Two key Democrats, including U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, said Sunday they could back a temporary increase in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq – but only if that surge was for a very short period and specifically helped end American involvement.
At least three other Democrats, as well as former Secretary of State Colin Powell, saw little help from such a surge.
And on the other side of the Iraq debate, Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., and John McCain, R-Ariz., are saying additional troops are not only needed, but should not be subject to any withdrawal timeline.
This is precisely why folks like me furrow our brows when others say Barack Obama hasn’t been in the senate long enough to run for President. The institution sucks all the life out of people, it leads them to choose cautious, stupid positions with no relation to reality and then turn to their 99 colleagues who pronounce it “sensible”.
That’s about the best argument for Obama that I’ve heard yet.
I don’t believe that many of these folks are even capable of thinking beyond their own acquisition of power. Not that they are corrupt so much as that they know exactly one trick and cannot learn a second one.
Many of our distinguished, long serving tribunes of the people helped get us into this madness. So maybe your right, We need someone who’s not been poisoned by the atmosphere to get us out.
I hate to say, “I told you so,” so I’ll just say, “ITYS.”
It’s simple:
1) Either the Dems cannot avoid the reality of our need to finish what we started;
2) Or they have no way to get out without looking like cowardly dogs.
Too bad they fooled the voters in ‘06.
As for ‘08, you know the saying: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, etc.
The institution sucks all the life out of people, it leads them to choose cautious, stupid positions with no relation to reality and then turn to their 99 colleagues who pronounce it “sensible”.
Yes, and if any pol publicly deviates from those ‘cautious’ positions, the corporate media and all the ’sensible’ people in the blogosphere label her ‘crazy’ and ‘embarrassing.’
Wanting to have it both ways is the Clintonian trap of ‘centrism.’ It is the delicious poison served up by Rahm Emanuel in the latest election cycle, and it will be in the display window for the Dems in ‘08. The only Dem not selling it will be Kucinich, who is already being called a kook and worse by centrist Dems for throwing his hat in the ring.
I hope the centrists in the audience like the taste of Iraqi blood, because that’s what they’ve bought with their vociferous support for– er, sensibility.
“I hope the centrists in the audience like the taste of Iraqi blood,”
…if centrists did they would want Bush out, inasmuch as less total (including Iraqis) have died since he overthrew the dictator.
Dugger, please stop with that, we have no way to reliably project how many Iraqis would have died these past 3+ years if we left Saddam in power, no reliable count of the number of Iraqi deaths during this time span of the Glorious War Everlasting, and no sensible way to compare these two numbers we dont really have. Please stop inferring from heavily weighted historical averages and cherrypicking data to support a point that says, at its core “the current violent civil chaos in Iraq is better than order under an oppressive regime because the gross total of deaths is probably less, though not by very much.” Seriously, its getting kind of disgusting.
FD: I’ll spare us all the retolling of the “fool me once” axiom by the illustrious George Nuculer Dubya Internets Bush to say 1- What we started is beyond our ability to control or “finish” at this point, and nothing said anywhere much less here even suggests there are attainable goals for our military to reach at this point, and 2- The only reason that we, the Americans, would look like cowardly dogs for leaving a war zone that shows no sign of improving irrespective of the effort exerted on it is because sensible, compassionate, troop-supporting America-loving geniuses like you WOULD NEVER STOP SAYING WHAT COWARDS AMERICANS WERE. You have to stop pretending that the Democrats should be basing their policy on what would be most appeasing to your own personal, biased preceptions. Seriously, its not even funny, its practically indicative of a serious emotional disorder.
fd10801 | Dec 19, 2006 1:31:58 AM
“1) Either the Dems cannot avoid the reality of our need to finish what we started;
2) Or they have no way to get out without looking like cowardly dogs.
Too bad they fooled the voters in ‘06.
As for ‘08, you know the saying: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, etc.”
Frank, the American people aren’t stupid lemmings vulnerable to ‘being fooled’. Aside from you and pedugger, millions of voters spoke loudly and clearly to the confused, disoriented President who turned on a dime without blinking an eye and fired the Secretary of Defense.
The Decider himself knows he can’t ‘finish what we started’ WITH the guy who spearheaded the entire operation.
I love the ‘fool me’ cliche. The Decider fucking botched that loooong, long ago!
Rex
Hells bells. Its done all the time – all the frappin time- on this site to make the case against Bush. To me the most significant thing about war is people die. If I were going to war, the cost in terms of human lives would be major point. So now you don’t want them to be considered – logically and in context?
I honestly cannot remember one post ever from you or any other left of center poster here chiding OW or the other loc posters here for using body counts against Bush and the war.
Seems like you’re just saying: I don’t like it when you fight fire with fire. Let us use fire agianst Bush and you can use a cap pistol.
Simply put, it is NOT the Senate’s job to opine about troop levels.
It IS their job to set the policy and to make sure competent people are executing the policy.
Ditto Dugger…
I would add that you don’t fight wars by measuring victory against how few men die, and how soon we are “out of there.”
I read an article recently headlined, Will We Ever Win Another War?”, by Ben Shapiro.
His answer: “Only if we combine our Cold War vigilance with our World War II ruthlessness.”
We certainly can’t do it without either.
“Hells bells. Its done all the time – all the frappin time- on this site to make the case against Bush. To me the most significant thing about war is people die. If I were going to war, the cost in terms of human lives would be major point. So now you don’t want them to be considered – logically and in context?”
What Frapping Context!? You provide no sources in this post, and Ive repeatedly disputed the accuracy of the numbers youve provided elsewhere, and used those same numbers to reach the opposite conclusion. You want to talk numbers? Give me numbers. You want to talk Context? Give me context. You want to complain that I’m scared of numbers and context that you fail to provide? Give me a damn break already.
“I honestly cannot remember one post ever from you or any other left of center poster here chiding OW or the other loc posters here for using body counts against Bush and the war.”
Fine. *Taps Mic* O-Dub? For the record, simple gross total tallys of the number of Coalition Soldiers KIA, of Iraqi civilian casualties, of attacks in a particular week, of people killed in such attacks, and generally any single number that refers to any of the negatives about this war is not, in and of itself, a good case against the war. It needs something to compare it to to make it any kind of real argument, like as I suggested if we had some theoretical baseline to compare current death rate to or something (which we dont have cause Dug insists on using average deaths per year over a time that includes wars as a baseline for deathrate during a time that otherwise wouldnt have one) but since we dont, please be aware that making posts regarding the rapidly approaching 3000 military death “milestone” arent really making any kind of argument against the war, and that they simply serve as a reminder to us that we’re still in an escalating conflict with no hope of escaping. There, Dug, Happy?
“I would add that you don’t fight wars by measuring victory against how few men die, and how soon we are “out of there.”
Oh fuck me gently with a chainsaw do you not even realize thats what the administration has been doing? “Its not quite as fatal to the civilians as Vietnam was, so therefore we haven’t lost yet.” “We lost if we lose before the undefined job is done, so we havent lost yet.” Christ, Dugger just polished off his old chestnut of “In spite of high (and rising by some numbers) civilian mortality rates, its not as bad as it might have been under Saddam, (which, again, I argue he has failed to prove) so we’re not losing yet.”
correction: “We lost if we lose…” => “We lose if we leave…”
rex,
Bullsh*t. I’ve given sources and context before.
Again. Iraq and Mideast dead post Saddam: Iraq Body Count – about 55K total since April 2003 or 43 months – rate about 1,280 per month. Pre Saddam: take your choice. Kosopaedia and Rush Limbaugh say Saddam was responsible for about about 2M. (http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm) US State Dept. here documented about 900K under Saddam – not counting Iran/Iraq war. Former US War Crimes Amb. D Scheffer detailed about 1M – again not using the Iran/Iraq war.
My number is : 1.2M = 500K Iran/Iraq war, 100K Kurds, 600K Iraqi civilians. Saddam was in power for 24 years or 288 months. Rate per month 4.2K.
The magnitude of difference is great – too great for Saddam not to have been much worse. And yes you can speculate that Saddam would have somehow stopped murdering, but 24 years worth of evidence suggests otherwise.
Take it daily. Bush 43. Saddam 140. Thre’s your g*ddamn context. Using only history as a go-by, roughly 100 mostly brown skinned people were dying per day under Saddam and the Baathists.
So it’s safe, so when are you going?
OW,
Why do you say its safe. That seems idiotic.
And I served. Do I do it twice before you do it once?
When are you lefties going to wake up? The military casualties are acceptable to the JCS, and the Iraqi casualties are acceptable to the locals.
End of story.
You can count people killed by exploding Coca – Colas in Preoria, people killed by wasps in Des Moines, Iowa and it doesn’t matter to the people who matter.
CENTCOM doesn’t care, the Iraqi government doesn’t care, and the average G.I. in Iraq is willing to stay for the duration.
If the “rumors behind the gossip behind the news” about the war were that it was a disaster; the Dems would be falling all over themselves calling for a withdrawal, wouldn’t they?
But they’re not, are they? And why not?
Because as power changes hands so does information. Now the Dems are cautious.
Now they’re not so anxious to cut and run.
Now the “not – liberal” MSM is not leaking damning classified information about the “quagmire.”
So put away your calculators, and read about how many of our guys died at Normandy, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
Thank you for supplying the numbers Dugger. I wont dispute the IraqBodyCount (I seem to remember something recently about how alot of civilian deaths in Iraq arent reported at all for some reason or other, which might make that number quite inaccurate) and will refrain from going to the Lancet report on this one, but I’m going to take severe umbrage with your Saddam numbers, not that they’re incorrect, but that they show the wrong thing.
In the last ten years of Hussein’s reign he didnt really engage in any military action against another country, so presuming he wouldnt have done for the past three years if we had never went to war, our average for this timespan shouldnt be over the sum total of all dead Iraqi’s as you use, but really over the number that died during peacetime (and yes, I realize that life under a dictator is hardly peaceful). Taking your numbers (which I’m assuming come from the Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq, which correspond directly) the useful number to take there discounts the total for the Iran/Iraq war and the Anfal Massacre, leaving us with a running total of 600,000 non-event-specific killings. Over the same Time Span that averages out to about 2,100 per month. Still greater than 55k over 43 months (1,280/month) but the difference is much less stark there. One could even argue that the monthly non-event-killings might have even been lower toward the end due to him not needing to kill as many by that point, but since I cant back anything up with numbers I’ll leave that as a mere suggestion. I will say however that ICasualties.org gives a different set of numbers still, giving the number of iraqi civilian deaths in November as being 1824 (as well as a very high peak of 3539 in sept) for actual tallied per-month deaths. I’m not saying IraqBodyCount is wrong, but I cant find a per month total there, and if ICasualties is right, it suggests currently a higher than average rate of violence over the past six months, which suggests to me that its been rising over time. Lets compare numbers again then:
Non-event-related Iraqi Deaths under Saddam : 2,100/month
Iraq War-related Iraqi Deaths: 2,010/month (Average 12,058 over the last 6 full months)
The difference between these numbers is not one of magnitude I think, but one of statistical happenstance now. Saddam has a slight lead, but not one that I think makes a whole lot of difference right now, and one that frankly might evaporate quickly in the coming months, whether or not we leave as quickly as possible.
Also, I’m asking you nicely, please stop with the brown-people thing, I’m sorry I ever brought it up whenever I did, and I dont even remember what the context was, but whatever it is I’m sorry I ever gave you that little nugget to put in every other post so you can suggest that “Liberals are in favor of more dead brown people, from which we can infer they’re racism” or whatever your point with it is. Seriously, its just irritating at this point. Please knock it off.
Rex,
Same ol, same ol. Just recently frame said I was a racist for opining that democracy would not work in Iraq. And there have been many posts from the left here to the effect that the ‘real’ story in Iraq is that all of the brown skinned people are dying and Bush doesn’t care – ipso facto he’s racist.
What you want me to do is listen to the arguments that Bush is a racist (and myself) and not respond in kind. And I still say that the number of deaths and their context versus previous wars (Iraq has a much much lower rate) are appropriate debating points.
But I have no wish to natagonize, so in the spirit of the Christmas season – I’m calling a small self-imposed moratorium.
When are you lefties going to wake up? The military casualties are acceptable to the JCS, and the Iraqi casualties are acceptable to the locals.
End of story.
Do you have an opinion poll or any statistic to validate this arguement, or are you just pulling shit out of your ass as usual?
You can count people killed by exploding Coca – Colas in Preoria, people killed by wasps in Des Moines, Iowa and it doesn’t matter to the people who matter.
That’s because the odds of those kinds of fatalities occuring are negligably small. Once again, you prove that you never went to middle school. Then gain, you probably went before the discovery of ratios.
CENTCOM doesn’t care, the Iraqi government doesn’t care, and the average G.I. in Iraq is willing to stay for the duration.
Of course CENTCOM and the Iraqi government don’t care, they’re not the ones getting killed. And you have “willing to stay for the duration” confused with “extended leave” and “forced redeployment”.
If the news about the war were that it was a disaster; the Dems would be falling all over themselves calling for a withdrawal, wouldn’t they?
And they are. For example, I’m a Democrat, and I’m calling for the withdrawal of troops.
But they’re not, are they? And why not?
Because as power changes hands so does information. Now the Dems are cautious.
Now they’re not so anxious to cut and run.
Now the “not – liberal” MSM is not leaking damning classified information about the “quagmire.”
It’s only been a goddamned month since the election.
So put away your calculators, and read about how many of our guys died at Normandy, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
Let’s actually look at the fucking context here for a second. In those instances you moentioned, the US was fighting an opposing military. Iraq, however, is more like that of a peace-keeping operation (Unless you actually believe there’s a country called “Terrorstan”, or “Insurgia”, which, frankly, I wouldn’t put past you). And it’s not doing too well in that regard.
While I am honored that you saw fit to “Fisk” little ‘ol me, you have wasted your time. If you disagree with me, disprove what I say. This isn’t Boys’ Town.
And, by the way, Zython, you are trying to sell that “peacekeeping operation” bullshit to a veteran of the wrong war. Saying that the war in Iraq is a “peacekeeping operation” is like saying that the 1992 riot in LA was a “post-game fracas.”
While I am honored that you saw fit to “Fisk” little ‘ol me, you have wasted your time. If you disagree with me, disprove what I say. This isn’t Boys’ Town.
You’re misplacing the burden of proof. By your logic, I can make all the shit up that I want, and force you to disprove it. Let’s try one:
fd10801 rapes 10 year old boys.
Disprove it. Not going to dignify that with a response? Good, that’s my entire point. You can’t just make a claim that “soldiers and Iraqis don’t mind being killed” and act shocked that I call BS on it.
And, by the way, Zython, you are trying to sell that “peacekeeping operation” bullshit to a veteran of the wrong war. Saying that the war in Iraq is a “peacekeeping operation” is like saying that the 1992 riot in LA was a “post-game fracas.
A. I don’t care that you fought in the Crusades.
B. The point is that this is not a “traditional” war in that it is not military vs. military, it’s military vs. civilians. I’ll grant you, however, that peace-keeping was probably not the right word.
Zython: fd10801 rapes 10 year old boys.
Have any pictures of you as a child?
Never mind …
Here’s how it works. I made the statement based on well know newspaper stories, magazine articles, TV news and blogs.
Do you want to tell me that CENTCOM has made statements that are not confident?
Do you have information that our soldiers are unhappy — having morale problems?
Where have you read, or seen or heard that the Iraqi government has asked us to leave?
it is not military vs. military, it’s military vs. civilians. I’ll grant you, however, that peace-keeping was probably not the right word.
Well, no and yes.
It’s not military vs. civilians when you’re fighting terrorists — it’s asymmetrical warfare, not an asymmetrical police action.
And, yes, I am right; we are hardly a peacekeeping force in Iraq.
You needn’t be so aggressive. This is just a blog — not CrossFire.
fd10801 | Dec 20, 2006 3:50:04 PM
“You needn’t be so aggressive.”
LoL!
That’s the ticket, S!
Dr. Gordon Allport suggested that being able to laugh is the first sign of recovery from mental illness!
You’re doing great, l’il fella!
Or maybe I should give tranny chasing a whirl?
Anything would be better than your less than mediocre performance on this blog.
Before you leave here to chase trannys, or whatever it is you choose to chase, you might try participating in a blog.
Here’s how it works: The owner of the blog comments on something that has occurred to him, usually in current events. That is called posting. Other people then come along and comment on the owner’s post. This is called “commenting on the post.”
Now, while it is considered poor form to personally attack another commenter, it happens quite often, usually when one commenter disagrees with another. This is called “flaming.”
What rarely, if ever, happens, is when a commenter, rarely, if ever, comments, but rather wastes his time and energy not commenting, but attempting to insult and harass someone else on the blog, for no reason other than that he can. This is called “cyberstalking”, and is usually done by disturbed individuals.
Two of several signs that indicate that such a person is seriously disturbed are 1) That he repeats himself again and again (You know the saying: Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result).
2) He has nothing to say in the form of a comment. It is as if his sole purpose in life is to target one person, and make that person uncomfortable and unhappy.
It is unclear how or why he chooses who he does, but it is probably because he views the person as having some kind of power. He seeks to divest the person of that power, because he himself feels powerless, and thus resents people with power.
How to resolve this? My experience has shown me that such a “cyberstalker” can only be ignored, because there is no chance that he will change.
One can only hope that perhaps one day he will choose another target for stalking.
Good luck in your future endeavors, S. If you come across one of them, please give my regards to Roni and JK.