:08 PM

So many liars, so many ncompetents, so little time for the truth AL!

Bend it like Cheney

Polling evidence shows most Iraqis have a negative view of the US-led occupation. Spinning the figures to suggest otherwise won't help
James Zogby


Some poll findings:

· Over 55% give a negative rating to "how the US military is dealing with Iraqi civilians". Only 20% gave the US military a positive rating.

· By 57% to 38.5%, Iraqis indicate they would support "Arab forces" providing security in their country.

· When asked how they would describe the attacks on the US military, 49% said as "resistance operations". Only 29% saw them as attacks by "Ba'ath loyalists".

· When asked whom they preferred to "provide security and restore order in their country, only 6.5% said the US, while 27% said the US and the UN together, 14.5% preferred only the UN, and the largest group, 45%, said they would prefer the "Iraqi military" to do the job alone.

-

732. alistairconnor - 10/30/2003 5:26:22 AM

I hardly know where to go to continue this discussion with you. The above is complete nonsense. I have no beef with Islam.

I scarcely know where to begin with you, Al. You are so full of contradictions. Sometimes I think I'm talking to several different people. (You haven't given your password to Ace, have you?)

Do you mean that when you say I believe there is only one thing Arabs respec, and it may be true for all Muslims, and that is strength and power. Perhaps they need to be shown that our God is greater than their God.

... you, er, misspoke? Or it was satire? Or what?

And when you say, in another thread,
the Muslims do it, calling Jews pigs and monkeys

do you mean you're not really talking about "the Muslims", you're actually (implicitly) talking about "certain Muslim extremists", or something? You see, I have friends who are Muslims. None of them speak or think like that about Jews. You have insulted my friends, and I feel insulted too, because they are my friends.

That's how hate speech works, Al. If you want to be taken seriously when you talk about hate, you'd better clean up your act.

733. alistairconnor - 10/30/2003 5:42:01 AM

[I hate you, Jexter. You and all your Italic race.]

I hardly know where to go to continue this discussion with you. The above is complete nonsense. I have no beef with Islam.

I scarcely know where to begin with you, Al. You are so full of contradictions. Sometimes I think I'm talking to several different people. (You haven't given your password to Ace, have you?)

Do you mean that when you say I believe there is only one thing Arabs respec, and it may be true for all Muslims, and that is strength and power. Perhaps they need to be shown that our God is greater than their God.

... you, er, misspoke? Or it was satire? Or what?

And when you say, in another thread,
the Muslims do it, calling Jews pigs and monkeys

do you mean you're not really talking about "the Muslims", you're actually (implicitly) talking about "certain Muslim extremists", or something? You see, I have friends who are Muslims. None of them speak or think like that about Jews. You have insulted my friends, and I feel insulted too, because they are my friends.

That's how hate speech works, Al. If you want to be taken seriously when you talk about hate, you'd better clean up your act.

734. alistairconnor - 10/30/2003 6:24:06 AM

I think, Al, that you fundamentally don't understand what "hate speech" is, because you equate hatred against individuals with hatred against a group.

In Message # 122225, you write

It is the dehuminizing that tips off the hatred. It might be for race, or religion, or even political belief. Is there a poster on the Mote who constantly dehuminizes those he disagrees with? Oy yes, and his vile hatred is praised by many. His hate, which I believed was of a dangerous kind, just as Nazi hate or Muslim hate is dangerous, seems to offend no one but me. Life sure is a mysterious journey.

(Well, you're right about the last part.)

Since you don't name the poster, I'll assume, for the sake of argument, that you're talking about either Jexster or WOW.

Jex flings scatological insults around freely, generally at named individuals. WOW posts satirical pictures of recognizable individuals.

Do they hate the objects of their insults? Probably. Is this "hate speech"? No it isn't. Only someone who fundamentally misunderstands the concept could think that.

When WOW posts a deformed portrait of Rice, who's he inciting hatred against?
Women?
Black people?
Or.... Rice?

Repeat for Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Bush, etc.
That's not a trick question, Al. I would appreciate an answer from you. Just to see whether we're on the same planet when we talk about "hate speech".

735. rdbrewer - 10/30/2003 8:52:55 AM

He's talking about political "hate speech," hatred of individuals merely because they hold a different viewpoint. I think we can rest assured that Jexter and WoW never saw and a conservative they didn't didn't like.

It is fairly obvious that Jexter, the living embodiment of schadenfreude, is full of glee at any bad news, whether it's economic or about the death of soldiers.

Many congenital Dems are like that. As Andrew Sullivan said today, "But the really bad news is that their main policy right now is hoping for bad news."

736. judithathome - 10/30/2003 9:08:04 AM

RDB, you need to pay attention to what you read...Andrew Sullivan is not exactly the antithesis of a hater, you know.

737. rdbrewer - 10/30/2003 9:15:50 AM

Speaking of paying attention, Judith, yes, he is and much more so than you on his worst day.

And that criticism is not a refutation of Sullivan's statement anyway.

738. judithathome - 10/30/2003 9:15:59 AM

He's talking about political "hate speech," hatred of individuals merely because they hold a different viewpoint.

No, he's not. If you doubt it, see how many times he accuses Ace of it. Even though he may not agree with Ace's views all the time, he won't accuse Ace of hate speech.

739. rdbrewer - 10/30/2003 9:17:58 AM

Whatever, Judith.

740. judithathome - 10/30/2003 9:21:44 AM

And that criticism is not a refutation of Sullivan's statement anyway


I don't need to refute his statement...it speaks for itself.

But you believe it all you want. Only try asking a few people you disagree with how they perceive Andrew.

You see how it works, though...I merely suggest to Brewer that Sullivan might be perceived differently and he comments that I am the one at fault, am in fact, more of a hater. Therefor, anything I say is negated.

741. alistairconnor - 10/30/2003 9:55:55 AM

RDB : He's talking about political "hate speech," hatred of individuals merely because they hold a different viewpoint.

Personally, I don't like hatred of any stripe. In particular, in political debate, it can be gratifying, but never productive.

However, hating a powerful public figure who applies policies which one believes to be harmful, is natural enough. Is this what you mean by "hatred of individuals merely because they hold a different viewpoint" ? And do you believe, as Al appears to, that it is morally equivalent to hating all Jews/Arabs/blacks/homosexuals/ ___________ (fill in your pet hate) ?

742. Wombat - 10/30/2003 10:56:02 AM

Here's an intersting question. There is a body of media reports about General David Petraeus, commander of the 101st Airborne Division, and de facto proconsul in the North of Iraq, who seems to be able to do things right. He interacts well with the tribes and clans in the region, seems to be able to channel funds to Iraqis for projects that directly affect their localities, and has used his forces to do a great deal of civil affairs work.

I would think that an administration eager for "good news" would be trumpeting his name all over the media. Why is this not happening? Could it be his extensive experience in peacekeeping and nation-building in Bosnia? Odd that one would have to read about this in the media sources that the Bush administration is constently criticizing for publishing only bad news.

743. jexster - 10/30/2003 12:33:53 PM

Seems the rest of the world isn't quite as susceptible to Bushie Blandishments as some around here are....

Madrid Charade: Big Push, Big Flop

The Bush administration isn't the only government struggling over what to do in Iraq. The countries that have responded to U.S. appeals for help in recent months are now debating how they should follow through. In the wake of suicide bombings that have driven the United Nations and the International Red Cross out of the country, the politics of the Iraq occupation are hitting home ever harder in countries such as Turkey, Japan and the Persian Gulf oil emirates.


About the only good news for the Bush administration comes from the Philippines where President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is standing by the United States. The Philippines Inquirer reports that the government has agreed to increase to 500 its current team of 100 police, military and medical personnel deployed in Iraq.


Put 'em down 500 Billibeaners!

744. jexster - 10/30/2003 12:37:37 PM

I dunno Wombat....must be something wrong in the North...these people are talking about young Iraqi coca-cola salesmen, Hope Villages, and of course, there's the Colonel who was caught writing 500 letters of praise and support from his unit

745. jexster - 10/30/2003 12:39:43 PM

Not to mention the poor persecuted Christian Soldier Gen Boykin....


What do you think the reaction would have been had the man been a devout Catholic and gone public joining his Pope in condemning the invasion as a crime against humanity?

746. Al D - 10/30/2003 1:27:43 PM

Jex flings scatological insults around freely, generally at named individuals. WOW posts satirical pictures of recognizable individuals.

do you really bwelieve that pure invective is satire? While it is one of the devices of satire, merely showing humans as amimals has no intellectual content. One reacts, but not to any thought. WoW's so called cartoons are like the work of a child. The ones he copies from others are far different, and they can be viewed as satire. WoW hates all conservatives, just as some people hate all Jews, or some people hate all Christians. My point was and is that most on the Mote are not offended by WoW hate, they enjoy it. He would have made a great propagandist for the Nazi Party.

The problem with my post is that it was greatly misunderstood. You took it to refer to all Muslims. Perhaps I should have been more clear, but I assumed it would be obvious that I was only talking about those Muslims who have hijacked Islam, not the good, loving Muslims, who only want to live in peace.

747. Wombat - 10/30/2003 1:34:06 PM

I trust thatif WoW ever lampoons a non-Republican "Centrist" personage, Al D. will continue to wax indignant; or show the same indignation when Concerned "ironically" has photoshop fun with Hilary Clinton.

748. Al D - 10/30/2003 1:35:47 PM

Judith
No, he's not. If you doubt it, see how many times he accuses Ace of it. Even though he may not agree with Ace's views all the time, he won't accuse Ace of hate speech.

Are you talking about Sullivan? Does he know Ace? Is there any possibility that you mean me, little old wine drinker, Al? If so, you are certainly incorrect, for many a time I took Ace on about his ridiculous hyperbole, both as Al D and stamper. He took it pretty well from stamper, who after all was a bit retarded. He usually told me to fuck off.

749. Al D - 10/30/2003 1:38:10 PM

When one is as far left as WoW, there are no centrists.

750. Al D - 10/30/2003 1:41:24 PM

Why don't you show them your weenie? Maybe it's bigger than theirs, and maybe that'll teach them some respect.
Alistair
Did you really write this? Is this any way to speak to a dignified, elderly gentleman? But I did laugh' as used to be said often on the Fray and Mote, ROTFLMAO.

751. Al D - 10/30/2003 1:43:25 PM

We shall soon se Al D explaining to us that it was all "irony", the favoured explanation by the intellectually challenged.

A great example of non-hate speach because he did not say retard. Poor Pelle is always P.C.

752. jexster - 10/30/2003 1:43:37 PM

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq (news - web sites) was hit by a string of explosions Thursday that set a freight train on fire, killed a U.S. soldier in a military convoy and ripped through Baghdad's Old Quarter. Another blast injured two U.S. soldiers on a military police patrol.

The attacks came as international organizations continued their exodus from Iraq and the U.N. secretary-general warned of "a new phase" in postwar violence.

Q'W'agmire: Resistance Fighters Can 'Maintain the Pace of Attacks Indefinitely' - CENTCOM

753. jexster - 10/30/2003 1:44:38 PM

Q'W'agmire: Nations Retreat from Troop Commitments

754. jexster - 10/30/2003 1:46:13 PM

I HATE PC People....

755. Al D - 10/30/2003 1:52:41 PM

Fox is showing films of some of the treatment Iraqis received under Saddam reign. While it is somewhat upsetting, we need to keep it in perspective. At least under Saddam the country was not in chaos, as it is now. Obviously many Iraqis want Saddam back in power. I suppose most were the guys in the black clothes, the ones cutting out tongues. Now, if we could only turn back the clock, and not have invaded Iraq, those who so oppose the war could have their wish. Yes, people suffered under Saddam, but it was all so orderly.

756. jexster - 10/30/2003 1:53:32 PM

The U.S. has achieved a miracle in Iraq: it made people regret the downfall of Saddam's regime.

Contrary to Walid Jumblatt, I was happy that Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, survived the bombing of Al Rashid hotel, as I wish him and the rest of the neo-conservative to live long enough to witness the consequences of the crime they committed against Iraq and its people, under the pretext of overthrowing a criminal regime

I am not writing in a bid to criticize the U.S., but rather to defend it, as the problem does not lie in the U.S. or the Americans, but in a handful of Likudnik Sharonist Zionists who weren't even elected, and who abducted the American foreign policy to serve Israel at the expense of American lives the way we are witnessing it in Iraq everyday.

I'm writing as an Arab citizen who represents no one but himself, as well as in consideration of my personal relationship with the U.S. Both my brothers, my sister and their children, not to mention my mother and my son, all have the American nationality, and we have all pursued our studies in American schools and universities. Personally, I love American people and the land itself. I can also support the American political, economic and social policies openly. All I object to is a part of the U.S. foreign policy, only one single part, and not the policy in general, which, may I add, I support in Europe, the Balkans, Africa and other countries.

All I object to is that part of the foreign policy that addresses the Middle East, as Israel and its agents in Washington have managed to subjugate this policy to serve Israel and oppose Arabs and Muslims, no matter how hard the Bush administration tries to deny it.




Ayoon wa Azan (If Our Lives Were Worthless) - Dar Al Hayat

757. jexster - 10/30/2003 1:58:14 PM

Yes indeed Al we need perspective.

Our Presidents New Best Friend Boils People Alive



See Also: Just Who Is Our New Best Friend This 29 minute video explores the reality of life in Uzbekistan

06/26/03: Let me introduce you to our presidents new best friend, President Karimov of Uzbekistan.

President Karimov government was awarded $500m in aid from the Bush administration in 2002. The SNB (Uzbekistan's security service) received $79m of this sum.

The U.S. State Department web site states "Uzbekistan is not a democracy and does not have a free press. Many opponents of the government have fled, and others have been arrested." and "The police force and the intelligence service use torture as a routine investigation technique."

Now I would like to introduce you to Muzafar Avazov, a 35-year old father of four. Mr Avazov had a visit from our presidents friends security force (SNB), the photographs below detail the brutality and inhuman treatment our tax dollars subsidize, with the full knowledge of our president and his administration.

758. jexster - 10/30/2003 2:31:48 PM

EU polls give cold comfort to US on Iraq


The vast majority of Europeans remain opposed to US military intervention in Iraq, and few want Washington to be in charge of rebuilding the country, according to opinion polls throughout the European Union released on Monday.


The survey of polls by Eurobarometer found that 68 per cent of those surveyed said military intervention in Iraq had not been justified, against 29 per cent who said the US was right to lead the march on Baghdad.

759. robertjayb - 10/30/2003 3:39:04 PM

Boom biddy boom biddy boom...Iraq beset by success...

BAGHDAD, Iraq — AP -- Iraq was hit by a string of explosions Thursday that set a freight train on fire, killed a U.S. soldier in a military convoy and ripped through Baghdad's Old Quarter. Another blast injured two U.S. soldiers on a military police patrol.

The attacks came as international organizations continued their exodus from Iraq and the U.N. secretary-general warned of "a new phase" in postwar violence.

A top U.S. diplomat blamed Al Qaeda* for recent attacks, and in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit (search), U.S. soldiers raided six houses after receiving tips that the inhabitants were helping establish a "new terrorist network" there, a military spokesman said.

*Al Qaeda? Al Qaeda?

Isn't that Osama bin Forgotten's bunch? That fellow Ranger Whistle-Ass wanted dead or alive back there in ought-one? Still haven't got him, eh? But we've created a target-rich playground for him and his mates just down the road.

War is Hell!

760. alistairConnor - 10/30/2003 4:12:52 PM

News flash : AlD apologises for hate speech

761. judithathome - 10/30/2003 4:16:30 PM

Well, that was double plus good, was it not?

762. marjoribanks - 10/30/2003 4:55:26 PM

Hey,

Of course, when marjori makes posts denegrating Christians none of you would dare to complain, because Christians are fair game;

What is Al talking about?

763. robertjayb - 10/30/2003 6:02:50 PM

Crawford George morphed into Baghdad Bob...(Maureen Dowd)

...Speaking to reporters this week, Mr. Bush made the bizarre argument that the worse things get in Iraq, the better news it is. "The more successful we are on the ground, the more these killers will react," he said.

764. Al D - 10/30/2003 10:14:32 PM

What is the goal of those who attacking our troups in Iraq? Is it not to drive us out and bring back Saddam or someone like him to rule the country? If all they wanted was us gone, the best way to achieve that would be to help us rebuild Iraq, establish a government that recognizes everyones rights and we would be gone. What makes them step up their attacks? Isn't it when they see that much of what we are trying to do is working, ie. they are losing out? I know you hope that the attempt to establish democracy in Iraq is a miserable failure, for success in Iraq, along with a recovering economy, would assure Bush's election. Many of you would hate that more than anything else, as would the Democrats.

765. judithathome - 10/30/2003 10:32:33 PM

Did it ever occur to you, Al, that they might want to do this for themelves? Maybe they want to set up their own government and police forces and schools...they might want foreign influences out of there simply because they disgree with the values America has. There are any number of reasons they might want us out of there, number one of which might be that they never wanted us in there in the first place.

They don't have to want Saddam back in power just because they want us out, you know. They do have intelligent people in that country, despite your belief that they are all ignorant peasants. Maybe they don't want a capitalistic society where people are judged on the amount of money they make or how much they own or how many cars they drive. Maybe they don't want their country overrun with junk food restaurants and strip malls...did that ever occur to you?

766. Al D - 10/30/2003 10:43:13 PM

Maybe they don't want their country overrun with junk food restaurants and strip malls...did that ever occur to you

You are not claiming, against all the evidence, that those attacking us make up a majority of Iraqis, are you? There is strong evidence that most Iraqis wanted us there because it was the only way to rid themselves of Saddam. As to the hated strip malls and junk food restaurants: they only exist, as does Whal-Mart, K-Mart, Cosco, Home Depot because people vote with their feet. Your problem is that you expect all people to have your Liberal, sophisticated view. Anything the Iraquis did not want in their country, will not make it if people asre given freedom. Now if they opt for things American, it may break your heart, but that's life in the big free world.

767. judithathome - 10/30/2003 10:54:03 PM

Yes, indeed, but right now SOME people there are voting with their guns and bombs and it doesn't matter to me who or what they are, they are making an impression. Maybe not on you...

Al, what is the difference? You can't address me at all without sentences like this:

Your problem is that you expect all people to have your Liberal, sophisticated view.

I could just as easily charge you with having your every thought colored by your particular conservative view and feel just as correct as do you. Of course, then I would have to follow that up with giving lip service to appreciating ALL views of everyone, no matter their race, religion, or political persuasion...you throw that sort of caveat in all time and think we believe you...I guess I should start doing it, too.

You accuse others of having a blinkered view but fail to see you have the same sort of thing, just an opposite one to the people you argue with.

768. Al D - 10/31/2003 12:05:06 AM

Ah, the hell with it!

769. rdbrewer - 10/31/2003 9:06:13 AM

Hear, hear.

770. judithathome - 10/31/2003 9:18:02 AM

Rumsfeld Unsure Of Missing Mojo

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has said he does not know whether or not he has lost his mojo*, as a leading news magazine suggested, largely because he doesn't really know what mojo is.






*The Webster's New World Dictionary defines mojo as "a charm or amulet thought to have magic powers," or "power, luck, etc., as of magical or supernatural origin." The word is thought to be of Creole origin

771. Edmund Dantes - 10/31/2003 9:50:09 AM

Democratic elections begin in Iraq

Calahan remains optimistic about the future of democracy in Iraq, because he sees most Iraqis as more than willing to learn and step into the new type of government. He said the key to bringing sovereignty from the biggest cities in Iraq to the smallest villages is by dispersing power equally among each region in Iraq.

“Under Saddam’s regime, everything was centralized,” Calahan said. “Centralized and segregated. All the ministries thought about was making Saddam happy. Because of this, the small towns and villages were left to fend for themselves. Back in the States, your water stops running and you call your city administration and ask ‘why the heck isn’t my water running?’ Here, you couldn’t do that, because all the power in the country was centralized.”

Meanwhile, several Motiles protest this development:



Motiles and children with sticks--Saddam's fedayeen.

772. judithathome - 10/31/2003 9:59:22 AM

Six men comprise the city council for Tallafar, while the Zumar and Al-Eyaldia councils have 21 each. In early November this number is expected to reduce to match Tallafar’s six, which Abdo said will dishearten many of the councilmen.

“It’s unfortunate that many of the candidates who just won a seat will have to give it up,” said Abdo, who will keep his seat past November. “It will really dishearten the council members, because they have such pride for being on the council now. The coalition should have done this before the elections, not now.”

I don't understand why they have to do it this way...seems like a better idea to let them serve in some capacity while everyone gets used to the democtatic ideal. I think it's great that they were elected and it is a good start.

773. Edmund Dantes - 10/31/2003 10:35:33 AM

Mighty ugly picture at the bottom of 12257. Since it comes from Saddam "va banque" buddy, Prof. Bedpan, though, one must wonder how sincere is the humanitarian concern expressed therein.



Caption: Members of the Fedayeen Saddam throw a bound man from a rooftop. This man, and others shown on the videotape, survived the fall.

On the tape, what appear to be Fedayeen Saddam members and Republican Guard troops are shown administering cruel punishments, including chopping off fingers, cutting off tongues, breaking a wrist with a heavy stick, and throwing people off a multi-story building.

Also depicted is a beheading by sword, which takes several attempts to complete.

774. Wombat - 10/31/2003 11:01:44 AM

Edmund:

Actually it purports to be from Uzbekistan, one of our allies in the War Against Terrorism. Given the Bush Administration's paramount concern about ending these sorts of things in Iraq (however recent), I am sure that we can expect decisive military action against against Uzbekistan's despot. This will take place after the Bush Administration has knocked out the remaining elements of the axis of evil.

775. jexster - 10/31/2003 11:16:16 AM

(Al Jazeera)Four civilians and a policeman were killed in clashes on Friday in a day that also witnessed angry Iraqis storming the mayor's office in Falluja and US forces sealing off the birthplace of Saddam Hussein.




Four Iraqis, including a policeman, died and two US soldiers wounded in clashes at a marketplace in Baghdad's western suburb of Abu Gharib.



The clashes began when US troops tried to clear market stalls from a main road, witnesses said.



Youths began throwing stones at troops and Iraqi police and set tyres ablaze. The protesters carried Saddam's picture and shouted "Allahu Akbar," or "God is great."



"The police tried to contain the protest, the protesters opened fire and a policeman was killed," said police Major Mussa Lazem.

776. jexster - 10/31/2003 11:51:31 AM

Bush Grabbed $500,000 in Contributions from Companies With Iraq, Afghan K's

777. jexster - 10/31/2003 12:00:35 PM

Eddie has a thing for picutures of corpses


Sorry E, don't have one of this...no cameras allowed - an Imperial Edict

BAGHDAD (AFP) - A US soldier was killed and four others were wounded in an explosive device attack west of Baghdad, a coalition spokesman said.

The spokesman said the attack occurred at 8:45 am (0545 GMT) in Khaldiyah, 80 kilometers (50 miles) west of the capital.


He said the casualties were from the 82nd Airborne Division.

778. jexster - 10/31/2003 12:02:53 PM

Al-Ahram
Editorial, Egypt, October 29

"The question is, with the rising number of deaths in Iraq, will the American public be still satisfied to pay the bill for a war that compelling evidence has proved totally unjustified? Intensified Iraqi resistance makes it plain that the Iraqis will not accept an American occupation.

"As leader of the free world, Washington should be true to form; it should give way to the dictates of democracy, freedom and independence by handing over authority to the Iraqis and by including the UN in the running of Iraq's affairs until a national government is elected. This America should do if only to avoid a repeat of the Vietnam scenario."

779. jexster - 10/31/2003 12:03:13 PM

giggle for us Eddie

780. Edmund Dantes - 10/31/2003 1:16:20 PM

Actually it purports to be from Uzbekistan

Wombat: I don't dispute the authenticity of the photo. I dispute the humanitarian concern of the person posting it, given his Saddam sympathies and the bloodthirsty posts he put up re Serbia.

Given the Bush Administration's paramount concern about ending these sorts of things in Iraq (however recent), I am sure that we can expect decisive military action against against Uzbekistan's despot.

That's a straw man. No one is arguing that we liberated Iraq exclusively for humanitarian reasons. It's a good reason to have done so, but not the only one.

Further, should we adopt a policy of removing all tyrants from power, it would still make more sense to start with those who are our enemies than those who are not.

781. alistairConnor - 10/31/2003 1:44:54 PM

No one is arguing that we liberated Iraq exclusively for humanitarian reasons.

So, Mr Ed, what is the reason du jour today?

782. Wombat - 10/31/2003 1:51:40 PM

Edmund:

Humanitarian concerns are about all the Administration has left to justify its war on Iraq.

That is why we are now being treated to footage that shows how bad Saddam was. This might be news for some, but not for others, who have been aware of the evil that governed Iraq, and have seen far worse evidence of Saddam's cruelty, dating from times when our current Secretary of Defense was visiting Saddam to assure him of US support against Iran; or in the aftermath of the risings that took place after Gulf War I.

Had the administration presented this evidence as the principal reason for overthrowing Saddam last year, there would not have been a war. It is pathetic that the administration is reduced to doing this ex post facto.

783. jexster - 10/31/2003 2:49:12 PM

I don't dispute the authenticity of the photo. I dispute the humanitarian concern of the person posting it, given his Saddam sympathies and the bloodthirsty posts he put up re Serbia.

I dispute the humanitarian concerns of someone who opposed the war in Kosovo and who supported a gravely immoral war launched on lies

Eddie - you are a clown

784. jexster - 10/31/2003 2:49:36 PM

giggle

785. jexster - 10/31/2003 2:52:24 PM

You are a fraud

You are a hypocrite

You are pre-pubescent patriot....

No balls, no brain, no uthin

786. jexster - 10/31/2003 2:59:55 PM

Eddie - Your Application to Join Amnesty International Has Been Pre-Approved
Click Here

The depth of your humanitarianism brings tears to my eyes




And poop to my drawers

787. jexster - 10/31/2003 3:03:44 PM

Military Families Grow Angry with State of Iraq War

"They are angry and disillusioned, frustrated and full of doubt. This war is not going the way they hoped it would. They are wives and husbands of the 129th Army Reserves Company, stationed in Kansas, and they are terrified for spouses in Iraq. A month ago, these family members launched a 'bring our soldiers home' petition drive when, with no advance notice, the 129th Company's tour of duty was extended. Today they stand with a growing number of military families who are convinced that the war is going awry and who think the American public isn't getting a straight story on the conflict. Cherie Block, 29, could barely contain herself while watching Resident Bush's news conference Tuesday from her home in Sac City, Iowa, especially when he insisted the vast majority of Iraqis are with Americans, not against them... 'Either he doesn't really understand what's going on, or he's not telling it the way it really is,' said Block." It's the latter, Cherie, and we're so sorry for it."

788. alistairConnor - 10/31/2003 3:54:05 PM

Major development in Israel.

Extremist prime minister Sharon is put in his place by the Chief of staff Moshe Ya'alon.

Ya'alon has the guts to state the bleedin' obvious :
The military chief directed most of his complaints at restrictions imposed on the West Bank four weeks ago, after a suicide bomber from the West Bank city of Jenin killed 21 people in a restaurant in the Israeli port of Haifa. Yaalon said the current curfews and travel restrictions, some of the tightest since the outbreak of the Palestinian uprising in September 2000, were preventing Palestinians from carrying out critical olive and other agricultural harvests, hampering thousands of children from attending school, increasing hatred for Israel and strengthening terrorist organizations.

"In our tactical decisions, we are operating contrary to our strategic interests," Nahum Barnea, columnist for the Yedioth Aharonoth newspaper, quoted Yaalon as telling him.

Yaalon also said he believed the Israeli government contributed to the failure of Mahmoud Abbas as Palestinian prime minister because it was too "stingy" and was unwilling to make concessions to bolster his authority.


Obviously, after this, Sharon either had to fire Ya'alon, or resign himself. He did neither, "the incident is closed".

789. robertjayb - 10/31/2003 4:01:22 PM

It is a hard thing for families when combat tours are extended. I was too young to understand the anger and agitation when my WWII tailgunner brother's mission limit was extended. But dear old dad, who never cared much anyway for that old Roos--ee--velt, was pissed. As I recall the number of missions required went from 25 to 50 and perhaps higher. Thanks to luck and the toughness of the B-17 he survived with some minor (easy for me to say) shrapnel wounds and lifelong nightmares. Of course he was a volunteer and in for the duration of a "good" war.

Maybe the wives of these Army reservists are entitled to their anger. Maybe not.

But it seems to me clear the military should do a better job of insuring that dependents realize that their family member isn't working for Wal-Mart. Good war or bad war, their ass is grass and Uncle Sam has the lawn mower (to coin a phrase).

790. jexster - 10/31/2003 6:30:50 PM

Make That Lying, CLUELESS, Incompetents
Doubt cast on aide's Islamist links

The other day they told us that Saddam had been cooperating with Al Qaeda in masterminding resistance attacks.

That was then...

Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, has expressed uncertainty over recent claims that a close confidant of Saddam Hussein was behind a series of attacks on coalition forces and Iraqis cooperating with the US-led administration.

791. jexster - 10/31/2003 6:31:53 PM

The only question remaining WRT Iraq, who is dumb enough to believe anything the bums say?


Eddie?

792. jexster - 10/31/2003 6:32:19 PM

don't go away mad

793. jexster - 10/31/2003 9:34:34 PM

Pigshit Without End Amen

WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 — Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said on Friday that he saw no signs that Saddam Hussein was active in coordinating attacks on American forces in Iraq.

"I don't know where he is or what he's doing, but we really don't have the evidence to put together a claim that he is pulling all the strings among these remnants in Baghdad and other parts of the country that are causing us the difficulty," Mr. Powell said on the ABC News program "Nightline," according to a transcript.




He also cast doubt on reports that one of Mr. Hussein's deputies, Izzat Ibrahim, was behind the attacks, saying, "I see no evidence to support that."

On Friday, The New York Times quoted senior American officials as saying that Mr. Hussein might be playing a crucial role in coordinating attacks against United States forces.

794. wonkers2 - 11/1/2003 12:11:01 AM

I'm sure they hope Hussein is behind the attacks. That would be easier to deal with than would (will?) attacks resulting from widespread resistance to what we are trying to do on the part of Baathists trying to protect their favored economic and social position and Muslim clerics of various stripes vying for power, none of whom care two hoots for democracy or good civil government.

795. jexster - 11/1/2003 10:14:08 AM

BAGHDAD (AFP) - Two US soldiers were killed in a bomb attack in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul as the country braced for more violence on a rumoured day of resistance, exactly six months after President George W. Bush (news - web sites) declared major fighting over. The US military said two soldiers were killed and two others wounded when a in a bomb went off in Mosul, 370 kilometers (230 miles) north of Baghdad.


"Two 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) soldiers were killed and two were wounded in an improvised explosive device attack," the division said in a statement.


A traffic policeman and another witness said the Americans were traveling in civilian clothes in two unmarked vehicles, which were both damaged by two simultaneous blasts at a main square in the city center.


Before the two deaths were announced, the Pentagon (news - web sites) put the US combat toll at 120 since Washington declared major hostilities ended exactly six months ago Saturday.

796. jexster - 11/1/2003 10:22:51 AM

Calls to Jihad Are Said to Lure Hundreds of Militants Into Iraq

Across Europe and the Middle East, young militant Muslim men are answering a call to join the fight against the American-led occupation in Iraq.

797. PelleNilsson - 11/1/2003 11:33:14 AM

What do you propose America should do, jexster?

798. jexster - 11/1/2003 12:00:37 PM

I have to run Pelle..BIG GOTV weekend...But I did answer a similar question from Jay at length in the AP Thread about Monday I think..be happy to find and repost when I can find time away from the campaign... FOr a similar answer albeit a far more general one see Ivo Daalder & James Lindsay (Brookings)
Bush's Flawed Revolution
"If we're an arrogant nation," said George W. Bush, "they'll resent us." He was right

The lesson of Iraq, then, is that sometimes when you lead, few follow. This, ultimately, is the real danger of the Bush revolution. America's friends and allies might not be able to stop Washington from doing as it wishes, but neither are they necessarily willing to come to its aid when their help is wanted or needed. Indeed, the more others question America's power, purpose and priorities, the less influence America will have. If others seek to counter the United States and delegitimize its power, Washington will then need to exert more effort on its own to reach the same desired end -- assuming it can reach its objective at all. If others merely step aside and leave Washington to tackle common problems as it sees fit, the costs to American taxpayers will increase. That risks undermining not only what the United States can achieve abroad but also domestic support for engaging the world. Americans, wary of being played for suckers, will balk at paying the price of unilateralism. They could rightly ask, if others were not willing to bear the burdens of meeting tough challenges, why should we?

799. jayackroyd - 11/1/2003 12:53:52 PM

Pelle, Jexster

It is quite irritating to be in a situation that they've screwed this up so badly that they have to be given the time and the resources to fix it. But there it is.

Wolfowitz's claim earlier this week that the Iraqis deepest fear is that if Bush isn't reelected, the Americans will walk away was especially infuriating. First, my bet is that the biggest risk to the Iraqis is Bush declaring victory and walking away shortly before the GOP convention. Second, none of the leading democratic candidates have expressed any indication of walking away. They've expressed concern for a lack of accountability. awful, diplomacy, and apparent pork processing, but they have not said that the US should pull out.

800. judithathome - 11/1/2003 1:16:32 PM

But is it really surprising that Wolfowitz would say something like that? They will do and say anything to keep their boy in office.

Sit back...as they say, we ain't seen nothin' yet.

801. Edmund Dantes - 11/1/2003 2:54:54 PM

Congress set to approve spending package requested by President Bush

The U.S. Senate is expected to approve legislation Monday that provides $87.5 billion for spending in Iraq and Afghanistan and send it on to President George W. Bush for his signature....The House vote was a victory for Bush....The package closely mirrored the amounts sought by the president, and met his demand that all the money for rebuilding Iraq be in the form of grants rather than loans.

802. OhioSTOPAS - 11/1/2003 3:03:16 PM

Bush was right to insist that the funds for reconstruction not be in the form of a loan. It would be a "loan" in name only (who would be the official to agree to this alleged contract on behalf of Iraq?), and likely never repaid. Furthermore, if there ever were any repayment to us, the payment would be carried ont BY us or by someone under our contral, with possible negative diplomatic repercussions.

803. wonkers2 - 11/1/2003 3:27:21 PM

Iraq already has more loans than they will be able to repay in 500 years under the rosiest of scenarios. For once Bush is right.

804. robertjayb - 11/1/2003 3:38:30 PM

I agree. We broke it. We fix it. Give 'em the money.

But I could do without these pseudo-patriots yelping about supporting the troops.

Need money from the humongous defense allocation? Shelve Star Wars.

805. robertjayb - 11/1/2003 3:48:11 PM

Blueprint for a Mess...(NYTimes Magazine)

...It is becoming painfully clear that the American plan (if it can even be dignified with the name) for dealing with postwar Iraq was flawed in its conception and ineptly carried out. At the very least, the bulk of the evidence suggests that what was probably bound to be a difficult aftermath to the war was made far more difficult by blinkered vision and overoptimistic assumptions on the part of the war's greatest partisans within the Bush administration. The lack of security and order on the ground in Iraq today is in large measure a result of decisions made and not made in Washington before the war started, and of the specific approaches toward coping with postwar Iraq undertaken by American civilian officials and military commanders in the immediate aftermath of the war.

806. robertjayb - 11/1/2003 7:03:26 PM

Sidney Blumenthal: Intelligence Wars...

In Baghdad, the Bush administration acts as though it is astonished by the postwar carnage. Its feigned shock is a consequence of Washington's intelligence wars. In fact, not only was it warned of the coming struggle and its nature - ignoring a $5m state department report on The Future of Iraq - but Bush himself signed another document in which that predictive information is contained.

807. jexster - 11/1/2003 8:09:41 PM

Rebel war spirals out of control as US intelligence loses the plot

The ghosts of Vietnam are returning as Baathists, zealots, criminals, tribal leaders and al Qaeda unite in a deadly alliance of hatred.

808. jexster - 11/1/2003 8:13:22 PM

Here you go Pelle..

11260. jayackroyd - 10/27/2003 3:02:34 PM

jexster--

What would you have the administration do? Withdraw all forces now? Provide no reconstruction funding?

11261. jexster - 10/27/2003 3:15:10 PM

1. Start from a different premise. The Admin premise - do whatever it takes; whatever it costs; however long it takes to achieve a goal that they never define.

2. I say the goal should be stability; that the US should state a timetable; that the US should operate under a unified UN command, at least as to civilian matters, probably military; set a target date for turnover to an Interim Iraqi Authority within the next 6 months with charge to draft a consititution and run the country, and incorporate Egyptian and other Arab troops into a peace keeping force of Indians, Pakistanis, and NATO.



11262. jexster - 10/27/2003 3:17:26 PM

It should be obvious by now that giving a clueless, divided, incompetent and untruthful administration whose agenda is spinning its way into a second term is not wise to say the least.

11263. jexster - 10/27/2003 3:18:10 PM

second term "whatever it 'demands' "

809. jexster - 11/1/2003 8:13:50 PM

11264. jexster - 10/27/2003 3:21:56 PM

We've had no real debate Jay. No international debate and no domestic debate either. Oh sure we've had a lotta speech making and yap, and temporizing, ass covering, resolutions of all kinds - that's all a charade.

This has been Bush calling the shots down to the last crossed t and dotted i since the get go.

That's the core of the problem.

Wrong questions answered by wrong person = wrong answers

11265. jayackroyd - 10/27/2003 3:32:49 PM

And if they can't do number 2? Setting a timetable doesn't create a constitution, and tells the bad guys how to schedule their disruption of society. When Powell proposed a six month deadline, I laughed. You can't do this kind of thing on a schedule.

Would the UN agree to civilian authority? On what timetable? They've already mostly fled the country.

Who will pick the interim authority?

What makes you think that Egypt, India, Pakistan (India AND Pakistan!!) and other arab countries would react any differently than the Turks have? What makes you think NATO would agree to clean up the US mess?

You can criticize the president for creating this situation, but it's hard to see a multi-lateral way out of it. They've already thumbed their collective noses at the US over simply providing money. So, yes, it's as we said in March, a massive diplomatic failure. But your way out has to keep that massive diplomatic failure as part of the initial conditions.