Via DKos, this is potentially explosive news in Iraq:
An Iraqi court has ruled that some of the most prominent Sunni Muslims who were elected to parliament last week won’t be allowed to serve because officials suspect that they were high-ranking members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party.
Knight Ridder has obtained a copy of the court ruling, which has yet to be circulated to the public.
The ruling is likely to dampen Bush administration hopes that the election would bring more of the disaffected Sunni minority into Iraq’s political process and undermine Sunni support for the insurgency. Instead, the decision is likely to stoke fears of widening sectarian divisions in a nation already in danger of descending into civil war.
As noted by Georgia10, the protests the other day occurred BEFORE these disqualifications. This could get ugly, and fast.
Paddy O'Shea
I suppose you could think that things are going to get ugly in Iraq, but only if you were naive enough to actually believe that things had gotten better.
Ancient Purple
It’s sad, really, that Iraq will devolve into civil war. Bloodshed and lots of it will be on tap for some time to come.
James C.
Talk about an overblown reaction! This would appear to be another instance wherein the alarmist reaction is motivated by a hoped-for event, in this case, a civil war.
James C.
A clarification to earlier post…according to the NYTimes, only a “handful” of the mentioned 90 would be affected since the vast bulk of the total number lost in the voting.
demimondian
James C. — and now, the civil war is starting, too…
Back on topic, I’ve got really mixed feelings about the banned Baathists. On the one hand, not only are they bad folk who should be banned from government, the numbers involved are very small. On the other hand, how can anyone hear about this and not think about Iran’s Revolutionary Council using its power to ban candidates to shape the results of “democratic” elections.
Remember, the truth doesn’t really matter in Iraq right now. It’s what the Sunni and the secular Shia *think* is the truth which matters. How will this play with them? Not well, I fear.
ppGaz
This is what it’s like to share the countr with really crazy, irresponsible people:
Year 1:
Reality: If you break Iraq, you will own it, and likely end up with civil war.
Arrogance: We have to break it because of WMDs
Year 2:
Reality: You broke it, and there were no WMDs.
Arrogance: Well, the world is better off without Saddam
Year 3:
Reality: We can’t stay there forever, and when we leave, Iraq will destabilize into war.
Arrogance: Defeatists! You want civil war to be proven right! You just hate Bush!
Year 4:
Reality: Withdrawal is under way and the situation there is grave. Once we have no control there, war is certain.
Arrogance: We are winning! Only losers talk that way!
Year 5:
Reality: The civil war in Iraq is raging, and the most likely outcome is an alliance with Iran
Arrogance: Sure, just what you wanted all along. Anything, to make Bush look bad. It’s all about hating Bush!
—-//
Yes, you cannot make it up, and yes, it is exactly like that. We must share the country with these arrogant, foolish, stubborn and stupid motherfuckers and watch this train wreck unfold in slow motion.
Thanks, assholes, for everything.
Zifnab
I mean, unfortunately, when the only game in town is Saddam’s Baathist party, the only pre-Invasion politicans and governors are going to be Baathists.
This is the same bad logic that lead the US to disban the Iraqi Army. They were the only functioning game in town and you kick’m because they once worked for Saddam without asking where their loyalties actually lay. So now we’ve got a virtually non-existant Iraqi Army made up of thousands of green troops because we won’t touch the “Baathists”.
I’d like to know exactly what these former Baathist politicans and leaders were doing before the invasion. Were they raping and murdering and torturing people? Or were they doing Saddam’s paperwork? Seriously. Exactly what – expect for working in the only party in Iraq at the time – disqualifies these individuals from public office.
If they’ve done villanious deeds in the past, I’m all with you. Throw’m out. But I’d like to know what their sins are before we condemn.
Pb
I read that story on Daily Kos, and I thought it was an excellent story, put together well, informative, etc., and I’m thrilled that georgia10 is now a front-pager over there. Imagine my surprise when John Cole apparently found it just as newsworthy–Good call, John! :)
Also, WTF kind of a court ruling is that? If anything, they should redo the entire election–you can’t just disqualify candidates *after* they’ve already won! If you had issues with their candidacy, you should have thought of that *before* the election, sheesh. What sort of idiotic nincompoops are allegedly teaching these guys about Democracy? … Oh yeah.
Richard Bottoms
(snark>
John, why do you hate America and it’s troops?
(/snark>
More troubles for the clown car administration?
Now there’s a surprise.
Richard Bottoms
No problem with the coming civil disturbances. We’ve found a way to take care of it.
And yes, this administration is that fucking stupid.
Mission Accomplished.
Ancient Purple
Right, James. Because we all sit around and twirl our moustaches, cackle loudly and think good thoughts about staggering bloodshed just so Bush looks bad.
Step away from the Christmas punch, James.
srv
Hey, how about we start a company making Jawa Sandcrawlers?
James C.
I hate to dispute and disappoint those posters who are praying for a civil war and worse, but the Reuters dispatch referred to by one of the posters on this comment thread also says, relative to Sunni unhappiness over the election:
“… has sparked protests in recent days in Baghdad and elsewhere by Sunni and secular parties, despite assurances from U.N. and other officials that irregularities under investigation affect only an insignificant proportion of the ballot.”
“Disappointed Sunni and secular parties have demanded a rerun of the Dec. 15 election and threatened to boycott parliament, a move that could damage U.S. hopes of forging a consensus that can keep Iraq from breaking up in ethnic and sectarian warfare. But despite militant rhetoric, seemingly aimed at increasing their leverage, Sunnis are negotiating with others to build a governing coalition on the basis of the existing poll results.”
Somehow the full context of the story paints a less alarming picture than the selected elements appearing on Kos and in some of the comments here.
Bob In Pacifica
BOHICA.
RonB
Pray tell, what is the point of saying things like this? Are you actually saying that people, certain liberals specifically, are itching for a civil war in Iraq? Or are you just trying to piss people off?
demimondian
C’mon, Ron. Don’t you realize that we on the left pray every day for the collapse of any vestige of democracy everywhere in the world outside of the United States? Unlike the yellow Elephants who with their GWBush altars ($149.95, pus $10G shipping and handling. Remember, you break it, you buy it…), we seek only the humiliation of the Rethuglican party and it’s standard bearer and high priest.
We care not a whit for our own nation. We serve only our narrow partisan interests. Unlike the keyboard commadoes, none of us would ever serve in the military, or, if ineligible, take pay cuts to work to further the national defense. None of us bring any memory of past catastrophes to bear when we look forward into the future in Iraq. ppG and I, for instance, bear no memory of the Vietnam era or its aftermath. (Of, if we claim to do so, it is only flashbacks from the hallucinogens.)
Oh, and DougJ is always serious.
ppGaz
Meanwhile, the righties are praying for an end to real democracy here at home. They hate voters, judges, balance of power, separation of church and state, and love a king.
But, what would you expect from a bunch who think that they are special players in the story of the end of the world?
These crazy fuckers deserve an end time.
Their end time, to be precise.
James C.
It is truly glorious to behold a couple of fucking morons like ppGaz and demimondian talking about stuff that is so far beyond their limited abilities to process and understand. Ah well, their days are limited, hopefully!
RonB
I guess that’s your way of saying you’re just trying to piss people off.
ppGaz
This from a guy who is apparently defending an administration that thinks it can reverse the history of a fractious Arab country with magical thinking. A bunch that has been wrong about every aspect of this country for the last 20-25 years more or less.
Here he sits on Dec 25, 2005, talking happily about the future of Iraq. Let’s see what he has to say two years from today.
You’re just another schmuck with a computer and an opinion, James C. What control do you think you, or anyone, has over the events in Iraq? What do you think is going to prevent the civil war you talk so glibly about here? And why would anyone here believe you?
demimondian
RonB:
Yup. Does seem that way.
Pity that he’s not very good at it, though, ne?
EL
I am sad for you that you cannot tell the difference between those who are concerned about a possible outcome, which people – inside the administration as well as out – warned would come to pass; and those who actively hope for it. (Very few, I’d say.) You are accusing people of wanting America to fail, only because they are predicting something you don’t like. Sadly for all of us, those predictions are looking more and more accurate.
DougJ
James C, you’r right. Freedom is messy. A lot on the left don’t want to admit this, or don’t have the stomach for it. And many of them are rooting for failure in Iraq; apparently hatred of George Bush is more important to them than the well-being of the Iraqi people. They can’t bring themselves to admit that the elections were a big success or that Iraq is now starting down the road — a rocky road, at times — towards becoming a peacefu democracy.
Ancient Purple
So, is this “compassionate conservatism” or “family values”?
Jon H
“And yes, this administration is that fucking stupid.”
Weak. It’s just an armored car, not “an emblem of apartheid”.
Further, I doubt the symbolism has any resonance to anyone but a confirmed American pacifist. Especially when compared to the explosive symbolism of what happened at Abu Ghraib under US management.
Further, they were called Saracens because that was the brand name of a British armored car dating back to the fifties. I assume “Saracen” became the armored car equivalent of calling all tissues Kleenex, at least among Commonwealth countries.
I can’t imagine these US vehicles being particularly frightening, considering that unlike apartheid-era South Africa, the US has been driving around Iraq with far nastier hardware and live ammo.
Finally, guess what? I bet the post-Mandela South African government still has armored cars like the Saracen.
RonB
Oh, I think “their” days are just beginning. The Right is ’bout through after this particular Bozo-In-Chief.
Mike S
There is the base of the Republican Party. The 29% who adore Bush and think Delay is a good Christian. They are the profesional talking point bukkakiasts I often refer to. People like Rove love them very stupid and impressionable and Jimmy fits the bill.
RonB
Jon H, I’d agree, I think the premise, certainly the headline at least, is over the top. IEDs have become quite sophisticated and much deadlier,and if these trucks can handle a hit from one of them, as the story suggests, then we should use them. Their “legacy” will have little impact.
Eric
How many times now have the papers and war critics screamed that civil war was imminent? At least five (before the invasion, after the invasion, before each election, and then surprise when it doesn’t happen after the elections).
How many times has it happened? Do they even know what they are talking about? Do they know what a full-scale civil war is? Do they care that they are wrong each time they assert this?
A MINORITY of the population is going to derail the entire country and plunge it into chaos? Sounds like the American left.
Nothing new here. Papers scream civil war is imminent (as early as tomorrow), civil war doesn’t happen, paper re-reports that it is possible no matter what the facts dictate. It is also possible (however unlikely) that monkeys will fly out of my butt.
Paddy O'Shea
Saying that the vote in Iraq was a step forward for freedom is akin to lauding Germany in 1933 for an affirmation of its democratic principles.
It is not that the Iraqis voted that is important, it is what it is that they voted for thst counts, a Shi’ite fundamentalist pro-Iran dominated Parliament clearly intent on our quick departure.
The Iraqi elections were won by those who delivered a strong anti-American message. This election was not about democracy, it was about getting the U.S. out so they can get on with the business of constructing an Iranian-style Islamic Republic.
But then most obscurantist Bush bobbleheads don’t seem intellectually capable of understanding that. They seem content to consume the prepared messages of the Bush propaganda mill as if it actually had some connection to reality. True democracy requiress an aware and vigilant populace with a clear appreciation of where America’s real interests lie. And by that test the so-called conservatives among us are apalling failures.
In the end we will have spent 100s of billions of dollars and the lives of several thousand of our service people to achieve little more than an Iraq firmly in the orbit of the Ayatollahs in Tehran.
Bush’s failures in Iraq will have consequences for decades to come, and this is the most devastating of the very nasty bunch.
Top U.S. General: Iraqis Want Us Out
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17663960%5E1702,00.html
chef
There is no such thing as “potentially explosive news in Iraq.” The only news would be potentially unexplosive news in Iraq.
Charlie (Colorado)
The best part about a story like this is that you can find the dark side no matter what. If this had turned out the other way, John and Kos could have been posting “Former Ba’athists elected to Iraqi government: Shi’a worry about a return of Saddam.”
Isn’t it uncomfortable to run around with your hair on fire all the time?
RonB
Um, Charlie, I know that was rhetorical, but there is no “best part” about this story, or any other story so far. The Iraqis live amongst strife, deadly strife. How to fix that is our major problem.
Steve S
Of course a better situation would have been for non-former Ba’athists to be elected. Then nobody would have a complaint.
That’s the wonderful thing about being an apologist. You can complain about the otherside no matter what they do, and totally ignoring the real substance of the complaints.
No more uncomfortable than lying to the American people by telling them we had to invade Iraq because of mystical Weapons of Mass Destruction, I’m sure.
Steve S
I don’t think it’s really fair to accuse the Administration of ignoring the potentional for Iraq to destabilize into Civil War.
They’re well aware of it, and they fear it terribly.
Granted, the only reason they do fear it is because they might lose politicial capital in America. The fact that thousands of Iraqis might die in a brutal civil war is inconsequential compared to losing a few elections.
demimondian
RonB, JonH — yeah, the article about Saracens (think about the racial overtones, too — Saracens in Iraq?) was more than a little over the top. Convergent evolution is more than enough to explain that, in this case: to protect a vehicle’s occupants against large explosive devices on the ground, you move them away from the ground. Wow!
demimondian
Yeah, well, we’ve got history — the Bolsheviks were a tiny minority of the Russian population, too. (Don’t feel too self-satisfied; if I hadn’t wanted to avoid Godwin’s law, I could have picked a different political grouping on the Right equally well.)
For my part, I don’t expect a civil war — I’ve been consistent in saying that I think the current “unrest” is political positioning. However, the case for continuing decay is as good as the case for continuing improvement right now.
p.lukasiak
How many times now have the papers and war critics screamed that civil war was imminent?
uh, how about ZERO times.
I’ve never seen “papers and war critics” talk about an “imminent” civil war. Some discuss a civil war in terms of “inevitability”, but generally its in terms of “the likelihood” of a civil war.
Its kinda like pachinko — with all of the “prizes” at the bottom being bad news. You can’t really predict what course the pachinko ball will take on its way down, or where it will eventually end up — all that you know is that gravity will mean the ball does fall downward, and will wind up at the bottom.
DougJ
Charlie, here’s another thing: why does the left assume that a civil war would necessarily be a bad thing? This country went through a civil war and emerged stronger and more cohesive than ever before.
ppGaz
That reminds me of the old “keeping the elephants away” joke. Why are you standing on your head? It’s keeping the elephants away. But, there are no elephants. See, it’s working.
There will only be one civil war. It will happen when the US force level in Iraq has decreased enough that the country is largely unprotected. Current levels preclude this. So figure in a year, 18 months, and start the clock from there. We have no control over what happens after we leave, and the future of Iraq doesn’t begin until that day.
There is no way that we’ll be there with these troop levels 2-3 years from now, so just do the math.
SpaceGhoul
DougJ, you are absolutely right. And, after the civil war, the newly resurgent Sunni religious parties could put those uppity Sunni in their places in the new Irana Banana Republic of Iraq, just like their Iranian brethren put the Zoroastrians in their place. (Who are the Zoroastrians, you ask? Don’t worry — there aren’t any of them any more.)
I can even foresee great film masterpieces: “Resurrection of a Nation”, directed by D. W. Griffiths, with screenplay by Moqtada Al-Sadr. “Triumph of the Well”, a film about a rally in the newly liberated and oil-rich city of Kirkuk.
RonB
PPGaz, about how much do you figure the war will figure into the elections, given the possibility that the basic realization will be that we are there to stay for at least the time being? I really don’t think the next prez(most likely a Democrat) will end the occupation.
RonB
I mean, lets consider the stubborness of some presidencies. A little blood didn’t sway LBJ..nor Nixon, at first, either…
ppGaz
There won’t be an occupation in January 2009. Before then, the “duly elected” government there will demand our withdrawal. No government there will last long without renouncing the occupation. American citizens are not going to support an ongoing occupation, either. George Bush can talk tough all he wants, but he is not a king, and he does not have unlimited powers.
p.lukasiak
There won’t be an occupation in January 2009. Before then, the “duly elected” government there will demand our withdrawal. No government there will last long without renouncing the occupation.
I disagree, mostly because its not in Iran’s best interests at the moment for US forces to be completely withdrawn from Iraq.
What is likely to happen is that occupation forces will be thrown out of Shiite controlled provinces, and restricted to those areas where Sunni’s are in the majority. We’ll also be thrown out of Baghdad — and there will be considerable reprisals against the Sunnis in that city. The US will wind up enabling those reprisals because their job will be to prevent the resupply of Baghdad based Sunni insurgents.
Restricting US forces to the West side of Iraq (where the Sunnis are) provides a nice buffer for Iran as well.
(and don’t forget that Arab Summit recognized the right of the insurgents to resist the occupation — and that the Shiite leadership of Iraq was part of that declaration.)
demimondian
Actually, p.luk, the US will probably not be thrown out of the Kurdish parts of Iraq, which are in the north and east, bordering Iran.
Theseus
The Arab Shiites of Iraq have had 30 plus years to “get to know” real up close and personal what a Shiite fundamentalist government looks like in the form of the lunatic mullocracy next door, which is hated and detested by the majority of ITS very young population. Further, they’ve had the pleasure of also getting to know, more indirectly, some of their neighbors’ alternative yet equally pleasant forms of totalitarian governments, with everything from the Saudi Wahhabist/Salafist kleptocratic monarchy, the equally lunatic Taliban, Baathist Syria, thugish Egypt, etc, etc. During roughly the same period, they’ve also had the pleasure of experiencing good old unkie Saddie’s form of “good government”. So, why in God’s name would any of the people in Iraq want to go back to any of these “models”? Especially if you have the world’s most powerful military standing by your side, helping you build a model, slowly but surely, however imperfectly, which has the potential to allow the greatest numbers of its citizens to contribute and have a stake in their country’s future? Or are all Iraqis, Shiite, Sunni, Kurd, ALL bent on mass suicide? Or are they unable to fully grasp and/or understand the consequences if they continue to stake their fortunes on maximalist aims? Is it in their genes? Is it impossible for different Middle Eastern ethnicities to get together and compromise and form a half decent government or is war always inevitable? It seems they did that for centuries, but what do I or they know? Do the critics, analysts, prognosticators, etc know something that these groups haven’t yet grasped?
Incidentally, the fact that some of the Arabs are Shiites and many of the Iranians are Shiites doesn’t mean much. It means they share a bloody religion, BIF EFFING DEAL!! It doesn’t mean that they’ve become the best of friends and the Arab Shiites of Iraq will automatically become subserviant to their Persian overlords. It doesn’t also mean that the vast majority of people will want to emulate THAT particular government, unless one believes that most Iraqi Shiites are fundamentalist extremists by their nature. That’s ridicilous and quite frankly, insulting to Arab Shiites. Nevermind the centuries of emnity and hostility between Arabs and Persians, regardless of religious affiliation. France and many parts of Germany are Catholic (south), England is Protestant and so were the Prussians (northern Germany); didn’t stop any of these good folks from massacring each other. Same can be said for any number of “ethnic” or “religious” groups all over the world. Ethnicity and religion is important, but most people are NOT slaves to their identities, as some here seem to believe. People are slaves to their self-interest or “enlightened” self-interest, and the Iraqis Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds will act accordingly. The difference between many of you and myself I suppose, is that I don’t believe that most Iraqis believe, their politicians and leaders included, that their own self-interests, within the context of their recent and past history, lies on the path of civil war, mass suicide or totalitarian governments.
And finally, these are politicians and nationalists, albeit Iraqi politicians. It seems to me that we should view some of the pre-election posturing with a bit of skepticism. After all, Ibrahim Jaafaris’ government advocated basically the same things and he managed to work relativily well with the US. It seems to me that the US, and the rest of the world in general, is experimenting to see whether or not Islamists can co-exist within an open, democratic environment, in the same manner that many of the right-leaning or religious leaning Christian parties of the West did a couple of years back. Prime Minister Erdogan’s party in Turkey is proving to be relatively succesful, with a few ups and downs, within the context of a generally more pious population than say, secular Europe or North America. It remains to be seen whether Iraqis can achieve that kind of relative success, as it remains to be seen whether the Egyptian Brotherhood can do the same. But it seems to me that we should be supporting such endeavors, rather than crying doom or decrying the futility of such experiments in the first place each and every time there is a setback.
ppGaz
Supporting them how? By lighting candles, or putting out coin collection cans next to cash registers with pix of Iraqi kids on them?
We’re “supporting” the endeavors now, thanks to our unwarranted and foolish decision to break that country’s infrastructure for our own political purposes. We’re paralyzing our own government and severely limiting our own military’s ability to conduct large scale operations elsewhewhere. We’ve split our own country and may be bankrupting it in the process of paying for this dangerous adventure. We’ve alienated our allies and squandered the capital of goodwill and support we had on the international scene only a few years ago.
As for “decrying the futility” of the situation, you provided ample reason yourself, right in the same sentence: It’s a fucking EXPERIMENT, just as you labeled it, and we have no business conducting experiments on that scale. No business, and no expertise, and no government of our own competant to see it through to successful completion. What’s more, challenging our own government and questioning its actions is the patriotic duty of every American in such times. Trying to browbeat opponents of such policy excursions is a wrongheaded seizure of America’s best features and carjacking them for use in the wrong way.
Steve S
DougJ, I hope you weren’t being sarcastic.
Because I very much agree with this position. US, france, england, etc. all have gone through civil wars on their way to democracy.
ppGaz
Now we enter the bathos phase of the our thread ……
A heart is going to be broken today. This is like reality tv.
p.lukasiak
Actually, p.luk, the US will probably not be thrown out of the Kurdish parts of Iraq, which are in the north and east, bordering Iran.
perhaps not thrown out by the Kurds… but my guess is that a government controlled by the Shia (and indirectly from Iran) would only authorize a US troop presence in “troubled” provinces where the “terrorists” are. The Shia would probably be happy to hand over the Kirkuk headache to the US as well…. but I don’t think that the Shiites want the US to set up permanent bases in Kurdish territories….
James C.
Interesting comments here about the Shia, Kurds and Sunnis and the general political environment in Iraq; I especially liked the “wisdom” of those that believe they have some special insight into Iran’s involvement in Iraqi affairs. I guess one could sum it all up with a favorite expression of my Granddad, who would note under the circumstances: “These folks couldn’t distinguish shit from Shinola!”
RonB
Rhetorically I’m sure they will demand it…I guess you are right, but I can’t help thinking that the fragile government is very vulnerable and if its members wish to keep breathing, they may need the US to provide that security. I’m not so sure they’re going to let us go so quickly.
Paddy O'Shea
James C: Now that is not much of a challenge. Shinola is the product that makes your boots look all nice and shiny, while shit is the stuff folks like yourself get on their little red noses from so enthusiastically kissing up on Bushie ass.
How’s that? Rumor has it you push it in so far it squeaks.
I must admit, the happy fantasies on here about the benign intentions of the Iranian-born Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani, now considered to be both the most politiclly powerful man in Iraq and a devoted ally to his brethren in Tehran, are truly touching. The childlike ability to believe such magical nonsense as exhibited by the likes of -*snicker*- Theseus (sounds like a great name for someone’s pet pot-bellied pig, doesn’t it?), is truly, well, pathetic.
Here is an article that will baffle Limbots terribly because it will require fairly advanced reading skills to comprehend. The author is Martin Van Creveld, an Israeli military historian whose books are on the required reading list for US Army officers. He is the only non-American so honored.
Van Crevald’s characterization of Bush’s Iraq misadventure as “the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus sent his legions into Germany and lost them,” will have the Bushie bobbleheads gasping in disbelief and reaching for their AM radios.
http://www.forward.com/articles/6936
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1653454,00.html
Paddy O'Shea
RonB: Yeah, now there’s an interesting situation. We’re fighting the Sunnis on behalf of the elected pro-Iranian Shi’ite controlled govt, while they in turn look to the day when they can turn Iraq into an ally of Tehran.
But tell me this, what makes you think Iran won’t be willing to send their troops into Iraq to both fight the Sunni insurgency and fill the void we’ll leave?
That’s the kind of stuff nightmare stuff that happens when you have a president whose stupidity and ignorance is only matched by his arrogance.
Paddy O'Shea
Another article that’ll cuase much connie whining:
Iran’s Victory Revealed In Iraq Election
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/12/21/EDGU6GAM691.DTL
James C.
Paddy, me lad. Ya really must give up the drink; it’s clearly affecting your brain cells…and the good Lord knows that you didn’t get very many to begin with
RonB
waitaminute…isn’t it the stuff that baseballers and footballers use under their eyes to diminish the reflection of the sun?
Paddy O'Shea
Well, there you go. RonB doesn’t know from Shinola, and James C has a head filled with Republican nose coating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinola
Baron Elmo
It amuses me immensely to see James C. belittling the theories of everyone here who tilts to the left of, say, Arlen Specter (slinging insults and invective willy-nilly in the process), without contributing any original thoughts of his own.
So how about it, Jim lad — how do you think the situation in Iraq will shake out? Clearly you expect glad tidings by the bushel, so let’s hear your scenario… if only to counter the pessimism most of us are sharing. C’mon, boyo — make me believe.
RonB
Thank you for setting me straight,Paddy. I don’t know shit about Shinola, I guess.
Second Elmo’s call for an analysis from James C.
ats
James C., repository of hoary barnyard locutions, may think we don’t can’t tell “shit from shinola,” but this is surely preferable to not being able to tell quagmires from cakewalks.
chef
I submit that “Theseus” is a uniquely apt allusion here. In the riddle of the same name, Theseus is was at sea so long that every component of his ship had been replaced at least once. The question posed: was it still the “same” ship?
Kind of like Bush’s policy in Iraq. The reasons for going to war have changed so often that one might wonder whether this is the same war. Perhaps James C., Shinola peddler that he is, can tell us.
PS: I lost track when the “hate our freedoms” part morphed into the balloon truck.
Steve S
Ummm. We invaded Iraq because that’s what Iran wanted. GW Bush is Iran’s bitch. He just thinks he is operating independently, because he was too stupid to recognize counter-intelligence when he saw it.
Frankly, I don’t care about that. If Iraq does become a colony of Iran, and this provokes some sort of war between them and the Syrians and Saudis… good. They can go kill each other rather than targetting Americans.
But I’m still upset that GW Bush is Iran’s bitch. I don’t think American should be subservient to any nation.