Since I haven’t weighed in on the ISG, let me throw up a few quick thoughts:
1.) It is all pointless anyway. Bush will not listen, and if he does, it will be only to nip around the edges of the suggestions so as to look as if he was adhering to them (see signing statements) and get credit for adhering to them, but continue to do whatever he wants.
2.) I am not sure what can be done at this point, if anything. After having read this Nir Rosen report (courtesy of the Belgravia Dispatch), I don’t think there is anything that can be done. Calls for troop increases seems to be pointless, as well- there are no more troops. Additionally, all of our biggest problems seem to be centered around where troop concentrations and troop presence are the highest (although I recognize this may be a chicke/egg sort of deal).
3.) I really don’t know why anyone would listen to me anyway. My credibility on this issue should hover between snake-oil and used-car salesmen- as recently as a year ago I was flaying Murtha.
4.) Hugh Hewitt should really keep Point #3 in mind when he writes thinks like this:
Cohen and James are hardly alone in condemning the report as a massive bit of unintentional parody. Watching the replay of the ISG’s press conference last night, with solemn pronouncement after solemn pronouncement from somnambulist after somnambulist, I was struck by how absolutely feckless this entire exercise was. Because the ISG was not serious about the nature of the double-headed enemy –al Qaeda-allied jihadists and the Iranian mullah-led Shia radicals and their Syrian thugocrats– it could not be serious about the way forward.
People who were, until very recently, claiming that everything is ok in Iraq but that only the media refuses to report the good news, should not be allowed to publicly assess the “seriousness” of other people.
5.) This is humorous in that it exemplifies what the blogosphere does best- elevate rhetoric and spin to the equivalent of policy:
So here are the keywords defined by the Iraq Study Group for their report:
iraq study group report james baker lee hamilton co chairs middle east congress bipartisan strategies president bush america abroad military withdrawal troops civil war iraqi government sunni shia kurds christian sectarian violence conflict post-conflict
Yes, that’s right. If you’re looking for “withdrawal”, this is the document for you. If you happen to be looking for “victory”, however — you are out of luck.
The ISG report does a number of things, one of which is to provide a redefining of “victory” to what appears to be something that may actually achieved. It does not, however, continue to pretend that the warblogger definition of “victory” is attainable. That, I would assert, is a good thing, as a dismissal of that sort of fanciful thinking is probably what we need. “Victory” as defined by the Truth Laid Bear and others should not be the goal at the moment, as we should all be striving to make Iraq “less of a disaster.”
And those are my deep thoughts.
Do you believe now, that as Murtha advocated last year during which time you were ‘flaying’ him, that we should have pulled out all our troops from Iraq in 6 months like Murtha said we should?
Oh, and how do you feel about ISG’s recommendations that Israel trade ‘land for peace’, and their recommendation that we consider negotiating with Iran and Syria? Can you help us understand why those recommendations/conclusions shouldn’t completely destroy the ISG’s credibility on this matter?
Oh, Look, Darrell likes pie!
Echtheow the Geat
We should attack now, in more strength than ever. Slaughter them all, and sate the blood-lust of the war gods! Oil, gold, incense, dates, and treasures of the ancients await our victories!
The only way to defeat terrorism is through terrorism. Let us terrorize our way to glory and conquest!
How about a bot that can turn Darrell’s comments into something like this:
“Do you believe now, that as PIE advocated last year during which time you were PIEING him, that we should have PIED out all our PIES from PIE in 6 PIES like PIE said we should?”
“Oh, and how do you feel about PIES’s recommendations that PIE trade ‘PIE for PIE’, and their recommendation that we consider negotiating with PIE and PIE? Can you help us understand why those recommendations/conclusions shouldn’t completely destroy the PIES’s credibility on this matter?”
Your thoughts are pretty well in line with reality, John.
Good choice on Nir Rosen as your source, he has been one of the very best reporters on this mess for quite a while. He gets it right more often than anyone else I’ve seen out there.
As for this thread, we shall have a good laugh over Darrell’s reaction. After a day and a half of getting the talking points down, he’s ready to go on this thing.
You begin by saying “it’s pointless” and Darrell is right there with, “Oh yeah? ISG doesn’t even have credibility! Obviously they care way too much about peace!”
Darrell, the guy who steadfastly defending the widespread bombing of kids in Lebanon earlier this year, our little Peace Mascot.
I suppose it is no big surprise that Darrell is merely repeating what the President has said he will not do.
When the history of this war is written, it will noted that we did not lose because Darrell was insufficently servile to this misguided administration and feckless President.
Judging by the 100% personal and snark responses so far, you all are unable to offer a substantive response to my points, so instead you make personal attacks. Hey, whatev floats your boats.
Here is one soldier’s thoughts on the ISG report
he didn’t follow the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, why would he follow the recommandations of the ISG?
Like I said, when you don’t have facts or substance on your side, personal attacks are all that’s left.
this irony meter is off the charts! oh wait, it’s not an irony meter, it’s a frog exaggerator!
how about this, darrell; you stop calling everyone who doesn’t agree with you a ‘dishonest sh1tstain’ etc, then you can whine about personal attacks. until then, you’re just one of those people who can dish it out but can’t take it.
Unlike Bush, who’s done a great job of getting them shot and blown up.
Pray tell, what is so wrong with considering negotiations? International relations are complex, so should we not be considering all of our available options? Or are you so fond of war that the very thought of actually talking to your enemies is completely out of the question?
According to ever so principled truth-teller John Cole, that soldier is a mindless Bushbot, repeating the President’s talking points.
Are you seriously defending the idea of negotiating Iraq’s future with the two largest terrorist sponsoring nations in the world? Are you aware of what Syria is doing in Lebanon with Hezbollah? Does the idea of negotiating with Iran over Iraqi security strike you as being even a teeeeny bit misguided?
John Cole writes:
Absolutely. A good first step is recognizing that the people who have suffered most from this disaster are Iraqis – Shia and Sunni alike. American casualties are just collateral damage.
Bush’s refusal to even talk to, much less negotiate with, Iran or Syria is further proof that the Administration’s ideas of victory don’t include the preservation of any Arab or Muslim life. After all, no one has asked any Iraqis how they feel about their occupier refusing to talk with the countries that are making their lives miserable, even though Maliki himself was recently to Iran! Go figure.
Iran and Syria are the masters of the option – the right wing press has repeated as much for three years. They want to negotiate and like smart people they make themselves indispensable to any solution. Bush’s problem is that if he were to negotiate and if a solution arises then he and his crowd are faced with explaining all those DFNs (died for nothing)who perished because of his hubris.
Well, it certainly hasn’t stopped the U.S. in their relations with Saudi Arabia, has it? And you seem to be under the impression that “considering negotiations” somehow equals “giving them everything that they want.” Go talk to a cop who specializes in negotiations sometime, and tell them that there’s no value in what they’re doing.
Yet one more reason why I love John Cole. How can you not be refreshed by a guy who is so willing to be honest with himself and with everyone else?
Darrell, are you seriously unaware that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Indonesia and many other countries, many of which are our purported allies, harbor and support terrorists every bit as much as Iran and Syria? Are you aware that Pakistan has declared that Osama Bin Laden himself is not to be bothered? Are you aware of this?
Then again, you like pie…
How is it a “personal attack” to note that you are once again merely parroting the positions as outlined by the President.
I guess that is just an eery coincidence.
As to your points, sparse as they might be, I think a plan for phased withdrawal is the only viable option remaining. Staying there would accomplish little or nothing. Additionally, I am not too worried about the Israeli land for peace aspects of the document, as I suspect Israel might just have a fucking say in that. Finally, I am not sure why entering into talks with Syria and Iran is the terrible thing you think it is. We don’t have to capitulate to them when we talk to him. You are aware that we negotiated and talked to the Soviet Union while we were both pursuing a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction and containment, all the while lighting small-scale regional proxy wars to agitate and weaken the other. Are you saying our relationship is WORSE with Iran and Syria than it was the Soviets? Or are you saying they are more dangerous than the Soviets. Because if you are… Do I need to even say it? So yeah, negotiate with them.
Finally, I am thrilled that soldier has an opinion. Bully for him. The thing you fail to recognize is that soldiers are like reporters- they are on the ground, and have a very narrow view of what is going on. When you want an accurate picture of what is going on in the region, you look at a combination of individual narratives, reporting, and data, not just the personal opinions of a few soldiers here.
Not surprisingly, all of those things are going against you- the data would suggest a drastic escalation of violence (although you will reject any casualty statistics as imprecise or flawed or ‘election year scams,’), the data suggests energy availability, the economy, and pretty much every other measurement of standrad of living is in the crapper, and so on.
The reporting, which you also reject (because the media is biased or liberal or wants us to fail or hates George Bush or all of the above, also presents an overall picture of a region slipping faster and faster into uncontrollable chaos. Or civil war. Pick your term.
So what we have left are a few anonymous letters from soldiers here and there, trumpeted loudly on Hugh Hewitt or Orson Scott Card’s website, telling us all is good and that iot is not as bad as everything else would lead us to believe. I do not know why you believe these soldiers, as you refuse to believe any soldier who paints a less rosy picture, but you do.
And that is all you have. All the data, all the studies, all the reporting, all the real, verifiable realities matter not when it comes to making a decision or assessment about the war in Iraq. What matters is that a soldier on a website is offended by the ISG.
And you think I am the idiot?
Why, yes. There are plenty of soldiers who are mindless Republican drones, and they shouldn’t be setting policy any more than Bush himself should be, because THEY’RE BAD AT IT.
Darrel, nobody responds to your “points” because you haven’t made any, just sneered at the mere thought of negotiations and diplomacy. Given that Iran and Syria are funding the insurgency, and assuming that we’d like them to stop doing so, how do you suggest we convince them to do so, short of negotiations? Have Condi give them a stern talking to? Or are we going to try the standard wingnut policy of “invade and conquer”? After all, it’s worked so well up to now.
“Oh, and how do you feel about ISG’s recommendations that Israel trade ‘land for peace’, and their recommendation that we consider negotiating with Iran and Syria? Can you help us understand why those recommendations/conclusions shouldn’t completely destroy the ISG’s credibility on this matter?”
What other options are there? Americans will tolerate this fiasco for only so long, and right now there doesn’t seem to be anything good that can come out of this.
Looks like the Administration will also have to open talks with the Saudi’s – who are funding Sunni militias. Bets on when that will happen?
We’ve been telling you that for months now. Glad it finally sunk in.
Were you aware that Saudi Arabia is funding the Sunni insurgency. Does Dick Cheney’s meeting with the Saudi’s in spite of this ‘destroy his credibility on this matter’ ??
Then again, you could just eat more pie…
You know goddamn well why it was a personal attack jackass. You simply dismiss without argument all dissenting opinion, as you’re doing again with that soldier who’s opinion you derisively character as “narrow”, as if this soldier (with his own blog) doesn’t have access to the same range of media and opinions that you have, but with the additional insights gained with 2 tours in Iraq. Funny how his opinion is pretty much the same as mine. Eery coincidence that.
Yes John, only ‘independent’, principled thinkers like you can see through Bush’s lies. What a coincidence that I had a problem with the very recommendations that many other people had a problem with. But I guess if Bush says it, it must be a “lie” right?
True and true.
Submitted without comment…
John, you’re like a cartoon. Unlike you, I don’t dismiss every soldier’s opinion that differs with mine as “narrow”, just because he served in Iraq. Pretty damn arrogant to assume these guys don’t keep abreast of the news and opinions from a wide range of sources. From what I’ve read, on balance, most soldiers serving there strongly disagree with your conclusion that “Staying there would accomplish little or nothing.“. Some soldiers agree with that of course, but from what I’ve read, most want to stay until the job is done. Unlike what you’ve asserted, I do not believe that “staying there would accompish nothing” is the opinion of most soldiers. And one doesn’t have to be a Hugh Hewitt boot-licking Bushbot to see that..
But it apparently works for you.
I’d love to see what Darrell bases this statement on (my guess: a few cherry-picked statements by soldiers, extrapolated to somehow encompass the majority of the military) as it seems to me to be so divorced from reality as to be laughable, in an out-loud sort of way.
What’s striking about the one soldier whose blog Darrell links above is that while his opinion is valid, he doesn’t say his unit shares his opinion, he doesn’t say a majority of his unit shares his opinion, he doesn’t even say a single soldier other than himself shares his opinion. He doesn’t say that a majority of the troops agree with him because he very likely knows the truth is nothing close to that.
Darrell, too busy filling your face with pie to smackdown Dick Cheney for meeting with the people funding the Sunni insurgency? I know that pie tastes awfully good, but…
So here’s a question: what authority does the President have to keep our troops in Iraq in the first place–if any–and how long will it last:
Even though you flayed Murtha the fact that you came around to a reasonable position is admirable.
Moi, I was protesting the war from before it started, but at this point, anything that hastens our exit from this mess is a good thing.
However, the ISG’s main recommendations – essentially warmed over “Vietnamization” in Iraqi makeup- won’t really work, because at this point the security forces in Iraq are themselves corrupted by the militias.
It’s a nice fig leaf, but the idea that any of this is anything other than a fig leaf for our withdrawl is polyannaish.
Yeah, well that “guess” turned out about as well as your other ‘insights’ on Iraq. I’m willing to stipulate that military enthusiasm for Iraq may have waned since this time last year, but even if that’s true the opinions (from 1 year ago) seem pretty clear:
73% in the military feel we are ‘very likely’ or ‘somewhat likely’ to succeed in Iraq
65% believe that the US military will have to stay in Iraq another 3 – 5 years or 5 – 10 years (from end of 2005) to meet its goals.
But according to John Cole, only a handful of isolated soldiers (with ‘narrow’ views?) touted by Hugh Hewitt feel that way, and only mind numbed Bushbots would argue otherwise.
Your poll is almost a year old, Darrell. And even then, there was still a significant percentage of respondents who didn’t feel that everything was rosy. I’d be very curious to see what the results would be now that another year of this debacle has passed.
And you keep demonstrating that John Cole is, in fact, correct.
The real story today, and evident in the Darrell theme here, is that the GOP “base” (the 25% of the population that drinks …. or lives on …. Republican kool-aid) is running away from the ISG as fast as it can.
This is huge, because as flawed as it is, and it is really a devious piece of crap, and as politically friendly as it is to any interest that want to be friendly back (which is the intended purpose) ….. it apparently isn’t cover enough for these blind and deaf morons to stop themselves from attacking it as the source of their new bedevilment.
These idiots, the Darrells of the world, are now in the Anger stage of their process, which if we know them at all, will probably end with the Anger phase. If these people had the ability to move and learn from anything, they’d be able to go on to the other phases and work themselves out a new worldview that was at least a little congruent with reality. But they won’t.
And that’s just huge, because they have now painted themselves into a corner of deep marginalization from which escape will not be easy. They are now just the butt of jokes. Objects of derision. Even sentient Republicans want no part of this Iraq Surrender Group bullshit.
Here’s the catch though: One of them, GWB himself, is still president, and that puts us in considerable danger.
Oops, you already said that.
Never mind, then.
Part of me can’t help but wonder, however, if some of those respondents really do think that things are going well, or if that’s just what they’ve told themselves over and over, in order to keep from having to face the extremely disheartening truth that they’re risking their lives for a poorly planned and poorly executed mission which is showing few signs of success and many signs of failure.
Still busy with the pie eating? Sheesh, you’d think you’d get your fill already! Well, anyway, when you get done feeding your pie hole perhaps you can find a minute for a strong rebuke of Dick Cheney and the Bush administration for daring meet with those damn terrorist enables the Sauds.
Anyhoo, I think I’ve found a perfect theme song for Darrell:
So then I got this idea about driving a cheesecake truck,
Because I figured at the end of the day I could take some of the leftover cheesecakes home,
And I love cheesecake.
So I went to the cheesecake company,
And they asked me if I could drive a truck,
And I said yes and they said you’re hired.
So the next day I got in the truck with all the cheesecakes,
And I drove about a block and I just had to have a cheesecake.
So I pulled over and I opened the trunk and I got a cheesecake,
And I also took one for later,
And I took one for my friend Farmboy,
And I took one to bring home,
And by that time I had eaten one of the cheesecakes.
So I took another one.
Then I figured I might as well stop at my house to drop off all the cheesecakes.
So I take five cakes to eat on the way,
And I drive another block and a half to my house.
Now it’s lunchtime so I eat ten cheesecakes and a cheesecake for desert.
I should point out by the way that all of these cheesecakes were very delicious.
Anyway, I decided that the only thing to do would be to eat all the rest of the cheesecakes and hide the truck somewhere and leave town.
And I miss everybody a lot,
But I’m not really sorry,
Because they were very delicious cheesecakes.
The Other Steve
But, uhh, like… you do dismiss their opinions if they differ from your own.
I’m more than willing to stipulate that the judgment of the guy who was right all along about how things are going in Iraq should be accepted over the judgment of the guy who was wrong all along. However, the hilarious thing is that apparently you think you’re the guy who was right all along.
I openly admit that the poll is a year old.. but unless military opinion has changed drastically, most/many soldiers feel that we have a good chance at success in Iraq, and that it will take 3 – 10 years to get there. That is, most soldiers (at that time at least), not just
Look, Iraq could still turn out to be a terrorist haven run by another dictator. But I’ve got a problem with those on the left, including ‘maverick’ Republicans like John Cole, who claim that anyone who doesn’t share their ‘everything in Iraq is a disaster’ view are just boot-licking Bushbots.
Darrell, “But I’ve got a problem…”
Then we agree! Hmm… or perhaps you were talking about your pie addiction??
Good Ole Darrell – Tilting at windmills yet again. Dulcinea awaits you, fearless knight!
Darrell, all other points aside, why do you hate even the idea that we might negotiate with Iran and Syria? As was pointed out upthread by John, we continually had negotiations with Russia during the Cold War. That didn’t turn out so bad now, did it? We managed to avoid mutual destruction, global nuclear warfare, and actually win the “battle”.
Negotiation doesn’t equal capitulation. If Iran and Syria represent the gravest threats to us (oh wait, that was Iraq, right?), it can’t hurt to sit down at a freakin’ table and start a dialogue. You never know what they’ll say unless you ask.
You need to conduct diplomacy with the enemies you have, not just the enemies you would like to have.
Simple Answers to Simple Questions
“Darrell, all other points aside, why do you hate even the idea that we might negotiate with Iran and Syria?”
Because the talking points said to.
This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
“You make peace with your enemies, not with your friends.” –Yitzhak Rabin
A little late to the party, but here it is. Darrell’s Irony of the Hour.
Yeah, all it needs is the dictator and there you go.
Because they are terrorist supporting murderers who would love nothing more than to create havoc in Iraq and kill Americans. To negotiate with them, especially in the context of Iraqi security is beyond absurd imo..
Regarding negotiations with the Soviets, it’s my understanding that those negotiations were sporadic, and mostly limited to arms reduction. We didn’t negotiate with the Soviets to “help” with Afghanistan’s security and sovereignty in the 1980’s, for example, which would have been a similarly preposterous analogy to negotiations with Iran and Syria over Iraqi security and sovereignty now.
Okay, how do you explain why they keep saying the same stupid things over and over and never learn from their fucking mistakes …. which just happen to be KILLING PEOPLE?
Is it a hearing-aid battery probolem, or ???
Darrell’s second Irony of the Day.
I’m sure this comes as a complete surprise to the Syrian and Iranian students studying peacefully in the USA.
If Darrell’s intent is to equal Coulter’s rabid foaming insanity..he’s making progress on that front.
Darrell never did provide a shred of support for his claim that most of the soldiers in Iraq want to “stay till the job is done,” did he? As expected, heh.
Let’s see, Darrell thinks our Iraq policy should be seriously influenced by the words of one Reserve SGT now home who on his blog identifies himself as a “pro-victory conservative.” Okay, he’s certainly entitled to his opinion, and since it happily mirrors the administration’s, doubt he has many problems with censors who monitor soldiers’ blogs they must register.
So how about a little balance? I’m sure Darrell has heard the term “fair and balanced” somewhere. Here’s a few words from infantry soldiers currently in Ramadi who spend the bulk of their days outside the wire…
Now anyone who is or has been in the military will tell you you’re certainly entitled to your opinions while you’re serving. And people in the military tend to be opinionated. But what also is drilled into you is that in public you do not criticize civilian leadership especially the president nor the mission. Do so and you can expect your world to turn to shit. Actually, I agree with that for those on active duty.
So for the soldiers above to say what they did, mild as it is, allowing name attribution, it means they are totally fed up and pissed. The simple translation to their words: This is fucked up and we’re getting it in the ass with no grease.
I should have pointed out Iran and Syria are currently sending arms and terrorists into Iraq to create havoc and kill American soldiers.
Darrell’s right: we should only “negotiate” with friends and allies (France excluded, naturally) and other people who agree with us. Why would anyone ever talk with people whose sole purpose and desire is to “create havoc” and “kill” Americans?
B.b.b.b.b.but …..Darrell knows a lot more about the reality of it than they do.
Right? I mean, that is the whole point of this thread, isn’t it?
I think we need to open negotiations with China in order for them to take a larger role in ensuring the security of Taiwan. Because negotiation is always the answer.
Negotiation has worked so well in Sudan now, just like it “worked” in the Balkans in the early 1990’s, and how well it worked with Israel with her enemies throughout Israel’s history – only after Egypt, Jordan, etc had their asses kicked militarily, was there ever any real fruit from negotiation..
“Because they are terrorist supporting murderers who would love nothing more than to create havoc in Iraq and kill Americans. To negotiate with them, especially in the context of Iraqi security is beyond absurd imo..”
“I should have pointed out Iran and Syria are currently sending arms and terrorists into Iraq to create havoc and kill American soldiers.”
And yet you have no problem with Dick Cheney negotiating with terrorist supporting murders.
I should point out that Saudi Arabia are currently sending arms and terrorists into Iraq to create havoc and kill American soldiers.
Just go on… eat your pie. I know you can’t form an opinion on Uncle Dick’s terrorist coddling since you haven’t received any good talking points on that yet. I’m sure they’ll come out any day now and then you can let me have it.
Pie eating coward.
Darrell, “Because negotiation is always the answer.”
Darrell’s untimely and idiotic return confirms my feeling that I enjoyed it while he was gone. General willingness to admit bushsupport is in the 20’s, percentage wise; but I fear D is a one percenter.
Difference being, support of terrorists is not govt. sanctioned policy in Saudi Arabia. Many in the royal family are terrified of the islamic radicals. Others in the royal family have supported US interests. And others in the royal family actively support terrorists. I guess these distinction flew right past you, huh?
Perhaps Darrell is too busy eating his pie to click the link. Compare:
“Vice President Dick Cheney sought Saudi help on Saturday in dealing with Iraq’s spiraling violence and other regional trouble spots where U.S. policy is on the line: Iran, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.”
“Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.
Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the U.S.-led coalition.
But the U.S. Iraq Study Group report said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by The Associated Press described carrying boxes of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, money they said was headed for insurgents.“
Odd, this is almost the exact same situation in Iran and Syria with their people and you reach the completely opposite conclusion.
Irony meters are off the charts.
Ahh, I see Darrell has finally received some talking points from the powers that be…
Saudi Arabia has a long and sickening history of both active and passive sponsorship of terrorists. The House of Saud was the financial backer for the Taliban. They’ve sponsored anti-american hate schools for years all over the mideast.
And now, Saudi officials have turned a blind eye to the trafficking of money from Saudi nationals to the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. They deny it even as the money is funnelled across their border.
Just. Like. Iran. And. Syria.
I call Bullshit on Darrell.
Darrell, “…Private Saudi citizens”
Yah, and the House of Saud is turning a blind eye and letting them sneak the money across the border! Just. Like. Iran.
Difference being, support of terrorism is not just carried out by private citizens.. it’s govt led and government sanctioned support of terrorism.
Tengu, you’re not very bright. It’s probably a good idea for you to let your betters hash things out here, as you don’t have much to offer intellectually.
Another Darrell Irony of the Day.
I call Bullshit on Darrell. Saudi Arabia is very much involved on the government level with organizations labeled as ‘terrorist’ oh ye of short memory.
So Darrell has a problem witrhthe gov’t of Iran and Syria supporting terrorists but sees no problems in Saudi Arabia where its the citizenry who are funding the terrorists. I think he’s got that backwards. the only reason to fear one and not the other is bias. Someone is only seeing a partial picture because acknowledging the whole pictures queers his argument.
Does anyone else find it truly sad that we have to consider this report moving Kool Aid Drinking Republicans a little closer to reality as progress?
The ‘we’re winning’ GOP meme seems to finally be dying the long overdue death it deserves, but the whining petulant behavior of the pundits and wingnuts who demand that ‘we come up with a plan’ is not much better. Bush won’t listen to his own ball-lickers on Iraq trying to get him out of his mess, so why does anyone believe he’d listen to ours?
I found this linked by a commenter at Drums site. Scary stuff. Darrell types definately neeed to see this if for no other reason than for the sheer entertainment of watching them try to dismiss it.
I never said I had no problem with Saudi Arabia. But there are those in the Saudi govt, like in Pakistan, who have actively helped us crack down on terrorists there. Islamic radicals are as much or more of a threat to many in royal family as they are to us. With Syria and Iran, the govt itself supports and sanctions terrorism. I’ve pointed out this distinction repeatedly on this thread, and it’s a big distinction. But so many of you lefties just aren’t particularly bright, and other lefties have blinders on to any perspective which challenges their echo chamber dogma.
“Scary” stuff for the halfwits who swallow that nonsense hook, line and sinker
You are such an idiot Darrell. The Saudi Arabian goverment is the single largest financial supporter of Hamas in the world.
Darrell, looking utterly stupid, “Difference being, support of terrorism is not just carried out by private citizens.. it’s govt led and government sanctioned support of terrorism.”
Oh, a google search like that “proves” it must be true. Just like here
To quote Twain, you repeat yourself. :P
Look at Darrell spinning Saudi Arabia, the birth place of the September 11th attacks, as a benevolent pro-American country.
Watch how Darrell says, with his bald face hanging out, that the Saudi government doesn’t support terrorism nevermind the fact that they are the largest financial backers of Hamas in the world. The very same Hamas that refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist. These are the people that Darrell thinks are all well and good…
I’m sure Israel would love Darrell’s assertion that the House of Saud doesn’t support terrorism. What a laugh.
Wow, Darrell considers himself knowledgeable about terrorism, yet he doesn’t believe the Saudi government sponsors it. That’s scary. A further sample of his wisdom:
Another Irony of the Hour.
Could you point out the nonsense for me. All I see is a comparison between past fascist regimes and the Bush administration. It shows what past regimes did in order to hold power and compared it to certain actions taken by the Bush administrations. You certainly don’t have to come to the conclusion the author was leading you too but could you at least explain why you dismiss it so quickly.
Saudi support for Hamas? A-OK for Darrell :) Now, let’s eat some pie!
Let’s review the dishonesty:
Here is what I wrote:
Steve has written how he is a “big fan of the truth”.. no doubt the irony is lost on him
TenguFool is like broken record, repeating the same shit over and over and over again… because his brain can’t seem to formulate an original thought.
This is really quite easy. Darrell doesn’t want the US to talk with Iran and Syria because he feels that would be a repudiation for the administration’s moronic policy. That would hurt too much for a sycophantic Bush apologist like Darrell.
This has left him in the awful position of having to deny that Hamas, an organization that sponsors suicide bombers in Israel… an organization that refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist, is a terrorist organization. That’s the corner that Dick Cheney and George Bush have backed Darrell into.
For Darrell, Hamas can not be a terrorist organization otherwise he would have to admit Dick Cheney was negotiating with terrorist supporters.
It is amazing the position that Bush has put his supporters in. I imagine it has to be incredibly uncomfortable.
Darrell you also wrote,
Thus according to Darrell, Hamas doesn’t support terrorism! You see how that works? Reality must bend to meet the demands of the idealogy! If reality disagrees with Darrell’s idealogy, then *reality is wrong* damnit!
One can’t look at this thread and avoid the question, why in the world do they let this fool Darrell post here?
“Open comments” is not a suitable answer. Why even have a thread in the first place if you are going to let Darrell turn it into “Today’s Episode of Why Darrell is A Horse’s Ass?”
The ones who support the US interests and the ‘others’ who support terrorism are the same people Darrell. They are playing both sides. And they don’t support US interests they support their own interests which sometimes coincide with ours. Allowing us to use their country as a base to drive Saddam out of Kuwait was not ‘supporting US interests’. You know that right?
Have you read 1984 yet?
Nested ironies. I like it.
The only irony is that you actually believe you can admit some people in the Saudi royal family “actively support terrorists,” yet still deny that the Saudi government sponsors terrorism just as the governments of Iran and Syria do. It’s a wonder your head doesn’t explode from holding these contradictory positions.
“Israel is wrong. Hamas is not a terrorist organization.”
Can you direct us to where I said Hamas was not a terrorist organization? Of course you can’t.
You see, the enlightened Europeans have been all along that we need to financially support Hamas, that “diplomacy” telling us and “negotiation” are the solutions there.
So pathetic the limited perspective of leftists posting here. No doubt you all see yourselves as ‘independent’ thinkers. Too funny
Hamas suicide bombers:
So that is 377 families that Darrell refuses to acknowledge because he just can’t let himself admit that Saudi Arabia financially supports Hamas. Those 377 families simply do not exist.
Darrell: Saudi Arabia’s government doesn’t officially support terrorists.
Saudi Arabia officially supports Hamas
Following Darrell’s words to their logical conclusion, Darrell believes Hamas is not a terrorist organization.
Thank you for playing.
Looks like France and other in the EU have been supporting Hamas too. Using your whackjob-logic, we should sever ties with Europe too?
The only whackjob who wants to sever ties is you, Darrell.
The reality based community accepts that we need to talk to people we may not agree with and often don’t even like because you have to start somewhere.
Not unlike your own situation here, Darrell. You’re the Whiny North Korea trying to take a shit in the BalloonJuice Nations board.
Darrell says, “Can you direct us to where I said Hamas was not a terrorist organization? Of course you can’t.”
Sure I can:
1. You asserted that the Saudi government doesn’t officially support terrorism.
2. Saudi Arabia is a leading financial supporter of Hamas.
3. Hamas is a terrorist group. They’ve admitted to the attacks.
Since you can’t admit that Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorism you can’t acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization.
Do you realize no one in this thread other than yourself has taken the position that we should flat-out refuse to deal with countries which sponsor terrorism? Why is it not “whackjob-logic” when you say we should refuse to talk with Iran and Syria for exactly this reason?
I’m still curious over what specifically John Cole is so contrite about regarding his ‘flaying’ of John Murtha a year ago. At that time, there were two issues Murtha was involved with which made national news: Murtha was pushing for a 6 month pullout from Iraq, an extreme position by any measure. And Murtha also publically accused Marines of cold blooded murder while the investigation was still ongoing.
Which of those actions by Murtha does Cole now regret that he criticized?
HAAAAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH This is really truly funny.
Darrell, my dear, THIS IS YOUR ‘WACKJOB-LOGIC’. I’m not the one that is arguing that we shouldn’t negotiate with Iran and Syria. That’s you!
To be clear, since it seems that your reality denying mind has become TRULY, TRULY confused:
You are the one that posited that we shouldn’t negotiate with Iran and Syria.
Again… you poor confused soul –> that. was. you.
That was *your* whack-job logic. Quit smoking the crack dude.
US wants to boycott/isolate the terrorist sponsoring govt of Hamas. The US similarly shouldn’t be negotiating Iraqi security with the very nations which are funding and supporting the insurgency in that country now.
At least in Saudi arabia, the govt has had crackdowns on terrorists. Syria and Iran only crackdown on those who speak out against the government.
And here we are a year later, still stuck in Bush’s outhouse in Iraq.
Nothing sparks up a thread better than your frigging curiosity, Darrell.
You could liven up a leg amputation.
I think we should negotiate Chinese takeover of Taiwanese security, just like negotiating with the Iranians and Syrians to “help” us with Iraqi security.
Now you’re just grasping for straws. Saudi Arabia has no problem cracking down on reformers, and both Iran and Syria are no friend to Al Queda agents or others in their respective states they catch.
From what I hear China is going to invade Taiwan anyway, so we won’t need to negotiate. Hell, we won’t even have to honor our debt!
So Darrell, why don’t you answer the question if your mind hasn’t cracked to badly:
Is it wrong for Dick Cheney to negotiate with state sponsored terrorist supports or is it not?
Of course, you could go back to denying Hamas in between your fist-fulls of pie… your choice I suppose…
Paging Doctor Fallacy.
Darrell, trying to compare apples to turds and not understanding the differences between them.
The humor is that Darrell regards these two ideas as equally absurd, even though IRAQ ITSELF is already negotiating with Iran to obtain help with security.
I’m completely floored by the stupidity on display in this thread. Iraq’s president is directly appealing to Iran for help with Iraq’s security – this is news from TWO WEEKS AGO – but for us to negotiate with Iran for help with Iraq’s security, that would be completely insane!
Who would ever think Iran might be interested in helping secure Iraq? Iraq itself, it seems.
So getting back to the point, when Taiwan starts sending emissaries to China asking for help with Taiwan’s security, then yeah, this might cease to be the worst analogy of all time.
Given that Iran and Syria are sending arms and terrorists into Iraq, what do you lefties possibly see as being in their interest to stop which could be negotiated? What I see, is a distinct tendency on the left to place high importance on negotiations, even with despotic regimes with a history of broken promises and support of terrorism.
The Ironies of the Hour are just rolling out of Darrell today.
Well, if I really wanted to know, I’d begin by asking them, not you, you stupid shit.
That’s why you talk to them. You find out what they think their interests are. That’s why you have diplomats. That’s why you do the due diligence before you start ginning up wars and shooting your mouth off.
Even with your eighth-grade education, you should be able to understand that.
But Darrell, you love negotiation!
I’ll answer your question when you awnser mine:
Given that Saudi Arabia is sending arms and terrorists into Iraq, what do you righties possibly see as being in their interest to stop which could be negotiated? What I see, is a distinct tendency on the right to place high importance on negotiations when Dick Cheney says it is ok, even with despotic regimes with a history of broken promises and support of terrorism.
Iran has no interest in Iraq other than extermination of the Sunnis, then the Kurds.. which is precisely why they have funded legions of terrorists and streams of arms into Iraq to wreak havoc.
Arms probably, but not terrorists as you’d like to lump them all together in your ignorance.
They’re backing their own Iraqi factions in Iraq, ironically at cross purposes to each other despite their own alliance in the face of a US threat. And the reason *why* they’re doing it is because US troops stuck in Iraq are not as dangerous as US troops not stuck in Iraq. Plus they don’t want the other side’s Shiia/Sunni to hold the true power in Iraq.
And unless someone starts talking to them, they’ve got no reason not to feel their current actions are in their own
best interests. Because if they’re going to be treated as enemies…why not behave like one?
Saudi Arabia has no interest in Iraq other than extermination of the Shiites, then the Kurds.. which is precisely why they have funded legions of terrorists and streams of arms into Iraq to wreak havoc.
Now you’re an expert on what Iran wants?
Was that just a brain dump or are you going to link something that backs up your assertion?
Iran and Syria are trying (rather successfully) to keep the US military off balance. If you’ll recall, mouthbreathers like Kristol are calling for us to invade both of those countries. A stable Iraq, with large US military bases, are in neither country’s best interests. The negotiations can probably start there.
Of course I doubt we’d pull completely out of Iraq. We still need a presence in the region, which could be accomplished by withdrawing into Kurdistan. But then Turkey would be very unhappy, which leads me to…
Oh noes. The world is complex? You don’t say. Foreign policy via cod piece tends to not work.
I didn’t hear you screaming bloody murder when Pakistan decided to cede part of it’s western territory to the Taliban and al Qaeda. I didn’t hear you screaming bloody murder when Saudi royals were caught financing al Qaeda (and James Baker defending the Saudis against a lawsuit filed by 9/11 families, natch).
So to now say that OMGWEREALLGONNADIE if we decide to talk to Iran and Syria is just stupid and shortsighted. But so was the idea of invading Iraq, so at least you’re consistent.
And you would know this, how?
Been talking to the Iranians much recently, Darrell?
Darrell was taking a dump alright. But not from the brain.
LOL. Good eye.
For the rest of you, you do realize you’re arguing with a bot who uses long exchanges with himself as the center of attention like this to make himself a little horny, right?
Darrell, bad news friend. Looks like you are a dying breed. You better get out of here before you become a casualty of reality too. If you guys keep falling and your numbers dip into the 20’s who will be left to defend christmas?
Everybody’s Hitler! Everybody’s Hitler! Everybody’s Hitler!
Let’s review. In response to the point that Iraq’s president is appealing to Iran for help with security, Darrell argues that Iran’s only agenda is to wipe out the Sunnis and the Kurds.
Do you think he even KNOWS that Iraq’s president is Kurdish – probably the foremost living advocate of Kurdish interests, in fact?
But Darrell knows better than President Talabani. Exterminating the Kurds is #2 on Iran’s to-do list, subject only to exterminating the Sunnis first, but the leader of the Kurds isn’t smart enough to realize it. Only Darrell, Hugh Hewitt, and Newsmax know the awful truth.
Even for Darrell, this is an unbelievable argument.
Then how would you characterize Iran’s sending of arms and terrorists into Iraq? An olive branch?
Untrue. *NO* argument is too unbelievable for Darrell to make.
Completely immune to facts and evidence. Completely immune.
They send arms and support to the Shiite factions for self-interest, of course.
They think their influence will give them a say there.
Sadly thanks to Bush, they’re right.
They send arms and support to the Shiite factions for self-interest, of course.
Much like how the Saudi’s sending arms and terrorists in support of the Sunni factions, of course.
The Saudis and Syria. Of course it would be stupid to talk to Iran and Syria to see if we can negotiate a way that they both stop sending arms to their opposing factions. Strong. Smart.
If true, I didn’t know that. Can you cite what he has done as the “foremost living advocate” of Kurdish interests?
It’s my understanding that Kurds have had a running feud with Shiites. In fact, I understood one of Iran’s worries to be a more unified Kurdish influence in the region.. another reason I’d like to hear more about the actions of this foremost advocate of Kurdish interests.
Soooo…Cold War negotiations with Russians who want to kill Americans = OK
Negotiating with Iranians and/or Syrians who want to kill Americans = Not OK
Am I following this correctly?
Are those the only choices, an olive branch or the extermination of sunnis and kurds? Can you ever make a point that stands on its own? You seem to think you validate your point by juxtaposing it against a strawman lefty position.
The sheer ignorance contained in that is appalling.
Darrell, go to the library and read up on Sunni, Shia, Kurds, Iraq, Turkey and Iran and then come back here. You’ll still post stupid stuff, but at least you’ll have a chance on getting the countries and factions right.
After Nov. elections, only then does Talibani visit Iran with hat in hand. Why then? After years of having iran send arms and terrorists into Iraq.. Because it’s now been made crystal clear that US troops won’t be around in numbers much longer, and Iraq will be left with the aftermath in dealing with Iran.
Iraq leadership is free to do what they want. But if Iran had any interest whatsoever in a stable and secure Iraq, they wouldn’t be sending arms and terrorist in the first place, would they?
No. This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions.
We should have gotten rid of the Taliban in 2003 instead of invading Iraq. Now they’ve come back in strength, annexing part of Pakistan, and are reaching out to regimes that are unfriendly towards the US.
,blockquote>After Nov. elections, only then does Talibani visit Iran with hat in hand.
Of course, because we all know the collapsing situation and escalating violence had nothing to do with it. Everything’s about the American Elections, everything.
Iran has an interest in a stable Iraq. Not an American puppet state Iraq with bases in range of their cities. The two are mutually exclusive to them.
And again, they’re backing their own factions, the ‘terrorist’ Iraqi Shia forces. Not Al Queda, which you keep trying to lump them all together as. But the same AMERICAN TRAINED DEATH SQUADS Bush and company helped set up.
Yes, of course, because it was an either/or situation. Had we not gone into Iraq, we would have ‘wiped out’ the Taliban years ago.
The world must be coming to an end. Darrell has unintentionally spoken the truth.
I see.. so you’re saying that Iranian backed Shia forces like those of al-Sadr aren’t engaged in terrorism? Is that why you put the ‘ ‘ scare quotes around the word terrorist?
Note how TenguFool characterizes US supported groups as “puppet state”, but Iranian backed terror groups aren’t really terrorists.. they’re more like freedom fighters, right?
Darrell, you’re the only one in denial about what exactly the new Iraqi ‘government’ Bush is still supporting is made of.
Actually, Talibani first visited Iran to talk about security over a year ago.
Dude, just stop digging. It’s painful, watching you make it up as you go along.
I stand corrected on that, kind of like you got corrected regarding your “guess” on troop views upthread.
I don’t see how Talibani visiting Iran a year ago undercuts my point – Talibani is hedging his bets, knowing that US troops aren’t going to be around much longer. Furthermore, Iran is continuing to send arms and terrorists into Iraq, continuing to create mayhem there.
I just thought that post beared repeating.. because so many on the left really believe it to be true.
Wow, how did I parse Talibani as Taliban.
It’s that time of year again.
Yes, because in Darrell world getting Saddam was much more important then going after Osama and the Taliban.
If Bush says Iraq is more important than the Taliban what’s a synophant to do?
Mad props for breaking out the King Missile–I have that album! In other news, Jesus Was Way Cool…
Not quite, the people who have the biggest problem with a Kurdistan is Turkey. If Kurdistan every become a reality expect Turkey to invade…
Instead we get the worst of both worlds. A resurgent Taliban and a mess in Iraq. Mission accomplished!
Wait… you seriously think you proved to me that most of the troops want to stay in Iraq until the mission is complete?
You seriously think you proved that, by citing a year-old poll which didn’t even ask that question, and where the majority of the respondents have never even BEEN to Iraq?
We’re going to prove that the troops want to stay in Iraq, by asking people who have never been to Iraq?
This thread was truly a tour-de-force by Darrell. And everyone knows how high he has set the bar for himself.
This is the most salient point. It’s no use debating the ISG Report’s merits, because Bush won’t follow the recommendations. The Report is, as they say, DOA where it counts: in the Oval Office.
Since we can take it as a given that Bush’s policy will not change, it seems to me the only question left is whether our troops will still be in Iraq when Bush leaves office, or whether they’ll have to fight their way out of Iraq after Baghdad completely collapses.
Are there any trends in Iraq, any at all, to indicate Iraq will draw back from complete collapse?
Amazingly, there has been one small and tenuous sign of hope: many people predicted that Iraq’s government would collapse if Maliki met with Bush. But the meeting took place and the government didn’t collapse.
Is this truly a good sign? Is Maliki figuring out how to hold the parties (and their militias) in line? Is the government, in other words, figuring out how to govern?
That’s because it already has effectively collapsed as a national government. Maliki is Sadr’s little bitch now, and at the current tempo I suspect we’re going to see a near total rout next year as US troops evacuate with angry Iraqis nipping at their heels all the way.
Well, that’s just it, TenguPhule:
Is Maliki now going to devote no time at all, no resources at all, and no effort at all, to (for example) strengthening the Iraqi security forces? In other words, will the security forces – which we’re still training and equipping – become part of al-Sadr’s forces?
Does that mean the militias have a free hand to complete “ethnic cleansing” of Baghdad’s Sunni population?
If so, does that mean the US has de facto already chosen sides in the civil war, and the side we chose is, essentially, al-Sadr’s side?
Let’s recap what was said
Steve: “I’d love to see what Darrell bases this statement on (my guess: a few cherry-picked statements by soldiers, extrapolated to somehow encompass the majority of the military)”
Darrell: “Yeah, well that “guess” turned out about as well as your other ‘insights’ on Iraq. I’m willing to stipulate that military enthusiasm for Iraq may have waned since this time last year, but even if that’s true the opinions (from 1 year ago) seem pretty clear:
73% in the military feel we are ‘very likely’ or ‘somewhat likely’ to succeed in Iraq
65% believe that the US military will have to stay in Iraq another 3 – 5 years or 5 – 10 years (from end of 2005) to meet its goals.”
Yes Steve, you were wrong, and you were corrected.
You assume that TenguFool has a clue what he’s talking about. He/she is in fact an extremist with an agenda.. and not even a particularly bright or informed extremist at that.
Given that Iran has been flooding Iraq with arms and terrorists, I think the idea of negotiating with Iran is wonderful and brilliant, and holds forth much promise, as the leftists posting here have expressed.
Nobody here cares what you think.
For what it’s worth, the poll questions Darrell highlights are drawn from the 85% of respondents who were on active duty; of those, 47% had been deployed to Iraq. I’d venture to guess that military enthusiasm is inversely correlated with actual deployment, though the data isn’t there to make that determination.
What would be the point? They’re not loyal to him. Half of them are in the militia pockets, the other half in the guerillas….at least the ones that exist on more then paper.
Darrell’s Irony of the Hour.
Actually, the generals in charge can’t seem to make up their minds as to what side our troops are supposed to be on. They’re helping Sadr’s militias against Sunni attackers one day, then fighting them to protect Sunni neighborhoods the next. At this point the only thing every other fighting faction in Iraq except the Kurds can agree on is that the American troops are a common enemy and fair game. Without our troops to serve as a unifying force for the enemy, they’d all be fighting among themselves.
You need not grovel quite THAT much, John. It took you a while to realize what was happening, but by God after you did you were willing to eat a lot more public crow than most of us (including me) would dare to do in such a short time.
As for the ISG’s recommendations: I agree that they’re trying to stick a fig leaf over the coming inevitable US loss. Iran and Syria have no real reason to give us the slightest help in alleviating the situation; and as for al-Maliki, le me quote George Will: “Calling Iraq’s prime minister ‘the right guy’ for Iraq, Bush met him in Jordan, presumably because Iraq is too dangerous a venue for discussing how to, in Bush’s words, ‘complete’ the job. The job is to stabilize Iraq, which cannot be done without breaking the Mahdi Army, which cannot be done without bringing down Maliki, who is beholden to Moqtada al-Sadr, the cleric who more or less controls the Mahdi Army, which probably is larger and more capable than Iraq’s army.”
The takeover of most of Iraq by a strongly pro-Iranian dictatorship is now inevitable. The only thing that might conceivably rescue the situation at this point would be the imposition of a draft, which would probably not be able to provide properly trained troops in time even if immediately imposed, and which isn’t going to happen in any case.
We’ve lost, guys. The thing to do now is to try to minimize the negative consequences of our loss. It seems safe to say, however, that that isn’t going to happen either. US News & World Report and Knight-Ridder are both running articles today to the effect that Bush is now comparing himself to Harry Truman during the Korean War, and telling people that he need not respond to any current-day criticism because historians 50 years hence will probably praise him. Dwight Macdonald was right: yet another change needed in our ridiculously outdated Constitution is some kind of arrangement for an emergency recall vote “to free us from the death grip of some Presidential Old Man of the Sea determined to drag the country down with him.” Hoover was the standard example quoted previously, but now we definitely have another one. It may be time to start thinking seriously about possible ways to pressure the Cabinet into utilizing the 25th Amendment’s “mental incapacity” clause.
In this regard, Bush has a Get Out Of Jail Free card.
His name is Dick Cheney.
The Other Steve
Absolutely, because not talking to Iran has been incredibly effective.
The Other Steve
You are right Darrell.
We should have left Afghanistan alone, and committed all of our foces to destroying the Islmofascist killer robots in Iraq.
Why even listen to Darrell anymore, he can’t even bring himself to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist group. Sad really.
Darrell really, really likes me!
And that’s just spiffy, because I like me too!
Everybody likes you, pie. I have to ask, are you one particular flavour, or do you vary depending on your mood that day?
” ‘Beared’ repeating”?
I am the Platonic Form of pie, if you will. All pies are subsumed within me, including moon pies, pizza pies, and (unfortunately) cow pies.
No math stuff. Pi is my cousin. He lives near Cleveland. If you need to get ahold of him, I can forward your email. He’ll get back to you once he’s done calculating himself. It could take a while.
The UN still has some credibility in the region–we might try asking for help. The UN has the world’s experts on peacekeeping and nation building; if anyone might know what to do, it would be them.