October 8, 2007 8:44
Surge Update
You remember that the primary goal of the so-called surge was to provide "space" for "political reconciliation" among the contending parties. You also remember that General David Petraeus and others have said repeatedly that a military victory in this war is not possible; that it can only be settled by the Iraqi politicians. Well, according to the Washington Post--and this will come as a great surprise, I'm sure--it ain't happening. In fact, here's what the Shi'ites have to say about our recent successes in al-Anbar province:
The U.S. effort to recruit Sunni tribesmen to join the police force and fight the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq was strongly opposed last week by Shiite officials, who asserted that the Sunni recruits were killing innocent people under the guise of fighting insurgents. "We demand that the American administration stop this adventure, which is rejected by all the sons of the people and its national political powers," the leading Shiite political coalition said in a statement. "Their elements are criminals who cannot be trusted or relied upon.
OK. So remind me again, what's the mission at this point? I mean, seriously: What specifically are the metrics of success? What is the military goal--if not providing the space for reconciliation? What is the political side of the plan? This seems like basic stuff, but we haven't heard it from the Administration. This sort of strategic focus has to come from higher than Petraeus- and Crocker-level operatives. The incompetence, the lack of rigor is mind-boggling.
About Swampland
Ana Marie Cox is the founding editor of Wonkette and the author of the novel Dog Days. Read more
Joe Klein is TIME's political columnist and author of six books, most recently Politics Lost. Read more
Karen Tumulty is TIME's National Political Correspondent and has also covered the White House and Congress. Read more
Jay Carney is TIME's Washington bureau chief. He has covered the Clinton and Bush 43 White Houses as well as Congress. Read more
Jay Newton-Small has covered the Bush 43 White House and Congress since the DeLay era. Read more
Michael Scherer is a TIME Washington bureau correspondent covering the 2008 presidential campaign. Read more
Mike Murphy is a GOP consultant and was a senior strategist for John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign. Read more
RSS Feed
 |
Daily Email
CNN Politics
Get U.S. and global politics 24-7. Politics at CNN has campaign coverage, latest headlines and video, candidates' positions on the issues, fundraising totals, states to watch, delegate counts, election results, news and analysis
CNN Politics
The Page
Mark Halperin and the TIME political team covering the 2008 campaign bring you all the latest breaking news, videos, and best stories from every
source, all in one place, expertly culled and edited, 24/7.
The Page
White House Photo Blog
Get an intimate look at the Bush administration and race for 2008 through the eyes of TIME's White House photographers.
White House Photo Blog
Ana Marie Cox on the trail
Keep up with Cox as she posts pictures and tidbits from the campaign trail.
Flickr
Twittr
Reader Comments
Posted by Florida
October 8, 2007
You ask what the mission is, Joe? That's a pretty simple answer. According to former commander on the ground in Iraq, General Ricardo Sanchez, the mission is "simply to keep a war running so Bush could run around and play 'war president.'" Guess that makes Sanchez a phony soldier in the eyes of Rush Limbaugh and the fund-raising arm of the RNC.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/09/hbc-90001298
Posted by Anonymous
October 8, 2007
I'm pretty sure I put my considerable credibility on the line by predicting exactly this outcome back in January when beltway pundits were still avidly gushing about General Petraeus and how, in but one Friedman, ill-informed dilettantes like myself would be proved wrong wrong! WRONG!
But who's counting? You're asking the right questions, at long last. Now how are you going to get the answers?
Posted by Tom
October 8, 2007
What? The United States military didn't consult such august military experts like Joe Klein and the "reporters" at the Washington Post on how to fight a war?
Posted by attaturk
October 8, 2007
Somebody should bring this up to Lindsey Graham, who EXACTLY one month ago proclaimed:
"Within the next weeks, not months, there will be a major breakthrough on the benchmarks regarding political reconciliation. And after the last two weeks of being a reservist, you could see Sunnis and Shia and Kurds taking a second look at Iraq."
D'OH!!!
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/07/graham-weeks/
Posted by linda
October 8, 2007
Ya' and old 'what's his name' that's married to Andrea Mitchell claiming that we don't need manufacturing in the US [guess he never studied why the South lost the Civil War] already said it is about oil.
Talabani, on Wolf yesterday, explained it. Leaving out the 'Hunt Oil Deal' among other details, he sees that the US will need to go to three large permanent bases forever. He said that the 'neighbors' won't allow a separate Kurdistan.
Posted by BillW
October 8, 2007
Joe Klein, You've just presented the best argument for why Iraq should be partitioned into the respective secular-ethnic areas. The respective warring factions won't accept policing from any other faction. Partitioning is the only solution under such conditions to obtain long-term stability.
Posted by Elvis Elvisberg
October 8, 2007
Good post.
It's obvious what we're doing there-- just ask the president:
"Iraqi democracy will succeed -- and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Teheran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation. The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html
Oh, no wait, those are old talking points, probably no longer operative.
Really, why would you bring up things that the administration said a few months ago about why we're there? An integral part of this war is that our rationale for it has to change completely about once each year.
Maybe the real reason we're there now is that the president has a deep hatred for the National Guard. That's why he went AWOL, and that's why he keeps shipping them over there.
It has to be something like that. Lord knows this whole thing has been all about our own little psychodramas, with little if anything to do with actual events and conditions in Iraq.
It'd be great if you could get the WH, and the war-supporting presidential candidates, to answer your question.
Posted by Alan
October 8, 2007
Asked and answered. Joe: this is pertinent. But it should be directed at McCain and Graham, at Petraeus and Crocker and the right wing choir among the punditocracy. Perhaps Kristol has another brilliant idea.. No point in asking the Decider. He has decided not to make any further decisions on Iraq. It is already awaiting the next President.
Posted by linda
October 8, 2007
Joe, I know that the 'circle that will not be broken' wants to divert our attention from both Afghanistan and Iraq to get us to bubble bomb Iran.
Guess it will be the mercenaries that will carry out that war [please tell me you read ALL of the links that I posted under 'Military Bloodsuckers' including the one to Crescent Security Group].
But do want to steal this thread for just a minute to FYI about the emerging story of the under investigation death of Ciara Durkins at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. [abc, local news, and CNN are covering the surface of this story.
It was also covered in Kos Diary 'igtnt'. That coverage lead to a couple of other posts about Bagram with a hint of 'heroin'.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/6/22122/0224
After reading the about the 'similarities' of the death of Juan Torres at Bagram, I did a little search. The most interesting were some of the COMMENTS on this memorial page for Torres.
http://www.fallenheroesmemorial.com/oef/profiles/torresjuanm.html
It should also be noted that Bagram has been linked as the precursor to torture at Abu Ghraib and extraordinary rendition.
Posted by Joe Klein's Murdered Conscience
October 8, 2007
Joe, back in January;
"I'm afraid I'm going to get cranky about this: The Democrats who oppose the so-called "surge" are right. But they have to be careful not to sound like ill-informed dilettantes when talking about it.
The latest to make a fool of himself is Paul Krugman of the New York Times, who argues that those who favor the increase in troops are either cynical or delusional. Mostly the latter. Delusional neocons like Bill Kristol and Fred Kagan, to be precise. But what about retired General Jack Keane--whom Krugman doesn't mention--and the significant number of military intellectuals who have favored a labor-intensive counterinsurgency strategy in Baghdad for the past three years? They are serious people. They may be wrong about Iraq now, reflexively trying to complete a mission that has been lost, but they are not delusional. The counterinsurgency doctrine they published in 2006 is exactly what the U.S. military should be doing in places like Afghanistan. And they, not Kagan and Kristol, are the motivating force behind Bush's new policy. As for K & K, Krugman's right: they've been wrong about Iraq. But at least they've taken the trouble to read the doctrine and talk to key players like Keane and General David Petraeus. Liberals won't ever be trusted on national security until they start doing their homework. --Joe Klein"
Posted by rmrd0000
October 8, 2007
Posted by linda
October 8, 2007
....we don't need manufacturing in the US [guess he never studied why the South lost the Civil War]
Sad but true
We are in the outsourcing and privitization business.
We will except tainted Chinese goods because they are cheap. As Erin Burnett MSNBC business correspondent said to Chris Mathews,(paraphrasing), "Consumers need to keep in mind that toys of good quality are going to cost more money."
As far as the war goes, we can privitize it, and let Blackwater do the fighting. Who really cares if a mercenary dies?
We can privitize Iraq diplomacy also. I'm sure that some DC propaganda (I mean public relations) firm would be just as effect as Condi's State Dept. The joyful message that "we're making progress" would be the same.
Posted by mikeg
October 8, 2007
I'm actually a bit more optimistic about Iraq than I have been in a long time. It seems like they may work things out and cobble together a separate peace in the long run.
The question is, are we helping or hindering that effort by being there? Is our "choosing sides" going to ruin that chance at, if not reconciliation, than at least non-aggression?
The real and only question now is: when can we leave and not have everything blow up?
Posted by JJ
October 8, 2007
There is no way that we can let there be anything that suggests that the surge or anything else is working in Iraq. So far, our friends in the press are doing their part and so are you, Joe, so I thank you. Failure in Iraq leads us to the White House in 08 and then we once we are in power we can do with it what we want and do not have to worry about the consequences because it will be Bush's fault. Keep these stories up, Time!
Posted by DFH
October 8, 2007
What's the mission? A bit late to be asking that now Joe. The mission is to stay until January 2008 so people like you can blame the Democrats for loosing the war. Mission accomplished!
Posted by Riesz Fischer
October 8, 2007
The Good Klein: "The incompetence, the lack of rigor is mind-boggling."
Well said, Joe! You sound just like Atrios!
Welcome back, Good Klein.
Posted by Anonymous
October 8, 2007
"The incompetence, the lack of rigor is mind-boggling."
Huh. I, myself, along with many others, have shouted this from the rooftops, starting with the 2000 Bush presidential campaign, our voices rising after 911, even louder in 2003, lighting large signal fires by 2004, all the while -- every day, everywhere -- our characters being assassinated, ridiculed, our love of country being questioned, called traitors, cowards, fifth columnists by the likes of Klein and Hitchens and Beinart and Sullivan.
Yeah. I'm not ashamed of my bitterness. Bitter, bitter irony, if it weren't still so tragic.
Posted by Carismar
October 8, 2007
The mission of Time/Newsweek/NY Times/CBS is and has always been to avoid anything that makes Bush look good.
Posted by the KOS KIDZ
October 8, 2007
GUESS WHAT NEOCON - WE ARE THE MSM. WE ARE MAINSTREAM AMERICA! AND WE ARE GOING TO WIN BECAUSE WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE LOSING IN IRAQ AND YOU CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!
HA HA HA HA HA!
Posted by Mark D
October 8, 2007
"OK. So remind me again, what's the mission at this point? I mean, seriously: What specifically are the metrics of success? What is the military goal--if not providing the space for reconciliation? What is the political side of the plan? This seems like basic stuff, but we haven't heard it from the Administration.
--Joe Klein"
Um ... why weren't you asking these questions four years, nearly 4,000 dead and more than 25,000 wounded Americans, and tens of thousands of dead Iraqis ago?
Or were you too busy "mis-speaking" about supporting the war?
It's a shame it takes "serious" pundits so long to come to the same conclusions us darn dirty hippies came to years ago. So many lives could've been saved.
Oh well. Not your life, nor the lives of any you love, eh Joe?
**shakes head in sadness**
Posted by the KOS KIDZ
October 8, 2007
YES TO MARK D!
HE HAS IT RIGHT!
ONLY WITH IMPEACHMENT AND WAR CRIMES TRIALS CAN JUSTICE BE SERVED!
YES TO MARK D!
HE HAS IT RIGHT!
ONLY WITH IMPEACHMENT AND WAR CRIMES TRIALS CAN JUSTICE BE SERVED!
YES TO MARK D!
HE HAS IT RIGHT!
ONLY WITH IMPEACHMENT AND WAR CRIMES TRIALS CAN JUSTICE BE SERVED!
YES TO MARK D!
HE HAS IT RIGHT!
ONLY WITH IMPEACHMENT AND WAR CRIMES TRIALS CAN JUSTICE BE SERVED!
YES TO MARK D!
HE HAS IT RIGHT!
ONLY WITH IMPEACHMENT AND WAR CRIMES TRIALS CAN JUSTICE BE SERVED!
YES TO MARK D!
HE HAS IT RIGHT!
ONLY WITH IMPEACHMENT AND WAR CRIMES TRIALS CAN JUSTICE BE SERVED!
Posted by sy
October 8, 2007
Oh really.
Joe Klein, May 23, 2007:
There is good news from Iraq, believe it or not. It comes from the most unlikely place: Anbar province, home of the Sunni insurgency. The level of violence has plummeted in recent weeks. An alliance of U.S. troops and local tribes has been very effective in moving against the al-Qaeda foreign fighters. A senior U.S. military official told me—confirming reports from several other sources—that there have been "a couple of days recently during which there were zero effective attacks and less than 10 attacks overall in the province (keep in mind that an attack can be as little as one round fired). This is a result of sheiks stepping up and opposing AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] and volunteering their young men to serve in the police and army units there." The success in Anbar has led sheiks in at least two other Sunni-dominated provinces, Nineveh and Salahaddin, to ask for similar alliances against the foreign fighters. And, as TIME's Bobby Ghosh has reported, an influential leader of the Sunni insurgency, Harith al-Dari, has turned against al-Qaeda as well. It is possible that al-Qaeda is being rejected like a mismatched liver transplant by the body of the Iraqi insurgency.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1624697,00.html
Reuters has more bad news for you:
Report says war on terror is fueling al Qaeda
Six years after the September 11 attacks in the United States, the "war on terror" is failing and instead fueling an increase in support for extremist Islamist movements, a British think-tank said on Monday.
A report by the Oxford Research Group (ORG) said a "fundamental re-think is required" if the global terrorist network is to be rendered ineffective.
"If the al Qaeda movement is to be countered, then the roots of its support must be understood and systematically undercut," said Paul Rogers, the report's author and professor of global peace studies at Bradford University in northern England.
...
He described the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq as a "disastrous mistake" which had helped establish a "most valued jihadist combat training zone" for al Qaeda supporters.
The report -- Alternatives to the War on Terror -- recommended the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq coupled with intensive diplomatic engagement in the region, including with Iran and Syria. ...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071008/ts_nm/britain_iraq_afghanistan_dc;_ylt=AoyKB8Lv7Di3hEW3MyzSQ5qs0NUE
Next time the impulse to provide cover for military leaders engaging in the political theater hits you, pause, take a deep breath and do not exhale.
Posted by Mark D
October 8, 2007
This KOS KIDS guy/gal has got to go.
Why can't Time's IT staff figure out what the average basement blogger can: banning IPs, troll ratings, registration to post, etc.?
I still say this site is ran on WindowsME ...
Posted by jayackroyd
October 8, 2007
The mission is to establish a permanent military base in Iraq, comprising about 50-70 thousand soldiers.
This means, in effect, establishing a puppet government, setting up the actual government in an enormous embassy, and leaving no doubt about the US as hegemon.
Posted by the KOS KIDZ
October 8, 2007
NO NO NO NO NO
WE NEED TO LEAVE IRAQ NOW
NO PUPPET GOVERNMENT!
YES TO IMPEACHMENT!
YES TO LEAVING IRAQ NOW NOW NOW
YES TO WAR CRIMES TRIALS!
YOU ARE THE TROLL MARK. ARE YOU QH?
Posted by Mark D
October 8, 2007
We have got to find a way to keep our more, shall we say, "energetic" brothers and sisters like the KOS KIDZ there a little less visible. Friend, please wait until after the election and then you can talk all you want. Please?
Posted by Derek
October 8, 2007
"The incompetence, the lack of rigor is mind-boggling."
That's what happens when party hacks are given important jobs, in between campaigns, to keep them entertained. For example, rebuilding an entire country. It really isn't all that mind boggling to end up with a mess when incompetents are in charge of the operation. That seems to result naturally.
At the moment the mission appears to be to arm both sides of the coming civil war. Then we ought to expect their 6,000 year old argument to be resolved in the next few weeks and months.
One thing that might be holding up the political settlement process is the fact that we don't currently talk to people we don't like. That has a very negative impact on the number of deals you can broker.
Posted by the KOS KIDZ
October 8, 2007
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH NEOCON NEOCON NEOCON!
BLAH IMPEACH BLAH BLAH
BRAY BRAY BRAY BRAY
I AM LARRY CRAIG IN MY BASEMENT PRETENDING TO BE A LIBERAL HA HA HA HA HA
BLAH BLAH BLAH IMPEACH BLAH
Posted by Joe Klein
October 8, 2007
Joe, can you honestly say the following --
Even though I disagree with this escalation, I am hoping that General Petraeus succeeds in calming down Baghdad.
Does the thought even cross your mind?
Posted by BillW
October 8, 2007
Meanwhile, from the Hillary Project:
Sandy Berger, who stole highly classified terrorism documents from the National Archives, destroyed them and lied to investigators, is now an adviser to presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Berger, who was fired from John Kerry´s presidential campaign when the scandal broke in 2004, has assumed a similar role in Clinton´s campaign, even though his security clearance has been suspended until September 2008. This is raising eyebrows even among Clinton´s admirers.
Posted by zota
October 8, 2007
Joe Klein and Christopher Hitchens should open a bar called the Ill-Informed Dilettante
Posted by the KOS KIDZ
October 8, 2007
BERGER WAS FRAMED BY THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY AND THAT IS WHY HE DID NOT GET INTO MUCH TROUBLE OVER IT. SOON HE WILL BE BACK WHERE HE BELONGS AT PRESIDENT CLINTON'S SIDE.
AND JOE - WE DO NOT WANT SUCCESS IN IRAQ BECAUSE OUR ELECTION HINGES UPON FAILURE. DUH, BUT BECAUSE OF THE STUPIDITY OF BUSH AND BLACKWATER FAILURE IS GUARANTEED AS IS OUR HILLARY IN THE WHITE HOUSE IN 08!
IT IS A GREAT TIME TO BE A DEMOCRAT!
Posted by the KOS KIDZ
October 8, 2007
BTW, I WON'T EVEN DIGNIFY MY SPOOFER WITH A REMARK OTHER THAN TO SAY REGISTRATION AND MODERATION PLEASE!
Posted by KOS KIDZ
October 8, 2007
RIGHT WING TROLLS FOR YOU AND ME!
RIGHT WING TROLLS FOR EVERYBODY!
RIGHT WING TROLLS MAKE ME HAPPY!
RIGHT WING TROLLS DOODLE DEE DOO DEE!
Posted by Elvis Elvisberg
October 8, 2007
"Joe Klein and Christopher Hitchens should open a bar called the Ill-Informed Dilettante"
That's ridiculous, zota.
What makes you think that Hitchens could run a bar?
Posted by the KOS KIDZ
October 8, 2007
THE ABOVE POST WASN'T ME.
THE NEOCONS ARE GETTING DESPERATE.
I LOVE IT!
Posted by sy
October 8, 2007
More politics from the honorable David Petraeus:
EAST OF BAQUBA, Iraq (Reuters) - The U.S. military commander in Iraq stepped up accusations over the weekend that Iran was inciting violence there and said Tehran's ambassador to Baghdad was a member of the Revolutionary Guards Qods force.
...
Washington accuses Iran's Revolutionary Guards' elite Qods force of supporting militias who have attacked U.S. troops.
General David Petraeus, speaking at a U.S. military base about 30 km (20 miles) from the Iranian border on Saturday, said Iran was giving militia groups advanced weaponry and guidance.
"They are responsible for providing the weapons, the training, the funding and in some cases the direction for operations that have indeed killed U.S. soldiers," Petraeus told a group of reporters when asked if the Iranian government was responsible for killing U.S. troops.
Iran dismissed Petraeus's comments as "baseless." Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told a news conference Petraeus's remarks were "not new."
Petraeus did not say how he knew Iran's ambassador to Baghdad, Hassan Kazemi-Qomi, was a Qods force member, but he appeared to suggest the envoy was not under the U.S. military spotlight because he was a diplomat.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071007/ts_nm/iraq_dc
Posted by Carismar
October 8, 2007
Sorry, defeatocrats, BUT THE SURGE IS WORKING.
What part of the word "victory" don't you understand?
The Lord is on our side and we cannot be defeated, not as long as we don't lose our nerve. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
Posted by zota
October 8, 2007
Obviously someone else would have to *run* the bar (Hitchens and Klein aren't so good at maintaining a consistent version of consensus reality).
I imagine it as more of a theme bar -- kind of like Cheers, but instead of a mailman and an accountant making dumb jokes, it would be two washed-up pundits screaming at imaginary leftists and weeping in abject shame.
Posted by Anonymous
October 8, 2007
> The Lord is on our side and we cannot be defeated
I really can't tell which posts are fake anymore...
Posted by QH's Goth Sister
October 8, 2007
MUST. NOT. FEED. FREEPER. TROLLS.
MUST. NOT. FEED. FREEPER. TROLLS.
MUST. NOT. FEED. FREEPER. TROLLS.
DAMN.
Posted by Carismar
October 8, 2007
So I'm turning my good name over to you leftists. Now I'm somebody else...guess who!
Posted by QH's Goth Sister
October 8, 2007
MUST.FEED.KOS.TROLLS.
Posted by JJ
October 8, 2007
"There is no way that we can let there be anything that suggests that the surge or anything else is working in Iraq. So far, our friends in the press are doing their part and so are you, Joe, so I thank you. Failure in Iraq leads us to the White House in 08 and then we once we are in power we can do with it what we want and do not have to worry about the consequences because it will be Bush's fault. Keep these stories up, Time!"
Not a bad parody. But I sure wish Time would fix the name spoofing problem.
Posted by QH's Goth Sister
October 8, 2007
Thanks QH (my freeper brother).
Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.
Big kiss.
Posted by KOS KIDZ
October 8, 2007
IT'S RAINING MEN! HALLELUJAH! - IT'S RAINING MEN! AMEN!
I'M GONNA GO OUT TO RUN AND LET MYSELF GET
ABSOLUTELY SOAKING WET!
IT'S RAINING MEN! HALLELUJAH!
IT'S RAINING MEN! EVERY SPECIMEN!
Posted by QH's Goth Sister
October 8, 2007
www.freerepublic.com
Posted by JJ
October 8, 2007
I did not post the above post that was ascribed to me.
Posted by the KOS KIDZ
October 8, 2007
CARISMAR THE SURGE IS FAILING AS IS YOUR BUSH. HILLARY WILL FIX IRAQ QUAGMIRE AND SAVE AMERICA AND YOU CANNOT STOP IT NEOCON!
Posted by Rick
October 8, 2007
Man the Left has shown it has some of the best political arm chair quarterbacks in this country and a few really good ones on this blog.
You know when all you have to say is negative that should be a sign you are no longer objective. Also, the daily kos and thinkprogress are not a news sources linda please quit linking it as if it is a credible news source. They are opinion/commentary sources.
If all these sources say it looks better on the ground who are you to say that is not true? Are you there? Are you posting from Iraq?
The Left and its all knowing elitiest point of view. Just like the great Leftosi Congress that was supposed to solve all of America's issues. Pelosi was going to stop the political manuvering and games. Only to have countless meaningless votes on the war. Make our country even more divided, and is noting more than a mouth peice for Moveon.org, Daily Kos, and David Soros. I wonder how much money a billionaire spins to further his political agenda?
Posted by Anonymous
October 8, 2007
Well one thing you Lefties have to admitt. Six years later and still no attacks here. I wonder if that cut and run strategy you have so long supported would have given us that kind of security?
Posted by rqb
October 8, 2007
The mission to avoid reporting anything that makes Bush or his administration look good is accomplished by merely reporting what the Bush administration does, rather than what it says it does. Pretty simple.
Posted by Riesz Fischer
October 8, 2007
Ya know, maybe Rick has a point-- we should be more open minded. Maybe there are some good things happening in Iraq. Maybe we are winning.
Heck, I bet all those awful clips we see on the evening news were made in Hollyweird with trick photography. And the librul media show them as if they're real news clips because they want Amerukuh to lose in Iraq.
Because they hate Ameruhkuh.
Yeah, maybe you and the rest of the flag waving crowd are right, and we're the ones who are stupid!
Posted by Memekiller
October 8, 2007
I think success is measured by having 120,000 troops on the ground in January 2009, obviously. Which is why playing up the surge or Petreaus' testimony is absurd, and plays into his game plan.
By pretending this is anything other than what it is, a lot of these pundits (not Klein, necessarily) are helping punt the ball.
Posted by QH's Goth Sister
October 8, 2007
I apologize to all for my brother's multiple delusional identities.
QH, I can get you the room next to Britney's at the rehab clinic.
Big kiss!
Posted by Riesz Fischer
October 8, 2007
Yeah Anonymous, six years with no attacks here. Except the anthrax attacks, and they don't count because they were done by some of your fellow conservative Americans, not by the Ay-rabs.
But wasn't the first one enough? Heck, as soon as the "terris" saw your boy cheerleader take office they new they could strike. And they did-- the worst "terrist" attack on American soil, ever.
And that was after the boy cheerleader was warned with the PDB entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US".
Posted by Powertool
October 8, 2007
GENERAL PETRAEUS SAID WE'RE WINNING!!!! ANYONE WHO SAYS DIFFERENTLY IS A COWARD, A LIAR, AND A TRAITOR.
Posted by Bagman Vince
October 8, 2007
Hillary confessed the other day that she - that is, her political mafia, including probably Rahm Emanuel, actually were the ones who started the Media Matters leftist website. Her crew on that site is looking for conservatives to trash, which then can be dutifully handed off to her willing shills in the mainstream media and in turn passed on to their audience, the elderly people of America.
Posted by Right Wing Terror
October 8, 2007
> Six years later and still no attacks here.
Anthrax.
Posted by JJ
October 8, 2007
Rick you are a fool. The daily kos is one of the few places a true progressive can get the truth about how badly we are losing in Iraq and because of the sacrifice of our poor troops at least we Democrats will soon be back in power.
Posted by Anonymous
October 8, 2007
> that site is looking for conservatives to trash
For conservatives, to quote in full with video clips and unedited transcripts = "trash"
Which must mean that conservative dialog itself is trash.
Well okay then! Thanks for finally saying it straight out.
Posted by Anonymous
October 8, 2007
Still deflecting you got nothing.
Posted by the KOS KIDZ
October 8, 2007
OF COURSE ANYTHING THE NEOCONS SAY IS TRASH.
IF YOU SPENT ANY TIME ON THE KOS YOU WOULD KNOW THIS.
Posted by Anonymous
October 8, 2007
I am a neocon who loves illegal war for oil and I voted for Bush twice and wish JEb was running.
Posted by ivb
October 8, 2007
"Well one thing you Lefties have to admitt. Six years later and still no attacks here. I wonder if that cut and run strategy you have so long supported would have given us that kind of security?"
They have so effectively drained our fiscal and military resources over there that they don't have to bother to fight us here.
Many generals (although not St. David, as I recall) have indicated that our military resources are so strained we couldn't deal with a problem anywhere else. That is the only thing that is helping at all to keep the Iran war drums at a little bit lower level.
Posted by the KOS KIDZ
October 8, 2007
THE REASON WHY THERE HAS BEEN NO "TERRORIST" ATTACKS IS THAT BUSH HAS NOT ORDERED THE CIA TO DO ANOTHER ONE LIKE 9/11. I BET HE HAS ORDERS IN PLACE FOR ATTACKS TO BE CONDUCTED AFTER HILLARY'S INAUGERATION!
Posted by grape_crush
October 8, 2007
Rick: "..the Left has shown it has some of the best political arm chair quarterbacks in this country.."
Problem is that many of those 'armchair quarterbacks' were making correct predictions about the outcome of the invasion and occupation of Iraq before it started, Rick, and they were called traitors for doing it.
Rick: "You know when all you have to say is negative that should be a sign you are no longer objective."
I don't think that too many people are saying that the change in tactics the US is using to reduce the level of violence in Iraq is a negative, Rick...
Rick: "If all these sources say it looks better on the ground who are you to say that is not true?
If there are all these sources on the ground saying that political reconciliation between the various Iraqi factions looks bad, who are you to say it is not true? Are you blogging from Iraq?
Rick: "The Left..(more freeperville nonsense)..I wonder how much money a billionaire spins to further his political agenda?"
Gee, Rick, I don't know that one. Why don't you try contacting the Bradley, Olin, Smith-Richardson, and Scaife foundations* and ask them how much money each donates to conservative causes?
That should give you a good idea, Rick.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n22_v112/ai_17099791
Posted by Anonymous
October 8, 2007
You would think the fact we haven't been attacked despite doing anything substantive to improve security would show just how much we overreacted. It was never easy to attack us, and Osama got lucky. Terrorism is a problem, but the hysterics have sacrificed far more freedom, blood and treasure to make the world more dangerous from terrorists. (Attacks up worldwide every year).
One thing's for sure. Every day Bush is in office makes another attack more likely. We would be safer if we had done NOTHING.
Posted by Rick
October 8, 2007
JJ,
Don't make me laugh. I read the Daily Kospiracy from time to time when I need to be entertained. You never see anything they report in the MSM. That should tell you something. The reason is the MSM is held accountable to some degree your Kospiracy can say what it wants because, the only accountablity they have is with Fascists such as yourself, maybe the MoveonFascists and Soros crowd.
They are not progressive media, they are left wing commentary based on opinion, conjecture, and partisanship. Take off the tin foil hat, the government doesn't care about you, and stop smoking the weed it makes you paranoid.
Especially you Linda. Everytime I read your posts I think of the world you live in where the government has your phone tapped, black suburbans, the constant mind surveillance from satellites, men in black, and the black helicopters following you everywhere. Must be awful.
Posted by patroclus
October 8, 2007
It would have been far more timely for Mr. Klein to have reverted to the "Good Joe Klein" back in September, when the decisions were being made to extend this never-ending fiasco for (at least)yet another 16 months. How many U.S. troops and innocent Iraqi civilians are going to have their lives, hopes and freedom permanently extinguished while we continue to await the Iraqi political reconciliation that is plainly never going to happen?
And, given that the quagmire is going to last through the end of the Bush presidency, it seems likely at this stage that the war will not end until well into the next presidency. Just as Bush (41) saddled his successor with Somalia, Bush (43) is going to bequeath the never-ending Iraq occupation to his successors.
I will now assume that the good Joe is here until the next crunch time in D.C. Presumably, this will be next March. So, readers should expect to see anti-war columns until March, at which time the bad Joe will reappear to demand apologies from war critics and to argue, that in a democracy, we can't criticize Generals who are failing miserably to accomplish their stated objectives.
Of course, "political reconciliation" was unlikely in September too. And it was the stated reason for the escalation. But Mr. Klein didn't bother, in September, to point any of that out. And the war was extended by the lying sliming obstructionist Republicans, just as they did last January, last May and in July. And as they will do next March.
How many more lives will be lost? How many more billions of dollars will be wasted?
Posted by Available Webmaster
October 8, 2007
Posted by Rick
October 8, 2007
JJ,
Don't make me laugh. I read the Daily Kospiracy from time to time when I need to be entertained
-- Given the lack of registration on this site, it's probable that you are having a conversation with a JJ impostor or even with yoursel. Time is big time MSM, so obviously they can't muster the talent to prevent such abuses from occuring.
Posted by Anonymous
October 8, 2007
Anon,
Pacifism only begets agression this is a basic social principle.
Does a school yard bully stop beating you for your lunch money because you ignore him? No until you stand up to him he will continue to beat you.
In nature the meek/passive of any social collective is often picked on and sometimes killed for any number of reasons. Social status, example of strength, competition for breeding.
In a perfect world these things don't happen. However, incase you haven't noticed, that is not the world we live in.
We live in a world that is not fair, anyone who tells you any different is selling something. In this case they are selling you an agenda to make you believe that people like the president who is taking the fight to them are wrong.
This has changed the game since we took it to them, they have commited all their resources to figthing to get us off their soil. If we leave before we complete our mission, they win. If they win they you can be assured that this radical islam ideology will spread like a cancer to Europe which now has a huge populas of Muslims and possibly here to America.
Posted by JJ
October 8, 2007
No webmaster - that is me.
Posted by Mark D
October 8, 2007
So let me get the righties straight ...
The war in Iraq is going just peachy, no matter the body counts, lack of political progress, no WMDs ever found, and no ties to terrorism pre-invasion. And the fact the violence is decreasing is NOT because the ethnic cleansing has been taking place for the past four years -- with the U.S. playing both sides -- nor because most people have moved into segregated areas; it's because we added some more troops to Bahgdad.
If things don't go peachy, it's not the fault of sending too few troops, no post-invasion planning, the rebuilding effort headed by young Republicans rather than competent professionals, nor because we shouldn't have invaded to begin with. Instead, it'll be the fault of some bloggers and the media.
Despite the billionaires that fund radical right wingers (Scaife, Moon, etc.) the one true problem is actually George Soros, who is behind every single liberal cause ever created in the history of mankind.
And if we pull our troops out of Iraq, within months my wife will be forced to wear a burka and that bacon cheeseburger I had for lunch will be illegal because, after 230+ years of independence, America will suddenly become subject to radical Muslim law.
Did I miss anything?
I really hope you all are spoofs, because no one could actually be that incredibly detached from reality.
Could they ... ?
Posted by Anonymous
October 8, 2007
The only spoof in here is you!
Posted by JJ
October 8, 2007
Was not me. I have an RSS feed for DailyKos but I rarely read it.
Come on, Time.
Posted by JJ
October 8, 2007
^^^^
Not me.
Posted by Intrepyd
October 8, 2007
Mark D, you make a straw man out of real arguments against a hasty withdrawal. The real consequences would be measured in the damage to the US reputation worldwide. If you think our goodwill is in short supply now, what do you envision if unbridled chaos breaks the nation and causes a regional refugee crisis and a sectarian free-for-all? You would criticize Bush for not predicting the post-war politics in Iraq, but you seem determined to walk off an even more obvious cliff.
Posted by grape_crush
October 8, 2007
Intrepyd: "Mark D, you make a straw man out of real arguments against a hasty withdrawal."
You may want to find a better definition of 'straw man argument' than the one you are currently using, Intrepyd...
Intrepyd: "The real consequences would be measured in the damage to the US reputation worldwide."
You mean it can get worse?
Intrepyd: "..what do you envision if unbridled chaos breaks the nation and causes a regional refugee crisis and a sectarian free-for-all?"
Because, ya know, absolutely nothing close to that has been going on in Iraq to this point.
Intrepyd: "..You would criticize Bush for not predicting the post-war politics in Iraq.."
Plenty of people have been criticizing Bush for his failure to understand the cultural and political dynamics in Iraq, predict the outcomes of toppling Hussein, and plan for a post-Hussein Iraq...Whatever happens in Iraq - whether or not the US is occupying it - is going to be a result of Bush's faults, as well it should be.
Posted by Intrepyd
October 9, 2007
Grape_crush
A "straw man" is a misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. Mark D reduces the argument against pulling out to ridiculous hyperbole. I'll include footnotes for you next time (YIKES, SNARKY!)
Ironically, grape_crush, you use similar distraction tactics. Instead of addressing the inevitable chaos after a US withdrawal, you point to the current unrest and pretend it's as bad as it could possibly get. To answer your question, yes, the US reputation could get worse.
Bush's past mistakes in Iraq are not justification for more mistakes in the future.
"Whatever happens in Iraq - whether or not the US is occupying it - is going to be a result of Bush's faults, as well it should be." I think that quote speaks for itself.
Posted by Mark D
October 10, 2007
"Instead of addressing the inevitable chaos after a US withdrawal ... "
That, in reality, is a straman argument. And I can say that because it's NOT inevitable. If it were, then why would an overwhelming majority of the IRAQI PEOPLE say that the violence would be reduced if we left? They see us as what we are -- an occupying force. We are doing nothing but providing a terrorist training ground, taking up both sides in a civil war, and just generally mucking up the works.
And it's their country -- I think they probably have a better idea of what would happen than any of us. If they say it will improve if we left, who are we to question them?
Oh, and I didn't make anything close to a "strawman" argument. Just read the comments in this very thread -- or on any thread where both left and right post -- and you'll see that I simply reiterated the exact arguments most on the right make. Your failure to see that speaks for itself.
Perhaps you're the one who needs "footnotes."