’)We’re headed into three years in Iraq and George Bush is about to begin yet another p.r. offensive about the Iraq war, telling Americans that they’re just imagining the violence on TV and the dead soldiers are just an invention of the “liberal media”. But the great tragedy is that the Democratic party still refuses to speak up about the war. It’s not that their position is unpopular or popular – but it is simply nonexistent. The official position of the Republican party is that we should stay in Iraq until “victory” is achieved, though there is no defintion of what “victory” is. Their position is a recipe for death, but the Democrats need to embrace an alternative instead of this nonsense of just leaving it up in the air. By not endorsing strategic redeployment, Democrats are enabling not only electoral losses in November, but a directionless involvement with no strategy at all.
Interesting plan. The biggest difference I see between what I know of Bush’s plan and the Korb plan is that Bush wants to wait until the government in Iraq feels secure enough to tell us to leave. Korb would want us to leave regardless of the condition of Iraqi civil peace (or war). I had to chuckle at his idea of somehow getting Iran involved in talks involving neighbor nations who want a stable Iraq. That part is completely clueless since Iran is doing what it can now to foment a civil war there.
The weakest point of the Korb & Katulis piece is their insistence that US troops are driving the terrorism in Iraq. They may believe this, they haven’t demonstrated its truth. The author’s seem strangely silent on what the political nature of the Iraq they envision should be. If we wanted a return to a military dictatorship we could, after all, give Saddam his toys back & put him in charge.
I question “strategic redeployment”’s use as a euphemism for retreat. Whether it is or not technically speaking won’t matter — a perceived retreat by the US will be seen by our enemies as a sign of weakness.
As a last point I think there is an aspect of political cynicism to strategic withdrawl. If we move troops out of Iraq and there is a civil war, or if it becomes a satrapy of Iran, dems will say “see — Bush is at fault because we never should have been there.” If we redeploy and all is well, then the dems will say “see — we were right all along. Bush should have redeployed years ago.” This is all very nice for the democrats, but in scenario #1 the Iraqi people — even those in Kurdistan — will suffer real ravages of war, not the numbers of casualties that result from the low level insurgency we see now.
” the Iraqi people even those in Kurdistan will suffer real ravages of war, not the numbers of casualties that result from the low level insurgency we see now.”
Bush himself put the figure of Iraqi civilain casualties since the start of the war at 30,000. The number is probably higher but even at 30,000 that’s 10,000 a year. It’s hard to believe that this doesn’t yet constitute “suffering the real ravages of war” when you throw in electricity shortages, food shortages, no potable water, high unemployment, a demolished infrastructure and a totally uncertain future.
Here’s a suggestion for Bush. Instead of yet another PR push, why doesn’t he actually do something to make a difference on the ground in Iraq? Okay, you think withdrawal would be seen as a sign of weakness. Fantastic. But what message is sent by the fact that we’ve allowed this “low level insurgency” to drag on for three years without making any substantial improvement in security? Zero. Or did you not see the news today? Oh boy.
So if strategic withdrawal is a no go, why aren’t supporters of this war demanding that MORE troops be sent in. Where’s the call for MORE troops and MORE money? What’s more, where’s the call for a draft? Or is everything just going along swimmingly as is? Let’s face it, if you support Bush’s “stay the course” plan you are living in fantasy land because the writing is on the wall for this thing. If we don’t change something in one direction or another we’ve lost. And that is the mess that Bush has got us in. It’s a mess he created all by himself. It is his alone. Right now. No excuses.
Here it is 2006 and we still get headlines like this:
Scores Die as Sectarian Violence Continues in Iraq
By Louise Roug, Times Staff Writer
5:50 PM PST, March 12, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Bombs, rockets, mortar shells and gunfire claimed the lives of at least 70 Iraqis and injured hundreds Sunday, even as the government announced an overhaul of security forces in an attempt to coordinate the efforts of police and military, reduce the power of militias and ease sectarian tensions.
Ya. The real ravages of war. You people make me sick.
National Strategy for Victory in Iraq
Stick said “a perceived retreat by the US will be seen by our enemies as a sign of weakness.’
A key point most analysts gloss over. There is at least anedcdotal evidence to the effect that the terrorists believe US has no long term ’stomach’ this type of conflict and that our response to aggression will be to toss a couple of cruise missiles and then go back to domestic politics. Make no mistake: In the inner Terrorist circles, the Democrats “strategic redeployment” strategy will be seen for what it is: quitting, weakness, western softness. It will become a major recruitng tool: We beat them! They have no stomach for this. We must go on the offensive!
The may be no good answer in Iraq other than toughing it out.
I wonder what would happen if we passed a resolution in Congress committing forces to a minimum of ten years in Iraq – as required. Maybe they would be able to come home in a year.
Dugger
Wow. A National Strategy for Victory in Iraq dated November 2005. Tell me again when we invaded?
My BushHate compels me to agree with the totality of this report.
Redeploying a significant force to Afghanistan(where the Taliban are
rehearsing their chorus of ‘Welcome Back KotterKhan’) seems
prudent and necessary(if that level had been in force in Nov 2001
we might have nailed OBL).
If Don Knotts were still alive, he would want the clowns that conceived
and executed the war plan to appear with him in the remake of
“The Apple Dumpling Gang.”
My BushHate Cup Runneth Over.
“anyone can write a position paper” and repeat the word “Victory” over and over for 35 pages.
The Sunni hates the Kurds and Shiites. The Kurds hate the Sunni and Shiites. And the Shiites hate the Kurds and the Sunni. Therefore, Democracy will never work in Iraq until all Iraqis can learn to love and respect each other as Iraqi citizens. We should have never invaded Iraq. At least Saddam Hussein was able to keep law and order when he was in power. Maybe what Iraq needs is another dictator who is not as barbaric and ruthless as Hussein was.
Interesting reading JWG. But anyone can write a position paper. It is so loose and generalized as to be meaningless. I am sure that there were strategies for Vietnam also. It did not mean that the government had any clue what it was doing. I don’t think we have any more understanding of Iraqi and middle eastern culture than we did of Vietnamese culture. And once again, that is our failure. I am not going to argue that we ought to pull the troops out tomorrow. But I do think that we need to rethink our goals and our strategies, as well as our definition of “victory”.
“That must be why the military is having so much trouble retaining troops, right?”
I’m no expert but I doubt reenlistment levels have as much to do with how much the troops “support the mission” as the right wing thinks. I’d wager it has as much to do with not wanting to leave their buddies behind in a shithole disaster. Call it loyalty and honor, call it survivor’s guilt, whatever, but it isn’t as simple as rah rah for the mission.
So the question is, do we want more of the same in Iraq, or do we want US soldiers to be redeployed actually fighting the war on terror?
The American people and the troops have said no to “more of the same”.
From the WaPo:
“As the dispute over its nuclear program arrives at the U.N. Security Council today, Iran has vaulted to the front of the U.S. national security agenda amid Bush administration plans for a sustained campaign against the ayatollahs of Tehran.”
Man, these guys sure do know how to focus. From Afghanistan to Iraq to Iran to who knows whose next by election time 2008. Ten years in Iraq, Dugger? Bush can’t focus for ten minutes.
anyone can write a position paper and repeat the word redeploy over and over for 35 pages.
“It will become a major recruitng tool: We beat them!”
You guys just don’t get it. You just don’t get it. Iraq already IS a major recruiting tool. Hell, the insurgency is recruiting the people we went in their to help: average Iraqis. It’s kind of chilling that Dugger would just we need to be in there for ten years. Anyone want to guess how long the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan lasted? Anyone remember how that ended up after it became the greatest recruiting tool Islamic terrorism every had?
Dugger;
In what way is; “come home in a year.”, “toughing it out”?
That must be why the military is having so much trouble retaining troops, right?
It’s not a quid pro quo- don’t try to make it one.
Frames opinion on why the re-enlistment levels are high (did anyone compare them to other conflicts, btw?) is also my opinion.
Therefore, Democracy will never work in Iraq until all Iraqis can learn to love and respect each other as Iraqi citizens.
You mean the way democracy in America works because we have all learned “to love and respect each other as American citizens”?
That’s not the primary opinion of the many I know currently serving, but I’m sure there are many reasons among the thousands of reenlistments.
Desertion rates are much lower, but the military is all volunteer so it’s hard to compare to previous conflicts.
Well Frank, it has been a few years since some right-wing whack job has bombed an abortion clinic and/or federal building.
Freedom is on the march!
Semant,
My little scenario was that, in effect, by announcing to the world we’re in Iraq for the long term and by (bi-partisan) Congress saying that, that we put forth such a united front to the terrorists/insurgents, that they are demoralized and the good guy Iraqis ‘moralized’, and thereby the situation stabilizes in a year and we can leave – victorous in the post war insurgency. No need for the surrender called “strategic redeployment.”
An admitted ‘what if.’
Evil capitalist irresponsible Dugger solution: Build a giant pipeline from the Mideast, suck out all their oil, fund universal health care (that’ll get the progressives on board) and free SUVs with the oil money and then forgetaboutit.
You mean the way democracy in America works because we have all learned to love and respect each other as American citizens ?
Frank_D, do you think that you and I could meet on a street, maybe say, “Good morning” and find something pleasant to talk about? We’ve got to be magnanimous enough to “live and let live.” And while our “common ground” might be dull, it’s certainly better than the alternatives.
“Work as if you lived in the early days of a better nation.” – Alasdair Gray.
“If these are the early days of a better nation, there must be hope, and a hope of peace is as good as any, and far better than a hollow hoarding greed or the dry lies of an aweless god.” – Graydon Saunders
OYE,
I would support a reinstatement of the draft. Believe everyone should have to serve, regardless of position etc. No deferments for college etc. Even handicapped would be able to serve in some way. But it would never get approved.
And , regardless, sometimes there’s no good alternative than to just sticking with it for the long term. Don’t go in if you aren’t going to sustain.
Dugger
The may be no good answer in Iraq other than toughing it out.
Easy for you to say, O proud member of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders. You sound like one of those sports slobs who lives vicariously through your favorite teams: “Yay, Yankees! WE really stuck it to those Red Sox yesterday!” Except in that case Derek Jeter isn’t in danger of getting his limbs blown off by an IED every time he takes the field.
I wonder what would happen if we passed a resolution in Congress committing forces to a minimum of ten years in Iraq – as required. Maybe they would be able to come home in a year.
And I wonder what would happen if we passed a resolution reinstating the draft – all physically/mentally fit people between 18 and 40, no favoritism, no “champagne units,” no exceptions. Maybe our cheerleaders in Washington would be a hell of a lot more serious about fixing Iraq (if indeed we would have even gone there in the first place, which I doubt) when they know it’s their own kids’ hides on the line.
The last PR campaign gave us what President Bush and his supporters said was the the plan for victory in Iraq. The National Strategy for Victory in Iraq vanished almost as soon as it was trotted out for public view. Maybe it was because the Bush administration wouldn’t even talk about it.
Or maybe because within days of its release the administration walked away from the third pillar, the Economic track.
Yeah, right, Curmudgeon, all the enemies of freedom are on our right…
Yeah, suuuure they are
That is what they have now.
“It s simply incorrect to confuse terrorism with insurrection, and insurrection with civil war.”
Shorter Frank: I have no idea what’s actually happening in Iraq.
The people setting off IEDs are members of the government and military we toppled. They are fighting what they see as an occupying force in their country. They are joined in this task by foreign terrorists. Together that have chosen a strategy aimed at sparking a civil war that will force the occupying power out.
It’s simply stunning the extent of the delusion that war supporters have to live in to keep maintain their support.
The interjection of Bush’s “National Strategy for Victory in Iraq” into this discussion only underscores how much that country has changed in the last several months, and how far away we are from achieving any modicum of “victory”. At the time the Nationa Strategy was issued, the debate in America centered on the “insurgency” and the “government”, with Murtha calling for a “redeployment” and Bush calling for “standing down when the Iraqi army stands up”. Now we realize just how hollow both sides were. First, on the Murtha side, the risk of an insurgent or terrorist “victory” in the event of a “redeployment” is actually lower than it was in November. But the risk of communal genocide against Sunnis has increased dramatically. Ironically, the US army and Khalilzad have become the guarantors of Sunni safety in the face of the Badr/Sadr Shi’ite death squads. As for Bush’s Iraqi army training plan, he leaves out the most important component of all: to whom is the army loyal? So what if we train a massive Iraqi army when its loyalties are restricted to sect or ethnicity. I care much less about the numbers of Iraqi soldiers able to “fight on their own” than I care about what these soldiers are fighting for. Until we see a critical mass of genuinely mixed Sunni-Shi’ite-Kurd military units able to keep the peace, we’ve moved nowhere closer to “victory.”
“But it would never get approved.”
Why do you think that is Dugger, or does your gut tell you it’s because of the liberal media?
It’s unfathomable to me how you guys can argue that there is no good alternative other than sticking it out, come hell or high water. Before the invasion we had the alternative of going in with more troops. We still have that aternative today, although it would require a massive reorienting of priorities. But the mustering the manpower and material wouldn’t be half as difficult as it would be to get Bush to accept the reality of what’s happening right now.
Dugger talks about sustaining as if Bush was at all interested in sustaining this mission. There is absolutely no doubt that at present, our presence in Iraq, as it currently stands, is unsustainable. But Bush refuses to change our policies one iota even as he shifts his “security priorities” from Iraq to Iran. Just like they did with Afghanistan where the Taliban is newly resurgent and where US soldiers are still dying.
Here’s the fact of the matter: Bush is not serious about fighting terrorism. Simply put, he thought this would all be over by the 04 elections. War, in this guy’s mind, is an election campaign by another means.
Wonder what effect this PR campaign will have on Bush’s unpopularity. The Iraq PR campaign of last year only invited more scrutiny of the whole misadventure and thus lower ratings for Our Leader. I want Bush to go to every corner of the nation talking about how good it is that we are in Iraq. It’s his bed, let him lie in it. Those who in 2000 believed him to be an incompetent jerk are at least finally able to see him demonstrate that fact to most of the rest of the people. It’s too bad it has taken so many disaterous policies to convince some people, but Bush is convincing them now.
Fuming: What I was saying was that there have been many periods in America’s history, when Americans have failed “to love and respect each other as American citizens ?, and yet we have survived…
I believe that Iraq can do the same thing. It’s simply incorrect to confuse terrorism with insurrection, and insurrection with civil war.
I don’t if you have heard about this, but, for whatever reason, moderate Muslims are (finally) speaking out:
http://tinyurl.com/h7vna
Don t go in if you aren t going to sustain.
Yeah. It would have been great if they planned to keep the situation under control from the beginning: no looting and civil unrest and … but that was so three years ago–
Three.
Years.
Ago.
Feh. How long were the Marines in Haiti again? That worked out really well, didn’t it?
And I suppose McVeigh was your typical conservative?
Then who were these guys?
“Until we see a critical mass of genuinely mixed Sunni-Shi ite-Kurd military units able to keep the peace, we ve moved nowhere closer to victory. ”
And it probably ain’t gonna happen.
Maybe some almagamation of Shia’s and Kurds – and how well that would work who knows. The ultimate problem with the iraq action. When all is said and done, it will still be a shia dominated country, army and police. Hopefully, there is some way that will work.
Dugger
There is no question that Iraq is only a political liability to Bush right now, a deep muddy shithole with no ladder out.
Gen Peter Pace, the Bush Cabinet, and all Bush operatives right now have been put on full red alert: Polls have fallen to extreme danger zone, Nov 2006 is only a few months away, and Rove is SCREAMING that they have to regain message control.
That is why the happytalk from every GOP figure on every channel is trying to dominate and change the message.
But it’s not working: The mosque explosion, Al-Sadr, the pictures streaming from the front lines every day, torture in Abu-Ghraib, they all contribute to the negative focus that is killing the Preznit’s numbers.
At this point, there is nothing that Bush would like more than to be able to cut and run out of Iraq, if only they could find a way out. But every time anyone on the GOP talks about redeployment or draw-downs, the GOP and Bush look weak and leaving Iraq at this point looks cowardly and short-sighted esp. since that has been the weapon of choice they’ve used against dissenters for years.
Also remember a whole generation of Bush’s right-wing base was brought up believing that it was dirty traitor anti-war hippie LIB’RUL demonstrators who “lost the Vietnam War” and brought the troops home without honor, without giving this country a chance to finally “win” Vietnam. They will not accept excuses from Bush and the GOP if we cut and run from Iraq.
This Iraq debacle is entirely Bush and the GOP’s fault. They had control, they had the purse-strings, their own master plan, the people in charge who they wanted in charge. It is causing untold anguish and finger-pointing and blaming among the right and the GOP as the true magnitude of the fuck-up in Iraq and our current helpless, over-extended, dangerous situation becomes clear.
I say Fuck them. They broke it, they fix it.
Then they will keep screaming at Libs “Well, you’re so good at criticizing, what’s YOUR plan to fix it??”
Step one: Get the GOP and the right wing the FUCK out of the driver’s seat, and let a party that knows how to govern drive.
there have been many periods in America s history, when Americans have failed to love and respect each other as American citizens ?, and yet we have survived&
…except for people like Chief Joseph and Sequoya, or Lincoln, or John Kennedy, or Martin Luther King–even Abel must now remain silent on the subject of love and respect or the lack thereof.
We shall meet. But we shall miss them. There will be some vacant chairs.
The National Strategy for Victory does not define what “victory” is, interestingly enough.
Anarchists are not conservatives. McViegh was not a typical conservative.
But I would be a lot happier of “typical conservatives” would repudiate the actions of anarchists and bomb droppers.
Something to consider:
Yeah, they’re headed for a civil war. I’d rather we pulled out, then came back with the rest of the UN to clean it up in a coupe of years. Of course there’ll be lots of terrorists who move in, but if we’re not there to hide from, they’re way more likely to set up nice near little camps for us to carpet-bomb.
There isn’t any way we can avoid a civil war, folks. Iraq is very much like europe circa 1910. Nothing is going to change the minds of the folks in that region until they’ve bled enough that they’re tired of bleeding.
Lets stop wasting our time and resources trying to stop it. Yeah, its gonna look bad, but anything we do at this point is going to look bad. At least if we pull out of there we get some targets to shoot back at one the dust settles down.
I, for one, am quite tired of being asked to “repudiate” this one and that one. Perhaps this hasn’t sunk in yet, conservatives having been on the American political scene since about 1770, but we’re the individualists.
We don’t buy into the collective guilt stuff. Liberals don’t even buy into individual guilt, with their moral relatism, and their idea that the ends justifies the means.
Why should I “repudiate” some guy I never even heard of?
Do you want me to repudiate the Islamofascists? Consider them repudiated?
“The ends justify the means” is a “liberal” idea now?
Frameone wrote:
“Before the invasion we had the alternative of going in with more troops. We still have that aternative today, although it would require a massive reorienting of priorities.”
But “Strategic Redeployment” calls for fewer troops, not more troops!
Of course. That’s why whatever liberals do is always justified. If it advances “the mission,” it’s OK. The mission? To get everyone to think and act like liberals, including all our politicians.
The Sunni hates the Kurds and Shiites. The Kurds hate the Sunni and Shiites. And the Shiites hate the Kurds and the Sunni.
That is the bottom line, folks. It has always been this way and it always will be. They are still mad at each other over something that happened in 640 AD. We are not going to change it in an afternoon.
Because of their tribal Arab heritage, they view outsiders with contempt. They view any sort of compromise or fraternization as weakness and a quality not to be trusted.
So if we are not committed to being there for the next 10, 15, 25 years as occupiers, what are we gonna do, because we are not goign to change their collective minds after centuries of conditioning towards distrust.
Say what you want about Saddam but, like Tito in Yugoslavia, he kept order when no one else could.
You’re telling me that Conservatives never use that tactic? Ever?
Gary Hart discusses a frightening possibility; Our military could get
caught in the meat grinder.
“A major part of the dilemma we have created is the result of failure to know the history and complex culture of Iraq. As we refused to learn from the French experience in Indochina, we also failed to learn from the British experience in Iraq. We are on the cusp of religion and antique hatred overtaking whatever latent instincts toward democracy we may have relied on or tried to instill. We face the reemergence of 11th-century Assassins and 17th-century ethnic fundamentalism arising to replace a century of ideology — imperialism, fascism, and communism.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/us-army-in-jeopardy-in-ir_b_17188.html
Actually, Shi’ites and Sunnis do NOT have a history of internecine warfare in Iraq. When Iraqis rose up and fought the British in 1920, it was both sects that joined together. Kurds have always been more separatist, but they aren’t really at the heart of what ails Iraq. After all, if they went and formed their own country, not many people outside Turkey would complain. The problem is really Arab Sunnis and Shi’ites. Of course, during the 80 years of Hashemite, post-Hashemite and Ba’athist rule, the government was dominated by Sunnis. When the US arrived, it figured that the best way to appease the various components of Iraqi society would be to allot offices, etc. to each of the ethnic/sectarian groups based according to their population. In theory this was the right thing to do. But with the utter breakdown in civil society, there was no central force pulling the various groups together anymore. Each group saw its own sect as the basis of its protection. Despite all calls for “national unity”, few politicians in Iraq really mean it. Meanwhile, Sunni revanchists used and continue to use all forms of mass terror to cow their Shi’ite rivals. And now the Shi’ites in government use the Interior Ministry apparatus and Shi’ite militias to conduct their own reign of terror against the Sunnis. This is all unprecedented as far as Iraq is concerned. Unlike, say, Lebanon, which had a history of communal violence long before the 1975 civil war began, Iraq doesn’t really have a history of grassroots sectarian hatred. It’s possible that that unified heritage will keep Iraq from spiraling into communal genocide. But it seems less and less likely that the new political system will successfully adjudicate disputes between these sectarian/ethnic groups. There is just too much anger boiling up over decades of Saddam’s tyranny and post-Saddam anarchy for the Iraqi people to place much trust in the hands of the new government. And sadly, there is virtually nothing the United States can do about it at this point.
“But Strategic Redeployment calls for fewer troops, not more troops!”
Um, exactly. It’s shit or get off the pot time, Stick. Either we pull out and pray for the best (while doing everything we can politically and economically to avoid a bloodier civil war) or we put in more troops so we can actually control the violence long enough to build up political and economic institutions that might do some good in the long haul. Staying the course, as is, just isn’t going to cut it but that’s all the loyal Bush supporters have been calling for.
When Dugger suggests that all we need to to do in Iraq is just stay, he’s advocating a loosing strategy. So is Bush.
My understanding of the relationship of the Shia and Sunni in Iraq is that for many generations it was tolerant. From reading blogs by actual Iraqi people, instead of the media and blogs based in the US, it seems intermarriage was common and especially in the large cities mixed neighborhoods weren’t at all unusual. Clan violence, mostly personal bloodfeuds based on family honor, did occur, but many of the clans are mixed Shia and Sunni. The Shia in the south and the slums of Baghdad were subject to persecution that stemmed more from political and economic factors than religious ones. The Kurds have had a large insurgency fighting for self government for years, in Turkey and Iran too, but there were Kurds in Saddam’s Baathist regime also. Tarik Azziz, Saddam’s Prime Minister, was a Christian. Obviously this diversity is no excuse for the evil that they did, but from the consensus of longtime emnity of Biblical proportions evidenced by the posters here one would think that Iraqis of different religions couldn’t stand to be in the same room, let alone run a country.
Impor: What are you trying to do? Talking facts and common sense around here! Don’t you know what that does to a liberal’s BP? Shame on you!
Frank_D Says:
March 13th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Of course. That s why whatever liberals do is always justified. If it advances the mission, it s OK. The mission? To get everyone to think and act like liberals, including all our politicians.
Gee, Frank, I must have missed that in the Liberal’s Handbook.
Maybe because conservatives keep trying to write it, and tell liberals what they think, how they think, and why they do what they do. Simply amazing how they can read those liberal minds, and they can know exactly how others think…
And, nice jibe about how liberals don’t talk facts and common sense. Coming from a guy who just linked to an incident from the 1880’s when comparing radical liberals to radical conservatives like Tim McVeigh. I forget – did McVeigh bomb that federal building at the turn on the twentieth century?
Maybe you can point out to us all how those unpatriotic liberals tried to blow up the British Parliament in the 1600’s next…
Dugger said “I wonder what would happen if we passed a resolution in Congress committing forces to a minimum of ten years in Iraq – as required. Maybe they would be able to come home in a year.”
As was said earlier, why hasn’t the GOP Congress called for more money and especially more troops? I suggest you ask them to support your idea. They appear on C-Span often, you can call in and start the public ball rolling.
They won’t do it because they no longer believe we can prevail on the terms President Bush established.
Oliver, you are obviously correct that the National Strategy does not define “victory”. President Bush and his supporters have repeatedly claimed that it does define victory. I haven’t found it in there either, but if they want to claim it I’m willing to hang it around their necks.
Last, I don’t think it’s a religous civil war. It’s a civil war between organizations vying for power and control that may be Sunni/Shia. But religion is not the driver.
It’s a book…
zak,
Posibly the GOP doesn’t like my idea at all and would probably regard it as political suicide.
Dugger
Maybe you can point out to me what McVeigh has to do with conservative politics?
Incidentally, for a guide to the left’s “missionary zeal”, I recommend Thomas Sowell’s “Vision of the Anointed“
Frank –
I love it, some right-wing egg head from the Hoover Institute attacking the so-called “elite left-wing intelligentsia” in a fit of faux-populism. Gimme a break.
The people that the Right loves to demean as the “elite liberal intelligentsia” are known to everyone else for what they really are: Policy experts. Maybe if the Right Wings think tanks stopped funding morons like Sowell whose sole task is to concoct blatatantly rhetorical broadsides against liberals, and actually started funding research into policy matters, the Republicans in power now might have some modest, basic understanding of how to actually govern a country.
Elrod
Excellent post, BTW.
Posibly the GOP doesn t like my idea at all and would probably regard it as political suicide.
Gee, ya think?
“Maybe if the Right Wings think tanks stopped funding morons like Sowell whose sole task is to concoct blatatantly rhetorical broadsides against liberals, and actually started funding research into policy matters, the Republicans in power now might have some modest, basic understanding of how to actually govern a country.”
Indeedy.
They have always been better at getting elected, than governing.
Frank D,
If only you and your ‘conservative’ brethren could understand subtext maybe we wouldn’t have our nuts in this vise in Iraq. The point of my post is that this illegal, unjustified, adventurist, economically motivated, deception based war brought to us by the Bush administration and a cabal of philosophically and morally bankrupt neocon bullies is why there is sectarian violence in Iraq. The fact that we ‘toppled’ Saddam is why there is a civil war going on now in Iraq. We are to blame. The fact is that the Bush/Rumsfeld strategy of fighting an unpopular war on the other side of the globe against a motivated populace who believe they are defending their homeland and their faith is incredibly stupid. There’s some facts for you to chew on. Is that ‘liberal’ enough for you?
Ignore him! Ignore him! Maybe he’ll go away…
Frank_D Says:
March 14th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Maybe you can point out to me what McVeigh has to do with conservative politics?
Maybe you can point out to me what the anarchists you linked to have to do with liberal politics? Or are you trying to suggest that anarchists = liberals? If so, then you shouldn’t be at all offended if others make the libertarian (McVeigh) = conservative connection, right?
If you’re not just using double standards, and trying to create some sort of false equivalence here, that is. At least you didn’t trot out any Kennedy references this time…
Oh, yeah – thanks so much for linking to another conservative’s take on how liberals think. Thomas Sowell, and his opinions on liberals and liberalism, have zero credibility in my eyes. Your recommendations, at least, are fairly consistent. Fairly consistently a load of crap, but fairly consistent nonetheless. Are you sure it’s not a comic book? I mean, intentionally a comic book?
(: Tom
I guess your last comment is your way of saying, “Since I can’t answer your question, I will ask you one.”
Worked real good, huh?
Impor: You call your DU / KOS propaganda “facts”?
Cryin’ out loud, you’ve got every left wing myth, fable, and generic BS story in one comment. While I commend your ability at summation (perhaps you should seek employment at Readers’ Digest) your failure to grasp what went on, what is going on, and what will be going on, in Iraq, is staggering.
May I summarize even further? We are to blame. ‘Nuff said?
Still haven’t answered the question, eh, Tom?
I’ll ask anybody, and everybody, then: What does McVeigh have to do with conservative politics?
Follow up question: Is he connected to conservative politics the way L.H. Oswald was connected to liberal politics?
Put your hand down, Tom, I want someone else to answer…
It always works for you, don’t it, Frank?
Ignore him! Ignore him! Maybe he ll go away&
Frank- Lee Harvey Oswald was either a communist or a CIA/Mafia operative. While the first absolutely rules out him having anything to do with ‘liberal’ politics the second sure seems like it would also. We are to blame for the sectarian violence that is going in Iraq now. If we weren’t there the people would be suffering run of the mill totalitarian dictator violence. The kind Rumsfeld condoned when he shook Saddam’s hand right around the time he was gassing his own citizens and Iranian troops. You could look it up!
“Ignore him! Ignore him! Maybe he ll go away& ”
Frank encapsulates Bush’s entire approach to the problems in Iraq: “If I just shut my eyes tight enough, it will all go away …”
“What does McVeigh have to do with conservative politics?”
Holy crap Frank, McVeigh embodied the extreme right wing in this country. He was avenging Ruby Ridge and Waco, for crying out loud.
Frank_D Says:
March 14th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Still haven t answered the question, eh, Tom?
I ll ask anybody, and everybody, then: What does McVeigh have to do with conservative politics?
Follow up question: Is he connected to conservative politics the way L.H. Oswald was connected to liberal politics?
Put your hand down, Tom, I want someone else to answer&
I must have missed the post where you were givven the exclusive right to tell evveryone else when, where and how they can comment on Oliver Willis’ blog. It must have been the same post where it was explained how Frank can pull wild-ass incoherent BS out of his pie hole and use his distortions to define what his idealogical opponents’ mindset is.
As for the latest re-wording of your question: McVeigh was extremely conservative – just slightly to the right of the OxyContin Kid. He was a member of the Michigan Militia and claimed to be associated with the Christian Identity movement – both of which want to try and influence political policy in order to make it more conservative. The Michigan Militia holds the ideals of Grover Norquist dear, and the christian identity people worship Falwell and Robertson and their ideals about how a government should be run.
Please enlighten us as to what your beliefs are regarding Lee Harvey Oswald and his liberal political connections. I’m sure it was just a coincidence that he helped to assassinate the most liberal president the US had (s)elected up to that point, what with him being such a staunch liberal and all…
Oh, yeah – and you can shove all of your faith-based speaking on behalf of all things liberal up any orifice on your person you consider appropriate. I don’t have to follow your rules, boy…
Oswald was handing out “be fair to Castro” pamphlets on the streets of New Orleans, but of course, that’s not a leftist position. I guess he just loved Cuba, eh?
Why don’t you guys get real, here. McVeigh was practically a minority of one — you’re acting like he was the Keynote speaker at the 1996 Rep Convention.
Frank, McVeigh was part of the militia MOVEMENT. He didn’t just emerge from the ether.
That’s all you got? Oswald passed out some pamphlets about being fair to Castro? And that makes him some sort of bleeding heart liberal?
Plus, you admonish others to get real, and then tar the entirety of liberal thought because Oswald passed out some pamphlets which you claim support a leftist (not liberal, but leftist. After getting your knickers in a twist because someone used your own standards to say that McVeigh was a conservative, not a rightist. Funny how that seems to be okay for conservatives to do, but no one else. Hmmmm…). Beam me up Scotty, there’s no intelligent conservative life down here…
For the record, this liberal also supports being fair to Castro – in all fairness, he should be strung up by the relatives of those he has disappeared over the years. After he gets a fair trial, and the record of his atrocities is put in the public spotlight.
Maybe one day some purported conservatives could get behind showing the same sort of fairness to the Illegally Installed Drunken Cokeheaded Usurper. You know – engaging in an inquiry to find out if there are high crimes and misdemeanors going on in the White House right now, stopping all of the other business of the government, and starting up impeachment proceedings if they are required. It seemed to be no problem at all to do that when we had a war going on and a president who was getting blowjobs from someone who was not his wife. It was so important at the time that we had to put him under oath in order to find a trumped up charge to impeach him with. Unlike now, when we have such a morally upstanding gentleman in the office, we can’t even ask him to testify under oath about his actions on 9-11. Or even appear before a committee without his veep coaching his testimony holding his hand accompanying him during all of his appearances befoire the committee. Why, I bet he would get rid of staff, or pressure other government officials in his party to resign, if they gave even the appearance of impropriety! Oh, wait…
Oops! The strikeout keyword works in preview, but not on the page. The words
coaching his testimony
and
holding his hand
in the last paragraph of my previous comment should have had lines drawn through them.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Only if you agree that Oswald was an ultra – left wing liberal.
You’re boring me, Tom…
You started this mess — get yourself out of it.
You can start with a three or four hundred word post, about how Oswald, who defected to the USSR, planned to assassinate Gen Walker because he was a “rightist”, advocated “Fair Play for Cuba”, and blamed Kennedy for the Cuban Missile Crisis, had no relation to the left, BUT, McVeigh, who was associated with organizations somewhere to the right of Attilla the Hun, was related to conservatives.
Oh, that’s right — you don’t take orders from me.
Well, then, whatever.
McVeigh was an ultra-right wing conservative, why can’t you just admit that?
No, Tom, you got it right the first time.
Oswald & McVeigh; both nutjobs on opposite sides of the spectrum. Agreed?
I wouldn’t say he was liberal, Frank. I would say he was a leftist. You may not see the distinction, but we do. Trust me, there is one.
Fine, then I guess McVeigh is not a conservative. You may not see the distinction, but we (meaning, not “Oliver’s Army of Repetitious Robots, but, rather, every conservative in the USA) do. Trust me, there is one.
Don’t think this is the time to discuss JFK assasination.
But, Frank please stop swallowing the whole hog of Oswald being
a leftist. That is, unless you also subscribe to the fairy-dusted
“Magic Bullet Theory”.
Cleo, Master of the Non Sequitur, strikes again!
Sure, I started this mess.
I was the one who brought up McVeigh. Oh, wait…
I was the one who used a link to an article about the Haymaker Riots in order to confuse the issue. Oh, wait…
I was the one who dragged Lee Harvery Oswald into the discussion, and triesd to paint him as a sterling example of liberalism. Oh, wait…
I was the one who used moldy figures from over forty years ago to rebut someone talking about the present day. Oh, wait…
I was the one to try and infer that communism as it existed in the world when the USSR was a going concern (which was a totalitarian state dictatorship that tried to pretend it had something to do with socialism IMHO) can be considered liberal. Oh, wait…
Got any 400 word posts of your own to put some more Reich Wing spin on the discussion? Maybe you can link to a post from Powerline about how Atilla the Hun and Genghis Khan were really the first liberals, and therefore all of liberalism is full of crap.
And please notice that I made no demands of you to satisfy my debate points, even though you still feel you have the right to tell others what they’re thinking, how they’re thinking it, and how they will (not should, but will) live their lives.
I’m starting to agree with those here who think clowns like the trolls around here must be Republibot talking points software.
Fine, then I guess McVeigh is not a conservative.
Okay, Frank, I’ll bite. What would you call him, then? What would motivate someone who belonged to a “state militia” and supported the overthrow of the Clinton government by force to blow up a federal office building in downtown Oklahoma City on the anniversary of the Waco seige?
What would you call someone like that? A Moderate?
..and you say I need meds…
Maybe he was a nut. Maybe his poltics was really secondary to a host of personal problems, that made him both destructive and self – destructive. I’m just not willing to call him a conservative, anymore than you are to call LH Oswald a liberal.
Tom: mr.curmudgeon Says:
March 13th, 2006 at 11:15 am
Well Frank, it has been a few years since some right-wing whack job has bombed an abortion clinic and/or federal building.
This from Wikipedia;
“McVeigh was a self described libertarian [1] and an anti-government extremist, with a long background in the survivalist movement.”
He was a Libertarian. I’m satisfied.
And this on Oswald;
Although a Marxist, Oswald wished to join the US Marines.
So, hey I guess we’re both wrong, huh? They were neither.