NBC admits what everyone with a brain has known, Iraq is in civil war. The usual whining is up on the right, but if anything NBC and the rest of the MSM is a couple months late to the game. Iraq has been in civil war for some time now, and no amount of conservative pretending will change that.
» Breaking News
Babysitter Synjan Mitchell Arrested For Leaving Kids To Go Drinking
Gemma Atkinson Promotes Command & Conquer Red Alert
Uganda Cops Warn About Knock-Out Breasts
CNBC Forced To Cut Costs
Sumner Redstone Sells Midway Games To Ease Cash Crunch
I can’t believe we’re still arguing semantics with such things. It’s not “kidnapping,” it’s “rendition,” it’s not “torture,” it’s “aggressive interrogation,” it’s not “civil war,” it’s “sectarian violence,” and it’s not even “hunger” anymore, it’s “low food security.”
I’d swear the neocon movement was made up of bitter, bitter English majors if it weren’t for the anguished lexicon of the Commander-in-Chief.
The MSM is about as Conservative as Hollywood. I would wonde which of the following networks you would call liberal or conservative.
ABC
NBC
CNN
PMSNBC
Fox News (ranked #1, again)
BBC
This is Dan Rather reporting…
That guy was just a minor slipup right?
Na, he was outright lying to grab ratings.
Just like the rest of the MSM, let’s bash Bush and see how far that gets us. And Fox is still #1.
I want to live in Jeff’s world coz it’s pretty there!!
Jeff, Kofi Annan has announced that Iraq is almost in civil war. Should we just ignore him because you and The Decider know that we’re perfectly capable of invading another country and kicking their asses to embrace democracy and stand on their own two feet?
It would have been in the best interest of the United States as well as the Iraqi citizenry to have left Saddam in power. 600,000 dead Iraqis and rising. Keep bleating about the media, Jeff. It really demonstrates the quality of your character.
So…after all is said and done in the media. What do we do about the Iraq situation?
Time to leave. I’m not sure why this is seen as complex.
An interesting question, Dkelsmith, at this 3 year cluster fuck juncture when the American people have shouted “Enough!!” to The Decider who made it clear he’s happy to bequeath it to the next President.
Many would not have allowed the situation to deteriorate to its current state while repeating how well things are going.
So…after all is said and done in the media. What do we do about the Iraq situation?
No, you just don’t get it.
The media is responsible for all the bad things in Iraq. Why can’t you libtards figure that out? If CNN would just stop reporting about the insurgency, it would simply cease to exist. Or at least it wouldn’t be on TV, and patriotic Republicans everywhere wouldn’t have to be briefly uncomfortable before they could change the channel.
That’s not a “Iraq situation,” Dkel, it’s an “unfortunate occurrence in the former Mesopotamia.”
Just like the rest of the MSM, let’s bash Bush and see how far that gets us.
Yeah, lord knows how much bush bashing they were doing while they were unquestioningly reporting on Gore claiming he invented the internet when he made no such claim, saying he was the basis for Love Story when he didnt, and saying he discovered the Love Canal problem when he never claimed that. Oh also when they were letting people on calling Kerry a war criminal with no evidence to support such a claim yet saying it over and over again. Both those times they were doing a whole mess of Bush-bashing weren’t they?Just couldnt stop getting their librul digs in on the greatest human being in the world. Must be because they’re communists. Also gay.
So…after all is said and done in the media. What do we do about the Iraq situation?
I take the counterintuitive view that the way to keep things from getting even more violent in the long run is for us to get the hell out of there. Tragic circumstance is that we cannot achieve for the Iraqi what they do not seem to want themselves. Either an acceptable governing body will emerge or it wont and we will see mass exodus. Either way I think fewer people die in the long run.
The latest rationalization from the right for our continued presence in Iraq is that we’re there to prevent (or maybe just delay) the unrestrained killing that will occur when we leave.
This is a textbook example of “begging the question.”
The assertion contains within itself its own justifiction: “We must avoid our inevitable failure because if we don’t, we will fail.”
The plain facts are that the situation deteriorates as the weeks drag on. We can’t send more troops because there aren’t any more troops. We can’t sustain the current troop levels because that level is insufficient to control the violence. We can’t reduce our troop levels because we would be humiliated on the world stage.
What now, smart guys?
The plain facts are that the situation deteriorates as the weeks drag on.
What ‘plain’ did those ‘facts’ come from. 2006 per month is safer than 2005 which was safer han 2004 (per mponth, US).
So you’re on your way over there then?
I presume Dugger yet again doesn’t count the Iraqi civilians in his brilliant assessment of the occupation.
But hey, why not? If all the Iraqi civilians are killed, then eventually the place will become safer. What’s the point of sectarian death squads and IEDs if you no longer have a target-rich environment? In fact, I bet if we just napalm the country altogether, there won’t be any more violence at all!
BD | Nov 27, 2006 4:35:47 PM
“I bet if we just napalm the country altogether, there won’t be any more violence at all!”
pedugger just got an erection.
What ‘plain’ did those ‘facts’ come from.
A bombing that kills 200. Dozens of bodies, bound and tortured, on the streets of Baghdad each morning. An insurgency that continues to be well-funded through oil smuggling.
But what the heck, the average per month is down a bit. Stay the course!
Don’t be bitter Quaker.
I merely pointed out that the US death rate trend is definitely down. And actually, as I have shown before, more total were dying under Saddam than now post Iraq war. Rate and total.
I merely pointed out that the US death rate trend is definitely down. And actually, as I have shown before, more total were dying under Saddam than now post Iraq war.
Very well. But both of your observations evade rather than refute my assertion: the situation continues to deteriorate.
More people died–on average–under Saddam than last week? Irrelevant. Our ability to sustain order can’t rightly be compared to a time when we weren’t even present. Fewer of our soldiers–again on average–are dying? Myopic. If one takes that to be the telling measure of “the situation,” then a complete pullout would make the numbers better still.
If you’re going to challenge my statement about the trend of events, then speak to the trend, not to invented and incomplete comparisons.
“And actually, as I have shown before”
Dugger, you’ve never shown this evidence when asked. And in fact, given the 600,000 Iraqi civilian deaths since Bush’s invasion, the death rate has gone way up.
The song remains the same, even if Dugger can barely sing it.
If our occupation ends up getting just one less person killed than were killed under Saddam’s reign, then Dugger would still treat it as if we’d created Eden in the Green Zone.
When you add up the harm Bush’s invasion has caused to Iraqi civilians alone, it would have been better if Saddam were still in power, from a citizen’s perspective. From the perspective of U.S. interests, that’s also the case. All the Bushistas like Dugger can concern themselves with, however, is finding a way to blame Democrats for the anarchy and chaos in Iraq. Thanks again, guys.
Let’s accept, for the sake of argument, the totally crazed argument that life under a cruel, murderous dictator is better than the situation there now.
Let’s accept, for the sake of argument, the totally outrageous and fictitious figure of 600,000 Iraqi deaths.
Can you seriously pretend that we can just march out of Iraq without encouraging Jihadis everywhere? Can we just march out of Iraq, and seriously give warnings to places like to Iran and North Korea, that will be taken seriously?
Can we just march out of Iraq, and not expect that countries trying to decide whether to ally themselves with China, Russia or with us, will choose us?
We’ve already seen, in the last thirty years, how gunshy (that is, gutless) we have become since our failed action (thanks almost entirely to the US Congress) in Vietnam. Do you want to extend that period of faulty foreign policy, for another three or four more decades?
I know you lefties are all into feelings, and intuition and stuff, but try using your heads for something besides a tin foil hat, will you?
Quaker, OK. Your standard of comparison was last week. Are you aware that November looks like it could be the safest month for US and coalition troops since early 2004. You could just as easily draw broad sweeping, ‘everything is getting better’ conclusions (versus your ‘everything is going to hell’)from that. Thats why the yearly aggregations are more meaningful. Oct thru Jan have historically been the deadliest months in Iraq.
Iraq Body Count (average) total civilian deaths since Mar 2003: 52,454. 43 months. Av. 2000 per month.
Saddam 288 months in power. est 1,200,000 dead (500K war, 100K Kurds, 600K Iraq civilians). 4,200 per month average.
Note figures are from middle of the road sources. You can argue either way but Saddam’s total would have to be about half - merely to equal the current carnage.
fd10801 | Nov 27, 2006 5:50:46 PM
“I know you lefties are all into feelings, and intuition and stuff, but try using your heads for something besides a tin foil hat, will you?”
LoL … thank goodness the Commander in Chief and President of the Unites States of America didn’t use HIS tin foil hat and think before giving the thumb’s up for the invasion:
– Can you seriously pretend that we can just march out of Iraq without encouraging Jihadis everywhere?
– Can we just march out of Iraq, and seriously give warnings to places like to Iran and North Korea, that will be taken seriously?
– Can we just march out of Iraq, and not expect that countries trying to decide whether to ally themselves with China, Russia or with us, will choose us?
“Do you want to extend that period of faulty foreign policy, for another three or four more decades?”
You guys just don’t get it.
All the shit that you say is going to happen if we pull out is ALREADY HAPPENING or it has ALREADY HAPPENED. You’re like a drunk driver who’s crashed into a tree but is still sitting there in shock, turning the wheel thinking they still have time to avoid catastrophe.
Iraq is in a civil war. The terrorists have already claimed victory. They’re already using Iraq as a recruiting tool. North Korea and Iran aren’t taking us seriously because they know were stretched thin in Iraq. The incpompetence of the Bush administration has already exposed US weaknesses when confronted with counter insurgencies.
It’s done. It’s over. We are not going to be able to accomplish anything militarily in Iraq except hold our own.
I merely pointed out that the US death rate trend is definitely down. And actually, as I have shown before, more total were dying under Saddam than now post Iraq war.
What are you talking about? The death rate for US troops in Iraq under Saddam was pretty much zero.
I mean, that’s your whole point isn’t it? US casualties are the only thing that matter to you.
Keep dragging that dead horse around, Dugger, and it’s gonna start to smell.
You could just as easily draw broad sweeping, ‘everything is getting better’ conclusions
Go right ahead.
Meanwhile, even a cursory perusal of the news from Iraq will tell otherwise.
– Can you seriously pretend that we can just march out of Iraq without encouraging Jihadis everywhere?
– Can we just march out of Iraq, and seriously give warnings to places like to Iran and North Korea, that will be taken seriously?
– Can we just march out of Iraq, and not expect that countries trying to decide whether to ally themselves with China, Russia or with us, will choose us?
Ah, the war-as-propaganda argument. That’s about the bottom of the barrel, isn’t it?
“Saddam 288 months in power. est 1,200,000 dead (500K war, 100K Kurds, 600K Iraq civilians). 4,200 per month average.”
Think about the moral implications of Dugger’s math.
According to him, 4,199 Iraqis could be dying every month in Iraq and he’d still be able to claim that Iraq is better off than they were under Hussein. Even more, over a million Iraqis could be wiped out next week and he could say the same thing.
It’s chilling the level of horror that right wingers are willing accept to defend this failed administration and its failed policies.
The chilling part is that frameone is willing to accept twice the death rate or more if we leave.
As FD and dugger point out, what the leftists want is plausible deniabilty. If we don’t DO anything, then we can always find some other reason for a bad outcome. Clinton bailed out of Somalia, but that had NOTHING to do with the rising star of OBL (even though OBL himself stated it did).
If we pulled all our troops out tomorrow, and they were stringing children up in the streets two things would happen:
The media would ignore it, cause it would be to dangerous to report, and therefore they would simply get info from some unknown informant while sitting in a hotel bar (a’la CNN Eason Jordan)
When word of the atrocity did get out the lefties would continue to blame it on the invasion.
When a bunch of other countries then realized that we were a toothless tiger, the lefties would simply state, without any evidence of course, that our leaving Iraq “had nothing to do with it..”
Just like our going into Iraq had “nothing to do with” Khaddafi giving up his terrorist ways…
“The chilling part is that frameone is willing to accept twice the death rate or more if we leave.”
pedro, you moron, Dugger is willing to accept 1.2 million Iraqi casualties before he’d be willing to concede that we fucked Iraq up. Are you?
I don’t know how our withdrawal will effect the death rate in Iraq but the bottom line is that our withdrawal is the only thing on the table right now that holds out any hope of possibly reducing it by opening up a space for political, diplomatic talks. As long as we’re there with our thumb on the scale, no one will have any faith in the current government. Which is one reason why the bloodshed continues.
Peed’, most of what you predict has actually already happened.
If we don’t DO anything, then we can always find some other reason for a bad outcome. Mr. Bush already admits he’ll pass the problem to his successor without taking decisive action.
The media would ignore it, cause it would be to dangerous to report, and therefore they would simply get info from some unknown informant while sitting in a hotel bar Already happening. Few journalists will scoot a toe outside the
Green Zone.
When word of the atrocity did get out the lefties would continue to blame it on the invasion. Indeed. We’ve opened this box of hell. Whatever follows can be traced back to the day–prior to 9-11–that George Bush decided to invade Iraq.
When a bunch of other countries then realized that we were a toothless tiger, the lefties would simply state, without any evidence of course, that our leaving Iraq “had nothing to do with it..” They already realize it and we haven’t left yet. Safe assumption.
This is why I can’t take you leftists seriously
” We’ve opened this box of hell. Whatever follows can be traced back to the day–prior to 9-11–that George Bush decided to invade Iraq.”
The mass graves..? The use of chemical weapons? The prisons designed to torture children? All before Bush “opened this box of hell…”
Christ I have never seen a group of people more interested in historical revisionism in my life…
dugger, do you include the deaths in the war with iran when you add up the deaths under saddam? also who are your “middle of the road” sources?”
Hey lefties, who wrote this?
“You’ve spoke about having seen the children’s prisons in Iraq. Can you describe what you saw there?
The prison in question is at the General Security Services headquarters, which was inspected by my team in Jan. 1998. It appeared to be a prison for children — toddlers up to pre-adolescents — whose only crime was to be the offspring of those who have spoken out politically against the regime of Saddam Hussein. It was a horrific scene. Actually I’m not going to describe what I saw there because what I saw was so horrible that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right now I’m waging peace.
Now try looking up iraqi child prisons and what do you get…
Pages and pages of stories about “children” locked up by coalition forces…
Yet where are the stories about TRUE child prisons? Where is the in-depth reporting based on….wait for it….your buddy and mine…
Scott Ritter’s own words!
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html
Something so horrible that the mere mention of it would drive a country over the edge to war…yet here is our brave media…ignoring it. And the witness is a fucking ex-(and I do mean “ex”) Marine! Way to look out for the defenseless scott! Semper fi dude….
But, when some iraqi “policeman” tells stories of Iraqi’s burned alive…well, get that on the front page…but of course, we are slowly learning that that Iraqi is likely a plant for the insurgents. And where is the media looking into those allegations? Hmmm…all I hear are crickets…
Yea Ollie, lets get the press to “admit the truth”…
Yes, please mr reporter, PLEASE admit the truth…
“BIG UPDATE…..Centcom has confirmed this Capt. Jamil Hussein is NOT a Police Officer nor is he employed by the Ministry of Interior:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Associated Press:
On Nov. 24, 2006, your organization published an article by Qais Al-Bashir about six Sunnis being burned alive in the presence of Iraqi Police officers. This news item, which is below, received an enormous amount of coverage internationally.
We at Multi-National Corps - Iraq made it known through MNC-I Press Release Number 20061125-09 and our conversations with your reporters that neither we nor Baghdad Police had any reports of such an incident after investigating it and could find no one to corroborate the story. A couple of hours ago, we learned something else very important. We can tell you definitively that the primary source of this story, police Capt. Jamil Hussein, is not a Baghdad police officer or an MOI employee. We verified this fact with the MOI through the Coalition Police Assistance Training Team.
read it all….
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/11/ap-is-busted-uses-bogus-source-for.html
Lefty hypocritical swine…..
Time traveling, Peed’?
You wrote:
” We’ve opened this box of hell. Whatever follows can be traced back to the day–prior to 9-11–that George Bush decided to invade Iraq.”
The mass graves..? The use of chemical weapons? The prisons designed to torture children? All before Bush “opened this box of hell…”
The mass graves, the chemical weapons, the torture, the prisons, did not follow our invasion. They preceded it.
If you wish to change the subject, do. But include me out.
Pedro’s entered a major tantrum phase of his argument. Usually he avoids the curse words and bizarre grade school namecalling (”Swine”? Seriously?)
The “emboldening the terrorists” canard still out there? Do any of its proponents ever think that now the terrorists realize that if you want to weaken the American military all you have to do is fight them to a stalemate in stupid wars like this one, and their leaders will be too proud and delusional to get them out?
pedugger’s debating abilities have seriously declined since the election. It’s hilarious watching them twist, spew and insult people as they limp through their little arguments.
The best part of the Dugger/Pedro/etc. rants are the insistence that by opposing Bush and the Iraq invasion, war opponents (and there are plenty not on the left) are ENDORSING Saddam’s reign. All that grade schooling and yet they can’t get “2 wrongs don’t make a right” through their skulls.
From Dr. P’s Scott Ritter interview:
Who wants to put money on the table that Pedro won’t take him up on the challenge?
More from the interview:
First, you have to love the distortion inherent in the question, conflating Ritter’s assertion that Saddam had not disarmed with the argument that Saddam has WMD’s. Unless you consider all weapons WMDs, of course.
So Ritter was (and presumably still is) an advocate for a rational, measured response and likes to base his actions on evidence. The children’s prisons, by his own admission, were horrible. However, he also clearly believed that to bring such evidence to light would be inflammatory and counter productive. By leveraging sanctions and inspections he seemed to think we could do more to improve Iraq than through outright bombing. Not that we weren’t bombing Iraq for years before the war and watching as sanctions fell most heavily on the poorest Iraqis, causing an explosion in the death rate for children (up to 1,000,000).
Through our destabilizing invasion we have freed children from the fear of dying in a state sanctioned prison…well, except for Abu Ghraib…so they can live and play in sun…just watch out for the IEDs and roving militias…and sleep securely in their homes…Haditha what now?
Lucky
This is what freedom looks like
The nauseating thing about the above link is that it is one of the most tame I could find. Just Google for Iraq and child casualties and you’ll find plenty worse. It absolutely boggles my mind that anyone can claim this represents an improvement.
Boy, those wingers sure are a compassionate bunch.
…holy sh*t…
Iraq is a huge cluster fuck. It’s so bad we aren’t really discussing how to win, but which way to lose would be less bad. Stay or go? Both positions have merit, which one will be worse?
lawguy
Yes and Iraq Body Count for post Bush war; and just many multiple sites for total under Saddam. There are estimates higher and lower both sides. Of course, nobody knows the true totals - for sure. All are best estimates. My point would be the magnitude of the diffrence overcomes estimate variances.
lawguy
Afterthought. I guess you could add about 3000 US/coaliton casualties to the ‘Bush’ total. Would drive the Bush average toa round 1280 vresus 1200 (I mistakenly said 2000 in earlier post).
Iraq Body Count is not an estimate of total civilian deaths. Dugger, you are lying when you represent it as such, since you know that all it is is a record of deaths that are covered in English language newspapers. When will you debate this issue as an honorable adult?
The best estimate we have on Iraqi civilian deaths is the Johns Hopkins study, using the same methodology as we used to estimate deaths in Darfur, in pre-invasion Iraq, and every other war-torn area where records are unavailable.
600,000 deaths as a result of Bush’s invasion. And no right-winger has a shred of logic to rebut it. Just blind faith in the Iraq Body Count website, without apparently even caring to know what that site even does. Pathetic.
Dana Priest of the Washington Post said that her paper would not call it a Civil War because the administration and the Iraqi government had yet to do so. In other words, they work for the administration and will not go against what Bush tells them to do adn say.
Yea bill, guys who are defensive about there history threaten to “beat people up”…guys who are confident with themselves and their arguments…don’t.
Of course NO ONE here will even mention the part about child prisons that even the traitor Ritter acknowledges but refuses to expose to the light of day…he’s a real hero that Ritter
Pedro,
What exactly is your point? Are you suggesting that we base our policies now on what Hussein did then? Are you suggesting that we should adopt Hussein’s moral system as the moral measure of our own actions in Iraq? Which is to say, as long we don’t open prisons for children or kill a million people in the next ten years, then everything is okay? Are you suggesting that since anyting is better than life under Hussein than any level of violence and horror is now acceptable?
I think that the United States of America should hold itself to a higher standard than that, for godssakes.
pedugger, your mewly responses are spotlighting your total lack of argument and substance.
yea paul, of course I am…
stop being deliberatly obtuse.
The fact that you DON’T think the US is holding itself to a higher standard demonstrates your tenuous grasp of reality.
Unfortunately, since most liberals live in some happy, pink land with nothing but wine and roses…they believe that the only standard that the US should live up to is perfection. And if you can’t achieve perfection then everyone should just take their toys and go home.
There is a word for that sort of a mindset.
Childlike….
No, the standard for a given foreign policy is whether it helps or hurt our interests. the Iraq invasion has inarguably hurt our interests, both regionally and beyond. Additionally, it has led to the death of over half a million Iraqis and has put the country into a state of chaos, civil war, and ethnic cleansing.
The Iraq invasion has been a failure both on a practical standard and a moral one. You need to better understand the liberal point of view Pedro; sad that all you can see is your right-wing caricature of what we actually believe.
“The fact that you DON’T think the US is holding itself to a higher standard demonstrates your tenuous grasp of reality.”
What? When did I ever say that? If you weren’t suggesting that we should use Hussein’s behavior as a standard for our behavior, I will repeat my question, what the hell is your point?
The best part of the american leftist argument is the continued refrain something is “inarguable”. They somehow believe that by making that statement, they will silence any opposition…it happens with global warming, it happens with iraq.
It must be a by-product of the “liberal” open-mindedness
LOL
And what argument, exactly, have you been making, pedro? You still haven’t answered my question. You mentioned children’s prisons in Iraq. So what the hell is your point?
Oh and pedro, please don’t tell me I have to remind you of that classic right wing tactic of accepting without question “factoids” of dubious validity and then repeating them ad naseum as if sheer repetition coujld turn fictions into fact.
When faced with that sort of logic, ya, a lot of things become “inarguable.”
Sheesh what an idiot.
I thought this was interesting:
And here I thought this was kind of interesting.