Victory in Iraq
December 17th, 2007 at 10:08am Mark Noonan
Sorry, lefties, but we decided not to lose this war, even though we knew you’d be upset at American victory:
BAGHDAD - Violence in Iraq is at its lowest levels since the first year of the American invasion, finally opening a window for reconciliation among rival sects, the second-ranking U.S. general said Sunday as Iraqi forces formally took control of security across half the country.
Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the man responsible for the ground campaign in Iraq, said that the first six months of 2007 were probably the most violent period since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. The past six months, however, had seen some of the lowest levels of violence since the conflict began, Odierno said, attributing the change to an increase in both American troops and better-trained Iraqi forces.
“I feel we are back in ‘03 and early ‘04. Frankly I was here then, and the environment is about the same in terms of security in my opinion,” he said. “What is different from then is that the Iraqi security forces are significantly more mature.”
Will you on the left please just join us in this? Its really a good fight for a good cause - hating President Bush can’t be that important to you, can it?
Entry Filed under: War on Terror
80 Comments
1. neocon | December 17th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Mark,
How will this effect the Democrats plan to force defeat?
2. Joe | December 17th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Woo hoo. We won. Now we can stop allocating trillions of dollars and the troops can come home starting in the next month or two… right?
Or do you need them there for another 5-10 years?
3. Joe | December 17th, 2007 at 10:47 am
By the way, does this victory mean that the Republicans can stop blocking the war funding bill that has timelines in it? After all… if we’ve won, then saying troops should be home within a year shouldn’t get blocked or vetoed, right?
4. sleepygene | December 17th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Yeah we won!!!!! Now we can plan that ticker tape parade down broadway. I know the administration and the CIA have been shredding documents at a furious pace for said parade.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/14/costs-soar-for-bush-admin_n_76816.html
All joking aside. Our side of the surge worked, we have given the Iraqis breathing room to work our their differences but how long will it take before the Iraqis reconcile amongst themselves? I guess we can keep our troops at our permanent bases for as long as it takes right guys.
5. Diana Powe | December 17th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
I’m sold. We won.
The social structure of Iraq? Hmm, ethnically-cleansed neighborhoods, millions of internally and displaced citizens, well, the social structure, not so much.
But, they’re standing up. So, as the President said a ka-jillion times, time for us to stand down. Do you think we can have all U.S. forces out by next Christmas, Mark? That would be great.
6. Aaron | December 17th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
So Odierno says we’re “back to 03 and 04″, and that’s supposed to be “victory”?
This “window for reconciliation” has been open since August, when violence levels began to subside - but so far, sectarian stances have only hardened. We are no closer to having a functioning government in Iraq than we were 5 years ago, and reconciliation seems but a futile fantasy. So are we supposed to stay there indefinitely, holding these factions apart at the cost of $12 billion of our tax dollars every month?
Even President Bush, and many commanders on the ground, have admitted that the current surge cannot be sustained for long, given the how stretched combat forces already are. We might be able to sustain this force level until next summer at most before having to draw down to pre-surge levels. If this surge was meant to give the warring factions breathing room and time to reconcile, then we’ve seen none of that thus far, and precious time is running out.
Meanwhile, troops are at the end of their tolerance for these long, back to back to back deployments. Witness this article out Friday in the Army Times entitled “‘Not us. We’re not going.’ Soldiers in 2nd Platoon, Charlie 1-26 stage a ‘mutiny’ that pulls the unit apart” :
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/12/bloodbrothers3/
At the end of this long, sorry, wasteful, needless conflict lies a nation that will be dominated by radical Shi’a (the government we currently support) that will be closely aligned with Iran. This will happen whether we begin withdrawing today, or in 10 years. There is not one damn thing we can do about it - and spending hundreds of billions more than what we already have, and sacrificing more US soldiers, will not change that.
7. John Ryan | December 17th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
That’s great !! we won !!
OK can we bring the troops home now ?
8. Aztec | December 17th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
We’ve always been the party of “Won and Done”. On the other hand, if the “central front on the war on terror” ceases to be, this administration would have no reason for warrantless wiretaps of american citizens, civil rights abuses, state secrets at every turn, enhanced interrogation techniques, etc. No, I think Bush and clan want to stretch this out as long as possible, they’ve been doing a great job of this so far.
9. NeoClown | December 17th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
It ain’t over till the fat islamo-fascist lady sings…
10. neocon | December 17th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Our resident lefties continue to show the same compassion for the Iraqi people they always have. But instead of claming defeat and pulling troops out, now they claim victory, and want to pull all troops out.
I am curious as to how the Iraqi people will feel about Democrats once they emerge from the oppressive dark ages and enter the world community as a free people. And, moreover, what the Democrats will tell them:
“well we wanted you to have a democracy but didn’t think you were capable of it, nor did we want to help you in anyway, but maybe we can be friends anyway”
This thread is just more proof that what is good news for the Iraqi people and America is bad news for liberals.
11. Mark Noonan | December 17th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Yes, we can start to bring the troops home - and, in fact, some have already come home…but we still can’t set a hard and fast date for the last US soldier to leave; that would still be playing into the hands of the enemy, who is badly wounded in Iraq, but not dead yet.
I’m really just hoping that you guys on the left will drop your hatred of President Bush, realise you’ve been sold a line of complete BS by the anti-war forces, and start being proud of what your nation has accomplished. This is a rather forlorn hope, but I still have it.
12. Rana Quijotesca | December 17th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
How are those political benchmarks coming along?
13. neocon | December 17th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Rana,
How is that “war is lost” meme coming along. Wasn’t that the highest ranking Democratic Senate member that said that?
14. Rana Quijotesca | December 17th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
neocon-
I never said that the war was lost, nor have I advocated precipitous withdrawal… I’ve always had a “we started it; we have to finish it” mentality about it…
Get your facts straight before you accuse me of being a Democrat, or you’ll look stupid… wait… too late…
15. neocon | December 17th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Rana,
Realize that governmental benchmarks and unity follow ground security, or you may appear to be ignorant and just another minion of the left. Oops, sorry too late.
16. neocon | December 17th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Rana,
Oh and I never accused you of saying that, nor believing it, did I?
Address what is actually written, and not what you assume, or you will appear to be……..well we all know, right?
17. SteaM | December 17th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Victory … pfffft.
Mark,
What is your definition of “Victory” in regards to the invasion of Iraq?
18. Ricorun | December 17th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
neocon: Realize that governmental benchmarks and unity follow ground security, or you may appear to be ignorant and just another minion of the left.
Be careful who you are calling “ignorant or just another minion of the left”, because it wasn’t too long ago that Bush said governmental benchmarks and unity must happen in order for ground security to be realized. Oops, sorry too late.
Be that as it may, both Petraeus and Odierno have very recently reiterated that although the security situation has improved dramatically, what it has done is to open up “a window of opportunity”, through which the Iraqi government must pass. How long the window remains open is uncertain. But they are still certain that it must happen before the window closes.
19. Diana Powe | December 17th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Well, the blunt fact is that all talk of “the war is won” or “the war is lost” is meaningless. There is no war in Iraq. The invasion and occupation of Iraq created a situation that allowed for the creation of an anti-occupation insurgency, the unleashing of inter-religious violence bent on ethnic-cleansing a formerly ethnically-integrated civil society, the rise of entrepreneurial groups notionally identifying themselves with al-Quaeda, settling of inter-tribal scores, straightforward criminal gang operations and the injection of foreign fighters motivated by a variety of impulses.
As such, as President Bush correctly stated, there will be no signing of surrender documents on the deck of a USS Missouri. Any declines in violence can only be seen properly as part of the ebb and flow created by the strategic and tactical movements of the various players who have a wide variety of motivations which cannot be simplified to “us vs. them”. Unfortunately, for the Iraqi people, they still have a dysfunctional government which can only operate from the inside of an American-provided bunker and is unable, as yet, to lead the country to its ultimate destiny as a full-fledged client-state of Iran instead of its current state as an Iran-oriented state.
20. neocon | December 17th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
SteaM,
That question has been asked, and answered ad nauseum. Is this your first day here?
21. Faceplant | December 17th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
“Yes, we can start to bring the troops home - and, in fact, some have already come home…but we still can’t set a hard and fast date for the last US soldier to leave; that would still be playing into the hands of the enemy, who is badly wounded in Iraq, but not dead yet.”
Mark Noonan, the military strategist, ladies and gentlemen! Nevermind that retired Generals pretty much universally say that while the surge is working as a band aid to tamp down the violence, it has done nothing to address the underlying political issues at play.
I just get a kick out of it when I hear people like Mark, or Rush, or Hannity telling us all about military strategy, and what we should be doing, as if they actually knew what they were talking about.
22. Faceplant | December 17th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
“This thread is just more proof that what is good news for the Iraqi people and America is bad news for liberals.”
And that’s why the vast majority of Iraqi’s want the United States to leave Iraq? Right…..
23. neocon | December 17th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Diana,
Thank you again for your staunch support of the average Iraqis and your belief that they can, and will effectively govern themselves. Liberals belief in the best for others is truly heartwarming.
I will remind you that prior to the removal of Saddam, the Shiites and the Kurds were not exactly “ethnically integrated” as you assert. But nice try.
24. neocon | December 17th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Faceplant,
I get more of a kick out of that war-strategical genius Harry Reid who claimed the war was lost a few months ago. Doh!
Everyone wants the US to leave Iraq, including all of us. But we will leave it victorious. That’s a concept that I know alludes you. And do you really expect the average Iraqi to give a glowing endorsement of US presence?
You’re not that thick are you?
25. Diana Powe | December 17th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Neocon,
Your patronizing comment about your suppositions of my thought process relative to “average Iraqis” is immaterial. As in the phrase so beloved of President Bush, the “facts on the ground” relative to the Iraqi government are what they are and you can’t wish them away. A few months ago, Congressional Republicans were openly talking of dumping Prime Minister al-Maliki courtesy of the abortive lobbying campaign to resurrect the Administration’s once-and-future savior of Iraq, Ahmed Chalabi. However, that fizzled and the Iraqis still have a government which is dysfunctional and heavily corrupted.
As to the ethnically integrated state of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, you’re quite wrong. One of the striking characteristics of Iraq, especially prior to 1991 was how Hussein’s secularism had caused Sunnis and Shi’a to live side-by-side even though the Shi’a lacked access to power. Of course, with Hussein gone, the Shi’a have been able to wield the power of their numbers and turn Iraq towards Tehran which is one of the main reasons that the invasion was such an idiotic idea in the first place. Hussein was a counterweight to Iranian influence in the region which is why we supported him during the Iran-Iraq War.
Now, Iraq is well on its way to becoming a full-fledged Iranian client-state.
26. Diana Powe | December 17th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
From the Podhoretz-family magazine, Commentary:
and…
and…
and…
The over-simplification of victory goes on apace.
It reminds me of the old Gahan Wilson cartoon, “I think I won”. http://blogs.salon.com/0002296/images3/I%20think%20I%20won.jpg
27. neocon | December 17th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Wrong. AGAIN. Diana.
The Shi’a and Kurds were brutalized under Saddam. The fact that they lived in common neighborhoods is completely immaterial.
I loved your line: “..Sunnis and Shi’a to live side-by-side even though the Shi’a lacked access to power.”
How do you equate “ethnically integrated” with “no access to power”? I think the Shi’a would object to that.
Would you consider America integrated if Democrats had no access to power?
And if you have done any recent reading whatsoever, you would know that the Iraq Shi’as are, for the most part, vociferously opposed to the Iranian Shi’a influence.
Her’s just one cite:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/11/iraqi_shias_condemn_iran_for_v.html
And here again you demonstrate your lack of faith in our global neighbors.
>>>>….the Iraqis still have a government which is dysfunctional and heavily corrupted.<<<
Incidentally, Russia also has a corrupt, ineffective government, but you seemed to listen to them when they supported your agenda leading up to the war.
So some corrupt governments are better than others?
28. NeoClown | December 17th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Diana 2 Neocon 0
It’s the end of round two ladies and gentlemen. Neocon is taking a brutal beating at the hands of Diana-mite. How much more can “Neocon the diminutive debater” take? Stay tuned.
29. plainjane | December 17th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Geraldo Rivera who just returned from Iraq was saying the same thing on the Billo show. But in the same breath he said it is costing us billions each month for this calm. He also said the U.S. taxpayer can’t expect Iraqi oil to pay for the neocon’s debacle, because the entire Middle East would say we told you so it was not weapons of mass destruction it was the oil.
Can you at least tell me what taxes Republicans are willing to cut in order to pay for this 2 trillion dollar moment of Iraqi calm? Isn’t that how it works, cutting taxes pays for everything?
You know sooner or later all hell is once again going to break lose. The Iraqi government has done nothing to settle old difference or share the wealth.
Support our troops and their families by sending letters to Congress demanding our “victorious” troops be brought home immediately! 1/20/2009
30. Bloodthirsty Warmonger | December 17th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Let’s face it: the tinfoil-hatted surrender monkeys have NO LIFE outside of Bush-bashing. But unlike them, we have learned from our mistakes - unlike the Vietnam debacle, we will not compromise or give up even one inch of anything!
31. Diana Powe | December 17th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
This is perhaps one of the most cynical viewpoints I’ve seen in awhile and neatly illustrates the mentality of so many armchair strategists who see situations such as the invasion of Iraq as being the game Risk writ large. Given that I know nothing of your particular living situation, it would be fair to guess that you live in a single-family dwelling that you own in an urban or suburban area. As such, you would be living in a politically and mixed neighborhood.
Now, supposing that in 2009 Democrats controlled the White House and had decisive majorities in Congress and decided that having Republicans sharing neighborhoods with Democrats and Independents was a bad idea. Then, with the government’s tacit approval, Democrat-militias began evicting you and all your Republican neighbors and either moved into and took permanent possession of your homes and all their furnishings themselves or turned them over to Democrats from poorer neighborhoods. You and your families weren’t killed, you were just turned out into the street to fend for yourselves. Would you consider this a benign situation? Would you consider that situation to have some tiny degree of contrast from one in which you continued to live in the home you owned without interference while not having much influence on how the government was run? The fact is, Iraqis are individuals and families who own homes, not just a collective noun.
However, you didn’t quote the last line of the item you linked to:
It is? The Iraqi government is oriented to Iran and the US military is not supposed to be telling the Iraqis how to govern themselves.
If we accept as a given that the 300,000 signatures cited in the original Washington Post story are all legitimate and we only count the roughly 8.4 million male Shi’a population aged 15 and over (Source: CIA The World Factbook) in Iraq then your “most part” translates into about 3.5% of the Shi’a population. Add in females and it drops to about 1.8%. Not such a particularly compelling fact in support of denying Iran’s influence in Iraq, I would adjudge.
Finally, this:
To paraphrase, former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, “You go to post-war with the corrupt government you’ve got, not the corrupt government you want.”
32. Hambone | December 17th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
The idiots on parade who run this website deserve posts from folks like “neocon” who still think neocon has some positive connotation. You don’t see me posting on an animal rights forum as Michael Vick, do you? Join the real world, fella.
33. Almiranta | December 17th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
The average trolls will just spout knee-jerk snotticisms at every opportunity, which is why we ignore them. Joe, John, steam,
Diana, on the other hand, is too smart to fall for the simplicity of the simple-minded. But then she is sent here to provide a slightly more coherent part line argument.
Notice how she has sooooo much time to just sit around and answer all the blogs, in perfect LL syntax?
Though she does seem to feel comfortable spouting some of the more ludicrous Lib rants, such as the peace and freedom and social equality of Iraq under Uncle Sadaam, before those big bad “occupiers” marched in. And she seems pretty comfortable with misusing words like “occupiers”, too.
OK, on second thought I withdraw the “too smart” comment, after re-reading this drivel: “The invasion and occupation of Iraq created a situation that allowed for the creation of an anti-occupation insurgency, the unleashing of inter-religious violence bent on ethnic-cleansing a formerly ethnically-integrated civil society, the rise of entrepreneurial groups notionally identifying themselves with al-Quaeda, settling of inter-tribal scores, straightforward criminal gang operations and the injection of foreign fighters motivated by a variety of impulses.”
To deconstruct:
“The invasion and occupation of Iraq created a situation that allowed for the creation of an anti-occupation insurgency….”
Duh. Having Americans in Iraq “created a situation that allowed for…” people fighting Americans in Iraq. Double duh.
“…..the unleashing of inter-religious violence bent on ethnic-cleansing a formerly ethnically-integrated civil society….”
Oh, so Iraq under Sadaam was an “ethnically-integrated society”. One faction had total political and military and economic control and ritually oppressed, tortured, and killed members of the other two—interesting definition of an “an “ethnically-integrated society” Didn’t we get tons and tons and TONS of whines from our radical trolls about how the Bush administration was just too damned dumb to recognize the obvious threat of sectarian violence once the “restraining” influence of Sadaam’s rule was removed? And now, gee golly, shazaam, it was REALLY just an
an “ethnically-integrated society”.
“…. the rise of entrepreneurial groups notionally identifying themselves with al-Quaeda….”
Now THIS is sheer drivel. It is the developing entrepreneurs who are turning against al-Queda. A-Q is a movement which is anti-capitalist, hardly one which would encourage entrepreneurs to think of them as allies.
The radical Left was deeply invested in the fantasy that Sadaam simply COULD NOT have associated with al-Queda, because he was secular and they are religious fundamentlalists, yet our new radical guru is explaining, evidently with a straight face, that “…entrepreneurial groups (are)notionally identifying themselves with al-Quaeda….”, a group dedicated to bringing the world back to a primitive pre-industrial state.
“notionally identifying themselves…” ????????? Sounds like a high-falutin’ psuedo-intellectual class at Berkeley or something. La di da.
“….settling of inter-tribal scores…” see above. WHAT “inter-tribal scores”???? I thought this was an “”ethnically-integrated society”. Non-ethnic tribes? ?????
“…..straightforward criminal gang operations….”
Yeah, such as those which opportunistically arise in every nation suddenly freed from despotic rule, in which the underground alliances and economic arrangements necessary to live under such rules are abruptly freed from the iron fist of the former government, and erupt into a situation in which a new, representative government, has not yet been able to establish itself. Sounds a lot like the emerging nations of the former USSR, doesn’t it?
‘…..and the injection of foreign fighters motivated by a variety of impulses.”
I think this was my favorite. “…motivated by a VARIETY OF IMPULSES…” How precious.
OK, Professor Powe, let’s first start with the inaccurate use of the word “injection”—unless you are willing to concede that other countries with a vested interest in weakening American influence and power in the Middle East did, in fact, “inject” foreign fighters into Iraq.
And “…motivated by a VARIETY OF IMPULSES…” Oh really? It is hard to keep a straight face here, but OK, I’ll go along. Can you name a few? Of the “impulses”, that is?
In what reality in what universe does the determination to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to enter a foreign country to slaughter not only “infidels” but other Muslims qualify as an “impulse”?
Deciding to have another piece of cherry pie is an “impulse”. Deciding on a romantic comedy at the theater instead of the action adventure that prompted you to go in the first place is an “impulse”.
Radical and even suicidal dedication to the obliteration of as many lives as possible, at any cost, is hardly an “impulse”.
Though possibly the diminishment of an overwhelming commitment to destroy all lives which do not strictly adhere to a radical version of radical Islam is important to the radical Left in this country, as awareness of this danger will make it harder for them to succeed in their own determation to gain power at any cost.
Deja vu all over again, re: Joh Dos Passos.
34. Jessie Kris | December 17th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Mark, go fuck yourself!!!
You are the most ignorant person on the web. Go send your ass over to Iraq so KBR can fuck it!
35. neocon | December 17th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Well, it looks as though libT’s husband, Jessie Kris, was allowed to use the computer.
Almiranta,
Thank you for slapping around Diana in my absence. And, as usual, in a much better manner than I could of.
I also found it interesting that Diana denigrates the peaceful Iraqis at every turn and attempts to legitimize the extremists, and their “impulses”.
I overlooked though, and you caught her remark about “inter-tribal scores to settle” following her implication that under Saddam they were blissfully “ethnically integrated”. Well done.
I look at Diana as a “best of” DailyKos blatherings. A greatest hits compilation kind of thing.
36. Rightlane | December 17th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
No one in their right mind would, at this point in time given the Iranian situation, believe leaving Iraq was good idea. That would take someone in their left mind!
Diana said: “Hussein was a counterweight to Iranian influence in the region which is why we supported him during the Iran-Iraq War.”
She’s right and thus, we must maintain a force in the region to prevent the Iranianization of Iraq! Since, Iraq can’t provide that counterweight now and in the future won’t we must. Diana made another good point when she pointed out that Iraq’s “…ultimate destiny as a full-fledged client-state of Iran….” Again she’s spot on as this political nightmare will be realized without a continued US military presence preventing it.
Iran must be counter balanced! Despite the recently released intel report on the cessation of Iran’s Nuke program, they are enriching uranium and the Russians are supplying them with nuclear fuel. It moot that they’ve suspended working on the device itself as the real challenge is in collecting enough boom boom juice to fill it.
Iran is real problem and has been all along. We need troops stationed in the region to exert military pressure on the Iranian regime in order to have any chance of a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear question. It is only through strength, not weakness, that a peaceful solution to the problems in the region has any hope of success.
We need that chance. The Russians are clearly pro-Iranian on this. Iran has clearly stated its anti-Semitic sentiments and their desired to remove, by any means available to them, Israel from the region. Israel is the US’s staunchest ally in the region and is a nuclear power. Can you say WWIII? Can you imagine Armageddon?
Iran, in its current political state, possessing nuclear weapons is absolutely unacceptable and such a scenario needs to be prevented at almost any cost!
37. Passing through | December 17th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
33. Jessie Kris | December 17th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Actually jessie I am afraid I have found worse, or at least less articulate, than Mark.
The guy at http://www.americaphile.blogspot.com/ genuinely belives that Hillary os the antichrist, and has not yet mastered the art of turning the caps lock off.
38. Aaron | December 17th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Rightlane -
“She’s right and thus, we must maintain a force in the region to prevent the Iranianization of Iraq!”
First of all, anybody with any knowledge of the region could see this situation coming before Bush did the dumb thing and invaded Iraq.
Secondly, most of the Shi’a leaders in Iraq have long-standing close ties with Iran. No matter what happens, the Shi’a will eventually dominate in Iraq, and will establish a theocratic state modeled after Iran. This will happen whether we leave in 10 months or 10 years.
How many more years are we going to stay there, at $12 billion per month, all to cover for Bush’s big mistake?
39. LiberalMind | December 17th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
If this is the Republicant’s idea of “victory” then I can’t possibly even imagine defeat.
Well, looking over Bush’s wreckage, damage, negligence, corruptness and literal sabotage during his “administration” I can see what defeat really looks like
Sad, really.
Because Americans, some not yet born, will have the task of cleaning up and repairing the damage.
Bush is truly a low point in American history. Let’s all hope he is the worst this nation ever must endure.
40. Diana Powe | December 17th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Almiranta,
Well, thanks for the sort-of compliments. I know you brow furrowed deeply in concern previously that I was a “plant”. I must confess that I am baffled by that usage. Who might have “planted” me where?
This observation comes across as genuinely paranoid, “Notice how she has sooooo much time to just sit around and answer all the blogs, in perfect LL syntax?” As I have previously posted, I spent 26 years as a police officer of the City of Richardson, Texas and took service retirement earlier this year. Presto! I have “sooooo much time”.
As to the “ethnically-integrated” usage you’re so worked up about, I could simply point you to my post # 31. Saddam Hussein was a secularist. Ultimately, he wasn’t a believer in anything other than his own personal power which he shared first through his tribal family and then through the Ba’ath Party. Because of his long-held animosity towards Iran, he worked to either co-opt Iraqi Shi’as or brutalize them.
During his dictatorship, he modernized the Iraqi economy and expanded some civil rights, particularly for women, (which brutal dictators are sometimes wont to do, even though they are, in fact, brutal dictators) and a byproduct of his successful efforts at creating a large government bureaucracy was that co-opted Shi’a, secular Ba’athists and religious Sunnis often lived in integrated neighborhoods in the capital. That didn’t eliminate the various tensions under the surface, but it also didn’t eliminate the fact that Iraqi individuals holding a variety of beliefs (not lumped together as collective nouns) lived side-by-side. Outside the capital, there were lots of disaffected tribes who were kept in check by the security apparatus and who are now much less so, hence “settling of inter-tribal scores”. (Really, this isn’t that arcane.)
I’m glad you enjoyed your chuckle at my use of the term entrepreneurial and sniffing that al-Quaeda is “anti-capitalist”. Of course, while using my “perfect LL syntax”, I also used the term entrepreneurial in the non-economic sense as did the 9-11 Commission report in describing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as a “terrorist entrepreneur” in Section 5.1. So, perhaps you won’t “slap [me] around” for that as neocon wants to do in his terribly interesting choice of words.
Finally, you may fulminate all you wish over my choice of language in the word impulse. If it serves to lower your blood pressure, you may substitute the word “motivation” in your own version. Either way, I’m sure neocon is pleased that you can serve as cover for his failure to respond to my neighborhood-cleansing hypothetical.
41. mitche | December 17th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Those of us who are rational are participating in a futile excersize to point out reality to the few remaining authoritarians who still blindly and unquestioningly support Cheney and his marionette GWB. I seem to remember that Iraq was an “immenent threat”. Turned out it wasn’t. That they had WMD’s!! Turned out they didn’t. That “Mission Accomplished” was anything but.
A hallmark of authoritarians is that they use fear to control people. Fear. Terrorisim. Same thing.
Thus far in the history of our great nation, the presidency of GWB is a sad, pathetic and lonely low.
How can we have fallen so far so fast? Using 9/11 as an excuse for unfetered and limitless presidential power to spy on Americans, invade a country on false pretense and then botch the entire operation. Borrow and spend our way into economic oblivion. Refuse to acknowledge global climate change. Refuse to provide health care for the most needy of our citizens while we spend billions on a war; not only of choice, but a war against an idea.
Let a major American city basicly rot. Commute the sentence of a convicted felon. Signing statements to get around complying with laws.
Having a Press Secretary who hadn’t heard of the Bay of Pigs fiasco!
Nature works slowly most times, but always with extreme efficancy. The mentality that is embraced by Cheney, Addington, Kristol, Yoo, etc etc etc and was thrust upon us all is an evolutionary dead end and what those of us who are tethered to reality are witnessing is it’s slow and agonizing death.
So you 25%ers, keep cheerleading as your ship goes down!
And make sure to blame everyone else for your failures of conscious, intellect and spirit.
42. mitche | December 17th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
And Diana Powe: you are great!!! Keep talking! Lets see how many more times you will be accused of being “an intellectual”. Or a Kos reader. (As if that would negate the accuracy of your statements.)
Personally I am a Crooks and liars and Andrew Sullivan fan.
43. Casper | December 17th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Diana,
Obviously you are a plant. Sent here to disrupt BFV because what happens here will determine the American political landscape for the next 20 years. Almiranta is also a plant for the same reason. She was sent by Rove, you by Clinton. Both of you should fess up immediately. LOL
44. Jay Kamins | December 17th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
For such a thoughtful blog, it’s odd that you think that “lefties” only oppose the war in Iraq because of the hatred of Bush. Here’s my recap on why this war is a failure no matter what happens.
1. Billions spent, billions missing.
2. Debt up to our eyeballs with China and others to pay for this war on credit.
3. Growth of the military contractor industry (aka Blackwater).
4. Thousands of military dead, many more wounded for life.
5. Warlordism running rampant everywhere but the capital.
6. Afghanistan left to fend for themselves.
7. Iran elevated in prestige.
8. Armed forces exhausted. Reserves exhausted.
9. No proof we were ever there for any real purpose.
10. A bill that will take generations to pay for.
General Petraeus is obviously doing a great job, but to say “We Won” is as silly as that “Mission Accomplished” Banner and Bush in a flight suit.
C’mon folks. It’s all well and good to be loyal Republicans, but let’s put America first. Unless you are Iran, Blackwater USA or Halliburton/KBR, we all are losers.
http://tipandwag.blogspot.com/
45. neocon | December 17th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Your hypothetical was so delusional it didn’t warrant comment.
And your premise that all was fine for Shi’a under Saddam; they lived amongst the Sunni in nice neighborhoods but just didn’t get to vote in the local elections, is just astonishingly ignorant. I might also suggest you toughen up your sensitivities, if the Iraqi people end up winning this conflict, they and the voters may be none too pleased with Americas liberals
46. Diana Powe | December 17th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
“Your hypothetical was so delusional it didn’t warrant comment.”
Translation: “I really didn’t have a response.”
47. NeoClown | December 17th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Ladies and gentlemen,
Never before in the history of “full contact debating” have I seen a spectacle such as this:
This has turned into a tag-team free-for-all and the crowd loves it!
Neocon and Almiranta cower in one corner of the ring, bloodied and demoralized.
Diana-mite is pacing the ring with nostrils flared - in search of prey.
Will the conservatives throw another Christian to this lioness of debate?
Stay tuned.
48. Diana Powe | December 17th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Okay, I am a plant. I’m a prickly pear cactus (designated by House Concurrent Resolution 44 of the 74th Regular Session of the Texas Legislature as the official Texas plant). Of course, I’m also the harbinger of the Ghosts of Conservatism Past (aka President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Senator Barry M. Goldwater) who want to come visit the apostate authoritarians of the modern Republican Party.
49. Tractatus | December 17th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
I must confess that I am baffled by that usage. Who might have “planted” me where?
Almiranta has a paranoid obsession with the notion that her political opponents all have “minders” (she never goes into who the “minders” are, how many of them there are, and what, exactly, a “minder” does). To her, everybody to the left of her is a puppet of some sort. It’s a strange fantasy world with which nobody should really concern themselves, except to find it darkly humorous.
50. Rightlane | December 17th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Aaron, we have to deal with situation as is exists now. Yes, going into Iraq after WMD’s was a mistake but, leaving now is a bigger mistake.
It does not matter that: “Shi’a leaders in Iraq have long-standing close ties with Iran.” Nor, is it a certainty that: “No matter what happens, the Shi’a will eventually dominate in Iraq, and will establish a theocratic state modeled after Iran.” That depends upon the political environment in Iran when we leave. If we pull out of Iraq today, yes, Iraq will establish a theocratic state modeled after Iran. That’s my point. Thanks for making for me.
If Iran develops the bomb in our current political reality, they’ve said they’ll use it against Israel. That’s not my opinion but, what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said! How many billions will be spent fighting that war? How many lives, not just American by the way, will be lost? We cannot base our political actions today on the political realities of yesterday.
Without military assets on the ground in the Middle East there is no reason for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to negotiate anything. We are left to respond to his actions from afar. If that’s the option we choose how then will we respond to the worst case scenario? With strong word of condemnation at the UN, a limited special forces response, an assassination attempt, or nukes? My point is no troops in theater equals little real influence on Iranian political decisions.
51. mitche | December 17th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Diana:
Not only are you eloquent, but you are funny too!
A plant! I laughed out loud. Since you mentioned Eisnehower and Goldwater, might I suggest a review of the recent documentary “Why We Fight” and John Deans book (as collaborated with Goldwater) “Conservatives Wthout Conscious”.
He also has an excellent website (www.findlaw.com) in which he discusses at length the Authoritarian personality and its adherents, leaders, followers and most disturbingly the accurate discription of the destruction that this aboration is having…(but being an optimist should I say, has had) on America and our standing in the world.
GWB is antithetical to the very idea of America.
An intellectually incourious and incompetent underachiever who relies on faith rather than fact and has taken our country down a dark and dangerous path by being a patsy to those he has surrounded himself with. Those power mad and secrative people who have scared the bejesus out of those dimwits who post here (in decreasing number I might add) who think that might makes right and that their role models could not possibly be wrong about anything. Because to admitt the truth would shatter their entire world view.
I love it when their heads explode!
There is going to be a new sheriff in town here very soon and he or she won’t be an authoritarian Republican.
52. Canuckguy | December 17th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
I will add my two CND cents worth here. “Victory in Iraq” come on, give your head a shake. Much too premature to make such a silly statement.
Within 6 months from now, I bet things will revert back to the previous high levels of murderous chaos. The obvious bottom line is that the Shi’ites and Sunnis will never get along and thus there cannot be success in Iraq as defined by the Bush Republicans. Why can’t you blockheads understand that? Oh wait, I answered my own question. It’s because you are blockheads.
53. Casper | December 17th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
mitche,
I ‘m afraid that you are underestimating President Bush. IMO, he will go down in history as one of the best politicians of the 21st century. He has managed to get elected twice in spite of the fact that he isn’t the most articulate person out there. He is still getting his way with a democratic congress whenever he wants, and his followers will support him no matter what he does. He is much smarter than you or a lot of other people think.
54. Aaron | December 17th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Rightlane
“That depends upon the political environment in Iran when we leave. If we pull out of Iraq today, yes, Iraq will establish a theocratic state modeled after Iran.”
Ah, so we’re going to have to stay in Iraq, losing 900 soldiers a year and spending $12 billion per month, until the Mullahs are no longer controlling Iran? Lovely.
Of course, the subtext here is that we need to invade Iran in order to fix the mess we created in Iraq.
“If Iran develops the bomb in our current political reality, they’ve said they’ll use it against Israel. That’s not my opinion but, what Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said!”
Several things. First, Ahmadinejad did not actually say that he would “use the bomb” against Israel - that was not the quote. In any case, whatever Ahmadinejad’s charged rhetoric, the reality is that the leaders of Iran know full well that any attack on Israel would be met with an Israeli nuclear retaliation that would indeed wipe Iran off the map. Israel has somewhere between 400 and 600 nuclear warheads, and has advanced delivery systems courtesy of the USA - so Israel is quite capable of taking care of itself. We do not need to justify hanging out in Iraq by saying we are protecting Israel from Iran. The Israeli’s are by far the biggest baddest asses in the region - let them deal with Iran.
Secondly, there is no evidence that Iran is anywhere near to developing a bomb. Nor is it clear that they even have a program to develop a bomb. Our intelligence agencies think they abandoned their bomb program in 2003. Now, you can rant and disagree all you want, but lets see your evidence. Until you can show something better than what our intel agencies have, I’m going with experts on this. (Sorry - it isn’t enough for you or Mr Bush to “feel strongly” that Iran has a nuke program).
Nor is it clear that our being tied down in Iraq in any way enhances our ability to dissuade Iran from trying to get a bomb if they so desired.
Nor is it clear that even if they did get a bomb, that it would mean “WWIII”, as you so melodramatically put it. Look, I don’t think Iran should have the bomb either (nor Pakistan, nor Israel, nor anybody). But there is no reason to assume Iran would be any less responsive to deterrent than any other nation. So far, despite rhetoric meant to rally crowds and piss off the US, Iran’s leaders have acted rationally in pursuit of what they perceive to be their national interest. Real lunatics such as Mao and Kim Jong Il have had nukes - and yet they were not too eager to actually use one, knowing full well that they would be immediately annihilated if they tried. Iran would be no different.
In short, this nonsense about having to stay in Iraq to protect Israel from Iran, and to prevent Iran from starting WWIII with nukes, is a whole lot of self-serving crapola. It’s just the latest in a never-ending and ever-changing series of rationales to justify this unjustifiable occupation of Iraq.
We can’t stay in Iraq forever. Pulling out will have negative consequences - all of us adults know that (and in fact, the adults tried to warn Mr Bush of this situation before we got into it). But staying in Iraq indefinitely has far more negative consequences.
55. bongoman | December 17th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
What an outrageously dishonest & deceitful post, claiming victory in Iraq. Have you no shame?
So this is what victory looks like?
We’ve strengthened Iran’s importance in the region no end. Iran is the real victor at this point.
There’s been no political breakthrough in Iraq, Baghdad has been ethnically cleansed and walls are being erected dividing the city, Fallujah is experiencing a severe humanitarian disaster, 85% of Basra residents believe the (now ended) British presence there had a negative effect on the security situation with the Basra police chief deploring the “murder and violence” left behind by the British.
But at least we are getting to build our permanent bases, you know, like the ones we used to have in Saudi Arabia that the locals loved so much.
And you pretend that this is a “good fight”? Where is your moral compass that you so readily ignore that we are the aggressors, invading another country & killing their citizens? Shame on you.
56. bongoman | December 17th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
And meanwhile, how are things in Afghanistan? You know, where in 2004 President Bush claimed that the “Taliban is no longer in existence”?
Can we claim victory there yet?
57. Kuni | December 17th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
And what exactly is victory in Iraq?
Is it when we, like the British did in Basra, hand over the country to the Shiite majority; who then implement the Islamic Law they forced into the Iraqi Constitution?
Or does victory in Iraq mean, at most, preventing catastrophe?
58. Jeremiah | December 17th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Neoclown,
When the time comes, the lioness Diana will get her time just as this Poor Bird did its.
~ Jeremiah
59. Mark Noonan | December 17th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
All these comments, and not one liberal who will say, “hey, our military has done a great job - I’m proud of them”…its really sad.
60. james allegro | December 17th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
God bless our brave soldiers, the Iraqi people and God bless President George W. Bush, the greatest president in american history.
61. bagni | December 18th, 2007 at 12:31 am
markie claus….
agreed, the u.s. military HAS done a great job and everyone is proud of them
on a quick side note…
wish the average american would sacrifice only 5% of what the soldiers have……to share some of the load
but cmon…mark??…..
writing the ‘victory in iraq’ headline???
i sincerely commend you for your volume 11 sensationalism
you’re beautiful
don’t change
62. Mark Noonan | December 18th, 2007 at 12:59 am
bagni,
Well, I’m glad you are proud of the troops.
63. Web | December 18th, 2007 at 1:55 am
I can’t figure out why this debate about who is winning goes on and on. The goal was never to win, it was to sustain and we have clearly accomplished that.
But, who was going to “win’ was never in doubt and, in fact, we won long ago.
1. We captured Saddam
2. We destroyed the country’s infrastructure
3. We killed more innocent Iraqis than Saddam ever dreamed of.
4. We drove more Iraqis from their homes than Saddam ever dreamed of.
5. 1/3 of the existing population needs emergency attention.
6. We captured the country’s oil supply’s and are now outputting at pre-war levels, which was one of our primary objectives in the first place.
7. A few rich people have made a lot of money, which was our other primary objective.
8. We managed to extend and sustain this war while all this was happening with a much lower death rate among our troops than Viet Nam clearly demonstrating our education curve in gaining the number one position in the world at war profiteering.
All of these things were accomplished long ago and there is no question that we won and are still winning. Few people realize that we accomplished these same goals in Viet Nam and if you were to ask a Rothschild, Morgan, or Rockefeller, they would tell you that Viet Nam was a win too.
The difference is, they would say, that in Viet Nam, they were able to openly make much more money selling to and financing the Russians, who were providing over 80% of North Viet Nam’s munitions, as opposed to the supply chain through Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan and Turkey to Al Qaeda being a little dicey to say the least.
They are however looking to an extended return on their investment, which was what was missing in the Viet Nam equation, as the oil flows from Iraq who, somehow in the face of all of their suffering managed to christen their latest oil tanker today. This ship can carry up to 14,000 tons of worldwide democracy.
They would, however, humbly assert that all of this pales in comparison to the legend of Rockefeller making $200 million on WWI, which is the equivalent of close to $2 trillion today.
64. Jessie Kris | December 18th, 2007 at 2:01 am
“All these comments, and not one liberal who will say, “hey, our military has done a great job - I’m proud of them”…its really sad.”
Is this all you have Mark?
You keep wanting to translate the “anti-Iraq war” people as “anti-Troops” people. Is 70% of Americans against the troops Mark? Dumbass….
65. Jessie Kris | December 18th, 2007 at 2:02 am
As Cheney would say “Go Fuck Yourself MarK, Go Fuck Yourself!!”
66. NeoClown | December 18th, 2007 at 2:07 am
Mark sez:
“All these comments, and not one liberal who will say, “hey, our military has done a great job - I’m proud of them”…its really sad.”
And Donald Rumsfeld said:
“You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.”
Ouch! The liberals won’t praise them, and Rumsfeld didn’t want them. What’s next? Substandard medical care? No way!
67. NeoClown | December 18th, 2007 at 2:33 am
Jeremiah,
I heard that you had been raptured away up to that green dumpster behind Wal-Mart. Thank Jesus that you are alive and well and able to contribute to BFV.
Your posts are always well thought out and meaningful. Thanks for sharing that “bird” email with me. It’s a hoot. I don’t know why but a lot of folks look down on Red State humor. Larry the cable guy, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill Orally don’t appeal to folks that finished high school but I think they’re real funny. I think the uneducated need a laugh even more than normal people.
If you have any more emails to share I would sure like to see them so put them up. I know Mark likes them too. The next time you talk to Jesus tell him I said hey.
68. searp | December 18th, 2007 at 3:36 am
I wouldn’t listen to any of the pro-war types here. They are just cheerleaders with no skin in the game.
Mark: sign up, nothing stopping you. Rainy season is starting so you will be dirtier than you ever have been in your life, but the food is good and it is nowhere near as dangerous as it was a year ago.
Your country needs you, make a contribution. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that this blog counts.
Neocon: Please take a long walk by yourself in Rashid.
69. Aaron | December 18th, 2007 at 4:24 am
Mark -
All these comments, and not one liberal who will say, “hey, our military has done a great job - I’m proud of them”…its really sad.
OK Mark, here I go: Hey, our military has done a great job - I’m proud of them.
This in fact reflects the views of almost all liberals. We are proud of the fine job done by our military - which is why we’re so appalled by this never ending waste in Iraq.
Yes, the military have done fantastically under extremely difficult circumstances. But they were failed by the complete idiots who thought it was a good idea to invade and occupy Iraq in the first place, and who then severely botched the post-invasion aftermath to make an already very bad idea much worse. After getting almost nothing right about Iraq for years, now these same incompetents and ignoramuses presume to know that the troops must be left in Iraq… until some hazy point years in the future when they think they might somehow be vindicated.
These troops are sacrificing and dying for nothing more than Bush’s and your collective egos. But I’m sure they’re very thankful for your unending devotion and support for them on this blog.
70. Christian Wright | December 18th, 2007 at 7:00 am
Britain has formally transferred the control of security of Basra over to the Iraqi army, marking the end of nearly five years of British control over the southern province.
British Major-General Graham Binns and Mohammed Mosbah al-Waeli, the Basra governor, signed documents formalising the handover on Sunday.
“Today we stand before a historic juncture and a special day, one of the greatest days in the modern history of Basra,” al-Waeli said during the ceremony at the last British base at an airport outside the city.
Basra was the last of the four British-controlled provinces in Iraq.
“I’m not ungrateful that they took away Saddam Hussein,” says Salam Ahmed, 30, a Shiite businessman. “But the job is done. Thank you very much. See you later. Bye-bye.”
So the Brits have left and the Poles have left and the Iraqis don’t want us there. Why do we have massive permanent basis when nobody wants us there? No wonder 71% of Iraqis consider us occupiers, as opposed to liberators. As the 29% that wants us to remain are Al Qaida and Taliban. Turns out we are their best recruiters.
71. plainjane | December 18th, 2007 at 7:01 am
59. james allegro | December 17th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
God bless our brave soldiers, the Iraqi people and God bless President George W. Bush, the greatest president in american history.
It would be nice to also think of less fortunate AMERICANS during this holiday season. Many will not have enough to eat or money for medical treatment. But your writings are those of a neco therefore there is no need to explain.
72. Casper | December 18th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Mark,
“All these comments, and not one liberal who will say, “hey, our military has done a great job - I’m proud of them”…its really sad.”
Actually Mark, I thought it was more important to tell the troops directly, through letters, packages , and phone calls.
73. navydad | December 18th, 2007 at 9:14 am
So Plainjane, OT, but I guess you’ll agree that the Utube woman ( from one of the Reb. debates) with the two kids…one of which was an adopted Chinese girl, should be focusing more on America’s woes, rather than China’s Hmmm…?
Your argument was going okay, until you validated your hypocrisy.
The point of being true to your values is powerful, but to be inconsistant for political power is just sickening.
This folks, is a typical kook statement that comes straight out of the loony left playbook.
“It would be nice to also think of less fortunate AMERICANS during this holiday season. Many will not have enough to eat or money for medical treatment. But your writings are those of a neco therefore there is no need to explain.”
74. navydad | December 18th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
“You certain are odd navydad.” Huh?
If you’re trying to say I’m odd…fine. But try to be a bit more clear about your intentions.
And no, I have no problem with giving to the less fortunate. Where I do have a problem, is when elitists such as the U-Tube woman (or anyone for that matter) present their case as if they just saved a child from the throes of abject poverty in China or Darfur or wherever, when you lefties claim we have “abject poverty” here in the USA. So, what about “buy American”, and “America first?” If you can’t see the hypocrisy in this, you’ve got real issues.
75. Christian Wright | December 18th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
It is sad when Iraqis look back to the days of Saddam with fondness.
Check out this article about the cut in food rationing in Iraq.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F80EB18B-84C5-4939-9250-004F6697D8F2.htm
76. Diana Powe | December 20th, 2007 at 12:22 am
This is what “victory” looks like for some:
77. Mark Noonan | December 20th, 2007 at 12:29 am
Diana,
Gee, you mean to say that things won’t be immediately perfect? Well, golly, and I thought they would be…yep, thats it; if things can’t be perfect right away, then lets just pull the plug on the whole thing.
I’m glad we’ve got smart people like New York Times reporters and you to square everything away for us…
78. Diana Powe | December 20th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Because, after all, we don’t care about individuals in Iraq (they’re only to be addressed as collective nouns), we only care about the legacy of the current temporary occupant of the White House. To heck with Maha Hashim and her trivial problems, she’s cluttering up our view of the Sweet Glorious Victory we’ve won for her.
You’re right. Four years, eight months and twenty-nine days into a chosen occupation definitely does not qualify as immediate, gosh golly whiz…
79. Rightland | December 21st, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Arron, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad most certainly has claimed he would use nukes against Israel given the opportunity. He has also stated clearly he intents to bring about the return of the seventh Iman! If you wish to debate in an intellectually honest fashion lets get it on but, if you intend to refuse to acknowledge facts that are part of the established record, there’s nothing to discuss.
Bye the way, we have to house and feed our military weather they’re deployed or at home so, we still going to spend huge amounts of money on the military regardless of where they are physically located.
There are several years during the Clinton Administration where we lost more that 900 service men to accidental deaths such as car accident and training accidents. So, please don’t act so “melodramatic” about the cost of this conflict in human lives.
“Until you can show something better than what our intelligence agencies have, I?m going with experts on this.”
Just who are these “experts” (if not from the intelligence community) to whom you refer? May be, I don’t know, they?re Code Pink, the Daily KOS, or Cindy Sheehan? Why would Iran insist on continuing its uranium enrichment program when they can obtain what they require for peaceful energy production more economically and certainly with less heartache on the open market? Do you where a condom as a fashion statement? Kim Jon II isn’t a religious zealot promoting an apocalyptic agenda either.
I closing, if I’m wrong we spend some additional money we’d spend anyway on earmarks like a bridge to nowhere and lose 900 soldiers year. That’s loss we should truly lament but, based on inflated figures given current casualty rates! If your wrong Israel gets nuked, retaliates with a massive nuclear response, decimating Iran, and contaminating vast areas of the middle east rendering them uninhabitable for years at the very least. This would also, in all probability, mandate a Russian, Chinese, Arab, European and US responses because, as you lib hae pointed out time and time again, its all about the oil.
Best bets to keep them in check!
80. Diana Powe | December 23rd, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Well, this certainly puts a wet blanket on the “we’re winning” meme: