....and we're all surprised.

Can any one help me on this? other than korea, when was the last time the U.N. left a country it was "reconstructing"?
what the hell is bush thinking?

These developments can mean only one thing. The USA has managed to repair a piece of the Iraqi infrastructure of vital importance to France and Germany: the Gravy Train.

They're telling Bush that they have a price.

Only an idiot expects altruism on a national basis.

and BTW,

Count Germany out.

I hope we don't throw all this away and let the bastards win in peace what they couldn't possibly hope to in war [or pre-war].

I smell the State Dept all over this .

I know that we are all getting tired of the "Bush is smarter than we think" refrain, but I am going to indulge myself once again: Maybe this little foray to the UN is meant to fail; to prove once-and-for-all that the UN is useless.

If I don't keep telling myself that, I think that I will go insane with rage.

Europe is finished. I cannot even get angry with them any more.

They'll push & push & get as many concessions as possible. I wouldn't be surprised if they get a timetable (roadmap?) for handing authority over to a UN sponsored Iraqi council.

On the plus side, this could free up US forces for Operation Mullah Topple.

OT:
Johnny Depp will not live in the US until the politcal climate changes

He is living in France with his French Wife. Screw him, I hope he stays there!

OT Listening to A7 they had an outtake of what must have been a bbc program -- Yassin was saying that the Jerusalem children's boming was meant only as a ONE-TIME, TEMPORARY thing and they didnt mean to violate the roadmap with it! and of course Israel is the one the unfairly violated the roadmap after that with all their conditions and foot-dragging. How does he sleep?

This is a good sign.

In fact, this story's very first quoted paragraph negates the hundreds of comments worth of doomsaying indulged in here recently:

Schroeder and Chirac, both adamant opponents of the war in Iraq, said they wanted to see a greater role for the United Nations in guiding the country's reconstruction. Such a role was not included in the draft U.N. resolution circulated by the United States on Wednesday.

I'm beginning to think folks here actually enjoy expecting the worst.

OT - Our favourite cartoonist Ted Rall, weighs in with an opinion piece.

Headline:

IRAQ: WHAT WENT WRONG

Tagline

A Fair and Balanced Look at America's New Vietnam

I read it, then oh how I laughed.

Guess what, he 'writes' too

I get it. Chirac & Schroeder want rapid democratization in Iraq, so the Iraqi people can control their national destiny.

Except they adamantly opposed just that when Saddam was around.

No, wait, maybe I don't get it.

#4 Django

Dead on.

#5 john

Schroeder won last falls election on his diatribe about not backing the US and he squeeked through. He will continue to shout all this rhetoric as long as its politically profitable (it was announced last week he intends to run in 2006). Despite the mass grave findings and the slow recovery of a post-Sadam Iraq, 2/3 of germans believe the war was unneccessary, so we should get used to his posturing. The german economy is flat with 10-12% unemployment and their little socialist utopia is about to go through a much needed overhaul.

I won't bother with Chirac.. he's not worth it.

I expect someone's already posted this link - but in case they haven't, I thought this article from Amir Taheri in today's NY Post was very interesting:

Al Qaeda's Agenda For Iraq

OT Our "friends" the Saudis

Saudis step up security after missile seizure

Staff and agencies
September 4 2003
Guardian Unlimited

Security has been stepped up at Saudi Arabian airports after the reported seizure of missiles capable of bringing down aircraft, it was disclosed today.

Saudi authorities told the BBC they had intercepted a lorryload of surface-to-air missiles on a desert road near Jeddah, which were said to be destined for an unnamed terrorist group.

Police say the weapons had been smuggled from Yemen.
[Link: www2.guardian.co.uk...]

But some European countries are likely to resist if the United States continues to try to hold on to all the lucrative and influential ventures, such as oil contracts and the political rebuilding process, according to some council diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity.

What was the name of the old children's story (I think it's a Mother Goose tale) about the cat (?) who was baking the pie, and every time she asked the other animals "Who will help roll the dough", "Who will help put it in the oven", etc., all she got was a chorus of "Not I's" from the lazy, shifless barnyard. This is the same thing. Europe didn't want to roll up its sleaves and help with the dirty work, even though they are direct beneficiaries of the military action in Iraq. Not ofcourse, everybody and their brother is lining up to "eat the pie" when it comes out of the oven. As far as contracts go, you pony-up with some money and troops, then you get some contracts. As far as "leadership" roles go, Europe (with the exception of Britain) has forfeited its say due to non-participation/appeasement.

France and Germany can kiss-off all together.

Didn't Pres. Bush go to the UN and give a gutsy speech about how, if the UN didn't act on Iraq, it would become irrelevant.

Well, they didn't act on Iraq.

So why is the administration crawling to the UN begging for help?

This resolution is going to give France so much satisfaction... they will study it carefully, taking their time, suggesting little changes here and there... and then, when a deal seems imminent, they will add one further demand: that the UN be put in charge.

And if the administration does not give in to all of their demands, they will smugly reply that it is not the world community's job to save "Bush" and America's "illegal occupation" of Iraq.

#10

From the article about Johnny Dipp (sic):

"My daughter is four, my boy is one. I'd like them to see America as a toy, a broken toy. Investigate it a little, check it out, get this feeling and then get out," said the star of the off-beat films "Edward Scissorhands" and "Dead Man."

"I'm just an old geezer of 47, but I see Johnny Dipp as a skin-puppet, a moronic skin puppet. Poke at him with a sharp stick, marvel at his ignorance and ingratitude, hurt his moonbatty widdle fweeings and boot his ass out permanently," said Clutch, a general nobody that boycotts f*ckwits like this by avoiding anything that they do or support. (Sorry, kiddies, no "Pirates Of The Caribbean" for us. Let's watch "Patton" instead!)

OT

Jonah Goldberg's "Bush = Hitler" piece in today's NRO is sheer brilliance.

[Link: nationalreview.com...]

#17 MysticMonist

"In Iraq today, there are only two sides," Al-Ayyeri asserts. "Here we have a clash of two visions of the world and the future of mankind. The side prepared to accept more sacrifices will win."

No truer statement has ever been printed in the NY Post.

#17 Mysticy Monist

That's a good NY Post article you linked. I almost always like Amir Taheri's stuff (his articles appears in the National Review and NRO quite often). The bits I personally found most interesting were the ones where the Islamonazi author, Al-Ayyeri, is reluctantly grateful to the U.S. for helping the Islmaists defeat socialism and it's baathist equivalent in Afghanistan and Iraq. Who says this war was all about Israel's "security". Sounds more to me like this war helped fulfill the agend of some Saudis.

#16 Buckeye Abroad

Posturing is a very accurate desciption of both the Germans and the French.

There are votes to be milked from anti-Americanism.

(see: today's earlier LGF thread)

I noticed you commented on another thread about some German court awarding a 10 year sentence to some asshole for a thrill kill.

Yep, them Germans are far more civilized than the 'mercans. After all, you have to have lenient murder laws in their country, one that can rubber stamp the murder of millions, or else half their geriatric population would be in prison.

The court is still out as whether such imprisonment would be less humane than simply letting your old folks die, forgotten, in sweltering death pits, as they do in the glorious fifth republic, France.

#7 - Andrew - share your opinion but . . .

getting military forces from India, Japan, and other countries to “share the burden in Iraq” requires a UN-authorized military operation.

Such military forces could secure areas -- while US forces root out the "Evil Ones."

Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has said a call from his Green Party coalition allies for German troops to join any United Nations force in Iraq made him "want to puke".

Telegraph

When I read the title of that article, my first thought was "typical UN self-attention." And what does the French/German response sound like? Like some little child demanding "what's in it for me?" The UN doesn't give a shit if we're liberating a country or simply providing medical aid. Their first and last thought will be what they're getting out of it.

In Iraq today, there are only two sides," Al-Ayyeri asserts. "Here we have a clash of two visions of the world and the future of mankind. The side prepared to accept more sacrifices will win."

Sadly, our adversaries in this conflict possess greater moral clarity than we do. This pandering to the irrelevant UN is yet another convenient example of the current administration going 'wobbly'.

OT from Arab News

One of the most remarkable among the many and varied tribal customs that survive in Saudi Arabia is one that forbids anyone at all seeing a woman's face

In parts of the Al-Kharj region, not even a woman's husband and children are permitted to see her face uncovered.

Al-Kharj native Muhammad Abdullah has never seen his wife's face. "We've been married for ten years and I've never seen it, not once," he said. The burqa - the garment that covers all of head except the eyes - "is stuck to her face 24 hours a day," he said.

It makes sad reading.

The conservative movement will tear itself apart over the aftermath of this "war". Fact is, leading conservatives, like Bill Kristol, William F Buckley, Rich Lowry, and others stuck their neck out making a case for war against Iraq that was, in retrospect, made up more of assumptions and wishful thinking than reality.

If we were not prepared to win the war by seizing full and complete control of Iraq, occupying it, administering it for a number of years under military rule (as in Germany and Japan) and passing it off to a next generation of leaders who would come of political age under US tutelage, then we had *no* business going to war there in the first place.

Check out these amazing entries from Stanley Kurtz, another leading pro-war conservative, in NRO's The Corner from yesterday:

The president’s decision to turn to the United Nations for assistance in the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq makes a great deal of sense. It certainly isn’t the ideal approach, but given the divisions within our country, and our general unwillingness to enlarge our military, the president’s decision is reasonable.

This is the direct opposite of what the pro-war crowd argued prior to the war. Then, our going to the UN was a disaster and we could handle business by ourselves.
Kurtz goes on:

Is this the best foreign policy? No. The best foreign policy requires not the United Nations, but a united nation. Unfortunately, our nation is not united. The occupation of Iraq is not the occupation of Japan or Germany. This is even more because of the fact that we are different than we were back then than the fact that Iraq is not Japan or Germany. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Again, the absolute opposite of what was a bedrock argument of the pro-war crowd prior to war: that the US would drain the terrorist swamps of the Middle East by establishing a free, pluralistic and democratic Iraq by tranforming it through occupation. The President directly argued that the US has experience in this regard, and he cited directly the German and the Japanese experience.

Think about this objectively: You are an Islamic fascist. You oppose US plans, and fear that they may succeed, leaving your people with an alternative model to the one you offer, one based on freedom, liberty and prosperity. You know, from history, that if you inflict some casualties on American soldiers, the US will lose its political will and drop the ball.

So, you kill one or two a day. You plow up pipelines. You cut electrical wires. The press goes into a frenzy of defeatism. The US public becomes ever-more divided.

The US cuts and runs, handing it off to the UN.

Folks, we have been lied to. And we are being defeated.
There is no way to sugar coat this. If I had known the US would go this route, I never would have supported this war.

We are cutting and running just like bin Laden said we would. We are living down to expectations. We are inviting future attacks. We are not the same people we once were.

30 RC neo-Jew:

Too bad Hanan Ashrawi wasn't born into that tribe.

This is very bad news. It makes us appear weak which energizes the terrorists.

Sisyphean Diplomacy: Who invited the U.N. (We did!) by Jed Babbin

#25 john

I have had the unusual experience of living here (Germany) for several years and let's just say I have not adjusted well. All I can say is keep socialism in Europe where it belongs.

Most of continental Europe's legal structure is based on roman law (no mitigating circumstances are taken into consideration when sentencing) as compared to common law in the US and UK.

#31 KevinV

There were two smart options:

Option A: Depose Saddam Hussein and then let the Iraqis sort out what to do next--with the caveats that we get to build military bases in Iraq and reserve the right to depose the next regime if it isn't to our liking.

Option B: Impose martial law with curfews. This has worked well for Israel. They can't blow our troops up if they are not permitted on the streets.

KevinV

The US (and the UK) have NOT yet cut and run, and I don't think they will. By hook or by crook they will beef up their military presence in Iraq. I think both Bush and Blair have strong resolve on this, and will not panic.

What is NOT needed is UN interference. What IS needed - and very welcome - is at least some contribution by willing nations such as the Poles to help out. But what is MOST NEEDED is acceleration of the effort to bring more Iraqis on board as trained police/militia, to help enforce order and local security, and to help guard infrastructure targets.

In the meanwhile it may be necessary to play some UN feints, just like in the spring. Give those clowns a chance to join the right side. And more rope to hang themselves, if they want.

OT

ELF strikes again:

Twenty SUVs Damaged in Texas Attack

People. Two points are being missed.

1. The UN resolutions puts everything under U.S. control, so in the end, the U.S. is making the Security Council bend to its wishes.

*cough

Again, together. The U.S. is bending the UN to do its bidding. There is no place for France or anyone else to gloat.

2. As someone said above, this could be a result of needing to deploy forces elsewhere (Iran, NK, Syria, for starters). Remember, the U.S. and our true allies do the fighting, our fair-weather "allies" do the policing. This is just a continuation.

Bush might not be brilliant, but then you have to give that whoever is pulling his strings must be ;-)

# 35 - ibrodsky

Agreed. And we have apparently chosen

Option C - Where we engage in a war in the face of universal opposition, save for Poland and Great Britain, depose Saddam, apologize profusely to our presence to the point of allowing armed private militias to patrol in towns we have occupied (Najaf, for example. Brilliant move!), allow Shari'a law to be used, fold when the locals object of female officers or judges, set up a government with the support of the Commitee for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, nickel n' dime the occupation force to the point where your chief administrator's staff share 3 laptops, then ask your political enemies to pretty-extra-please-with-sugar-on-top to get us the hell out of the mess we've created, then run like hell.

This stinks. And we will pay a price. If a democrat acted like Bush is acting right now, most LGF'ers would be all over him, and I think everyone here knows that.

I cannot support this President any further. The worst failure is not in failing outright, but in knowing what needs to be done and not doing it after promising you would.

OT, from Honest Reporting, the benefits of missile strikes against Hamas savages:

1) Deterrence: Hamas terrorists are now in hiding, rather than openly organizing more bombings of Israeli buses and restaurants. Hamas has released a statement to its members, urging them to turn off cellular phones, stay home, and never travel together. They are even encouraged to wear disguises, since, as the directive states, "you do not know who is following you. It could be the store owner, or your neighbor, or someone in a car."

2) Requesting another hudna: Over the last few days, Hamas leaders have sent messages to both the PA and Egypt in an effort to revive the hudna (tactical cease-fire). Apparently, only when the terrorists are feeling the heat personally do they weigh the cost of their ongoing terror against Israelis.

3) Separation from PA: Hamas is convinced that the Palestinian Authority assisted Israel in the recent wave of targeted killings - as one Hamas leader said, "It is clear to us that no one in Ramallah [PA headquarters] is crying over what happened in Gaza." The targeted killings therefore drive a wedge between Hamas and the PA, which is precisely what is called for in the road map as a positive step toward regional peace.

4) Collateral damage minimized: The unfortunate downside of the targeted killings is the loss of innocent lives, but IDF technology is becoming incredibly sophisticated in order to lessen injury to Palestinian civilians. Collaborators now dab the terrorists' vehicles with an invisible dye that is detected by sensors on Israeli helicopters. The IDF recently stopped using an American missile that caused excessive damage; cameras on the tips of the new, Israeli missiles allow for "real-time" aiming. As an IDF insider said, "'We can abort up to a couple seconds before impact. On occasion the terrorist's face shows up on camera for final confirmation.''

5) Dispelling the great Palestinian illusion: Finally, the targeted killings allow both peoples to pursue a true, lasting peace on the diplomatic level. As analyst Yisrael Neeman writes, "There are those who claim there is no military solution to the conflict with the Palestinians. There is no exclusively political solution either, but rather a combination of the two. Terror must be defeated and afterwards the political solution can be worked out. Only then will the illusion of defeating Israel disappear, allowing for the Palestinians to negotiate in good faith."

OT -- Another win for the LLL

Estrada Asks Bush to Withdraw His Nomination

He's too conservative, they claim.

I think we should convert that nuclear countdown clock into an Islam-takes-over-the-world clock. And move the hands a little closer to 12 now.

Collaborators now dab the terrorists' vehicles with an invisible dye that is detected by sensors on Israeli helicopters.

Ain't technology wonderful?

...and it works on donkey carts, too!

Buckeye,

Most of continental Europe's legal structure is based on roman law (no mitigating circumstances are taken into consideration when sentencing) as compared to common law in the US and UK.

This actually sounds like a good idea to me. Mitigating circumstances are where you get the (uniquely American?) 'Black Rage', 'PMS' and 'Battered Wife Syndrome' arguements in our courts. To me a crime is a crime. "Did you rob the store?" "Did you rape the woman?" "Did you shoot the guy?" Mitagating circumstances be damned. I don't care where 'it all started', I just want to know when it'll end.

If Europe doesn't allow 'mitigating circumstances', how do they wind up with such low prison terms. Is life really counted that cheap?

Bush has wanted to have it both ways on a number of issues or he wouldn't have hired people like Powell, Minetta, Whitman, and others at State, Transportation, and EPA. But Bush's refusal to unify his Administration philosophically--State and Defense, in particular--is now undermining his entire agenda.

Well, Bush is getting his comeuppance. Cleverness never sustains itself.

When the situation gets so dire that the election is at risk, Bush will finally bite the bullet. It's going to be a very volatile autumn.

KevinV

We are cutting and running just like bin Laden said we would. We are living down to expectations. We are inviting future attacks. We are not the same people we once were.

It's ironic. One month from now will the mark the 10th anniversary of the firefight in Mogadishu that claimed 18 American lives. As we all know, the United States and the United Nations quickly abandoned Somalia to its fate. Our precipitous retreat emboldened an entire generation of Islamic jihadis to believe that they could strike the United States with impunity. A decade of terrorist attacks would follow. Dharan, the Khobar Towers, Dar-S-Salaam, Nairobi, and the USS Cole served to reinforce the terrorist's convictions that the United States was a "paper tiger". What I think many people fail to realize is that the brazen attack on 9/11 was a inevitable result of their "success" in Somalia and our myopic response. I shudder to think of the inspiration an American retreat from Iraq would give to the forces of Islamic extremism throughout the world.

Aren't there plenty of US troops in western europe and south korea that could be relocated to Iraq? They might actually be more welcome there.

# 41 - Let's Roll

The Estrada retreat was another nail in the coffin of this former Bush backer's support for the President. My wife reminds me of why I was suspicious of Bush when he announced for the nomination. According to her, I said "Bushes always appear conservative, and they say the right things, but when it comes down to it the Bushes just aren't fighters."

The Estrada retreat is one more example. There are many others.

# 46 - Dirk Diggler

Well said, friend. My point and my fear, exactly. We're going to get a nuke up our ass one of these days, and our retreat in Iraq (JohnInLondon: that's a retreat from our announced goals in liberating Iraq, not an actual physical retreat from Iraq) will enbolden a whole new cadre of Jihadis.

They play hardball. We do not. Like Vietnam, we are fighting this war with one arm tied behind our backs due to political concerns. Like Vietnam, this war will lose the support of the broad American middle class, which doesn't mind sacrifices for a just cause, but cannot stomach them for piddly PC causes.

Here is how Powell & State screwed America again:
Click Here

Question: Is it the beginning of the end or is it the end of the beginning?

Again, I object to these comments blaming Powell and State for this development.

The President of the United States is calling the shots.

NOT State. NOT Powell.

Or are we now joining the LLL crowd in believing that the President is not really in charge?

Let's place the blame where it belongs: squarely in the Oval Office.

If this were President Gore, none of you would have any trouble placing blame where it belongs. I know this is painful, but this President has let us all down.

#44 john

Now turn it around....

did you shoot and kill John Smith? Yes, but he broke into my house armed with knife and threatened to kill my family. Again these circumstances will not hinder the judge on giving you a sentence determined by the charge you were found guilty of. In Germany the guy defending his family will do time.

Is life really counted that cheap?

Yes.

You know, this kinda chickenshit behavior on Bush's part may strike some people here as "genius", but frankly I find it pathetic. Between crawling back to the UN, appeasing NK, coddling the Saudis, turning Afghanistan into a heroine ring, running up a 500 billion dollar deficit (how the hell is THAT conservative!), asking for an additional 70 billion today for Iraqi Welfare, and allowing me and my family to breathe poison air at Ground Zero for the last two years (I have a persistent cough now and sometimes blood comes out), I am literally exhausted. Unless Bush is replaced by a real conservative between now and the election, I am going libertarian. And if Bush comes here to Ground Zero for the RNC next year, I will spit blood on him on behalf of me and my family.

KevinV

If you originally supported the liberation of Iraq, you are certainly doing very well at trying to sow discord now. Unsurpisingly, you appear to be putting forth the latest argument of the "Bush Lied, People Died" crowd.

"Again, the absolute opposite of what was a bedrock argument of the pro-war crowd prior to war: that the US would drain the terrorist swamps of the Middle East by establishing a free, pluralistic and democratic Iraq by tranforming it through occupation. "

I fail to see the conflict. Even before the liberation of Iraq, conservatives were commenting that the U.N. should not be allowed to take control of the building (note, no "re" involved here) of Iraq. However, conservatives do believe and have commented previosuly that the U.N. could do good through provision of humanitarian assistance and additional forces under U.S. command. The resoultion put before the U.N. allows for exactly that, U.N. humanitarian assistance, covered by U.N. forces under American command, and temporary U.N. support and training for Iraqi police, under American command. There is absolutely no conflict with the ultimate U.S. goal, which is to remove a prime breeding ground for infectious anti-American hatred by establishing a free Iraq.

That said, I have been disturbed by the latest left-wing arguments. Up to now, liberals claimed that the U.S. should have allowed for a greater U.N. role in the liberation and building of a free Iraq. Now that President Bush has decided to allow a role for the U.N. in the American efforts in Iraq, these same liberal commenters are claiming that the involvement of the U.N. indicates defeat. This argument is disingenuous to say the least.

No terrorist will take comfort in the U.N. serving as backup for the U.S. forces in Iraq, no matter what some would like to believe. The U.S. is not going to leave Iraq until the job is done.

Tasty Manatees

When asked about stopping economic aid to the Palestinians to stop suicide attacks against Israeli civilians, nearly three-quarters of Americans supported such a policy while only a small majority of Europeans, 52 percent in all, supported that stance.

[Link: www.iht.com...]

The subtle UN diplomacy of GWB:

1.) Takes one of the Democrats foreign policy issues off the table.

2.) Let's the UN feel important at very little cost.

3.) While the UN is feeling important and dragging its feet on this matter, Bush gets to back to the original game plan.

4.) By the time the UN gets its act together, the Iraqi council who has just been given greater authority will be on its way to establishing a legitimate government nullifying any need for the UN.

Just my $0.02.

KevinV,

ITA (I too agree) with much of what you say. It is possible, IMO, that the administration:

1. underestimated the enemy and

2. believed too easily it's mantra of ROP

and thus, underestimated the nature of the task at hand.

I have to think that the higher-ups in government do not get a true reflection of what is going on on the ground. They see a handful of Iraqi exiles, a professor or two, and make some serious decisions based upon that limited exposure.

#47 Brownfinger

Aren't there plenty of US troops in western europe and south korea that could be relocated to Iraq?

Of the 60k US troops stationed in Germany, half of them are already in Iraq.

#49 rayra

Referring to the Latest FOXNews:

The defense secretary said he hoped negotiations at the United Nations could result in a resolution which would encourage more countries to send troops to Iraq. Turkey, India and Pakistan have said they would send soldiers if there were U.N. authorization.

Additionally – as I put my neck on the choppin’ block -- appears there are way too many “strawman” arguments against the Administration, particularly President Bush. Relax – have a Pepsi or Coke or Adult beverage.

Why keep responding to the first report . . . . situations take time to resolve themselves.

Back to the United Nations AGAIN? And kicked in the face by the Axis of Weasels AGAIN? Didn't someone once say that the definition of insanity was "repeating the same action over and over again, expecting a different result?"

This absolutely, completely, positively tears it for me. NO WAY IN HELL will I support George W. Bush for reelection. I'm praying that McCain will stay healthy (he had skin cancer a while back) and decide that duty requires him to run against Bush; failing that, I'll light a candle for the political fortunes of Joe Lieberman. Joe's not my cup of tea on domestic policy, but on the WoT, he'd be rock solid.

Let me make it clear: I supported military action against Iraq and still do.

We should not have gone to the UN in the first place.

I'm disappointed in President Bush; his speeches are usually right on the money but he doesn't seem to follow through.

However, he is infinitely better than the multi-cultural, world government, anti-military Democrat Demagogues.

#55 Tastee Manatees: "Now that President Bush has decided to allow a role for the U.N. in the American efforts in Iraq, these same liberal commenters are claiming that the involvement of the U.N. indicates defeat."

I think they mean it is a defeat for the Bush Administration's radical policy of unilateralism. Which it is. You can paint this whore up any way you want, but the Democrats, to a man, demanded UN support. When France, Germany, russia and China threatened to veto the War Resolution, Bush said "OK UN, show you cards!", then called the vote off at the last minute like the coward he is.

#63 ibrodsky:

Definitely agree with you on the inadvisiability of electing "multi-cultural, world government, anti-military" Democrats to high office. But I don't put Lieberman in this category - I've seen him a number of times (C-SPAN) giving speeches to groups of hardcore Dem activists (i.e., antiwar, pro-terrorist lefties) in which he tells them flat-out that overthrowing Saddam by force was the right thing to do, and that he'd cast the same "yes" vote again.

#61 GRS

If we were talking about the media suddenly claiming we were losing the war in Iraq because of a tactical pause, I would agree with you.

But you are overlooking some glaring contradictions.

Crawling to the UN after they, in effect, branded our military action against Saddam Hussein as "illegal"?

Saying he was "deeply disturbed" by Israel's attempt to assassinate the leader of Hamas, Abdel Rantisi?

Demanding new Palestinian leadership but being satisfied with an Arafat puppet who repeatedly and publicly says he won't fight terrorist groups?

What's become clear to some of us is that, unfortunately, President Bush puts politics over principle.

Do you understand why he is not saying "The PA refuses to comply with the road map, therefore, road map over"?

It's because to him the "road map" is simply something to point to to show he is doing something about peace in the ME. He would rather let the Palestinians cheat than discard the "road map."

#62 Jeff: This absolutely, completely, positively tears it for me. NO WAY IN HELL will I support George W. Bush for reelection.

I'm with you 100%, Jeff. Do I feel safe from terrorists now? HELL NO! Bush is utterly incompetent. I mean, what did we expect, voting in a guy who had literally NEVER BEEN OVERSEAS before running for president?

I think we are discovering that it's nearly impossible to install a democracy where people don't support it strongly.

Do iraquis really want it?

They don't miss Saddam of course, but do a poll today, and I fear that Theocracy is their first choice.

#54 - rayra -

My comments about support were in the context of discussing major troop commitments. I understand that more nations support the war than Poland and the UK. I apologize the my comments are unclear on this point. I also left out Spain, which is a shame since she has been very brave in this regard.

Italy, on the other hand, supports us, but not militarily. I'm sure you see the point.

#55 - Tasty Manatees (Mmmmmmmm....manatees...)

I fully agree with you, save for one point. Your take on my quote,

"Again, the absolute opposite of what was a bedrock argument of the pro-war crowd prior to war: that the US would drain the terrorist swamps of the Middle East by establishing a free, pluralistic and democratic Iraq by tranforming it through occupation. "

is basically that nothing that Bush as currently proposed to the UN is necessarily opposed to that announced war aim.

Agreed.

However, what Bush has proposed, as you can tell by the weblog item we are discussing, has already been REJECTED. Now, if you're right, Bush will withdraw the request on go about his business, now that the UN will not allow its involvement along the lines you summarize in your post.

If I am right, however, the US will cave to French and German demands, which will lead to active UN involvement, which will undermine the war aim, meaning we have been defeated politically.

We'll see who is right. I'm feeling pretty good (which is to say, bad) about my chances.

To everyone: I see a lot of willingness to criticize the messenger here. Fine. Then address my damn points: I say it is wrong and contrary to the war plan as sold prior to hostilities for the US to form an Iraqi coalition goverment with the Committee for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. I say it is wrong and contrary to the war plan as sold prior to hostilities for the US to cede occupying certain towns, such as Najaf, due to "religious sensibilities." Further, we have caved on appointing women officers and judges.

Prove to me I'm wrong on these points. Try that instead of name-calling, or admit that our President has badly screwed up.

#65 Jeff

No, I'm quite familiar with Lieberman. He would never be able to lead the fight against Islamism. He is, at the end of the day, a typical liberal Democrat and would try to fight Islamism through a combination of police action and persuasion.

Can anyone seriously expect him to be an effective Command-in-Chief? I think not.

I was also unimpressed by how quickly and enthusiastically he rearranged his positions to suit Al Gore.

At least President Bush surrounds himself with some really smart people. Lieberman would press Israel even harder to make dangerous concessions.

Kevin V writes:

I said "Bushes always appear conservative, and they say the right things, but when it comes down to it the Bushes just aren't fighters."

ibrodsky writes:

I'm disappointed in President Bush; his speeches are usually right on the money but he doesn't seem to follow through.

Notice that, do you? Both Bushes are really just talkers, and when they're tested by opponents at home or abroad, very little pressure gets the Bushes to wobble--they're what's called "risk averse." Also known as cowardice.

Those of us who support an aggressive war against the Islamic fascists are enraged precisely because we know Bush may be the best American politician around for the job before us--and he's soft at the core. That is what is so fucking scary.

In the UK, or at least as I see it, when we send out troops on joint campaigns, doubters notwithstanding, we aren't thinking about stretch and counterattack, our troops just get busy and America runs most of the show - it's an American tendency to have second thoughts, because America has so much power to use as wisely as possible, defense costs a fortune, and the left is watching. It's so disturbing, and the root of many troubles, not to see through our campaigns, as in Gulf War I when we withdrew beneath clouds of oil smoke. For crying out loud, the overriding argument is we're gonna win, not stir up the locals and slink away.

Umm, hate to burst some bubbles here, but Lieberman ain't getting the Dem nomination. He has allied himself too much with the monkey in office. Dems wioll vote for Dean or Clark.

#74 rayra -

And you're just name calling. Address the arguments or don't waste our time with "Nyah-nah-nah-nah-nyah-nah."

Go ahead, explain to us how a coalition government with the Committee for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq was a central part of our war goals an expounded by President Bush prior to hostilities.

And how that fact shouldn't bother us.

Or, instead, you could just pile on the insults.

Your choice. Let's see what you do.

#71 KevinV 9/4/2003 09:54AM PST

To everyone: I see a lot of willingness to criticize the messenger here. Fine. Then address my damn points: I say it is wrong and contrary to the war plan as sold prior to hostilities for the US to form an Iraqi coalition goverment with the Committee for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. I say it is wrong and contrary to the war plan as sold prior to hostilities for the US to cede occupying certain towns, such as Najaf, due to "religious sensibilities." Further, we have caved on appointing women officers and judges.

Spot on, KevinV.

The goal is to defeat Islamism worldwide--not preserve illusions about the President.

However, I don't see any better candidates. I would rather pressure the Bush administration to follow through on its best positions.

The UN is now irrelvant. Fagetaboutit.

The road map is dead, killed by Palestinians who refused to break with The Father of Modern Terrorism.

The enemy is militant Islam. Let the good Muslims bring honor to the word "Islam" by leading the fight against terrorist mass murderers. They can start by demanding all Arab/Muslim states recognize Israel's right to exist and stop supporting racist mass murder.

#77 Rayra: "Congrats to you all. I'm sure you'll be happy with your Democrat-candidate/Appeaser of Choice."

Good Lord, how is Bush NOT an appeaser? That's why we're pissed!

Who knows what to make of this seemingly inexplicable move by the Administration? Is it real? Are we seeing the "poker player" at work again?

This from the instaguy:

I'm not so sure that this effort isn't meant to fail, actually. It's likely to, and that will only underscore the irrelevance of the U.N.

That was my first impression as well--namely, that this is a "Henny-Penny" move; i.e., last chance to help make the bread before those who made it eat it and those who didn't help get to watch them eat it.

Naturally, Glenn posts views from both sides, which can be found here.

Rizzo,

You get it. Bush is taking a little heat now to take this issue off the table for the election, as he's already done with Education and Prescriptrion Drugs.

"Who knows what to make of this seemingly inexplicable move by the Administration? Is it real? Are we seeing the "poker player" at work again?"

I'd feel a lot better if the idea came from someone else other than State's Chief Moral Dwarf, Colin Powell...

# 80 someguy -

As usual, someguy, you calm me down a bit. You could be right, though I would judge such a gambit to be too-clever-by-half since the last time the "we'll show the world that the UN is irrelevant" game was played, this time last year, we left the building rather badly burned.

In fact, I think that UN nonsense allowed the opposition time to organize and a flag to rally round. It very well may be that our divisions on the war domestically date in large part to that debate, which I think we can all agree ended up affecting the actual conduct of the war not by one whit.

Also, I agree that Bush is the best we can hope for. That is precisely what scares me.

#80: "Are we seeing the "poker player" at work again?"

You mean the same poker player who says "Show us your cards" and then tumps the table over like a spoiled child? Yes, you are. As much as y'all would all like to believe this is a brilliant ploy, the fact is it is weak. And we liberals will exploit Bush's weakness. You know why? BECAUSE IT MAKES AMERICA LOOK WEAK!!!!! Trust me, the World Opinion on Bush's America is not nearly as trusting as yours. You man Bush is LOSING TO OSAMA AND SADDAM. That is a fact. Weak, pathetic, drippy wimp, just like his dad. Thanks Bush - our once great country is going down the drain...

I wrote this the other day and some people thought it a little too much...

The problem is we just have not killed enough of these people. Until they learn that we have the will to wipe out thousands at a time the WoT will be like a long slow march into oblivion. Unfortunatly we will not subscribe to this until we lose thousands more here in NY, Chicago, LA, Atlanta....
It makes no difference who is in Iraq, the UN or the the US. Both are treating this "war" as a total joke, just one is a little more serious than the other. I have been a big Bush supporter but I have come to the conclusion that he is in over his head. With the media, the LLL, the Eurowhimps, and all the other nay-sayers he was doomed from the start. To those people 9/11 never happened.

I challenge one person here who disagress with this to find me one example in human history where a war has been won with half measures and politicians calling the shots on the ground. You can't because there is not one. Until the world realizes we are in a fight for real we will continue to get the "UN" version of the WoT.
A perfect example is Iraq and rebuilding it. Why in the hell are we trying to rebuild Iraq now? This is the equivilent of trying to rebuild France in 1942. How much is going to be rebuilt when people we are fighting are still pouring into Iraq from nations that support terror that we should be confronting but lack the political will or unity to do so. Until that happens Iraq will continue to be stuck in the mud. Most of us here know we will never do what needs to be done till it is too late, like a mushroom cloud over NY or hospitals filled with smallpox patients in Atlanta.
We are not winning the WoT or losing it, we are just keeping our head above water.

#82 Joseph:

I'd feel a lot better if the idea came from someone else other than State's Chief Moral Dwarf, Colin Powell...

So would I, quite frankly. Especially after reading this from the incomprable SDB.

For instance, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is engaged in trying to seriously reform the structure of the US military, and he's been running into a lot of resistance from generals in the DOD. At a certain point the only solution is to fire the recalcitrant, and Rumsfeld has canned a few generals. But DOD has been far more reactive to Presidential policy than State

And though Rumsfeld has been deliberately knocking heads in DOD, Secretary of State Powell hasn't seemed willing to work to bring about a similar degree of reform in the State Department. Which has made his behavior very confusion; sometimes he's seemed to be completely onboard with the President, but other times it seems as if he's advocating policies given to him from below even though they were counter to Presidential attitudes. That has made him something of an enigma. (One begins to wonder if he just agrees with whoever spoke to him last.)

During the period between the attacks in September of 2001 and the end of major combat in Iraq, it would have been a mistake to traumatically revamp State. If Powell had been able to handle it, and had brought State on board, that would have been fine. It was his job to do, but either he didn't try or he tried and failed. However, going beyond that to the level of Congressional hearings and consideration of a new law which would formally change State entirely would have been a bad thing during the period of diplomatic crisis. Even at its worst State wasn't useless. And if State itself was under serious formal investigation within the US, its ability to do anything internationally would have been seriously limited.

What do you think?

#84 joelittle

And we liberals will exploit...

Liberals love to exploit. They are very good at it and pretty much all they can do. The poor, minorities, the elderly, taxpayers, ect...whoever they can lie and scare into supporting them. Your lame rhetoric is pretty shrill and shows just how desperate and pathetic the dems have become. I enjoy watching you squirm.

#86 - someguy

Pick up a copy of Foreign Policy and read Newt Gingrich's take on State. Much more detailed and interesting then SDB's take. (Note: the rest of the magazine is absolute garbage. Truly astounding stuff).

I think you'd find the Newtster's comments interesting.

#83 KevinV:

You could be right, though I would judge such a gambit to be too-clever-by-half since the last time the "we'll show the world that the UN is irrelevant" game was played, this time last year, we left the building rather badly burned.

True. But we also did what we wanted AFTER submitting the matter to the UN. Somthing that Clinton didn't do prior to his launching cruise missles into Afghanistan and Sudan. And regarding which the UN uttered not a peep afterwards.

Coincidence? Or.....CONSPIRACY?!

YOU decide! :)

For those who are believing that the terrorist attacks our soldiers have suffered in Iraq mean the president has somehow done something wrong, take heed:

"to do something together
about the situation in Iraq, so that the
Americans will not be able to take advantage of
the split in the Muslim leadership. Let us
adopt the Iraqis to our hearts so that they
will be able to unify their choice: opposition
in the form of a war of jihad, making
sacrifices for the cause..."

"The resistance movement [against the U.S. in
Iraq] may not be able to remove the U.S. from
Iraq within a year, but it will be able to
remove Bush, [Defense Secretary Donald]
Rumsfeld and [National Security Adviser]
Condoleezza Rice, together with their Zionist
friends, from the White House."

Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah

Our enemies are fully able to understand the complexities of American politics. They have taken the weakness of the opposition party's leading candidates and their supporters to heart. The end result appears to be efforts to kill American soldiers.

Tasty Manatees

#40 ibrodsky

I have seen this "invisble paint" thing on a few forums and have not seen it anywhere else. Do you have a link to this or am I to assume that this is another "depleted uranium bulletts" or "poisoned candy" fairy tale?

#90 - Tasty Manatees

Who the hell here believes that "the terrorist attacks our soldiers have suffered in Iraq mean the president has somehow done something wrong?"

Point to me where anyone here has said that.

Also, address the points made in argument. Again, the President sold the war as the US taking out a committed enemy and draining the terrorist swamps by occupying Iraq and leaving it a pluralistic, functioning democracy.

Instead, he is forming a coalition government with the Committee to Support the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, ceding control of major cities to private militias, allowing Islamic law courts, allowing local Islamic militants to veto appointment of female officers and judges, and is now asking for UN involvement.

I say that is wrong. What do you say?

FIRE ... COLIN ... POWELL ... NOW!!!!

#87 Bucktooth: "I enjoy watching you squirm. "

Whose squirming? Only one I see squirming is Bush.

Is our country better off than it was four years ago? Well if ya think so, I got some dirt farms in West texas I'd like to sell ya.

And in case you missed the point, Bucktooth, I'll say it again - BUSH IS MAKING AMERICA LOOK WEAK!!! Weak, pathetic, wimpy, drippy, irresolute, irrelevant, stupid, waffling. Did I mention, pathetic? You may find Bush to be a strong leader, the perfect guy for you, fine. You're every bit as weak as him and you will be destroyed by the terrorists.

"Whose squirming? Only one I see squirming is Bush."

I see most of the Democratic candidates squirming along with most of Europe.

#17 MysticMonist

I appreciate Taheri's article and the honesty, if not the bloody-minded fanaticism, of al-Ayyeri's book.

Al Ayyeri brings into sharp relief what should be obvious but many in the West seem to have a hard time grasping; this is an ideological struggle, not a cry for increasing foreign aid or economic opportunity or changing this or that American policy. Democracy itself offends jihadi sensisbilities, with its system of man-made laws, popular government and guarantees of freedoms to speak and worship as one wishes.

We in the liberal West want to believe humanity commonly wishes to be left alone to live in peace and prosperity. Clearly these are not universal values. Al Ayyeri tells us that peace, in his view, is un-Islamic and prosperity is a trap to make Muslims love life more than martyrdom. His book should be widely circulated in places like Paris and Berkely as a retort to the Chomskyesque conclusion that all malice flows from US policy and attitudes. Al Ayyeri has the integrity, if that's the right word, to tell us that he does not wish to be appeased or find accomodation with Western Civilization, no matter who is in charge or what they choose to do. He is its implacable foe and will continue to use violence until he overcomes his enemies or is destroyed.

Fortunately, as Taheri points out, he is already dead. Now we must deal with those who would follow in his fantasy. At least he has done us the favor of describing what the fighting is really about.

#95 joeliberal

Our enemies disagree with your assessment and would much rather face a Democratic president overseas. See post #90.

These people are more than willing to kill Americans to help Howard Dean become president.

Tasty Manatees (Archive)

#96 Blue Falcon: "I see most of the Democratic candidates squirming along with most of Europe."

Agreed, actually, BUT, they're not the commander in chief of the greatest nation in the world yet, are they? Or what USED to be the greatest nation on earth, before the scrawny little weak-willed appeaser took charge.

#94 Obtuse tool

Is our country better off than it was four years ago?

Compared too.....? In the area of leadership definitely. Economically, and honestly, no but we are better off then under Carter's administration. Please don't pooh-pooh around the issue and give Clinton credit for the 90's boom by default. It's fabrication George Carville enjoys sloganing, but no one seems to be able to point out any enactments the dems have done to create any of this. Thank Reagan if you could, but don't let facts and and past economic policies stop you from ranting. I would rather here you explain how Clinton miracously created an econmic boom?

Don't let those polls scare you.
President in 2004
November 04' is a long way, but the current crop of dems are all losers against GWB.

99 joeliberal writes:

Or what USED to be the greatest nation on earth, before the scrawny little weak-willed appeaser took charge.

So, just out of curiousity, which country do you think is currently the greatest?

#98: "These people are more than willing to kill Americans to help Howard Dean become president."

Well rhetoric aside, why doesn't Bush & Co. STOP THEM? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't this HIS WAR? If you are seriously going to blame Howard Dean for American deaths then you are pathetic. Where the hell does the buck stop? Oh, I see, with the former Governor of Vermont. Y'all are constantly accusing liberals of conspiracy theories - well get off your high horse Manatee, because this one is a doozy. frankly, I think you are INSANE to believe this horseshit.

#67 Vanishing Conservative:

"I mean, what did we expect, voting in a guy who had literally NEVER BEEN OVERSEAS before running for president?"

Bush's foreign travels prior to being elected were:

Three visits to Mexico, two trips to Israel, a three-day Thanksgiving visit in Rome with one of his daughters in 1998 and a six-week excursion to China with his parents in 1975 when his father was the U.S. envoy to Beijing.

Try again........

#99 joe liberal

before the scrawny little weak-willed appeaser took charge.

So, Mr. Clinton's ostracism of Mr. Woolsey had weakened his hand in Congress and weakened the CIA at a critical time. Then the fecklessness of Mr. Clinton and his White House would only make matters worse. Over the next few months, the senator said that he called the president at least once and could not get a clear answer on the translator appropriation. He also phoned Lake many times, but never received a definitive response. Apparently the White House did not think hiring CIA translators to monitor terrorist states was very important.

[Link: frontpagemag.com...]

"Lord, grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference."

Idiots!!!!

See ya later, LOSERS!

#100 - Buckeye Abroad

I agree with you that the current crop of dem candidates are losers compared to GWB, but one has to admit that joeliberal's Reganesque "Are you (and we as a nation) better off now than you were 4 years ago?" has a certain resonance.

I can certainly see many average Americans who aren't very political concluding "Well, let's see...the economy is definitely worse....we were attacked and had to fight two wars....it doesn't look like we have any well-thought out war plan...our guys keep dying and for what? a bunch of losers....I'm tired of this war crap...."

I can see that. I personally don't feel that way, but I can foresee many that would. If the dems nomimate someone with some heft, they have a chance. I don't think they'll win, but they have a chance.

#103 Claire: Three visits to Mexico, two trips to Israel, a three-day Thanksgiving visit in Rome with one of his daughters in 1998 and a six-week excursion to China with his parents in 1975 when his father was the U.S. envoy to Beijing.

Try again........

Oh, okay, not literally never been overseas, then. Boy, that's an impressive resume for president, huh?

#105 joeliberal

Thanks for leaving. Your name calling was getting tiresome.

Speaking of name calling, neither name-caller rayra or Tasty Manatee have yet answered my challenge to knock that crap off and debate the issues.

If they don't respond below (just scroll down to see), we can all draw the conclusion that they were unwilling or unable to undertake the argument, but, instead, just threw some words around.

Let's see what they do.

Joe Liberal seems to forget that 1) attacking Iraq seemed like a wonderful idea to President Clinton and Senator Dasshole back during the Lewinsky scandal and
2) The Clinton administration had a chance to arrest bin Laden, and took a pass. Not to mention allowing attacks against embassies, military barracks and US Navy ships to pass with no retaliation or symbolic retaliation.

This is similar to libs blaming Bush for the recession that officially began in March 2001, when he had been in office one month and none of his policies were in affect yet. A recession heralded by a slowdown that started in the summer of 2000.

Dude, if you hate America so much, do the Johnny Depp thing and move to France. They are so much closer to the ideal socialist multicultural state where people of all cultures, no matter how barbaric, are made to feel welcome.

how can so many of you continue to have blind faith in this incompetent moronic boob of a so-called president, who, after being shown to be a liar (WMD, NYC air quality) and and incompetent moron (post-war planning, and supposedly sidelining Arafat who is still in charge), some of you will continue to hope against all odds, that bush is actually smarter than everyone else (ha), just playing poker (please), just giving his enemies enough rope to hang themselves (keep dreaming)...

how could anyone that cannot even speak coherently, and, worse, does not even know history, be that strategically brilliant?...do you guys not get it?...bush is nothing more than an idiot puppet installed for the sole benefit of the ruling corporate elite...he would sell Israel down the river in a heartbeat in order to appease his oil pimps, be they american or saudi...his stupidity is beyond disgusting and he cares not a whit for the average person - he is installed to line the pockets of the already well-lined pockets of the elite...and I am no fucking bleeding-heart wussy liberal, but, I am not a knee-jerk clinton-hating blind and norrow minded conservative reactionary either...as a matter of fact, extremists of any stripe are the problem, not the solution...

if dumbass bush (and I hold him responsible even though rumsfeld and cheney are the true iraq idiots here because if bush's IQ ever made it into three digits, he would have been asking the apropriate questions, analyzing the situation, and being less politically inept internationally) did not have a solid post-war plan that assured our success in going it alone, then KevinV is so right when he says "we had *no* business going to war there in the first place"...because the results are now extremely costly financially and politically with the US being humiliated by it's own stupidity and arrogance, and instead of placing the blame where it belongs, you guys are blaming the French and the Germans, who have every right to look after their own interests, as the argument that the US did for going to war unilaterally (for national interests), BUT, without either real justification like WMD (which is now an obvious lie) or a solid plan to improve things in the ME (which is now a real laugh), this looks like an attempted oil grab or an attempted grand larceny Haliburton windfall gone awry...

they were so arrogantly incompetent, thanks to that halfwit of an ignoramus prez that did not even know there were Sunni and Shite sects in Islam until Jan 2003, how is he supposed to recognize potential hazards and actually have contingency plans for them?...

right now this whole democracy/war on terror thing looks like either a clusterfuck or a farce - were these fuckers really just trying to create a bigger market for weapons and lucrative oil and reconstruction deals for their corporate cronies...while Iraqis, and democracy be damned - while the average poor joe american will foot the bill for this mess for years if not generations to come?...

man, I would love to be wrong, believe me, i am for the war on terror/radical islam (whatever that means now), and i am pro-israel, but, admittedly, i was never pro-bush - he is obviously an idiot puppet with close family ties to the saudis, but i was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt assuming that the likes of cheney/rumsfeld knew what the hell they were doing...all their heads need to roll...first Enron, then 9/11, then Iraq - all clusterfucks...and nobody in charge is being held responsible...

sorry for this rant - anyone that can provide evidence that this is not a major clusterfuck courtesy of bush the asshole - i am all ears...but don't leave out the justification for installing a puppet crook by the name of chalabi in your rebuttal...

"Y'all are constantly accusing liberals of conspiracy theories - well get off your high horse Manatee, because this one is a doozy. frankly, I think you are INSANE to believe this horseshit. "

It's fairly simple, but I'll try to break it down for the slow kids, "joeliberal".

Our enemies abroad would very much like to fight a Democratic president, because Democrats don't fight wars to win, they fight them to win votes. That doesn't mean Howard Dean is on the phone with Hezbollah. It does mean that Hezbollah and the like are killing American soldiers in Iraq for the expressed purpose of allowing the illogical left to claim we are "losing" abroad and the president is weak.

Guess what, whether you like it or not, Hezbollah, the organization which has killed hundreds of Americans, is on your side.

As for your asinine assertions that President Bush is "weak", please explain to everyone else what he would have to do to be "strong" in your book. To make such a claim, you are undoubtedly a military genius of some sort, and much more capable of strategic thinking than the President of the United States. Please share.

Tasty Manatees (Hezbollah quotes)

Instead, he is forming a coalition government with the Committee to Support the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, ceding control of major cities to private militias, allowing Islamic law courts, allowing local Islamic militants to veto appointment of female officers and judges, and is now asking for UN involvement.

Hold on. SCIRI is just one of many actors jockeying for position in the new Iraq. SCIRI is not dictating our reconstruction policy. They have also been consistent in their calls for unity and patience with the Coalition Provisional Authority. Later this month Iraqis will convene a constitutional assembly. It is expected that within a year Iraq will be well on the road to its first democratic elections and a representative government. What form that constitution and government will take remains to be seen. Our strategy as it stands is working and things are progressing. What is required now is a little faith and a whole lot more resolve. It appears to me that President Bush is losing his nerve, more concerned about falling poll numbers than successful policy. I oppose the introduction of the UN for three reasons. First, because it is simply naive. The 'blue helmets' will not recieve a warmer welcome in Fallujah or Ramadi than Coalition forces. In fact, they're likely to come under even more frequent attack since Saddam's supporters (I'm reluctant to call them die-hards since Saddam isn't dead yet) will believe that only a handful of terrified Irish and Bangladeshis 'peacekeepers' stand in the way of his return to power. Second, the UN would undoubtedly move aggressively to scuttle the formation of a democratic Iraq, just as it did in Cambodia. Lastly, returning to the UN also gives this organization greater legitimacy in the eyes of the international community. Something which is certainly not in the United States interests because it the organization itself is a fetid cesspool of anti-Americanism and anti-semitism.

Quite a few of the "Bush Lied, People Died" crowd seem to be popping in...

They all sound alike to me.

Tasty Manatees

Nuts, missed the troll.

Bit late to this, but looks like the UN's bluff has been called. For all of the BS coming from the LLL about bringing the UN in, we'll now see that they want no part of helping us out. They just want oil contracts.

The link above showed that Germany won't send troops. The French won't. They actually said that any troops sent should have an "Arab face," or something. IE, not from the Axis of Weasel chocolate makers.

Plus their economies are in the toilet. They don't have money to contribute to the donor's meeting next month. They just want to blackmail us for some of those fat oil field and reconstruction contracts Saddam had promised them before.

This charade better freakin be just a pr move that gives away nothing.

Per some of the ideas above, Dean may indeed win in 2004. Rather/Jennings/Brokaw et al will certainly play up his more mainstream ideas during the general election, while running all kinds of reports about a bad economy and troubles overseas. It is an unfortunate fact that quite a few people don't go beyond the network news to form their worldview.

Of course, this is the reason the LLL hates talk-radio, they have lost their monopoly on the "truth". Unless the Dems truly self destruct ( which, considering who they are is entirely possible) the 2004 vote will be very close.

Re: Enron:

All the real corporate shenanigans took place while Clinton was still President. "But he gave more money to Republicans". True, Enron's home state was Texas, and every state wide office is now held by Republicans. Joe Lieberman was the #1 recipient of Enron money outside Texas. Was he part of the vast Republican conspiracy too?

BTW, do you think President Bush analyzed the air quality tests from NYC and decided to lie about it? Results may have been misinterpreted somewhere along the line, but what would Bush's motive for that be?

BTW, visiting troll, re WMD. What makes you so sure there were no WMD. Getting back to motive, what would be Bush's motive to do so? To justify an invasion? An invasion that would "prove" there were no WMD? Trust me, slick, if the Bushies had lied about WMD, they would have arranged to "find" some long before now.

#113 - Dirk Diggler

Yes, the SCIRI in only one group of many that make up the Provisional Authority. Good point.

So, I'm guessing that, unlike me, you were always aware that the war plan did NOT call for US/UK occupation and military rule until such time as pluralistic, democratic institutions were in place but INSTEAD called for active collaboration with Islamic Fascists who seek the imposition of Islamic shari'a law and theocratic rule as in Iran.

See, we just must have heard different speeches from President Bush. Because I totally missed that part.

Great, as if I didn't have as much trouble here, now the "bush is an idiot puppet for our corporate masters" guys are citing me.....sheesh....

I hope I don't have to point out that none of that rant accords with my view, with the exception of the point that if we didn't have a solid post-war strategy, we shouldn't have gone in in the first place.

but, I am not a knee-jerk clinton-hating blind and norrow minded conservative reactionary either

Visitor-Keep up your seething, whining tantrums--you need to be the posterchild for the politically emotionally clueless for next November.

Bush doesn't need to be a Tony Blair. But he needs to not be Bill Clinton, who gave up the offense and defense of this country.

Bush surrounded himself with a team ready to kick ass and take this to the terrorists. BJ Clinton was too busy getting blown in the Oval office and strapping on pads for his kneepad diplomacy.

In fightin the WOT, I'll take asswhupin over a facial anyday. You can choose the facial, though.

Someguy (#86):

I think Powell and his crew should be tried for treason one day...

HTH,
Joseph

joeliberal:

Liberals like yourself attacking Bush remind me of a fox calling the king of the jungle a coward...

Sure he should do this or that different, but at the end of the day, most of us will take our chances being led by the lion...

Kevin --

These words: "Committee to Support the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, ceding control of major cities to private militias, allowing Islamic law courts,"

I'm not sure where you are getting those? That Governing Council is pretty mixed -- they finally announced the Cabinet of 25 (mixed) and oh, it wasn't the US holding that up -- Bremer got kinda impatient waiting for them to make the decisions, and if you read deeper, the decisions made for the cabinet positions, to run day-to-day Iraq -- wasn't based in job ability, but was based on an "ethical" split.

So --- Some things you say, I could agree -- but this Committee to Support the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, just reading about the Governing Council and now the Cabinet, doesn't back this statement.

Control of major cities to private militias? At this point, about 75% of the cities and the villages -- have mayors, policemen in place. I can find nothing to support your claim of Private militia, Yes, after the kiling of the big guy, there was talk of "forming militia" but as of yesterday and today, those Najaf clerics are now saying NO to that thought...

Islamic courts? I know we got lots of lawyers and judges over there, working with the Iraqis judges and police, working that judicial system. It doesn't sound like the Islamic one to me.

And yes, there was ONE town when there was some problem about the female judge. I'll have to search to see how that was decided, cause there was some talking about that. But I don't feel that ONE case, makes that true throughout a population of 25 million folks.

Me -- I'm taking a deep breathe right now -- cause I don't have the knowledge or the information in my hands or heads that all the different administrations in Iraq and here in the states have ---

Yes -- Bush was getting hammered for not going to the UN, so he went --- then he started to hammered again for not going back.... so he's gone back..... but he ain't leaving Iraq -- that makes us a paper tiger for this Islam stuff -- I think we folks here in the states, just need to take some deep breathes, and accept that we are in the long haul.

We are at war -- war hurts -- but I do hope we haven't become too soft, that we are not willing to fight for freedoms.

And I don't see one of those Democrats standing up to the Islams -- that just is against Democrats thoughts --

so -- I'm sticking with the one that brought me this dance -- I'm giving this a lot more time -- nothing is built in 4 months -- and change always brings frustrations and changes in action plans --

I'd much rather be flexible enough to make changes along the way, rather than to have had a plan designed a year ago, and so wedded to the plan, I can't adjust.

Sorry -- I'm a patient person -- and pulling out now -- and treathening Bush now on re-election seems to not show any sign of flexibility. And only leads our enemies to continue thinking, "yes, the US is a papertiger."

How about waiting till this time next year -- and see where we are -- that's when most of us make up our minds about candidates anyway -- and that will have given us over a year with the reconstrution thing....

Hey #111 visitor

Nice use of that F word there -- I have only one question --

what was your 3 years plan the USA on September 12, 2001?

What would you have done? And how would you have put all the pieces into place?

Yes -- we are all great Monday morn quarterbacks -- but still - what would you have done, starting on Sept 12, 2001 up to today?

#121 Joseph:

I think Powell and his crew should be tried for treason one day...

A possible outcome, for sure.

The question that SDB is posing (as I understand it) is whether Powell's lack of success in refroming State in a way that is analogous to Rummy's success at DoD is due to a lack of will or lack of ability on his part.

If the latter, then, IMO, he needs to be replaced as soon as Bush wins a second term.

If the former, then once Bush is re-elected, then he should get a new Secretary of State (making sure his candidate will carry out the necessary changes). Then let the trial begin.

Another thing, though: If SDB is correct about the problem being that State's culture is partly due to career bureaucrats, then the entire appointment and employment policy and structure of State needs to be completely revamped.

Otherwise, even a trail and conviction of a SecState would be a temporary solution at best.

Why do the jihadists want to destroy America?

My hypothesis: Many people would like to destroy America for one reason or another but are discouraged for one reason or another.

The Moslem (radical)s saw the deck stacked in their favor:

Russia had fled, tail between legs, from Afghanistan

America had fled, tail between legs, from Somalia

The American Commander-In-Chief was busy chasing tail

They realized there are close to or more than a billion Moslems

Also that 1/3 of the UN is made up of Moslem states

And Israel turned and ran from Lebanon in the dead of night

Realized that even Europe, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand probably wouldn't lift a finger for America

Half of America is made up of bleeding heart cowards

Mass Moslem immigration to the US and the Western World meant that a fifth-column could be relied upon if push came to shove

So is it any wonder that these animals went for the kill?

#123 - Mary -

You may be right that more time may be needed to come to a final judgment on who to support come this time next year. I certainly cannot support Bush after his retreat upon retreat on issues that matter to me most, i.e. the war on terror and judicial nominees.

Let me take your points one by one.

First, the Committee to Support the Islamic Revolution in Iraq was represented on the Provisional Authority. It is not in the new cabinet because their man on the Authority resigned after the Najaf bombing. Until then, however, he was in full collaboration with the US authorities. Again, my point is that I do not remember us being sold this war by the President by him telling us that we'd be working with Islamic Fascists as part of post-war Iraq.

Second, you're right that the new Cabinet is based not on ability, but on an ethnic-group spoils system. Does that really sound like a good idea to you? That, to me, sounds like the creation of ethnic group fiefdoms that will lead to dissent and sow discord.

Third, private militias have been patrolling certain towns and cities all over Iraq. As for sources, I don't need to look far. From today's WJS, Front Page, What's News section:

The brother of the Shiite cleric slain in Friday's Najaf bombings said he is rearming his militia but won't take on the U.S.

You may correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall to many provisional government figures in post-war Japan or Germany having their own private militias to re-arm. We should be the only force in the country. Clearly, we are not.

Fourth, on Islamic law, a decision has already been made to have a civil (NOT common) law code based on Islamic precepts. But that's just the official judicial system. Local courts applying sharia'a law have been operating in the vacuum left by the absence of authority (here again, our fault) and in some cases have had their judgments affirmed by local US commanders. See the WSJ for coverage of these.

Fifth, whether its one case or a hundred: the fact is we installed a female judge and backed down when the local Islamic fascists complained. That is not the stance of a serious occupying force. How the hell are we going to secure female liberty and rights without offending anyone?

Sixth, you say we're at war. We certainly should be. But look around you: do we look like a people at war? I don't think so. The American people are not serious this war, and their leadership is starting to reflect this.

I certainly hope you're right. This is one I'd love to be wrong about. But I just don't think so.

Some of this intramural bickering between people who support the WOT ( Visiting-Troll is a LLL member pretending to be a moderate, IMHO) reminds me of this PBS documentary about the various factions in Jerusalem before the final Roman assault that destroyed the Temple and started the diaspora.

The forces within were good fighters, and had enough food to withstand a long siege, but the groups inside got to bickering, even raiding and burning rival groups food supplies, so in the end it was easy for the Romans to sack Jerusalem.

People can debate details, but keep in mind who your true enemies are, and who your friends are.

#111 vistor

in this incompetent moronic boob of a so-called president, and and incompetent moron,how could anyone that cannot even speak coherently,nothing more than an idiot puppet,his stupidity is beyond disgusting,if dumbass bush,if bush's IQ ever made it into three digits, thanks to that halfwit of an ignoramus prez,he is obviously an idiot puppet, courtesy of bush the asshole - i am all ears.

No you're just two cheeks on an enormous buttocks

#127 Joseph:

Good stuff. Let's not forget Clinton's non-response to the bombing of the USS Cole, either.

#128 KevinV:

You may correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall to many provisional government figures in post-war Japan or Germany having their own private militias to re-arm. We should be the only force in the country. Clearly, we are not.

Excellent point. Siezing all arms from all non-combatants should be a top priority. As long as we delay that, the last two sentences of your paragraph that I quoted will remain sadly true.

#130 rizzo:

If you actually understood the paragraph you quoted from #111 visitor, you have exceptional paranormal powers, IMO.

I didn't understand a single word of that.

#132 someguy
I tried my best to give everyone the Cliff Notes version;)

Kevin -- I think you and I read the same materials, but out comprehension levels are considerable different!

That same brother, today, has already announced, NO... no militia

And if these folks are using "Local courts applying sharia'a law: -- this is something they have done for centuries. My thought is, they are still using them just as they always have -- family and friends conflicts. I don't think they have been taking governemental concerns into those local courts. And I don't know that soldiers even have the right, to walk into their culture and tell them they can't do that.

And on this -- Again, my point is that I do not remember us being sold this war by the President by him telling us that we'd be working with Islamic Fascists as part of post-war Iraq --

Who are these Islamic Facists we are working with? YOu have gotten me more then confused in what points you are trying to make, except -- Bush is bad...

Tell me -- what would have been your 2 year plan, beginning on Sep 12, 2001?

And would you have been flexible, if some parts of your plan needed to be changed? I don't Bush's objectives are any different than they were Sep1 12 -- I think there are some action items that are being adjusted, due to that thing called "cause and effect"

We've have a few "causes" with some "effects" that have had to be thought through differently.

Again --- what's your 2-3 plan starting on Sept 12?

I'm off now....

@18 rizzo

hrmmm...the missiles are just now being reported found...wonder how long they had been in Saudi before being discovered.
And you have to ask why havent any planes been shot down with these newly discovered missiles.

@20 ibrodsky

One thing everyone is forgetting or ignoring. When the coalition forces arrived in Baghdad one of the first things the Iraqis told them was ' WE DO NOT WANT THE UNITED NATIONS HERE' . Seems like they aren't doing a very good job of remembering that.

Maybe, just maybe the bombing of the UN building a couple of weeks ago wasn't terrorists. Maybe it was the locals, pissed off and letting them know they were paying the price of enabling Saddam all those years.

Everybody is asking what would have their plan been 9.12.01? It should have been Bush going on TV and telling the world that every country on the State Dept list of terror supporting nations has a choice. They can either open up their borders for a US military takedown of terror camps, bases, offices, etc or else we will consider them an enemy of the US and war will be declared. Of course no one would open their borders so we would be "forced" into action. Declare war in Congress. Activate the entire military, if that is not enough re-institute the draft. After they saw we were serious when Tehran, Baghdad, Kabul, and Damascus we in flames then we could have re-shaped the middle east the way we saw fit.
The American public in the weeks after 9/11 would have 100% supported this effort. But we didn't. Now we will pay the price for doing it their way.
Could you imagine if we started WW2 this way after Pearl Harbor?? Dinking and dunking and the League of Nations, etc, etc, etc.... We land in Normandy June of 44 and the press starts to ask Roosevelt when will the electric be up???
We are in deep trouble until the suits in DC take this seriously and right now it is nothing to them but a game.

Golda Meir (z"l) once said:

"With friends like France, who needs enemies?"

If you haven't already done so, please join the boycott of French and Belgian products (look at the label!).

David
Shameful plug: [Link: www.factsofisrael.com...]www.factsofisrael.com"...] target="_blank">

I signed that anti wall petion "Hugh G. Rection"

Stop the wall!

@31 kevinV

I'm afraid I have to agree with you. And we might as well get ready for the next catastrophic event. We've just signed the death warrant for ourselves again.
We've proven we are just a papertiger, all talk and no walk. The people of this country don't have the want to or drive to follow through. Saddam wins again. Bin Ladin wins again.
I am ashamed, and sad. And damned mad. Our president has shown he doesn't have what it takes to make the long walk. Going to the UN is the surest sign of defeat. I feel really bad for the Iraqis too...they've already been through so much hell.
Shit.
Please some one tell that I am very wrong.

KevinV -

Good posts, all of them. Especially the last one (#128). You've already said pretty much everything I would have said about the situation in Iraq.

I still disagree with you w/r/t State and Powell. Powell has a lot more influence then you think and seems to constantly be opposing Bush's policies. Bush always lets Powell have his way until things get out of hand (e.g. the UN farce in Iraq, hopefully the Road Trap).

BJW -

I'm kind of sad to see you coming around to my view of Bush (#85). I enjoyed the discussions that we had when we disagreed. But, like you and KevinV, I think I'll probably vote for a non-Bush candidate. I would probably go for Lieberman if he gets the nomination (yeah right), any non-Bush Republican, or a Libertarian in that order - but my vote doesn't matter anyway since I live in the Soviet of Taxachusetts.

Incidentally, I couldn't agree more with your post #137. The contrast between Bush's ROP speech post-9/11 and Roosevelt's post-Pearl Harbor speech could not be more severe.

rayra #142 - For those of us who are less computer literate but have lost posts - how do you do that?

Patience.

All we can really do is wait. Technically, the war in Iraq isn't over. Certainly, the WoT won't end any time soon; and things will probably get worse before they get better.

The only thing I can recommend is this:

ALL the other world faiths join forces in discrediting, exposing, and eradicating Islam; particularly in the US. Including, regrettably, Jerry Falwell's idea of Christianity.

Muslims aren't the only ones with First Amendment rights.

@123 Mary

Thank you for that good posting. I too will be taking some big deep breaths. I want us to stay for the long haul. I want us to win, and I want the Iraqis to win.

I'm going to re-post this satire by Scrappleface about Bush. I think it pretty much says it all. As Scott Ott notes, Bush has:

-- increased federal funding and control of public education,
-- established the immense Homeland Security Department,
-- pushed through a massive new entitlement program for prescription drugs,
-- overseen the ballooning of the federal budget and deficit,
-- permitted federally-funded stem cell research and
-- continued to negotiate with Yasser Arafat and Kim Jong-Il.

Now he's much more rabidly Republican then I am - some of those things don't bother me in the slightest - but many of them are not really Republican positions to take.

# 134 - Mary

Mary, I don't remember insulting you personally in my response to you and I will refrain from returning in kind except to note that such tactics are a sign of a weak argument, which is totally unnecessary in your case since you make many valid points. There is simply no need for that here, since so many of us share the same convictions, yet we differ on tactics and how to get there.

That said, let me reply to your response.

Regardless of whether or not the news has changed with regard to the re-arming of a private militia in Najaf, the fact remains that no one saw anything incongruent with one existing in the first place. In a proper military occupation, US and Allied forces would be the only military force allowed. And, we should not shy away from occupying a town for "religious purposes" since that sends a clear message that our "tolerance" will trump military objectives. Our enemies realize this and use our stupidty against us, as was found when we discovered bomb labs in mosques, troops firing from the cover of a mosque, etc.

We bombed cathedrals in WWII, and we can bloody well bomb mosques in the WoT.

Then, thankfully, you make my argument for me by saying:

And I don't know that soldiers even have the right, to walk into their culture and tell them they can't do that.

This is precisely the point, Mary. The *point* of the war as sold to us by the President was that we were going to take the Arab culture in Iraq and replace it with a modern, pluralistic, secular democracy. If we don't have the "right" to stop backwards theocratic law, we don't belong there.

Again, and not to belabor the comparison, we surely applied US military law in post-war Japan and did not ask Shinto priests for their blessing. This is another sign that we are not serious.

You ask what Islamic Fascists I'm talking about. The Committee for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which was on the US provisional authority until the Najaf bombing, is openly committed to imposing complete Sharia'a law and theocratic rule as found in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Those are the Islamic Fascists I'm talking about.

Again, I ask you, did you know we would be collaborating with Islamic Fascists in post-war Iraq? Because I sure didn't. Please point me to the speech by the President where he told us this and why it is in the US' national interest to do so.

Also, my point is not just that "Bush is bad" because I do not believe that. Foolish, short-sighted, and not resolute, maybe, but I never said he was a bad person. I disagree with him on this matter of policy.

As for what my plan would have been, I refer you to the excellent post at # 137 by BJW. I couldn't have said it any better. Ask yourself this: are the terrorists in the Bekaa Valley worried tonight the US Special Forces may be paying a visit? If not, why the hell not?
Same thing with Iran. Syria. Saudi Arabia. Libya. If this is going to be a war, we should bloody well fight it and fight it right.

(Spot the Jacksonian.....)

# 140 quark2

I, like you friend, really want to be convinced that we are not correct in our judgment of where we stand. Because, should we be right, we are all in grave danger.

Here's hoping I'm dead wrong....

# 143- Ariel

Thanks for your good wishes for my career prospects on the earlier thread, Ariel. It was very kind of you.

On this point, while I am not a Bush-backer any more (meaning no more campaign contributions....he'll survive the loss, believe me!), he may still win my vote based on what the other nominees stand for. Against Dean, for example, I would vote Bush.

I'm in liberal Oregon, so my vote is similar to yours...lost in the shuffle.....unless the Greens siphon off Republican votes again.....

I know we disagree on State. I've been having some very good off-line discussions with folks on this point, and all I can tell you is that most people at State firmly believe that policy direction comes from the President and that if they weren't implementing that policy, they'd be toast.

Kevin V: I'm with Mary (#123), I think she has answered most of your arguments. I agree with you that going to the UN is very troubling (heck, I think turning Karbala over to the Bulgarians was a mistake), but I'm willing to wait and see what the final resolution looks like (if there is one).

I don't like SCIRI much either, but in the context they are moderates, so far willing to sign on to the democratic project (and it isn't the al-Hakim brother who resigned but someone else named Isam al-Khafaji). And you are right that divying up the Ministries by ethnic group isn't ideal -- but let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. In The Third Wave, Huntington demonstrates that the groups that win out in building a democracy are those that are willing to do what democracy requires -- compromise, negotiation, etc. and the ones that refuse to participate (Sadr) get left behind (and the ones who ARE willing to compromise generally get pegged as "appeasers" by the ones who aren't). I'll be worried if the US doesn't require a freedom of religion clause in the Constitution but I don't think we're there yet.

As for the militias -- Najaf wasn't run by a militia, they just had their own bodyguards. There was another instance early on in which the coalition expelled a militia as well. The Iraqis are a heavily armed population and getting rid of all those stockpiled weapons is going to take some time. It's been less than five months; I actually think a lot of progress is being made.

As for joeliberal -- the STUNNING victory in Iraq did not make the United States look weak.

Be warned.
The LLL, or the not so looney DNC DLC strategists, will be infiltrating sites like this claiming to be one of us who can no longer support GW because of this,that, or the other reason.
Divide and conquer from the inside is one of the most reliable tactics in defeating an enemy(and we righties are the enemy).
If they can no longer support GW who is left but 'Pasty white and the nine dwarves'.
LGF is a great place to visit, I'd hate to see the comment section lost to the bait and switch tacticians.

Pardon the syntax, grammar, and spelling. Dammit Jim I'm a carpenter, not an english major.

Kevin,

This is precisely the point, Mary. The *point* of the war as sold to us by the President was that we were going to take the Arab culture in Iraq and replace it with a modern, pluralistic, secular democracy. If we don't have the "right" to stop backwards theocratic law, we don't belong there.

Here I slightly disagree with you. My take on the pro-war sell was that we wouldn't *have* to force democracy on Iraq, but that the Iraqis would welcome it from within. The logic being (somewhat) that Iraq was one of the more cosmopolitan societies in the Middle East. So if this is what the Bush Admin thought - and this is not what ends up happening (and considering the lack of WMDs), then the war will have been for naught. And that would be a tragedy. One more Islamic theocracy in the world doesn't get anyone anything in terms of lasting peace.

But it is possible that it is only a minority messing with the country right now. Time will tell.

@151 KevinV

One thing ALL of us commenting here must always remember we're all in the same damned boat.
Irregardless of the name slinging or insults. We've all got in common the same dangers.

What ever else we do please all of us remember that.

Ariel - well it sucks to realize that there is no real leadership left. Reagan was it. Now it's a crap shoot but I sure as hell will never vote for a Dem. Everytime a Dem is elected president this nation is handicapped for the next 10 years.
I guess we can all hope that W brings out the brass balls after '04. I am not holding my breath.
Do we show courage and determination after another attack? The longer this goes on I feel as though we will not. I fear a non-stop blame-a-thon emboldening the terrorists even more.
The only was this nation resumes its position of strength is if a president comes from someplace else besides the usual path. No one can lead while worrying about who gets what in hand outs and favors.
Our only hope for actual victory in this war might come down to how much more Israel can put up with. When their breaking point comes is when the real solutions take over. But with the state of the world it could be a long time coming.

#126 raya: "yet having demolished the Taliban / Al Queso in Afghanistan"

I'm puzzled raya. Five minutes ago CNN issued an alert saying Al Qaeda was planning on contaminating an American water or food supply. It's on the cawl now, check it out. Two weeks ago they issued a warning that Al Qaeda might hijack airplanes here. How is that possible if they are demolished? I really want to know.

#91 BIG

I saw the invisible paint story in Honest Reporting's newsletter today. I don't have any further details, but it seems they must be using some advanced technology to lock onto these targets...

#154 Phutthewuk: "The LLL, or the not so looney DNC DLC strategists, will be infiltrating sites like this claiming to be one of us who can no longer support GW because of this,that, or the other reason."

well you know what? Some of us really ARE conservatives worried about Bush, and all we're getting is criticized and accused of being infiltrators. I'm telling you as one who has legitimate questions about Bush's motives and policies, this doesn't endear me to the Party. I live in NY and my wife gave birth three months ago to a low birth weight baby. Now that this report has come out claiming the Bush Administration falsified EPA reports of air quality to get Wall Street back to work, I find that breathing asbestos leads to low birth weight. I have a persistent bloody cough. Yes, I'm a little upset at Bush. So what happens? I get lumped in as a LLL spy.

Sorry for the rant. I'm gonna go think about this for awhile, maybe I'll regret it.

The mainstream liberal media have Bush where they want him. With the embedded reporters out of the way, the Dems in power at the news outlets create the facts and the news, and it's anti-GWB all the time.

I really saw this election shaping up to be whether or not mainstream America could throw of the yoke of the lying lopsided liberal media and make judgements on their own. Up to know the American people (outside of the the pockets of pure socialist/anti-Americanism) seem to know the score in spite of a daily stream of Dem lies from all directions.

When Bush capitulates, as he has, on this UN thing, he has given the left and the Dems a significant victory. It's only going to get worse. Personally, he has also emboldened the terrorists. They have to be thinking that one more hard push here and abroad and the retreat will become a rout.

We are all less safe today as a result of GWB's decision.

# 153 - Sharon in NYC

Good points, all. I agree that the Islamic Revolution group is, subjectively speaking, moderate. I also agree that how freedom of religion is handled is a key indicator of our success.

I do disagree with you on the militia point. I say militia, you say bodyguards, let's just say that I believe the US military should have called the whole thing off. There should be no armed groups other than those authorized and/or controlled by the US military commander in the field. To allow otherwise is to allow the impression of competing loci of power, a fatal mistake to an occupation that is, by design, imposing its will on another people.

I've almost been convinced by you, and others, that counsel patience. Today's news stung so badly, however, that I'm having trouble with it as a concept.

# 155 - snopes

Excellent point, and a well-taken one. However, if we were not prepared to impose a democratic society in the face of resistence as a Plan B, we should not have gone in. I find it hard to believe we could impose it in Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, but that it is an impossible task in Iraq. I believe it is a question of will, a will which we seem to me to be sorely lacking.

# 154 phutthewuk

I suppose you could be right. I can say, however, in this case I am the same KevinV that always posts here, although one who was badly shaken by today's news that we would crawl back to the Security Council, where we will be humiliated once again.

Again, I say if Bush takes France and Germany's rejection and takes care of business, then I shall have been proved wrong.

If, on the other hand, Bush caves to their demands in order to get more forces on the ground....well, in that case, a lot of people here are going to have some 'splaining to do.

#160 vc

Now that this report has come out claiming the Bush Administration falsified EPA reports of air quality to get Wall Street back to work, I find that breathing asbestos leads to low birth weight.

The risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma increases with the number of fibers inhaled. The risk of lung cancer from inhaling asbestos fibers is also greater if you smoke. People who get asbestosis have usually been exposed to high levels of asbestos for a long time. The symptoms of these diseases do not usually appear until about 20 to 30 years after the first exposure to asbestos.
[Link: www.epa.gov...]

Do you have a source for EPA falsifying reports or is this another claim that you can't support?

OT: The U.N. behave as expected, too:

Palestinian conference at UN turns to Israel bashing

Israel's security fence came under harsh criticism at the United Nations, where an annual conference meant to bolster Palestinian civil society instead spent its energies denouncing Israeli self-defense policies.

Postcards of a Palestinian child dwarfed by the Israeli fence, slide shows of Palestinian humanitarian crises allegedly caused by the fence's construction, informational leaflets printed by the anti-Zionist, ultra-Orthodox group Neturei Karta, and maps of "Palestine" from the river to the sea from 1920, minus the caveat that Palestine was never a state, were all on display yesterday at UN headquarters in New York, where delegates from across the globe gathered for the International Conference of Civil Society in Support of the Palestinian People.

#164 rizzo

Did you actually seek out proof to discredit my remarks? Would you like to come see my baby who is up to five pounds after three months? Should I send you a slide with my bloody sputum? Would you like me to walk you through the many articles that have been written about the EPA report in the last few weeks. You make me sick. No really. If I'm lashing out I apologize, but is their truly no humanity left? I am not the only one in my neighborhood with these problems. 90% of the first responders from Ground Zero report similar symptoms from breathing pulverized buildings full of hazardous materials. This is a sick world we live in. I'm going home, it's the only solace I have left tonight, except for my beautiful wife and baby. I suggest you rethink your attitude. That's all I can say now as I am literally on the verge of throwing my computer out the office window. Life sucks and then you die I guess, right?

International Conference of Civil Society in Support of the Palestinian People.

an oxymoron conference.

Still OT, but the most important article I read in the last 6 months or so...

The war of words

George Orwell once said: "Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

In the two years since the Durban conference, our political language has been distorted by an alliance of the international political Left and the Arab world to the point at which neither Israel nor the US can easily use words to either describe the reality we live in or to motivate others to join us in fighting our enemies.

After September 11, US President George W. Bush called on the nations of the world to join the US in destroying terrorism. Most nations came forward and expressed their support for his call. Yet when Saudi Arabia can claim to be fighting terrorism, even while it funds al-Qaida and Hamas, it is clear that we have reached a point at which we cannot even have a conversation about terrorism and expect our interlocutors to be talking about the same thing.

Read it all.

Bush, like most master politicians, rarely does anything for a single reason. This one move does the following:

1) Smoke out and discredit American and international Trazies.

2) Smoke out the Indians and determine if they are really on the same side in the War on Terrorism.

3) Help Tony Blair by drawing out the Axis of Weasal into openly deep sixing Bush's proposed U.N. mandate.

4) Distract the Media from quagmire stories.

5) Put Bush in control of both the international and American domestic agenda's.

Going to the U.N. is the Bush diplomatic version of the anti-terrorist "Flypaper" strategy on the ground in Iraq.

BJW writes:

Our only hope for actual victory in this war might come down to how much more Israel can put up with. When their breaking point comes is when the real solutions take over.

That time may be closer than you imagine--the multiple fronts that the Islamo-fascists have reopened this summer in both Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the quickly expiring road map in Israel, means that diplomacy as a viable option if failing in the minds of the general public.

What Bush gave the world wasn't war but a combination of police and intelligence action plus the mildest form of military force possible. The goal being political reform in Afghanistan and Iraq. as a model for other Arab and Muslim countries, blah, blah, blah. That was Option A, but it's not working and everyone is starting to acknowledge that publicly. That's key for advancing to Option B--total war.

Total war doesn't have to mean ICBM's at all--but stopping Islamic immigration, shutting down Wahabbi mosques and schools, killing combatants instead of arresting them, military rather than civilian trials, if any, unleashing the Israelis and Indians and backing them up politically and economically, if not militarily, to achieve military victories before political solutions are imposed without the input or approval of the UN.

I could go on, but everyone really does understand what the score is, even if they would rather remain in denial.

And yes, it's Bush, not Powell calling the shots--he wants the ambiguity of having both Powell and Rumsfeld in his Cabinet to confuse his opponents and increase his options.

But it's obvious that his core beliefs are in sync with Powell rather than Rumsfeld. Bush like his father is intensely averse to risk and has superficial knowledge of the military and of foreign affairs. Bush as governor of Texas worked as a compromiser and ditched his political principles whenever he could achieve political hay.

Our only ace in the hole is the presidential election cycle, now starting up, which means increased media scrutiny, aggressive political opposition, and a point in the war that leaves diplomacy less and less as an option.

Bush has four major decisions to make this autumn--nukes in North Korea and Iran, the road map, and Iraq. He's run out of time and can't punt any one of them down the road. We shall all for sure whether the war will now be waged or the enemy will be appeased.

#166 vc

Did you actually seek out proof to discredit my remarks?

You claimed EPA falsified a report. You prove it.

#160 vc I live in NY and my wife gave birth three months ago to a low birth weight baby.

#166 vc Would you like to come see my baby who is up to five pounds after three months?

Today is 9/4/03. The attack occured on 9/11/01. Your wife has a gestation period of 24 months?

#166 vc Should I send you a slide with my bloody sputum?

No. But your Doctor might be interested.

Would you like me to walk you through the many articles that have been written about the EPA report in the last few weeks.

Yes. Sources please.

I am not the only one in my neighborhood with these problems. 90% of the first responders from Ground Zero report similar symptoms from breathing pulverized buildings full of hazardous materials.

Sources please.

good grief - all i got in response as a defense of bush's incompetence was the usual "what about clinton" bullshit and being called a troll...

first of all, i am not a troll, whether you believe that or not, try to internalize that clinton is not currently president, bush needs to be held accountable NOW, you cannot impeach clinton again, sorry...if bush is incompetent, it matters not a whit that clinton was good, bad, or ugly - I am not interested in debating clinton (but i'll take his IQ over bush's any day - and for all the reactionary puritans here, get over his blow jobs already, will you)...try to deal with the current mess we are in, can you?...

does it not bother any of the bush diehards that bush has got zero respect in the rest of the world?...since his intelligence is negligible, he opted instead to get respect out of fear and awe by bloviating about axes of evil, and attacking Iraq with fancy weapons, but, he is failing even there because he is all hat and no cattle...the catch is that you need something between your ears to have cattle...which means he needed to have contingency plans for post-war Iraq in advance of invading it...

instead of being able to call the shots with Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, it looks more like bush is at their mercy now to get their assistance in stabilizing Iraq so that he can high tail it out of there, tail between his legs - some post-war stategy that is...

so where is saddam and where is osama - wasn't that bloviating asshole bush gonna smoke osama out of his hole and weren't they hot on the trail of saddam when they got the sons (by the luck of a traitor relative)...

in case you have not noticed, i don't trust bush - this whole thing smells to high heaven...yeah clinton should have kicked some osama ass, but, now the question is what exactly is bush doing and exactly why is he really doing it?...

which brings me to vanishingconservative's posts -

it sounds like he has got a major health problem on his hands that may or may not be a result of the asbestos in the air from 9/11...

NOTE - there is absolutey no fucking excuse for this administration to have lied about the 9/11 air quality and put people at risk of serious health problems - if they did, that is absolutely CRIMINAL !!!

vanishingconservative - HAVE YOU SEEN A DOCTOR ABOUT THAT COUGH and what did he say??? i am amazed that with your problem, you are even hanging in as a bush supporter in the least - you should have been warned to stay out of the area until the air was safe...if wall street was more important to bush than people's health, does anyone still support him after that?...

i for one do not trust bush at all, there is too much smoke, Enron/Cheney/Haliburton, 9/11, Iraq strategy, Saudi Royal family connections, for there not to be fire -i await being proven wrong, really i do -

There are wise leftists/liberals, and there are dumb ones. Just like there are wise conservatives and cynical ones (conservatives, of course, are hardly ever dumb by accident). One notable ex-Green MEP Ilka Schroeder, for example, has been making a dignified career of houndogging the Europarliament trying to suspend EU aid to the Palestinian Authority (the European Commission has even resisted auditing their monthly aid package to the PA). Those among us who aren't quite to the point of checking for liberals under their beds each night would do well to accept that liberals are not the enemy. The Arab-Muslim establishment is at war with liberal civil society. You are either with us or against us.

It might also help to remember that the most successful recent nation building policy was implemented by President Clinton (no thanks to Republican congressional leadership at the time). And if it wasn't clear before where Clinton and Barak were headed via Camp David, look into Martin Indyk's version of a Road Map.... [Link: www.foreignaffairs.org...]

@166 VC

There was a report on NBC this morning about the EPA reports being changed by the White House. The head of EPA was interviewed about the changes made in the statements before being published.
I'll see if I can't find some sources for you.

The air around Ground Zero was 100% full of not just buildings that were pulverized, but also scorched human flesh. Many first repsonders were exposed to this foul air, plus all of the hydrocarbons such as benzene and hydrazine from the jets when they exploded and burned.

NBC is reporting on the links between Al Alquada and The House of Saud, on the evening news.

#173

all i got in response as a defense of bush's incompetence was

But here's how you phrased the question:

in this incompetent moronic boob of a so-called president, and and incompetent moron,how could anyone that cannot even speak coherently,nothing more than an idiot puppet,his stupidity is beyond disgusting,if dumbass bush,if bush's IQ ever made it into three digits, thanks to that halfwit of an ignoramus prez,he is obviously an idiot puppet, courtesy of bush the asshole - i am all ears.

What does being an ear have to do with anything?

I hope that from some of the postings I am reading that people who have been faithful and constant in being LGFers are not going to start being labeled 'Troll' because they are distraught and come here to vent.
I hope I am not seeing a kind of political correctness being policed by others who don't like what they are seeing posted.
We all are not going to always going to like what we read, and we're certainly always going to agree.
Peace be unto all of you, we are all in the same boat guys.

#175 quark2

plus all of the hydrocarbons such as benzene and hydrazine from the jets when they exploded and burned.

Yes the all hydrocarbons in the jet fuel burned shortly after the planes crashed.

# 161 rayra -

I'm glad to hear you say we agree on almost all the basics. In my view, that means we disagree only on tactics and should debate as comrades, which I am happy to do. I never foreclosed the obvious possibility that you were not responding because you were out. My post clearly says we'll see by checking below.

So, you responded. Here's my reply:

First, with regard to the conservative movement, you do me too much credit to think that I could be a one-man schism. I obviously don't believe that. What I do know is that many conservatives, most prominently William Kristol of the Weekly Standard, fought tooth and nail for this war by arguing that the re-making of Iraq was *the* key to winning the war on terror.

If one believes, as I do, that our willingness to work with Islamic Fascists on the provisional authority, our unwillingness to impose martial law on cities due to "religious sensibilities" of the locals, our continued caving into the gender- and ethnicity-demands of local extremists, and, now, our craven and transparent attempt to extricate ourselves from our freely undertaken military occupation by inviting in UN troops with a UN timetable for UN participation in UN "nation building" is a failure of that key goal, then the intellectual results will follow. Kristol, to use my earlier example, will have to recant or renounce his support of the President's war plans, as will the editorial board of the WSJ and other conservative movement stalwarts.

You are free to judge that this schism won't divide conservatives, but I believe it self-evidentally will.
The quote from NRO's the Corner from Kurtz is just the opening salvo. All over the conservative press, people will write that what is going on now in Iraq was the plan all along (as people have been implausibly claiming here today) and disbelieving conservative readers, who bought their pre-war arguments, will either make that trip across the intellectual road or, more likely, refuse to go along with the white-wash and re-write.

What is happening in Iraq now is not what the conservative press argued prior to war. Reality will have to intrude eventually. And when it does, a lot of conservatives, like me and others here today, are going to be red-hot pissed off that they were led down the primrose path of a war for arab democracy we had neither the funds nor the intention of imposing.

Then, you write:

The approach to the UN is a 'street theatre' performance by the Bush Admin, undercutting LLL and UNich bleating about US "Unilateralism" in Iraq

This is pure speculation on your part. Unless you can assure us 100% that this is the President's plan? Again, as I have said elsewhere, if the President drops this plan now that Germany and France have outright rejected it, we'll know that it was the ploy you say it is. If, as is more likely, we cave in to win the support of Germany and France, you'll know I was right. We'll see.

Your point about the multi-lateral nature of the war in Iraq is a repeat of a discussion we've already had. I agree that there is much support and many nations have contributed troops. However, none of that changes the fact that the only military deployment with heft and significance is that of the US, UK and Poland.

You may expect little to come of the UN approach, but I'm guessing the President doesn't share your view. One does not go back to the den of one's enemies unless the need is dire. We *need* more troops, and we will plead for them. It's pathetic and embarrassing. Again, we will find out soon enough who is right on this point.

I don't understand your ICBM stuff at all, but I guess your view is that the two choices Bush has are 1) nuking the world and 2) fighting the war exactly the way he's fighting it. I reject your premise and find it ridiculous. This nation can and should fight NK, Syria and Iran RIGHT NOW. It will not, and will face nuclear armed enemies who will use them.

The State Department debate could go on forever. My position is that the President is in charge of the executive branch. You are free to disagree. Be my guest. It only helps me make my point.

GAK!

Preview is my friend!

We all are not going to always going to like what we read, and we're certainly always going to agree.

We all are not going to always like what we read, and we're certainly not always going to agree.

quark2 -

I think we got your meaning, and well said.

#171 gary bruce - interesting post

#172 rizzo - what is is about bush that you have so much faith in, that you would be so heartless to vanishingconservative about his health and his baby? - is that the conservative mentality you are proud to portray?

#174 zionista - good post

One of the theories I'm reading here is truly breathtaking in its naivete: the theory that President Bush is going back to the UN to prove once and for all that the UN is irrelevant.

In President Bush's address to Congress after 9/11, he did say that not every action would be known at first. The implication was clearly that not everything would happen precisely as it appeared on the surface.

Fine, I believed that.

I assumed that the real purpose of the "roadmap" was to force the Palestinians to get rid of their own terrorists. But that would only have worked if we were adamant about making the PA fight Hamas et al. The first time Abbas publicly declared that he would not fight Hamas because that would provoke a Palestinian civil war, the White House should have loudly proclaimed that the PA wasn't serious--that they want Israel to make concessions but were unwilling to hold up their end of the bargain.

And as any smart leader knows, don't make threats unless you are prepared to follow through on them. President Bush said that if the UN didn't authorize military action against Iraq it would become irrelevant. The UN didn't, but the administration has quietly dropped the issue of relevance.

It is silly to conclude that now he is going back to the UN to really expose them. He could have spent the last six months using the bully pulpit to highlight at every opportunity the UN's irrelevancy--such as appointing Libya, Iran, and Iraq to play major roles in areas such as Human Rights and Disarmament.

Now, predictably, the reaction of France and Germany to the Iraq resolution is smug. They are skeptical. They know the American Cowboy is crawling to them to get something. They are going to taunt him for a while to see just how badly he wants it. Then they are going to raise the price.

Here's the worst part: In going back to the UN, George W. Bush is damaging the credibility of his administration on the world stage.

He is doing this not to prove the UN is irrelevant, but in response to pressure from the Dems, the State Department, and others who have been attacking his administration 24/7 for not getting the UN to sign off on the war with Iraq.

The bottom line: faced with the prospect of declaring the UN irrelevant--which would give the Dems an issue to focus on--he is doing what George W. Bush has always done: he is trying to coopt his political opponents by taking their issues away from them.

That's great for GWB's career but for those of us worried about the world our children will inherit it stinks.

#174 zionista

It might also help to remember that the most successful recent nation building policy was implemented by President Clinton

Yes if you discount East Timor, Greneda, and Panama.

@178 rizzo

I am very familiar with both benzene and hydrazene. As I worked with them both for over 20 years in an olefins plant. The residues do not all burn, and they will pollute materials they hit. And since we don't know all the true effects of the pollution in the air after 9/11, what vanishingconservative is worried about is not something that should be dismissed casually.

The effects of breathing asbestos may be time related and could have affected his wife before she became pregnant. We just don't know.

#182 vistor

#172 rizzo - what is is about bush that you have so much faith in, that you would be so heartless to vanishingconservative about his health and his baby?

Dear liberal,
Just remember, its all about the children.

# 183 ibrodsky -

Spot on, sir. Rayra takes me to task for earlier accepting Bush's approaches as ploys and wonders why I reject them now.

Because experience has taught me conclusively that my earlier conjecture was wrong.

As ibrodsky says:

And as any smart leader knows, don't make threats unless you are prepared to follow through on them. President Bush said that if the UN didn't authorize military action against Iraq it would become irrelevant. The UN didn't, but the administration has quietly dropped the issue of relevance.

Rebut that. If you can rebut that, you have a point. If not, you might want to consider the possibility that you are wrong.

Note: "joeliberal" and "vanishingconservative" both have the same IP address. He also posted as "nothingnew" here:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

...comparing the Project for a New American Century to the Jemaah Islamiya terror handbook.

#185 quark2

The effects of breathing asbestos may be time related and could have affected his wife before she became pregnant.

The risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma increases with the number of fibers inhaled. The risk of lung cancer from inhaling asbestos fibers is also greater if you smoke. People who get asbestosis have usually been exposed to high levels of asbestos for a long time. The symptoms of these diseases do not usually appear until about 20 to 30 years after the first exposure to asbestos.

[Link: www.epa.gov...]

You could ask the plantiffs in the Johns-Manville class action suit about their children or black lung people(coal miners). VC is a liberal bullshit artist.

# 188 - Charles

That guy posting as a victim and then posting as someone else lamenting our lack of compassion for his fictional character is truly dispicable.

Thank you for letting us know this loser's duplicity.

KevinV,

I applaud your honest, insightful, and provocative posts.

Dirk Digler (46): "What I think many people fail to realize is that the brazen attack on 9/11 was a inevitable result of their 'success' in Somalia and our myopic response."

And even that "myopic response" was loudly condemned by Republican congressional leadership and their echo-chamber in the so-called Liberal Media (TM) as "wagging the dog."

Tasty Manatees (98): "Our enemies disagree with your assessment and would much rather face a Democratic president overseas. See post #90."

That's because they need us divided. And Republicans are great at dividing the American electorate when they aren't getting their way.

Tasty Manatees (112): "...Democrats don't fight wars to win, they fight them to win votes."

Can you say "Milosevic"?

joeliberal (102): "Y'all are constantly accusing liberals of conspiracy theories..."

Conservatives are entitled to their moonbats too.

@189 rizzo

I'm wrong, Charles just informed us who VC is.
So don't get your panties in a wad.
The facts about benzene and hydrazene stand though.

One credit click for rizzo

#192 quark2

The facts about benzene

Next time you're filling up the SUV, take a deep breath and savor the benzene.

Forza Italia!!!

@193 rizzo

Sorry, I don't own a SUV. And I make it my business NOT to hang my head over either the pump or the tank when filling up with diesel.
And that's a whole other story.

Anglo-Italiano-Slavic

Good grief! What a lot of whining, second-guessing and ankle-biting going on here. Does anyone remember WWII? We lost tens of thousands of soldiers on D-day alone. It took us four years after Pearl Harbor to directly attack Japan. It took us three years to invade Europe. The last Japanese soldiers didn't come out of the jungle until the 70s. Remember that we were routed at the first battle of Kasserine Pass? It wasn't easy and it didn't happen in months. In fact, months after Pearl Harbor, we weren't doing so well.

What was MacArthur thinking, leaving the Emperor in power in Japan? That appeaser! Know what, it worked.

How dare Roosevelt deal with Stalin? We oughta just attack him too. How dare the President deal with Commies?

Read some history. Wars aren't won overnight and they're not easy or clean. Nimitz's decision to send the fleet to Midway looked stupid to anyone that wasn't reading the Japanese intercepts.

We're all a bunch of amateurs (well, most of us - reaganite and other active military excepted - but even they don't see all of the intelligence) and we don't know what's really going on. And the President isn't going to tell LGF and six billion of our closest friends and enemies what's actually going on. All we can do is watch and guess.

"The perfect is the enemy of the good." The choices aren't Bush or Patton, the choices look like they're going to be Bush or Dean. I don't like what it looks like Bush is doing all of the time, but I'll take him in a New York minute over Howard Dean.

#196 quark2

Concentrations of airborne benzene due to diesel exhaust from a locomotive were measured during a worst-case exposure scenario in a roundhouse using dose reconstruction techniques. To understand the upper bound cancer risk due to benzene, an electromotive diesel and a General Electric four-cycle turbo locomotive were allowed to run for four 30-minute intervals during an 8-hour workshift in a roundhouse.
[Link: www.riskworld.com...]

I think Dom (#27) pointed out a very interesting thing, which clearly shows the schizophrenia in German government. The Green Party in Germany opposed the war even stronger than Schröder's party (though Fischer - in the beginning - even tried to convince Schröder that a fundamental Nein to a participation in Iraq was well... fundamental). But now, it's the Green party (or voices therein) who want to send troops.

Schröder is, right now, seriously thinking about sending more German troops to Afghanistan (Kunduz) to expand "stability" beyond Kabul. German army is in a bad shape, in general, and already pretty strained. I don't see this as an excuse though to not help stabilize Iraq, and behind NATO curtains Germany is pressured massively to participate. I'll do something dangerous - I'll predict that in the not-so-long run, there will be German troops in Iraq; there will be some more UN rant and resolution formulation, but it will be very difficult for Schröder to keep up his resistance if there was a UN resolution that gave the UN more "power" (cough). Another point that worries Schröder, of course, is the costs of such a participation - a look at German fragile economy is enough, and there are already 2 bio. € flowing into international peace keeping. I honestly have no idea what France's plans are.

Another interesting thing concerning France/Germany that also worries me: Schröder Welcomes French Investment in Defense Firms

The German government has said it will reserve the right to hinder the sale of defense firms to foreigners, despite criticism from business circles. But it's not opposed to French investment in the Germany industry. Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said French-German cooperation in the defense sector would be "very, very welcome," after meeting with French President Jacques Chirac on Thursday.

This points into a direction I don't like.

OT (but isn't everybody):

There are claims that a DC based network will report that the Pakistan/Bangladesh terror nexus is responsible for the Mumbai (Bombay) "twin tower" bombing. A recent World Bank report praised Pakistan for exercising alleged fiscal responsibility. They didn't mention the degree to which the Bush government is subsidizing the Pakistan junta, in spite of Mushareff's connections to islamofascism.

[Link: www.dailypioneer.com...]

[Link: www.mhznetworks.org...]

[Link: www.dailypioneer.com...]

I smell leaks from honest State Department officials who are sick of the doble-cara that is being played by the Bush prostrators.

#198 Atomic Redneck
Very well put, thank you!

#200 hans ze beeman
OT,
What the hell does this say?

"Aus dem Panzer heraus und lassen einen Erwachsenen fahren, treten taube Testikel."

hans #200,

That does point in a bad direction. It sounds as though Chiroeder are working to unify France and Germany if Shroeder is willing to sell defense assets to the French.

Incidentally, is the correct way to prounce your PM's name something like "Shredder" in English? Just thinking of another reason he may have opposed the war in Iraq ;).

Thanks reaganite.

I was watching a documentary on D-day the other night and all I could think of was the reaction of today's media if they had been there. We would have lost WWII if the homefront had responded then the way it is responding now.

KevinV: Where would you get the troops to fight NK, Iran, and Syria Right Now? Remember the news reports this week that the US doesn't have the troops to sustain the current Iraq deployment? Don't you think that South Korea might get a little pissed about a war on their doorstep? Are you going to join Charles Rangel in calling for a reinstatement of the draft? One, it still can't happen overnight and two, do you want to see college kids rioting and burning their draft cards again?

OK, i wish i just had said what ibrodsky said and saved a lot of bandwidth, which was -

"as any smart leader knows, don't make threats unless you are prepared to follow through on them"

that sums up what is finally getting to me about bush and why i have let loose a tirade on his stupidity and incompetence, (while i was never a big fan, i was giving him the benefit of the doubt to make good on his promises, but, post-war, consider me not impressed at all)...

instead of talking softly and carrying a big stick, bush talks loudly, and is now carrying a small stick - this cannot be a good thing for the US or Israel!!!...

for the record, i am not vc, but, i am the one who believed vc about his health, sorry about that, but, nonetheless, i thought rizzo's response to him was still unnecessarily hostile...as he is trying to be to me by calling me a liberal, which i do not take as an insult in that i am liberal on some issues, conservative on others - but either way, bush is the one to be scutinizing closely, and not giving him a pass on everthing he does because he is considered conservative, or the anti-clinton...

#204 Atomic Redneck
You're welcome.
Being in the military, we do study past wars and conflicts to make sure we don't make the same mistakes (it doesn't always work). The "instant" gratification people chap my ass. We've been fighting the WoT for less than two years and it's a "quagmire"! Bush/Powell are "traitors" and Bush is an "appeaser". While I agree Powell has lost it (he is leaving after the election), I won't say the same thing about W. As you posted, he's not about to announce his plans to the world. He still has my vote, athough I will admit I wish I knew why he does certain things and he really pisses me off sometimes. But the other side of the coin is something I'd rather not see, i.e. any of the Dems in office.

KevinV: please note that "visitor" is not using the same IP address as "vanishingconservative" and "joeliberal."

# 204 - Atomic Redneck

What I'm saying is that the United States is capable, as a nation, to fight NK, Iran and Syria simultaneously. If we had the political and fiscal will to do so, it is not beyond the reach of America to do that.

You make my point for me when you claim that if we had to re-instate the draft there would be college riots and public protests. A nation not willing to fight as we did in WWII cannot expect to win the WoT as President Bush defined it in his speech to Congress shortly after 9/11.

I'm not saying we would need a draft, necessarily, but if we did one would expect the nation to have the fortitude to do what was necessary. (I believe it would, given the right leadership.) As for SK, tough.

Listen: the NKs told us *directly* that they: 1) are developing nuclear weapons, 2) are developing rockets with a range capable of hitting the US, 3) that they will sell both technologies to the highest bidder if the US doesn't give in to their blackmail. It doesn't get any clearer than that. In my view, that is as good as a declaration of war on their part. Were I President, I would ask Congress for a declaration of war immediately. It is my view that the goal of the USG is to protect the physical security of the United States, not South Korea. Your view obviously differs.

As for your patience counseling, well...you can't have it both ways, Atomic Redneck. On the one hand, you say that WWII took a long time to play out so we should be patient, yet on the other you claim that this war isn't like WWII so the comparison doesn't hold. Which is it?

Also, your analogy is false. Were we being led by determined me willing to do whatever it took to achieve victory, as we were in WWII, then any setback could be taken as a momentary setback in the march to victory. HOWEVER, my judgment is that we are not being led by men who will do whatever it takes to achieve victory. That being the case, no amount of patience is justified, since it is the leadership and not the setbacks that are at issue.

Since Bush has caved on his initial war aims, and since Bush has caved on the "roadmap," we are entitled to draw conclusions as to the nature of his leadership.

Give me the right leader, AR, and I'll have patience aplenty.

207 - Charles

I was confused.

Sorry, Visitor. Accident on my part.

Still, the duplicity is unnerving and raises suspicion about his intentions.

@199 rizzo

Fascinating information. But the diesel I am around goes into a 2 ton dually, not a locomotive. When in the plant I made it a point to stay away from the cars being switched, people had a bad habit of getting themselves ran over by the cars.
Now when around the cat cracker and gas fired furnaces I was exposed to heavy ends. Then there was the green oil vessels that I had to drain on call file. That is some bad ass stinky shit. Benzene was used to wash the residue of other hydrocarbons off of tools and hands for many years until OSHA made it a no no. Not a habit I ever acquired. Hydrazine [oxygen scavenger] also used in jet fuel, was used in the treatment of cleaning H2S from the Ch4 to C5 range hydrocarbons fractionated, refrigerated, liquified and pumped at 2K psi to the salt domes used as storage for c3's and c2's.
I always loved it when I would be out in the field after dark and find a nice blue flame where a new H2 leak had occured. Durn those expanders and converters!
I think that's enough OT don't you?

#208 KevinV

What I'm saying is that the United States is capable, as a nation, to fight NK, Iran and Syria simultaneously.

Umm, no, we're not. Think of it this way, 80% of my unit has been deployed for the last 2 years, mine is not alone.

A nation not willing to fight as we did in WWII cannot expect to win the WoT as President Bush defined it in his speech to Congress shortly after 9/11.

What makes you think we as a nation want to fight? A large portion of our population would willingly stick their heads in the sand and pretend nothing is happening.

On the one hand, you say that WWII took a long time to play out so we should be patient, yet on the other you claim that this war isn't like WWII so the comparison doesn't hold. Which is it?

Good strawman.

HOWEVER, my judgment is that we are not being led by men who will do whatever it takes to achieve victory.

Two countries in less than two years isn't good enough? Oh, my bad, W didn't use nukes, he must be weak.

Since Bush has caved on his initial war aims,

What "caving" exactly was this?

Give me the right leader, AR, and I'll have patience aplenty.

Who do you suggest?

The LLL, or the not so looney DNC DLC strategists, will be infiltrating sites like this claiming to be one of us who can no longer support GW because of this,that, or the other reason.

Good point. I suspect this from time to time, but think I'm just being paranoid, but in many cases I think it is true.

198 Atomic Redneck

There is just one problem with your post:

Our complaint is not that the enemy wasn't engaged and defeated everywhere in 60 days.

The actual complaint, that some of you refuse to recognize, is that the administration is saying one thing and--the moment the water gets rough--backing off.

Personally, I think it would be great to bring democracy and the free market to Iraq. But that was not the purpose of deposing Saddam Hussein. It was to take down a terrorist-supporting Arab dictator.

I'm not concerned that it is taking so long to stabilize Iraq. I agree that will take longer. In fact, now that we really know what we have to work with there, I think it will take a very long time. So if the Iraqis want to install another Arab dictator, that's fine with me as long as they don't support terrorism and we retain military bases in Iraq (convenient for attacking Syria and Iran if and when the time comes).

I see no value whatsoever at this point in asking the UN to do anything.

Today I read we are also introducing another resolution regarding Iran's nuclear weapons program! Haven't we learned our lesson yet? If we truly think Iranian Islamo-fascists with nukes are a serious problem, we should not be seeking the approval of the Zionism-is-racism crowd to do something about it. Instead, we should determine who our *real* allies are and work with them to eliminate the threat.

Not every cause vital to liberty and security needs to be approved by the UN den of despots.

Sadly, President Bush is looking at all of this merely in terms of votes. He's willing to make a complete fool of himself to the French, the Palestinians, and the Germans because they aren't US voters.

Zionista #174,

Martin Indyk is as delusional as ever:

With a new regime in Iraq emerging under American tutelage, the balance of power in the Arab world might shift decisively in favor of the more moderate states of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, which are committed to Arab-Israeli peace.

1) Egypt, Jordan, and the Saudi entity are not moderate. You've read the mullah rants and so have I.
2) The Saudi entity is not committed to Arab-Israeli peace as it funds Hamas. Egypt is not committed to Arab-Israeli peace as it sends arms to terrorists in Gaza. Jordan - well, maybe.

The elimination of one of the terrorists' patrons and the lowered profile of others might further lessen the appeal of terror for a Palestinian community already coming to the realization that violence has been nothing short of disastrous for its cause and circumstances.

Yeah, except this completely hasn't happened. Even though there economy has been devastated, Saddam's not providing the $25K martyrdom checks, etc, the palestinians still overwhelmingly believe that Israel's existence is incompatible with minimal palestinian aspirations - over 80% of them believe this, according to Pew.

...and that's not even looking into Indyk's recommendations. If they're based on his "grasp" of the situation, they'll be even more useless then Tenet and Mitchell.

#213 ibrodsky

Sadly, President Bush is looking at all of this merely in terms of votes. He's willing to make a complete fool of himself to the French, the Palestinians, and the Germans because they aren't US voters.

Of course he is! This is America. You can't as President do everything that needs to be done in one term, let alone two. What happens if Bush loses the election? A Dem in office and the WoT ends January 20.

# 211 - reaganite

My friend, you misunderstand me. I perfectly well understand that the military is too small to do the job it is tasked to do right now. What I said was the the United States has the capacity as a nation to fight those three terrorist nations. If we could take on Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, Romania, Hungary and the other minor Axis powers in 1942, we can take on those three in 2003.

I'm talking capacity, not current capabilities.

As to Bush caving, I do not want to repeat myself, so I refer you to the posts above. At the least, I think we can agree that Bush told the PA that it needed to produce a non-terrorist leadership if it wanted to get anywhere, and he pushed the roadmap. The PA has not done so, we are still dealing with Arafat, and we have not said "boo" about the PA's failure to live up to the roadmap. I call that caving.

The nuke thing was also addressed above. It's a false choice to tell us that we have to choose between 1) nuking the world or 2) fighting the WoT exactly as Bush has done to date.

As to who I suggest, right now I would say McCain. But, I agree with you that Bush is the best we can hope for right now.

#216 KevinV

The nuke thing was also addressed above. It's a false choice to tell us that we have to choose between 1) nuking the world or 2) fighting the WoT exactly as Bush has done to date.

You know, as AR pointed out, as I have done many times, we do not know all of what goes on in the White House. W did more in 2 years than Slick Willy did in 8 (which was exactly nothing) about world wide terrorism.

We can't fight everyone at the same time. W is picking the fights he can win, one at a time. Since the EU won't stand with us, it's up to nations like the UK, Oz, Poland, and few others.

This just in, from MSNBC:

The leaders of Germany and France criticized a U.S. draft resolution seeking international troops and money for Iraq on Thursday, saying it falls short by not granting responsibility to Iraqis or a large enough role to the United Nations. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said the U.S. was willing to “listen to their suggestions” for revising the resolution.

As I said above, those of you who think that Bush's gambit to the UN is a poltical ploy should expect Bush to withdraw his resolution from the table.

However, as is clear from the quote above, the Bush administration is going to bend and reach consensus with the Germans and the French. This means that we are going to the UN not to demonstate its ineffectiveness or any other such silliness but to secure badly needed troops.

And in order to do that, some control over Iraq will have to be given to the UN. Thus, the US will not control the essential WoT war aim of reconstrucing Iraq along pluralistic, liberty and rule-of-law, democratic lines.

Thus, Bush has caved again on an essential war aim.

reaganite,

There are some things that Bush could have done better:

1) A speech like Roosevelt's post-Pearl Harbor speech would have been nice. The "with us or against us" was a good one - but it needed to be repeated. And repeated.
2) There's no reason to pretend that the Saudi entity is fighting terrorism.
3) The Road Map could have been dropped when the PA said "fuggetaboutit" w/r/t disarming terror and let Israel do the job. In general, Israel as an ally is not being leveraged - Israel is being treated as a pariah that we have to help for some reason.
4) Why were the bin Ladens spirited out right after 9/11? Maybe they're all innocent, but it smells fishy.

How about that for a start. What do you think of Lieberman as a possibility? He seems pro-military, though I think he hasn't got a chance of getting the Democratic nomination.

"Wah, Wah, Bush is bad. Wah, Wah, Bush is stupid. " None of you jackass armchair quarterbacks could have done any better in the WOT. If you vote for anyone besides Dubya in the next election your a damned fool.

# 217 - reaganite

You make the same mistake our liberal friends do: you ascribe to the US too much power over world events. W may plan, as you suspect, to pick fights one at a time, with allies as we find them.

However, the world does not run on the Oval Office's strategy plan memo. Iran is now developing nukes. NK is now saying they have them and will use them/sell them to terrorists. Syria is actively engaged in hostilities that are killing American soldiers.

In other words, they are picking fights with W and not the other way round.

In my judgment, the view that the WoT is a secret unfolding strategy understood only by GWB, regardless of its truth or untruth, is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that we are in this fight right now. And we don't appear serious about it. If we were, we'd be gearing up to fight it.

#221 KV

What is relevant is that we are in this fight right now. And we don't appear serious about it. If we were, we'd be gearing up to fight it.

A large segment of the USA armed forces are in Iraq.
38 of 52 top Ba'athist are in our prison in Iraq.
The Iraqi police are more or less patrolling the streets.
Schools are being rebuilt.
Electricity is on in most of the country(Baghdad got power all the time under Saddam.)
The Marsh Arabs are going home.
The Kurds are "safe".
You are a loser.

#219 Ariel
I never said W didn't make mistakes. I also pointed out that he pisses me off sometimes.

How about that for a start. What do you think of Lieberman as a possibility? He seems pro-military, though I think he hasn't got a chance of getting the Democratic nomination.

If I was given the choice of Lieberman over any other Dem, with no viable GOP option, I'd vote for him. But you are correct, he has no chance at the nomination.

#221 KevinV

However, the world does not run on the Oval Office's strategy plan memo. Iran is now developing nukes. NK is now saying they have them and will use them/sell them to terrorists. Syria is actively engaged in hostilities that are killing American soldiers.

What part of this is new since W took office? This was old news under Slick Willy. One quiibble, I have seen nothing that says the Norks will sell their nukes to terrorists, not that I'd doubt it.

What is relevant is that we are in this fight right now. And we don't appear serious about it.

Tell that to my fallen comrades in arms. Very poor taste in words.

Reaganite #202

What the hell does this say?

"Aus dem Panzer heraus und lassen einen Erwachsenen fahren, treten taube Testikel."

"From the tank and, steps deaf Testikel lets an adult drive"
http://translate.google.com/translate_t
A good tool to add to favorites

#224 Phutthewuk
LOL, thanks! I was told it said "Step out of the tank and let an adult drive, numbnuts"!

# 222 - rizzo

All those are great and good accomplishments, and I applaud and welcome them. My point, however, has long been lost in the vastness of this topic. Here is my main point:

The President and the conservative movement sold the war on Iraq in large part by arguing that in order to drain the swamps of the terrorist movement we needed to provide a solid, pluralistic, democratic alternative in a new Iraq. This Iraq would be occupied and administered by the US military, which would run affairs until Iraq was ready to step up to that role. This was vital to the argument.

Now, we find the US didn't have a plan beyond the first few weeks. We find the US provisional authority consisting, in part, of the Committee to Support the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a group committed to imposing shari'a Islamic law and theocratic rule as in neighboring Iran. We see the occupation authority tolerate, and even encourage, local Shari'a courts. We see the US tolerate and allow private militias. We see disastrous decisions to not patrol entire major cities, like Najaf, due to the "religious sensibilities" of the locals. We see the US caving to fundamentalist pressure and "de-selecting" female officers and judges.

None of this was presented before hand. Instead, the much different Japanese and German model were held up as models for our occupation. Since that level of commitment is, in my judgment, necessary for the type of transformation necessary, and, further, since we see through the actions outlined above that we are not prepared to handle that level of commitment, it apears to me that one central war aim has been given up on.

The new involvement of the UN, which, make no mistake, will involve the UN in key decisions about the future of Iraq before this is all over, only further illustrates that we have given up on the Japan/German type scenario. I feel this is a huge tactical mistake, and will lead to enboldening future jihadis who can see for themselves:

1) the US says its in Iraq for the long haul ,will control the occupation, will direct the future of Iraq;

2) the jihadis say if we kill enough of them they will drop that and cut and run in a few months;

3) we are now dropping number 1 above and asking the UN to come in in force.

Thinking objectively, I cannot see how this is not a jihadi victory, ideologically, over us. And this is an ideological war, primarily.

Insults only weaken your argument. Address my points above and let's debate in the spirit of open inquiry. We are all on the same side, we just disagree on how to get there.

reaganite #223,

Yeah, I think we agree more then we disagree. But one point (that I think is very similar to KevinV's point) that cannot be discarded easily is that Bush could be making speeches girding the nation to be tougher - speeches that say "with us or against us" again and again. That, IMO, would help a great deal.

KevinV

... we are still dealing with Arafat,

No we're not.

"Our view on Arafat is unfortunately based on many years of experience and attempts to work with him, many years of his failing to deliver and we have not changed our view in any way," spokesman Richard Boucher said.

"Our position is a conclusion reached over a long time based on experience and we don't expect to change it," he told reporters.

I know you hate Bush, (for not being strong enough) but hyperbole and misinformation aren't going to help you.

Bush hasn't "caved."
The US isn't "begging" the UN for help.
We aren't transferring control of Iraq to the French, the Germans or the UN.
We aren't leaving Iraq anytime soon.

One question for you: Do you think the US will still be in Iraq 12 months from now? And if so under whose command?

# 223 - reaganite

I value you contributions here, reaganite, and I consider you a fellow LGFer, but this post was a cheap shot.

I wrote:

What is relevant is that we are in this fight right now. And we don't appear serious about it.

And you responded:

Tell that to my fallen comrades in arms. Very poor taste in words.

Yet, above you also said:

What makes you think we as a nation want to fight? A large portion of our population would willingly stick their heads in the sand and pretend nothing is happening.

We both used the word "we" in our sentences to mean "we, the people of the United States." And we both made the same point: that we don't really want a fight right now.

Yet, when you said it, I engaged you in the issues. When I said it, you engaged in a cheap shot.

I am a veteran of the US Navy and a patriot. You know that. You know damn well I would never dishonor or disparage the men and women who serve us and who fought so brilliantly.

These cheap shots of yours weaken your arguments and only serve to harm yourself.

#227 Ariel

that cannot be discarded easily is that Bush could be making speeches girding the nation to be tougher - speeches that say "with us or against us" again and again. That, IMO, would help a great deal.

Let me point out a few things for you to think about.

Not long after I found LGF I was deployed to CENTAF HQ because I was injured at the time. When W tried to rally the nation to the WoT he was greeted with the "die-ins", the "puke-ins" and the rest of that nonsense. The L³ press attempted to make out that the entire nation and the world BTW was against the war in Iraq.

We're a little over a year away from the next election, the L³ press would crucify W if he went to the next enemy. Right?

How many speeches does he have to give about the war? I have watched in person around 40 of them.

Imagine this, W as the "lame duck" President. He can't get re-elected. Nothing to lose, he uses those 4 years to really try to end the WoT.

Do you think any Dem would do better?

#229 KevinV
I posted this

What makes you think we as a nation want to fight? A large portion of our population would willingly stick their heads in the sand and pretend nothing is happening.

Fully intending to put "we" in there, I posted before I previewed.

I took no "cheap shot" at you. If I had, I would have included some sort of insult. I pointed out your poor choice in words. As a vet, you above anyone else should recognize that.

reaganite #230,

I guess I just don't have the confidence you have in Bush. I'm too afraid of the Saudi connection and how that'll play out if he's in his last term.

Would any Dem do better? I think Lieberman would, though he's unelectable as a Democrat. I think many possible Republican challengers would do better, though none of them will run. So at the end of the day, he's probably still the best possibility - but that doesn't mean I'm fully happy about him or that I can't be concerned about the Saudi issue.

KevinV

A Telegraph report today suggests that Rumsfeld is taking a pragmatic line - and no sign of kowtowing to the UN, or caving in to the Axis of Weasels -

[Link: www.telegraph.co.uk...]

#232 Ariel

I guess I just don't have the confidence you have in Bush.

You know some of my history concerning the past 4 Presidents. I've been behind the scenes for a long time. I've seen so many things that have never been in the press. I have more confidence in W than any President since my namesake. One day, we'll sit down, have a ton of beers, and I'll tell you some of the stories that make me think this way.

# 231 - reaganite

Sure. Understood.

That being the case, I'm sure you won't mind if I point out that when you said

What makes you think we as a nation want to fight?

that you should tell that to your fallen comrades in arms. Very poor choice of words.

#235 KevinV

that you should tell that to your fallen comrades in arms. Very poor choice of words.

If you don't mind, shoot me an e-mail, I'll send you something that might explain my point.

You have to admit that the US military is hardly the "we" of this nation. We represent many, but not all.

Let me rephrase that, we represent all of this nation, but not all of this nation wants it that way.

# 233 JohninLondon

Great report about the always stalwart Rumsfeld. I appreciate the link. (BTW, I used to live/work down in Croydon, where you at?).

However, this passage caught my eye:

Mr Rumsfeld rejected any idea of a UN military force or peacekeeping command. But he indicated that countries providing assistance would earn a say in the administration of Iraq - and by implication a slice of the vast reconstruction contracts.

This is precisely my concern. Countries providing assistance "would earn a say in the adminstration of Iraq" seems to me a retreat from the earlier stance of full US/UK control, which I judge vital to a real reconstruction effort that would turn Iraq into a modern democracy a la Japan and Germany in the 40s and 50s.

# 228 Geepers

See above quote by the Secretary of Defense for my answer to your question: it seems that we still be there, but will be sharing authority with UN member states.

Per your Arafat issue, I point you to LGF at the height of the Jerusalem bus bombing crisis, where it was reported here and commented here at length about Sec. Powell's mission to Arafat to resolve the crisis. We are therefore still very much doing business with him.

# 237 - Rayra

When you say

To turn on him, villify him, or (ridiculously) label him an 'Appeaser' because of the compromises and maneuverings of RealPolitik.

I don't know if you're referring to me. I have done none of the above. I disagree on strategy on this point, and believe that full US (not shared with the UN) control of Iraq is a prerequisite for a successful WoT.

I also said above that while I will no longer contribute money to his campaign, that I bloody well would vote for him considering the creeps challenging him.

reaganite #234,

One day, we'll sit down, have a ton of beers, and I'll tell you some of the stories that make me think this way.

I'll look forward to that day.

rayra #241,

And restricting Congress to pay raises tied to the GDP and the National Debt - 5 raises in 5 yrs to people already making 158k/yr is an outrage.

No, you want to know what an outrage is: I know that some people in the Patent Office with a BA/BS from non-top-tier schools (and four years there) work about 30 hours/week and earn about $100K. But then again, the work is so mind-numbingly dull...

Some of this is echoing posts of mine here six months or more ago.

Israel has had the West Bank problem for 36 years. How much has Israeli strength moderated Palestinian dreams and methods? This even with assistance from the minority of rational Palestinians behind the scenes.

How long for an occupation of Iraq? What evidence is there for greater rationality in Iraq than in the West Bank/Gaza?

# 241 - rayra

Again, I don't know who you're referring to here. I haven't argued for reinstatement of the draft. (Although, I have said that it shouldn't be beyond the pale if necessary to fight and win the WoT, especially if we need to go after NK and Iran at the same time.

But, because you asked so nicely, I'll tell ya that I'm 38, an attorney, and I enlisted in the US Navy at 17 from La Mirada, in east Los Angeles County.

# 243 - Ariel

100k, sure, but they have to do *patent* work. Joke's on them....heh.

KevinV

A useful article in The Economist.

Some strains in Bush's cabinet. But really - there will be no cave-in to the French. Chirac is shooting himself in the foot again.

What is needed is troops from countries like India and Turkey, operating under US control - and they need the cover of a UN resolution. France and Germany will try to push for greater UN control, but this will not be given. I think the Axis of Weasels will have to back down in the end, and acquiesce. They may not send troops - just sulk in their corner. But it is important to get some big contributions, some thousands of troops, from other countries. Partly to help share the load, but also to show the Arab world that this is an effort with international support and agreement.

[Link: www.economist.com...]

(OT I am in Wimbledon, but know Croydon quite well)

OT by now, but refers to some very early posts on this thread: Johnny the pirate must be worried already about consequences at the box office-- he's "diavowing anti-American quotes."

Link: [Link: www.nytimes.com...]

Uh-huh.

KevinV -- and just what do you think this really means?

From your and Rummy ---
This is precisely my concern. Countries providing assistance "would earn a say in the administration of Iraq"

You have inside info as to what he meant by that statement? From what Rummy has provided to us in the last year, he may only be saying, that these folks can go to the bathroom, inside the green line of Baghdag, without asking permission of their local NCO first!

Didn't you notice the twinkle in his eye as he says, "would earn a say in the administration of the Iraq? "Like.... maybe.... where do we put this new tent up out here in this desert?

Hey --- being a lawyer, you got to know, instant gratification is NOT a product of our judicial system..... how about applying it to the most serious happenings we have in our lives since WWII...... my father took great patience in teaching me.... patience is a virtue..... and I've heard Bush repeat numerous times..... "I'm a patient person."

Interesting ---- that Rummy, unexpected, unannounced, shows up in Iraq, on the day of the UN announcement! And says, "Countries providing assistance would earn a say in the administration of Iraq." Got to be a conspiracy going on here! For sure...

Den Beste explains it all... Enough with the sky-is-falling nonsense.

A good analysis by Den Beste.

Leaving aside the Axis of Weasels, who won't help anyway (unless Russia wavers, maybe) there are "important" nations such as India, Pakistan and Turkey who could contribute troops. But some would argue that these nations would provide boots on the ground, but not the essential expertise and intelligence to help find the remaining opposition.

These nations need to be forced to decide, soon. If the US has to go it without them, this will cost the US more. And that extra cost should be offset aginst the massive aid these countries get from America. Simple equation, really ?

There are already some 16,000 troops deployed from smaller nations, apparently - Poland, other East Europeans in "New Europe" etc. These nations may well be able to give a few more troops. The US and the UK will somehow find some more troops, at least for the short-term. "Holding the fort" until more and more Iraqis can be screened and drafted into the security operation. And while moves towards democratisation proceed.

Iraq will not end up as a perfect democracy. But any kind of democracy could gather wide public support among the intelligent, educated Iraqis. And then the oil money starts to flow, helping all Iraqis rather than the Ba'athist few. And THEN they will recognise who delivered this to them - NOT the UN, but the "Great Satan" and many other friendly nations who did not wait for UN cover before helping.

This was never going to be an easy or short task. But the nay-sayers are going to be shown to be false prophets of doom.

#250 JohninLondon

Bollocks.

The U.S.A. has one ally in the region, and only one. That ally also has the strongest military in the region. But the U.S.A. refuses help from this ally, to avoid offending its enemies.

What does that mean for you?

#202: reaganite

Your translation in #225 nails it, though the German sentence sounds as if it was translated "literally" from English to German before (especially "treten taube Testikel" -> anybody speaking like that here would be considered as a strange fellow...).

#203: Ariel

heh! Btw, Schröder is pronounced Sh-reux-der, with "reux" being pronounced "French" (in English there is no "ö"). It's an old European oddity, all these ü, ä, ö, ß...

#246: JohninLondon

What is needed is troops from countries like India and Turkey, operating under US control - and they need the cover of a UN resolution.

In my opinion, there are three possibilities to increase security:

1. send more US troops
2. recruit more Iraqi security personnel
3. more allied troops under UN participation

I think option 1 is difficult to realize, as reaganite pointed out; and ask Bernard Lewis about what he has to say about this. What about option 2? The problem here is: until this is implemented, Iraq will fall into chaos. So let's look at option 3. Poland, Spain, UK are already there, Germany's army is strained (Afghanistan, Africa, ex-Yugoslavia). Turkey, India, Pakistan? To put it short, Robert Kagan (Carnegie Endowment) says these troops could become part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Kagan suggests to send more US troops, which leads us back to option 1...

#252 Hanz
So what's the right way to say it? I'd like to send it back at the guy who sent it to me! I'm off to PT.

Actually, Connecticut Yankee (#247), I could believe Depp's statements were distorted and taken out of context. "Stern" is a disgustingly anti-American piece of claptrap and I wouldn't put it past them to twist Johnny's words to fit into their anti-America agenda.

#253: reaganite

Aus dem Panzer heraus und lassen einen Erwachsenen fahren, treten taube Testikel.

I'd say something like "Raus aus dem Panzer, ihr Schwachköpfe, lasst mal einen Erwachsenen fahren!" catches the meaning better.

Btw, if I retranslate the quoted sentence, it means "Out of the tank and let an adult drive, kicking [their] numb testes"... which, of course, might be an option too, I don't know for which occasion the sentence is needed ;)

ibrodsky (183): "I assumed that the real purpose of the 'roadmap' was to force the Palestinians to get rid of their own terrorists. But that would only have worked if we were adamant about making the PA fight Hamas et al."

Keep an eye on the Hamas "political wing" controversy unfolding in Europe. Also keep an eye on Hizbollah in Lebano-Syria. It will take much more than the prodding of the US and Israel to get any hopeful moderate among Palestinians to take on Hamas. The Road Map was also supposed to deal with an honest and genuine approach to the two-state resolution to the terminal territorial dispute over the West Bank and Gaza, by the more vocal inteterested third parties in the EU, Russia and anyone worth the weight of their rhetoric in the UN. So far, the US has been doing all the soloing in the "Quartet"...

ibrodsky (213): "If we truly think Iranian Islamo-fascists with nukes are a serious problem, we should not be seeking the approval of the Zionism-is-racism crowd to do something about it. Instead, we should determine who our *real* allies are and work with them to eliminate the threat."

Hopefully, we're doing BOTH, with the UN schtick being only the part we can see.

Finally, ibrodsky, are you the same ibrodsky who would remember LeeMelon from the C-Span boards...? (Good to seeya).

#255 hans ze beeman
Thanks!

Btw, if I retranslate the quoted sentence, it means "Out of the tank and let an adult drive, kicking [their] numb testes"... which, of course, might be an option too, I don't know for which occasion the sentence is needed ;)

An old friend of mine from my days in Europe sent it to me. I taught him how to slide an M-113 APC on the old fighter hardpans. His first time he hit a piece of rebar that had been used to tie the fighters down and ripped the track off. I said something to the effect of "get out of the APC and let a grown up show you how to fix it." About a year later we were trying to get an M-60 tank to slide and I crashed into a brick wall. He of course said a similar thing to me. He was just reminding me of the old days. :-Þ

Ariel (214),

You miss the major thrust of my point. The Jihadi network (Al Qaida, Hizbolla, Hamas, IJ, etc.) lives and breathes by the division and confusion of the West. With folks like alltoomany regulars around here treating Democrats and liberals as if they were a bigger enemy than Ba'athists and Islamists, we as a civilization will have nowhere to go but down. It's all so very easy to keep whining all these years away about Clinton, when clearly each and every time the Clinton administration attempted any response, DeLay, Lott, & Co. could be counted on to religiously chant "wag-the-dog" mantra. We desperately need to come together on this WoT stuff, and try not to freak out so much at the sight of a handful of undergrads playing cops-&-hippies downtown.

And if Lieberman were to somehow achieve presidential election, I'm afraid he would immediately and unfortunately be rendered ineffective as he wouldn't be simply a president who happens to be Jewish, but "the Jews controlling America." Everything he did would be filtered through it.

Keep writing quark2. Your words are like a foghorn in the pea soup.

Cards on the table.... The left pisses me off more than the right mostly because I never had any faith to lose in the right to begin with. The ideologically conservative approach most consistently struck me as "every man for himself." As an unapologetic liberal, I prefer to see a world in which we are largely "all in this together." To my perspective the left has been on a cynical slide ever since the UN General Assembly declared war on Israel in 1975 with the Zionism is Racism resolution, and as an ideological focus has been ineffectual and phony ever since. Take the recent wars over the last five years, for example. I supported kicking over Milosevic in Yugoslavia, and if the Republicans had let Clinton take Saddam Hussein down in '98 I would have supported that too. Anytime the US is motivated to kick over a genuinely murderous fascist regime, it's alright with me.

So I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't support it when Bush does it. As bad as the Busheviks may be on any domestic front, we're still the international Good Guys. However, I certainly don't believe the Bush adminstration is being smart about the reconstruction phase, nor are they being honest with us about what that should mean. Clinton left a fine example for them in Kosovo, but the Busheviks are clearly obsessed with being history's anti-Clinton that they'll cut off our collective nose to spite our face rather than admit that Clinton could do anything worth emulating. Too often we suffer opinions that would rather believe liberals and Democrats are a greater enemy to Western civilization than Islamist and pan-Arab fascism. And that seems to be right where the Jihadis want us.

What Schröder and Chirac are performing are the remnants of a pre-liberation concept outlined by Michael Leeden on March 10, 2003, which is revived as part of their Werevolve fantasies:

The Franco-German strategy was based on using Arab and Islamic extremism and terrorism as the weapon of choice, and the United Nations as the straitjacket for blocking a decisive response from the United States.

Schröder and Chirac want Iraq to be submitted to the U.N. as a means to preempt the upcoming recoginition of the Iraqi Provisional Government by the Security Council. All the post-liberation offers of military assistance in rebuilding Iraq were driven by this single cause, as can be easily seen from Germanys rejection of a May 5, 2003 Polish proposal to contribute troops to rebuilding that country.

They both are dead-enders who have not yet realized the full implications of how the August 19 Al Qaeda attack changed the American perception of the U.N. Being hijacked by a cartel of evil dictators, the U.N. is not what anybody could want to control a government. But it is an international body fit for the coordination of NGO activities in liberated countries, and suitable to coach the remaining dictators around the world in getting arranged with the new environment and preempt them from lining up with Al Qaeda.

After the terror attack in Iraq, the U.N. should open itself to a greater role of NGOs, and the Security Council should fully recognize the Iraqi Provisional Government as an equal partner in the open competition of ideas for the future of that country as well as condemn all diplomatic attempts to snatch away its power as support of terrorism.

The oft astute Reaganite, Geepers, and others are missing the bigger picture. In addition to being corrupt, incompetent, rabidly anti-American, and virulently anti-semetic, the UN has proven itself to be completely irrelevant on the world stage. Need I mention 17 UNSCR and twelve years had passed since the end of GWI to GWII? Remember how easily the phrase 'serious consequences' of Resolution 1441 was discarded by the UNSC? Remember the ridiculous horse trading that and arm twisting that the U.S. was forced to engage in to gain the support of our 'allies' on the UNSC? Seeking additional forces from the UN (whether under U.S. command or not) confers even greater legitimacy on the UN in the eyes of the world community. It will only contribute to that organization's mythical 'supra-national' authority. Inevitably it will only serve undermine the United States vital security interests by eroding our national sovereignity. Israel's too. The UN does not deserve 'one last chance'. They've already had it.

Zionista (#258),

Clinton left a fine example for them in Kosovo, but the Busheviks are clearly obsessed with being history's anti-Clinton that they'll cut off our collective nose to spite our face rather than admit that Clinton could do anything worth emulating.

Say What?

Kosovo is a mess, and clearly not an example of what I would want a post war Iraq to become.

And I distinctly remember Clinton promising that out troops would be home by Christmas 1999.

THE BALKANS: Kosovo Still Simmers

Its kind of a shame no one discuses what's going on in Kosovo these days. Almost a daily rape and murder by terrorists against the serbian minority, the destruction of over 50 christian churches and religious monuments. Its not safe for Serbian children to swim in a river or walk to school, this is Clintons Legacy.

Those above who assured me that no militias exist in Iraq might want to write MSNBC, because they, and others, are apparently reporting from an Alternate Universe Iraq where the US/UK is the only armed force in the nation and is conducting the occupation properly.

On Friday's services, in Najaf, where the US continues to refuse to patrol and/or occupy due to "religious sensitivities" (and into that power vacuum steps.....):

"Al-Hakim, a member of the American-picked governing council, has taken over his slain brother’s leadership position in the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. He led the armed wing of the organization, the Badr Brigade, which U.S. forces ordered disarmed shortly after the war ended April 9.
The group rearmed in defiance of the U.S. demand and many members, wearing arm bands identifying themselves as Badr Brigade and carrying Kalashnikov rifles, were part of the security force. "

Of course, we all remember the pre-war Bush speeches where he promised that post-war Iraq would be run by the US in conjuction with the armed wing of the local Islamic Fascist movement. Everything is going exactly according to plan.

Plus, I'm sure we all remember the armed militias Nazi and Japanese leaders kept and maintained during the American post-war occupation of those countries.

Nothing to worry about, certainly.

Those who argued above that there will be no split in the conservative movement should take some time to read the lead editorial in the NY Post and compare it with the fare on NRO today. Two different conclusions on this major issue equals a *split*. Dangerous given our already tenuous hold on public opinion on the WoT as a decades-long war.

From today's NY Post, which nails it to the wall, as usual:

"THE Bush administra tion's sudden decision to go to the U.N. Security Council for a new Iraq resolution looks like bad news for America and for the prospects of a democratic Iraq.

The resolution's specific contents — and even whether or not it gets passed — can't change that. (Indeed, yesterday's Franco-German démarche suggests that we're simply in for another pointless Security Council pummeling.)

The issue isn't the further internationalization of the occupation. (Thousands of foreign troops are already patrolling vast stretches of Iraq.) It is symbolism and timing.

The hasty turn to the United Nations smells of panic, unwarranted panic at that, and even worse, the foolish subordination of Iraq policy to electoral concerns.

The administration may genuinely believe it isn't engaged in a humiliating climbdown, but that is inevitably going to be the perception, here and abroad.

The practical point of the move, to the extent it has any, is to obtain the U.N. fig leaf that will make politically possible the deployment of troops from India, Pakistan and Turkey.

But even if it were worth eating some humble pie to bring in three divisions from those countries — and that's debatable, given the horrifyingly brutal counter-insurgency records of all three militaries — the timing of the pie-eating could hardly be more dangerous.

To go crawling back to the United Nations, tail between our legs, only a week after the Najaf bombing, tells the world — and, more importantly, the people of Iraq — that the bombings and attacks on U.S. troops have succeeded. It signals that America is, if not exactly on the run, severely rattled."

The group rearmed in defiance of the U.S. demand and many members, wearing arm bands identifying themselves as Badr Brigade and carrying Kalashnikov rifles, were part of the security force. "

What is it about the phrase in defiance of the U.S. that you don't understand? These Islamic militias don't have our 'blessing'.

Dirk Diggler (264): "What is it about the phrase in defiance of the U.S. that you don't understand? These Islamic militias don't have our 'blessing'."

Like the report said, " 'Al-Hakim, a member of the American-picked governing council, has taken over his slain brother’s leadership position in the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq'."

Where did you lose the part about the leader of a defiant Jihadi group serving on the governing council?

Anyone know if he's been kicked off the council yet?

Any plans to do it?

Geepers (261),

Thanks for the link to the wargame site, anyway.

I don't know, but elections and war crimes trials seem pretty good after four years... two years since Bush/Cheny campaigned on pulling US troops out of Kosovo.

Sharp editorial in the Telegraph - "deja vu about France"

[Link: www.telegraph.co.uk...]

This is one US local commander - in Tikrit - who is confident that we are winning.

The best solution is a FEW MORE US and UK troops (the UK is already sending some) plus Poles etc.

And let the french go hang - they have very few troops available anyway, bloody blowhards !

Gen Abizaid: "The number of troops, boots per square inch, is not the issue. The real issue is intelligence. You have to have good, solid intelligence in a conflict such as this so you can get at the terrorists. That's the number one thing we've got to have, and we're working hard at it."